Recommended Posts
All I'm saying is find a source other than The Book to establish some credibility for The Book. Find something that is not in the Bible that confirms a Biblical account. Find someone or something outside of the Bible that confirms something inside the Bible. That's it.
TomAiello 26
By "something" do you mean a co-temporal verifying source for a biblical event? For example, Roman records of some of the events in the bible? I'm pretty sure there is some historical verification available. Not being religious, I'd have to dig around on the internet and look. Perhaps someone who is more christian-inclined has such things handy?
-- Tom Aiello
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
yes, exactly!
tkhayes 348
http://www.avert.org/hsexu1.htm is one reference, varying numbers between here and Britain, but perhaps a lot HIGHER than you expected....
also http://www.wildemarketing.com/facts.html reports smaller numbers in Canada, about 1 in 30
I have read and used the 1 in 10 number several times, although some studies doubt it. It may be more like 1 in 10 have had sex at some time with a same sex partner. Does that make you gay?
Hard to say,
I will stick with the 1 in 10 for now, since there sure are a lot of them, many still in the closet due to society's pressures on them and their own uunwillingness to come out. (that moral issue that has been hammered into their heads since birth)
TK
also http://www.wildemarketing.com/facts.html reports smaller numbers in Canada, about 1 in 30
I have read and used the 1 in 10 number several times, although some studies doubt it. It may be more like 1 in 10 have had sex at some time with a same sex partner. Does that make you gay?
Hard to say,
I will stick with the 1 in 10 for now, since there sure are a lot of them, many still in the closet due to society's pressures on them and their own uunwillingness to come out. (that moral issue that has been hammered into their heads since birth)
TK
TomAiello 26
pajarito 0
QuoteAll I'm saying is find a source other than The Book to establish some credibility for The Book. Find something that is not in the Bible that confirms a Biblical account. Find someone or something outside of the Bible that confirms something inside the Bible. That's it.
Which particular book Nightingale??? The entire Bible is composed of 66 books divided between the Old and New Testaments. I know what you’re getting at but your question doesn’t make sense as it’s written. As for the New Testament, Paul wasn’t a disciple. He wasn’t a member of the inner circle who followed Jesus. He actually hunted down and killed Christians for a living before his conversion. He was one of their worst enemies. He wrote 14 books of the New Testament (over ½). They all corroborate accounts in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and would be considered “outside” sources for their credibility.
So if a book is included in the collection of books known as the Bible and was written by a Jewish follower of Jesus, it has no credibility with you and you reject it? If you need another source, however, I posted this much earlier but here it is again.
The Unwitting Testimony Of Unbelievers To The New Testament
We add to this the testimony of unbelievers. Unwittingly, they have given testimony to the early composition of the New Testament. Speaking of Celsus, a man living in the second century who hated Christianity, Bishop Fallows writes: This unbeliever, although he caused great annoyance to the believers in Christ living in his day, and seemed to be disturbing the foundations of the Christian faith, rendered more real service to Christianity than any father of undisputed orthodoxy in the Church. He admits all the grand facts and doctrines of the gospel, as they were preached by the Apostles, and contained in the acknowledged writings, for the sake of opposing. He makes in his attacks eighty quotations from the New Testament, and appeals to it as containing the sacred writings of Christians, universally received by them as credible and Divine. He is, therefore, the very best witness we can summon to prove that the New Testament was not written hundreds of years after the Apostles were dust; but in less than a century and a half had been received by the Christian Church all over the world. He expressly quotes both the synoptic Gospels, as they were termed (the first three Gospels), and the Gospel of St. John (Bishop Fallows, Mistakes of Ingersoll and His Answers, pp. 91,92).
I didn't say the Bible had no credibility. I simply asked you to add more credibility by citing a source outside itself from the same era. As Tom brought up, perhaps some kind of Roman documentation?
QuoteAll I'm saying is find a source other than The Book to establish some credibility for The Book. Find something that is not in the Bible that confirms a Biblical account. Find someone or something outside of the Bible that confirms something inside the Bible. That's it.
