Philosoft

No one claims that Columbus created America, or that Cleopatra rose from the dead.

Magus55

What difference does that make? History books claim Columbus discovered America, and Cleopatra ruled Egypt. Now if the historical accounts of them are acceptable, why isn't the Bible? The Apostles saw Jesus perform miracles - just because miracles can't be explained by science, doesn't mean they aren't real. The majority of the world believes in them, but i guess atheists are the only non-delusional ones? I still have no clue how you can possibly rationalize that the Bible is a fairy tale fabrication by a bunch of fisherman - dwarfing all other literary works for thousands of years. Shakespear couldn't write the Bible, let alone dozens of authors, most uneducated, over a few thousand year time span that all write in harmony with each other? As its been said before, it takes alot more faith to not believe in God and the Bible, than it does to believe in him.

Wyz_sub10

For a few reasons. We do not base the history of columbus or cleopatra on books alone. Yes, first-hand accounts are used, but we rely on physical events and corroborative accounts, as well.

The physical evidence contradicts the exodus or Noah's Ark. Neither physical evidence, nor first-hand accounts can be applied to the resurrection.

The term "miracles" is misleading, but I don't want to get into miracles simply because they are irrelevant to the discussion. *What* the disciples saw is not the issue. We are speaking of the evidence for Jesus vs. that for Cleopatra.

I know atheists who delude themselves on many subjects. That's not the issue here.

The majority of the world does not believe that Jesus Christ is Lord. What say you to that? Does that make it true because the majority believes it to be?

I doubt you think so, so do yourself a favour and do not introduce arguments that will turn on you. If you want to use that line of reasoning, apply it to yourself.

The world is well over 6 thousands years old.
Adam and Eve did not happen.
Man descended from a long line of ancestors.
There was never a global flood.
There was no mass exodus from Egypt.
The Canaanites were never conquered by the Israelites.
(The Israelites, in fact, were Canaanites.)
The city of Jericho did not have walls (let alone ones that fell).

And the list goes on and on and on...

It's mythology, fiction. Not only does the physical evidence for the above lack, but the evidence that does exist (in abundence) contradicts these events.

You have to be kidding. There is *nothing* harmonious about the writting style of the bible. That's why you hear about the 'P' books or the 'J' books - because they are so absolutely different in styles (and that's only the old testament).

BTW - one need not be educated to create fiction.

You've said lots of things before, most as ridiculous as this comment. There is no faith required not to believe. In light of overwhelming evidence, it requires stubborness to reject a conclusion so obvious that believing otherwise would be irrational.

But the existence of god does not fall into this category. The physical and corroborating evidence for most of the OT (and definitely all of the principal events) is completely lacking.

I'll wager you have never looked into this, nor will you regardless of the time you spend defending this idea here.

Doug

Regarding God's wonderful, infinite love:

Don't forget that God still loves all the souls he has banished to an eternity of indescribable pain and suffering, simply for not making a choice to believe in words written in a book.

keyser_soze

Actually, we have the european vikings settling america 300 years before columbus, and columbus really discovered some islands OFF of america. So, we have two of the more interesting practices of viewing history. One, history books are fallible, we know it, and we will accept new information if it contradicts the old(show me a christian willing to do that),

and second..well, it's already been gone into by another poster...but really, what miraculous events are columbus and cleopatra supposed to have invoked? And if there were miraculous events associate with them, do you really think we would believe them without evidence?

You seriously need to stop throwing the "julius caeser's and columbus's" fallacious arguments out there, we trash them every time, and you'd think you would get the hint. Here it is boiled down for you, so you can keep it for reference: The mention of a person, place, or thing, in a history book is not necessarily grounds for anyone's belief in said thing. The more inplausible the thing, the MORE evidence needed to believe it. To whit, I would add this also: In light of evidence that contradicts a previously held belief, you CANNOT just stick your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes tightly, and shout to yourself "NANANANANANAN" in the vain hope that when you open your eyes, it will be less true!

Magus55

/shrug, You want nothing to do with God except mock him, thats your fate - deal with it.

Doug

My post was merely illustrating the ridiculousness of the concept of "love" being behind the idea of unbearable punishment and torture as believed by many Christians. I guess you could say I'm mocking belief in such an idea, though it's not possible for me to mock some entity that I do not believe exists.

Philosoft

Not only that Magus, but you have the documented meetings of religious elders, called specifically to interpret the dilemma of Christ's deity amongst the mishmash of the early Gospels. And they still managed to elect Gospels that are externally inconsistent, in addition to indoctrinating perhaps the most bizarre and unfathomable Christian concept: the Trinity.

diana

Two things here, Magus:

1. This is a higher forum. You are expected to remain on subject and not say stuff like "*shrug*...you just want to mock God." The sarcastic comments you're encountering are, I'll warrant, a product of frustration with your failure to provide any substance behind your claims. Keep it on subject and address the rebuttals.

2. They aren't mocking God. They're mocking you.

d

winstonjen

Another problem with these punishments is that the people who did not commit the acts get punished as well. What possible purpose can that serve? Perhaps "Do bad things so that you can laugh at others who suffer"? Or "God is too lazy to punish only the guilty so he decides to have a sweeping revenge on everyone"? :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: