Noah's Ark discovered?

[Mista Kool]

This is gonna cause a lot of butthurt...

FOXNews.com - Has Noah's Ark Been Found on Turkish Mountaintop? (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/27/noahs-ark-found-turkey-ararat/)



Has Noah's Ark Been Found on Turkish Mountaintop?

FOXNews.com



The remains of Noah's Ark have been discovered 13,000 feet up a Turkish mountain -- according to a sensational claim by evangelical explorers.



http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Scitech/Noah%27s%20Ark_doomsday_604x341.jpg An explorer examines wooden beams inside what some are nearly certain is the remains of Noah's Ark.

A group of Chinese and Turkish evangelical explorers say wooden remains they have discovered on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey are the remains of Noah's Ark.
The group claims that carbon dating proves the relics are 4,800 years old, meaning they date to around the same time the ark was said to be afloat. Mt. Ararat has long been suspected as the final resting place of the craft by evangelicals and literalists hoping to validate biblical stories.

Yeung Wing-Cheung, from the Noah's Ark Ministries International (http://www.noahsarksearch.net/) research team that made the discovery, said: "It's not 100 percent that it is Noah's Ark, but we think it is 99.9 percent that this is it."

There have been several reported discoveries of the remains of Noah's Ark over the years, most notably a find by archaeologist Ron Wyatt (http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahsark.htm) in 1987. At the time, the Turkish government officially declared a national park around his find, a boat-shaped object stretched across the mountains of Ararat.

Nevertheless, the evangelical ministry remains convinced that the current find is in fact more likely to be the actual artifact, calling upon Dutch Ark researcher Gerrit Aalten to verify its legitimacy.

“The significance of this find is that for the first time in history the discovery of Noah’s Ark is well documented and revealed to the worldwide community,” Aalten said at a press conference announcing the find. Citing the many details that match historical accounts of the Ark, he believes it to be a legitimate archaeological discovery.
“There’s a tremendous amount of solid evidence that the structure found on Mount Ararat in Eastern Turkey is the legendary Ark of Noah,” said Aalten.

Representatives of Noah's Ark Ministries said the structure contained several compartments, some with wooden beams, that they believe were used to house animals.The group of evangelical archaeologists ruled out an established human settlement on the grounds none have ever been found above 11,000 feet in the vicinity, Yeung said.

During the press conference, team member Panda Lee described visiting the site. “In October 2008, I climbed the mountain with the Turkish team. At an elevation of more than 4,000 meters, I saw a structure built with plank-like timber. Each plank was about 8 inches wide. I could see tenons, proof of ancient construction predating the use of metal nails."

We walked about 100 meters to another site. I could see broken wood fragments embedded in a glacier, and some 20 meters long. I surveyed the landscape and found that the wooden structure was permanently covered by ice and volcanic rocks."
Local Turkish officials will ask the central government in Ankara to apply for UNESCO World Heritage status so the site can be protected while a major archaeological dig is conducted.

The biblical story says that God decided to flood the Earth after seeing how corrupt it was. He then told Noah to build an ark and fill it with two of every animal species.
After the flood waters receded, the Bible says, the ark came to rest on a mountain. Many believe that Mount Ararat, the highest point in the region, is where the ark and her inhabitants ran aground.

Read more at The Sun. (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2949640/Noahs-Ark-found-in-Turkey.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News#ixzz0mIvTDKNW)

[pete's montreux]

Carbon dating is complete bullshit.

[Styles p]

lol what a croc of shit.

[LJJ]

" according to a sensational claim by evangelical explorers."
:oldlol:

I bet they were the same evangelical explorers who found this giant skeleton?

http://i44.tinypic.com/wc1ys9.jpg

[DeuceWallaces]

Carbon dating is complete bullshit.

No it's not. Although I'm sure there was more than one boat built in that area 4800 years ago.

[pete's montreux]

I don't pretend to be a scientist, but there's too many flaws with carbon dating for it to be universally accepted.

[tontoz]

I bet these guys are the overseas equivalent of the people who "found" bigfoot.

[DeuceWallaces]

I don't pretend to be a scientist, but there's too many flaws with carbon dating for it to be universally accepted.

It is universally accepted. The margin of error is only like 40 years per 10 thousand years.

[pete's montreux]

I won't get into it because I'm clearly out-matched, but I'll just say I've read a few articles and have seen a few docs that have gone into detail about how CD is full of flaws.

[DeuceWallaces]

Well it does involve intricate calibration procedures that can cause error for the inexperienced.

[pete's montreux]

Right, that was mentioned a few times. User error.

[Hawker]

Ya, right.

[iamgine]

wtf scientist name is Panda Lee. :lol

[rezznor]

wouldn't wooden beams be totally rotted and corroded after the thousands of years ago that the flood was supposed to happen? the beams in that pic look to be in pretty good shape to me. deuce, you would probably know the answer to that.

[DeuceWallaces]

Right, that was mentioned a few times. User error.

But that doesn't make it inaccurate.

I'm not sure about the wood. I'm think anaerobic conditions will preserve wood like in the bottom of the ocean.

[bdreason]

So they declared to have found the Ark in 1987. Now they are declaring they found the Ark again? :oldlol:

"No, no, this time it really is the Ark!"

[pete's montreux]

But that doesn't make it inaccurate.

I'm not sure about the wood. I'm pretty sure anaerobic will preserve wood.

I know, I was confirming that user error was one of the many inaccuracies relating to CD.

[rezznor]

the batboy discovery was much more impressive


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9gn6KLa5xtY/RrimkRTnubI/AAAAAAAAAss/YeUVMfwZ_gA/s400/BatBoy3.jpg

[rezznor]

But that doesn't make it inaccurate.

I'm not sure about the wood. I'm think anaerobic conditions will preserve wood like in the bottom of the ocean.
good point about anaerobic conditions. i wonder if the 4000 meter elevation would preserve as well as deep ocean.

[DukeDelonte13]

I won't get into it because I'm clearly out-matched, but I'll just say I've read a few articles and have seen a few docs that have gone into detail about how CD is full of flaws.


CD works out fine, the articles you read are complete BS. There is nothing inherently wrong with carbon dating.

[DeuceWallaces]

good point about anaerobic conditions. i wonder if the 4000 meter elevation would preserve as well as deep ocean.

It's not the elevation, it would be the compacted soils.

[~primetime~]

Magic all over this b*tch...

[rezznor]

Magic all over this b*tch...
/win

[Lebowsky]

Magic all over this b*tch...
:roll: :roll: You were dying to use that sentence, weren't you?

[~primetime~]

:roll: :roll: You were dying to use that sentence, weren't you?
you have no idea...

[Mista Kool]

While many denialists will dismiss the ark, a priori, all intelligent and honest people know that the Bible is the most historically acurate book in world history. If it says something happened, you can bet your obese mother's sweet ass it took place. That's why I have little doubt that the great flood story is true, and why I'm interested in these discoveries.

[Lebowsky]

While many denialists will dismiss the ark, a priori, all intelligent and honest people know that the Bible is the most historically acurate book in world history. If it says something happened, you can bet your obese mother's sweet ass it took place. That's why I have little doubt that the great flood story is true, and why I'm interested in these discoveries.

Save for the fact that a great flood like the one told in the bible is impossible.

[KeylessEntry]

The remains of Noah's Ark have been discovered 13,000 feet up a Turkish mountain -- according to a sensational claim by evangelical explorers.
:roll: :roll: :roll:


funny how they are able to find the ark, but havent found any evidence of this supposed flood that covered the earth 5000 years ago

[Randy]

Read more at The Sun.

I'm don't live in the UK and even I know the Sun is a bunch of shit.

[Poodle]

you guys sure there is no proof of a great flood?, since i'm pretty sure that there is proof backing that up, altho i'd have to find it. i just remember seeing something about geologists taking soil samples from high up mountains and seeing evidence of flooding up to certain peaks of the mountains.

not that i really believe in noah's ark. the idea of having 2 of every animal and living through a flood disaster like the one described on an ancient ghetto boat doesn't sound too realistic.

still tho its iinteresting they found it. i hope they show pictures so i can laugh at how all of these animals were supposed to fit in there, not to mention get along.

[kentatm]

While many denialists will dismiss the ark, a priori, all intelligent and honest people know that the Bible is the most historically acurate book in world history. If it says something happened, you can bet your obese mother's sweet ass it took place. That's why I have little doubt that the great flood story is true, and why I'm interested in these discoveries.


:roll:



every single major religion that date back thousands of years has a flood story.


how is the Bible the worlds most accurate book when it was cobbled together over hundreds of years and contradicts itself multiple times?

You do realize that its official contents were VOTED on don't you?

[Lebowsky]

you guys sure there is no proof of a great flood?, since i'm pretty sure that there is proof backing that up, altho i'd have to find it. i just remember seeing something about geologists taking soil samples from high up mountains and seeing evidence of flooding up to certain peaks of the mountains.

not that i really believe in noah's ark. the idea of having 2 of every animal and living through a flood disaster like the one described on an ancient ghetto boat doesn't sound too realistic.

still tho its iinteresting they found it. i hope they show pictures so i can laugh at how all of these animals were supposed to fit in there, not to mention get along.

It is quite accepted that the great flood story in the bible stems from the one told in the sumerian poem of Gilgamesh. A universal flood as described in the bible is impossible and absurd. However, it is possible that those myths recount ancient disasters in the form of big floods that affected a specific region.

[DeuceWallaces]

Genetic diversity in the human genome does not support a catastrophic flooding/mass kill event.

[emsteez forreal]

they're also 99.9% sure that there's an invisible man floating in the sky who's concerned with what you do. so eh

[chungerball]

The bible sounds totally like make believe and fairy tales like in Mister Rogers neighborhood....Flame on.

[Poodle]

Genetic diversity in the human genome does not support a catastrophic flooding/mass kill event.


how did the dinosaurs die then? or even devolve?

[rezznor]

how did the dinosaurs die then? or even devolve?
Homer went back in time and sneezed on one.

[DeuceWallaces]

how did the dinosaurs die then? or even devolve?

Ha, are you serious?

[rezznor]

how did the dinosaurs die then? or even devolve?
they were too busy frolicking with the unicorns when the Great Flood hit, thus they never made it onto the Ark and died out with the aforementioned unicorns. I thought everybody knew that, duh.

[Poodle]

Ha, are you serious?


yeah. i thought it was still a open debate how dinosaurs became extinct, and that the theories were based around a mass kill event such as a meteor hitting earth and causing major floods that supposedly wiped everything out. i think i remember reading about some disease they found on some dinosaur that they said could've caused that, but i think that was just one theory from one discovery of some dino they found near some pool that had some disease. its hard to remember, and a lot of this is stuff i remember reading from a long time ago so i might've missed some updates.

[Poodle]

they were too busy frolicking with the unicorns when the Great Flood hit, thus they never made it onto the Ark and died out with the aforementioned unicorns. I thought everybody knew that, duh.

obviously not talking about noah's ark period, but more the idea there was never a mass kill event.

[rufuspaul]

Bout damn time they found my boat.

[LJJ]

yeah. i thought it was still a open debate how dinosaurs became extinct, and that the theories were based around a mass kill event such as a meteor hitting earth and causing major floods that supposedly wiped everything out. i think i remember reading about some disease they found on some dinosaur that they said could've caused that, but i think that was just one theory from one discovery of some dino they found near some pool that had some disease. its hard to remember, and a lot of this is stuff i remember reading from a long time ago so i might've missed some updates.

The thing is, douche is saying that during the existence of humans, there probably hasn't been a mass kill event.


So here you come barging in with a dinosaurs argument, even though dinosaurs had been extinct for over 60 million years before this whole human thing started up.

[Doomsday Dallas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72Jahp1gHL0

watch this video...

[DeuceWallaces]

No, I said there isn't one that correlates with 5 thousand years ago. There was a super-caldera explosion that nearly wiped us out and killed current genetic diversity.

[Poodle]

yeah i was thinking in general in terms of a mass kill event, not limited to that time period.

[DeuceWallaces]

Well that was the whole point of the thread.

[jbot]

Bout damn time they found my boat.
let's go fishin!

BOATS AND HOES, BOATS AND HOES!

[DonDadda59]

Magic all over this b*tch...

