Login/Sign Up




Is Christianity a lie in disguise?
Religion

superfrog
Apr 12, 2009
19 votes
25 debaters
24
11
3
3
2
1
1
1


+ Add Argument

11
Agree


xoangieexo
Apr 12, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: undeniabledilemma Show

I agree with andre2552 about the spelling errors.
Your English isn't perfect either. Examples:
"The problem of Evil in the world is a great philosophical debate in it's own right."
It's supposed to be "its."
"If someone has taught you this, they would be a false teacher."
"Someone" is not plural, so you'd have to use "he or she" instead of "they."

Superfrog, I'm sorry about your sister. :(

Anyways, you ask for evidence why the Bible is riddled with lies, myths, legends, etc.

There is ample evidence in the Bible itself.

Let's start with contradictions.

God said he would provide. Hmm... yet people still starve to death. What's more is that HE created famines and floods (the plagues).

"He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits [15] from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits [16] to measure around it. 24 Below the rim, gourds encircled it-ten to a cubit." 1 Kings 7:23

Above is impossible math.

God sins. Christians deny it but evidence is in their favorite book.
One example is the 10th plague. God sent the angel of death to kill the Egyptian first born sons. How nice of him! Obviously they are not Christian and will be sent to hell assuming Christianity is the right religion.

Heaven, according to Christians, is a place of complete bliss and delight and peace. Could you be completely blissful if you knew that your husband, wife, mother, father, son, or daughter is burning in hell? Could you be at peace if you knew that billions of people are there with them as well?

Eh... well I have to go. If I remember I'll say more. :)

 
superfrog
Apr 13, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Creation hmm it is said that god created the world in 6 days a little over 2000 years ago sorry to say but that is complete b.s if so then how are there stars that with science is proven to have been around for over 100thousand years ah thats not even the point of the matter you need to think out of the little brain washed box you were grown up in the universe is a unimaginably big place there are over 10 trillion stars in our galaxy there are over 30 trillion galaxies in the universe and still expanding there are life on other planets its not impossible its very possible and sure as hell they are going to have a religion also and i sure as hell no its not going to be about some nonsense Jesus and god use your heads and STOP with the Rationalizations and you dare to insult my punctuation and spelling eh dude were not in a English class we talk about religion and u head right for my spelling and punctuation that's really something and u know the funny part if u were grown up in a Muslim family you sure as hell wouldn't be christian right now or have a thought that Christianity is truthful no one has proof that any religion is true its all about faith well guess what 2000 years later and wheres your god? is the world in peace i don't think so innocent children in Zimbabwe dieing of starvation everyday were is your god? millions suffering from things created from your god supposedly cancer aids herpes lupus tumors leprosy all these deadly viruses and diseases created by your god and he is suppose to be peaceful and loving? as i said Christianity was made to explain things people at that time couldn't uneducated people but guess what now we don't need such foolish religions same concept with a simple story your parents used to tell u when u asked were babies come from yeah u accept the stork story but when your older u realize hey that actually does not make any sence at all but it seems your all stuck in your primitive brain washed from birth minds and go ahead insult my punctuation and grammar i know my sentences aren't perfect and i know yours is no better

 
brazza
Apr 16, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: undeniabledilemma Show

I'm sorry ... this is a patent example of what I was saying - using Christian belief as proof is simply irrelevant. Don't you see that this Christian teaching (as is the case with many) is totally illogical and meaningless in the realm of reason? To say that guilt and shame were removed at the cross is mumbo jumbo nonsense, and if you can't see that you really need to look at the degree of brainwashing you are operating within. Instead of focusing on responding .. focus on thinking with integrity. I believe God will appreciate it ... :-)

This will be my last post. God bless!

 
andre2552
Apr 12, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: undeniabledilemma Show

Bit stupid to pick on his/her spelling, in which little mistakes can be found. He/she is the educated one being the one who has the mind to be able to question things. It is also true that people did not have any other way to explain things. (Uneducated of the truth in that time).

Yes, much of the Bible is lies, especially things proved untrue by science.
The rest is just faith based.

Also, it was a bad analogy to suggest a car maker, as in Christianity God is supposed to be all powerful, therefore being able to control his own creation (unlike a car maker).

Christianity does teach lies, not all that dissimilar from many other religions. My suggestion to you superfrog is that you think about life and philosophical issues in your own way. I won't impose any other of my own philosophies upon your story.

 
verya
Apr 12, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Well Superfrog I agree that the Bible should not be taken as true.

But everyone's spiritual experience is different. Just because you pray for something doesn't mean it will happen.

Your religion should come from YOU, and no one else. You choose what to believe based on your own experiences. If Christianity lied to you, then pick a different belief. However, just because it didn't work out for you doesn't mean it won't work for anyone. I myself am not a Christian, but some people would not take kindly to calling their faith a lie.

(Prepare yourself for the possibility of denver seeing this topic. He'll probably flame you.)

 
xoangieexo
Apr 14, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: undeniabledilemma Show

LOL I got an email about a rebuttal. It must have been yesterday because I looked all over and only found the one I replied to. Hm... did you forget to rebuttal my new argument? In the meantime, I will rebuttal one of yours.

Undeniabledilemma, I am not insulting you or attacking you (your words), but you are extremely condescending (remember? It's the truth, like "calling a spade a spade")... without much reason. I am in 8th grade. My IQ allows me to be accepted into Mensa but my parents never allowed me (this was a while ago however). = Congratulations on your SAT perfect score! However there are many students just like you nationwide that can brag about that too. Many of them aren't accepted into the colleges they want. BTW, what college are you going to? I think: either you forgot to tell us, or you don't want to tell us. ;)

I don't believe your English level is directly proportional to your education. While instant messaging, I use improper punctuation and capitalization, and abbreviations. However, in English class or here, I use proper English. Does that mean I am more educated in English class than while IMing? Do I simply forget everything I've learned while signing on to facebook and remember magically when I enter English class? That's ridiculous! Hey, you have a philosophy minor... why not think a little before you say:
"If we were to take a test however my English would be college level graduate and yours appears to be approximately 8th grade level."

"If you have read a lot then the only possible explanation would be that you have a learning disability."
If so, why the hell did the Christian God of love, peace, and light allow this kid to have to suffer? I strongly disagree with your statement. I think my previous paragraph says it all.

"It is obvious listening to you speak that you have never heard anyone explain the Christian or Muslim faith to you. You know nothing about them."

Again, incredibly patronizing... Superfrog knows plenty about them... give some evidence Undeniabledilemma.
Your entire paragraph was focused on his mistake of 2000 instead of 6000. Was there really a need to exaggerate one character of a mistake to address your point?
"It depends on some interpretive analysis of the Hebrew Torah."
I don't know much about the sentence above but from my understanding... the Hebrew Torah is part of Judaism... which is different from CHRISTIANITY. I apologize in advance if there was something I didn't know and my argument is invalid. If however my argument was valid, this just proves Superfrog's point except change the 2 to a 6. :)

"My God never claimed there would be peace in 2000 years. In fact just the opposite. The bible and Yeshua both predict massive famines and wars amongst other things."

Three words: God will provide.
Did you see my other argument? The one you haven't replied to that is.

Uh... "zero knowledge about what Christianity claims to be true." Exaggeration? For example (one of the many examples): He or she said that the Christian God was said to be all loving and peaceful. Are you going to argue that he indeed has no knowledge about Christianity? Because if you do, you prove the opposite side's whole argument. Heh...
Aside from that, why did God allow Satan to create those diseases? He's much more powerful than Satan after all...
Your answer: "This is not God's domain."
What ever happened to "God is omnipresent?" Did you decide to alter the Bible to fit your argument? Sorry, debate doesn't work that way.

About your last paragraph: Superfrog may have made some factual errors in his or her arguments but you are implying he is falsifying the information on purpose! To err is only human.

Also this just got me to some new arguments:

Why did Jesus have to come at the time he did? What about the people living BEFORE he came? Was it their fault they were born before and were never forgiven?
What makes Israel so special? Jesus obviously only decided to visit there. The rest of the world was left to Christian missionaries. I'd have to say, a large large portion of the Earth feels left out. :(

I remember somewhere in the Bible, it said that if someone never knew about Christianity, they would be forgiven and would go to heaven. I may be wrong though... anyways, my point is: Missionaries should stop what they are doing! Only some will actually become Christians and the rest go to hell! If you stop though, hey they all get to go to heaven! YAY! Now that leads us to here: the Bible says to spread the Christian teaching but uh oh more people will go to hell. D: Hell is a sinning of God. Christians deny the blatant truth (see other argument for proof).

God doesn't listen to sinners (John 9:31)
Hey remember we are all sinners... doesn't the Bible tell us to pray? Obviously: PRAYING IS A WASTE OF TIME!
Contradictions to John 9:31:
God listens to Satan in Job 1:10-12
God listens to Cain in Gen 4:14-15

Why if God simply created Adam and Eve, do we have races?

And I don't remember where, but there were many parts of the Bible that talk about how proud God is.
Romans 1:18-32 talks about God's wrath.
Deadly sins! D:

Eh.. I have a lot more but I don't have time.

In conclusion, the Bible is full of lies in disguises because it speaks of love, peace, and happiness but really it is controlling (you must believe in this!), brutal (doctrine of hell), and contradicting. Christianity is a great example of how hard it is to make up a religion and actually have it WORK. Nice try :)

 
brazza
Apr 15, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: undeniabledilemma Show

Sir:

Your arguments are circular and therefore meaningless within the context of a formal debate. In other words you can't use subjective experience (yours) as proof for a point of view, as this is patently biased. Secondly you can't argue that you have no beliefs when your rebuttals are mere repetitions of further Christian tenets. Briefly:

Christianity promises eternal life. Since eternal life is totally unproven its promise requires adherence to an illogical belief. Christianity promotes itself by establishing fear of a negative outcome, namely hell, and promising safety to a more pleasant outcome (heaven) in exchange for adherence. And don't argue to the contrary because you would perjure yourself!

Christianity uses the emotions of guilt (I am not talking of 'guilt' as a legal status) and shame to control believers into Christian-approved behaviour.

The priesthood in traditional and recognized Christian sects (and I'm not talking about baptist and offshoots - Americans invent a new religion as readily as Coca Cola releases a new product brand!) are the only ones authorized to provide the 'sacraments', where a sacrament (for instance baptism) is a required rite to connect the soul with God. Therefore the priesthood is the only approved intermediator between God and believer.

Faith is by definition belief in non-proven tenets. If they were proven you would not need faith to accept them! Christianity makes no bones about it - it demands blind belief in what it labels 'faith', as best evidenced by one of its foundational prayers: the Credo, promulgated in its last version by Pope Paul VI on June 30, 1968.

Canonical vs. non-canonical gospels. I don't have time to create a bibliography of required reading, suffice it to say that The Roman empire saught a unifying religious belief system to assist in controlling and unifying its very large and disparate territories. Emperor Constantine selected Christianity as the official religion and used it to back up the birth of the "Holy Roman Empire". The emperor would henceforth (he hoped) control and enjoy both temporal and divine blessing. But of course he needed to mold Jesus' message to fit his needs - therefore it suppressed those gospels that did not assist its objectives. Many of these were the gnostic gospels. Others were epistles. Athenasius in 367AD wrote the final list of the 27 books that to this day make up the Bible. All other works are categorized as New Testament apocrypha - indicative of the wide range of responses that were engendered in the interpretation of the message of Jesus. During the first several centuries of the transmission of that message, considerable debate turned on safeguarding its authenticity. Athenasius used three key methods for defining what would henceforth be 'approved' theology: ordination, where groups authorize individuals as reliable teachers of the message; creeds, where groups define the boundaries of interpretation of the message; and canons, which list the primary documents certain groups believe contain the message originally taught by Jesus (in other words, the Bible). Many early books about Jesus were not included in the canons, and are now termed apocryphal. Some of them were vigorously suppressed and survive only as fragments. The works that presented themselves as "authentic" but did not obtain general acceptance from within the churches are called New Testament Apocrypha. These are not accepted as canonical by most mainstream Christian denominations; only the Ethiopian Orthodox Church recognizes the Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, Acts of Paul, and several Old Testament books that most other denominations reject, but it should be noted that this church does not adhere to an explicit canon. The Syriac Pesh*tta, used by all the various Syrian Churches, originally did not include 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation (and this canon of 22 books is the one cited by John Chrysostom (~347-407) and Theodoret (393-466) from the School of Antioch [1]). Western Syrians have added the remaining 5 books to their NT canons in modern times [2](such as the Lee Pesh*tta of 1823). Today, the official lectionaries followed by the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church, with headquarters at Kottayam (India), and the Chaldean Syrian Church, also known as the Church of the East (Nestorian), with headquarters at Trichur (India), still present lessons from only the 22 books of the original Pesh*tta. [3] The Armenian Apostolic church at times has included the Third Epistle to the Corinthians, but does not always list it with the other 27 canonical New Testament books. This Church did not accept the Revelation into its Bible until A.D. 1200.[4] The New Testament of the Coptic Bible, adopted by the Egyptian Church, includes the two Epistles of Clement. Books which are objectively known not to have existed in antiquity, such as the medieval Gospel of Barnabas, are usually not considered part of the New Testament Apocrypha. Among these are also the Libellus de Nativitate Sanctae Mariae (also named as the Nativity of Mary) and Latin Infancy Gospel. The latter two did not exist in the antiquity, and seem to be based on the earlier Infancy Gospels.