I myself would love to see some corroboration for:
a) a snake telling two people to eat from a tree
b) the Red Sea "parting" to allow people to walk across it
c) rain for 40 days and 40 nights, with a boat loaded with "2 of every animal"
d) water turned into wine
e) one fish feeding a whole bunch of people (a fish that could never be expected to do so, not a 1200 lb. tuna!)
to say nothing of a guy being crucified, died, buried and returned to life.
Oh, the bible confirms it! Oh, well, fuhhh, why didn't you just say so!?
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
There is some scientific corroboration for the plagues of Egypt and the parting of the red sea. The other stuff I can't help with.
It was on Discovery Channel a while back. Something about a volcanic erruption miles away that could cause the plagues listed (they were very thorough in their explanation, however, I don't remember it), as well as a tidal wave that would make the red sea recede long enough for someone to pass, and come back and bury someone else.
Brief information here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/moses/evidence/plagues.shtml
I guess the question of faith comes in when one is considering whether God had a hand in the volcanic erruption. The Bible says God brought down all the plagues, but it doesn't specify how.
It was on Discovery Channel a while back. Something about a volcanic erruption miles away that could cause the plagues listed (they were very thorough in their explanation, however, I don't remember it), as well as a tidal wave that would make the red sea recede long enough for someone to pass, and come back and bury someone else.
Brief information here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/moses/evidence/plagues.shtml
I guess the question of faith comes in when one is considering whether God had a hand in the volcanic erruption. The Bible says God brought down all the plagues, but it doesn't specify how.
pajarito 0
Homosexuals are sentient, and can consent to marriage. Animals presumably lack the ability to understand and consent to such an arrangement.
Yes, but the human is and has a right to be happy by marrying his pet. Is he/she might be discriminated against. Now you're putting the stipulation that the animal must sign the piece of paper and consent which it can't do (unless it's one of those smart gorillas that might have the capacity to hold a pen and make a mark on a piece of paper because it loves its master and wants to please him/her). Therefore, you are denying the human the opportunity to live, love, and marry just like every heterosexual couple is able to do. Human rights issue. What would it hurt you or do to your legitimate marriage if that was to happen. Nothing...right?
The animal argument is of course the most extreme. A retarded person might not have the capacity to understand all that's involved with marriage but might also want to marry another retarded person. He/she might not "fully" understand the consent form that their signing either. Would it be right to deny them also? What would it hurt you or your legitimate marriage? All I'm saying is, as soon as you open the floodgates, marriage could mean anything you personally want it to. Forget the law. Go with whatever makes you feel good at the time. It will reduce its value to "0" IMO. That is, if it's nothing more than a way to obtain benefits from the government. I refuse to believe that. What a waste that would be. Anyway, I know many of you don't agree with me. I'm ok with that. I believe we've beat this one to death.
pajarito 0
Quotehttp://www.avert.org/hsexu1.htm is one reference, varying numbers between here and Britain, but perhaps a lot HIGHER than you expected....
also http://www.wildemarketing.com/facts.html reports smaller numbers in Canada, about 1 in 30
I have read and used the 1 in 10 number several times, although some studies doubt it. It may be more like 1 in 10 have had sex at some time with a same sex partner. Does that make you gay?
Hard to say,
I will stick with the 1 in 10 for now, since there sure are a lot of them, many still in the closet due to society's pressures on them and their own uunwillingness to come out. (that moral issue that has been hammered into their heads since birth)
TK
I'm not too sure about the 1 in 10 thing. Here is another very interesting perspective.
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_AIM_Talk.html
Many different age groups from different areas of the country were samples and most fit in the 1-2% range. Much lower than the 10% SWAG. Take it for what it's worth. From my personal experience, I've not every noticed that 1 in 10 are gay. Maybe they're just good at hiding it. I don't know. Maybe it's just because of where I live. I can't buy the 10% rule, though.
pajarito 0
QuoteI didn't say the Bible had no credibility. I simply asked you to add more credibility by citing a source outside itself from the same era. As Tom brought up, perhaps some kind of Roman documentation?