Masterfully played :bowdown:


how did the dinosaurs die then? or even devolve?

Two theories have been postulated by the Evangelical scientists...

#1
http://gath.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/noahs-ark-and-the-dinosaurs1.jpg

#2
After realizing what a disaster having a giant T-Rex on a boat with what amounted to an all you can eat buffet, Noah had Yahweh smote the terrible lizards.

http://i10.tinypic.com/6euqhjs.jpg

[Abd El-Krim]

Using carbon dating to try and disprove theories backed up by carbon dating = genius.

[raiderfan19]

Look guys, you are all welcome to your own opinions but chill with the bashing of christianity. Everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs.

Kent I am a christian but you will find out that a ton of the people who defend christianity are very uninformed about our own religious history.

[kentatm]

Kent I am a christian but you will find out that a ton of the people who defend christianity are very uninformed about our own religious history.

Will find out? I have known this ever since I started reading seriously about Christianity and religion.

[DonDadda59]

Using carbon dating to try and disprove theories backed up by carbon dating = genius.

Exactly. When fossils are discovered and carbon-dated to millions of years ago, they balk and question the process, but then when they think it helps their misguided cause they tout it as a valid methodology. But I'm sure their carbon-dating process is different since it probably involves a lot of praying :oldlol:

Any grown man who interprets fairy tales literally and accepts them as factual historical record needs to pimp slap himself.

[raiderfan19]

Do we really wanna turn this into a christian apologetics thread? I try to avoid spewing religion here because I understand that none of you come here to read that and it wouldnt be received well. That said, if everyone is going to act like christianity is idiotic, I will point out the other side of the argument.

[gts]

Originally Posted by Poodle
how did the dinosaurs die then? or even devolve?

before they used chicken lips

http://bostonist.com/attachments/boston_caroline/072007_hot_dog.jpg

[DeuceWallaces]

Do we really wanna turn this into a christian apologetics thread? I try to avoid spewing religion here because I understand that none of you come here to read that and it wouldnt be received well. That said, if everyone is going to act like christianity is idiotic, I will point out the other side of the argument.

You're the one doing that. Stop bringing it up.

[RaininThrees]

While many denialists will dismiss the ark, a priori, all intelligent and honest people know that the Bible is the most historically acurate book in world history. If it says something happened, you can bet your obese mother's sweet ass it took place. That's why I have little doubt that the great flood story is true, and why I'm interested in these discoveries.

This article on Fox News was printed verbatim from the UK's Sun tabloid. Also on The Sun's home page:

"Nessie existed 'beyond doubt'"

So, yeah. I'm dismissing this.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?” - Epicurus

[Penny37]

You're the one doing that. Stop bringing it up.
Pretty sure the Christian bashing started before he entered the thread, bro.

[bladefd]

Exactly. When fossils are discovered and carbon-dated to millions of years ago, they balk and question the process, but then when they think it helps their misguided cause they tout it as a valid methodology. But I'm sure their carbon-dating process is different since it probably involves a lot of praying :oldlol:

Any grown man who interprets fairy tales literally and accepts them as factual historical record needs to pimp slap himself.

Carbon dating does not work well past ~10,000-20,000 years (around there any ways). Millions of years is out of the question with carbon dating. Now you could probably use other radioactive isotopes to date a fossil that is in the million+ year range.

As far as the article in this thread is concerned, I will not comment on it unless if more scientists come out and agree with the findings. Evangelicals already know what they are trying to find and before they even find it, they know that it will be found no matter what. When they do find something that they are not sure about, they will automatically assume that it is exactly what they went out to find without thinking of alternative explanations (same goes for other groups of people, not just evangelicals). I consider that a conflict of interest. When there is a conflict of interest, you bring in a new party (3rd-party). Until I see what a 3rd party has to say about this, it is best not to comment on it.

[rezznor]

Carbon dating does not work well past ~10,000-20,000 years (around there any ways). Millions of years is out of the question with carbon dating. Now you could probably use other radioactive isotopes to date a fossil that is in the million+ year range.

As far as the article in this thread is concerned, I will not comment on it unless if more scientists come out and agree with the findings. Evangelicals already know what they are trying to find and before they even find it, they know that it will be found no matter what. When they do find something that they are not sure about, they will automatically assume that it is exactly what they went out to find without thinking of alternative explanations (same goes for other groups of people, not just evangelicals). I consider that a conflict of interest. When there is a conflict of interest, you bring in a new party (3rd-party). Until I see what a 3rd party has to say about this, it is best not to comment on it.


probably the most logical post in this thread

[DeuceWallaces]

Pretty sure the Christian bashing started before he entered the thread, bro.

No bro, it was bashing stories with no evidence.

[shortlunatic]

Carbon dating does not work well past ~10,000-20,000 years (around there any ways). Millions of years is out of the question with carbon dating. Now you could probably use other radioactive isotopes to date a fossil that is in the million+ year range.

As far as the article in this thread is concerned, I will not comment on it unless if more scientists come out and agree with the findings. Evangelicals already know what they are trying to find and before they even find it, they know that it will be found no matter what. When they do find something that they are not sure about, they will automatically assume that it is exactly what they went out to find without thinking of alternative explanations (same goes for other groups of people, not just evangelicals). I consider that a conflict of interest. When there is a conflict of interest, you bring in a new party (3rd-party). Until I see what a 3rd party has to say about this, it is best not to comment on it.

nice post

but source??

[DeuceWallaces]

Carbon dating does not work well past ~10,000-20,000 years (around there any ways). Millions of years is out of the question with carbon dating. Now you could probably use other radioactive isotopes to date a fossil that is in the million+ year range.

As far as the article in this thread is concerned, I will not comment on it unless if more scientists come out and agree with the findings. Evangelicals already know what they are trying to find and before they even find it, they know that it will be found no matter what. When they do find something that they are not sure about, they will automatically assume that it is exactly what they went out to find without thinking of alternative explanations (same goes for other groups of people, not just evangelicals). I consider that a conflict of interest. When there is a conflict of interest, you bring in a new party (3rd-party). Until I see what a 3rd party has to say about this, it is best not to comment on it.

No, now it's up to 50,000 years with accuracy, with an exception of some flux in the 10-12K year.

[miller-time]

nice post

but source??

i'm assuming it is to do with the half life of carbon 14. after 20,000 years or however long there would be no carbon 14 left in what you are testing.

[RoTM]

All science is biased. I wouldn't be so quick to point fingers at someone because they are christians. They were probably the only ones looking in the first place.

[KeylessEntry]

http://media.moddb.com/cache/images/members/1/214/213799/thumb_620x2000/raptor-jesus.jpg

and we have carbon dating to prove it! 99.9% chance i am correct!

[bladefd]

All science is biased. I wouldn't be so quick to point fingers at someone because they are christians. They were probably the only ones looking in the first place.

Explain.

What about the scientific method? Would you consider that biased as well? I understand that scientists that do research probably have some sort of preconceptions but to call all science biased? :confusedshrug:

[RoTM]

Explain.

What about the scientific method? Would you consider that biased as well? I understand that scientists that do research probably have some sort of preconceptions but to call all science biased? :confusedshrug:

Im not talking about some academic notion of how things are supposed to be done in fantasy land. In practice all science is funded or pursued based on preconception. Even observation itself which is the simplest method of discovery is biased. What exactly were these men who found this supposed ark supposed to say? Oh we found a ship like structure on mount Ararat, but we wont call it Noah's ark because looking for something you want to find isn't PC in science?

[lefthook00]

Science is a "religion" too. The thing about carbon dating...according to the Bible, isn't humanity only like 5,000 years old or around there? So the dating process would be accurate for such a short time ago?

[BrentISballin]

We are not supposed to be able to find the arc according to God

[miller-time]

Science is a "religion" too. The thing about carbon dating...according to the Bible, isn't humanity only like 5,000 years old or around there? So the dating process would be accurate for such a short time ago?

what would humanities duration on the planet have to do with the half life of a carbon 14 atom?

[highwhey]

We are not supposed to be able to find the arc according to God
where is bagelred and his breaking news gif when you need him.

[IlliniFan]

where is bagelred and his breaking news gif when you need him.
I got this.


We are not supposed to be able to find the arc according to God

http://www.rc-hr.com/esp/Portals/20/breaking-news.gif

[Doomsday Dallas]

Science is a "religion" too. The thing about carbon dating...according to the Bible, isn't humanity only like 5,000 years old or around there? So the dating process would be accurate for such a short time ago?

I think according to the Bible... Humanity is 8,000 years old.

Adam & Eve (2,000 years)
Noah (2,000 years)
Moses (2,000 years)
Jesus (2,000 years)
Today.

And it's a good thing you said Humanity and not the Earth..... Because most people that bash Christianity like to mention that Christians believe the earth is only 6,000 years old or some $hit... when it's not the case.... even according to the Bible it's not the case.

[~primetime~]

I think according to the Bible... Humanity is 8,000 years old.

Adam & Eve (2,000 years)
Noah (2,000 years)
Moses (2,000 years)
Jesus (2,000 years)
Today.

And it's a good thing you said Humanity and not the Earth..... Because most people that bash Christianity like to mention that Christians believe the earth is only 6,000 years old or some $hit... when it's not the case.... even according to the Bible it's not the case.
there needs to be a new denomination of Christians...seperate the logical ones fromt he illogical ones...

I have a ton of respect for Christianity, but taking Noah's Ark and Adam and Eve in a literal sense is just well..."sillyness"

I hate Bible bashers, they are lame...but some Christians do need to evolve like others have...

[kentatm]

there needs to be a new denomination of Christians...seperate the logical ones fromt he illogical ones...

I have a ton of respect for Christianity, but taking Noah's Ark and Adam and Eve in a literal sense is just well..."sillyness"

I hate Bible bashers, they are lame...but some Christians do need to evolve like others have...




the problem is that when it gets pointed out that the book contradicts itself, was written and translated by hundreds of people with different worldviews in different times periods, and just how insane some of its teachings are, you get called a bible basher.

To say ANYTHING against the thing makes you a hater and an atheist to a LARGE portion of Christians.

[~primetime~]

the problem is that when it gets pointed out that the book contradicts itself, was written and translated by hundreds of people with different worldviews in different times periods, and just how insane some of its teachings are, you get called a bible basher.

To say ANYTHING against the thing makes you a hater and an atheist to a LARGE portion of Christians.
the common Bible basher runs around telling Christians they are brain washed morons...

from what I have experienced here in ISH, there are a quite a few Christians that are willing to debate the Bible without insults...

then you have the a few posters like Superboy that run around and make the more down to Earth Christians look bad...

but 9 times out of 10, it is the athiests acing childish and insulting the Christians first...at least that is what it seems like in here...

[Juges8932]

http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/blacksea/history/photos/arklanding.jpg

[RoTM]

there needs to be a new denomination of Christians...seperate the logical ones fromt he illogical ones...

I have a ton of respect for Christianity, but taking Noah's Ark and Adam and Eve in a literal sense is just well..."sillyness"

I hate Bible bashers, they are lame...but some Christians do need to evolve like others have...

I don't have any reason to believe the article in the OP at present. Nor am I a Christian, but I need an explanation about why the Mayans as well would possibly have had a flood myth thats comparable to the Sumerian root myth before I dismissed it out of hand.

[Doomsday Dallas]

I don't have any reason to believe the article in the OP at present, but I need an explanation about why the Mayans as well would possibly have had a flood myth thats comparable to the Sumerian root myth before I dismissed it out of hand.

links about this?

[kentatm]

the common Bible basher runs around telling Christians they are brain washed morons...

from what I have experienced here in ISH, there are a quite a few Christians that are willing to debate the Bible without insults...

then you have the a few posters like Superboy that run around and make the more down to Earth Christians look bad...

but 9 times out of 10, it is the athiests acing childish and insulting the Christians first...at least that is what it seems like in here...


well, when somebody says something like "The bible is the most historically accurate book ever written" they SHOULD be called names and insulted b/c that is an absolutely asinine thing to claim and that person cannot be taken seriously.



links about this?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

[Juges8932]

well, when somebody says something like "The bible is the most historically accurate book ever written" they SHOULD be called names and insulted b/c that is an absolutely asinine thing to claim and that person cannot be taken seriously.
:applause:

Anybody who thinks that a book that has been translated X amount of times over Y amount of years in Z amount of languages is the most historically accurate has been brain-washed since an early age, is naive, and/or lacks common sense.

