I am a christian, i and i strongly belive in my lord jesus christ, and i also belive that if you belive in him and except him as your savior, u will go to heaven. and i also believe that he created the world, not the big bang, or that we came from stupid apes.
Okay here we go now you look at the whole flood idea and it's got credit people of ancient times though they weren't advanced knew what they were talking about. I mean have you heard of the Hittites? Everyoen knows of them and for years people denied the existence the Bible spoke of them often but because we hadn't found anything no one listened. Later it turned out they found a whole city that was the Hittites know they believe us. Then they find a city that's walls fell out not in liek all war machinary of the time made them do they fell in, after examining closely there were no marks on the walls that suggested they were pulled we now knwo this as Jericho the so called "Mythical" site where God made it's walls fall down.
Noah's ark hasn't been found some archaeologists think that its up in mt ararat somewhere they have some fuzzy satellite photo from the '60s with some blob they say is the ark but no one has been able to confirm it i doubt if it'll ever be found i mean a wooden boat on top of a mountain isn't gonna survive long
i mean a wooden boat on top of a mountain isn't gonna survive long
If it survived long enough to be identified in a satellite photo I'm sure it's fine, lol. Although I personally find the whole thing doubtful anyway.
It is kind of interesting that archeological evidence has been found that supposedly corroborates biblical stories. Although I find it meaningless in the argument of Christianity vs Atheism simply because Christianity focuses on the fact that Jesus died then came back to life. Even if you found the tomb that Jesus was buried in it only proves he died. I really don't see how archeology can prove that he was resurrected other than someone's written word saying that he did, and we have plenty of that already.
I really don't see how archeology can prove that he was resurrected other than someone's written word saying that he did, and we have plenty of that already.
I forget the movie, but these archaeologists were on the verge of finding Jesus' tomb or something. Everyone was getting excited for it, the archaeologists, priests, Cardinals, Pope, everyone. And then the archaeologist got in there and found BONES. Everyone was stoked about that too, and then it hit them: bones mean that Jesus wasn't resurrected.
First of all, can anybody tell me what Jesus's Last name was? Because Mary and Josephs last name wasn't Christ I don't think.
I'm not sure what I'd clasify myself as. I mean, I think I believe in god but I by no means believe in the church. So yeah.
Also, To everyone saying that the Big Bang makes no sense you need to realise that it makes as much sense as an all mighty creator on a plain of exsistance beyond our own. It's all either theories or blind faith. And arguing about gods exsistance makes no sense because if you knew then you couldn't believe in god because it becomes fact.
Everyone was stoked about that too, and then it hit them: bones mean that Jesus wasn't resurrected.
...failed. People can put more than one body in a tomb, you know. In fact, that is just what they did back then. Tombs were expensive to make because they were carved out of rock. If they are so expensive, why not use them more than once? Jesus' tomb wasn't used until He was put in it, but that doesn't mean nobody was put in later.
thisisnotanalt, Very true, i do use google frequently, though not usually for a legit debate, cuz its not usually that reliable in the information you pull.
Please note that I put ark in air quotes...I have no idea whether it was the actual ark or not, i'm doubtful of it. Yes, archaeology is not the event itself, but when archaeology turns up something that is known to be a past event, you can't get the event. Your bigfoot example is flawed, because some people think they still exist, the flood/ark event does not still exist it is in the past, and undebatably so. Most of what we know of ancient civilizations and history is uncovered via archeaology
ugh...i definitely didn't hit post...sry for the double...
via archaeology...so either throw out that which has been found supporting the bible AND everything else, or keep them both. They were both found the same way...
Xavier1, Jesus didn't have a surname as we have them now. He was Jesus Of Nazareth, his father was Joseph of Bethlehem. People of the times were identified by the town they were from.
I am considered Atheist but that isn't how I see myself. Like, I don't have a religion, but I don't want to be called Atheist. I believe religion is like time: it was invented to keep people from going insane. If everybody can follow a common rule, this will keep people in line.
I am considered Atheist but that isn't how I see myself. Like, I don't have a religion, but I don't want to be called Atheist. I believe religion is like time: it was invented to keep people from going insane. If everybody can follow a common rule, this will keep people in line.
so...you're agnostic then. (go look it up in the dictionary if you don't know what it means)
so...you're agnostic then. (go look it up in the dictionary if you don't know what it means)
Agnostic -- a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Relating his post to that definition is pushing it a bit I think.
I am considered Atheist but that isn't how I see myself. Like, I don't have a religion, but I don't want to be called Atheist. I believe religion is like time: it was invented to keep people from going insane. If everybody can follow a common rule, this will keep people in line.