Lines of Evidence

[PsychoSarah]

Here is one that is argued.

Polystrate fossils: evidence for a young earth - creation.com

Biased source

 

[bhsmte]

Most of the atheists on here have read the bible. John is considered to be one of the most flawed biblical texts in the NT.

Indeed.

Being the last anonymous gospel penned and it's entirely different writing style. The fact that it is likely stories were added to John, that were no where to be found in the oldest copies of John and the fact that John is the only gospel that mentions Jesus was divine, all while the earlier gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke miss this vital point, give significant pause to many NT scholars and historians.

 

[JacksBratt]

Far be it for me to claim that the Bible is inaccurate about all the things it mentions. I readily accept that the Bible does describe events and people who really existed.

But that doesn't mean it is accurate. The TV show MASH correctly states that there was a Korean War, yet we'd hardly consider it to be a valid source for it.

Nobody uses the show Mash as a refernce source. It is common knowledge that it was written for entertainment.

It's not like using the work of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle for reference. You would never compare them to Mash.

 

[bhsmte]

Do note that belief isn't influenced enough by what a person wants or would be happy believing to be a determining factor by itself. Case in point, myself: being an atheist sucks for me mentally, but despite 6 years of seeking belief, I have yet to attain it.

Sarah,

How you describe yourself would go against the normal pattern of; psychology of belief and the role personal psychological needs plays in how we form our beliefs.

 

[JacksBratt]

Someone has been telling you lies to keep you believing, very much like they do when they regularly find Noah's ark only for you to find out they haven't acctually found anything, you want to believe so they keep telling you lies to reinforce those beliefs, you are a victim of your beliefs, one day hopefully you will see it all for what it really is and come to your senses, you will be afraid for a while but in the end you will feel better for it.
Then they will tell you that you weren't a real Christian after all. We all live in hope for you.

Exactly what is this "hope" you have for me? Why are you concerned for me, a Christian?

I can be concerned for other people because I believe that their eternal life is at stake. I can be concerned about what is going to happen to them the millisecond after their eyes close.

Imagine if something was so real to you that you want to make sure everyone you love or are associated to are aware of it. How you would feel if they died and are suddenly aware that you knew and didn't care to convince them.

I have a purpose behind my argument and teaching or "preaching"..

But....you, what are you afraid of for me? If your right, what then of my yammering on here or anywhere. It's all for not and is of no loss to me or you.

However, if I am right, then, I am justifiably concerned for others. As your time on earth is but a spark in the campfire compared to the place you will dwell after your heart stops.

As for Noah's arch. I don't believe it will be found until it is too late for people of you to accept the truth by faith. You don't have forever. When it is found, if you or I is alive to see it. What would you actually do anyway. Deny it, explain it away?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Exactly what is this "hope" you have for me? Why are you concerned for me, a Christian?

I can be concerned for other people because I believe that their eternal life is at stake. I can be concerned about what is going to happen to them the millisecond after their eyes close.

Imagine if something was so real to you that you want to make sure everyone you love or are associated to are aware of it. How you would feel if they died and are suddenly aware that you knew and didn't care to convince them.

I have a purpose behind my argument and teaching or "preaching"..

But....you, what are you afraid of for me? If your right, what then of my yammering on here or anywhere. It's all for not and is of no loss to me or you.

However, if I am right, then, I am justifiably concerned for others. As your time on earth is but a spark in the campfire compared to the place you will dwell after your heart stops.

Fair enough point, the only time I am concerned about the religions of others is when it drives them to harm others in some way, mentally or physically. If there weren't people who did that in the name of religion, logically most atheists wouldn't care about religion very much at all.

 

[JacksBratt]

So then, if any baby , not having reached the age of reason, were to be killed, that would be a good thing!

I'm surprised at this response. Murder is never a good thing. It may be that the child or child like person is in a better place but to say this justifies killing them.....where did a person like yourself ever come up with that kind of reasoning?

This would border on insane

 

[JacksBratt]

I doubt it it was ever conceived that way. It's many different things, to many different people. It's got a ton of different sorts of literature in it, and it's far from any sort of systematized theology -- though there is some sort of correlation between the two testaments.

Are you aware of the parallels of the events in the OT and the NT. The entire passover feast is a parallel to Christ. Jonah in the belly of the fish for three days, Noah's ark saves those who believe to Christ saving those who believe, Abraham left his home country while Christ left His home in heaven, Issac carried the wood for his own sacrifice as Christ carried His cross.


“The Old [Testament] is in the New revealed and the New is in the Old concealed.” –Augustine

 

[JacksBratt]

Seems a good pro-abortion argument.

So, as one person already stated, murder is OK if the person is going to go to heaven?

Realy? That is insane. You can read my response to that poster.


Funny, since that is exactly what "the fall" is.[/quote]


At the fall, Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge of good and evil but they did know right from wrong. This is obvious in Eve's conversation with Satan. She knows the to dissobey is wrong and has a concequence.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm surprised at this response. Murder is never a good thing. It may be that the child or child like person is in a better place but to say this justifies killing them.....where did a person like yourself ever come up with that kind of reasoning?

