CHISTIANS PLEASE EXPLAIN

[The Reality Salesman01]

you seem to be predisposed towards not believing despite the evidence.
Your sentiments about not believing anybody is strangely in accordance with Scripture

Forgive me if I've missed something here, but are you referring to whether or not Jesus lived, or are you saying there are evidential reasons to believe that Jesus did all of the things that the bible claims he did? Moreover, are you saying that one need not believe only on faith, that there are reasons to form beliefs based on evidence?

[Jacob(smooth)]

I actually sat down and tried to work out if this is possible once, working on the basis that the kids would scatter and an estimate of the top speed of bears, the top speed of kids, and the time it takes for a bear to maul someone.

They probably used swipe.

Ooo, spray me with your geek musk

[Carnavon]

First off, there's something I have to get off my chest about your username.
As a World of Tanks player, it reminds me way too much of this tank:


The Caernarvon.
So... there you go, you now have an avatar to go with your username!

I am not great with avatars. What’s wrong with a photo? But thanks in any case.

Nope, agreed you did not. But you will excuse my ignorance as I rely on theories of the first living organism Most evolutionary biologists theorize that the first living organisms were single-celled prokariotes similar to currently existing bacteria. So call it what you like but it seems to me that “cell” just about covers it.

Let's not play word games, ok?
Organism, bacteria... those are very advanced structures.
A virus is alive and yet lacks a lot of the structures that a bacteria has.
I was talking about self-replicating amino-acid chains... something simple... something that can be built upon to develop all those organisms.

I rely on what is generally accepted as the first “living” organism in scientific publications. See Scientific American “Every living cell, even the simplest bacterium, teems with molecular contraptions that would be the envy of any nanotechnologist”.
According to my best information Amino acids are one of the first organic molecules supposed to appear on Earth. It is not a living organism. You suggest that viruses are the first "living organisms"? Not that I can find. Apart from that, it appears as if viruses can replicate only within a living host cell. Therefore, viruses are obligate intracellular parasites.(http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage...s-14398218)

and one when the “source document” is subjected to scrutiny and whenever possible tested, is validated. On a number of occasions I have requested proof of error when a fact has been stated in the Bible. It should actually be really easy. There are thousands of facts stated in the Bible –

Sure.... And tons of claims with no way to determine if they're truthful...
That Bible tends to have a very narrow testability... On the really important details, it's kinda impossible to test, unless you've deluded yourself into accepting that hypothesis as truthful, prior to actual evidence for it...

The Christian faith is just that. Something/someone you believe without absolute proof. Similar to you’re your faith that your car will start the next time you start the car. (If it has never started before, it is kind of blind faith, unsupported by evidence)
It does thus not rely on substantive proof, but will not be in opposition to such beliefs being tested where this is possible – and I think it should be encouraged. This is one of the reasons I have discussions with people of different persuasions- to critically evaluate what I believe. Thus far, it has strengthened my faith. It has on occasion happened that science contradicted facts stated in the Bible –later information proved to support the Biblical record. As previously stated , nothing has ever conclusively disproved that which is stated as fact in the Bible. To the contrary, it tends to confirm the Bible.

Consensus does not replace fact.

In science, it's the best we have.
If most (if not all) the experts agree that the models are pretty darn accurate and match with all the observations, then it is as good as fact.
Apples fall. Repeatedly, consistently, consensually at a very specific rate.
The current model for the initial expansion of the Universe fall in line with all the experiments carried out in nuclear accelerators. The model is then, the best we have to describe the early Universe.
Astrophysical observations fit with the same model.
Why should the model be wrong just because it does not require an assumption that people would prefer to be there?

There was once consensus that the cell was a very basic entity. Today we know better (see excerpt above). Experimental proof is the best you have. Hypotheses are just conjectures until proven and later become accepted as fact and later as “laws” when it consistently proves to be correct – as in the case of the second law of thermodynamics.
Astrophysics have a problem due to the discovery that expansion of the universe seem to be accelerating – meaning the idea how gravity works is incorrect or that the theoretical construct of dark energy, matter is false. So even your comment that apples fall may rest upon false assumptions. Somewhat related is the theory of an electric universe that proposes a different model than gravity and as I understand puts paid to the highly acclaimed big bang theory. So it seems that the more we (think) we know, the less we know.
Just as a matter of interest, millions of dollars are spent on the SETI project – because there must be little green men out there – and as Dawkins suggests, they may have seed us here. Talking about grasping at straws!

