-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
T
theBibleisawsome
Guest
The Bible says that God left the trees n birds n all creation around us to prove to us that he exists.so if someone asks who created all of this we say God because scripture says so
Clearly, people aren't reading the previous discussions before providing input, so I am just going to quote myself to deal with this claim.
"trees n birds" as well as the landscape we see around us were all created through natural processes for which we have massive amounts of evidence for.
Aztec scriptures says that humans came from corn seeds. Quetzalcoatl scriptures say that that humans were born of eagles and bears. Greek Scriptures tell us that Zeus creates lightning. Why should we be so inclined to believe any one of these claims if they all equally provide no evidence (and if anything, are incongruent with modern science)? Compared to Greek religion, we do have a lot of copies of Christian manuscripts. However, the Gospel was not collaborated as a whole all at one time. In fact, scholars believe that the first gospels weren't written down until the late first century - about 100 years after the death of Jesus. What is even worse, is that the stories were past down generations via hearsay (spoken word), which is known to be extremely fallible by nature. What is even worse is that we don't have full copies of the biblical manuscripts until the late 7th century early 8th century. What is even worse is that there are Thousands and thousands of discrepancies between gospels. Most of them are superficial, however many are meaning/ altering and some even detrimental to core Christian doctrines (the trinity, the atonement of sin, etc.). Even worse is that there are thousands and thousands of translation errors and inaccuracies. Whenever you translate something from one language to another, meaning is always lost - any of you who are bilingual (especially if you can speak latin or eastern languages) can attest to this. The bible we have today is probably very different from the original. But is this any less reason to believe it?
We all have standards that we use to determine whether claims we hear are true or false. We use these standards to asses claims of truth on a daily basis. If I came and told you that I had been abducted by aliens last night, would you belief me? Hopefully not. And your reasons for disbelief should be as follows 1) My claim is discredible because you do not know me personally; I could be a compulsive liar or suffer from delusions as a result of a profound brain disorder or susceptible brain states. 2) We don't observe observe alien abductions. Ever. Although I may profoundly believe that I was abducted by aliens, chances are, this is not what actually happened. But there are bigger problems with personal accounts and anecdotes...
Just like Aztec religion is based off textual accounts of miracles and supernatural occurrences are true, Christianity is also based on the notion that the scriptural accounts for the miracles are true; Consequently, this is what you would have to reject to reject the religion of Christianity - You do not have to prove that the universe is absent of God, or that any of the thousands of dead Gods such as Zues, Rha, Thor, etc. are void as well. The truth is, even is we had multiple contemporaneous claims of the miracles of Jesus, this simply would not be good enough evidence - because miracle stories abound even in the 21st century.
The deputies of South Indian Guru Sathya Sai Baba ascribe all of the miracles to him: He reads minds, he can tell the future, he raises the dead, cures the blind, walks on water, born of a virgin, etc. Sathya Sai Baba is not a Fringe figure. They had a birthday party for him a few years ago and over a million people showed up just to see him. There are vasts amounts of people that think he is a living God.
So Christianity is predicated on the claim that miracle stories, exactly of the kind that are affiliated with Sathya Sai Baba today, become especially credible when you place them in the pre-scientific, religious context of the first century roman empire; decades after their supposed occurrence, as attested to by copies of copies of copies and translations of ancient Greek, and largely discrepant manuscripts. We have Sathya Sai Baba's miracle stories attested to by thousands and thousands of living eye witnesses, and they don't even merit an hour on cable television.
The Bible is no more evidence for God than Egyptian scriptures are evidence for Horus. Believe in God, as well as the veracity of Christianity as a whole takes faith - a believe without the support of evidence.
J
jimmydiggs
Guest
There were a few things that I was trying to object in the claim that I quoted, and creation was not one of them. I am a religious studies scholar and not a biologist, so getting into a debate over evolution or abiogenisis isn't something I am interested in.
I also did not provide a fluid argument for the affects of scriptural discrepancies and how they might have altered Christian doctrine over the course of history. I did, however, provide a sound and well supported argument as to why personal accounts should not be counted as empirical evidence. Furthermore, because the veracity of the bible predicated on such personal accounts, citing it as prove for the existence of a God is negligible.
I read it then and I read it now again... I understood what you said. Bigfoot and all the other things like that you mentioned... are not like what I showed you in the site.
It's not just... here read this and believe it. The site walks you through the historical evidence in the Bible that Jesus did resurrect from the dead, from a historians way of determining if it's true or not.
It's evidence. Like I said before even with evidence, it takes faith to accept it. I think that's always going to be the case. You either want to accept it or not.. the truth remains the truth and now you even have "evidence" according to your understanding, I hope you accept. Please read it if you haven't already. Have a nice day and I'll say a prayer for you.