There are Christians who truly question - but they are very few - and mostly Anglican. Most Christians however only pay lip-service to inquiry, because it is obviously threatening to ... belief. One whom I respect is Anglican priest Pete Owen Jones. Here you will find content he prepared for a BBC documentary on the subject
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L7cQ3BrD5U

 
xoangieexo
Apr 15, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: undeniabledilemma Show

I apologize for my hurried rebuttal. Indeed, I have overlooked the parts around it. However, your argument is very weak. You lengthen it with unnecessary examples and condescending phrases. Your argument may be large in quantity, but it lacks quality.

You have an impressive strategy of hypocrisy. You tell others that they are simply claiming and that by claiming there is no way they can lose! I don't know if you've noticed, but you are guilty of the same thing! Maybe it is a misunderstanding and you have gotten your facts wrong.

It is incredibly funny how I have pointed out these contradictions before and you simply ignored them. Perhaps you are wanting to rebuttal one argument at a time.

"God does not grant the prayers of non-believers nor does He listen to them."

God listens to Satan in Job. (Job 1:7) "The Lord said to Satan, 'Where have you come from?'"
Then he makes a bet with the devil and makes Job suffer. He makes Job suffer so much that Job wished he had never been born! The sections of my Bible were named "Job's First Test," "Job's Second Test."
Happenings in Job: God first listens to a sinner (uh...) and then he tests a man loyal to him?!
He allowed Satan to kill Job's animals and children. Then, he allows Satan to inflict so much pain on the man. At the end, when God wins his bet, he showers Job with money and animals, and gives him a new family. Does that sound right to you? Would a loving God do that?

"What it does prove is that the world is a fallen place. Certainly it is the realm of Satan. You in fact have given evidence of my earlier point."

Remember? God is everywhere.
In Jeremiah 23:24 God declares, "Do I not fill heaven and earth?"
If indeed Satan controls the Earth and God is not there, don't you think the world would be a least a little more chaotic?

 
xoangieexo
Apr 15, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: undeniabledilemma Show

"Yet you continue to launch assaults on my stupidity and i guarantee you will recycle these defeated arguments to use again and again, because you don't care if the arguments are bad, the point for you is to attack."

I attack? You must have been mistaken. What about your attacks about English? I did the same thing, only with mathematics. If you don't consider YOURS an attack, then I don't understand why you would consider MINE an attack.

My arrogance? Interesting... I was not the one listing unnecessary credentials. Did anyone question your intelligence? I may have listed a few English errors in your argument, but that is because you attacked superfrog's English.

"I have successfully answered every question you have posed, and those I have not I'm about to."

Successfully? Do you see the contradictions I have listed before that you included in your argument?

Anyways, enough about personal arguments. I'm sorry if I insulted you, but I felt insulted too.

About the cup, I have read that somewhere I don't remember and regretfully, I didn't do any research on it and took it to be true.
Thank you, I will move on to the other arguments.

 
xoangieexo
Apr 15, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: undeniabledilemma Show

Your response again was very condescending. I apologize in advance if I am a hypocrite and have not noticed that I too was condescending. However, I don't think I am.

You have not answered directly. Instead, you explained how I know nothing about the Bible and only know a few contradictions and verses. That is far from the truth. I have gone to Sunday School and Church for about three years until I realized how cruel the religion was.

I'm sorry if I have added too many arguments for your taste. I will limit them and focus more on these.
"This is now at least the 15th question I have successfully refuted or explained and yet I have not gotten one acknowledgment from you or any singular bit of gratitude from you for the explanation that corrected your false understanding."
Maybe because I do not agree with them... I gave a counter argument against each of them. Do you want me to just give up and say you are right? I'm not doing that because I DON'T think you are right!
"You have made your conclusion that it is lies and contradictory and no amount of evidence or explanation will ever convince you. Is this not correct?"
I think you are implying that I am stubborn. I'd have to disagree. If your arguments were too good (like close to perfection) and backed up by evidence, I'd definitely be convinced! I think you are too confident that your arguments are at that level, that anyone still arguing against you is simply too stubborn.

Gratitude? Were you expecting me to thank you for arguing with me? I have never heard of that... I'm sorry if you were disappointed. I don't recall getting a thank you from anyone.

Enough about that...

"That is a commandment about murder and murder alone. It is not about things such as self defense or capital punishment."

You don't believe killing the Egyptian sons is murder? Is it capital punishment? Tell me what they did wrong. Is it self defense? Did God believe they might grow up and attack the Jews? Then, killing everyone in my way because they MIGHT kill me can be justified!

"The only way to explain why God was justified in killing the Egyptians is for you to understand the back story of who God is, the purpose of creation, and original sin."

You said I don't know anything about the Bible. I'd like to prove you wrong.
God, in Christianity faith, is a perfect trinity, that completely loving, completely just, completely holy, and completely merciful.
The purpose of Creation, a Christian told me, was to have humans love God.
Original sin was when Adam and Eve were tempted and ate the forbidden fruit.

Now, you say God's actions (which I said were sins) can be justified. Why? Because he is God? There is no point in arguing with you then, because "God is always right; whatever he does is right." Contradictions are no match if you claim that your side is right. It would be impossible to win a debate if you are allowed to simply say you are right and the other side is wrong.
I understand the "back story" of God, as you put it. Can you please explain to me why God's sins can be justified? He didn't allow the Egyptians to live their life. Who knows? What if they could turn into Christians and be saved? He put them in hell before they could!
I also read somewhere (I'll look for it later) that the Egyptians did not slave the Jews and instead drove them out because they took up food supplies.

"Give me a fair response to the points I have already answered then. Have you the courage to admit the point was refuted? No. You have not."

LOL... you don't call that arrogance? This is a debate. You can't just say you are right and force the other to admit they were wrong. I don't believe you are right. Also, I have admitted that the pi argument was a misunderstanding (too lazy to do some research and confirm the person who said it was right). Just because you think the point was refuted doesn't mean I think that! Opposite sides in a debate believe they are right and the other is wrong. I think I am right. Have you had the courage to admit the point was refuted? No. YOU have not either.

 
xoangieexo
Apr 15, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: undeniabledilemma Show

That was not an offer. I was busy with some schoolwork, so I was just wondering if you would like me to write them. If you didn't, then of course I wouldn't want to waste my time.

"Sure I will accept your attempts at proof right after you acknowledge that all previous arguments lodged have been defeated. If not please rebut them. After which when you make your attempt to offer proof you should do so in a debate(send me a challenge)."

I don't think they have been defeated, so nope. I am rebutting them. I think I have offered plenty proof. Alright, I will. Or you can send one to me. :)

Hm? I don't understand. When did we have to bring science into this? Most of the arguments here are about morality. Why not argue what we are arguing right now?

 
xoangieexo
Apr 15, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: undeniabledilemma Show

Oh I understand! Just that you've replied to others... I was a little worried.

About the condescension: Pardon my smugness. Just like you said that you were only so much patronizing because of my "smugness," I was only smug because of your "education attacks" on superfrog. Like you said, "They thought Einstein was mentally handicapped."
And fair enough... we'll both be polite and humble.

Thank you for your advice!
I don't understand this: "Similarly I have about 15 years on you in the learning department."
?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

True, you have more experience and I am just beginning debate, but can you say someone is wrong simply by judging their age? If so, I should have said I was 81. ;) DARNIT haha jk. Anyways, I don't see how my arguments are weaker than yours. Could you please offer some explanation? I gave examples of contradictions, but your replies were mostly that they can be justified. Could you please give some proof? Some you have not answered, but I have not read all your answers yet, so you may have answered them all. :)

Ah I see. I'm glad to hear the reason for listing your credentials wasn't to simply brag. I did not have time to read all the arguments of this debate so I had no idea you wanted to prove that you weren't simply raised and had Bible teachings driven into your brain. Without reading them, it seemed again very condescending.

Oh good luck with your schooling! Depression? I'm very sorry. :( Oh yes, I was just wondering. You made a point about education, but now I'm afraid you turned it around. "Bear in mind though that many great minds never attended school." Not having an education doesn't mean a person cannot be a good thinker.

 
xoangieexo
Apr 15, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: undeniabledilemma Show

If you have seen my other debates (lol, you probably haven't), you'd see that I don't use good punctuation and capitalization EVERYWHERE on this site. I, like many others, used proper English on THIS debate primarily because you first gave an argument. That set an invisible rule (but not everyone follows it) because you declared the negatives of improper English. how ever iff wee wanted2 wee cud all talk lik dis. I shouldn't have said this: "However, in English class or here, I use proper English." Convinceme open debates specifically, IMO, do not really require proper English. It would be best to use it, but I think the open debates are pretty casual. You have a good point about the school and lawyer. However, I don't think we've established some sort of etiquette for convinceme open debates. I do believe the competitive debates should judge proper English.

 
xoangieexo
Apr 15, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: undeniabledilemma Show

If you have seen my other debates (lol, you probably haven't), you'd see that I don't use good punctuation and capitalization EVERYWHERE on this site. I, like many others, used proper English on THIS debate primarily because you first gave an argument. That set an invisible rule (but not everyone follows it) because you declared the negatives of improper English. how ever iff wee wanted2 wee cud all talk lik dis. I shouldn't have said this: "However, in English class or here, I use proper English." Convinceme open debates specifically, IMO, do not really require proper English. It would be best to use it, but I think the open debates are pretty casual. You have a good point about the school and lawyer. However, I don't think we've established some sort of etiquette for convinceme open debates. I do believe the competitive debates should judge proper English.

BTW, I think this just a tad off topic. ;)

 
xoangieexo
Apr 15, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: undeniabledilemma Show

1.) Did anyone say it was a typo?
He or she may have just memorized his facts wrong... no big deal. Either way if indeed the the interpretation was not based off the Torah, his or her argument would still be valid, just one character changed.

2.) Wonderful! Yay! Thank you for your explanation and thank you for being warmer! lol that sounds funny.
When you say, "Christianity arises out of Judaism," do you mean that Christians added on to Judaism? If so, I don't believe that's good for the validity of Christianity.

Speaking of adding on, here's something interesting.
Some people believe Jesus was based off Mithra, the Persian God of light. Mithra was before Jesus BTW.
I don't have time to list the similarities but take a look at this site:
http://near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html
Meh I have to go. Last argument YAY! I finished on time!
Bye TTYL

 
brazza
Apr 12, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: undeniabledilemma Show

Using the 'erudition' argument to support blind belief in illogical tenets is like the blind man arguing about the color of the sunset.

Christianity is a particularly vile and manipulative form of mass control.

 
jonjax71
Apr 12, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: undeniabledilemma Show

The parting of the Red sea which has been proven was not the Red Sea at all and it;s parting was a tsunami-like wave as a result of an earthquake or volcanic eruption.

Today-Sunday is another prime example of a lie, the so called resuurection of a dead man on the 3rd day, well, it's only 2 days between Friday and Sunday-if those were the days the mythical event occured.