Paul was also a citizen of Rome and requested, due to his citizenship; which was his right, to be taken before Caesar in Rome to be tried.
ok. then show me documentation from the Romans (not written by Paul, but something outside that agrees with his account).
pajarito 0
QuoteI think my point is that if I can see through to the flaws in this supposed god's supposed plan, then how divine and perfect could it possibly be?!
You don’t understand, so it must be flawed…
QuoteThe apple may, in fact, be figurative. I don’t know. It doesn’t matter. They weren’t supposed to eat of the “tree of life.” In other words, they weren’t supposed to try and make themselves equal with God (i.e. Tower of Babble). Does it also really matter how long they were in the Garden of Eden? Who cares? Does that take away from the purpose of Genesis?
QuoteUh, YES, actually, it DOES. It brings into question just whether we should take the bible on its face or not!
Ok…I admit to not being a Genesis guru. I reviewed it, however, and found absolutely no mention of an “apple” as being the fruit that Adam and Eve ate. Someone correct me if I’m wrong. I’m looking at my NIV study bible. However, I verified it with a friend of mine who has a New American Standard. I’m pretty sure that the whole “apple” thing has just been artist representations in paintings of what they thought might be the case. That doesn’t make it so and certainly doesn’t make it a “flaw” in Genesis. In the garden, there was the “tree of life” and the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” What grew on the tree was mentioned to be fruit but not a specific kind. Like I said, though, it doesn’t matter. What Adam & Eve did was exactly what is also told in Romans (who knows how many thousands of years later) that “no one seeks after God” and “all have sinned.” When Adam & Eve ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they rejected God’s will and fell from grace. They ran and hid. They had no intention of seeking after God for forgiveness. God had to come after them first.
QuoteOh, okay, so the bible corroborates itself and that's good enough for you. That's what you're saying when I ask you what proves that this bible was written by people who actually knew the word of god as opposed to say ME writing a bible and making the claim. What proof of this torture, crucifixion, death and resurrection of "the key figure" is there besides the claim made in the bible -- which is the article we're asking for proof of in the first place?
You’re obviously not reading all that’s been posted.
QuoteIt is logically invalid to use the article in question as proof of the veracity of the article in question, dude.
You’re not being logical to call the Bible one text. There are 66 books in the Protestant Christian Bible.
QuoteAs long as we're clear: You seem to have no compunctions about accepting the bible's own doctrine as proof of its own validity and veracity.
Some would call that a logical fallacy. But then who are we to judge -- we're not god!
You’re right, I’m not God. Again, you are demonstrating extreme illogic to make your arguments for the Bible as if it was one text. That’s simply not the case and you cannot treat it as such. Yes, it does (as collection of different works) authenticate itself. Read it and you’ll see. Yes, I do accept it as truth partly based on that.
pajarito 0
Quoteok. then show me documentation from the Romans (not written by Paul, but something outside that agrees with his account).
You know as well as I do that documentation you are talking about from that era is extremely limited. How much will be enough for you, or others, however? Will "just one more" piece of evidence be enough to declare authenticity? Or will it take 2 or 3? Does it have to just be of Roman origin? Are they the final authenticating source? What other group of people might be credible? Seriously, there is quite enough evidence just in the collection of books known as the Bible. That is, if you know what's in it and aren't just reading atheist web sites on the internet as your authoritative source of information concerning the Bible and Christianity (not saying you are. Just giving an example of what I think some here are doing). The evidence is staring you right in the face.
I think my point is that if I can see through to the flaws in this supposed god's supposed plan, then how divine and perfect could it possibly be?!
Uh, YES, actually, it DOES. It brings into question just whether we should take the bible on its face or not!
As long as we're clear: You seem to have no compunctions about accepting the bible's own doctrine as proof of its own validity and veracity.
Some would call that a logical fallacy. But then who are we to judge -- we're not god!
-
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites