How did the universe come into existence?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
The government acted in accord with secular super humanistic principles. They believed that only a certain race of humans deserved rights and protection, ie Aryans, whom they believed were superhumans. Unlike nations founded on Christian principles that believe that all humans of all races deserve basic human rights as enumerated in the DOI and the Bill of Rights of America. Hitler hated Christianity. And most of the population of Germany was unorthodox liberal Christians. Liberal theology originated in Germany about 150 years prior to WWII. So by the time of WWII it had pretty much taken over the Lutheran church and so they no longer believed in the moral absolutes of the Bible and were able to rationalize almost any immorality such as the mass slaughter of human beings who were no longer considered made in the image of God and of infinite worth and value. And there was some entrance of this theology into the Catholic seminaries undermining their belief in the inerrancy the bible and Gods moral law though not as extensively as the Lutheran church.

I suggest you pick up a history book. Hitler was a self professed Catholic and virtually all Germans were either Catholic or mainline Protestant. The antisemitism rampant in Germany can be directly traced to the Christian heritage of not only Germany but most of Europe.

Furthermore, Atheist and Freethinker groups were specifically banned and closed down by the Nazis, and many people from those groups wound up in the concentration camps.

What you're describing above is not Humanism. It's racism.

No, I did mention them. I said that the modern secular nations of Europe borrowed from their Christian heritage many of the moral principles of Christianity, such as the concept of human rights and etc. And the US is still in many ways living off its Judeo-Christian theistic founding. While not technically a theocracy the US was founded on many of the moral principles of the Biblical God. That is what the phrase "the laws of Nature and Nature's God" refers to. The first phrase refers to natural law, the second phrase refers to Biblical law. All of the founders even the non-Christians believed that God had revealed His moral laws in the Bible. So all nations that have been founded on these Christian principles generally have good human rights records except in the last 40 years not so good for the unborn.

Again, human rights is not a Christian concept. It's a concept that exists to some degree in almost any religious system, and secular systems.

"Nature's God" also is a phrase used by Deists to describe a deistic interpretation of a god. Those sentences aren't talking about the Christian god specifically.

The human rights record historically in Christian countries haven't been anything to be proud of either. Should I again bring up women's rights, civil rights and gay/trans rights? It seems to be universally true that the more free and secular a society becomes, and the less totalitarian or religious a society becomes, the better the human rights record looks.

There is a more likely chance that an active email address is being used by real person than a very inactive address.

You didn't say it's inactive though, you said that one email has 2000 emails, the other has 1. The one with 2000 emails could have gotten that way because nobody actively checks that account anymore and the spam messages have piled up. For example, my aunt died last September. By the time we got into her account there were thousands of messages to weed through.

On the other hand, the account with 1 email could be active but the user has downloaded the messages to a local backup. Or, the account was opened yesterday and is actively used, but hasn't had time to build up more than one message in the inbox yet.

So, simply saying one address has more emails in it gives us insufficient evidence to show how actively used that account is.

None of these interpretations go outside the literal definitions of the original greek and Hebrew words. But we do reinterpret them based on Gods other book, nature which He has told us is a source of knowledge about Him.

Exactly, so you reinterpret them to mean whatever you want to in order to make the book look vaguely scientifically accurate.

No, the reason he doesn't cover any empirically observed evidence is because there is none. It is all done by the magical force known as Time. He believes with enough of that magic literally anything can happen, but this is false assumption.

This is just flat out false.

You are assuming what we are trying to prove. Basically how they do it, is to look to see if it appears to have a purpose and have been created purposefully. And the universe has both such things in it.

No, I'm not assuming anything. Besides, apparent purpose is meaningless. Actual purpose is what matters, and you can't show actual purpose. You are assuming actual purpose without evidence to back up your assumptions.

No, see above about purpose. While it is not an infallible criteria, it generally works.

It may generally work for your belief system, but that doesn't mean it's correct.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I'm not sure what part I don't quite have it right.

I said a fish crawled out of the water and turned into an amphibian. Your tree proves that I am right.
1) Osteichthyes (ray finned fish)
2) Sarcopterygians (lobe finned fish)
3) Tetrapod (amphibian)
As odd as it seems, they must all be on the same branch.

You say that as such, a modern day fish could never evolve into an amphibian. But you admit that millions of years ago that happened. Time has a tendancy to blurr the picture and is the one central theme of the evolutionist/atheist.

Sorry, but you are stuck with: every animal that we know today came from a 1 celled bacteria. Fish to amphibian was simple, and if it can't happen today, then I have no reason to think that it happened millions of years ago. The reason that you give me for it not happening today, is probably the reason I would propose that it did not happen earlier.

What happened millions of years ago that could not happen today?

Has evolution stopped?

No... you aren't understanding how the tree works. You didn't all of a sudden have a fish crawl up on land and *boom* you have an amphibian.

The most famous example of a Sarcopterygian is Tiktaalik, which has some fish like features, however doesn't really look like a modern day fish as we'd understand fish to be. It kinda looks more like a fat lizard/snake with fins. A species like Tiktaalik lived in the sea and on land, descendants of that species over time became more accustomed to living on land, and a group of those animals would have eventually spawned what became amphibians. We are talking about a process that takes millions of years though.

As for why modern species can't evolve into amphibians is because you can have a species branch into two or more different lines on the tree, however you can't jump branches.

You could have a species of fish, or a waterborne species come up on land, and their descendants eventually adapt to living on land, however that species, and it's descendants won't be amphibians. They're not the same genetic line as amphibians. They'd be a new type of animal that may be similar to amphibians but they aren't amphibians. Same idea as how bats are mammals, and not birds, even though bats have much in common with birds. They're different genetic lines that are incompatible with each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gene Parmesan
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
1) There's no reason to believe the biblical creation story is true in any sense.....

Not to people who THINK they are smarter than God.

*** 2) There was no global flood, therefore there was no flood that destroyed "adam's world"

Then, please explain the procedure which placed God's superior intelligence inside people who descended from Apes. Adam had it Gen 3:22 but NO person who descended from water does. In order for prehistoric people to inherit Adam's superior intelligence, misguided scientists have falsely ASSUMED a magical evolving over gradual periods of time and zillions of mutations (with no direction) producing Humanity in prehistoric people, one time, and hasn't happened since. "Just believe us" they whine.

The flood brought Adam's superior intelligence to this planet of people who descended from water. Adam NEVER took a step on our Earth and Mindless Nature does not and cannot produce God's superior intelligence in Apes. You either inherit it from another Human or you are NOT Human (descendant of Adam). Amen?

*** 3) There's no such thing as before the big bang. So, your question is meaningless.

Only God was there and He tells us there were Billions of years BEFORE the beginning of our Cosmos on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4 It happened when Jesus changed matter back into energy...Boom....then as the energy cooled, it became our physical world. Are you sure you have read Genesis? God Bless you
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Not to people who THINK they are smarter than God.

It's not hard to be smarter than a non-existent entity.


Then, please explain the procedure which placed God's superior intelligence inside people who descended from Apes. Adam had it Gen 3:22 but NO person who descended from water does. In order for prehistoric people to inherit Adam's superior intelligence, misguided scientists have falsely ASSUMED a magical evolving over gradual periods of time and zillions of mutations (with no direction) producing Humanity in prehistoric people, one time, and hasn't happened since. "Just believe us" they whine.

The flood brought Adam's superior intelligence to this planet of people who descended from water. Adam NEVER took a step on our Earth and Mindless Nature does not and cannot produce God's superior intelligence in Apes. You either inherit it from another Human or you are NOT Human (descendant of Adam). Amen?

1) The procedure by which we became more intelligent was evolution
2) Nobody descended from water. Water isn't alive
3) There was no flood, and there was no Adam

Only God was there and He tells us there were Billions of years BEFORE the beginning of our Cosmos on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4 It happened when Jesus changed matter back into energy...Boom....then as the energy cooled, it became our physical world. Are you sure you have read Genesis? God Bless you

I've read Genesis, and it doesn't say anything specifically about the big bang. However, time as we know it started with the big bang, so we couldn't have had billions of years before that. It's akin to saying a place is 300km north of the north pole. It's a meaningless statement about a place that by definition doesn't exist. There was no time until time started. There's no such thing as before the start of time.
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
I've read Genesis, and it doesn't say anything specifically about the big bang. However, time as we know it started with the big bang, so we couldn't have had billions of years before that. It's akin to saying a place is 300km north of the north pole. It's a meaningless statement about a place that by definition doesn't exist. There was no time until time started. There's no such thing as before the start of time.

Remember that unbelievers cannot understand Scripture. 1Co 2:14 The key phrase in your post "time as we know it" limits time to our small Universe. God has a completely different meaning of time since He has only 6 Days of labor and 1 Day of rest. That's because the Day of rest is Eternity.

You should say that there was NO time in our Universe before the big bang. That would better identify your willing ignorance of what God told us in Genesis. God told us of Billions of years BEFORE the 3rd Day when our Cosmos AND the 3rd Heaven were made. Here's God's Truth of Genesis.

Before the Day, God made air, dust and water and said Let there be Light.
The Light of the 1st Day, today and also the Light of Heaven Rev 21:23 came into the physical world. In Him dwelleth ALL of the fulness of the invisible Godhead bodily. 1 Col 15 His name is Jesus and He is God in physical form. Jesus speaks of this time just before His crucifixion.

Jhn 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou Me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Before the 1st world, Jesus was in the physical world. On the 2nd Day God the Trinity helped Jesus make Adam's firmament which was placed in the midst of water. Gen 1:6-8 Did you notice that I bolded God the Trinity?

On the 3rd Day, the SAME Day Adam's Earth was made Gen 1:10, LORD GOD/JESUS made other HeavenS (plural). Gen 2:4 Since today remains the 6th Day and the 3rd Day was when Lord Jesus made our Universe, it was 3 Days ago to God or 13.8 Billion years ago in man's time. Each of God's Days/Ages is some 4.5 Billion years in man's time, on our tiny Earth, in our temporary Universe, which is scheduled to be burned. 2Pet3:10.

Please update your knowledge and God Bless you.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Remember that unbelievers cannot understand Scripture. 1Co 2:14 The key phrase in your post "time as we know it" limits time to our small Universe. God has a completely different meaning of time since He has only 6 Days of labor and 1 Day of rest. That's because the Day of rest is Eternity.

You should say that there was NO time in our Universe before the big bang. That would better identify your willing ignorance of what God told us in Genesis. God told us of Billions of years BEFORE the 3rd Day when our Cosmos AND the 3rd Heaven were made. Here's God's Truth of Genesis.

Before the Day, God made air, dust and water and said Let there be Light.
The Light of the 1st Day, today and also the Light of Heaven Rev 21:23 came into the physical world. In Him dwelleth ALL of the fulness of the invisible Godhead bodily. 1 Col 15 His name is Jesus and He is God in physical form. Jesus speaks of this time just before His crucifixion.

Jhn 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou Me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Before the 1st world, Jesus was in the physical world. On the 2nd Day God the Trinity helped Jesus make Adam's firmament which was placed in the midst of water. Gen 1:6-8 Did you notice that I bolded God the Trinity?