[RoTM]

links about this?

I was actually thinking of an excerpt I had read about the ancient Incan Viracocha creation myth. I confused him for kukulkan since they are likely the same guy.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/inca/inca01.htm

De Gamboa relates the myth there in the first two paragraphs. I'm looking around but the internet isn't a great place to find translations of indian myths recorded by conquistadors 400 years ago.

[~primetime~]

well, when somebody says something like "The bible is the most historically accurate book ever written" they SHOULD be called names and insulted b/c that is an absolutely asinine thing to claim and that person cannot be taken seriously.

:applause:

Anybody who thinks that a book that has been translated X amount of times over Y amount of years in Z amount of languages is the most historically accurate has been brain-washed since an early age, is naive, and/or lacks common sense.

yes, anyone who claims the Bible is "this and that" should be called names...

:rolleyes:

how about just asking them why they feel the way they do?



seriously, I am getting sick of all the religious bashing in this country...half you mfers will defend a gay person's right to the death but when it comes to FREEDOM OF RELIGION you guys shit all over it...

live and let live...

[Ass Dan]

I won't get into it because I'm clearly out-matched, but I'll just say I've read a few articles and have seen a few docs that have gone into detail about how CD is full of flaws.


Nothing like when dumb asses read something from another dumbass and think they are edumacatin their bad selves. No wonder this country is goin down the proverbial Thomas Crapper.

You my friend are 'Tardtron' the learned one.

Who goes to Fox News for science, that is like watching Bill Maher to get my church on.

For real YO!!

[kentatm]

yes, anyone who claims the Bible is "this and that" should be called names...

:rolleyes:

how about just asking them why they feel the way they do?





live and let live...

First off I specifically stated that if you think the bible is the 100% most accurate historical book, that you are just not a bright person.

So do not add in whatever "this and that" other things you may be talking about. Deriding one specific claim as completely foolish does not mean everything else will be as well.

A person who believes the bible is 100% historically accurate is ignorant of the books history. Pure and simple.

Even with that lack of that knowledge, it is just as Juges said.



Anybody who thinks that a book that has been translated X amount of times over Y amount of years in Z amount of languages is the most historically accurate has been brain-washed since an early age, is naive, and/or lacks common sense.

Its not like we are living in the dark ages in this country. The Church can't keep the people ignorant of what is in that book or what goes on in the world anymore. Most people can at least read and write. People have access to all kinds of information now. Most people have taken some amount of foreign language and know how mucked up a translation can get. They should be able to figure out just from reading though the Old Testament that this stuff that supposedly happened took many years and would have had several writers. People should know words and language change over time. Why? Just read how that book is written and then realize how much Shakespeare is crammed down everyones throats.

Just living in the world should clue you into the fact that it is a ridiculous notion to believe that the contents of the book have not suffered many, many changes over the years.



seriously, I am getting sick of all the religious bashing in this country...half you mfers will defend a gay person's right to the death but when it comes to FREEDOM OF RELIGION you guys shit all over it...

How has anything that has been said in here harming religious freedom?

Are you somehow being stopped from being a Christian?

Also, why bring up gay people having basic rights? Do you think gays getting equal rights somehow infringes on your religious freedom?

[miller-time]

Im not talking about some academic notion of how things are supposed to be done in fantasy land. In practice all science is funded or pursued based on preconception. Even observation itself which is the simplest method of discovery is biased. What exactly were these men who found this supposed ark supposed to say? Oh we found a ship like structure on mount Ararat, but we wont call it Noah's ark because looking for something you want to find isn't PC in science?

i think you are paraphrasing some sort of stock phrase about the drug industry and applying it to the entire foundation of science.

science is falsifiable. if something is said to be something that it is not, you can prove it. if you want to say a hydrogen atom has 10 electrons you can, even if you have all the funding and agendas in the world it won't stop some other scientific team from smashing your theory. it's called peer review and experimental replication.

here are the facts; some type of man made structure has been found. that's it. you can hypothesise that it is noah's ark. but until you have more data you can't say it is noah's ark.

[rufuspaul]

See the bird with the leaf in his mouth
After the flood all the colors came out

[Rasheed1]

the ark was discovered again? where was it this time?

[Lebowsky]

the ark was discovered again? where was it this time?

A rusted-out sedan, most likely.

[Poodle]

the common Bible basher runs around telling Christians they are brain washed morons...

from what I have experienced here in ISH, there are a quite a few Christians that are willing to debate the Bible without insults...

then you have the a few posters like Superboy that run around and make the more down to Earth Christians look bad...

but 9 times out of 10, it is the athiests acing childish and insulting the Christians first...at least that is what it seems like in here...


there is no point in debating it since the athiests talk using logic and science, while the bible thumpers either talk using blind faith(which really isn't debatable), or they pretend everything is a metaphor.

but ONLY ON ISH do i EVER see any christians pretend everything was a metaphor. 90% of the WORLD believes it was literal. Go to most churches, they are preaching based on these being real events. they aren't saying it didn't really happen and these are just lessons. Seriouslly a lot of you supposed 'Christians' here or your parents aren't 'Christian' in the sense most Christians are. Its a joke to me a lot of you are preaching this 'new' outlook on Christianity, when the base religion and the way it was taught was nothing like how you're portraying it now, through generations and generations it wasn't all some metaphor.

i agree with whoever said you guys should've just invented your new 'Christian' religion as something different, maybe call it 'Contemporary Christians' than what 90% of Christians in this country believe, and have believed since the inception of it. i just don't get how you all can turn something so indoctrined and ancient with obviously more fundamental ignorance to it, but shape it to fit your logic/science of today. and this all coming from an almighty God, or if thats some metaphor too, makes it all the more absurd, where you're even able to do that.

i grew up in a Christian household, went to retreats and christian camps, and never have i seen anyone try and justify it all as metaphors, and nothing being real events.

[Nanners]

seriously, I am getting sick of all the religious bashing in this country...half you mfers will defend a gay person's right to the death but when it comes to FREEDOM OF RELIGION you guys shit all over it...


:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:


in this thread, you have a crazy man claiming they found noahs ark, and then people making fun of him.

How exactly are people infringing on his "FREEDOM OF RELIGION"? By making fun of him for believing ridiculous shit? Like claiming someone actually found Noah's Ark?

[Penny37]

there is no point in debating it since the athiests talk using logic and science, while the bible thumpers either talk using blind faith(which really isn't debatable), or they pretend everything is a metaphor.

Way to overgeneralize.

[lolSmileyFace]

youd have to be a retard with down syndrome to believe this crap

[shortlunatic]

:roll:



every single major religion that date back thousands of years has a flood story.


how is the Bible the worlds most accurate book when it was cobbled together over hundreds of years and contradicts itself multiple times?

You do realize that its official contents were VOTED on don't you?

I simply don't believe that. I have looked at arguments on both sides and they all have seperate pieces of history to back their claims. But from what I understand, there is no real evidence whatsoever that proves doctrines other than the ones we have now (the current four gospels), were used in the early century churches.

On top of that, the story is that that the Roman Catholic church decided what should and should not be in the bible, yes? If you read the New Testament, the ideas put forth are ideas that are never preached in the catholic church (some of the ideas aren't even taught in the traditional christian church). It's almost as though if they are confused about what the actual message truly is. If they took that much time to edit it and replace all the old copies, wouldn't they have made sure it catered exactly (or even closely) to what they were trying to preach?

[Poodle]

Way to overgeneralize.


i dare you to make a logical argument proving God's existence. you simply can't. there is no generalizing here. either you all make blind faith arguments, or you copout with it all being metaphors. go ahead i'll be waiting...

[Rasheed1]

I simply don't believe that. I have looked at arguments on both sides and they all have seperate pieces of history to back their claims. But from what I understand, there is no real evidence whatsoever that proves doctrines other than the ones we have now (the current four gospels), were used in the early century churches.

On top of that, the story is that that the Roman Catholic church decided what should and should not be in the bible, yes? If you read the New Testament, the ideas put forth are ideas that are never preached in the catholic church (some of the ideas aren't even taught in the traditional christian church). It's almost as though if they are confused about what the actual message truly is. If they took that much time to edit it and replace all the old copies, wouldn't they have made sure it catered exactly (or even closely) to what they were trying to preach?


KentATM is actually right though... what is in the bible was voted on..

and the ideas in the New testament are indeed taught in catholic church

[DonDadda59]

Carbon dating does not work well past ~10,000-20,000 years (around there any ways). Millions of years is out of the question with carbon dating. Now you could probably use other radioactive isotopes to date a fossil that is in the million+ year range.

You're right, mental lapse on my part. I should've made the distinction between carbon and other radiometric dating processes, but the point still stands. You can't pick and choose when the scientific method/certain processes is invalid or unreliable and when it will be touted as 99.9% 'proof' depending on what case you're trying to deny or push.

[raiderfan19]

I simply don't believe that. I have looked at arguments on both sides and they all have seperate pieces of history to back their claims. But from what I understand, there is no real evidence whatsoever that proves doctrines other than the ones we have now (the current four gospels), were used in the early century churches.

On top of that, the story is that that the Roman Catholic church decided what should and should not be in the bible, yes? If you read the New Testament, the ideas put forth are ideas that are never preached in the catholic church (some of the ideas aren't even taught in the traditional christian church). It's almost as though if they are confused about what the actual message truly is. If they took that much time to edit it and replace all the old copies, wouldn't they have made sure it catered exactly (or even closely) to what they were trying to preach?
Hes definately right that they were voted on. There are a ton of other writings and someone had to decide what to exclude and include including the gnostic gospels, pauls other letters and several other letters.

[rezznor]

what about the dead sea scrolls? weren't they supposed to pre date the bible as well as contradict much of it? which piece of ancient text are we supposed to follow?

[raiderfan19]

what about the dead sea scrolls? weren't they supposed to pre date the bible as well as contradict much of it? which piece of ancient text are we supposed to follow?
The dead sea scrolls are the bible minus one book and with alot of other gnostic writings if i remember right.

[DonDadda59]

what about the dead sea scrolls? weren't they supposed to pre date the bible as well as contradict much of it? which piece of ancient text are we supposed to follow?

The Dead Sea scrolls and the group(s) that wrote them are very interesting. They're attributed to the Essenes who were one of the first group of Jews to create the idea of a 'Messiah' and Armageddon during the time of Hellenistic rule and the Diaspora. They also lived in the wilderness/desert and created water/baptism rituals. A lot of scholars think that this group were the earliest Christians and they even attribute Isaiah 53, which is one of the most debated biblical verses, to a follower of 'the teacher of righteousness' who was the leader of the sect and was crucified around 100 B.C. on a hill that would become known as Golgotha (any Christian worth his salt knows this name).

So if there was a historical Jesus that was the basis for the mythical one, ala Saint Nicholas being the basis for the Santa Claus myth, it was the Essene leader.

[raiderfan19]

The Dead Sea scrolls and the group(s) that wrote them are very interesting. They're attributed to the Essenes who were one of the first group of Jews to create the idea of a 'Messiah' and Armageddon during the time of Hellenistic rule and the Diaspora. They also lived in the wilderness/desert and created water/baptism rituals. A lot of scholars think that this group were the earliest Christians and they even attribute Isaiah 53, which is one of the most debated biblical verses, to a follower of 'the teacher of righteousness' who was the leader of the sect and was crucified around 100 B.C. on a hill that would become known as Golgotha (any Christian worth his salt knows this name).

So if there was a historical Jesus that was the basis for the mythical one, ala Saint Nicholas being the basis for the Santa Claus myth, it was the Essene leader.
I dont have a problem with people pointing out historical issues with the bible. I do have an issue with someone refferring to Jesus as "mythical". Whether you choose to believe he is the messiah is a choice for everyone to make on their own. To refer to him as mythical is foolish and disrespectful.

[jbot]

I dont have a problem with people pointing out historical issues with the bible. I do have an issue with someone refferring to Jesus as "mythical". Whether you choose to believe he is the messiah is a choice for everyone to make on their own. To refer to him as mythical is foolish and disrespectful.
what about robin hood and king arthur then? lots of books about them, yet nobody can prove they really existed.

