Why should I watch it? I don't need any more evidence that I already have. There is a large difference between someone saying "I believe the Bible is false" and "I believe the Bible is false because blah, blah, blah!" Mistermix has made a rash statement without anything to back it up. Please, also do not forget there are many translations of the Bible. Some are way off the mark in comparison to others. Therefore, it is important to obtain the best possible and most accurate translation available in order to understand everything contained in it. Do you honestly think a 1 hour video is going to wipe out decades of careful research?
Wrong, there was much recorded during the supposed time of the Bible, roman history for example. Credible historians take no note of biblical events though. It seems to solely fall upon inspired religious writers with nothing else to prove their legitimacy. In this case yes, after watching it you should understand where history starts to fall short when explaining that events the supposedly happened in the Bible.
lambast...Nice word... As far as what you said. You were pretty vague to start with. I just wanted you to elaborate on it. As far as knowing the Bible is concerned. Yes, I can safely say this. With time and study I can back up everything I say about what the Bible really teaches and it's historic evidence. But, it takes one to step forward and be willing to listen and learn. Unfortunately, most don't for many reasons. Peer pressure, misled by others etc..
If that's what you think why not invest an hour into watching a video that provides an argument for you? If you're so sure about your evidence why not challenge it? Why not post the reasons you believe it is true so we can have a discussion? You seem to be hiding just the same as him, back up YOUR statements so we can talk.
I feel this is turning on me. I don't want to have a full on discussion about this in this forum because it would take up a great deal of my valuable time and there is a plethora of Bible based topics. I have already stated why I won't watch the video. There is nothing on a video that could possibly make me consider or rebuke what I continually learn. Mistermix has elaborated on his original statement and has corrected or should I say stabilised his viewpoint which I have addressed accordingly. There is no further need to go on with this.
There is no argument here. I gather you are wanting one. This is not what I am here for. The discussion was raised and dealt with. Thanks. Col
Yes there was. You entered a thread made for the sake of intelligent argument, and when you were asked to back up your response you refused. There was an argument and you handled it poorly. Good observation. Of course it is, you chose to have an argument with someone who couldn't back up their claims, but when I came responded you decided to leave. Replace dealt with avoided and I agree with you.
It seems like most of these people are accusing cheap seo services of being biased and it seems to me that the ones who are accusing him are more biased then him loooooooooool. If you know your bible history which most of you atheists dont, you will know that parts of the bible like the book of genises werent written to be taken literally. I bet most of u ignoramuses dont even know when the first official bible was ratified. In fact you cannot know the true and full history of the bible unless you know the original lanaguages that jesus spoke because of the loss of certain meanings when it is being passed down and translated. I am a christian and i believe that dinosaurs existed and i also believe in evolution . Evolution is one more positive indication of gods existence. How can this be you ask? I say how can mutation come about ? how can every cell in the body come together in this incredibly complex order we call life. It couldnt be chance, impossible. Glory be to the father is all i have to say, by the way you can now argue with me if u want but first u need to show me your knowledge of bible history. When and where was the first bible approved and ratified. Checksum if you believe in everything historians say then u truely are naive. Everyone knows that history is written by the victors.
Yes, I'm biased. Infact, I'm so biased to suggest that people watch a video full of evidence that contradicts Biblical history. With that aside, do you even understand what the word biased means? You're trying to use it to insult my intelligence so I assume you don't. Here's what it means; someone who is biased has an agenda and what they're saying is to be an expression of said agenda. So yes, biased is an accurate description of every person in this thread including myself, does that mean that it somehow negates what I'm trying to say? Of course not you ignorant fool. An obvious strawman, no one here is questioning the insanity of genesis, it's a non issue. What we are talking about are the historical indescrepencies that are found littered throughout the Gospels. So many people are convinced that the Gospels are infact the word of truth, and that of God, that when you try to suggest otherwise, and by suggesting I mean providing a stable argument backed with full support of the historical timeline, you have to stop time itself inorder to deal with the amount of uneducated, assumptious, dogmatic, lunacy that follows. If you had taken the time to watch the video I posted on the first page you would know this and I would have been spared from having to read your utterly pathetic display of stupidity. Does this matter? This isn't something that is being contested, if you had read the thread before rushing to defend your mental illness you would be aware of this. Oh? So I guess every single Christian, including yourself I would assume, who is not properly educated in the "original languages" that Jesus spoke should be careful in taking the Bible literally, or figuratively, in risk of coming to the wrong conclusions? This only helps to further strengthen my argument, not only are the Biblical accounts for Jesus historically questionable, they are also confusing. It's quite simple to see that you are not educated about evolution, or you would not be making such ignorant assumptions. Cells did not just "come together", it was an incredibly long process of adaptations and mutations. How can mutation come about? There are always minute differences found in every living creature, through these differences nature sees it's way to testing which ones will produce survival and which ones are maladapted. Obviously the differences which are best suited for survival will be the ones that pass along through procreation, hence the reason we observe them today and why they remain effective. Take the crocodile for instance, the species lasted long past the mass extinctions of it's reptillian brethren, and since then it has, through evolution, shrunk in size to adjust to food supply along with a plethora of other completely natural reasons. What divine evidence is there to be found for this mutation? None, although we can take into account natural trends that provide ample evidence as to why a smaller crocodile would have been more likely to survive a shift in the Mesozaic paradigm. Again you display your ignorance by asking how this could happen by chance. You see, there is no chance involved, it is only through the brutal contest of nature that a species can pass it's attributes on and the criteria for succeeding in this is the furthest from chance you will ever find. I already wrote that your test for me was a strawman and I dismissed it swiftly. Regardless, who has been more victorious throughout history than the Christians? Yet history still spits at them while warning anyone who has the integrity to listen. Watch the video, it can articulate what you want to hear from me far better than I can. Like I said in my first post if you want to have intelligent argument about this we can start with the points raised in the video.