How about Genesis' acount of creation?, that's a legend to explain things no one could expalin at the time,

How about the story of Noah's Ark and the worldiwde flood?
How about the ages of Biblical chareacters living 6, 7 and 900 years?
How about the Ascension of Jesus?

The very fact that there are several different versions of the Bible that followers argue over which is correct speaks volumes. Knowing the history of the Bible, how it has been edited, altered, books subtracted from it, scriptures changed makes it very unreliable

I can go on and on and on and on and on......

 
xoangieexo
Apr 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: undeniabledilemma Show

"And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer,
believing, ye shall receive."
Matthew 21:22
:)

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find;
knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that
asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him
that knocketh it shall be opened...If ye then, being evil,
know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much
more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things
to them that ask him?"
Matthew 7:7-8, 11

It is saying the diameter of the rim (the edge) is 10 cubits and the circumference is 30 cubits! If you studied at least 5th grade math you should know this is impossible. It changes pi from 3.141592653589... to 3. ;) I think the obvious answer is that the bible writers failed their math tests. :P

Hey... not a bad answer! Celestial policeman... THAT IMPOSES JUSTICE ON THE INNOCENT! He killed the Egyptians' first born sons. What the hell did they do wrong? That's like saying, "hey you raped and murdered a 10-year-old. Now, go home and we'll execute your wife."
Who said that capital punishment was moral?
"Thou shall not kill" (Exodus 20:13) Hypocritical much?

"You must also come to grips that God according to Christians is Absolutely Righteous. That the justice he imposes may not be readily comprehensible to you at your current state of knowledge, but that once other questions you have are answered, ones that come before the idea of God being able to sin you may then understand how the actions of God are not sin when taken from that perspective and understanding."

First sentence: Um... they are wrong? I think I proved why that is. :| LOL there is no possible way to argue with people who say, "God is always right! You'll understand or you won't understand. He doesn't sin!" "...once other questions you have are answered..." most of them have no answers except that blatant answer that the bible should be synonymous with falsehood.

LOL so you think we could still be at bliss even though we know billions of people are spending their eternity in hell? Oh so maybe if I EXPAND MY PERSPECTIVES, maybe God will alter our souls? Make holograms of those people? Tell us lies? Uh oh then he's sinning again... are you saying that heaven is so blissful that we'll forget everything and we won't CARE about hell?

God killed people who looked or touched his ark. I thought God was forgiving...
and that leads me to the doctrine of hell.
I talked to a Christian a few weeks ago. She said that God should be able to punish his people just like a parent punishes their children. Hm... last time I checked, parents don't lock up their children and beat them for the rest of their lives. That was a terrible comparison. Hell is forever. God has to be either fake or cruel.

The Bible is also historically and scientifically inaccurate. Want proof?

 
davidsnowlu
Apr 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: undeniabledilemma Show

Let's start a competitive debate. There are a few items I would love to clarify for you.

 
feefee123
Apr 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: istronglydisagree Show

I am so sorry I do not have your precious proof you so often are asking for but there is proof of evolution. And what are the chances of this great o mighty warrior we like to call God? no, everything can't be explained by science, love for example, but god isnt doing much better at explaining it than we are.

 
feefee123
Apr 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I am not educated on the topic enough to answer this question, but all I can say is you shouldnt be asking idiots on a website, I, myself am probably one of those idiots, but as you can see this is now a debate on something a little bit off topic. I do not believe in god, religion, the bible, and certainly not christianity.

 
unlabled00
Apr 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: istronglydisagree Show

If you're going to try and prove him wrong at least respond in well written English... sloppiness is almost as discrediting as being obscene

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: istronglydisagree Show

Please ignore this person. I have already referenced on a separate posting this is an illegitimate account. The person behind it is clearly an atheist trying to portray Christians as absolutely deficient and ignorant. The spelling errors and grammatical errors are so bad that they could only be forced in an act to undermine the credibility of a worldview that the impostor disdains. This can be proven as whatever religion the person behind the account claims I guarantee I can ask basic questions about the religion and the person will be unable to offer reasonable answers.

 
brazza
Apr 14, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: undeniabledilemma Show

I did not personally 'attack Christianity as a whole', rather it is the subject of the debate: Is Christianity a lie?

My personal view is that yes, it is a particularly insidious lie since it utilizes self-propagating fear (of punishment after life) and guilt (questioning demonstrates a lack of 'faith'), to establish itself as the core of spiritual belief.

It is the Christian belief system itself that is comprised of illogical tenets, ranging from the immaculate conception to the resurrection which have fostered a slew of secondary superstitions. Ultimately, christianity divorces the individual from a personal relationship with the divine, requiring intermediation by a category of priests whose services are required to appease a God perceived as separate from the Self. As such it is a form of government; one that ensures that behavior is controlled and dictated by a social category.

In your readings .. you will be familiar with the suppression of gnosis and the decision in the 4th century AD to suppress some 28 gospels that did not 'fit' Roman political objectives.

 
vancam
Apr 14, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: undeniabledilemma Show

enjoy:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html

 
vancam
Apr 15, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: undeniabledilemma Show

I thought it rather pertinent to both sides of this debate. Obviously you didn't think so. Oh well, nevermind. I will keep on reading with interest.

 
xoangieexo
Apr 15, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: undeniabledilemma Show

Ok please explain why Earth is not God's realm.

 
xoangieexo
Apr 16, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

Dang... then what happens to them? Is it their fault they weren't born in a nice Christian family?

 
xoangieexo
Apr 26, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

Argh, convinceme never gave me a notification of a rebuttal.
I logged on and wondered why this debate was dead...

Well anyways, you use circular reasoning. We are debating whether the Bible is full of lies. Your arguments are all from the Bible. You are assuming the Bible is not full of lies. Therefore, your argument is invalid.

 
xoangieexo
Apr 28, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

Oh I'm sorry, I have forgotten the debate :P

 
alwaysbackstage
Jul 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
suprefrog, i'm sorry to hear about the death of a loved one. It must have hurt you profoundly. I guess the silver lining is that it opened your eyes a bit.

To fully examine Christianity, although there are books and books speaking of innacuracies and paradoxes in the existence of a God itself and the Bible, I will explore the psychological and evolutionary factors that led to the creation of religion.

As you probably know, the condition of a humans morale, their hope, can be imperative in life or death situations, such as those that were experienced on a daily basis by our ancestors in the distant past. With a sentient mind, we were well aware of the horrible pain of starvation, of disease. We lived in such a chaotic world with no tools to understand. Humans need some way to at least justify to themselves why pain and misfortune happens. We pin this on small rituals, such as those you probably performed as a small child, so we can have some feeling of control. Some sort of self assurance that we are totally responsible for our own fates, and that the everyday occurrences of misfortune are not random and uncontrollable. Today, most lead such comfortable and safe lives we do not need this lie of religion. However, it lives on.

 
melonchollylife
Sep 21, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thevenerablerob Show

Of course, using all of these examples, you obviously show that you believe in all of the stories of the bible. That isn't exactly the point.

No, I admit that i cannot explain why these things happened, only because they are (in my opinion) fiction.

Although, I have to admit, you were right at the end when you said that peoples life spans reached further back than, just as the bible said. Glad you did your homework, intellectual disscussions are always funner when people do. If that's because of the pollution and CO2 in the air we breathe, or for any other reason, it doesn't really matter.

But consider that many books are 'historical fiction'. I'm not trying to insult any religions here, I'm really not, but just because the bible was right (and I have read the bible) with some of it's details, the major events ( like your example, splitting the red sea, or Noah's ark, or most of the well known stories) are often scientifically and physically impossible. Even if the details were right (which, i admit, a LOT of them were!) that doesn't neccarily mean the full text was.

Just to clarify, I DO believe in god, or at least that there is a higher being that created us all, but I think that orginized religion is purely superficial for at least 70% of the church-going community.


 
melonchollylife
Sep 21, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thevenerablerob Show

Of course, using all of these examples, you obviously show that you believe in all of the stories of the bible. That isn't exactly the point.

No, I admit that i cannot explain why these things happened, only because they are (in my opinion) fiction.

Although, I have to admit, you were right at the end when you said that peoples life spans reached further back than, just as the bible said. Glad you did your homework, intellectual disscussions are always funner when people do. If that's because of the pollution and CO2 in the air we breathe, or for any other reason, it doesn't really matter.

But consider that many books are 'historical fiction'. I'm not trying to insult any religions here, I'm really not, but just because the bible was right (and I have read the bible) with some of it's details, the major events ( like your example, splitting the red sea, or Noah's ark, or most of the well known stories) are often scientifically and physically impossible. Even if the details were right (which, i admit, a LOT of them were!) that doesn't neccarily mean the full text was.

Just to clarify, I DO believe in god, or at least that there is a higher being that created us all, but I think that orginized religion is purely superficial for at least 70% of the church-going community.


 
ryvius
Sep 21, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jonthebome Show

Well aren't you just a pile of vitriolic drivel. A hasty generalization towards all atheists was far from intelligent. I really, really abhor when I, or anyone else, says this, but I believe you just furthered evidence for the opinion that maybe some atheists believe anyone who doesn't is an unintelligent... and so on.

What you're standing on now is an argument from ignorance, more suitably noticed as an argument from personal conviction.

 
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: undeniabledilemma Show

you want three parts of the bible that have been proven wrong by science? no problem i will point out numerous things about the bible that are scientifically wrong and in some cases flat out lies Lets start from the beginning with the book of genesis. The first sentence of this book is " in the beginning god created heaven and the earth". At the very beginning of the bible we run into something that is scientifically false. It is a scientific fact that the earth was not the first body of mass to be created in our solar system let alone our universe. In fact all the elements that form the earth and everything on it come from stars such our sun through a process known as nucleosynthesis. It also says in the book of genesis god created Eve out of Adams rib. I don't even need to go into detail or example with this one. Anyone who is not mentally ill/incapacitated and has at least a 5th grade education knows that it is physically impossible to reconstruct an entire human from a single human rib. It also claims that john one of Jesus alleged disciples was one of the original writers of the gospels.John was alleged to be 70 when Jesus was crucified, and we know that the first gospels weren't written until 40 years after Jesus alleged crucifixion date. this would mean john was 110 when he wrote the first gospels. now keep in mind the average life span for a man back then was 40 years. Due poorer nutrition quality and lack of medicinal advances it would be impossible for someone to live for this long. people barley live to be that old in this day and age.Religion doesn't make sense cause its based mythology and miracles which both defy the laws of physics modern science and in some cases common sense. hope that answers your question for you =)

 
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: undeniabledilemma Show

you want three parts of the bible that have been proven wrong by science? no problem i will point out numerous things about the bible that are scientifically wrong and in some cases flat out lies Lets start from the beginning with the book of genesis. The first sentence of this book is " in the beginning god created heaven and the earth". At the very beginning of the bible we run into something that is scientifically false. It is a scientific fact that the earth was not the first body of mass to be created in our solar system let alone our universe. In fact all the elements that form the earth and everything on it come from stars such our sun through a process known as nucleosynthesis. It also says in the book of genesis god created Eve out of Adams rib. I don't even need to go into detail or example with this one. Anyone who is not mentally ill/incapacitated and has at least a 5th grade education knows that it is physically impossible to reconstruct an entire human from a single human rib. It also claims that john one of Jesus alleged disciples was one of the original writers of the gospels.John was alleged to be 70 when Jesus was crucified, and we know that the first gospels weren't written until 40 years after Jesus alleged crucifixion date. this would mean john was 110 when he wrote the first gospels. now keep in mind the average life span for a man back then was 40 years. Due poorer nutrition quality and lack of medicinal advances it would be impossible for someone to live for this long. people barley live to be that old in this day and age.Religion doesn't make sense cause its based mythology and miracles which both defy the laws of physics modern science and in some cases common sense. hope that answers your question for you =)

 
+ Add Argument

8
Disagree


undeniabledilemma
Apr 12, 2009
3 convinced
Rebuttal
First apologies for the loss of your sister...

To address your post however,
Your spelling is especially terrible. This is usually the sign of one who is uneducated. I only mention it as it is the thing that you attack the biblical literature with.

The problem of Evil in the world is a great philosophical debate in it's own right.