On the 3rd Day, the SAME Day Adam's Earth was made Gen 1:10, LORD GOD/JESUS made other HeavenS (plural). Gen 2:4 Since today remains the 6th Day and the 3rd Day was when Lord Jesus made our Universe, it was 3 Days ago to God or 13.8 Billion years ago in man's time. Each of God's Days/Ages is some 4.5 Billion years in man's time, on our tiny Earth, in our temporary Universe, which is scheduled to be burned. 2Pet3:10.

Please update your knowledge and God Bless you.

Cool story, bro.

Again, all you have is empty assertions that conflict with the actual evidence we have. I have no reason to believe your claims.

Also, if non believers can't understand scripture, it should go without saying that you shouldn't be using scripture to try to prove your point with me. Using your own worldview, by definition I can't understand your argument.

Why god would set it up that way makes no sense, however I suggest coming up with a new argument that you think I can understand.

Also, how did you come to believe in scripture before you believed in god?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Ed1wolf said:
There are three possible answers to this, first Time appears to be just relative positions of objects in space, therefore it has no restricting power over cause and effect.

de: That makes no sense at all.... You need a flow of time in order to have cause and effect.

No, I just explained what time appears to be. And if correct then there is nothing in lacking that characteristic that restricts cause and effect.


ed: Second, the concept of contingency does not need time. If something is contingent and the universe definitely appears to be contingent then something exists that the universe depends on for its existence.

de: How would you demonstrate that?
I just did. The universe is contingent and therefore depends on some thing for its existence. Then you can use the characteristics of the universe to find out the characteristics of what it depends on for its existence. Such as the existence of purposes in the universe means that the source of the universe is a personal intelligence since intelligent personal beings are the source of purposes.


ed: A third possible answer is that there is evidence that there is more than one time dimension in existence (check out Andrew Strominger), therefore God could have operated from another time dimension to create our universe.

de: Sure, however that also opens the possibility of a multiverse where our universe was created by non-supernatural means.
Most of the multiverse models still have an initial BB that means that the other universes that come into existence still needed an ultimate cause. But just because there is another dimension of time does not mean that there is another universe.


ed: You have yet to demonstrate that they are fallacious.


de: You're arguing that I haven't demonstrated that a fallacious appeal to popularity is fallacious? Or that cherry picking data isn't fallacious either?

I demonstrated that in some cases popularity is not fallacious and you didn't refute it. As far as cherry picking data, I could say the same thing about you. But you have not proven that I have cherry picked any data.


ed: Of course not, because no one has claimed that Spider-Man is real and there is no evidence that the events recorded in near the time that the events occurred. With the bible there is such evidence. It is much more than just that real cities were written about. There is also linguistic characteristics that point to the time period in which the events occurred.

de: The fact someone may or may not have claimed Spider Man is real is irrelevant. We are talking about whether or not the book would serve as evidence just because it's set in a real place.

The books of the bible were not just set in real places, there is evidence that they were written in or near those places and near the time when they occurred. There are things that the author knows that only someone living at that time could know. There is no evidence that Spider-Man was written at time the events occurred. IOW the author has no special knowledge about the time and place that only someone writing in that time and place could know.


de: If you want to focus on that point though, we can switch to other characters like Paul Bunyan who probably didn't really exist, however a fair number of people assume he probably did. With Paul Bunyan, you'll have real settings written in a linguistic style comparable to the time and places he was said to live in.

Not just comparable, they would have to be unique to that time and place as I stated above. So again PB fails, try again. And there are no independent sources for his existence like Jesus written less than 5 years form the events when many people could easily disprove those sources. But they didn't for Christ.


ed: No, I said the scriptures were written by ancient humans inspired by God. Yes, that is what they did, they wrote histories about the cities they lived in and the surrounding towns and countries and recorded the things that God did at that time.

de: Or the things they thought god did, or in other cases they were largely fictional stories.

Intentional popular fiction was not invented until the middle ages. So they plainly cannot be that.

 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
No, I just explained what time appears to be. And if correct then there is nothing in lacking that characteristic that restricts cause and effect.

No you didn't, you explained what you think time may be. There's nothing to tie that to reality.

Besides, if time is just relative positions in space, you've proven my point. Time and space came into existence with the big bang. There was no space for there to be relative positions in without the universe already being in a state of existence. So again, cause and effect breaks down when talking about the big bang.

I just did. The universe is contingent and therefore depends on some thing for its existence. Then you can use the characteristics of the universe to find out the characteristics of what it depends on for its existence. Such as the existence of purposes in the universe means that the source of the universe is a personal intelligence since intelligent personal beings are the source of purposes.

You're asserting the universe is contingent, however you haven't demonstrated that. It could just be a random naturally occurring phenomenon.

Most of the multiverse models still have an initial BB that means that the other universes that come into existence still needed an ultimate cause. But just because there is another dimension of time does not mean that there is another universe.

Again, you're applying the rules that govern this universe to whatever may or may not exist outside of the universe. There's no reason to believe they apply to anything other than this universe.

I demonstrated that in some cases popularity is not fallacious and you didn't refute it. As far as cherry picking data, I could say the same thing about you. But you have not proven that I have cherry picked any data.

If you assert something is true because a lot of people believe it, then you have committed a fallacious appeal to popularity. The fact a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true, or even provide evidence that it's true.

As for cherry picking, of course you are. You're focusing on the minority of people that believe in your god and calling that evidence, while discarding the majority of people who don't believe in your god. How is it not cherry picking? You're only using the data that supports your case while disregarding the data that goes against your case.

The books of the bible were not just set in real places, there is evidence that they were written in or near those places and near the time when they occurred. There are things that the author knows that only someone living at that time could know. There is no evidence that Spider-Man was written at time the events occurred. IOW the author has no special knowledge about the time and place that only someone writing in that time and place could know.

