CHISTIANS PLEASE EXPLAIN

[pocaracas]

You have faith that nothing exploded into something, the big bang happened and that your great-great-great grandfather was an ape?

Really? -.-'

You say this sort of thing, here? And you manage to keep a straight face?

[Ryantology]

I agree, there are a great number of different interpretations, although my experience is that many seem to approach the Bible from a preferred position, rather than doing proper exegesis. It seems that topical preaching is often the typical sermon, rather than exegesis. I know in South Africa (where I live) apartheid was defended from the Bible - in clear contradiction of Scripture itself.
It may be useful to study the origin of modern science. You will be surprised.

Ah, of course, all those other Christians are interpreting from convenience, but not you.

Q: Who knows the proper and true way to interpret scripture?
A: Whichever Christian you last spoke to.

Killing people because of their beliefs - I know that they were not willing to recant. Thus they were dying for what they believed in. Would you?

No. Dying for your beliefs is stupid. All the moreso when your beliefs are stupid.

You are not stating fact my friend. Fiction does not get reported in history by historians of impeccable credentials.

Neither does most of the Bible. What a coincidence.

You have faith that nothing exploded into something, the big bang happened and that your great-great-great grandfather was an ape?

I have faith that you have no idea what the either the Big Bang or the evolutionary theory actually suggest, given your childishly stupid and incorrect way of describing them.

I have faith that the universe as we know it began, probably from a singularity (not from nothing; all the stuff of the universe was already there in a vastly different form) roughly 13.7 billion years ago, and I have faith that I share a distant common ancestry with apes, because both ideas are supported by overwhelming amounts of evidence verified over and over to the point where it doesn't take that much faith to see what the facts have to say.

You have faith that nothing became something at the snap of a divine finger and that you're descended from a guy who was made out of dust, with your only 'evidence' being a book of myths written by people who clearly had no idea what they were talking about.

[The Reality Salesman01]

1) The truth of some of the facts have no bearing on other claimed facts.
I have indicated in a previous post that credibility of that which can be verified, contributes towards subsequent belief in that which cannot be verified. We all know people who are habitual liars and those we can trust on their word. Based on this, and the truthfulness and accuracy of for instance Luke’s rendering in the Bible (confirmed by reputable non-Christian scholars), it is at least reasonable to accept all that has been recorded. This would the support the notion that it is reasonable to expect that what Jesus was reported as having done, is in fact true.

Extra –biblical evidence of course exists that would support the argument that Jesus in fact did what is reported in the Bible. He was claimed to be a “worker of miracles “. In Rabbinic tradition ( not really Jesus’ fan club) he was apparently accused of sorcery. There are other extra biblical references to Jesus as 'one who did surprising (or unexpected) deeds. Celsus portrays Him as practicing Egyptian magic.

So, you're saying that much in the way that I believe that Socrates was actually a man that said and did the things he did, so too do you believe the very same of Jesus. Neither of us can really prove it, but none the less, we transfer accountability to people that are more qualified than us to determine that. Right?

However the miracle of real importance (without which the Christian faith is worthless) is the resurrection of Jesus.
1Co 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

Yes, this one seems to be of grave importance (no pun intended )

Very much like Socrates, Jesus stuck to his guns and went willingly to death for what was important to him. What happens later is something nobody can agree on today. Did he raise from the dead? If not for this, then I must agree, it is true that your entire faith is most certainly bunk. So let us focus on this then. You did such a fine job of pointing out that there is such a things as reliable second hand knowledge. History books are filled with it. My question to you is simple: Does it take faith to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, or is there evidence for Jesus' resurrection? And is this feat an empirical fact from which faith can then reliably follow? It's a question about horses and carts. I'm trying to figure out which order you've placed them in.

There is sufficient proof for the existence of God – not only in the physical world (science), but also on a spiritual level where the spiritual rebirth that takes place have a marked effect on the regenerated soul.

I'm sorry, was this a typo? I almost think that I accidentally mis-edited your quote, forgive me if I did. But, do you mean to say that there is sufficient proof for God and this proof is non-physical? Can you share proof of something non-physical that exists? Can you share proof of a spirit, or a regenerated soul? Are you saying that there is physical proof for a non-physical God, and this proof lies in the presupposed existence of that which is non-physical? I am terribly confused. Perhaps you could share some of this sufficient physical and non-physical proof. If it is "sufficient" as you say, then I will gladly accept it. I just hope it's not something that's slipped by you by means of confirmation bias. If that's the case, it will be very hard to hope for any sort of productive exchange of ideas.

[StuW]

You are not stating fact my friend. Fiction does not get reported in history by historians of impeccable credentials.

So you think Atlantis is real? after all, plato was supposedly one of the most important philosophers who ever lived and much of our contemporary knowledge of the world comes from him. I know he wasn't a historian but i'm not even sure there was such a thing back then.