I'm wondering if you are serious about your post or just trying to be humorous.

I don't want to take time to address a joke, if it's meant to be funny then I will grant you your amusement...but there is no need to offer any actual response.

Saying the Bible is full of lies is a heavy statement. I'm not sure what you are referring to. If you are implying that the Bible claims if you pray to God that no ill will would befall you or that you would be protected from harm's way then that is not what is stated in the Bible. If someone has taught you this, they would be a false teacher.



 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 12, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
You have lived a Christian life?
In what way?

As for the death of your sister, no it's not what God wanted per se. According to what the bible teaches it's a product of the fall of man, it's what has come into the world through original sin. A poor analogy might be that a car maker makes a car that gets into an accident, was it the will of the car maker that the car get into an accident? I do not think so.

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 13, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: brazza Show

Ok you claim I support blind belief in illogical tenets. How so? If you think anything about my belief is blind I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken. I have likely read more in the last year than you have in your lifetime. My life consists of reading every night for a minimum of 5 hours as I try to work out what could be the truth. This includes reading from all sorts of sources, atheist views like Dawkins, to scientific views, to agnostic views, to Buddhist views, to Christian views, and the whole gamut. You will find no blind belief in illogical tenets here, but I do ask you to propose what exactly I believe that is illogical.

The attack on Christianity as a whole is an argument whose scope cannot be covered in a simple forum debate without a great length of time. I have heard the argument before even by atheist authors. While I do not think the view absolutely absurd, I do find it is not fully informed and tends to have it somewhat twisted view on history. Needles to say I find your attack to be without merit. It is not a manipulative form of mass control.

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 13, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jonjax71 Show

Wow.
I had this epic post written. Now i have to recreate it as the time it took me to research a proper answer to give took several hours. Un-freaking Believable. Very annoying to have the timed out thing and then your info is lost. Note to self: Copy all posts to word before hitting 'Post'.
I will try.

Start with Red Sea. You say it was 'proven' that it was not the Red Sea. I'm sorry how can it be 'proven' that what they called the Red Sea was not what they called the Red Sea. Are we sure it's the same Red Sea of today, or could they by chance have named it the same thing as the one today but it was a different one which then was called The Red Sea but today is called something different? This is just one possible set of events. I'm not sure what you are referring to though, so I'm not going to pretend that answer satisfies your argument, I will ask if you would flesh it out some so I know what you are referring to. I've not heard this one in depth yet. Also how can you say it was an earthquake or tsunami that caused it with assurance? Where are you getting your information from? I'm not saying it's wrong, I just don't understand what you are basing it off of.

Next:
Again it's important with questions that you don't assume there is no answer to the question. It is quite arrogant of you to assume that people of faith have never ever ever ever had this question that supposedly is a one shot missile that blows up the whole system of belief. You are coming in with this misconception that Christians have never wrestled with these difficult questions. These are excellent questions by the way. I want to take nothing away from them. You however have not treated them as questions that might have answers. You instead have operated under the false assumption that Christians just gloss over these questions and say "it's a mystery". Whereas you might find the laymen who says that it is not the core belief of a learned Christian, and you cannot accept it as such just cause you met one that gave that as an answer or worse could offer not answer at all. That would indeed be an example of blind faith. Do you really think then that this question has never been answered and millions of people are just that foolish to believe anything? That is honestly an extremely arrogant view.
Back to your questions.

"three days and three nights in the heart of the earth"
This is the central passage in which Jesus claims how long He will be dead for before being resurrected. The question you ask is so difficult to answer that I was not able to do it effectively from my knowledge alone. I had to go and do 2-3 hours of reading through articles before I found ones that I thought could effectively answer it. There are two competing explanations for it. With the resultant being different sects of Christianity this being one of the dividing lines.
The first and most central fact to keep in mind is that Jews didn't have days like our days. They did not record the passage of time based on a digital clock and therefore at midnight it became the next day. Instead they recorded days as sundown to sundown. How this works is that lets say it's Wednesday day time...sun is out...yay...then the sun goes down. The moment it drops below the horizon it ceases to be Wednesday and becomes Thursday. This is central to both camps in their explanation.

The first camp tries to answer the question by showing what they hold to be a proper interpretation of "the heart of the earth". They claim that the moment that Jesus was separated from his connection to God in the Garden of Gethsemane that this was the beginning of the 3 days. I will let this writer explain his reasoning.
http://www.bibleuniverse.com/study-tools/free-book-library/english/book-viewer.aspx?IID=68&LNG=en&TL=The-Sign-of-Jonah

The second view is that Jesus wasn't crucified on a Friday but instead on a Wednesday. It's important to note that nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus was crucified on a Friday. It does say it was preparation day which means the day before passover. However the Jews do not have just the weekly passover, they also have special passovers one of which is for The Feast of unleavened bread which falls on the 15th day of Nisan. (jewish calendar)
The second thing is nowhere does it say that Jesus was resurrected on Sunday morning, just that the tomb was found empty on that morning, so it could have happened earlier during the night. This view is explained in fairly good detail here.
http://focusonjerusalem.com/thedayJesusdied.html

I find myself leaning towards the second view, that it was likely a Wednesday that Christ was crucified on.

Your other questions to be commented and answered by separate posts...to keep these somewhat separated by topic.

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 12, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Claim by you:
The bible is riddled with lies, myths, legends to explain things no one could explain at the time. Can you cite some evidence for this?

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 13, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: andre2552 Show

It is not stupid to bring up his form or his spelling. You go pick a scientific journal and determine how many spelling errors there are. You go hand in a paper of formulated though for peer review and see what sort of response you get with the way that is posed. To mention it is not to pick on him but to point out that he doesn't sound very educated with his form. This is a true statement. It is true independent of the appropriateness in your mind of me pointing it out.

The mark of education is not the mark of being able to question things. Lots of foolish people and ignorant people ask a great many questions. Now I am neither calling this individual foolish or ignorant with that statement just pointing out that being able to ask question does not show an educated mind. It does however show a mind that would like to learn. This is a good thing, and I pose no quarrel with the asking of questions. Please do not attempt to paint me with a different brush than I am presenting so that you can defeat the machination you have created instead of the arguments I present.

You say much of the bible is lies. Let's start there. You say that parts have been proven wrong by science. List me 3 of them. Try not to do it with anger, I sense a bit of annoyance in your tone, let's do this fun like. You and I will take a journey together and see what we find at the end of the path, I'll let you start. You claim some things are lies and that they are proved wrong by science. Name 3 and away we shall go.

The analogy of the carmaker is not a bad one as you assume the Creator(if one exists) wants to control his own creation. Having the power to control the creation might be true, and it might not, let's assume it is...what makes you think that this Creator proposed wants to control the creation? I do not see that taught in the Bible, in fact it teaches that there is Free Will. If it was the case that the Bible taught that the Creator would stop to control the minute decisions of all of Creation then there would have never been original sin. Why would God allow it? So the car maker analogy is not all that bad as you make it out to be, for this creator like the car maker does not attempt to control everything about His creation.(like a car maker)

I'm not imposing any of my philosophies on any one, this is a debate site lol. The purpose of it is to Debate philosophies to discuss them and analyze them and offer our views. That is the INHERENT purpose of it. You seem to be implying in some backhanded way that I don't have the right to offer my views in context or comparison to his. not sure if you noticed but Superfrog asked a question. If you don't wish to hear the views of others or their attempts to answer the question, or suppose it's wrong for them to offer them then I propose you are on a wrong site to have such an outlook lol.

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 13, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jonjax71 Show

The Genesis account of Creation

Why do you say with certainty it's a legend to explain things that could not be explained at the time? You offer no evidence of this as if by simply stating it, it makes it true. Why don't you instead ask a more specific question about how can the Genesis account of creation be true in light of (pick one) dinosaurs, carbon dating, radioactive half lives, etc? To call it false is to assign a truth value to it without giving the theory a chance to explain itself or giving someone a chance to explain it. This would be likened to "guilty until proven innocent". This is a very poor way to go about your search for a viable belief system.

There are again two competing Christian camps on this subject as well. Likely with there being other fringe groups as well. These are the two main.
The first is Young Earth Theory. This theory holds that the 6 days of creation were literal 24 hour periods as measured by Earth Time. A very good explanation of this theory is offered by David T. Moore. He uses SCIENCE not the BIBLE to show why he thinks the earth is only 6000 years old. All the quotes and citations that he offers do not come from theologians or Christians but from scientific journals like Science, and Nature amongst others. He makes that claim via a cd series which can be seen here, it might be available for free online somewhere, I'm not going to look right this second. If you have questions about this theory that you would like to ask such as how does the theory explain such and such, then feel free to ask, but try not to ascribe absurdity to it based on your assumption it does not have an answer to your question.

The second theory is theistic evolution. This theory says that evolution took place and that it was guided by God. It ascribes to an Old Earth Theory. It is best explained by Theoretical Physicist and Jewish Theologian Gerald Schroeder in his book "The Science of God". In it Schroeder goes into physics and Einsteins theory of Relativity and the passage of time in relation to mass and gravity. He then also goes into quantum mechanics and more modern physics to illustrate his point. He uses no modern theology but instead goes back to ancient Jewish theologians like Nahmanides to show that the ancient Jewish Theologians did not clump the 6 days of Creation together with the rest of recorded human history but instead they were always careful to keep them separate as they did not consider them to be the same as the other days of recorded history. He then explains how he believes the 6 days of Creation were written from the perspective of the center of the universe at the Big Bang. This is because for example on Day 1 the Earth did not exist so how could the first "day" be referring to a 24 hour period as would pass on Earth if it didn't even exist yet. He goes to show how because at the time of The Big Bang all of matter was condensed that time through the theory of relativity would have moved much faster. The idea that the passage of time is different depending on gravitational pull is not an idea but a fact, it has been proven with atomic clocks one staying on earth and one going into space and when they are brought back together they show different passages of time. Time is simply the 4th dimension. He also shows how these ancient theologians predicted there being 10 dimensions based solely a careful exegesis of Genesis and the Torah. Today modern physics professors will tell you that there are a suspected 10 dimensions.
If you have questions on this theory I can attempt to answer them as well. The book whether you accept the theory or not is highly fascinating at the level at which he goes into quantum mechanics. I highly recommend it for any person interested in science.

As for me. I'm on the fence. I have heard very good scientific explanations now and there are a few questions in which I need answered before I can make a decision as of now though, both systems are viable and it often depends on your predisposition.
That should offer a platform from which to explain whatever it is about the Genesis chronicle of events that you have problems with.
Incidentally The Science of God can be bought for like 3-4$ on Amazon and shipped to you. If you do intend to look into it I recommend that route as a new one costs $15.

Other questions answered in other posts or future posts, separating responses by topic.


 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 13, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jonjax71 Show

Noah's ark and the worldwide flood.

What about it is not believable. Are you aware of the evidence for it? There is quite a large preponderance of it, so be careful picking this out. It's a good question but the evidence it rests on is very very logical and consistent. Ask a more specific question concerning it and I can give you a more specific answer.

As for the age of people prior to Noah's flood being 6, 7, 900 years.
This too is answered credibly in David T. Moore's cd series. Basically lots of things lived to be a lot bigger than they are today. Like 30 foot tall giraffe's and the like. They have these fossilized remains. The reason for it goes back to the Flood as well. Moore explains in his series that Genesis talks about an expanse that was in the sky of water. That prior to the Flood, it had never even rained. The reason was that a frozen expanse of water was in the skies and this expanse filtered out the sunlight so that you had something like the greenhouse effect. Radiation was filtered out as well. Radiation from the sun is the main cause of the aging effects that we experience. Obviously this has some questions that it causes to arise. Like how did the expanse that is proposed not melt? I think that's an excellent question. But the expanse really is described in the Bible. How to answer this question, right now I'd have to go do some more research on it. Which mind you I will. I want to know what the answer is. But lets assume for the moment there is one. This is how things could live a lot longer than they do today. The aging process would be greatly slowed. You will notice if you read Genesis that after the flood man did not live longer than 120 years. So if the theory can hold viable scientifically, and I believe there are good answers to the questions that seem to undermine it in both yours and my mind right now. Then this expanse is the reason man would have lived longer lives. As for evidence supporting this theory. Again David T Moore does an amazing job explaining it and fleshing it out, again in the whole series he never once quotes Christians, only Scientists, evolutionists, and others of that ilk.