What? Are you serious? Spiderman is set in 20th and 21st century New York City. The person who started writing about Spiderman (Stan Lee) was born in New York City in 1922, and spent a large chunk of his life living there. Of course he knows about modern day New York City, the culture, places and events that occurred there. We don't just have evidence for that, we can definitively prove it. He's still alive, we can go talk to him.

Archaeologists a thousand years from now can't, however the author was still a contemporary who lived in the place at the time the events were said to occur.

Not just comparable, they would have to be unique to that time and place as I stated above. So again PB fails, try again. And there are no independent sources for his existence like Jesus written less than 5 years form the events when many people could easily disprove those sources. But they didn't for Christ.

Sure there are, there are plenty of independent writings about the feats of Paul Bunyan written roughly around the time he was said to exist. In fact, there's far more independent writings about Paul Bunyan than there are about Jesus. With Jesus you have one gospel written 40-45 years after the fact, two other gospels that plagiarized off the first written later than that, and the last gospel (John) which could date as late as the early second century all written by people who were not eyewitnesses. As for Paul, he even admits he never met Jesus, so he's not an eyewitness either.

Intentional popular fiction was not invented until the middle ages. So they plainly cannot be that.

Nonsense, fictional writings have been around as long as writing has. We still have myths and fables that long predate the era of Jesus. For example, the Epic of Gilgamesh, The Iliad, The Odyssey and many, many others.
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
Cool story, bro.

Again, all you have is empty assertions that conflict with the actual evidence we have. I have no reason to believe your claims.

Not so since the Supreme Intelligence left us all kinds of evidence in Genesis. The evidence written more than 3k years ago could NOT have been known by any man of the time since it is just now being discovered by Science. God told us it would be this way in the last days. Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon ALL flesh:

ie. The discovery announced last year that "every living creature that moves" came from L.U.C.A. in Water. God told us the SAME more than 3k years ago in Genesis one.
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly,

No man could have known this at the time, so no man could have authored this. ONLY God knew and correctly told us the recently discovered scientific Truth 3,000 years ago.

*** Also, if non believers can't understand scripture, it should go without saying that you shouldn't be using scripture to try to prove your point with me. Using your own worldview, by definition I can't understand your argument.

Something is hidden in Scripture which relates to you. I don't know what it is with you but I know what it is with me and that is an understanding of Genesis. I can't make you believe, but I can show you of God's agreement with every other discovered Truth of mankind, which no one has ever told you.

*** Why god would set it up that way makes no sense, however I suggest coming up with a new argument that you think I can understand.

God wants to know if you believe that Jesus rose from the dead according to the Scriptures. That's God's POWER unto Salvation since you cannot believe unless the Father gives you the Faith to believe. All you have to do is ask Him.

*** Also, how did you come to believe in scripture before you believed in god?

I believed that Jesus rose from the dead according to the Scriptures and that's what is necessary for salvation, since we are His workmanship, and not our own. If it were left to me, I would fail, but God's Faith lets me know that He will bring me home so I can rest in Him forever. God Bless you
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
No... you aren't understanding how the tree works. You didn't all of a sudden have a fish crawl up on land and *boom* you have an amphibian.

The most famous example of a Sarcopterygian is Tiktaalik, which has some fish like features, however doesn't really look like a modern day fish as we'd understand fish to be. It kinda looks more like a fat lizard/snake with fins. A species like Tiktaalik lived in the sea and on land, descendants of that species over time became more accustomed to living on land, and a group of those animals would have eventually spawned what became amphibians. We are talking about a process that takes millions of years though.

As for why modern species can't evolve into amphibians is because you can have a species branch into two or more different lines on the tree, however you can't jump branches.

You could have a species of fish, or a waterborne species come up on land, and their descendants eventually adapt to living on land, however that species, and it's descendants won't be amphibians. They're not the same genetic line as amphibians. They'd be a new type of animal that may be similar to amphibians but they aren't amphibians. Same idea as how bats are mammals, and not birds, even though bats have much in common with birds. They're different genetic lines that are incompatible with each other.

The most famous example of a Sarcopterygian is Tiktaalik, which has some fish like features, however doesn't really look like a modern day fish as we'd understand fish to be. It kinda looks more like a fat lizard/snake with fins. A species like Tiktaalik lived in the sea and on land, descendants of that species over time became more accustomed to living on land, and a group of those animals would have eventually spawned what became amphibians. We are talking about a process that takes millions of years though.

Have you seen the miserable fossil that they say is Tiktaalik? I suspect not. What you are describing to me is an artists rendition or images of what they think Tiktaalik looked like. This fossil brought with it all the talking points that are important. Millions of years ago, lived in the sea and on the land, descendants of the species over time became more accustomed to living on land, groups of these animals would have eventually spawned what became amphibians.

Shouldn't the scientist have said these animals eventually spawned....???

That's what they should say, but they can't quite say it because they really don't know if it really happened, so they use words like 'would have'.

This is a poor, poor example of anything. Who knows what this little fossil actually looked like. The way you are going on about it, you would have thought there was eyewitnesses of its shape and habitat and what it ate and what it evoved into over millions of years, jumping branches from fish to amphibian.

If this is all you have, I would not bring it out to display it. I would be embarrased to talk up this intermediary fish/frog, and then have to show all the evidence and have it end up being a little 2 piece fossil that doesn't allow much imagination. So if this is your fish to amphibian celebrity, I'm still real safe.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Not so since the Supreme Intelligence left us all kinds of evidence in Genesis. The evidence written more than 3k years ago could NOT have been known by any man of the time since it is just now being discovered by Science. God told us it would be this way in the last days. Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon ALL flesh:

ie. The discovery announced last year that "every living creature that moves" came from L.U.C.A. in Water. God told us the SAME more than 3k years ago in Genesis one.
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly,

No man could have known this at the time, so no man could have authored this. ONLY God knew and correctly told us the recently discovered scientific Truth 3,000 years ago.


