Regarding the Existence or Absence of God

[thunderbolt]

Originally posted by rs7

Tbolt, my man. Do you not think you have been a bit dogmatic?

By the way, I renamed my fantasy football team in your honor.

Peace,
rs7

Cool. Dogmatic? Certainly. Trust me when I say I have been on both sides of Christianity. I finally reached a point where the Truth set me free. And that's not just a saying. BTW, I do like your objectivity.

 

[thunderbolt]

How can we be sure about the Bible accounts?

In the days of the first Christians, there were many writings about the life of Jesus. But some had special quality--they had been written by Jesus' followers or their close friends. These gospels and letters were carefully copied by hand. Over the years, archaeologists have found thousands of manuscripts of bits of the New Testament and even some complete copies. By comparing these, we can get very close to what the New Testament writers originally wrote. Some of these copies are dated less than 100 years after the original gospel or letter was written.

For an idea of how good this evidence is, compare the New Testament with other writings that are about as old as the New Testament. For example, Julius Caesar wrote a book called The Gallic War about 50 years before Christ was born. We obviously do not have the original copy. Yet, we do have nine or ten copies, and the earliest of these was made about 900 years after the original. This is a typical gap for ancient writings.

When, however, we examine the historical evidence relating to the Bible, one learns that there are thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament books. Therefore, we have good reason to believe that we know almost exactly what Luke, Paul and the others wrote.

 

[thunderbolt]

Who wrote the gospel of Luke?

The author of this gospel, Luke, also wrote another book in the New Testament, the Acts of the Apostles. He was the only New Testament writer who was not Jewish, and he was a doctor. Independent evidence confirms that he was a very careful and accurate historian.

 

[marketsurfer]

rs7,

sure, use it anytime !!

thanks !!

surf

 

[I Missed Boat]

Originally posted by axeman
Surf,

2) Defining a being as omnipotent and outside of
logical/semantical boundries does NOT prove
that said being exists. This still must be proven by
you, the person making the assertion.

3) Talking about attributes of a being which has not
yet been proven to exist is circular reasoning.

not if you are debating the possibility of an attribute, and not in that instance proving whether a being exists. What's more, he was responding to arguments claiming an inherent contradiction in the concept of "omnipotence." He was not attempting to use it to "prove" that God exists.

 

[nitro]

Originally posted by I Missed Boat


not if you are debating the possibility of an attribute, and not in that instance proving whether a being exists. What's more, he was responding to arguments claiming an inherent contradiction in the concept of "omnipotence." He was not attempting to use it to "prove" that God exists.

Even for GOD,

1 + 1

MUST equal 2.

nitro

 

[rs7]

Originally posted by nitro

Even for GOD,

1 + 1

MUST equal 2.

nitro

Got to go with a "maybe" on this. I mean after all, what is the definition of GOD? Besides, this one could be too easy. Didn't Einstein prove that parallel lines cross? 1+1 should be child's play to disprove if that was what GOD (if he exists or existed) wanted to do

I said "exists or existed" because what if he used to be then decided not to be anymore? Can that be? Why not? What is NOT possible?

Some things are probably intended by either God or nature to not be comprehensible. Which brings me to another question: What is the difference between Nature and God? Are they husband and wife? What's the real deal? Why is Nature always a "Mother" and God always a "Father"?

 

[stu]

yada yada yada .....

Originally posted by thunderbolt
How can we be sure about the Bible accounts?


When, however, we examine the historical evidence relating to the Bible, one learns that there are thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament books. Therefore, we have good reason to believe that we know almost exactly what Luke, Paul and the others wrote.

Did you say "How can we be sure about the Bible accounts?"

The gospels of Mathew Mark Luke and John ( you know.... the ones that went to bed with their trousers on) underwent, to the greatest degree, the act of what is known as apocryphal mimicry.

This means they were contrived from a heretical and artifical source. For your information such gospels are numerous and vary widely. The Bible has been made up from those which have been selected chosen dropped and reselected over the centuries.

These four in particular are canocial - that is they are required to be included by canon law. Not only were they heretical in the first place but they were then reduced in their construction to the simplest form possible, so that they conform to the orthodox rules of the church, as was all if not most of the Bible.

When "we" 'examine the historical evidence relating to the Bible' as you put it, one learns the evidence leaves a whole lot to be desired, unless that is of course you just like fairy tales.

 

[ecas]

surf,

the universe is composed of forces , positive and negative. you could say good and evil. you could asign names to those forces
like god and satin. that ape that stayed behing to die did so because he did not know better. altruesium is something we as humans have diviculty with. i would bet the bank that an ape would trade the market better than all of us, because he is not effected by greed and fear, negative forces. this whole discussion has nothing to do with the market and how we can make money. by the way, i believe in good.

 

[thunderbolt]

Originally posted by stu
yada yada yada .....




Did you say "How can we be sure about the Bible accounts?"

The gospels of Mathew Mark Luke and John ( you know.... the ones that went to bed with their trousers on) underwent, to the greatest degree, the act of what is known as apocryphal mimicry.

This means they were contrived from a heretical and artifical source. For your information such gospels are numerous and vary widely. The Bible has been made up from those which have been selected chosen dropped and reselected over the centuries.

These four in particular are canocial - that is they are required to be included by canon law. Not only were they heretical in the first place but they were then reduced in their construction to the simplest form possible, so that they conform to the orthodox rules of the church, as was all if not most of the Bible.

When "we" 'examine the historical evidence relating to the Bible' as you put it, one learns the evidence leaves a whole lot to be desired, unless that is of course you just like fairy tales.

That's what a doubter always says. They've been around since Adam and Eve. You are nothing knew. Anyway, I'm not debating with anyone any more, just pointing out the truth.