---

Kindly take note of the considerable number of fraudulent claims have been made in the name of evolution, as against none in the Bible. Now if these were two “persons”, I know which one I will rather believe. One may however choose to believe the one that has on several important occasions proved to be dishonest. Your choice.

what?... none in the bible?
How about the very first one that's not even written down? "there is a god and it is very well defined as [whatever you want it to be]".

The difference is that evolutionary lies has been proven, whereas the Bible is only claimed to be false. The other issue is of course that evolutionary theory constantly change as previously accepted “facts” are proven wrong, and new theories have to be developed. The Bible in the original language has been in its essence the same since Moses (referring more specifically to the OT, but included 2000 years for NT) – contrary what Dr. Ehrman wants you to believe. Carefully analyse what he is saying and see the impact on its truthfulness.
Questions to Dr Ehrman: Do the “variants” ever disagree
• That God is one.
• That God created the heavens and the earth in six days?
• That Jesus was born of the virgin Mary.
• That Jesus is claimed to be God in the flesh?
• That Jesus died for our sins?
• That Jesus died for us while we were still sinners?
• That Jesus’ blood secures the salvation of those that believe on Him?
• The resurrection of Jesus?
• Salvation is by grace and not our good works?
• That there will be a day of judgement when the “goats” and the “sheep” will be separated – the sheep to eternal life, the goats to eternal damnation?

Imaginations? I would tend to agree and disagree with you. Agree – imaginations can run wild and especially if it is on a number of controversial subjects. In contrast to this, if it was just the imagination of people, it is really hard to believe that you will find the consistency throughout the Bible that you do. 66 Books written by 40 authors from different backgrounds (highly educated people, kings to lowly fisherman) over a period of 1500 years without collaboration and consistently saying the same thing ? [...] Come on, who is imagining things?

I once thought the bible was consistent.
Then I was shown wrong by Bart Ehrman....
But then the believers will always twist the words a bit so that some bits are metaphors, some bits need to be taken in light of the epoch, some bits are literal and some bits have tarnished memories included...
So, there's always an excuse... and that is why it's called apologetics, right? The art of making excuses to keep the story making some sense... "consistent" and all...

Now do tell me how a story generated at a given time and propagated through the populace, will be inconsistent with itself when someone else writes about that first story...
They may build upon it, add more elements... some bits may have been lost on the way and potential inconsistencies become consistent because the copies of the original aren't accurate...
I once read a book... it was a standard book. A story about an old king or prince, who never arrived at his intended destiny... it was the story of the 4th wise king... Fully consistent with the remainder of the bible... written some 2000 years after it... and could very well be included in the text for people from 5000 years in the future to puzzle over the accuracy of such account.
Does that consistency bit make it a truthful account?

Does magic exist?

And, as I always say, if I have to believe in the premise, then the whole building lacks credibility.

You will know that Bart Ehrman is not totally honest in his reporting of “facts” through innuendo and implication. As a scholar, he knows that the accuracy of the Bible has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Apart from that, none of the central doctrines of Christianity is questioned. But you may read the following and form a more balanced view. http://irr.org/todays-bible-real-bible

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.

Truthful accounts of real people is usually confirmed by sources other than the author - especially if the author claims it as fact and such is the case with the Bible.

But at the end of it all, you will soon enough find out what the truth is. Despite what Bart Ehrman or anybody else says. None of our discussions will carry any weight. Only reality.

Only you can respond to Jesus' call:
Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Joh 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

[Ryantology]

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.

I think it's interesting how there are more than 40,000 different sects which interpret the Bible in very different ways and how interpretation is necessary because if read literally, it contradicts reality famously right from the beginning.

Science updates and changes with new discoveries because science is honest about what it knows and what it does not know. If science claimed to have all the answers (and killed or silenced those who disagreed), it would remain static for thousands of years, too.

Truthful accounts of real people is usually confirmed by sources other than the author - especially if the author claims it as fact and such is the case with the Bible.

Fictional accounts of fictional people are usually taken on faith by people who want to think it's not fiction.

If the Bible had any correlation to reality, faith would not be important.

[houseofcantor]

Somewhat related is the theory of an electric universe that proposes a different model than gravity and as I understand puts paid to the highly acclaimed big bang theory.

Well, there's the train of your critical thinking running right off the rails.

[Carnavon]

you seem to be predisposed towards not believing despite the evidence.
Your sentiments about not believing anybody is strangely in accordance with Scripture

Forgive me if I've missed something here, but are you referring to whether or not Jesus lived, or are you saying there are evidential reasons to believe that Jesus did all of the things that the bible claims he did? Moreover, are you saying that one need not believe only on faith, that there are reasons to form beliefs based on evidence?