First and foremost, it is rude to cite another page as your argument without any useful input during a conversation (I could cite scholarly articles and prime manuscripts, but instead, I have taken the time to understand them and incorporate them within my argument). Secondly, the page you cited is only in regards to evidence of the crucifixion of Jesus, and does not serve as evidence for God (and I do believe that Jesus existed). In addition, it was not peered edited nor published in a scholarly journal. He is wrong on several accounts - especially on the Old testament fulfillment of prophecies, as Jesus was NOT born in Bethlehem and NOT a direct descendant of King David because he was born of a virgin, and thus did not receive his genes from Joseph (who was a descendant of King David).
Finally, all of the "evidence" is explicitly and solely from the Bible. And if you had read ANYTHING that I had posted previously, you would know why the Bible, just like the Iliad, is not read as a history book by scholars. I encourage you to go back and read what I posted. I also encourage you to think on your own, without resorting to biased information and letting other people think for you.
Last edited:
N
next_step
Guest
Evidence is not just empirical evidence. Moreover, you never have a hundred percent certainty, since its inevitable to trust your fundamental presuppositions. In this sense everybody has to have "faith". And it strikes me as a false dichotomy to suggest that we either have a hundred percent certainty (which is illusory) or we have to take a blind leap of fideistic faith. Faith in the New Testament sense means a reasonable trust that is not completely blind and not at odds with reality. Paul appeals to both the structure of the external world and eyewitness testimony.
I never suggested a true dichotomy, I have no idea where you are getting that from. I agree that the bible may have some historical validity to it. Regarding the supernatural and personal accounts, please take a look at my previous posts in this thread.
N
next_step
Guest
Well, I argue that precisely these miracles are supported by historical evidence. Especially the resurrection.
@your previous postings
Thats simply question-begging and fallacies of irrelevance.
By all means, please show how the descriptions I gave regarding the problems of personal accounts are "fallacies of irrelevance".
N
next_step
Guest
Oh I am sorry, its first and foremost a snow job. The burden of proof is surely on you when you claim that this represents scholarly opinion.
This was the heart of my argument. I did not once cite scholarly articles or say that it represents scholarly opinion. I have just provided facts.
"Consequently, this is what you would have to reject to reject the religion of Christianity - You do not have to prove that the universe is absent of God, or that any of the thousands of dead Gods such as Zues, Rha, Thor, etc. are void as well. The truth is, even is we had multiple contemporaneous claims of the miracles of Jesus, this simply would not be good enough evidence - because miracle stories abound even in the 21st century.
The deputies of South Indian Guru Sathya Sai Baba ascribe all of the miracles to him: He reads minds, he can tell the future, he raises the dead, cures the blind, walks on water, born of a virgin, etc. Sathya Sai Baba is not a Fringe figure. They had a birthday party for him a few years ago and over a million people showed up just to see him. There are vasts amounts of people that think he is a living God.
So Christianity is predicated on the claim that miracle stories, exactly of the kind that are affiliated with Sathya Sai Baba today, become especially credible when you place them in the pre-scientific, religious context of the first century roman empire; decades after their supposed occurrence, as attested to by copies of copies of copies and translations of ancient Greek, and largely discrepant manuscripts. We have Sathya Sai Baba's miracle stories attested to by thousands and thousands of living eye witnesses, and they don't even merit an hour on cable television."
So where are these "fallacies of irrelevance" you speak of?
"Consequently, this is what you would have to reject to reject the religion of Christianity - You do not have to prove that the universe is absent of God, or that any of the thousands of dead Gods such as Zues, Rha, Thor, etc. are void as well. The truth is, even is we had multiple contemporaneous claims of the miracles of Jesus, this simply would not be good enough evidence - because miracle stories abound even in the 21st century.
The deputies of South Indian Guru Sathya Sai Baba ascribe all of the miracles to him: He reads minds, he can tell the future, he raises the dead, cures the blind, walks on water, born of a virgin, etc. Sathya Sai Baba is not a Fringe figure. They had a birthday party for him a few years ago and over a million people showed up just to see him. There are vasts amounts of people that think he is a living God.
So Christianity is predicated on the claim that miracle stories, exactly of the kind that are affiliated with Sathya Sai Baba today, become especially credible when you place them in the pre-scientific, religious context of the first century roman empire; decades after their supposed occurrence, as attested to by copies of copies of copies and translations of ancient Greek, and largely discrepant manuscripts. We have Sathya Sai Baba's miracle stories attested to by thousands and thousands of living eye witnesses, and they don't even merit an hour on cable television."
So where are these "fallacies of irrelevance" you speak of?
N
next_step
Guest
Christianity's truth claims have to accessed for themselves. Granted that there are parallels (for the sake of the argument) - this would be completely irrelevant. If this is intended to prove anything you just have committed the genetic fallacy - a fallacy of irrelevance. You do not address the argument. All you are doing is fallaciously presupposing naturalism while ridiculing miracles per se.
You should
*give real arguments for naturalism
*engage in discussing the real arguments for historical Christianity (Ben Witherington, Gary Habermas, C Bill Craig) and stop attacking a straw man that is slightly anachronistic
I am not arguing against the historical validity of Christianity in the case, nor am I arguing against Christianity in general. I am simply arguing that personal accounts should not be considered fundamental evidence for anyone else besides the people involved in the given experience.
I heard interesting theory about this matter at weekend:
Evolution is based on survival and improvement of species, this means that bad parts of the species (wounded, paralyzed, sick, and weak) will be eliminated by strong and healty parts of the species. Only the adaptable and strong enough can survive.
Now if this said above IS true, how come we have western culture or christianity in general existing? I mean our western civilisation is in perfect contradiction to evolution theory. We tend and care our weak, poor wounded. we have human rights and ethical values. Where does evolution need those? Caring the weak and bad ones means we care the bad DNA that ruins our species. If we would want to evoulve humans to "better" we should in name of evolution erase all that from earh and preserve good genes. All that caring and ethics only slowing us down by mean of evolution and development and therefore must be eliminated....
Evolution is based on survival and improvement of species, this means that bad parts of the species (wounded, paralyzed, sick, and weak) will be eliminated by strong and healty parts of the species. Only the adaptable and strong enough can survive.
Now if this said above IS true, how come we have western culture or christianity in general existing? I mean our western civilisation is in perfect contradiction to evolution theory. We tend and care our weak, poor wounded. we have human rights and ethical values. Where does evolution need those? Caring the weak and bad ones means we care the bad DNA that ruins our species. If we would want to evoulve humans to "better" we should in name of evolution erase all that from earh and preserve good genes. All that caring and ethics only slowing us down by mean of evolution and development and therefore must be eliminated....
While you make a couple good points, i have 2 things to say about it.
1) We have to remember that evolution takes time. A great deal of time. It has only been a very short period of time that people have really started to care for and cure sick people. Mainly in the last hundred years or so has medicine really taken to a curing role. Before that, people got sick, or injured, they were usually a goner. I happen to believe that western civilization is starting to see the drawbacks of letting certain DNA lines continue. We have an increase in Autism, IQs are dropping. And some genetic disease like diabetes, Thyroid problems and obesity are dramatically on the rise.
2) The theory that we should erase everything but the good genes is immoral, and would show that we as humans have not evolved socially and morally. Evolution isn't just about the best physical traits. There is a lot more to it. Humans have evolved and for whatever reason (or from whatever source) we developed a sense of what is right and wrong. It would be against evolution to do away with that.
How you can say what is right or wrong? I mean really? Because Bible or moral says so? Why we have moral in any way? If thinking totally like evolution would go I see no value for moral because it making value of everything both good and bad and want to preserve them both. Moral ruins the whole idea of evolution.
...and to ansver the 1. yeah isn't that the result of going against the direction of evolution. to preserve something that isn't good.
I think Ive said this once before on here but I cannot= remmember so Ill say it again. There is a science experiment that proves that god does affect us, and it is planet earth. the animals are the control grouop and the people are the experimebntal grou8p. notice how those having spi9rit guide of God have evolved much faster since thety have someone to direct them to become more like HIm. it is obvious. this may not prove that god is real but hecck it can't even be proven that reality is real, the buddhists say its a dream. so weather or not god is :"real" whatever real is,. he definitely has a positive effect and is an effective real influence, force, presence. yaya. i have a psych degree and learned in college that people with religion live happier, longer lives. I don't care what anyone thinks, I am not giving up my god. I am an attic. my name is robert no just kidding lol.
Humans are different than most animals because we have something called empathy - the ability to realize that other people have minds just like our own. We also have culture. We have the capacity for deep understanding and knowledge. We realize that we can achieve greater things as a whole than individually.
Evolution does not work that way. Evolution happens initially due to geographical/ environmental pressures that are put onto a species. We currently do not have any these. In fact, there are unnatural factors contributing to the thriving of our species (medicines, surgical technologies, etc.). If any physical changes were to be prevalent in the human species, it would be through unnatural causes (and thus not natural selection). We have already seen how the development of modern science has been able to increase the lifespan of a human by 20 years on average. As science progresses, there may come a day where it might become a profound disability for a person at age 200 not to be able to run a marathon.