What a joke your last paragraph proved the existence of god. YOu keep saying its about nature but who created the rules of nature ? who created the fundemental laws of the universe or do u in your feeble mind truelyt believe these laws happened by chance? loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool Please dude, you have to do better than that
Superstitious assumptions are not proof of anything. Why must nature need a creator? And if it does have a creator how can it be proven? Simply because nature is evident? I don't know what college you were educated at, but this is not proof, it is comedy at best, and drivel at worst. Simple logic destroys your argument and only a fool would take what you write with any degree of seriousness.
i don't know if the events in the bible are true or false, but i do believe that the bible was given to us as a guide and that the stories are a way of illustrating what the lessons are and how to use these lessons in our lives.
Ok, I watched it. So what do you want to discuss about it? There are so many things I can say about what was presented but I hesitate because you're flat out biased and will just counter-argue. Where do we get at the end of the discussion? You do realize that this guy is leaning entirely on the higher critics/liberals/Jesus seminar folks? Are you aware of their foundational biases against Christianity (like anti-supernaturalism, etc.)? I can also show that Paul clearly understood Jesus was a human being (that quote from Hebrews is prooftexting at its worst). I won't mention that many conservative scholars don't think Paul wrote Hebrews either. It's also of no value to argue from silence. This guy wants to argue that Paul doesn't say X but that's irrelevant. Just because Paul doesn't write about X does not mean Paul does not know X. That whole first part about Paul is really poor scholarship. I also find it disingenuous of Brian to pick lay members of churches in contrast to his "scholars". Why not sit down with a few of the 1000's of serious biblical scholars and talk to them? I'll suggest he doesn't do that because they would offer cogent arguments in defense of historic Christianity. Strawmen are always easier to knock over. Ok, nuff for now. Seriously, nothing new here. It's just a repeat of what Liberal theologians have been saying for about 100 years now. Silly hyperbole from this guy but it goes to show that he is in no way even trying to present anything other than Christianity is a fraud. The irony too is that he doesn't even understand what blasphemy of the Holy Spirit means.
If you want to criticisize it feel free to, I'll admit there were cheap shots in the documentary. If you want to counter something in the video though you need to address it fully. No glancing comments that don't amount to anything please. We'll go from there. I'm aware they are biased against Christianity, but it is because they are aware of Christianity's lack of historical credibility. If any other historical event was supported in the same was as the story of Christ it would be thrown out and labeled superfluous. Look at how other historical landmarks are treated, such as the Battle of Actium, which happened in the same period as Christ's supposed life and death. There are compendiums of identifiable documents that support the battle while in contrast the story of Christ, the supposed son of God, is only supported by a few isolated religious preachers who have no further accountability. This along with the fact that related stories were spreading around at the same time should lead an intelligent person to skepticism. Maybe so, but Christianity still suffers from serious lack of historical accountability. See what I wrote above. If there is no historically accountable evidence for someone having said something, or believed something, it is intellectually irresponsible to assume that person may have said, or believed what you assume he did. It's perfectly reasonable to believe Paul wasn't aware of X. I'll agree with you here, it was a ploy to further his point. But that aside, it doesn't negate the fact that there is insufficient evidence to consider the Jesus story happened as believed, if at all. And? The argument is sound, there's no reason to change it. I think he conveyed his point very well, in the past dissention was punished with death, and even today rational skepticism is looked down upon.
Checksum my response was to show your bias but remember what u said cant disaprove the bible and cannot even be close to proving without a shadow of a doubt that god doesnt exist. You mean to tell me that nature has been here forever????????????? Now wheres your proof for that since u dont think this universe was ever created. Dude the reason you dont stop with ur name calling is that u cant prove your argument. Humility is a great thing isnt it. Dude you just admitted that the whole video was totally biased looooooooooooooooooooooool. CASE CLOSED. Now for your next assignment please find a video that shows a fair debate about christianity with 2 people of equal knowledge on both sides. Your sinking yourself lower and lower lol
I already addressed this. You can't disprove Zeus, Titans, or alien abductions, does that mean you should believe them aswell? Lacking the ability to disprove something is not tantamount to proof, infact you'll find it is impossible to disprove many Gods, and this is something you seem to struggle with. Why deny all the other Gods while giving special consideration to one? It's ludicrous. You see, to prove something exists you need credible evidence that stands up to intelligent criticism, this is a trait the Gospels, and much of the Bible, lack with gusto. There is a natural order to everything, from you and I to the matter that makes us, and it's folly to believe there was ever a time this was different. Raising the point simply begs reinforcement; if there was a time nature wasn't evident, how did it come to exist? If there was a point that one would call the beginning of nature, when was it? The list of questions continues, but there are no answers to be had, and this is why a reasonable human being should be careful about writing off truth itself with a God and refusing to investigate further. The reason you were insulted is because you behave like a clown. If you wish to be taken seriously look at how everyone else in this thread is behaving. It's a little embarassing that you need to be told this, don't you think? Of course the video was biased, but if you had taken note of this thread you would understand that I am giving you an opportunity to make your case so we can discuss it. With this in mind, it seems to be that there is little that can be said to defend Christianity's historical legitimacy, and I suspect that is why this has become such a hard topic to discuss. People refusing to consider testimony against their beliefs is nothing new. Case avoided. The video rose the points this thread was meant to discuss and all you have responded with are strawmen. This thread is about the points raised in the video, if you wish to argue, argue them. They were excellent points and they deserve consideration. Now stop asking for further videos and address the one that was already shown to you. I think you've confused my behavior with your own.