Genesis is not evidence, Genesis is the claim. Evidence would be whatever it is that backs up the story in Genesis.

What you have provided does not back the claims made in Genesis.

Something is hidden in Scripture which relates to you. I don't know what it is with you but I know what it is with me and that is an understanding of Genesis. I can't make you believe, but I can show you of God's agreement with every other discovered Truth of mankind, which no one has ever told you.

Again, even if you are correct, referring me on to scripture is pointless, as I wouldn't be able to understand it.

Granted, I think the idea that non believers can't understand scripture is nonsense. I think that's an ad hoc rationalization to excuse why some people don't accept scripture as true. However, if your claim is correct and I really can't understand it, then your line of argument can not work with myself or any other non believer.

God wants to know if you believe that Jesus rose from the dead according to the Scriptures. That's God's POWER unto Salvation since you cannot believe unless the Father gives you the Faith to believe. All you have to do is ask Him.

Yes, but if I can't understand the scriptures, then how can I rationally believe anything in them?

It makes no sense. Also, if god has to give me the faith to believe in the first place, then why would he want to know if I believe? Obviously if he has chosen not to give me that faith, then I don't believe it and god already knows that because it was his choice to not give me that faith in the first place.

I believed that Jesus rose from the dead according to the Scriptures and that's what is necessary for salvation, since we are His workmanship, and not our own. If it were left to me, I would fail, but God's Faith lets me know that He will bring me home so I can rest in Him forever. God Bless you

So, you're claiming that god gave you that faith. Good for you, however that also means you can't use that to prove the truth of the bible to anyone else. Do you have anything that you can use as evidence?
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Have you seen the miserable fossil that they say is Tiktaalik? I suspect not. What you are describing to me is an artists rendition or images of what they think Tiktaalik looked like. This fossil brought with it all the talking points that are important. Millions of years ago, lived in the sea and on the land, descendants of the species over time became more accustomed to living on land, groups of these animals would have eventually spawned what became amphibians.

Shouldn't the scientist have said these animals eventually spawned....???

That's what they should say, but they can't quite say it because they really don't know if it really happened, so they use words like 'would have'.

This is a poor, poor example of anything. Who knows what this little fossil actually looked like. The way you are going on about it, you would have thought there was eyewitnesses of its shape and habitat and what it ate and what it evoved into over millions of years, jumping branches from fish to amphibian.

If this is all you have, I would not bring it out to display it. I would be embarrased to talk up this intermediary fish/frog, and then have to show all the evidence and have it end up being a little 2 piece fossil that doesn't allow much imagination. So if this is your fish to amphibian celebrity, I'm still real safe.

Scientists didn't say "would have", I said "would have" as you're quoting my post. Perhaps I could have worded it more to your liking, however your objection towards scientists in this situation is absurd.

And yes, I have seen the fossil. I also said it's one of the more famous examples we have, not the only example we have of a sarcopterygian. Quite frankly, if you care at all about science and biology, your beliefs are anything but real safe. In fact, they're patently false.

Realistically speaking, if all you're going to do is dismiss the actual evidence we have collected because it conflicts with your worldview, then you're not being intellectually honest. As such, unless you can start being intellectually honest, I'm wasting my time having a conversation with you.
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
Genesis is not evidence, Genesis is the claim. Evidence would be whatever it is that backs up the story in Genesis.

Amen. Genesis 1:21 tells us that "every living creature that moveth" was created and brought forth from WATER.
Science confirmed this Scriptural Fact written more than 3k years ago, last year. Science and God AGREE. Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things

No ancient man of the time could have possibly known and correctly wrote this. It's proof of the literal God and also shows us that we live today in the last days of this Earth before Jesus returns. Faith plus Fact equals God's Truth. God Bless you
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Amen. Genesis 1:21 tells us that "every living creature that moveth" was created and brought forth from WATER.
Science confirmed this Scriptural Fact written more than 3k years ago, last year. Science and God AGREE. Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things

No ancient man of the time could have possibly known and correctly wrote this. It's proof of the literal God and also shows us that we live today in the last days of this Earth before Jesus returns. Faith plus Fact equals God's Truth. God Bless you

That's not what Genesis 1:21 says..... Genesis 1:21 says (NIV translation) - So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

In full context Genesis 1:20-22 is:

And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.”

That suggests God created sea life and birds at the same time. That's not correct at all, and would require birds to not have a common ancestor with sea life.

Furthermore the day after we have this:

Genesis 1:24-25 - And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

That would suggest land dwelling animals came about AFTER birds, which is laughably wrong.

As such, Genesis is not accurate in the least when it comes to the rise of species on earth. If it were written by god, one would hope he'd have gotten the order by which species evolved correct.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Ed1wolf said:
He was alive when there were still some of the disciples were still alive and others would had seen Christ in person. Many scholars including non-Christian scholars believe that the editing only included the parts that made theological claims about Jesus, the rest is considered authentic, and an overwhelming majority of scholars agree that his statements about James, Jesus' brother, were not added by Christian scribes. And there are other independent sources for His existence. So all these threads of independent sources in combination with the gospels confirm His existence.

de: There's only two fragments that talk about Jesus.