[raiderfan19]

what about robin hood and king arthur then? lots of books about them, yet nobody can prove they really existed.
I wasnt really aware that anyone argued about whether or not jesus existed. Its fairly well documented historically that he existed. Theres just the question of whether you believe he was the messiah or not. I as a christian believe that he was. You have every right to believe whatever you want.

[jbot]

I wasnt really aware that anyone argued about whether or not jesus existed. Its fairly well documented historically that he existed. Theres just the question of whether you believe he was the messiah or not. I as a christian believe that he was. You have every right to believe whatever you want.
where at other than the bible?

[mhg88]

where at other than the bible?

wondering that myself.. any Christians or someone more informed care to chime in

[raiderfan19]

where at other than the bible?
the gnostic gospels for one.

[raiderfan19]

Hes also at least alluded to by the works of Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius

[mhg88]

Hes also at least alluded to by the works of Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius

you got links for any of these. idk anything

[raiderfan19]

There were also several other people i cant think of off the top of my head. Jesus existed. Its really not any more arguable than the fact that alexander the great existed.

[raiderfan19]

you got links for any of these. idk anything
im going off the top of my head but ill find some. Hold on. Its been a while since I really looked at christian apologetics.

[RoTM]

i think you are paraphrasing some sort of stock phrase about the drug industry and applying it to the entire foundation of science.

science is falsifiable. if something is said to be something that it is not, you can prove it. if you want to say a hydrogen atom has 10 electrons you can, even if you have all the funding and agendas in the world it won't stop some other scientific team from smashing your theory. it's called peer review and experimental replication.

here are the facts; some type of man made structure has been found. that's it. you can hypothesise that it is noah's ark. but until you have more data you can't say it is noah's ark.

Its rare that a theory can be proven, and peer review is just a check to make sure methods conform to the consensus. Evidence is often open to interpretation and the results won't be accepted unless they conform with the conceptions of the majority. Your last paragraph stating the facts is my point. They couldn't prove their ship was the ark even if it did date to the supposed time period. Their supporting evidence will always be up to interpretation which just leaves us with belief.

[raiderfan19]

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/tacitus-annals.txt

Thats a link to the whole thing. "Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14–37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular" ill just qoute the important part so you dont have to go through the whole thing.

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm

The works of josephus. Heres an important part. "About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day."

Ill find some more later but i have to finish some work.

[jbot]

Hes also at least alluded to by the works of Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius
http://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/gospels/howknow.htm

read this.

[raiderfan19]

http://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/gospels/howknow.htm

read this.
If you are using that to discredit christ as historical figure, you might want to read it first. Its guess work at best.

"There is not much basis here for concluding that he was presenting independent testimony about the historical figure of Jesus. " No evidece other than the fact that thats what tacitus was saying. There was no evidence for this guys jump that he must have guessed and gotten his info from pliny the Younger other than that this guy was hoping thats what he had gotten.

The argument against Jospehus' text is partially plausible. Its very likely that christians added to his text the parts he italicised. That said a reference to james the brother of christ(james is the biblical half brother of jesus) is still a reference to christ and no one questions that.

By all means, require christians to back up their claims. I have no problem with that, but require the same of agnostics and atheists.

[kentatm]

I simply don't believe that. I have looked at arguments on both sides and they all have seperate pieces of history to back their claims. But from what I understand, there is no real evidence whatsoever that proves doctrines other than the ones we have now (the current four gospels), were used in the early century churches.

On top of that, the story is that that the Roman Catholic church decided what should and should not be in the bible, yes? If you read the New Testament, the ideas put forth are ideas that are never preached in the catholic church (some of the ideas aren't even taught in the traditional christian church). It's almost as though if they are confused about what the actual message truly is. If they took that much time to edit it and replace all the old copies, wouldn't they have made sure it catered exactly (or even closely) to what they were trying to preach?

:lol

First off, as a Catholic, I find it amusing to be told we don't follow the ideas put forth in the New Testament. This reminds me of when I was at Texas A&M and a dude told me that I was not a Christian b/c I was Catholic.

Now is there certain stuff in there that gets ignored? Sure. But its like that for EVERY organized group of Christians.


Second, you are just woefully ignorant of the books history.

Look up the Ecumenical councils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_Council). There were several. My favorite is the Council at Chalcedon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon) where they voted on if Jesus was fully man, full divine or some combination of both.

[raiderfan19]

:lol

First off, as a Catholic, I find it amusing to be told we don't follow the ideas put forth in the New Testament. This reminds me of when I was at Texas A&M and a dude told me that I was not a Christian b/c I was Catholic.

Now is there certain stuff in there that gets ignored? Sure. But its like that for EVERY organized group of Christians.


Second, you are just woefully ignorant of the books history.

Look up the Ecumenical councils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_Council). There were several. My favorite is the Council at Chalcedon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon) where they voted on if Jesus was fully man, full divine or some combination of both.
Theres no point arguing with people who wont listen at all. The sad thing is, I believe in christianity, and I do believe in the bible. I believe that the errors in it are caused by the fallable nature of man and of translations. That said people arguing against things that are historical facts(that the bible has been made up of different books at different times to different denominations of christianity) dont do anything to further the cause of christianity. Really all it does is make the person arguing it look like an idiot.

[DonDadda59]

I dont have a problem with people pointing out historical issues with the bible. I do have an issue with someone refferring to Jesus as "mythical". Whether you choose to believe he is the messiah is a choice for everyone to make on their own. To refer to him as mythical is foolish and disrespectful.

I don't see how it's either foolish or disrespectful. Even the early Church father Justin Martyr is on record saying that Jesus' story is compatible with some of the many myths that were circling the region, most notably 'The Suns of Jupiter' and Dionysus.

You wouldn't argue that both Jesus and John the Baptist were Jews, right? So the question is, what specific sect of Judaism were they followers of... and by extension, their followers- the original Christians.

[QUOTE]The Essenes (Greek: Εσσηνοι, Εσσαιοι, or Οσσαιοι; Essēnoi, Essaioi, Ossaioi) were a Jewish religious group that flourished from the 2nd century BCE to the 1st century CE that some scholars claim seceded from the Zadokite priests[1]. Being much fewer in number than the Pharisees and the Sadducees (the other two major sects at the time) the Essenes lived in various cities but congregated in communal life dedicated to asceticism, voluntary poverty, and abstinence from worldly pleasures, including marriage and daily baptisms. Many separate but related religious groups of that era shared similar mystic, eschatological, messianic, and ascetic beliefs. These groups are collectively referred to by various scholars as the "Essenes." Josephus records that Essenes existed in large numbers, and thousands lived throughout Jud

[DonDadda59]

There is absolutely no record of a Jesus of Nazareth anywhere from the time he supposedly lived, none whatsoever. You would think that someone who performed miracles in front of big crowds, shook up the religious and political landscape, caught the attention of both Jewish and Roman leaders, died and rose from the dead and appeared to a number of people would have AT LEAST ONE mention during his lifetime in birth records, census, tax collector's records, court records, etc... but there is NOTHING. The only non-secular sources either mention the name Chrestus or the title Christus (which was given to many Gods or political figures, see Serapis Christus) and were written years after the alleged events. In other cases, such as the portion attributed to Josephus, they are forgeries that are known to be by both historians and biblical scholars alike.

There is ZERO evidence of Jesus of Nazareth ever existing.

[jbot]

If you are using that to discredit christ as historical figure, you might want to read it first. Its guess work at best.

"There is not much basis here for concluding that he was presenting independent testimony about the historical figure of Jesus. " No evidece other than the fact that thats what tacitus was saying. There was no evidence for this guys jump that he must have guessed and gotten his info from pliny the Younger other than that this guy was hoping thats what he had gotten.

The argument against Jospehus' text is partially plausible. Its very likely that christians added to his text the parts he italicised. That said a reference to james the brother of christ(james is the biblical half brother of jesus) is still a reference to christ and no one questions that.

By all means, require christians to back up their claims. I have no problem with that, but require the same of agnostics and atheists.i'm just kidding w/ u, man. calm down, little disciple.

i don't care enough to really argue about religion. if u believe in it, it's good for u. it's therapeutic in that way.

i've got no problem w/ religious people until they start getting hypocritical, which you basically can't avoid at some point, so whatever.

[raiderfan19]

i'm just kidding w/ u, man. calm down, little disciple.

i don't care enough to really argue about religion. if u believe in it, it's good for u. it's therapeutic in that way.

i've got no problem w/ religious people until they start getting hypocritical, which you basically can't avoid at some point, so whatever.
Im not mad at all. Its counter productive to get mad arguing for christianity. It goes against the christianity to do so. I was just pointing out that that guys argument was wrong.

[rufuspaul]

How soon till they get this thing sea worthy? I gotta get ready.

[RaininThrees]

Anyone ever wonder how those Kangaroos got to Australia?

[Jackass18]

I think according to the Bible... Humanity is 8,000 years old.

Adam & Eve (2,000 years)
Noah (2,000 years)
Moses (2,000 years)
Jesus (2,000 years)
Today.

And it's a good thing you said Humanity and not the Earth..... Because most people that bash Christianity like to mention that Christians believe the earth is only 6,000 years old or some $hit... when it's not the case.... even according to the Bible it's not the case.

Young Earth Creationists believe that the Earth was created only 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.

[Penny37]

i dare you to make a logical argument proving God's existence. you simply can't. there is no generalizing here. either you all make blind faith arguments, or you copout with it all being metaphors. go ahead i'll be waiting...
I dare you to make a logical argument proving God doesn't exist.

[rezznor]

I dare you to make a logical argument proving God doesn't exist.
I dare you to make a logical argument proving bigfoot doesn't exist

I dare you to make a logical argument proving unicorns don't exist

I dare you to make a logical argument proving the chupacabra doesn't exist

I dare you to make a logical argument proving aliens doesn't exist

[EroticVanilla]

I dare you to make a logical argument proving God doesn't exist.
I dare you to make a logical argument proving God does exist.

[Penny37]

Hes definately right that they were voted on. There are a ton of other writings and someone had to decide what to exclude and include including the gnostic gospels, pauls other letters and several other letters.
They were voted on but what does that matter?
The council sat and voted on which to include based on their relationship with Jesus, the accuracy and validity of their writings, and the integrity of the author.
That seems really smart to me. Would you rather they NOT vote on it and one person randomly picks random books he wants to put in the Bible?
Why is it that the Bible being created through a valid, legit, voting process is a reason to discredit it?

There are many contradictions in the Bible as well which, IMO, only strengthen the validity of the overall message. ie. In one of the books the man hanged with Jesus becomes saved while in another he doesn't. They could have easily changed those contradictions but they let them be and didn't tamper with it.

Those contradictions don't change the overall message which is the life of Jesus Christ and salvation through faith in Christ.

[bada bing]

all these people that are bashing christianity....i am just curious as to what religion are you? or if you are an athiest what is the religion of our parents? just curious. thats all.

[Penny37]

I dare you to make a logical argument proving bigfoot doesn't exist

I dare you to make a logical argument proving unicorns don't exist

I dare you to make a logical argument proving the chupacabra doesn't exist

I dare you to make a logical argument proving aliens doesn't exist
I dare you to make a logical argument proving gravity exists.

I dare you to make a logical argument proving that wind exists.

[rezznor]

I dare you to make a logical argument proving gravity exists.

I dare you to make a logical argument proving that wind exists.


are you for real? :oldlol:

























ok, i'll bite. science.

[DonDadda59]

I dare you to make a logical argument proving gravity exists.

I dare you to make a logical argument proving that wind exists.

:oldlol:

Seriously?

[Poodle]

I dare you to make a logical argument proving gravity exists.

I dare you to make a logical argument proving that wind exists.


how do magnets work?

[Penny37]

I dare you to make a logical argument proving God does exist.
Do you have any idea the number of intelligent, knowledgeable scientists who believe in a God?
There are a ton.
Obviously this doesn't mean that God doesn't exist but just because someone believes in one doesn't make them retarded.

[EroticVanilla]

I dare you to make a logical argument proving gravity exists.

I dare you to make a logical argument proving that wind exists.
Magic everywhere in this B*tch.

[shortlunatic]

[QUOTE]:lol

First off, as a Catholic, I find it amusing to be told we don't follow the ideas put forth in the New Testament. This reminds me of when I was at Texas A&M and a dude told me that I was not a Christian b/c I was Catholic.

