Forums → WEPR → strnadge thing about christianity

Yes, I noticed...we're not on topic anymore, and actually I think I led it in that direction. I apologize. I got really agitated trying to defend my faith and took the discussion all over the radar with that. However, I still feel obligated to do my best in that regard. And I do like to rant a lot; it's just what I do. I'm going to be a bit more level-headed this time.

Razaki, one thing I left unmentioned is, of course, I know the account of the universe's creation, for instance, could not have been witnessed by any human. But how can you say Luke never met Jesus when he followed Him around for three years? He even wrote down his own conversations with Jesus. As for the lifespan issue, I already know that people lived hundreds of years for generations after Adam, but the average lifespan steadily decreased until it reached that limit of 120 years.

I have done a lot of research about the Bible, archaeology, and the rest of my faith during my lifetime, and I plan to do much, much more. I can see that you've done quite a bit yourself, but sometimes that research leads to the opposite result it did with you. I have read accounts of atheists who set out to disprove the Bible's accuracy and actually ended up converting themselves to Christianity. I also agree with what Paladin said about the limits of science concerning religious beliefs. Thank you, Paladin, for acting as a mediator there. As I've said before, Christian beliefs are definitely hard to prove, but to disprove them is even harder. And beyond that, though I keep my faith, I still consider myself a man of science. The importance of the ability to observe and draw conclusions will never be diminished. Though, I said my thoughts about the "turn the other cheek" statement long ago in this topic, so I should probably stop posting here.

There isn't a need to "turn the other cheek" in a debate. Razaki has displayed a very well-labored response to you and you haven't responded yet. Paladin's interjection is false, as Raz pointed out.

You said: "As for the lifespan issue, I already know that people lived hundreds of years for generations after Adam, but the average lifespan steadily decreased until it reached that limit of 120 years."

-- How do you "know" that people lived hundreds of years? I have yet to see the evidence for that, or for most of your claims. As Raz said, please gather true facts when you lay something out and claim it is true.

This is meant to be a friendly debate.

Bloody,
Your ideas about the Bible's origins are either misinformed or just misinterpreted. Besides, the same defense can be put up about any "holy book." The writings about the ancient Greek and Roman gods were not only spot-on accurate about locations, but there are tons of writings about different gods - many more references that some clown walking around in sandals performing magic tricks.
Speaking of the bible telling people to turn the other cheek, it also tells people to kill anyone who opposes their beliefs. If you believe every word of the bible, then you must be very very confused.

Before writing was invented the bible was passed down by word of mouth i doubt that that is the most reliable resource in the world

but still the bible is based of off faith and if you believe in the whole thing than good for you

Ehhh...Moegreche, I'll say it again. The Bible does not, and never has given us a command to kill non-Christians. However, my mother has read both the Bible and the Q'uran, and she tells me that the Q'uran does indeed include a command to kill non-Muslims. I know the vast majority of Muslims have never considered killing anyone, but that must mean they don't believe everything their religion tells them either.

So what questions haven't I responded to...I'll try not to miss any. First off, the only reason I "know" people once lived hundreds of years is the same reason people "know" that, hmm...that Kublai Khan led an army across Asia, for instance. We read it in a book. If the Bible cannot be trusted because of inaccurately reported happenings, the same thing could have happened with our world history texts. They could possess a few errors because ancient historians missed a few facts or lied, passing on the inaccuracies to us. That pretty much says that you can't believe anything anyone tells you. The reason I still choose to believe in the Bible is pure faith (though I look for evidence of its truth whenever I can).

As for Razaki's response, I don't believe in any sort of religion-science barrier. I have always thought the two are inseparable, actually, and should work together. I never try to protect Christianity from science; instead, I bring science into my faith whenever possible, but accepting the implications that may have. I think we would both agree that blind faith, I mean faith without backup, is not desirable, which is why I'm so obsessed with science. But science is also a fallible process due to human error, and should be trusted with caution. I suppose the same can be said of religion.

Well, Bloody. This is one of my problems with Christians. They claim to have read their little holy book when they actually have no idea what they're talking about. The same book that tells you people that homosexuality is bad also tells you to kill. And I have quoted:

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die."
Deuteronomy 13:6-10

That seems pretty clear to me...

Oooh, here's another good one:

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? ... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord." -- 2 Cor.6:14-17

So don't even hang out with non-christians. They are infidels!!

Since when did Christians get any "Christian Land?" The only promised land of which I know is the Jewish promised land and Islamic holy ground. You see, back in "those times" Christians didn't even exist, so god trying to intervene to protect Christian ideals doesn't make sense.
I'm not saying the Christians started any wars (except for all 6 or so of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and multiple killings of non-believers just because). I'm just pointing out that the bible does encourage violence against non-believers, just like many other holy books.

I agree with FallingUp. When the Bible was written, people were constantly fighting. Christians are taught that if you are under attack, you can meet that attack with something as damaging as the latter. Spreading lies about any religion is serious to the members of that religion, therefore serious measures may be taken.

It wasn't always the case that Christians were attacked. Christians did a lot of attacking.

Thank you, Moe, for the quotes.

Also, Bloody...you are right to question the historical validity of some of our records. History is written by the winners, as the cliche goes, and we may not be correct in all of our assumptions.

The important difference is that no one looks at a history book and proclaims it the divine word of god - a book so powerful and meaningful that, should you not believe its every word, you are forced to endure suffering unlike anything that is even imaginable for the rest of eternity.

See the difference? History books don't proclaim their divine inspiration and 100% authenticity. The Bible does, so it should be judged by its own standards. As I said earlier in a paraphrase of another quote, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Oh, and answer Ash's question too...both her and I brought it up and still no evidence from you.

Meogreche, you say that the Inquisition and Crusades were wars that the Christians started. As to the Inquisition, at the time of the Inquistion, most other countries did the same, but for different religions. And, though we've already gone over this, the Crusades were wars started because the Hold Land was taken over. And someone in a much earlier post said that the Holy Land was only holy for the Jews, as God was speaking to them in the Bible, but Christians hold it holy because it is where Jesus Christ lived and died.

Maybe it comes a moment when they stop to believe,ruined by the things happened to them in thier life...

You know at the end of the day, those messages in books like Deuteronomy are lost in what I think most Christians feel is the "real" message of the bible. Even though it's not for me, if it makes someone happy and serves as a moral guide for them, then that's great. The same can be said for many religions and really it's not "Christians" or "Muslims" or whatever who have started wars. It's people who were motivated by power or land or wealth.
There are many more political reasons to go to war than religious and never has it been the case where an entire religion fought against another religion. They're just people fighting each other.

Moegreche, you say that people believe every word of the Bible, but it isn't supposed to be that way. I, being a Roman Catholic, am taught that the Bible is the inspired word of God, not the dictated word of God. That means that it can be changed to mean whatever you want it to be. So you can think it means you should literally kill any non-believers.