Next topic

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 13, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jonjax71 Show

What about the Ascension of Jesus? again you don't make any explanation as to why that would necessarily have to be a lie. If you are trying to say it's false because it's impossible...ummmm I hate to break this to you but the theory you are questioning is one that presupposes a supernatural deity. This deity then having the power to do exactly that. Questioning the Ascension then really comes back to questioning whether such a deity exists as there really is no scientific evidence that can be argued for it or against it happening. However if a claim can be made that has viability of the existence of a Supernatural Creator of some sort then this makes the Ascension to heaven entirely possible. If you are referring to something else about the Ascension to which I'm not aware of...please explain better and I apologize for not being familiar with every potential undermining question. I thank you for your patience in the matter.

The last one is a beauty and I will answer it in the next post keeping with the theme.

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 13, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jonjax71 Show

Different versions of the Bible.

This topic alone is really almost too broad to approach in such a simple forum. Literally volumes upon volumes of books have been written on it both from atheistic and theistic standpoints. I will tell you that it is currently a question I don't have a definitive answer to.
To get one you really really really have to do lots of scholarly work. As the discussion of this topic is very contentious there are a lot of books attacking the credibility of the Bible as having been edited, altered, books subtracted etc...that are just outright misconceptions or in my opinion lies. There are however excellent questions posed by those who would attack the Bible from this platform. I am not ashamed in any way to admit my somewhat ignorance on how best to answer it. Like you I have had many questions about the viability of the Christian belief system. But I am not able to answer every question simultaneously unfortunately. I also have a life to live, I teach, have a small social life, and I go to school as well. I devote hours to research and you have hit upon one of the topics I intend to delve heavily into in the near future. I just know it's going to require probably hundreds of hours of research to get to a conclusive answer.

I do know the Bible's accuracy has held up REMARKABLY well over time. If you look at the dead sea scrolls for instance they are dated from before the time of Christ. There is nearly a complete copy of Isaiah in it amongst other things. When you compare the writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the writing of Isaiah as written in The King James version of today it is 99.99% accurate with the discrepancies being mostly small things like commas not in proper places or something simple like that.

The question you ask however is a multiple leveled question. Just to go to the very first part of it. Why are there several different versions of the Bible? Well why are there several different versions of books that we have today of other types of books? Why are there several different versions of U.S. history? Does it mean U.S. history is false? Or that nothing claimed by any of the apparent historians can be accepted since there are conflicting views? No it appears to mean that human beings often like to rewrite certain things to better accompany the way they wish to see it. Some people like it to have more simplified words, so it is simplified. There are also many cults who have twisted the words such as Mormons in order to gain power or money from a group of people. Many of these other versions then are really created by the evil intents of men to use the book for their own personal gains. This is true of any major thing that takes place people will try to capitalize on it in different ways. Does it mean that one of the versions isn't more accurate than the rest? I know some versions translate word for word from Greek and Latin, while other translate meaning for meaning. Which is more appropriate? Excellent question. But the reason for there being different versions is really not one succinct reason. There is likely almost a different reason for every version. Lol. Literally. Like the NIV was created because people didn't like The older writing style from The King James, and The New King James was made because people who liked the King James version didn't think the NIV was properly translated so they made a new version of King James with up to date language because they believed the difference between NIV and KJ were so great that people might get a false teaching from it, but they understood people's desire to have a more up to date English version than NIV. Each different version as you can see has it's own history behind why it was created. To determine which is the best would take careful evaluation of the arguments to proponents of each one argue, and the scope of that is too large to address here.
Suffice it to say, the fact that there are many different versions of supposedly historical events is not evidence that the event didn't happen. It just means getting to the truth of the matter will be no small task indeed.

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 13, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: superfrog Show

Ok the ad hominem attacks on my character can stop now. I did not grow up Christian, I was not brain washed. I did not call you any names. This is meant to be a civil discussion about the viability of the Christian faith as a belief system and whether or not it's lies or not. I am a Truth seeker, I have investigated the Truth claims of all major religions including atheism. Christianity I have discovered has the best answers to the questions. Your problem is you aren't looking for answers. You have predetermined what will be truth for you and then move to attack the other systems that disagree with you.
You ask questions and when answers are given you call it rationalizations. If that is the case then what you propose is "irrationalizations". I have given fair answers to every question posed. A reasonable unbiased person could conclude that the question has been given a sufficient answer. I'm sorry that you are blinded by your hatred of Christianity. I can sense you seething in your words, so angry are you at the belief system that you cannot even control your emotions. This is a terrible tragedy. However it is not logical explanations you need. You need therapy. I mean that seriously and not as an attack.

I did not insult your punctuation nor did I insult you. If you tell a child that they are a child, are you insulting them? Certainly not. It is merely a statement of fact. If you were to say that I make some grammatical mistakes, or that my English is not perfect that is likely to be true, as no one's is. If we were to take a test however my English would be college level graduate and yours appears to be approximately 8th grade level. I am a teacher. That is what I do. I scored a perfect SAT, and I now teach as an SAT instructor for ScoreRite located in Torrance, CA. I am a member of Mensa. I am one year off of my Bachelor of Science in Mathematics, minor in Philosophy. Those are my credentials, what are yours? So I'm sorry if you felt insulted. It's calling a spade a spade and in terms of academic credibility a demonstration of obviously inferior English is evidence that you have simply not read enough. If you have read a lot then the only possible explanation would be that you have a learning disability. Again, however...I mean no offense if you do. I'm glad to see that you are working to overcome it.

As for your claims you make a lot of them. However they are all subjective claims. I can spout absolute statements all day. It does not make them true. The moon is made of Cheese! does that make it true? No. It's simply a statement. It is obvious listening to you speak that you have never heard anyone explain the Christian or Muslim faith to you. You know nothing about them. Only what you have been indoctrinated with which you now regurgitate on command. You don't even have the basic fundamentals right, and you are flailing wildly at apparitions that are simply not there. For example, the Bible does not say that the earth is 2000 years old. Nor does any other religion to my knowledge. At least not one that is mainstream. Christianity hasn't even settled the age of the earth. I already explained to you that there are 2 camps. You refuse to even read the explanation though. You just lob a new assault without first weighing the answer. It is consistent with Christianity that the earth can be 6000 years old, and it is also consistent with Christianity that the earth can be be billions of years old. It depends on some interpretive analysis of the Hebrew Torah. By saying that Christians claim it's 2000 years old, that information that many consider it 6000 years old is so basic as to prove you know absolutely nothing about that which you attack.

My God never claimed there would be peace in 2000 years. In fact just the opposite. The bible and Yeshua both predict massive famines and wars amongst other things.

You claim God created all these diseases. This is not the case. The bible says that Earth is the where Satan was cast down to. This is not God's domain. This is Satan's. Again you prove only your absolute ignorance of what the Christian faith claims. It doesn't matter how many things you say against it, I can tell you right now based on what you have said, you have zero knowledge about what Christianity claims to be true.

I will grant you this, whatever religion you are attacking, you are right, it is definitely false if it makes those claims. However since Christianity does not make those claims then you are not proving Christianity false. I think a more appropriate title should be "Is a religion that is nothing like Christianity just a lie in disguise?" Then yes, i would come in and agree with you.

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 13, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: feefee123 Show

While the person 'istronglydisagree' did not really make a great case for what he was saying. Apologies for that on his behalf. He means well I'm certain. You said there is proof of evolution. Honestly please supply it, because in reality there really is none. It is a theory based on observation of some evidence. It is one explanation of how we came to be here based on some similarities in species.
People tend to say DNA and such is evidence. It actually is not. DNA is evidence that DNA is true. The existence of DNA does more to support intelligent design than it does to support evolution. Far more. Other such proofs are similar.
God is not called a Great and mighty warrior.
If you say God isn't doing much better at explaining it than science is, then you simply haven't read the explanation. Tell me one book that you have read that defends intelligent design. Name one. I've read Origin of Species. Have you even read that? That's Darwin's book in case you were wondering. If you are going to claim that the opposition is false without having listened to the opposition then you are not being reasonable.

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 14, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: brazza Show

First, thank you for the formal tone. A discussion is better than an attack.
Let's consider your statements.
1) Christianity uses self propagating fear(of the after life):
Truth: This is not true. It's on the contrary actually. I once thought this as well though.

2) Christianity relies on Guilt:
Truth: This is also not true, Christianity claims all guilt was removed at the cross. The response on your part to this would be: well it is removed for Christians that implies that those who are not Christians are guilty under the law according to the Christian faith. Response this is true. If you are honest with yourself though as I am with myself I think it is easy to look at the state of humanity as it exists and it's history and realize that humanity is fallen. Myself, yourself, we do things we know are not right. We feel guilty about them later regardless of whether we believe in the Christian God or not. Would you say that you have NEVER felt bad for any decision you have ever made? You have never apologized to anyone? You have never lied? Never stolen a thing, ever? Never considered the personal injury to another person over apparent emotional harm they have caused you? I think you will agree that inside the heart of man lies a great evil. Even if you claim you yourself are without fault, then surely you can look outside yourself and see the great many things that man does that are certainly "wrong" or "evil". Let's start there. Do you think that man in his heart and from his birth is wicked? Do you not think that Toddlers are selfish? Do you have to teach two brothers to fight or do they do it all on their own? No, you have to teach them to share though, and some never even learn that. You have to teach them values, but you do not have to teach them how to do wrong...they do it naturally. What do you think of this paragraph? Are the statements I make here fair?

Next claim
3) To question Christianity is to demonstrate a lack of faith for a Christian.
Truth: I'm sorry but once again you have been unfortunately misinformed. This is true of Jehovah's Witnesses. This is true of Mormons. This is not true of Christianity. In fact I constantly tell people to question what they believe, to never accept anything because someone especially a pastor told you so. There are so many false beliefs out there, that to not question what one is told is to ensure indoctrination. You will agree with me that is a bad thing. Great then we can both move on from this point now knowing that since Christianity does not teach this that it is a bad thing, but not relevant to Christianity. Ok?

4) An attack on the theology of immaculate conception and of the resurrection. These attacks can not be directly responded to. The underlying attack here and the one in which you are really demonstrating is that you do not believe in the idea of supernatural events occurring because you do not accept that there is a supernatural being or entity. If you do however accept that there is one or more such supernatural beings then what is your qualm with the idea of a supernatural occurrence (i.e. miracle). In order to answer I would need to better understand your position. First are you a theist, an agnostic, or an atheist?

5)
Claim that "Christianity requires intermediation by a category of priests whose services are required to appease a God perceived as separate from the Self."
Truth: This is not true. Christians do not need to go to any priests to act as an intermediary. They are free to speak to the Divine directly. This renders the rest of the line of thinking irrelevant about it being a form of Government and such.

6) final claim
The suppression of the [Gnostic doctrine] and the decision in the 4th century AD to suppress some 28 gospels that did not 'fit' the Roman political objectives.
Please clarify. Why do you say the suppression was due to it not fitting Roman political objectives? Can you offer me evidence of this? The Current NT cannon was not formed overnight and not was it formed by any set person, rather a great many people contributed to why or why not certain books should be included and certain ones should not, it is properly thought that the majority of it was formed before the end of the first century, and that minor changes were added in the second such as the inclusion of the book of James. This process consisted of looking at books that are consistent with what they knew to be true. There were also certain stipulations and rules about some qualifiers and disqualifiers that were settled upon by again the council of many early church fathers such as Origen. It can be considered similar to the idea of examining eye witness accounts. Let's say for example that you picked up an "eye witness account" about the assassination of JFK. In the account it claimed that When JFK stepped off the plane in New York City that he was immediately impaled by a man with a lance, collapsing at once and pronounced dead a short time later. If you were to consider which accounts about the assassination of JFK that you thought should be included as historically accurate, would you say that that account should be included? What about other people familiar with how it occurred? Would they include it? Would anyone? Would there need to be some nefarious plot to keep that "gospel" of the JFK killing repressed and put down, or could it simply be attributed to it's lack of merit when in relation to common knowledge and other eyewitness accounts? This is similar to what happened to the Gnostic gospels.

