OK Christians. your chance. Convince me of God.

[Darkstar]

[quote='TaraJo' pid='337923' dateline='1347977324']
The Substantial Reality which underlines all the outward manifestations and appearances which we call them by the terms <Material Universe>, <the Phenomena of Life>, <Matter>, <Energy> and in short all that is apparent to our material senses is SPIRIT which in itself is UNKNOWABLE and UNDEFINABLE! But It is may be considered and thought as a
UNIVERSAL LIVING MIND! The universe with its parts and units is a Mental Creation of that LIVING MIND,it has its existence in that LIVING MIND,subjected to the LAWS of Created Things and in that LIVING MIND we move,live and have our being! The Mental Nature of the Universe explains all the varied mental and psychic phenomena which attract a large portion of the public attention and which without such an explanation are non-understandable and defy scientific treatment! Some they call it God but the wise ones they call it <THE ALL>!
Also the wise ones do not worship the <ALL> but they use Its MENTAL LAWS for their prosperity and well-being! I do not know if you are ware
but energy,matter and power are totally subordinate to the Mastery of Mind!

So you're saying that we are all a part of god's imagination and that the laws of physics are a hoax because god can do whatever? And how is a mental disorder that 'defies scientific treatment' proof of god? Why do you say that spirit is 'unknowable and undefinable' when you claim to know what's really going on? Likewise, nothing is really unknowable, that's just god-of-the-gaps talking for you. You have no evidence to support this (I know I haven't asked for any yet, but I'm certain that none can be produced) so what you say is blind speculation, at best.

[Cyberman]

Stimbo,

I have tried to acquaint myself with the quote system. I confess I don't properly understand it. If I don't want everything said in the post I am replying to quoted, how do I delete the unwanted quotes without messing up the quote boxes? I am not trying to suppress what other have said, I am simply trying to avoid an unnecessarily long post containing something I am not replying to.

It's really not too hard, but it can seem a little daunting if you're not used to it. There's a button in the lower right of every post labelled "Reply". Clicking that will give you a reply box containing the post you're replying to. What you want to do is make sure the parts you want are contained between quote tags:

Code:

[quote]like this[/quote]

Try hitting reply to this to see how I've split your post.

I see what you are saying about suppressing evidence. I will endeavor to avoid doing so, and certainly have no intention of that kind.

No problem; glad to be of some help.

[treshbond]

Stimbo,

And until you can present something to support what you state, you are expressing nothing more than opinion. For example, which parts have merit and why?

Interesting how you expect facts to be handed to you when you in return have provided none such so far. That may sound intolerant or whatever the word of the day happens to be, but all I see in your posts is opinion and bald assertion. In what way is the bible a reliable book, especially when it's one hundred and eighty degress about-face about so much of what we know to be fact (the Universe was not made in a week, bats are not birds, sprinkling avian blood and chanting magic incantations is not a viable cure for leprosy, etc)?

Faith in terms of reasonable expectation, as you agree, is demonstrable. Faith in terms of a baseless conviction in spite of, and against, evidence is not. Switching contexts midsentence between the two definitions is unreasonable and needs to be discouraged in the interests of honest discussion.

I note in passing that your religious views seem pretty certain so far.
[/quote]

I haven't presented myself well, in fact it is misquoting that I am most concerned about. I have many quotes from books I have not read and I have no way of knowing whether those quotes have been carefully selected to support the argument being made. I guess I am hoping that there may be some here who are more familiar with such books and are able to provide evidence that other sources have left out.

I am no scholar, so clearly I am not speaking with any authority as to how well the Bible has been preserved, all I can go by is what I find. Wikipedia states quite clearly that very few scholars consider Jesus of Nazareth to be a completely fictitious character. Most agree that He was a real person who was tried by a roman court and crucified for claiming to be the son of God.

Books such as 'The Canon of Scripture' by Bruce, F.F. , 'The cannon of the new testament' and 'The text of the New Testament' by Metzger, Bruce M

such books state for example; the Roman historian Tacitus wrote his Annals of Imperial Rome in about A.D. 116 and that his first six books exist today in only one manuscript, and it was copied about A.D. 850. Books 11-16 are in another manuscript dating from the 11th century. Books 7-10 are lost. The point made is that there is a long gap between the time it was written and the oldest existing copy and yet it is considered a reliable source of history.