Now is there certain stuff in there that gets ignored? Sure. But its like that for EVERY organized group of Christians.

Well when your missing a huge chunk of the total point, I find that more than just certain stuff. And thats aside praying to someone other than God, confessing sins to men, and calling other men father and thinking they are holier than you.

I seriously want to know, what did you get from Catholicism?




Second, you are just woefully ignorant of the books history.

Look up the Ecumenical councils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_Council). There were several. My favorite is the Council at Chalcedon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon) where they voted on if Jesus was fully man, full divine or some combination of both.

My whole thing was specifically on the point of the gnostic gospels. I apologize if that was not you were reffering to when you talked about voting. But as soon as I saw you said vote, i automatically assumed you were trying to say the lost gospels were used and what we read today was completely manipulated etc...Had I knew you meant just the context was just voted on, I wouldn't have said anything, as I don't enough about that to comment.

[shortlunatic]

KentATM is actually right though... what is in the bible was voted on..

and the ideas in the New testament are indeed taught in catholic church

what ideas are you reffering to? I would like to know.

[Poodle]

all these people that are bashing christianity....i am just curious as to what religion are you? or if you are an athiest what is the religion of our parents? just curious. thats all.


parents are presbyterian(sp?). grew up that way, went to church every sunday until 7th grade or so, and was pretty much forced to early on. went to the church retreats(they were fun since most of it was playing sports), and sat through worship and sunday school half asleep 3/4's of the time.

ever since i was little i could never understand how all of these people around me were so religious. i mean i felt like such an oddball that i had to see some real tangible proof for me to believe in it, while everyone else seemed ok without it, and i swear they seemed so 100% conviinced, going as far as believing God answers their prayers, and they communicate through God through prayer, and swearing by it. I still don't get how people can have so much faith and belief, devoting their life to something they've never seen or can be proven as real :confusedshrug:

its just crazy to me.

[shortlunatic]

parents are presbyterian(sp?). grew up that way, went to church every sunday until 7th grade or so, and was pretty much forced to early on. went to the church retreats(they were fun since most of it was playing sports), and sat through worship and sunday school half asleep 3/4's of the time.

ever since i was little i could never understand how all of these people around me were so religious. i mean i felt like such an oddball that i had to see some real tangible proof for me to believe in it, while everyone else seemed ok without it, and i swear they seemed so 100% conviinced, going as far as believing God answers their prayers, and they communicate through God through prayer, and swearing by it. I still don't get how people can have so much faith and belief, devoting their life to something they've never seen or can be proven as real :confusedshrug:

its just crazy to me.

Because something touches you in a way that nothing ever has. If logic can't explain my life or it changes, then is it so crazy to believe it's something beyond logic?

[kentatm]

Well when your missing a huge chunk of the total point, I find that more than just certain stuff. And thats aside praying to someone other than God, confessing sins to men, and calling other men father and thinking they are holier than you.

I seriously want to know, what did you get from Catholicism?



actually, what are you even talking about that is not taught from the New Testament? I cannot make any arguments without knowing what you are even talking about. What is that HUGE chunk that the OG Christians are missing?



My whole thing was specifically on the point of the gnostic gospels. I apologize if that was not you were reffering to when you talked about voting. But as soon as I saw you said vote, i automatically assumed you were trying to say the lost gospels were used and what we read today was completely manipulated etc...Had I knew you meant just the context was just voted on, I wouldn't have said anything, as I don't enough about that to comment.


They were voted on but what does that matter?
The council sat and voted on which to include based on their relationship with Jesus, the accuracy and validity of their writings, and the integrity of the author.
That seems really smart to me. Would you rather they NOT vote on it and one person randomly picks random books he wants to put in the Bible?
Why is it that the Bible being created through a valid, legit, voting process is a reason to discredit it?




things like having major debates over the divinity/humanity of Jesus is kind of a big deal. Was he fully man? If so, how is he the Lord? Was he fully divine? If so, how can one say he sacrificed himself?

Also, to say well it was a fair voting process so it much be a good thing is a rather simplistic view of the history of the book. These were raging debates and there were many, many people involved. Politics and power surely got in the way of things to a negative degree. You should read more into it.


There are many contradictions in the Bible as well which, IMO, only strengthen the validity of the overall message. ie. In one of the books the man hanged with Jesus becomes saved while in another he doesn't. They could have easily changed those contradictions but they let them be and didn't tamper with it.

Those contradictions don't change the overall message which is the life of Jesus Christ and salvation through faith in Christ.

:wtf:

Please explain how a contradiction strengthens the the validity of the overall message?

[RaininThrees]

I dare you to make a logical argument proving God doesn't exist.

You can't prove that something doesn't exist. You can only prove that something does exist.

[RaininThrees]

I dare you to make a logical argument proving gravity exists.

I dare you to make a logical argument proving that wind exists.

This is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Seriously though... how'd the Kangaroos get from that mountain to Australia?! They're not strong swimmers!

[CeoTypeDoe619]

Lol Half the people in here must be inbred retards.
So yall dont believe in god but you believe humans just appeared out of thin air?
:roll: :roll: :roll:
F*ckig dumbasses. Way to cop out in life smfh

[Jackass18]

Lol Half the people in here must be inbred retards.
So yall dont believe in god but you believe humans just appeared out of thin air?
:roll: :roll: :roll:
F*ckig dumbasses. Way to cop out in life smfh

wat?

[sawyersauce]

I dare you to make a logical argument proving God doesn't exist.

Why stop at the Christian God?

Try prove that Zeus, Ra, any other pagan god and 'the force' don't exist. If you take that line of reasoning then they must all be valid as well? no?

Then what is it that you know that makes the Christian God more real?
That Jesus was a real person? So was Muhammad and Gautama Buddha. It just happens that Constantine united the Roman Empire under Christianity - spreading it's dominance to North and West Europe - hence its wide influence in the 'west'.

It's fine if faith is the reason for your choice. But I don't see any logical basis for belief in Christianity ahead of any other religion. Yes, logic dictates the existance of a creator, but not what shape this creator takes nor if it would even be sentient. In New Zeland I saw the trail of a glacier that had passed through over the years. It left perfectly paved stones behind, like a road. Could 'god' not be some unthinking force that passes through the realm of reality leaving behind what we know as existance in its wake? It's possible, and it's no less likely than the Christian God.

I honestly think the Bible is a book of wisdom. It's teachings and way of life could benifit many people (but not all). If personally, faith in Christianity benifits your life in some way - then great. I have no problem with your beliefs.

I only dislike it when christian a) attempt to force their religion on others and b) act as if their belief in that one particular religion makes them superior. It has no greater logical basis than any other religion. And if another faith serves another persons' needs, then let them be.
Same goes for aetheists, of course. But I've yet to have a couple of aetheists knock on my door attempting to convert. Mass-organised religion is one of the most annoying (and potentially dangerous) things on the planet.

[miller-time]

I honestly think the Bible is a book of wisdom. It's teachings and way of life could benifit many people (but not all). If personally, faith in Christianity benifits your life in some way - then great. I have no problem with your beliefs.

to paraphrase bill maher. it's the billions of people with faith based beliefs that the extremists draw their legitimacy from. there is still a cost for "benign" faith.

[sawyersauce]

to paraphrase bill maher. it's the billions of people with faith based beliefs that the extremists draw their legitimacy from. there is still a cost for "benign" faith.

That's not a terrible argument I suppose. A little sweeping in its implications though. I guess I'll play a counter-argument because you quoted me.

So you blame all people of Muslim faith, including those who practice privately and denounce violence, for 9/11? And all Christians for the crusades?

I don't see this reasoning as enough to abolish religion globally. For one thing, how many religous extremists are actually violent? Wouldn't people who donate excessivley to religious charities also be called extremists? Not all extremists have a negative influence.
And of that percentage, can you really homogenise their source of legitimacy? Or their motives in general? Ignoring upbringing, culture, politics, race, national identity ect?

It seems a little rough to blame those who perform, as you put it, 'benign' religion for the acts of terrorists.

[Rasheed1]

what ideas are you reffering to? I would like to know.


Catholics do follow the new testament..... They follow all the same tenets other christians do..

They also have tenets of their own...

*Stations of the cross ceremony
*Worship of Saints
*Worship of Mary
*More sacraments than others (like confession and confirmation)
*The rosary

I learned (from being an alter boy) that the catholic church is much more steeped in symbolism than other churches... But the Symbolism is simply an extension of what the other denominations are using...

[Rasheed1]

They were voted on but what does that matter?
The council sat and voted on which to include based on their relationship with Jesus, the accuracy and validity of their writings, and the integrity of the author.
That seems really smart to me. Would you rather they NOT vote on it and one person randomly picks random books he wants to put in the Bible?
Why is it that the Bible being created through a valid, legit, voting process is a reason to discredit it?

if they were voted on, then they arent a product of divinity but a product of debate... We are given to understand the bible to be a divine book inspired by God... This isnt true

[miller-time]

It seems a little rough to blame those who perform, as you put it, 'benign' religion for the acts of terrorists.

i wouldn't blame the individuals for atrocities commited by others (in the name of religion). i just agree with maher that there is a cost for faith.

regular believers will always attempt to dissociate themselves from extremists which i can understand. however regular believers will tolerate fringe groups to a certain extent because it would be hypocritical to do so otherwise. what measure could they use to say that someone elses faith is leading them to far away from the normal range? it is these fringe groups that breed the extremists and it is the inability to create a double standard (ie if your beliefs are to nutty faith doesn't apply to you) that allows extremists to propagate and **** it up for the rest of us. and that is the cost.

[Hazard]

LOL Are you guys retarded? Yeah Noah's Ark has been discovered and local human male gets ass raped by a Martian cause FOX News said so... WOW. A piece of wood has been discovered in Turkey... yea no doubt at all it's Noah's arc, there's still 2 pigs ****ing to save the pig population.. give me a break.

[bagelred]

Finally found......it's always the last place you look.

[triangleoffense]

Just because they found a huge boat doesn't mean that it's noah's ark. Think about how many huge boats like that that were made and used at the time. The boat, wagon, and horse were typically the 3 major ways of transportation. It would be like if someone 3000 years from now found a car and arbitrary claimed that it was the same car some modern historical figure drove.

[kentatm]

http://willdo.philadelphiaweekly.com/archives/021307mooby.jpg

[Take Your Lumps]

I dare you to make a logical argument proving gravity exists.

I dare you to make a logical argument proving that wind exists.

Goddamnit, LOL!

If sigs were allowed on this forum, this would be mine until the end of time.

[sawyersauce]

i wouldn't blame the individuals for atrocities commited by others (in the name of religion). i just agree with maher that there is a cost for faith.

No doubt there is a cost for faith. I don't dispute that, I'm arguing who to hold accountable for that cost.

My original extracted quote...

I honestly think the Bible is a book of wisdom. It's teachings and way of life could benifit many people (but not all). If personally, faith in Christianity benifits your life in some way - then great. I have no problem with your beliefs.
(The actual main point of that post was all the other stuff in it, but oh well.)

So you responded that extremists draw legitimacy from the other billions of religous practicioners - thus, implying that you disagree and do have a problem with 'regular' practicioners.

But now we seem to agree that you cannot hold 'regular' religous practicioners accountable for extremist action. You hold the extremists themselves accountable. And as I already said, not all extremists are violent. Some are extremists in the charitable sense.

I suppose what I'm getting at is you need to make a call one way or the other. Either, you don't have a problem with my original quote, religion still has a cost, and you hold violent extremists accountable for that cost.
Or you disagree with what I said and you blame all religous practicioners for that cost.

[shortlunatic]

actually, what are you even talking about that is not taught from the New Testament? I cannot make any arguments without knowing what you are even talking about. What is that HUGE chunk that the OG Christians are missing?

The overall true and deep message. What is the basis for common teaching of the bible? What exactly do the churches spew out to the people as the point of being saved? Do you know?

In other words, I want to know what YOU believe the overall purpose of creation is. I want to hear what you have to say since you say you understand.




things like having major debates over the divinity/humanity of Jesus is kind of a big deal. Was he fully man? If so, how is he the Lord? Was he fully divine? If so, how can one say he sacrificed himself?