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 14, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: davidsnowlu Show

I don't know much about the competitive debate system if there is something that you wish to clarify go ahead and set up the challenge and I will respond...it appears though that the competitive debate seems to be a popularity contest in which whoever comes along that agrees with one side or the other just votes it up automatically without stopping to consider the arguments. This is similar to what is already happening on this thread. There are a great many atheists active right now on this site, and they just come along and click "convinced" for arguments that are really terrible and inaccurate but when a response is posted that points this out it is not given a convinced. People aren't really looking at the merits. I have answered on this "debate" alone about 10 supposed holes in the Christian belief system.

Many of them were just outright false claims, yet the people making the false allegations such as needing a priest to get forgiven or the Earth being 2000 years old according to Christians...somehow convince other people. The person pointing out that that's not even what Christians believe, nope...not convincing lol. It's like someone holds up a red crayon and says "This crayon is blue". Another person responds saying "actually that crayon is red", Meanwhile the first person making the false claim that the red crayon is blue somehow "convinces" someone. The person who points out they are holding a red crayon, well that's not a very convincing argument I guess. lol.

It's like the people voting are saying "Don't confuse me with the facts".

 
helpme
Apr 14, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jonjax71 Show

Jax,

You certainly can go on and on. The problem is that your arguments are not new or original and have been addressed many, many times.

I will answer one as an example.

The three day question is easily answered with proper hermaneutics. It is very well known that within the Jewish culture, of the day, any part of the day is refered to as the whole day.

Christ was crucified and dies on a Friday- Day one
He's in the tomb Saturday- Day Two
He is resurrected on Sunday- Day three

See? It is very simple.

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 14, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

Ok i watched it it's heavy on propaganda and victim portraying and trying to encourage atheists. It's low on evidence. Have you ever watched a creation versus evolution debate?
Anyhow. There isn't anything here, I'm not sure why you had me watch this it proves nothing but that Dawkins is an atheist and thinks they should feel better about themselves and speak up more, be more active. What does that have to do with the point of this thread?
Thanks for wasting 30 minutes of my time.

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 15, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xoangieexo Show

Addressing only Matthew 21:22

I did not answer immediately as I still have to complete my taxes and needed to get some forms in order, secondly I needed to be able to provide a decent answer to you.

Part of the problem is that you take words out of context. The bible is not supposed to be interpreted in terms of each individual verse is applicable in it's own right word for word. It has to be interpreted in light of the whole. That is how it is taught. You want an illustration? Of course you do, and here I will explain.

A conversation is happening between 2 people in an email. You have been given a copy of the email. It was particularly offensive.
It said "I think the saints should kill the dolphins."

After looking at the email PETA immediately launched an attack against the Saints of the church the man was a part of on the Florida Coast. It's obvious from the letter that the church is having some trouble with dolphins and this man is advocating for a solution of killing them. This is cruelty to animals in the worst way, and the church needs to be attacked.

Then perhaps you are shown the sentences just before that one and perhaps just after.

"the saints offense is far superior to the dolphins, even if the dolphins are resurgent this year, no way they have an answer for reggie bush out of the back field. i think the saints should kill the dolphins. score will be 42-17."

Now that we have added context it might suddenly become clear to you that the words you took to me one thing did not mean that at all. This is also how a great many things have to be interpreted. In light of A) who was talking to whom B) what happened just before and just after C) what was the context of the message D) what was the big picture surrounding this message.
This is called hermeneutics. It is the process of properly understanding the message from the bible. As you can see from the illustration, this is imperative to understand what the message is. The bible is not a message to you directly spoken with every verse being a directive. It is meant to be studied as a historical and spiritual book in which by looking at God's plan through history you can learn about God and what His message is to the world. If you can't grasp that concept then I'm afraid you will have verse after verse after verse to cite that you feel is faulty but it's really do to lack of comprehension on your part.

With no further ado, Matthew 21:22 from a commentary

And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, Did you see how quick that fig tree withered away! And Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, if you have faith, and doubt not, you shall not only say to this which is done to the fig tree, but also if you shall say unto the mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. And all things, whatsoever you shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive (Mat 21:18-22).

A very broad promise for prayer. You must note that it was made TO THE DISCIPLES and what constitutes discipleship. "Deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me"(Mat 16:24).

Prayer is never to be used for our own lust or desires, to enrich ourselves. James said, "you ask and receive not, because you ask amiss, that you might consume it upon your own lust"(James 4:3). The purpose of prayer isn't really to get my will done; the purpose of prayer is to get God's will done. And that person who is a disciple, the person who has denied himself to take up his cross to follow Jesus Christ, is more concerned in God's will, than he is his own will. And that man has power in prayer and this promise is for that man. It's not a general promise to anybody.

Whatsoever things you desire, you know, you desire a new Cadillac, or whatever, maybe you want a Mercedes, all things, whatever; no, it isn't a broad promise to just fulfill any whim or wish or fleshly desire that you have. This promise is made to those men who have denied self, the self-life, and taken up their cross to follow Jesus."

As you can see from the Christian commentary asking for things in prayer first off is once again not open to non-believers. God does not grant the prayers of non-believers nor does He listen to them. The exception being those that seek to know Him.
So your citation of this as by somehow a way that all those starving people should not be starving is hardly a proof at all. What it does prove is that the world is a fallen place. Certainly it is the realm of Satan. You in fact have given evidence of my earlier point.

There is your answer.

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 15, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xoangieexo Show

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find;
knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that
asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him
that knocketh it shall be opened...If ye then, being evil,
know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much
more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things
to them that ask him?"
Matthew 7:7-8, 11

Again. As with the last post, the context is extremely important. Do you know what 'good' means? Good are things which further the glory and the kingdom of God. In addition, who is Jesus speaking to again? Once more it is the disciples, this means that it might certainly have been a power granted to the disciples but not to every Christian that is out there. It's like me saying "I'm going to give you 5$" and then everyone who reads that messages asks me where there 5$ is. It wasn't a message to them! lol. Likewise this is a message given to the disciples...aside from that the bible explains what things to seek in prayer, and James also notes in other passages what things weren't granted and why.

You need to understand the back story of the bible before you understand why the bible is here, and why people believe it...if you would like I can explain it to you...but it is not a quick answer. Only in light of it however will you begin to understand the viability of the Christian faith. Before that all you have is that which you are unable to interpret.

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 15, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xoangieexo Show

Your message:
It is saying the diameter of the rim (the edge) is 10 cubits and the circumference is 30 cubits! If you studied at least 5th grade math you should know this is impossible. It changes pi from 3.141592653589... to 3. ;) I think the obvious answer is that the bible writers failed their math tests. :P

Really so it's that obvious huh? Your arrogance is appalling. You are so sure of yourself and yet you are have been incredibly fooled. There are 2 explanations for this passage. First off, once again you have taken it out of context.
Here is the previous passage.
1 Kings 7:26 It [the above mentioned metal pool] was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, LIKE A LILLY BLOSSOM. It held two thousand baths. To see what this looks like, please follow the link.
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/pi.html

Secondly aside from the explanation that that site offers, you should be aware of the effects of rounding. It was very common practice in all written languages at the time to round numbers. They didn't have a word for pi yet, they simply knew it as a ratio. So if they wanted to be exact then in fact it's impossible to be exact otherwise they never could have finished writing the book because every possible value would have been an approximation since pi is irrational. So it was very common to round numbers. Seeing it this way if it was considered to be say 9.6 diameter(rounds to 10) tell me what you get when you apply the pi ratio to that for circumference? That's right 30.144. What does that round to? Brilliant. 30. Great. Glad you proved smarter than a 5th grader as you so eloquently put it.
Really once again, if you used the littlest bit of humility when asking your questions you wouldn't be shown to be such a fool when the answer came. Instead with arrogance you launch attacks. It is not I who has been fed lies by his parents and his teachers, it is you. I have successfully answered every question you have posed, and those I have not I'm about to. Yet you continue to launch assaults on my stupidity and i guarantee you will recycle these defeated arguments to use again and again, because you don't care if the arguments are bad, the point for you is to attack.

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 15, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xoangieexo Show

Your next statement

"Hey... not a bad answer! Celestial policeman... THAT IMPOSES JUSTICE ON THE INNOCENT! He killed the Egyptians' first born sons. What the hell did they do wrong? That's like saying, "hey you raped and murdered a 10-year-old. Now, go home and we'll execute your wife."
Who said that capital punishment was moral?
"Thou shall not kill" (Exodus 20:13) Hypocritical much? "

Response:
The only way to explain why God was justified in killing the Egyptians is for you to understand the back story of who God is, the purpose of creation, and original sin. This is explained elsewhere in the book you have never read but know so many different verses that you think contradict it. Once again if you are polite I can explain it to you, and once you understand it from that perspective, you might not agree with it being truth, but you will then understand why those events could take place just as stated and still be consistent with the message of the bible.

As for the "Thou Shalt not Kill" commandment. That is a commandment about murder and murder alone. It is not about things such as self defense or capital punishment. Any Hebrew scholar can explain this to you. Again you are not asking questions you are starting with a PRESUPPOSITION and then working backwards to look for the pieces that support your view. Your view is Christianity is wrong, so you look for ways to prove your belief. You did not come to a belief that Christianity was wrong by allowing Christians to explain their faith and then you were able to reject it. (at least not knowledgeable and true Christians). This is evident because the attacks that you lob against the faith are really really really elementary and basic. They are the kind of simple propaganda that you get off of an atheist web site, which you searched for in order that you could prove right your hypothesis. Or you heard from someone and since it agreed with what you already believed you saved to memory thinking that it helped prove you right.

No. All it has done is poison your mind with lies. The spirit within you resists the truth. This is now at least the 15th question I have successfully refuted or explained and yet I have not gotten one acknowledgment from you or any singular bit of gratitude from you for the explanation that corrected your false understanding. You just move on to the next attack out of a list of well over 200. If you want i can really reply to all 200 attacks and we can do this all day, but you know as well as I that at the end it does not matter the fair answers I give. You have made your conclusion that it is lies and contradictory and no amount of evidence or explanation will ever convince you. Is this not correct?
Answer honestly.

You have yet to respond to all of my other well done explanations to your questions. Give me a fair response to the points I have already answered then. Have you the courage to admit the point was refuted? No. You have not. Your goal is to get through the hundreds of arguments that you have against Christianity and hopefully if you make enough of them you will never have to admit that 99.99% of them are worthless and due to you being brainwashed by those of your side.

 
helpme
Apr 15, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xoangieexo Show

"Ok please explain why Earth is not God's realm"

According to Genesis 1:28 and 1 John 5:19 that is correct. Adam was given dominion over Earth and Satan stole it from Him.

Jesus in effect confirmed this in the temptation wilderness when He didn’t dispute Satan’s claim that all the Kingdoms of the Earth are his to give to whomever he chooses. (Matt. 4:8-10)

Technically Jesus redeemed the planet at the cross, but will not take possession of it until the 2nd coming. (Romans 8:19-22) In the mean time Satan’s in control here, within limits established by God and enforced by the Holy Spirit. (2 Thes. 2:7)


We can be co-heirs with Christ.
Repent and trust in Jesus.

 
rojojo
Apr 15, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Hi,
Im sorry about your sister. But Dont give up on God because he did not listen to your plea. He has a plan for all of us. To say that its all a lie is just the work of evil itself. To be worthy of heaven we all must carry our own crosses...suffering in different ways...my brother has cancer and yes we pray for him but we know when God wants him he will go and he will be home and where he belongs...just like everyone else that accepts the lord. Maybe you should read the bible before saying things are lies. Peace.

 
helpme
Apr 17, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xoangieexo Show


No, the truth is that no one will go to Hell because they have not heard of Jesus. Hell is not the penalty for ignorance; it is the penalty for sin. God will not send anyone to Hell for their ignorance. It is sin that by its very nature condemns us to hell.

The Bible says that no one is ignorant when it comes to God.

(Romans 1:19-21)

"Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."

" 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 men are without excuse."

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened."


There are ways God reveals Himself in this world.


1. Creation

(Psalm 19:1-3)
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge."
There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard."