No, these are not fragments they are fully integrated into the oldest known full copies and are mentioned by Origen as far back as AD 230.


de: The first one is almost universally regarded as a christian insertion into the original text.
No, there are many scholars both Christian and non-Christian that do not think the entire passage was inserted just certain parts of it. But also there are some scholars that think the theological sections were part of the original and that Josephus was being sarcastic. There is nothing in textual criticism that points to it being inserted. The manuscript evidence is as unanimous and ample as it is for anything in Josephus. And this also includes his mention of John the Baptist which indirectly points to Jesus.

de: The second one, talking about James the brother of Jesus is likely authentic, however the Jesus in question is not Jesus Christ. It's Jesus Ben Damneus, who was a high priest at the time and is the subject of the section of Josephus's writings where the supposed passage about Jesus Christ is located. When you remove the single fragment "the one who is called christ", the passage makes more sense in context of the chapter it's written in.

No, the section about James is written long before he gets back to talking about Jesus the High Priest, thereby contradicting your statement below about Josephus style.


de: Furthermore, it's not consistent with Josephus's style to just throw a random name in there without explanation of who that person is. He would have included some history of who Jesus Christ was when including him in his work, as he did with pretty well any other important figure in his writings. The fact he didn't do that is further evidence that "Jesus" refers to Jesus ben Damneus, who he'd already described and was in the middle of writing about in that chapter.

Since the passage about Jesus occurs BEFORE the passage about James, this confirms the style you refer to. He explained who Jesus the "so-called Christ" was before he mentions his connection to James. There is no real evidence that the Jesus he is referring to the high priest.

de: Also, it should be fairly obvious that Josephus would never call Jesus "the christ" as he was a Jew and not a Christian. If Josephus was legitimately writing about Jesus, he'd have almost certainly described him as a fraud or charlatan. He certainly would not have written about him in a positive light.

That is why many scholars believe the original wording was similar to his passage about James, ie that he was the "so-called Christ" or he was "called the Christ". There is evidence that many ordinary Jews admired Jesus without accepting His message so Josephus may have admired Him for His good deeds and teaching but not agree with the Christians about who Jesus was.


ed: No, the ancient hymn predates the NT so technically it was not part of the bible. We know that the ancient jews used hymns to help to remember their history and pass it on orally, this is well known among scholars and has been shown to be a very accurate way to transmit historical events especially since many secular scholars agree that it was composed less than 5 years after the resurrection.

de: That still doesn't prove anything. Just because they wrote a song doesn't mean the song is accurate.
It is strong evidence given it was composed within 5 years of His death and because of this most of the Romans and jews that had witnessed what had happened were still alive and would have refuted anything in the hymn that was not accurate. And there is no evidence that that happened.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
No, these are not fragments they are fully integrated into the oldest known full copies and are mentioned by Origen as far back as AD 230.

Origen complained that there were no references to Jesus the messiah in the texts. That should tell you something right there.

No, there are many scholars both Christian and non-Christian that do not think the entire passage was inserted just certain parts of it. But also there are some scholars that think the theological sections were part of the original and that Josephus was being sarcastic. There is nothing in textual criticism that points to it being inserted. The manuscript evidence is as unanimous and ample as it is for anything in Josephus. And this also includes his mention of John the Baptist which indirectly points to Jesus.

Most secular scholars believe the larger passage talking about Jesus is a complete insertion. Not only is the writing style not that of Josephus, the writing flows better if the passage is removed. The paragraph before talks about a tragedy that had hit the area, and flows perfectly into the next paragraph after the Jesus bit saying "about this time there was another sad calamity". The paragraph about Jesus sticks out like a sore thumb in the overall context of the chapter.

The only people who argue it's at least partially genuine are fundamentalist Christians. Virtually nobody with an unbiased perspective believes the paragraph is legitimate

No, the section about James is written long before he gets back to talking about Jesus the High Priest, thereby contradicting your statement below about Josephus style.

I'm not arguing that he wrote passages about James and Jesus, however they are James ben Damneus and Jesus ben Damneus. The James in question is not the brother of Jesus Christ, James was executed by Ananus, son of Ananus who was at the time high priest. Ananus was deposed because of the execution and the position was given to the brother of James, Jesus ben Damneus according to Jewish custom. That's what the whole passage is about. It doesn't fit the gospel story at all, Jesus Christ didn't ever become high priest of Israel, and if he had he certainly didn't get there because his brother was executed by the previous high priest.

Since the passage about Jesus occurs BEFORE the passage about James, this confirms the style you refer to. He explained who Jesus the "so-called Christ" was before he mentions his connection to James. There is no real evidence that the Jesus he is referring to the high priest.

He doesn't say "the so called Christ", the passage reads "who was called christ". That's something Josephus would never say. Josephus would have called him a charlatan or something along those lines. The passage about Jesus coming first is actually consistent with Josephus's style as he considered him the more important character. That makes sense as he was high priest of Israel.

That is why many scholars believe the original wording was similar to his passage about James, ie that he was the "so-called Christ" or he was "called the Christ". There is evidence that many ordinary Jews admired Jesus without accepting His message so Josephus may have admired Him for His good deeds and teaching but not agree with the Christians about who Jesus was.

Most unbiased secular scholars and many christian scholars believe the phrase "who was called christ" was likely a margin note which inadvertently got inserted into the text by a later christian scribe, and is not a deliberate forgery. However it was not original to the text.

It is strong evidence given it was composed within 5 years of His death and because of this most of the Romans and jews that had witnessed what had happened were still alive and would have refuted anything in the hymn that was not accurate. And there is no evidence that that happened.

There's no contemporary evidence at all that Jesus was executed, or even existed. If Jesus was indeed a real person, it's very likely he led a minor cult that basically nobody knew about and his death went largely unnoticed.

If he was the widely known popular miracle worker portrayed in the gospels, he'd certainly have shown up in the writings of contemporary historians. Philo of Alexandria springs to mind, he lived from 20BC to 50AD, meaning he was in his prime years right during the time Jesus was said to be running his ministry.