But there is a huge difference between deciding what goes or does not go into the bible, and actually taking the message and altering it. That is what I don't believe. Just because men chose which books should go into the bible doesn't mean it's not God's word. That's where I go back and say that I have never heard of there being proof that there were other books used in the early century church besides the ones we see today. This council was in the 400's right? Well even the letters of Paul talk about how the churches should be aware of false prophets and teachings. Is it impossible to believe that during that time, false documents were presented as being truth and fed to other churches? Wouldn't the whole point of the council be to make sure only the true documents are part of the bible, and not thje documents of a false teachers?

Also, what does it matter what these men discussed? Maybe I am just confused. But are you saying that the only reason the bible says that God is divine is because these men changed the words to make it that way?

And about it being a sacrafice, you have to understand what sin is in order to get it. I said this before to someone, not sure who. As you stand, it seems as though sin is nothing real to you. Its imaginary. Its fake. If thats how you view sin, the you'll never understand why it was a sacrafice.

[shortlunatic]

Catholics do follow the new testament..... They follow all the same tenets other christians do..

They also have tenets of their own...

*Stations of the cross ceremony
*Worship of Saints
*Worship of Mary
*More sacraments than others (like confession and confirmation)
*The rosary

I learned (from being an alter boy) that the catholic church is much more steeped in symbolism than other churches... But the Symbolism is simply an extension of what the other denominations are using...

Explain. I don't see how worshiping Mary is ever condoned in the Bible. It says there is only one mediator, and that is Christ. Same goes for the Saints. As for confession, who is the priest that I have to confess to him?

I never said they don't follow the new testament, all I said is that it seems as though they are confused of the overall message. Is that all there is to church then? Just the following of the basic message? love your enemies, pray, repent, etc?

[KeylessEntry]

I am still laughing about the fact that it was evangelical explorers who supposedly "found" this ark. I mean how many hundreds or thousands of non evangelical people have climbed this mountain without finding jack shit over the hundreds or thousands of years this mountain has been standing? :oldlol:

It is insulting to people who are able to think rationally that this article suggests that some evangelicals managed to find the remains of an ark where hundreds of mountain climbers didnt notice anything at all over the years. Seriously what percentage of the worlds population is evangelical christian? like 0.5%? What percentage of mountain climbers are evangelicals? How can people actually believe that these clowns found an ark? :oldlol:

[nolebball]

I dare you to make a logical argument proving God does exist.

Clearly you didn't read what he quoted....


if they were voted on, then they arent a product of divinity but a product of debate... We are given to understand the bible to be a divine book inspired by God... This isnt true

The writings are divine, not the collection of them. Men brought them together, but the individual writings themselves are the works of divinity.


Then what is it that you know that makes the Christian God more real?
That Jesus was a real person? So was Muhammad and Gautama Buddha.

The difference between Jesus and Muhammad/Buddha is that Jesus is said to be God himself, while Muhammad/Buddha are messengers of God, similar to Gabriel or Noah.



I only dislike it when christian a) attempt to force their religion on others and b) act as if their belief in that one particular religion makes them superior. It has no greater logical basis than any other religion. And if another faith serves another persons' needs, then let them be.
Same goes for aetheists, of course. But I've yet to have a couple of aetheists knock on my door attempting to convert.

They do not feel they are superior to others, it is simply that evangelism is a major component of Christianity. It is in the belief system that helping others find salvation is your responsibility as a Christian. Christians are taught to practice love, and they feel that helping their fellow man become saved is the perfect way to show their love.


Also, to say well it was a fair voting process so it much be a good thing is a rather simplistic view of the history of the book. These were raging debates and there were many, many people involved. Politics and power surely got in the

In my opinion, these debates are merely the act of man using logic. As previously said about Paul warning of false prophets and the like, these men tested and debated the validity of the writings based on the authors, the times of creation, and so on. Is it not human nature to check these things? Does this not remind you of peer review in science? Here is an example. These evangelical scientists claim they have found the Ark. If a group of scientists come together and decide this is a bunch of crock and not to consider it fact, then are we going to question their debate and whether or not their were personal biases for their decision? The idea of peer reviewing a peer review is ****ing retarded.

[Rasheed1]

Explain. I don't see how worshiping Mary is ever condoned in the Bible. It says there is only one mediator, and that is Christ. Same goes for the Saints. As for confession, who is the priest that I have to confess to him?

*According to Catholics, They 'worship' God but 'venerate' Mary & a long list of Saints to a lesser level.. Never made sense to me, but nevertheless this is their stance.. They believe Mary and the Saints 'intervene' on your behalf to Christ or God. Saints all have domains (for lack of a better word).. Saint Peter could be your 'patron saint' of 'long suffering' (made that up, but you get the point) for example... here is a web page which goes to lengths to index these saints and what they specialize in..

http://saints.sqpn.com/patron-saints-of-medical-conditions/

*Confession is a prerequisite to receiving communion in the RCC. Catholic are forbidden to receive communion if they have not gone to confession beforehand... The logic behind this is that you soul must be clean before you receive the body & blood of christ... Im sure you understand that catholics believe that tabernacle which holds the wafers and wine is actually where the spirit of God resides.. So when you receive communion you are actually receiving the body & blood of jesus christ.. It sounds foolish, but thats what they believe...

The priest is supposedly God's representative here on Earth (sorta like the decree that the pope is the vicar of christ).... And since God isnt here right now, the priest steps in and functions as his rep in God's place (personally, I always felt that this decree was the height of arrogance on behalf of the church)


I never said they don't follow the new testament, all I said is that it seems as though they are confused of the overall message. Is that all there is to church then? Just the following of the basic message? love your enemies, pray, repent, etc?

they arent really confused.... Its just that the RCC is bigger and older than most churches/denominations so they use more of the symbols from older religions...

All christian religions use Jesus because Jesus represents the Sun and Christian religion is based on Jesus.. Christians worship God on Sunday because Sunday is the day of the Sun and is the first day of the week while Jewish religion is based on El.. El is the personification of Saturn... El is worshipped on the last day of the week which is Saturday...

Mary is simply another personification of Isis or the Moon Goddess. The symbolism always gives it away

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/jesusandwomen/images/againstdragon.jpg

Mary standing on Horns tells you she is a moon goddess... Horns signifies moon worship just like the all seeing eye of Horus signifies Sun worship

they are simply symbols that tell you where this stuff comes from.

[Rasheed1]

The writings are divine, not the collection of them. Men brought them together, but the individual writings themselves are the works of divinity.


So if this is true..... Why the need to filter certain books out if they are all divine? Mankind isnt divine and a bunch of men debating what to do with divine works seems odd at best... If this is the word of God than who is man to decide what goes into the 'divine' book and what doesnt?

[jbot]

All christian religions use Jesus because Jesus represents the Sun and Christian religion is based on Jesus.. Christians worship God on Sunday because Sunday is the day of the Sun

Mary is simply another personification of Isis or the Moon Goddess. The symbolism always gives it away


Mary standing on Horns tells you she is a moon goddess... Horns signifies moon worship just like the all seeing eye of Horus signifies Sun worship

this is correct. christian religion is based on the pagan worshipping of the sun. christians denounce pagans but they stole their ideas, added what they wanted to it and act the fool about it.

i don't believe anything that the bible talks about any more than i believe that magicians are really doing magic. christian religions and those like it were created to put humans at ease about dying.

[MagicalLA]

Im not christian neither religious, but the Bible is the best book ive read. Its a shame 99 % of the people doesnt understand it, including me.

[Randy]

I dare you to make a logical argument proving gravity exists.

I dare you to make a logical argument proving that wind exists.
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

I just *********ed to that post. Awesome.

[LJJ]

Penny is a quality troll. Nobody is actually that dumb.

[jbot]

Im not christian neither religious, but the Bible is the best book ive read. Its a shame 99 % of the people doesnt understand it, including me.
if u take it for what it's worth, then yes, it probably is a neat book to read.

[shortlunatic]

*According to Catholics, They 'worship' God but 'venerate' Mary & a long list of Saints to a lesser level.. Never made sense to me, but nevertheless this is their stance.. They believe Mary and the Saints 'intervene' on your behalf to Christ or God. Saints all have domains (for lack of a better word).. Saint Peter could be your 'patron saint' of 'long suffering' (made that up, but you get the point) for example... here is a web page which goes to lengths to index these saints and what they specialize in..

Well it

[shortlunatic]

So if this is true..... Why the need to filter certain books out if they are all divine? Mankind isnt divine and a bunch of men debating what to do with divine works seems odd at best... If this is the word of God than who is man to decide what goes into the 'divine' book and what doesnt?

Wouldn't that be the point of the filter? To makes sure which are, and which are not divine. I already said earlier, Paul informs the churches to be aware of false prophets and teachings. For all we know, people back in the day took the gospel of Christ but altered it and made something else and tried passing it off as the true word of God. You wouldn't want those words in the Bible would you?

Also, man is no one to decide which books do or do not go in. But the Holy Spirit does.

[jbot]

where the heck are the original stone tablets of the ten commandments? never hear about those.

[MagicalLA]

if u take it for what it's worth, then yes, it probably is a neat book to read.

The book that makes us laugh and makes us cry.

[Poodle]

Im not christian neither religious, but the Bible is the best book ive read. Its a shame 99 % of the people doesnt understand it, including me.


its at least got some cool verses to say right before you cap somebody

[nolebball]

So if this is true..... Why the need to filter certain books out if they are all divine? Mankind isnt divine and a bunch of men debating what to do with divine works seems odd at best... If this is the word of God than who is man to decide what goes into the 'divine' book and what doesnt?

You clearly didn't read the rest of my post, or shortlunatic's.

[Rasheed1]

[QUOTE=shortlunatic]Well it

[Rasheed1]

You clearly didn't read the rest of my post, or shortlunatic's.


I read what you addressed to me.... I dont see the need for man's intervention at all into writings that are deemed 'divine'..

no need to touch or change or debate anything...

[boozehound]

Carbon dating is complete bullshit.
based on? Then so is nuclear energy and military capabilities.

These "ark" researchers have been "discovering" the ark on mountaintops since the 60s and they have all been bogus. No reason to think this one wont be either, once the evidence is collected and examined.

[nolebball]

I read what you addressed to me.... I dont see the need for man's intervention at all into writings that are deemed 'divine'..

no need to touch or change or debate anything...

...the debate is to determine WHAT IS DIVINE


edit:

hahaha thanks for the correction boozehound, idk how I missed that since I've said it multiple times in this thread

[boozehound]

...the debate is to determine WHAT IS DEVINE
Devine is a stipper at the local club. Divine

[rufuspaul]

Devine is a stipper at the local club. Divine

Is she the one who will give you a BJ in the private room for an extra $20?

[bada bing]

Is she the one who will give you a BJ in the private room for an extra $20?

$20? damn...i was told $100

[shortlunatic]

What Im trying to say to you is that Catholicism is the root of christian religion, so in reality they predate anything other christian religions are doing (except for some of the gnostic beliefs) and they were the ones who voted on what would be in the bible... It is not a situation where they just bastardized a true story with symbols..No, the truth is that they took these concepts that already existed and formed a new religion around them

So you are saying the churches that came about during the Pentecost were Catholic churches? All the practices you see in Catholicism are the ones the first churches were following? If this is true, how do you explain the story of the early churches in Acts and the letters written by Paul?




again, they are not confused.. they are just deeper into the symbolism than you are.... the holy spirit is a part of concept of the trinity... The trinity is yet another concept that was lifted from another religion and used by christianity..

So when you speak of the holy spirit and where God resides, understand that it is all taken from other religions... They Catholic church is simply using more symbols than youd see in say, a baptist church. but the stories themselves were lifted so even in the baptist church the idea is the same... it is just more basic

http://theformerfundie.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/isismarie.jpg
^picture of Mary & Jesus next to a picture of Horus & Isis..

the story is basically the same story that has always been told and it is the story of God's most precious creation (that we can see)..... The Sun and the sun's battle to save us from Darkness.
...

They are very confused because symbolism is not the root of Christianity or the bible for that matter. If you read the Bible, the concept about the Holy Spirit dwelling inside is not hidden. I will say it again, to say the Holy Spirit only dwells in one area is an insult to his sacrifice. That was purpose of including the fact that the veil to the Holy of Holies split. If it was true that God resided in one particular place, why would the scripture they have chosen to follow not back them up?