2. Conscience

God’s Word says that every person’s conscience will either accuse or excuse him on the day when God will judge the secrets of their hearts. God has placed in everyone the knowledge of right and wrong, He has given us a moral compass. We can choose to deny the conscience through immoral and ungodly behavior, but we’re still responsible

No one can hide behind the claim of ignorance. The law is written on every heart.

(Romans 2:14, 15)
"Even when Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, instinctively follow what the law says, they show that in their hearts they know right from wrong.
They demonstrate that God's law is written within them, for their own consciences either accuse them or tell them they are doing what is right."


God uses the Creation and man’s Conscience to get the attention of every person on the face of the earth. We are judged according to the way we respond to what we have been given, not on the basis of something we have never heard. People are not condemned for what they don’t know or haven’t done, but for what they DO know and for what they HAVE done. And God is perfectly just and therefore, will judge each one perfectly.

So the question is what will you do? You have heard about the good news of Jesus Christ.

Jesus said those who reject His Word reject Him (John 12:48). Those who deny Christ's Word deny Christ. And those who deny Him will be denied before the Father in heaven. (Matthew 10:33.)

Jesus said, "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 10:32)

Repent and trust in Jesus.


 
jonjax71
Apr 12, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Chrisitianity-all it dozens of sub-sects as well as, Judaism, Islam and most other religions are not "lies in disguise", they are just out n out lies, no disguises.

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xoangieexo Show

All of your questions are good.

I like them. They help me to think.

Let's start with the first.
"God said he would provide"
I need to know what context you state this in. Can you offer me the verse for it. I do not believe God in the Bible has ever claimed that He would provide for the entire earth. I don't think that it is even assumed that God would provide for all of his flock in the form of sustenance. Instead Jesus even said you will be persecuted for your belief. This is also noted by Paul on several occasions. No where that I know of is the explicit claim made that all the people of the world will never be without food.

Second. I will admit to not fully grasping what you are saying is impossible math, is the (15) supposed to be a conversion of 10 cubits...as in it equals 15 somethings? Or was it a citation of a verse? Also apologizing for my ignorance here, the wording in the verse is a little obscure, what does rim to rim mean? the diameter? or could it mean something else? Please take this one assertion which apparently is probably a pretty good one and flesh it out for me some, again I apologize for my lack of fully grasping what it is you are claiming is impossible math. Thanks.

You claim that God sins. I'm not sure the fact that God put people to death is necessarily a sin per se. It is like saying that a police officer who is there to do what? impose justice has no right to defend the populace by killing an attacker. I would not see such an act by a police officer as a sin, I would see it as an act of justice. If we assume God to be the Creator of all things(which I'm not going to say is the case...I'm just saying what the Christian faith claims)...and that He has claimed he is a God of justice...shouldn't the Creator have the right to impose justice. No by the way the Christian Faith does not claim that God is some sort of Policeman in the sky, I do not mean to equivocate them but I do mean to show a similarity. So God imposing Capital Punishment on people is not a sin. If you have other examples I will consider them. You must also come to grips that God according to Christians is Absolutely Righteous. That the justice he imposes may not be readily comprehensible to you at your current state of knowledge, but that once other questions you have are answered, ones that come before the idea of God being able to sin you may then understand how the actions of God are not sin when taken from that perspective and understanding.

The last question that you ask is a more difficult one. But not knowing how we could be at bliss would be like going back 200 years and people asking "How could you possibly see an image of me exactly as I look right now if you were on the other side of the earth, and watch me move in real time? Ha...you are a fool to assume that such a thing can be done." Would the person have been a fool? Do we not do this today on TV and via the internet? The fact that at a certain time and under limited perspective something could not be understood as possible does not mean the thing is not possible, it means the person had limited perspective.





 
xoangieexo
Apr 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: verya Show

Hahahahha yes!!! Good warning in parenthesis :)

 
unlabled00
Apr 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Awoooooo *calls for lonewolf*

 
istronglydisagree
Apr 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: andre2552 Show

oh god your either athiest or just stupid everything cannot be explained bye science the big bang has no logicol stand point and evolution what are the chances we could evolve from single cells there has got to be a greater being at work whether you bielive it to be god allah what ever jewish call there god or freakin mufasha from lion king

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

I agree.

 
frankiej4189
Apr 14, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

Thank you for exemplifying why i dont like Richard Dawkins

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 15, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

Fair enough.
In that case thank you for the attempted contribution. I would say it is related to this debate, but does nothing to help either side. Apologies if I seemed rude. Trying to be as honest but polite as possible, though I'm not infallible. Best wishes.

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 15, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xoangieexo Show

FINAL CLAIM FROM FIRST POST
"The Bible is also historically and scientifically inaccurate. Want proof?"

Sure I will accept your attempts at proof right after you acknowledge that all previous arguments lodged have been defeated. If not please rebut them. After which when you make your attempt to offer proof you should do so in a debate(send me a challenge).

Make them two separate debates. However the first one that it is historically accurate is stand alone as a statement. The second statement is really one of two statements
1) "Given that the bible presupposes a supernatural Creator, that can do supernatural things, even so, there are some things the bible claims that are clearly not talking about supernatural events, and these things are not scientific"

or

2) "The bible presupposes supernatural events. Supernatural events are not scientific. Since only science can be accepted, the bible is scientifically false, since science does not allow for the supernatural"

You would need to pick one before you could argue it properly.

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 15, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xoangieexo Show

YOUR 2ND MESSAGE
FIRST STATEMENTS
"LOL I got an email about a rebuttal. It must have been yesterday because I looked all over and only found the one I replied to. Hm... did you forget to rebuttal my new argument? In the meantime, I will rebuttal one of yours."

RESPONSE
I explained this above in a different post. A fair question though. It's also worth noting in addition to the above given reasons I am a working person and have other things that consume my time besides this website.

YOUR SECOND STATEMENTS

"Undeniabledilemma, I am not insulting you or attacking you (your words), but you are extremely condescending (remember? It's the truth, like "calling a spade a spade")... without much reason. I am in 8th grade. My IQ allows me to be accepted into Mensa but my parents never allowed me (this was a while ago however). = Congratulations on your SAT perfect score! However there are many students just like you nationwide that can brag about that too. Many of them aren't accepted into the colleges they want. BTW, what college are you going to? I think: either you forgot to tell us, or you don't want to tell us. ;) "

RESPONSE
Condescending. I will accept that this is a fair assessment coming from your perspective. I would argue though that it is the difference of perspective. I do not think you a fool to make it. It has been thought of me before. I will say I intend not to be condescending but my ire rises with the level of the attack, so if the attack on something is blatant and outright lies then my response tends to be a bit more heavy handed as I feel the recipient has not bothered to shore up the basic fundamentals of what they are discussing. If this sounds like I think I'm better than the person making the attack, you tell me who is the better thinker? The person launching baseless attacks? Or the person with the answers? If the attacks were worded a bit differently instead of belittling to the Christian faith and so smug in their tone, then I don't think I would sound half as condescending in my reply. A little bit of the condescending then would be considered my admonishment for their weak attack. For example when you say things like...

"any 5th grader can tell you that that is incorrect" and
"clearly the bible writers don't know their maths!"

Those are very smug statements and very arrogant as well, so you will pardon me if in my return response I do sound a little condescending. A better worded statement would simply be

"Don't the numbers offered in 1 Kings 7:26 indicate that the writer of the passage didn't know about pi? Or am I missing something? If they don't know about it, wouldn't this seem to be something that undermines the authenticity of the bible being a supernaturally assisted text?"

You can obviously see the difference in tone. Tone down the attack, and I will tone down the defense. Fair enough?

You are in 8th grade.
If this is true, I will say that you sound like a very intelligent 8th grader. Would you say that your knowledge is higher than a person in 1st grade? If then a 1st grader were arguing with you and presenting their reasons for Santa Clause being real do you think even if they were a really bright first grader that you would take all of their statements as being made by an equally wise mind as yours? No. Clearly not. Experience is on your side, and therefore more wisdom in most cases. Do you think the 1st grader would understand and agree with you that you are likely wiser? Probably not. Why not? Perspective. But you and I could both easily agree that you are much wiser and have had more time to develop your thinking.

Similarly I have about 15 years on you in the learning department. You are just beginning a life of questioning and philosophy and debate. I do hope you stick with it. You will do well, but first you must learn how to properly form your thinking. Is that condescending that I would tell you such a thing? No. It is the product of one with more experience looking to one with less and offering a bit of vision. You don't have to agree with any of my philosophies but to understand powerful arguments and weak arguments and the responsibility of the arguer that is simply the rules of the game, and what will earn you respect from a truly objective audience as opposed to the subjective one offered on this site. My words are truth. Take them or leave them, it matters not, you will either learn these concepts later or you will not. That will shape your path and your ability to make sense.

ON THE REST
The purpose of revealing my information and background was not to brag but to explain I'm not a complete idiot and I'm educated. The purpose then is to let you see more where I'm coming from, and I am not speaking from a perch of being indoctrinated or taught by my parents. Or brainwashed. Or any number of things often said against the character of people who argue my position. That was the purpose. The perfect SAT score yes you are right in the world there are a fair amount of people that have accomplished it. However just like there are a large number of PhD's in the world just because that is true does not mean that when one offers insight that it means nothing. No the words carry a bit more weight. Likewise with the score.

As for my school. Lol. Here you have made a funny point. I will grant you that. No I went to a private school for awhile, and now I simply go to a state school in California. It is nothing grand, in that you are correct. But that has not to do with my intellect and more to do with depression and lack of discipline. I was not disciplined enough to get into the Ivy league schools. Bear in mind though that many great minds never attended school. They thought Einstein was mentally handicapped. No, I'm in no way comparing myself to him, just using it as an illustration that good minds don't always go to good schools.

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 15, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: brazza Show

I do not have time to address everything here this morning, and tomorrow is a very busy day, however I will get back to you for certain.
for now...I address this.

YOUR STATEMENT
"
Your arguments are circular and therefore meaningless within the context of a formal debate. In other words you can't use subjective experience (yours) as proof for a point of view, as this is patently biased. "

MY RESPONSE
I do not believe I used my subjective experiences as proof conclusive for anything, I'm not sure what you are referring to but I do use experiences as illustrations of events like an example. But since you are making the accusation, please clarify what remark in particular do you consider to be subjective?

YOUR STATEMENT
"Secondly you can't argue that you have no beliefs when your rebuttals are mere repetitions of further Christian tenets. "

MY RESPONSE
I did not say I have no beliefs. I have not claimed that. I said I was not forced to believe things growing up, but yes my responses often will be a response that is also given by other Christians. That's what makes us Christians that we have similar answers to the same question. That would be like me saying "you can't quote any atheists because you are just repeating atheist tenets!" That's kind of a given seeing as you are arguing against theism. There are Christian answers to the questions that are asked against Christianity, why then would I not explain from the position of my world view? That makes no sense.


YOUR STATEMENT
Briefly:

Christianity promises eternal life. Since eternal life is totally unproven its promise requires adherence to an illogical belief. "

MY RESPONSE.
Your belief says there is no supernatural being. Since lack of a supernatural being is not provable, it requires adherence to an illogical belief. We can play this game all day. Belief is something you believe based on the evidence. We haven't seen quarks yet so they aren't proven to exist, but physicists believe in them, does that make them illogical? We believed in black holes before could prove one existed, did that make it illogical? The strong nuclear force cannot be proven does that make it illogical? No worldview can be PROVEN. Therefore ALL WORLDVIEWS are illogical. Now that everyone in the world is illogical, can we get back to trying to see the viability of a belief system?

YOUR STATEMENT
"Christianity promotes itself by establishing fear of a negative outcome, namely hell, and promising safety to a more pleasant outcome (heaven) in exchange for adherence. "

MY RESPONSE
This is patently false. It does not establish fear of a negative outcome. If you are drowning and someone throws you a life vest do you refuse it on the basis that it is promising to help you? Is it not really a true life vest since it is promising to help you stay afloat?

In fact your own belief seems to be the one that is established on fear of a negative outcome (losing your freedom to serve yourself)
and the promise of a more pleasant outcome(freedom to do anything you want like drugs, stealing, murder, lying, rudeness) in exchange for adherence.

