The Historical Jesus is real and He rose from the grave

[max-greece]

It appears Jesus was easier to kill off than this thread. Been away a week or so - still going, motherfucker!

[Rampant.A.I.]

[The Valkyrie]

---

Godlesspanther is now on Rev777's ignore list for bringing up harmful facts.

I just checked, I don't have anyone on my ignore list.

---

You didn't say what denomination you are. It would be of great help for this discussion if you told me. I could then look it up and know what teachings you follow.

You're also ignoring the history of how the belief in the Trinity was established.

Trinity History

Are you a Catholic? If not, why do you reject Catholicism while believing in a doctrine established by the Catholics?

I'm a nondenominational born again Christian

---

Bullshit. Written by men, period. Just like the Koran and Reg Vedas. Comic books written by humans reflecting their own social norms and superstitions of the times they lived in.

You will NOT find any modern words, modern dates, or modern technological words in that comic book. You will not find Obama's name or Hitler's name or Bin Ladin's name. You will not find the term "DNA" or "Cell pone". You will not find the winner of last year's Superbowl winner in it. That stupid comic book doesn't even get science right. It creates the earth in 6 days when science KNOWS it is 4 billion years old. It has adult women popping out of a man's rib. It treats the sun and moon as separate sources of light.

The only thing that book predicts is YOUR gullibility. People of other religions try to pull the same "prophecy" garbage too. It doesn't wash with me when they pull it and it won't work when you pull it either.

You might as well be arguing the Oracle of Oedipus was a real prophet and it would still amount to the same bullshit.

Did you know that the book that you are dismissing has over 350 prophesies fulfilled the the life of Christ. That is no coincidence.

---

A contradiction is comprised of two or more pieces of information that incompatible and mutually exclusive, such that, if one is true, the other must be false and visa versa. Your claim is that the Bible does not contain any contradictions. If we can provide one counter example then the claim is false.

Right from the beginning: Genesis chapter 1 -- god made plants and animals before it made man and woman at the same time. Genesis chapter 2 -- god made man before plants and animals then made woman from one of man's ribs. These are two different pieces of information and they are incompatible, mutually exclusive, such that if Gen. 1 is true, the the second chapter is wrong.

No excuses, no word games, no ad hominems. The first two chapters of Genesis are contradictory. The claim, that there are no contradictions in the Bible is false. No excuses -- the claim is wrong. Repeating that claim is what we call a lie.

This link will clearly show you there are is no contradiction at all:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...is-1-and-2

---

You cite AiG as your source?

That's cute.

You may as well cite the KKK as evidence that there's no racism in the world..

[Esquilax]

This link will clearly show you there are is no contradiction at all:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...is-1-and-2

Oh, you're gonna reference Answers in Genesis? Gimme a sec...

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Yeah, these guys certainly seem like an objective source to quote in a discussion of the bible, huh? They're definitely not beginning with a dishonest presupposition!

[The Valkyrie]

This link will clearly show you there are is no contradiction at all:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...is-1-and-2

Oh, you're gonna reference Answers in Genesis? Gimme a sec...

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Yeah, these guys certainly seem like an objective source to quote in a discussion of the bible, huh? They're definitely not beginning with a dishonest presupposition!

Link to bible contradiction chart

[Cyberman]

Been afk for a few days so apologies for jumping back aways. On the other hand: hey, time travel!

That's what set's Christ apart. He supernaturally conquered death! It goes beyond what science can explain.

And that's what sets the Force apart. It can supernaturally conquer death! It goes beyond what what science can explain.

Apart from, y'know, midichlorians. But that never happened.

[Revelation777]

If God is omnipresent, which He is, He can be everywhere at once.

But he wasn't in the garden when Eve and Adam ate of the forbidden fruit. Nor was he aware of what had happened, having to question the pair in order to learn of their transgression.

In fact, he couldn't even find them:

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

You ever had a little child hide from you and knowing where they are you still call out, "Where are you?" God knew they sinned and knew where they where but offered them how to respond to there disobedience.

---

I just checked, I don't have anyone on my ignore list.

---

I'm a nondenominational born again Christian

---

Did you know that the book that you are dismissing has over 350 prophesies fulfilled the the life of Christ. That is no coincidence.

---

This link will clearly show you there are is no contradiction at all:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...is-1-and-2

You cite AiG as your source?

That's cute.

You may as well cite the KKK as evidence that there's no racism in the world..

that is a viable source to me

[Esquilax]

that is a viable source to me

That's kind of the problem: it shows that you're more interested in sources that confirm what you already believe, than sources that honestly reflect the facts.

The more you post here, the more your actions testify to the fact that you just don't care about truth. You only care about believing what you want to believe.

[Godlesspanther]

You cite AiG as your source?

That's cute.

You may as well cite the KKK as evidence that there's no racism in the world..

that is a viable source to me

So any source is viable to you as long as they tell you the lies that you want to hear. Just because you would like for something to be true does not mean that it is true.

What you have demonstrated here is that you would rather be a fucking liar and stick to your fascist doctrine then accept reality. You do not value honesty, you do not value morality, you do not value human beings -- you only care about your doctrine.

It appears that you would rather live in an oppressive authoritarian society in which the populace is punished for not believing in your imaginary goo-goo-fuck.

So why should we respect your doctrine? Why should we respect your stupid god-thing?

The answer is that we should not.

Your doctrine is shit -- your god and jesus and hokey spirit are all shit.

[Brian37]

I hate the PC left, all be they well intended in wanting to get along, who would respond to your cussing and blasphemy and call it "hate". I have gotten to the point of not trying to avoid the word "hate". I think skeptics and blasphemers SHOULD NOT avoid that word because we would be lying to them and ourselves if we said it was ok to believe it.

I would say we should not let them take the word "hate" out of context which they do to throw up a wall to avoid having their claims bruised.

I do "hate" absurd claims that have no evidence. I do "hate" the expectation that claims never deserve to be questioned or blasphemed. I am tired of allowing, either by the liberal theist or PC atheist, define for me what the word "hate" means.

I do hate absurd claims just as if I had a friend who claimed the Yankees won the Superbowl. How should someone expect me to respond to that? It is not true, and far too much of the time with theists is you can't leave it with "it's not true" and even that will offend them. Why should I coddle the idea of an invisible sky parent when our species history shows lots of deity claims we now know were not real, and the ones our species still believe today have never been able to get evidence from a lab, or through a patient or created a universal theory that is undisputed.

I am not sorry that I hate bullshit. I am also not sorry that I hate that this very bullshit infects worldwide politics and throughout history has retarded human discovery and attacked scientific method whenever it conflicts with human concocted fairy tales.

YES I HATE, so don't ask me to be sorry about valuing facts and demanding evidence. This is not about human rights at all so to my well intended friends, don't pull that crap because it doesn't help humanity at all.