There is a message much deeper than just trying to get right with God and refrain from sin. That is a small part of the equation yet it is the part that everybody thinks the church is all about. If teaching this is not confusion, I don’t know what is.



Regardless of whether or not Christian churches use the same pictures as catholics or worship mary the way catholics do is of little relevance.. There is indeed a figure named mary in christian religion because she is the mother of jesus.. her role is the same regardless of whether or not you assigned her as protector or simply mother of christ... She is the symbols of the Lunar goddess.. Just as Isis was Horus mother, so is Mary Jesus mother.... All christians believe in the virgin birth... She is the same person, the only difference is that catholics place more emphasis on her and give her a bigger role.. You cannot reject Mary and accept Jesus... She is an integral part of the story

I didn't deny Mary, I denied her significance. You posted a picture and stated that the horns gave it away. Well the website it came from is a site all about putting significance on the Virgin. I have no doubt in my mind that the person who painted that picture put a load of emphasis on her role. That is something clearly not written in the Bible. So how can you take a picture, done by a person putting all this emphasis on the virgin which is clearly not what is supposed to be intended, and use it to back up your claim that it was copied from other religions?



the problem here is.... What really is the 'actual message'?

It seems you have your idea of what the actual message is... But are you certain that they are flawed and you are not?

to me, it isnt a question of flawed message or not....

I don't to pretend to know the whole answer, but I won't lie. The true message is something that is rarely taught in the church. If you want to find out, you really have to seek it. Obviously there is way too much to post to even begin to explain what I know so far about the concept of what our purpose of creation was. Not so much our earthly body, but our spiritual purpose. The only point that can't be emphasized enough is that Jesus constantly refers to the body as a bride.

But how do I know I am not flawed? Well it’s not about me or them being flawed because we all are. It’s about the teaching. The purpose. What do the priests spew out to the common people when they proclaim the gospel? If a non-believer walks into a Catholic church, what do they learn from it? Do they really learn about God’s love, or do they just hear that they are sinful and are going to hell if they don’t repent? Do they really hear about how to allow God to change you? Or do they hear that you have to change yourself? Do they really see God’s glory? Or do they see a man made structure with a hint of Christ involved? These are just a couple of the small points that cloud the overall point of Christ’s purpose for us and it shows, especially here in the States. I know my thoughts on the overall message are not flawed because as I have been seeking, I have found the scripture to back it up. As I feel the Holy Spirit revealing things to me, it is confirmed when I take my time to sit and read the bible.


I didn't quote the whole thing because it was to long. But in regards to all your symbolism points, that is no where near enough to sway me from my faith. I don't care how many similarities are there, there are a number of differences. The overall message of the bible overshadows any minute points you claim it was copied from. There is no story as beautiful as the one Christ has told. And the whole point of about him dying and rising is probably the best part about it, but it is not the only part. There is much more to our eternal purpose than in any story you have claimed it was copied from.

And I’m sorry, but I refuse to believe that a “metaphor” changed my life, especially one I am so strongly against. If you choose to believe I am to unintelligent or delusional to see the bigger picture, that’s your decision. But when a life has changed the way mine has, it would be foolish to throw away what I believe saved me just because others say so. Apart from that, I find it to coincidental that whenever I feel the Holy Spirit teaching me, I tend to always find the scripture to back it up. If you think it’s a metaphor, well there’s nothing I can do about it.

[Rasheed1]

So you are saying the churches that came about during the Pentecost were Catholic churches? All the practices you see in Catholicism are the ones the first churches were following? If this is true, how do you explain the story of the early churches in Acts and the letters written by Paul?

Im saying that before Catholics invented basically your religion, there was no real 'christian religion' there was much more gnostic religion which is more abstract and would be unacceptable to christians of today because christians today are obsessed with proving that the Bible is a literal book..

There is a big gap between the time these events supposedly happened (new testament) and the time they written about... According to catholics, their religion started with the Apostles..

:confusedshrug:





They are very confused because symbolism is not the root of Christianity or the bible for that matter. If you read the Bible, the concept about the Holy Spirit dwelling inside is not hidden. I will say it again, to say the Holy Spirit only dwells in one area is an insult to his sacrifice. That was purpose of including the fact that the veil to the Holy of Holies split. If it was true that God resided in one particular place, why would the scripture they have chosen to follow not back them up?

You keep saying they are confused... But from my point of view, they arent confused at all... They have simply succeeded in confusing you.. They know what the true meanings are behind the things they have presented to you..



If teaching this is not confusion, I don’t know what is.

It is not confusion at all... It makes total sense once you let go of the fight to prove jesus literally existed....

even the way you & I look at the Bible is very different because of our points of view..

I see it as a book that empowers YOU to tap into your own Godliness... Where others see it in the traditional literal form




I didn't deny Mary, I denied her significance. You posted a picture and stated that the horns gave it away. Well the website it came from is a site all about putting significance on the Virgin.

No I said the SYMBOLS always give it away... The picture is saturated with symbols as is any picture with Christ and a halo or christ as the Sheppard or christ as the fisher of men or christ as the chief corner stone... Its all symbolism and if you understand what the symbols mean then you understand that Horus was also known as the 'King of kings' and the lamb of God.. Horus was Chief corner stone before Jesus ever existed..




I have no doubt in my mind that the person who painted that picture put a load of emphasis on her role. That is something clearly not written in the Bible. So how can you take a picture, done by a person putting all this emphasis on the virgin which is clearly not what is supposed to be intended, and use it to back up your claim that it was copied from other religions?


Ill say it again... The whole idea of Mary is an idea taken from another religion/culture... The virgin mother is an idea that was lifted... Do you believe Mary to be a virgin who gave birth to the son of God?? If so then you believe in the same basic idea that existed before christianity itself existed...

The virgin birth story is a part to a larger story... and the story at its root is a story of the Sun, moon and stars... There was no person named Mary.. I understand that you do not believe this, But it is true

and what Im saying is not simply based on a picture I saw...It is based on many many pictures and stories and history that predates the christian religion...




I don't to pretend to know the whole answer, but I won't lie. The true message is something that is rarely taught in the church. If you want to find out, you really have to seek it. Obviously there is way too much to post to even begin to explain what I know so far about the concept of what our purpose of creation was. Not so much our earthly body, but our spiritual purpose. The only point that can't be emphasized enough is that Jesus constantly refers to the body as a bride.

But how do I know I am not flawed? Well it’s not about me or them being flawed because we all are. It’s about the teaching. The purpose. What do the priests spew out to the common people when they proclaim the gospel? If a non-believer walks into a Catholic church, what do they learn from it? Do they really learn about God’s love, or do they just hear that they are sinful and are going to hell if they don’t repent? Do they really hear about how to allow God to change you? Or do they hear that you have to change yourself? Do they really see God’s glory? Or do they see a man made structure with a hint of Christ involved? These are just a couple of the small points that cloud the overall point of Christ’s purpose for us and it shows, especially here in the States. I know my thoughts on the overall message are not flawed because as I have been seeking, I have found the scripture to back it up. As I feel the Holy Spirit revealing things to me, it is confirmed when I take my time to sit and read the bible.

Catholics think the same way other christians think, the same way Muslims think, the same way those who practice Judaism think....

They think they their religion is the true one and that all others are wrong.. they believe with all their hearts that this stuff is true (literally true)



I didn't quote the whole thing because it was to long. But in regards to all your symbolism points, that is no where near enough to sway me from my faith. I don't care how many similarities are there, there are a number of differences. The overall message of the bible overshadows any minute points you claim it was copied from. There is no story as beautiful as the one Christ has told. And the whole point of about him dying and rising is probably the best part about it, but it is not the only part. There is much more to our eternal purpose than in any story you have claimed it was copied from.

there's is infinitely more on the symbols and the connection between astrology and the bible and many other aspects... I couldnt write it all on here if I tried...

I wouldnt call it minute to say that the story of Jesus birth, death and resurrection is taken from another older religion

But I do understand that you are reluctant to take what I say as the truth... I would suggest that go look for self if do not believe me.




And I’m sorry, but I refuse to believe that a “metaphor” changed my life, especially one I am so strongly against. If you choose to believe I am to unintelligent or delusional to see the bigger picture, that’s your decision. But when a life has changed the way mine has, it would be foolish to throw away what I believe saved me just because others say so. Apart from that, I find it to coincidental that whenever I feel the Holy Spirit teaching me, I tend to always find the scripture to back it up. If you think it’s a metaphor, well there’s nothing I can do about it.



I dont believe you are unintelligent, or delusional.. I understand very well how religion works and how soo many people can follow it almost mindlessly. I used to be one of those people.

I think we are basically talking to each other on 2 different levels....

*Im saying that the Bible is a great book, but not a literal book based on the oldest and what some call 'the greatest story ever told'.. It is steeped in the ancient archetype of myths, astrology, and symbols that have meanings... The religious leaders simply have you believing that it is a true literal story... They have you believe this, and then you are under their control... If you dont tithe and arent a good christian? fire and brimestone for you!... you think when you are enlightened, it is the holy spirit doing it to you, while I think when you are enlightened... YOU are doing it to you..

IMO I became free the day I decided to discover the truth and accept nothing but the whole truth of all this

*You are saying that you dont believe me and that your faith is too strong to be shaken by what I say.. I understand where you are coming from... Though im not trying to shake your faith soo much as I am trying wake you up


I understand you do not agree, and I can respect that and leave it at that...

[jbot]

*Im saying that the Bible is a great book, but not a literal book based on the oldest and what some call 'the greatest story ever told'.. It is steeped in the ancient archetype of myths, astrology, and symbols that have meanings... The religious leaders simply have you believing that it is a true literal story... They have you believe this, and then you are under their control... If you dont tithe and arent a good christian? fire and brimestone for you!... you think when you are enlightened, it is the holy spirit doing it to you, while I think when you are enlightened... YOU are doing it to you..



this is basically how i feel about it to. if people want to believe all this stuff, then go for it. i think those type of people need it and it does good for them to follow the stuff the bible says.

my wife calls herself religious and she wants our kids to be, but i'm all about letting them choose for themselves rather than tells tales and scare them into thinking the stuff is true. they'll ask me questions and i tell them to ask their mom. i'm so glad my parents weren't into religion.

[Lebron23]

Good Article. I always believe that Noah's Ark really existed.

[Legend of Josh]

Good Article. I always believe that Noah's Ark really existed.
You would be the one to come into this thread and after all these responses (none of which you read) say some quick to drop my $0.02 off and jet back to the main forum type shit. Why the he'll you even in here?

[IcanzIIravor]

I dare you to make a logical argument proving gravity exists.

I dare you to make a logical argument proving that wind exists.

I hope to see you post more. It's going to be fun.

[The Raven]

i dare you to make a logical argument proving God's existence. you simply can't. there is no generalizing here. either you all make blind faith arguments, or you copout with it all being metaphors. go ahead i'll be waiting...

http://i39.tinypic.com/mj0orq.jpg

[shortlunatic]

Im saying that before Catholics invented basically your religion, there was no real 'christian religion' there was much more gnostic religion which is more abstract and would be unacceptable to christians of today because christians today are obsessed with proving that the Bible is a literal book..

There is a big gap between the time these events supposedly happened (new testament) and the time they written about... According to catholics, their religion started with the Apostles..

:confusedshrug:

Ok. I don’t have the knowledge to argue with you here. However, that doesn’t really address the point. The first Church started at Pentecost. From that point on, Christianity expanded to all the other nations, allowing it to be manipulated whatever and so forth. Is there really proof that Gnostic religion was the religion that derived from the early churches? Because as far as I’m concerned, there was none.







You keep saying they are confused... But from my point of view, they arent confused at all... They have simply succeeded in confusing you.. They know what the true meanings are behind the things they have presented to you..

No they haven't. Maybe at one point they had you confused, but not me. Its clear we both agree that their message is a flawedone right? You think they are trying to manipulate a message that has been true for quite some time right? I dont agree with that. I think they have a grasp of the idea, they just refuse to look at it the way we have been called to.





It is not confusion at all... It makes total sense once you let go of the fight to prove jesus literally existed....