YOUR STATEMENT
And don't argue to the contrary because you would perjure yourself! "

RESPONSE
I just argued to the contrary, how have I perjured myself?

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 15, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: brazza Show

YOUR STATEMENT
"Christianity uses the emotions of guilt (I am not talking of 'guilt' as a legal status) and shame to control believers into Christian-approved behaviour. "

MY RESPONSE
False. Christianity teaches that your guilt and shame were removed at the cross.
"There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."
I don't control my behavior based on either guilt or shame. I control it because I'm grateful for what Christ has done. I control it because I frankly live a happier life.

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 15, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xoangieexo Show

YOUR STATEMENT
"I don't believe your English level is directly proportional to your education. While instant messaging, I use improper punctuation and capitalization, and abbreviations. However, in English class or here, I use proper English. Does that mean I am more educated in English class than while IMing? Do I simply forget everything I've learned while signing on to facebook and remember magically when I enter English class? That's ridiculous! Hey, you have a philosophy minor... why not think a little before you say:
"If we were to take a test however my English would be college level graduate and yours appears to be approximately 8th grade level." "

MY RESPONSE
Another reason I think you show promise in thinking. Good use of analogy. That I certainly give you. However while the analogy is good, the overall thrust of the argument is weak. Notice you said, "or here, I use proper English". Obviously for some reason you have chosen to use proper English here. Partly because it lends credibility and this is meant to be a sophisticated exchange of remarks and ideas. You are making a case for something. A lawyer doesn't speak in Ebonics and slang to a judge or to a jury and then claim just because he does that doesn't mean he's incompetent. There is underlying power behind the form of a statement. If you don't believe me ask yourself if you would go to a school who sent you an advertisement that said. "WE hav tha bester teechers than schhol you mite chooz."
Even if you recognize that the message isn't indicative of the school's ability to teach, you aren't going to be calling to inquire about their rates right? Why?

The other issue is not just the spelling or the grammar, it's the flow and form of the statement. It's how when reading it, one becomes aware of the familiarity with the English language that the other person has. It was just quite clear from the word selection and flow of the message that the person writing it is not well read at all.

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 15, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xoangieexo Show

YOUR STATEMENT
""If you have read a lot then the only possible explanation would be that you have a learning disability."(quoting undeniabledilemma)
If so, why the hell did the Christian God of love, peace, and light allow this kid to have to suffer? I strongly disagree with your statement. I think my previous paragraph says it all. "

MY RESPONSE
This again rests on a proper understanding of the integrity of the biblical message as a whole. It is a direct consequence of Free Will and Original Sin. I will try to explain upon request. God is not the current King of this Earth. Though he does interact with it's constituents, this is Satan's realm. For now that is, Christians believe that God will return and retake it, but for now he is patiently waiting to allow more people to come to knowledge of the truth. Of who Jesus really was, and what the message of the bible really is. Note what it is not: It's not all the propaganda that has been spewed against it on this thread.

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 15, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xoangieexo Show

YOUR STATEMENT
""It is obvious listening to you speak that you have never heard anyone explain the Christian or Muslim faith to you. You know nothing about them."(quoting undeniable dilemma)

Again, incredibly patronizing... Superfrog knows plenty about them... give some evidence Undeniabledilemma. Your entire paragraph was focused on his mistake of 2000 instead of 6000. Was there really a need to exaggerate one character of a mistake to address your point?"

MY RESPONSE
A fair enough charge against me. I offered 2 pieces of evidence, the exchange of the 2 with a 6 is a difference of 4000 years, and he made it twice so it was not a typing error. Seeing as this is really not enough to make my case solid, I will say it was a leading statement, but more of a challenge to superfrog. So let's settle it. SuperFrog...prove me wrong. I will wait for that.

YOUR STATEMENT
"It depends on some interpretive analysis of the Hebrew Torah."(quoting undeniabledilemma)
I don't know much about the sentence above but from my understanding... the Hebrew Torah is part of Judaism... which is different from CHRISTIANITY. I apologize in advance if there was something I didn't know and my argument is invalid. If however my argument was valid, this just proves Superfrog's point except change the 2 to a 6. :) "

This is your best worded entry yet. It has a friendly tone about it and offers up a humble correction of an apparent contradiction that I made. The humility is wise for yes your argument is invalid. This is however a much better tone between you and I, and allows for much much more civil discussion.
Christianity arises out of Judaism. A majority of the Jewish beliefs are central to Christianity as well since Judaism gave birth to it. The Jews have a bible. It consists of all of the books of the Old Testament. That's it. It is not in the exact same order as The Old Testament. They do not keep the New Testament. The fundamental difference between Christianity and Judaism then is that Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. Jews believe(and incidentally so do Muslims) that Jesus was only a prophet and was without a Divine Nature. The first 5 books of the bible are referred to by the Jews as "The Torah". They are the same first 5 books that we have. Genesis being the first book. All of the Old Testament that Christians use was translated into Greek, Latin, and English from the Hebrew texts. This is why Judaism and Christianity are VERY closely related. Jews however are still looking for their Messiah. Christians believe Christ was the Messiah. Jews do not think that the Messiah would come to die on a cross, they feel that when He comes it will be to conquer the world militarily like a King. They don't realize that the Old Testament's prophecies were completely fulfilled in Christ Jesus.( I know that you do not agree with this final statement nor is it a debatable one, I don't offer it as evidence or to prove anything, I offer it only as some context of the Christian viewpoint).

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 15, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I will return to answer more sometime in the evening tomorrow hopefully...thank you for your patience.

 
muzzerfooka
Apr 15, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: andre2552 Show

But that is the case, God isn't all powerful. It is society which developed different theories on how anything you pray to God will eventually be granted. What Science provided was something crucial as well. It placed all the "God Created the universe in 7 days" into detail. Since the bible puts so much metaphor and society looks at things too literally, misunderstandings are bound to happen. When Science brainstormed on the big bang theory, did it ever occur to you that what if the big bang theory was real and it did run through 7 days?

Anyway, God's powers aren't universal and absolute, because when he granted the human race free will, he was stripped off the powers to control everyone like a bunch of robots. When a person gets cancer, you can't expect that he will miraculously get cured. That person had been put to test since he developed in the mothers' womb. He was given to choice to counter any sickness or to put his life into waste. It may not be the same scenario every time, but that was just a general picture of the situation.



 
helpme
Apr 16, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xoangieexo Show

"I remember somewhere in the Bible, it said that if someone never knew about Christianity, they would be forgiven and would go to heaven. I may be wrong though... "

Yes, you are way wrong.

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 16, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: brazza Show

You are trying my patience.
You are either ignorant or illiterate at this point.

The argument made against Christianity is that
ARGUMENT
"Christianity uses guilt and shame to get people to join it"

RESPONSE
THAT is not TRUE

How can it be any clearer. Your argument is that Christianity teaches X. I say Christianity does not teach X. You say I'm not allowed to defend what Christianity teaches by using Christian teaching.
CHRISTIAN TEACHING IS WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST.
DUH.

If that is the case then you are basically saying that you can make an accusation against Christianity that the other side is not allowed to defend. The only way to defend against it is to tell you what Christianity does teach, and that you are making a false claim.

It would be akin to me saying

ARGUMENT
brazza is demented.

YOUR RESPONSE
I'm not demented.

RESPONSE BY ARGUER
Demented people can't argue to defend themselves.

That is in essence what you are doing here.

or
ARGUMENT
The Constitution says that only Aliens from Outer Space can be President.

YOUR RESPONSE
Um, the Constitution says men over the age of 45 that are naturally born citizens.

MY RESPONSE
You can't use the Constitution to defend what the Constitution says. It's an illogical document since it says that only Aliens from Outer Space can be President. So stop trying to use an illogical document to defend what the Constitution says.

Do you not see how your argument is EXACTLY like the ones I present. If you attack what it says, and I say it doesn't say that, I offer evidence to show you what it says, and you say the evidence is inadmissible. It's a loaded argument.
Like me saying
"Brazza have you stopped beating your kids?"

Seriously and you convinced two people with that? Sad.


 
helpme
Apr 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xoangieexo Show

1. We have no control over the notification process. Maybe if you click the watch icon you will be notified. I don't Know.

2. My rebuttal was to your question, not to the debate question. The argument is valid.

 
thevenerablerob
May 06, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: feefee123 Show

Is there? Is there proof that a man comes from a monkey? If so, why'd it stop? I mean, chance started it, so chance should decide when the thing quits. The closest I've seen to 'an evolved' is an internet joke, which was rather funny, but ludicrous. Oh sure, the men such as neolithics are more rounded than those of today, but your scientisst have ruled that it was the result of cave living. Is there proof that this marvelous creation was a chance collision between asteroids? Is there proof that some ameoba managed to evolve into some sort of slimy thing?


I would say G(Capital, notice?) God doesn't need to explain Himself to people just to prove that he exists. He has performed marvelous miracles in the past. Most miracles these days aren't as outstanding as when Jesus walked the earth, but they do happen - even those who don't believe can sometimes tell you that.

I would say that God is doing a whole lot better at explaining things than man. At least the Theory of creation doesn't have immense holes in it - only ones that the skeptic man has had 2,000 years to poke at. If you think that this whole world just happened - by chance, I would say that it's a pretty sad deal.



 
thevenerablerob
May 07, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jonjax71 Show

If the parting of the Red Sea was a tsunami like occurance, explain to me one thing, will you? Explain to me how this rumbling volcano lifted the water completely from the ground? How did the thousands of Israelites march trhough the created corridor and not oen of the drown from a rogue wave. Volcanic rumblings aren't powerful enough to create walls of water that hold up.

And, if this isn't enough, explain to me how, as soon as the las Israelite hit dry land, the water close up and destroyed the following Egyptian Army? Why did the earthquake choose that time to stop 'holding up walls of water'? Your theory has holes in it, mate. Why nto accept it as God's doing? It isn't going to hurt you - you still don't have to believe.

3rd including Sunday. There is a reason why Easter Sunday is held on that day. Because it was the literal Third day. Friday is teh first, Saturday is the second and Sunday (the third day) Jesus was resurrected.

No more a legend than two molecules banging together, eh mate? I'd prefer knowing that an Allmighty Creator made me than knowing this whole world was created by asteroids colliding by chance.

There is historical evidence that people's life spans reached far further than those of nowadays. The Bible lists that evidence as obvious. Even one or two of the Pharoahs lived to be several hundred years old.



 
jonthebome
Jun 25, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
andre2552
what i hate about atheist isnt the fact that they dont believe in a god. its the fact that they believe that anyone who doesn't is an unintelligent robot who cant think for themselves. i think therefor, i am; regardless if i believe in something i haven't physically seen. to many good things happen to me and its more than luck, chance or coincidence. i believe its a higher power. what it is, i dont know. but i do know that its something bigger then myself.

hey, your sister died, im sorry. i do not believe it was gods will for her to die.

 
bookworm
Sep 21, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: melonchollylife Show

'I think that orginized religion is purely superficial for at least 70% of the church-going community.'
Great! Then we agree! The fact remains that for the other 30% it's more than superficial. There are plenty of Biblical examples of people 'in the church' or in the Jewish covenant community who were lost. And it's the same today. But it doesn't mean that everyone is that way.
'Just to clarify, I DO believe in god, or at least that there is a higher being that created us all'
I never quite understand this in people. Why do you think a God would take the trouble to create a world and then sit back and let us go our own way. Don't you think He would take a little bit of interest in His creation? I'm not mocking you or anything, just please clarify for me why you hold that opinion.

 
brendon594
Feb 03, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: andre2552 Show

What lies?

 
christwarrior
May 20, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jonjax71 Show

You are really stupid. According to Judaism the Sabbath fall on saturday. That's one thing Jesus changed. He sayed that He would rebuild the temple. "Rebuild"meaning something new
'

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

atheism christianity debate god islam religion Abortion atheism atheist athiesm athiest BBC belief Beliefs bible buddhism catholic catholicism Christ christian christianity christians Christmas church Creation creationism death debate enlightenment ethics evil Evolution faith god heaven Hell hinduism Islam islamic jesus jewish judaism logic love morality mosque muslim opression peace philosophy politics Pope religion Religon Salvation satan Science scientology sex sin society supernatural terrorism Theology Truth VanCam violence war world