Hi. Reading the comment “The truth of some of the facts of the bible have no effect on all the other 'facts' in the book. Spiderman lives in New York City. That is a real place, but does spiderman exist?” ,there are two points:
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.

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.

2) Does Spiderman exist?
My response was aimed at the reality of Jesus as a historical figure.

Believe only on faith? The truth is that we are saved by faith and not through knowledge.
Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
So mere intellectual assent to the existence of God has little to do with being saved. Saved is by the grace of God through faith. On the other hand, we are not expected to have “blind faith” – thus faith which has little to do with proof. 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.

Trust I answered to your satisfaction?

---

Somewhat related is the theory of an electric universe that proposes a different model than gravity and as I understand puts paid to the highly acclaimed big bang theory.

Well, there's the train of your critical thinking running right off the rails.

I will be happy to learn more. Thanks. I have however read in another article (normal science article) that the big bang theory is being "propped up" as new theories that better explain phenomena may very well lead to its downfall

[houseofcantor]

I will be happy to learn more. Thanks.

The only kind of science in the "Electric Cosmos" is the pseudo kind.

EDIT: linky-linky

[Ryantology]

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.

That's evidence?

[pocaracas]

First off, there's something I have to get off my chest about your username.
As a World of Tanks player, it reminds me way too much of this tank:


The Caernarvon.
So... there you go, you now have an avatar to go with your username!

I am not great with avatars. What’s wrong with a photo? But thanks in any case.

An avatar is a reflection of yourself, or the person you want to pass off online... or just a goofy representation of your username!
Or some image you particularly like...
Or nothing...

Let's not play word games, ok?
Organism, bacteria... those are very advanced structures.
A virus is alive and yet lacks a lot of the structures that a bacteria has.
I was talking about self-replicating amino-acid chains... something simple... something that can be built upon to develop all those organisms.

I rely on what is generally accepted as the first “living” organism in scientific publications. See Scientific American “Every living cell, even the simplest bacterium, teems with molecular contraptions that would be the envy of any nanotechnologist”.
According to my best information Amino acids are one of the first organic molecules supposed to appear on Earth. It is not a living organism. You suggest that viruses are the first "living organisms"? Not that I can find. Apart from that, it appears as if viruses can replicate only within a living host cell. Therefore, viruses are obligate intracellular parasites.(http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage...s-14398218)

And I was going further back. Before you have a living organism, you need some form of self-replicating organic-like matter.
The virus was just an example of a living entity which is simpler than a bacteria.

Sure.... And tons of claims with no way to determine if they're truthful...
That Bible tends to have a very narrow testability... On the really important details, it's kinda impossible to test, unless you've deluded yourself into accepting that hypothesis as truthful, prior to actual evidence for it...

The Christian faith is just that. Something/someone you believe without absolute proof. Similar to you’re your faith that your car will start the next time you start the car. (If it has never started before, it is kind of blind faith, unsupported by evidence)
It does thus not rely on substantive proof, but will not be in opposition to such beliefs being tested where this is possible – and I think it should be encouraged. This is one of the reasons I have discussions with people of different persuasions- to critically evaluate what I believe. Thus far, it has strengthened my faith. It has on occasion happened that science contradicted facts stated in the Bible –later information proved to support the Biblical record. As previously stated , nothing has ever conclusively disproved that which is stated as fact in the Bible. To the contrary, it tends to confirm the Bible.

You think faith in unsupported things is to be encouraged?

*poca steps away from you...

In science, it's the best we have.
If most (if not all) the experts agree that the models are pretty darn accurate and match with all the observations, then it is as good as fact.
Apples fall. Repeatedly, consistently, consensually at a very specific rate.
The current model for the initial expansion of the Universe fall in line with all the experiments carried out in nuclear accelerators. The model is then, the best we have to describe the early Universe.
Astrophysical observations fit with the same model.
Why should the model be wrong just because it does not require an assumption that people would prefer to be there?

There was once consensus that the cell was a very basic entity. Today we know better (see excerpt above). Experimental proof is the best you have. Hypotheses are just conjectures until proven and later become accepted as fact and later as “laws” when it consistently proves to be correct – as in the case of the second law of thermodynamics.
Astrophysics have a problem due to the discovery that expansion of the universe seem to be accelerating – meaning the idea how gravity works is incorrect or that the theoretical construct of dark energy, matter is false. So even your comment that apples fall may rest upon false assumptions. Somewhat related is the theory of an electric universe that proposes a different model than gravity and as I understand puts paid to the highly acclaimed big bang theory. So it seems that the more we (think) we know, the less we know.
Just as a matter of interest, millions of dollars are spent on the SETI project – because there must be little green men out there – and as Dawkins suggests, they may have seed us here. Talking about grasping at straws!