He lived in Egypt, however he was a Jew and often travelled to Jerusalem. In fact he had ties to the royal house of Judea. He's also regarded of one of the top historians in all of Roman history. His writings were actually quite popular with the early Christians as well who adopted some of his philosophical ideas into Christianity, such as the logos. Philo very literally could have been on scene during Jesus's ministry, seen the miracles, his trial, execution and resurrection. Certainly he would have mentioned something about him, even if he didn't buy that Jesus was divine or the messiah. There are plenty of other minor cult leaders mentioned in his writings, however Jesus doesn't even show up in that regard.

So what we're left with is a complete no comment from contemporary historians (Philo was the one who had the best access, however there were others who would have been in a position to write about Jesus as well), and at best we have two minor references from (at best) 60 years after the fact, that are very likely later insertions into the text.

That is the extent of non-biblical evidence for Jesus. It's absurd how weak it is if Jesus really was how the gospels portray him.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Gene Parmesan
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
That's not what Genesis 1:21 says..... Genesis 1:21 says (NIV translation) - So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

That is WHY I don't use modern versions of Scripture since they "add to" what is actually written, their own personal opinions of what they THINK the verses are saying. This allows them to "tailor" their interpretation to their own denomination's beliefs. I use the KJV since it allows access to the original Hebrew words and their meanings. Here is the verse in the KJV:

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after Their kind, and every winged fowl after His kind: and God saw that it was good.

See? The verse actually says that every living creature that moveth was brought forth from the water after THEIR (Trinity) kinds and every winged fowl after HIS (Jesus) kinds, the kinds which Jesus made with His own Hands. Such tampering with what is actually written is prohibited in Revelation.


***That suggests God created sea life and birds at the same time. That's not correct at all, and would require birds to not have a common ancestor with sea life.

Another example of your altered version of Scripture. God the Trinity made the birds (Their kind) the 5th Day Gen 1:21 which Jesus will make from the ground on the 6th Day, (Gen 2:19) identical to the ones which Jesus will make the NEXT Day. (His kinds) This means that birds have been "created" Eternally by the Trinity and will be in Heaven. It's because God sees the end from the beginning. Isa 46:10


*** Furthermore the day after we have this:

That would suggest land dwelling animals came about AFTER birds, which is laughably wrong.

As such, Genesis is not accurate in the least when it comes to the rise of species on earth. If it were written by god, one would hope he'd have gotten the order by which species evolved correct.

It's because you are confusing the rise of species on Planet Earth and God is showing the rise of species on Adam's Earth, which was totally destroyed in the Flood. 2Pet3:6 I would suggest the King James Version, the most read version of the Bible..which was printed before so many twisted versions of Scripture were made up. God Bless you
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
That is WHY I don't use modern versions of Scripture since they "add to" what is actually written, their own personal opinions of what they THINK the verses are saying. This allows them to "tailor" their interpretation to their own denomination's beliefs. I use the KJV since it allows access to the original Hebrew words and their meanings. Here is the verse in the KJV:

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after Their kind, and every winged fowl after His kind: and God saw that it was good.

See? The verse actually says that every living creature that moveth was brought forth from the water after THEIR (Trinity) kinds and every winged fowl after HIS (Jesus) kinds, the kinds which Jesus made with His own Hands. Such tampering with what is actually written is prohibited in Revelation.


Even Christian bible scholars regard the KJV as a sub-par translation compared to some modern ones with far better scholarship behind them. The only reason the KJV still has wide usage is because it's old, and many churches don't like to change things like that. Just because it's old doesn't make it better.

Regardless, the KJV's interpretation is actually worse. Great whales? Whales are mammals and actually descended from land dwelling animals. So now we're in a position where we have mammals, fish and birds all from day one, and the mammals somehow descended from land animals, who weren't created until the next day. Also, the first forms of life were very basic single celled organisms, not full grown wales! I mean seriously, you have to be joking by considering that passage in Genesis anything remotely close to accurate.

Another example of your altered version of Scripture. God the Trinity made the birds (Their kind) the 5th Day Gen 1:21 which Jesus will make from the ground on the 6th Day, (Gen 2:19) identical to the ones which Jesus will make the NEXT Day. (His kinds) This means that birds have been "created" Eternally by the Trinity and will be in Heaven. It's because God sees the end from the beginning. Isa 46:10

What does that even mean? Your explanation is incomprehensible.


*** Furthermore the day after we have this:

That would suggest land dwelling animals came about AFTER birds, which is laughably wrong.

As such, Genesis is not accurate in the least when it comes to the rise of species on earth. If it were written by god, one would hope he'd have gotten the order by which species evolved correct.

It's because you are confusing the rise of species on Planet Earth and God is showing the rise of species on Adam's Earth, which was totally destroyed in the Flood. 2Pet3:6 I would suggest the King James Version, the most read version of the Bible..which was printed before so many twisted versions of Scripture were made up. God Bless you

Will you drop the crap about Adam's earth and earth? Not only is there no physical evidence to show any distinction, there's not even anything in scripture. The best you can say is the Garden of Eden, but even within Jewish and Christian mythology humans were out of that place long before the flood happened. In the story you have earth, which was flooded, and then the flood receded. It's the same place.
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
Will you drop the crap about Adam's earth and earth? Not only is there no physical evidence to show any distinction, there's not even anything in scripture. The best you can say is the Garden of Eden, but even within Jewish and Christian mythology humans were out of that place long before the flood happened. In the story you have earth, which was flooded, and then the flood receded. It's the same place.

Typical view of superstitious ancient mankind who dreamed up your understanding thousands of years before education. Do you also follow their ideas of medicine?

