God Does Exist!

[bluflame1080]

If he didn't, then how did this world even come to be? The earth has only been around for 6,000 years! How come the Bible lines up perfectly with history?

[baric]

If he didn't, then how did this world even come to be? The earth has only been around for 6,000 years! How come the Bible lines up perfectly with history?
Trolling, trolling, trolling
Though your hands are swollen
Keep those posts a rollin'
So type!

[Tenspace]

If he didn't, then how did this world even come to be? The earth has only been around for 6,000 years! How come the Bible lines up perfectly with history?
Because you are unwilling to consider factual historical information that doesn't "line up" with the Bible?

If the earth has only been around for 6,000 years, then please explain to me how you are able to communicate over the Internet. The mathematical fundamentals used to determine the age of the Earth as over 4 billion years old are the same rigid explanations which are used to build the electronic components that allow networks, and your computer, to function.

Tenspace

[Rhinoqulous]

If he didn't, then how did this world even come to be? The earth has only been around for 6,000 years! How come the Bible lines up perfectly with history?
Trolling, trolling, trolling
Though your hands are swollen
Keep those posts a rollin'
So type!
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Sir Sin-O-Lot]

If he didn't, then how did this world even come to be? The earth has only been around for 6,000 years! How come the Bible lines up perfectly with history?
How cute! *pats the theist*
I think its time you heard the song of religion...*cue music*
(Part I)
If you were a Jew
What would you do?
Wouldyou say, "Hey cut my people some slack."?
But then out of spite,
Even though it's not right
You leave and eat fatback

If you were a Muslim
What would you say?
Would go sit on your mat to pray?
Praise be Allah, Allah be praised
May Israel to the ground be raised

(the next few verses are for Christianity)
Now, Christianity has many groups
Some are good and some are fruits
Take for example the Calvinists
On occassion they can be quite fatalist
The Mormons they don't put up a fight
They believed the Indians were first white

Now, the Catholics have that pope in Rome
That wears the funny hat
They have but one rule
If you want to be a Cat(holic)
Which is stated clearly , "Hey, if it is feels, don't do that!"

The Southern Baptists can be quite crazy
But don't get me wrong, I know they're not lazy
They work very hard and you can see them,
Bceause someone has to build those Creationist museums

Next I move on to the Hindus
Who are slightly more interesting than the Jews
They believe in many lives and deities
And don't make you pay any church fees

Now, lets talk about the atheists
They have no gods and are always pissed
They prod and poke beliefs with a big stick
They say,"shit doesn't just happen, its called logic."

[Firesolved]

gah...damned christians...


Okay, the bible lining up with history has nothing to do with god existing or not. Thats stupid as fuck. As for how this world would be around, there are plenty of reasons out there. Tons of em, in fact...we just havent found it yet. *Yet*. And youre right...the earth has been around for only 6000 years...so, what took him so long? thats saying that the universe has only existed for 6000 years...and if the universe was created before earth, then why would an almighty being have to go and create shit and take time? I coulda sworn somewhere in Genesis it said that god created everything at once. Your logic is flawed, and your head full of fundamentalism. Go get un-brainwashed and realize the truth dude.

[Ginge]

K i am an agnostic and this really makes me think this here.

Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ

The events surrounding the life and death of Christ didn't occur at a place where we can gain no knowledge of them. Rather, they occurred in history, on earth, and were recorded by men who witnessed the events. We can then look at evidence to decide if it is reasonable.
There is no "scientific" proof that Abraham Lincoln was the president. We cannot recreate him in a laboratory, or formulate an equation. But we can assert with a high degree of certainty that Lincoln was indeed president. We do this by appealing to historical evidence. It is the same kind of evidence that we appeal to in order to establish Christ's life, death, and resurrection. Granted, the evidence is not as great as that for Lincoln, nor as recent. But it is better evidence than we have that Plato ever lived, or Homer, or many historical figures that we take for granted.
Often people are uncertain about the existence of Christ, but few scholars would disagree that a man named Jesus lived roughly between 2 BC and about 33 AD. History documents that this man was not a myth but a real person and the historical evidence for this is excellent and not really debatable.
We can get evidence from the Biblical records. When discussing the biblical records, the question often arises, "How can a document that has been copied over and over possibly be reliable?” When we think of copying manuscripts we often assume that one copy was made and then another from that and another from that and so on, each replacing the copy it was reproduced from. This is not how manuscripts copying worked. Copyists were usually working from one or two documents that were very old. They would make many copies of their source copy, all the while preserving their source and comparing the copies they have made. The Jews (who copied scripture) believed that adding any mistake to the Scriptures would be punishable by Hell. Great care is exercised with scriptures when someone holds a conviction such as this.
In 1947 the accuracy of these documents was confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls. In careful comparison of the manuscripts it was confirmed that the copies we had were almost precisely the same as those which date over 1000 years earlier. The manuscripts matched by 95 percent. No other historical literature has been so carefully preserved and historically confirmed.
At this point I would like to move on to the direct evidences for the resurrection of Christ. There are a certain number of historical facts that we can glean from the Biblical records. They are: Jesus died by crucifixion, he was buried in a tomb known to the authorities, his disciples were distraught because of his death, his tomb was found empty, the disciples believed that they saw Jesus risen from the grave, this experience changed their lives, the message was central to early church teachings, and it was preached in the very city in which Jesus died . These historical facts will be the basis of my argument for Jesus' resurrection.
Jesus died by crucifixion, crucifixion was a most painful and certain means of death. The gospel records indicate that upon his death two prominent Jewish admirers came to gather Christ's body, these men were Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus These men were both of the ruling class of the Jews and well known in the community as well as to Pilate. The mention of prominent men indicates that this account isn’t fictitious. If the disciples had created this story it would have been counterproductive to create a person that was supposed to be in a prominent position. This could easily have been refuted were it not true. Mathew 27:59-61 records that Jesus was laid in his (Joseph of Arimathea) tomb.
Archaeological evidence confirms the description of this tomb being that of a rich man, which was rare in this day. This was not a poor man's grave. Only the rich had tombs carved in rock and situated in a garden area. Secondly the tomb was identified by Joseph, Nicodemus, and the women who watched where he was buried. Mathew 27:62-66 records the Pharisees securing the tomb with a roman guard and a seal. It is also important to note here, that a Roman guard is a group of soldiers not an individual. The seal was punishable by death in the Roman empire.
We know that the disciples were disillusioned by Jesus' death. The man they followed for three years, whom they believed would be the next ruler of the nation, had just been crucified. They expected a Messiah who would be king, not a criminal to be convicted and killed by crucifixion. The disciples scattered when Christ was arrested in the garden of Gethsemene (Mark 14:50). The disciples were ready to return to their lives as fishermen because they thought it was over (John 21:3).