No it doesn’t. The true message of the bible calls for Jesus to be taken literally. As for the stories of the old testament, I do not know. But all the people with wisdom that I have talked to about it say it happened. So for this reason I bank on that. But in no way do I say I know that the stories of the old testament happened %100. However, I do not deny that Jesus’ death was a literal one. But I guess that's where our ideas differ.



Ill say it again... The whole idea of Mary is an idea taken from another religion/culture... The virgin mother is an idea that was lifted... Do you believe Mary to be a virgin who gave birth to the son of God?? If so then you believe in the same basic idea that existed before christianity itself existed...

The virgin birth story is a part to a larger story... and the story at its root is a story of the Sun, moon and stars... There was no person named Mary.. I understand that you do not believe this, But it is true
But that doesn’t matter to me. After you go through certain things in life, little things like that just don’t matter. I understand that you say there is an infinite amount of evidence that show the religion is copied. But the focal point of Christ’s message does not revolve around any belief you say it derived from. And that is the part I have connected with the most. If I were to continue on in my faith and never see a connection to the real message, I would drop it. But for now, I have understood that message and I’m determined to pursue it. I will see where that takes me before I quit due to this symbolism you provide.

and what Im saying is not simply based on a picture I saw...It is based on many many pictures and stories and history that predates the christian religion...

But who ‘s making these pictures? Where in the bible does it say that someone saw Jesus with a halo? I can understand your points about being a fisher of men and a shepherd. But those are literally in the bible. Some of the pictures you are looking at are probably the same as the one you posted on here. How can you take these pictures you have seen and count them towards what the true message of the bible is?






Catholics think the same way other christians think, the same way Muslims think, the same way those who practice Judaism think....

They think they their religion is the true one and that all others are wrong.. they believe with all their hearts that this stuff is true (literally true)

That in no way addressed my point. Whether a person views their religion as right or wrong is not what I was asking. I was asking about the purpose. Any arrogant fool can preach something and say it’s the truth. But let the teaching speak for itself. What is the true message of Christ? What is the purpose of our creation? Is this message taught in the church? Obviously not, and it’s clear you haven’t heard what it is, or you would at least begin to refute it.





there's is infinitely more on the symbols and the connection between astrology and the bible and many other aspects... I couldnt write it all on here if I tried...

I wouldnt call it minute to say that the story of Jesus birth, death and resurrection is taken from another older religion

But I do understand that you are reluctant to take what I say as the truth... I would suggest that go look for self if do not believe me.


Well I do. If you look for something hard enough, you are going to find it. If people don’t want to believe in the bible, of course they are going to look at every aspect they can bash about it, and bring up every point to put it down. And with the internet, this info can be brought up at the push of a button.
I would suggest you go look for yourself. And I’m pretty sure you have, but definitely with the wrong heart. The true message in the bible is clear and present, but if anyone goes into it looking for the bad parts, the whole point will fly completely over their head.








I dont believe you are unintelligent, or delusional.. I understand very well how religion works and how soo many people can follow it almost mindlessly. I used to be one of those people.

I think we are basically talking to each other on 2 different levels....

*Im saying that the Bible is a great book, but not a literal book based on the oldest and what some call 'the greatest story ever told'.. It is steeped in the ancient archetype of myths, astrology, and symbols that have meanings... The religious leaders simply have you believing that it is a true literal story... They have you believe this, and then you are under their control... If you dont tithe and arent a good christian? fire and brimestone for you!... you think when you are enlightened, it is the holy spirit doing it to you, while I think when you are enlightened... YOU are doing it to you..

IMO I became free the day I decided to discover the truth and accept nothing but the whole truth of all this

*You are saying that you dont believe me and that your faith is too strong to be shaken by what I say.. I understand where you are coming from... Though im not trying to shake your faith soo much as I am trying wake you up


I understand you do not agree, and I can respect that and leave it at that...

Wake me up from what? A ten month sleep? I have been a Christian for a very brief period of time, and this brief period of time has been the most interesting part of my life I have ever lived.
Follow it mindlessly? You say you are trying to wake me up and I see you are not trying to be rude. But regardless of how hard you try, when you say something like this, it can’t be hidden. Maybe you followed it mindlessy but I haven’t. I knew of this story my whole life and have always chosen to not believe. Never made sense to me and I made it known that I would never bow to any god, king, or Christ, no matter what was revealed. Even if it was made known to me %100 that God was real. I made it known that I would never bow, nor ever confess. But certain things happen in your life and there’s just no denying it. Maybe you haven’t had that moment, or you have and just choose to ignore. Only you know. But to say I follow mindlessly is an insult, and a lie.

The way you speak of the church is enough for me to know you have never been to a real one. Maybe it may have all the pews, the priests/preachers, an altar, and a cross. But in no way have you ever been to a real church. Which sin’t hard for me to believe. I would go as far as saying even my church lacks some of the qualities of a true church.

You say I am under their control? I disagree. For not that long ago I was in a dispute with an elder of the church and that’s that I am an extremely young person and a baby Christian at that. Never has anyone controlled me, and never has anyone forced me to do something I didn’t feel led to do. To say I am being controlled is yet another insult. I do and act as the Holy Spirit leads. And a big chunk of the time, it is against what most of those high in the congregation believe. Does that stop me? No. Because my faith is not in them, it is in Christ.

And on the note of tithing. I do not tithe. And no one has ever bothered me about it. However, I don’t tithe for a reason. But no one from the church knows this reason, yet they still have not bothered me to tithe. Maybe you were told if you didn’t tithe you were a bad Christian. And if you were, I am sorry.

I see we will never agree. But I will finish on this note. You do not know the true loving message of the bible. Maybe once you did follow, but based on your answers I can see you have never gotten nor understood what the true message really was. I would suggest you find out what it is before you pass judgment on it.

[Take Your Lumps]

http://i39.tinypic.com/mj0orq.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bare_assertion_fallacy

[DonDadda59]

Anyone who thinks that a holy spirit(s) speaks to them needs to get a CAT Scan and/or MRI. Times were, these people were considered 'prophets' but now the preferred nomenclature is schizophrenic.

[shortlunatic]

Anyone who thinks that a holy spirit(s) speaks to them needs to get a CAT Scan and/or MRI. Times were, these people were considered 'prophets' but now the preferred nomenclature is schizophrenic.

sign me up...

[DonDadda59]

sign me up...

The Holy Spirit health plan only covers incidentals, not screenings or diagnostics. For that, you'd need to upgrade to the Allah platinum plan. Now that's an interesting voice to hear. Before you know it, you'll be suicide bombing with the best of em :pimp:

[Mista Kool]

Ark News: Disgruntled Accuser Backpeddling on Hoax Claims... (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/board/flat/162126592)


Maybe just as intriguing as the 'Ark Discovery' was an awkward allegation of hoaxing by a former-supporter still short the 100,000 he says he is owed.

The controversy started when paranormal expert received an email from a student of Price and a quote from a Price email in which he claims to have heard it was a hoax from some unidentified insiders.
OK.
Maybe read up on that first before if you don't know its:
http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2010/04/noahs-ark-paleobabble-up date (http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2010/04/noahs-ark-paleobabble-update)

The Christian Science Monitor confirmed it but shortly after that Price was doing no more interviews.
The Ark Team responded saying Price had it all wrong,
but,
Now a ministry is releasing a statement on Prices' behalf which is wacky in its own right...


Statement of Dr. Randall Price on the Alleged Discovery
of a Wooden Structure on Mt. Ararat by a Chinese-Turkish
Expedition that is Claimed to be the Remains of Noah's Ark

Dr. Price was the archaeologist with the Chinese team in 2008 when the alleged discovery of the structure in a cave on the southwest side of Mt. Ararat was first made. He worked with this team for a month and obtained the same photos of the inside of the wooden structure now being distributed to support the alleged discovery. After the public announcement was made of this discovery in late April, Dr. Price issued a private communique giving his opinion concerning the discovery. This was sent exclusively to a select e-mail list of his ministry supporters and was not intended for the public. Unfortunately, this document was posted on the web without his authorization and has been widely quoted by various news sources to the effect that Dr. Price asserts the structure is a hoax perpetrated by the Kurdish guide and his partners to extort money from the Chinese evangelical Christians.

While Dr. Price does not retract his statements, he wants the public to understand that these only represent his opinion as informed by his experience with the Kurdish guide and the Chinese and other sources in eastern Turkey. However, Dr. Price is currently working with his sources in eastern Turkey to obtain such documentation. Nevertheless, his primary source cannot be exposed to media scrutiny because an untimely exposure would compromise the plans and preparations for an expedition to Mt. Ararat in which he is involved as archaeologist this summer.

Therefore, the only public statement he wishes to make at this time is that he believes that the greater the claim the greater the evidence needs to be to support it and urges the Chinese-Turkish team to make their collected samples from the structure available to scientists and scholars for comparative analysis. While he has reservations about the nature and procedure of the Chinese-Turkish expedition and the artifacts related to it, he believes that a decision concerning this matter must wait until independent examinations of the site and the structure can be made and published.

http://www.worldofthebible.com/news.htm

What made it weird and wacky for me is where he says he cannot reveal his source because it will compromise an expedition he has planned to Ararat this Summer.
What is that about?
Having said that I would suggest his chances of being allowed by Turkey may not be the same as they were last week heh.

So now we have... well not a 'retraction' but really a downplaying I suppose covering himself and insisting it was just a 'opinion' based on what he heard and not an 'actual accusation' I suppose.

I seriously hope Discovery Channel or someone is getting all this stuff together for what might be one helluva bizarre 2 hour special after all this is said and done!

Chinese explorers stand by claim of Noah's Ark find in Turkey - CSMonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2010/0430/Chinese-explorers-stand-by-claim-of-Noah-s-Ark-find-in-Turkey)


The Hong Kong-based team rebutted skepticism over their claims of finding Noah's Ark in Turkey, though they said further research is needed to prove beyond doubt that they have located the fabled biblical boat. (click link for full article)

[shortlunatic]

The Holy Spirit health plan only covers incidentals, not screenings or diagnostics. For that, you'd need to upgrade to the Allah platinum plan. Now that's an interesting voice to hear. Before you know it, you'll be suicide bombing with the best of em :pimp:

lol...sounds tempting, and I have to admit, the 72 virgins waiting for me is pretty enticing...

[DonDadda59]

lol...sounds tempting, and I have to admit, the 72 virgins waiting for me is pretty enticing...

The Dude abides

http://www.phuckpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/jesus_thumbs_up.jpg

[gigantes]

the true story behind the ark...



http://smbc-comics.com/comics/1460732788-20160415.png

[greymatter]

While many denialists will dismiss the ark, a priori, all intelligent and honest people know that the Bible is the most historically acurate book in world history. If it says something happened, you can bet your obese mother's sweet ass it took place. That's why I have little doubt that the great flood story is true, and why I'm interested in these discoveries.

When I was 8 years old and sitting around in a dentist's office, I picked up a children's book which talked about Adam and Eve being the world's first humans blah blah blah. My first thought was how the hell did you get blacks, Asians, and the other various shades of brown people in the world from a single white couple.

How does it feel to know that you are dumber than the average 8 year old agnostic?

[greymatter]

The sun? Climate? Geographic location?

Mistacool is an idiot if he truly believes that, but you're no worse. Its common knowledge that the white man derived from the black man, so the opposite could have just as easily happened depended on where they migrated

You're an imbecile who apparently had no clue he was strawmanning.

#1: I never argued that Africa wasn't where human kind originated from. I argued that it was especially stupid to posit that we all derived from 1 --count it-- 1 white couple and that even a person as young as 8y/o can reach that same conclusion. This doesn't even consider the other idiocy involved when you note the implications of inbreeding.

#2: Human kind originated from Africa, but that doesn't mean we are derived from black men. It only means all races:white, yellow, black, brown, red, etc shared a common ancestor from Africa. Your argument is no better than the creationist who poo poos evolution when they ask "what, you think we all came from monkeys?" when the actual argument is that we share the same common ancestor as monkeys. We did not "come from" monkeys.

#3 You're ignoring the fact that bible literalists stupid enough to believe in Adam and Eve are also young earth creationists. Ignoring the effects of excessive inbreeding, 6000 years isn't enough time in human evolution for the species to have that much differentiation to occur.