[Esquilax]

You have faith that nothing exploded into something, the big bang happened and that your great-great-great grandfather was an ape?

It's at this point that I have to ask you, in all seriousness, exactly how honest you want to be with this conversation, going forward. If you just want to lean on the old creationist fabrications and lies then you should just say so now, because frankly I doubt many of us would be willing to take the time to respond to someone who's that unwilling to take this seriously.

If, however, you actually want to come into this place and exchange posts with us in an honest and rational environment, then I suggest you retract this statement immediately and unreservedly, possibly even apologize for being so completely disrespectful to the spirit of the conversation and, more importantly, your fellow participants in it.

This is shameful conduct, and if you said this with any degree of seriousness, then you should be ashamed of yourself for the complete ignorance into which you've entered this discussion.

[Carnavon]

You have faith that nothing exploded into something, the big bang happened and that your great-great-great grandfather was an ape?

Really? -.-'

You say this sort of thing, here? And you manage to keep a straight face?

Well my dear friend, that is a simple answer to what you seem to believe - a singularity or by any other name nothing "exploded". If you have any other solution you tell me. Indeed even the highly intelligent Stephen Hawking has no other answer than there is no explanation as all present theories breaks down at some point". So you prefer "we do not know, but we will find out" over "God created it". This is not a logical choice but a philosophical choice. But I stand open to correction.

Now, unless I am mistaken, humans have "evolved" from apes , but again stand to be corrected. Which in simple terms means that your ancestors can readily be viewed in many zoos around the world and the wild. Lucky you!

[Bad Wolf]

Three words: You fucking idiot

[Minimalist]

It is interesting that “scientists” have to “update/review” their theories every few in view of new discoveries, yet the Bible has stood the test of time for more than 2000 years, despite some serious opposition.

Yes. It was fucking bullshit when it was written and remains bullshit to this day. I agree that it is hard to beat that for consistency, if nothing else.

Go put down your fucking bible, learn some shit that doesn't come from those AiG assholes and get back to us when you do.

[Rahul]

...and that your great-great-great grandfather was an ape?

Carnavon, I need you to sit down for this, buddy.

You are an ape. We all are. We are great apes to be more precise.

There are five extant (existing) great ape species. They are gorillas, chimps, bonobos, orangutans, and humans.

[Esquilax]

Before I go any further, Carnavon, I'd like to congratulate you: I've been on this site for a little more than a year now, and I've never seen another theist user so comprehensively demonstrate how little respect they actually have for their own purported beliefs, in such a short post, before.

I tried to be generous, I suggested that if you didn't want to lie directly to our faces in direct violation of your own bible, that you go and rectify your ignorance before you continue. To see you double down on your strawmen just confirms how much of a hypocrite you really are.

And just like that, your credibility vanishes. Good work.

Well my dear friend, that is a simple answer to what you seem to believe - a singularity or by any other name nothing "exploded". If you have any other solution you tell me. Indeed even the highly intelligent Stephen Hawking has no other answer than there is no explanation as all present theories breaks down at some point".

The singularity could have been any number of things, and since we simply don't have enough information as yet to form a proper theory, most of us are honest enough to simply admit that we don't know. However, that doesn't discount the evidence for the big bang model, which is the strongest we have right now.

To characterize the singularity as "nothing" is not only incorrect, it's outright dishonest; even the most basic explanation of this concept includes the beginning of the first sentence, which would establish that the subject is a concentrated, hyper-dense point of matter. Rather than nothing, you might notice that this would be something.

Given that you attempted to reference Stephen Hawking here, I can no longer charitably presume that you're merely ignorant on this front anymore. No, you're flat out lying, because I doubt you could have picked up that quote without skipping past an explanation of the theory first. You're also cherry picking, like the dishonest tend to do.

So you prefer "we do not know, but we will find out" over "God created it". This is not a logical choice but a philosophical choice. But I stand open to correction.

How is "we don't know," not a logical position to take, when in fact we do not know? Neither do you, let's be very clear: you've just chosen to be so amazingly arrogant as to accept an answer based on no real evidence, and then to stop there.

Being honest about the state of our knowledge on an issue is not a logical weakness, though for a liar like you, I suppose honesty of any stripe must seem deeply alien.

Now, unless I am mistaken, humans have "evolved" from apes , but again stand to be corrected. Which in simple terms means that your ancestors can readily be viewed in many zoos around the world and the wild. Lucky you!

Humans are apes, you condescending wank stain, and no matter how you attempt to simplify the issue in order to make emotive appeals to how special you feel as a human, you're a fucking ape too. A thoroughly dishonest, detestable little one, but definitely in the same cladistic group as the rest of us apes.

Now kindly go fuck yourself, shitbird.