For the sake of argument, let's say God exists

[Inan3]

Nice strawman -- but Norbert already lowered the bar with a courtroom analogy. And in court, you can only testify to things you've actually witnessed.



For example?

Well, lets see Moses, Joshua, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Joel, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul... just for a few. Now I realize that Moses wasn't there in Genesis but he most certainly was there for Exodus, Levitcus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. He also, had face to face visitations from God Himself, who declared to him what happened when HE was there.

 

[Hespera]

Name one eyewitness.

As for science books, throw out whatever you want. Science makes no spiritual or supernatural claims. Science eventually converges on the most likely conclusion. The problem with religion, OTOH, is it's divergent nature. That's a problem.

As for your choice of Christianity, I'd posit that it has more to do with where you were born, than your actual consideration of it's claims. That is to say, if you had been been born in Iran, you would be wearing a burka right now.

that is where luck comes into it.

me, i got lucky and was born into an a-religious family.

 

[Tomatoman]

Well, lets see Moses, Joshua, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Joel, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul... just for a few. Now I realize that Moses wasn't there in Genesis but he most certainly was there for Exodus, Levitcus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. He also, had face to face visitations from God Himself, who declared to him what happened when HE was there.

How did Moses write about his own funeral?

And, no, none of the gospels authors witnessed what they wrote about. (Actually, even the names we have for the gospel authors are highly debatable.)

I don't think you've looked into this subject very much.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Well, lets see Moses, Joshua, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Joel, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul... just for a few. Now I realize that Moses wasn't there in Genesis but he most certainly was there for Exodus, Levitcus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. He also, had face to face visitations from God Himself, who declared to him what happened when HE was there.

Are you claiming we have the autographs of the poeple you listed?

 

[Inan3]

Here are some more 'eyewitnesses"

Well at least they have their witnesses, we were talking about what would be acceptable in a court of law so I guess they would qualify. Too bad others wouldn't!!!

"Over two thousand years ago, Gautama Buddha reached a spiritual enlightenment, or bodhi, and began teaching others of his time the fundamentals by which to do the same. Originally, his teachings were passed on orally, as was traditional of the times, and in this manner spread throughout the Indian subcontinent and parts of Asia.

Over time, the teachings were written down, but as over four hundred years had passed since Gautama Buddha’s death, it is unclear how strong the connection is between the written Pali Canon and his original teachings. Regardless, the Pali Canon is still often called the Word of Buddha, but this is obviously not in the literal sense as the Canon also contains works from more modern disciples."

Pali Canon

It seems to be acceptable to Buddhists though.

 

[Inan3]

Are you claiming we have the autographs of the poeple you listed?

Well, let me ask this first are you claiming you have the autographs of those who write your science books?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Well at least they have their witnesses, we were talking about what would be acceptable in a court of law so I guess they would qualify. Too bad others wouldn't!!!

"Over two thousand years ago, Gautama Buddha reached a spiritual enlightenment, or bodhi, and began teaching others of his time the fundamentals by which to do the same. Originally, his teachings were passed on orally, as was traditional of the times, and in this manner spread throughout the Indian subcontinent and parts of Asia.

Over time, the teachings were written down, but as over four hundred years had passed since Gautama Buddha’s death, it is unclear how strong the connection is between the written Pali Canon and his original teachings. Regardless, the Pali Canon is still often called the Word of Buddha, but this is obviously not in the literal sense as the Canon also contains works from more modern disciples."

Pali Canon

It seems to be acceptable to Buddhists though.

Nope. Not acceptable. Are you starting to get it?

 

[super animator]

So you think the world's 1.5 billion muslims have all just been too silly to make the right choice?

If you can't see that your beliefs are an accident of where you were born then you are being more than a little blinkered.

Accident? An environmental/genetically product is an Accident?

 

[Hespera]

Well at least they have their witnesses, we were talking about what would be acceptable in a court of law so I guess they would qualify. Too bad others wouldn't!!!

"Over two thousand years ago, Gautama Buddha reached a spiritual enlightenment, or bodhi, and began teaching others of his time the fundamentals by which to do the same. Originally, his teachings were passed on orally, as was traditional of the times, and in this manner spread throughout the Indian subcontinent and parts of Asia.

Over time, the teachings were written down, but as over four hundred years had passed since Gautama Buddha’s death, it is unclear how strong the connection is between the written Pali Canon and his original teachings. Regardless, the Pali Canon is still often called the Word of Buddha, but this is obviously not in the literal sense as the Canon also contains works from more modern disciples."