Are you sure you're understanding the words you're saying correctly?
Astrophysics had a problem with universal expansion, when it only accounted for the visible matter, such as stars and galaxies. Then dark matter was spotted.... and then it was spotted everywhere... and now things look pretty darn consistent.
"an electric universe"... boy, you creationists really do like to grasp at straws... There's a guy that has a theory of how Warp drive can work...
There's a guy that has a theory about how multiple-universes explain everything, even the fine-tuning you creationists think is the cherry on top of the cake of evidence for a god-creator.
Dawkins suggests life on this planet may have been seeded by life from elsewhere in the Universe... aye... not an impossible proposition... but do note your own wording "MAY". It's a hypothesis, with as much evidence for it as Russel's teapot. There may be a teapot orbiting Jupiter.
But you encourage faith in such things, right?
Should I have faith in the tooth fairy, too? There are numerous accounts that kids got something when they left their teeth under their pillows... I think they're on to something, there.

what?... none in the bible?
How about the very first one that's not even written down? "there is a god and it is very well defined as [whatever you want it to be]".

The difference is that evolutionary lies has been proven,

What evolutionary lies? What is this new sorcery?

whereas the Bible is only claimed to be false.

You claim it to be true, and yet provide no evidence for it....
Oh wait, it mentions real places that existed at the time, and archeology has confirmed those places! Oh damn! All the water parting, loaf multiplication, raising dead people and curing leprosy must then be true, huh?

The other issue is of course that evolutionary theory constantly change as previously accepted “facts” are proven wrong, and new theories have to be developed.

OH, I wouldn't say "wrong", nor change the theory...
The theory stands pretty much as Darwin first brought it forward.
Some finer points have been included (that means they were added to the theory, instead of your dishonest attempt at claiming the whole theory had to crumble and be reformulated), since the discovery of DNA (which confirmed Darwin's idea), but also introduced new mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

The Bible in the original language has been in its essence the same since Moses (referring more specifically to the OT, but included 2000 years for NT) – contrary what Dr. Ehrman wants you to believe.

What I read from Dr Ehrman was all concerning the NT.... contradictions in details of the story as told by the different narrators.
One example is the visit by J.C. to the temple's money changers with whom he disagreed and then proceeded to trash their establishments.
On one account, he does it at the beginning of his ministry... on the other he does that on his last week of life, being the reason why he was arrested and tried.

Carefully analyse what he is saying and see the impact on its truthfulness.
Questions to Dr Ehrman: Do the “variants” ever disagree
• That God is one.
• That God created the heavens and the earth in six days?
• That Jesus was born of the virgin Mary.
• That Jesus is claimed to be God in the flesh?
• That Jesus died for our sins?
• That Jesus died for us while we were still sinners?
• That Jesus’ blood secures the salvation of those that believe on Him?
• The resurrection of Jesus?
• Salvation is by grace and not our good works?
• That there will be a day of judgement when the “goats” and the “sheep” will be separated – the sheep to eternal life, the goats to eternal damnation?

You are aware that some of those tales/features only show up in one of the accounts... perhaps two.
The virgin mary is a good example... How many narrators speak of it?

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.

Oh yeah... that's why Mohamed came along and established Islam...
That's why hinduism still exists.
That's why Buddhism still exists.

Please... your bible is on equal footing as all the other holy texts. Should I just accept them all?

Truthful accounts of real people is usually confirmed by sources other than the author - especially if the author claims it as fact and such is the case with the Bible.

Then why wasn't the whole middle East in uproar writing and writing about this awesome man who cured incurable diseases, even death?
Why is the earliest writing about this man from some 30 years after the guy's death?
Truth seems to be far from these writings...

But at the end of it all, you will soon enough find out what the truth is.

Pascal's wager... how fitting...
If I will find out "in the end", then why do people want me to acknowledge it now? How did these people come to know about the "end"?

[Carnavon]

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.

I think it's interesting how there are more than 40,000 different sects which interpret the Bible in very different ways and how interpretation is necessary because if read literally, it contradicts reality famously right from the beginning.

Science updates and changes with new discoveries because science is honest about what it knows and what it does not know. If science claimed to have all the answers (and killed or silenced those who disagreed), it would remain static for thousands of years, too.

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.

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?

Truthful accounts of real people is usually confirmed by sources other than the author - especially if the author claims it as fact and such is the case with the Bible.

Fictional accounts of fictional people are usually taken on faith by people who want to think it's not fiction.

If the Bible had any correlation to reality, faith would not be important.

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

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