FYI. Adam's firmament or boundary of his world was made the 2nd Day. Gen 1:8
On the next Day, Lord God made more Heavens, plural, the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4
Each Day is Billions of years long in man's time and Adam's world/heaven was totally destroyed in the flood. ll Peter 3:3-7 This released the Ark into Lake Van, Turkey 11k years ago bringing the superior intelligence of Adam to this planet of the common ancestor of Apes. That is God's Truth which AGREES with Science and History. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
T
Ed1wolf said:
I didn't say that most of them were, but that is where the founders of Western Civilization got most of those principles from because only Christianity provided a rational foundation for them. There are some principles that are unique to Christianity however, "love your enemies and do good to those who persecute you." Also, the principle of intrinsic objective human value and rights.

de: There is a rational foundation for treating your fellow humans well and with respect without Christianity.
How? Without God humans are just another animal and of no more objective value than a cockroach.

de: Human value and human rights are not a christian teaching either.
Fraid so, without God neither of those things exist objectively. They are just arbitrary things that people make up for the government to do or take away. If the Christian God exists then those things objectively exist and cannot be taken away without facing the consequences in either this life or the next or both.


de: In fact, one of the key roadblocks to equality and rights for all people historically has been religion. Women's rights, Civil Rights, Gay Rights, Trans rights, a key cog in the fight to keep those people oppressed has been bible wielding Christians. That's not to say that some Christians have fought in favour of those things, however had it not been for Christianity the opposition to all of those movements would have been greatly diminished or entirely non existent.

I didn't say that Christians have always followed Gods laws and principles but we do have them as a standard and a goal. Why do you think that the first nations to outlaw slavery were ones based on Christian principles, ie Britain and the USA? And only western societies even have women's rights groups. As far as gay rights and trans rights, there are no such things. Those are just 21st century human constructs with no basis in reality or even nature. If you think they are real, please provide their origin.

de: Likewise, the concept of loving your enemies and doing good to those who persecute you in most cases is an idiotic worldview. It's one that Christians all throughout history have rarely followed as well.
When properly understood from Gods perspective you would be amazed at how it has influenced society and the world. Look how the USA treated its enemies after WW2. Imagine what would be happening in our country if there were as many Muslims as there are Christians and the secular humanists were doing what they are doing to Christians. There would be much more violence because such a teaching is not a part of Islam. But you are right that Christians have not often obeyed it, because we are all sinners.

ed: The reason why most human cultures have similar basic moralities to Christian morality is that all humans are created in the image of the Christian God. But only Christianity provides an objectively rational basis for morality.

de: There is no objective rational basis for morality within Christianity. You only have what god proclaims to be good and bad.

Fraid so, what He proclaims is based on His objectively existing moral character.


de: Also, some cultures existed before your god did, how do you account for them?
Hardly, the universe has existed for 13.8 billion years and the Christian God created it. Since all humans are created in His image with a moral conscience based on His character they would be expected to create societies with many of the same basic morals taught in the Bible.


ed: You would not like a world without the principles that are unique to Christianity especially the intrinsic value of all of human life. Without that principle, we would still have slavery among other things.

de: Shall I refer you to the sections of the bible that advocate and endorse slavery, as well as lay out the rules by which you may purchase slaves? You are aware Christians started the slave trade, right?

Actually, contrary to popular belief, a careful study of the Bible in context reveals that in actuality it does not advocate or endorse involuntary slavery for non-criminals and non-POWS.


ed: Fraid so, Christ and the disciples never stopped pagans and gentiles from speaking about their beliefs in fact they heartily encouraged it by debating with them. Read about Paul at Mars Hill and etc. And they are our examples as Christians.

de: Christ never had the power to legally prevent people from speaking their minds, especially as paganism was the Roman State Religion at the time.

As God incarnate He had the omnipotent power to do so, but He didn't. Also His disciples could have been like the sicarii and forced people to convert by knife point and yet they did not. It was a free choice just like when Moses in the OT told the Hebrews that they were to "choose whom this day they would serve."

de: Does "I am the lord thy god, thou shalt have no other gods before me" sound like freedom of religion to you?
He is just warning you that if you want to prosper in this life and the next then you should choose to follow Yahweh otherwise you will face the natural consequences of your free choice. No coercion there. But it was more explicit in the actions of Christ and the disciples.


de: What would have happened if you proclaimed yourself to be a non-believer in most European Christian theocracies up until a couple centuries ago?

During the period of 300 to 1600 the RCC was under corrupt leadership and did not follow many of the teachings of Christ that is why the Reformation occurred. They valued their power more than following Christ. But after the reformation the bible became more available to the laity and learned that Christ and His disciples taught and practiced freedom of conscience. Christian scholar John Locke wrote about this and the founders of the USA learned from him how it came from the bible and this influenced them to incorporate into our Constitution.


de: Torture if not full out execution. Even up until the very recent past, if you were a non-christian you'd be considered a moral degenerate shunned from society. There's still many parts of the world that treat non-believers like that. I wouldn't recommend coming out as an atheist in rural Kentucky or Mississippi, you'd have a hard time finding friends or employment after doing that.

I live in the deep south and have known many atheists and agnostics, in fact I used be an agnostic, with well paid jobs. There are very few Western Christian influenced nations that treat atheists badly. In fact, many of them in Europe have been taken over by atheists and agnostics.


ed: No, the bible teaches from a legal perspective that all innocent humans have the right to life, but guilty criminals especially murderers forfeit that right. From a spiritual perspective, all humans deserve death. So when God decides that your time on earth is up, He will take you. He has that perogative as Judge of the Universe.

de: So, your religion intrinsically value human life so much that it thinks that all humans deserve to die.... interesting....
Yes, but that is God's prerogative no human government is allowed to take human life except for murder and self defense or defense of others being killed.

 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.