Pali Canon

It seems to be acceptable to Buddhists though.

so you consider the witnesses to j smith and his "gold books" to be more valid than the witnesses to your 'blble"?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Well, let me ask this first are you claiming you have the autographs of those who write your science books?

Yes.

 

[Hespera]

Does anyone really think the One True God /Faith would lead people away form understanding the physical reality of their world?

That is what the god of he creationists does for them.

 

[Tomatoman]

Accident? An environmental/genetically product is an Accident?

If not an accident of birth, what would you call it?

 

[super animator]

If not an accident of birth, what would you call it?

Any thing but the word, accident, that is all I can say. The word "random" perhaps?

 

[Inan3]

How did Moses write about his own funeral?

And, no, none of the gospels authors witnessed what they wrote about. (Actually, even the names we have for the gospel authors are highly debatable.)

I don't think you've looked into this subject very much.

Matthew was a apostle of the Lord. Mark was Peter's son. John laid his head upon Jesus as the last supper. I stand corrected about Luke he was not an eyewitness. Often times, there were scribes who wrote for those who were the leaders. This is the case with Moses and after his death the scribes wrote in the details. It was probably Joshua or Aaron or one of the Levites who did the actual writing. All of these closely followed Moses but they were also eyewitnesses of most of the things Moses saw.

 

[Doveaman]

More to the point God needs evil -- without it, people won't shut off their brains and rush to Him in desperation.

Ya know, you might be ignorantly on to something here.

"I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." - Isa 45:7.

Without evil and people rushing to God in desperation our brains will just burn out from the stresses of life.

Thank God for evil.

 

[Tomatoman]

Any thing but the word, accident, that is all I can say. The word "random" perhaps?

OK, random then. I think we're basically making the same point.

 

[Inan3]

so you consider the witnesses to j smith and his "gold books" to be more valid than the witnesses to your 'blble"?

No, because as I have said the authors of the Bible were actual eyewitnesses. They were even more valid then those of JS because they actually saw the events they wrote about and JS witnesses only witnessed to JS's witness (which really isn't a witness but would probably hold up in court) but I do think their witness to be more valid then that of Gautama Buddha.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Matthew was a apostle of the Lord. Mark was Peter's son. John laid his head upon Jesus as the last supper. I stand corrected about Luke he was not an eyewitness. Often times, there were scribes who wrote for those who were the leaders. This is the case with Moses and after his death the scribes wrote in the details. It was probably Joshua or Aaron or one of the Levites who did the actual writing. All of these closely followed Moses but they were also eyewitnesses of most of the things Moses saw.

Pauls six letters were written before the gospels. There is no evidence that Paul ever met the man Jesus. The Gospel According to Mark was written first, about fifty years after the death of Jesus. Matthew and Luke were written next and borrowed heavily from Mark, as well as each other. John's theme is entirely different from the first three. All four were written in Greek, a language which Jesus' disciples, even if they had been literate, would not have known how to speak or write. There are no existing autographs, only copies, and all are pseudepigraphs.

 

[Tomatoman]

Matthew was a apostle of the Lord. Mark was Peter's son. John laid his head upon Jesus as the last supper. I stand corrected about Luke he was not an eyewitness. Often times, there were scribes who wrote for those who were the leaders. This is the case with Moses and after his death the scribes wrote in the details. It was probably Joshua or Aaron or one of the Levites who did the actual writing. All of these closely followed Moses but they were also eyewitnesses of most of the things Moses saw.

I think you might need to do a little more research. But it's nice to see the first chinks of doubt about the veracity of authorship creeping in. And given that those chinks come from hardcore christian websites you can imagine what more objective research will do. But you've made the first step towards a more critical approach to the bible, which is the main thing. (You're in for quite a few surprises... edit:and it looks like californiasun has started springing some of those surprises)

 

[CaliforniaSun]

I think you might need to do a little more research. But it's nice to see the first chinks of doubt about the veracity of authorship creeping in. And given that those chinks come from hardcore christian websites you can imagine what more objective research will do. But you've made the first step towards a more critical approach to the bible, which is the main thing. (You're in for quite a few surprises... edit:and it looks like californiasun has started springing some of those surprises)

As they say regarding seminary, 'no one comes through with their faith intact.'