The Bible, of course -- why else would God command, condone, and/or commit the wholesale slaughter of Israel's enemies, down to the women and children?

This would border on insane

No argument there.

 

[JacksBratt]

And what of those who were never exposed to any biblical teachings before they died, regardless of age?

As we all know, humans are moral or strive for a common good. We all know that killing, steeling, hurting someone else is wrong.

I have asked how, in the TEO this came about, love, honor, simpathy....

All of these are blue printed on our heart by God. We, from a young age, know right from wrong and expect punishment for doing wrong. Hense our legal system.

Even those who never new the Bible existed will be judged by how they accepted this instintive knowledge. Nobody will have an excuse based on what they were told, taught, saw, and learned and how they applied it.

Basically, God imprinted us with the knoweldge of right and wrong, the desire for consequence and the universe full of awesomeness to lead all nations and tribes and cultures to understand that there must be something or someone bigger than us that we must, some day answer to.

Romans 1: 18 to 20
God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.


Check this out:

What of Those Who Never Heard?

 

[EternalDragon]

Most of the atheists on here have read the bible. John is considered to be one of the most flawed biblical texts in the NT.

Flawed? I have not heard that one before but I have seen many attacks
on so called errors or double talk in the bible which are cleared up easily.

One does not simply read the bible.

 

[JacksBratt]

Biased source

There ya go right there. "Biased source".

So, Sarah, what is your source? Should I, then, state that it is biased due to it having a TOE foundation?

Someone asked for evidence used by both camps, I provided it, it gets slammed because it comes from a site that follows the YE belief.... WOW go figure.

Google Polystrate fossils for yourself. I bet,,, just a hunch, but I bet sources stating that these upright trees that exist in huge layers of strata, are evidence for a flood.... they will be Young Earth sites...

All that state that they are proof of some evolution event..... They will be TOE sites...

Just a hunch.. SO you say my site is biased...... I could say yours is too.

 

[JacksBratt]

Fair enough point, the only time I am concerned about the religions of others is when it drives them to harm others in some way, mentally or physically. If there weren't people who did that in the name of religion, logically most atheists wouldn't care about religion very much at all.

You know what, you are right. Nobody should harm, harrass, bully, in any way, in order to convince someone of their own beliefs.

It never works.

 

[EternalDragon]

There ya go right there. "Biased source".

So, Sarah, what is your source? Should I, then, state that it is biased due to it having a TOE foundation?

Someone asked for evidence used by both camps, I provided it, it gets slammed because it comes from a site that follows the YE belief.... WOW go figure.

Google Polystrate fossils for yourself. I bet,,, just a hunch, but I bet sources stating that these upright trees that exist in huge layers of strata, are evidence for a flood.... they will be Young Earth sites...

All that state that they are proof of some evolution event..... They will be TOE sites...

Just a hunch.. SO you say my site is biased...... I could say yours is too.

You are correct. Both are biased towards a presupposition or starting
point. Everything needs a starting point. For the evolutionist it is a
naturalistic processes. For the creationist it is an intelligent designer
process.

We all have the same evidence to work with.

 

[RickG]

Google Polystrate fossils for yourself. I bet,,, just a hunch, but I bet sources stating that these upright trees that exist in huge layers of strata, are evidence for a flood.... they will be Young Earth sites...

All that state that they are proof of some evolution event..... They will be TOE sites....

Yes, reference toPolystrate fossils are exclusive to creationist sites because "polystrate fossile" is a creationist term, not a geology term. The correct geology term is "in situ" fossil. Furthermore, in situ fossils have nothing to do with evolution one way or the other.

 

[Gracchus]

I wouldn't accept advice from someone who thinks that the word someone is a valid antecedent for the personal pronoun they.

It is common usage for "they" to refer to a single person of unknown gender.

 

[RickG]

No it isn't, it's a theory. A fact is something entirely different.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, it is both a fact and a theory.

Source: (Evolution Resources from the National Academies)

Follow the link provided and read the particulars for yourself.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Most of the atheists on here have read the bible. John is considered to be one of the most flawed biblical texts in the NT.

I'm sure they have, but have they ever studied it? Oh really, in what way is it flawed?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Not sure how the anonymous gospel that was later given the title of John, has to do with how personal psychological needs develop in people.

Certainly, one's personal psychological needs, could have great impact on how one interprets and perceives the gospel of John.

I thought you might have responded to the first part of my reply. There's so much more to be gleaned from reading sacred texts -- but it really depends on how much time and effort, one is willing to invest in such an activity. Sure a casual read, followed by a commentary or two -- might be useful. Yet, there is so much more to these texts, which the first read or two seldom gets.
I noticed the dig at the point about Jesus' deity (I don't think it was you) -- but one has to get past the first few sentences of any book (certainly a sacred text), before one can make such strong judgment calls about it.
I thought you were interested in the psychological profile of Jesus, as per this text -- or perhaps those of certain of the characters he engages. No?