Three days after his burial the tomb was found empty. Each of the gospels reports that Jesus' tomb was found empty. When it had been reported to the disciples by Mary that the tomb was empty, they came running. An historical question confronts us at this point. What happened to the body. Scholars have generally agreed that the body was gone and many explanations have been presented to account for this. The most common response is that it was stolen. But this view is hampered with many problems. Who would have stolen it? The Jews wouldn’t want to steal it. It was they that posted the Roman guard and they had the most to gain by ensuring that Jesus stayed in his tomb and his teachings died with him. The Romans really had no motivation. It was in Pilate's best interest as a governor to keep his realm quiet, not to mention that the Romans hated the Jewish religious fanaticism.
The only reasonable explanation for the missing body is that the disciples stole it. But is this plausible? These are the same men who scattered when Jesus was arrested. They were cowardly. They were disillusioned and depressed. And they would need to overpower the Roman guard. It is unlikely that they would’ve had the courage or motivation to carry out such a plan. Why would they steal it? Possibly they wanted to start a new religion, to gain fame and fortune. This is possible but not likely as we will see. The disciples would have put themselves in great risk to steal the body. The Jews and Romans both wanted this disruption stopped, had they believed that the disciples stole the body they would have dragged them into prison and beaten them until they confessed and produced the body. No such thing happened.
A number of incidental details in this account bear the markings of history as opposed to fraud. The gospels don’t portray the disciples in a very glamorous light. If the disciples had propagated this myth we would expect their own accounts of the events to paint them in a better light than we actually see. The disciples were not the first to see the risen Christ rather, a group of women were. It is of crucial importance to notice in all the accounts that the women were the first to see the risen Jesus (John 20:11-17; Luke 24:1-9; Mark 16:1-8; Mt 28:1-7). In the first century women had no legal power as witnesses in a court of law. A woman's testimony was unacceptable. But it is to the women that Jesus first appears. If the story is fabricated, why choose women, whose testimony no-one would accept, to be the first witnesses? Instead of being a story concocted by the disciples for their own gain, it appears to be an historical record of what actually happened.
How their lives changed after they had seen the risen Jesus is another mark of the story's truthfulness. The disciples became the forerunners of a new movement that swept the world. They spoke out for the message. They were persecuted for the message and they ultimately gave their lives for this message: Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Reliable historical sources tell us that all twelve of the disciples except John died as martyrs. This is of crucial importance. If they had pulled off a hoax, why would they go to their graves proclaiming that it actually happened. Certainly, many have died for a lie. Plenty of other religious followers have died for their faith, but the crucial point here is that the disciples would have known it was a lie, if they had stolen the body or made up the story. They all would have died for what they knew was a lie. Is it plausible to believe that not one of them, under the threat of death would have admitted, "we made the whole thing up?" What they saw changed their lives. They believed they had seen Jesus Christ rise from the dead.
Could they have seen a vision, a hallucination that they assumed was the risen Christ? Because of the strength of the evidence that something did happen that changed the disciples' lives, some critics have suggested the idea that what they saw was an hallucination. The idea of mass hallucinations has been disproven in modern psychology. If you hold that what the disciples saw was an hallucination, then you must acknowledge that they experienced this hallucination in groups of three, four, twelve, and even five hundred people.
The hallucination theory also fails to explain one other fact: the empty tomb. Had the disciples, and many others, hallucinated Jesus' appearances, the commotion they were causing in Jerusalem could have been easily stopped by producing the body. Had Jesus' body been exhumed by the Jews or Romans and presented to the mass of people who were deluded about his resurrection, it is hard to believe that the early church could have gotten started. But the movement did start and the resurrection of Jesus was the grounds on which it began.
Jesus resurrection from the dead was central to their faith. Peter preached the message in Jerusalem as Acts chapter 2.
It is important to note that the message was preached, not in a remote location where no one could verify the account, but it was preached in Jerusalem where all of these events took place and where the story could have easily been falsified or verified.
The resurrection of Christ is central to the Christian faith. Without it, there is no Christianity. Paul says, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (I Cor:15:14).
Christians stake their entire faith on the resurrection of Christ because it is only through this event that forgiveness can come. The gospels and the historical evidence bear out this claim that Jesus rose from the dead.

[baric]

K i am an agnostic and this really makes me think this here.

Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ
Trolling, trolling, trolling
Though your hands are swollen
Keep those posts a rollin'
So type!


(Note this was another first poster)

[The Judge]

If he didn't, then how did this world even come to be? The earth has only been around for 6,000 years! How come the Bible lines up perfectly with history?
Oh crap, so all the hundreds upons hundreds of thousands of those millions-of-years-old, carbon-dated dinosaur fossils all over the world were faked 'cos the bible makes absolutely no mention of them?! Sheesh I've gotta revise my world view now (either that or my red-neck bible-belt-bashin' hick maths is all wrong...dang!) - [can I say that on here? Don't want to go to far...]

[Ginge]

K i am an agnostic and this really makes me think this here.

Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ
Trolling, trolling, trolling
Though your hands are swollen
Keep those posts a rollin'
So type!


(Note this was another first poster)
Wot does that mean anyway?
Yeah everybodys a first poster sometime aint they:cool:
I would like a reply 2 the essay type thing please is thereanything use have 2 say about there being a lack of historical r logical evidence for the ressurection? Any is greatly appreciated

[Ginge]

Calm urself, that just interested me ya know.

[baric]

I would like a reply 2 the essay type thing please is thereanything use have 2 say about there being a lack of historical r logical evidence for the ressurection? Any is greatly appreciated
I'll tell you what. Why don't you read the essay and then tell us what problems you have with it rather than cutting & pasting it from the Xenos Christian Fellowship website? That's a suspicious source from someone who claims to be an agnostic, don't you think?

You see, it is a common tactic for Christian trolls to cut & paste huge tracts of information as a "proof" without having ever read it.

[Ginge]

Nah but u c the thing is i have read it and i found that it was hard 2 dismiss the logic behind it, anyway i can assure u that i actually am an agnostic.

[Tenspace]

Nah but u c the thing is i have read it and i found that it was hard 2 dismiss the logic behind it, anyway i can assure u that i actually am an agnostic.
Okay, why don't you discuss, in your own words, why you find it hard to dismiss the logic behind your original post. You can take it a paragraph at a time if you wish (I know it's one looong paragraph, but maybe you could insert a few carriage returns in the appropriate places first) :)

Seriously, take a few points, quote them, and then discuss why you find them logical. We'll go from there.

Tenspace

[baric]

Nah but u c the thing is i have read it and i found that it was hard 2 dismiss the logic behind it, anyway i can assure u that i actually am an agnostic.
Okay, why don't you discuss, in your own words, why you find it hard to dismiss the logic behind your original post.
IN YOUR OWN WORDS -- that ability is exactly what separates those who have actually thought about something vs. those who simply want to let someone else (or a website) do their thinking for them.

If anyone read that and really had questions, it would be a trivial matter to discuss those questions in their own words.

[baric]

And, by the way, anyone who considers this sentence to be true:

There is no "scientific" proof that Abraham Lincoln was the president.
Is an idiot.

http://www.savethemall.org/images/lincoln_180.jpg

[baric]

I'm not saying I don't believe Lincoln was the president, but what exactly is the "scientific" proof?
First things first. Define "scientific proof".

I ask because I have never heard that term used in scientific journals. EVER.

[Lundie]

When it comes to events in history, there can be no definite or "scientific" proof that a particular event had occurred or that a person had existed.

History is defined by piecing together various personal accounts, hearsay, physical objects, and other seemingly disconnected 'evidence' and the conclusions will then be drawn based upon the consistency of the findings.

For example, how do we know that the battle of Waterloo had actually occurred?

Official accounts provides the first clue that a battle had occurred in a so-and-so spot. Officer's diaries provide an idea of the battle plans. Ration books allowed an accurate estimation of the numbers involved. Spent musket balls and other detritus of battle found on the fields provided an approximation of the battle lines. Excavation of gravesites and examination of the soldiers' and horses' remains indicate the savagery of the battle. Dating methods provide an approximate timeframe etc.etc. And on the basis of these jigsaw evidence, historians will be able to piece together their account of how the battle had unfolded.

However, although we can safely conclude that there was in fact a Battle of Waterloo due to the wealth of documentary and physical evidence pointing in that direction, we can never be absolutely sure of what actually happened during the battle that had occurred some 200 years ago. Official accounts are invariably skewed in favour of the victor. Officers' diaries are also invariably skewed towards the officers' own perspectives, be it self-glorification or self-righteousness. Ration books may be forged by corrupt quatermasters. Excavated physical artefacts can only be studied and their implications based on similar studies of that era. etc.etc. Therefore, the reliability of historical evidence are often open to dispute and historians can only settle upon the most likely conclusion based upon the evidence at hand.

Similarly, apply that to my personal history. By examining the state of my bed and my hair, you can conclude that I'd just woken up from a deep slumber. But how can you be sure that I haven't been, for instance, having extremely passionate sex with my chihuahua?

Therefore, the study of history can never be truly conclusive due to the inherent unreliability of historical evidence.

"What is history but a fable agreed upon?" - Napoleon