***The Official Atheist and Christian Friendly Discussion***

[2nd_chance]

The earth created in 1 day Adam and eve via evolution.

Misconception. The very first verse of the Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." The Bible never indicates in any way, shape or form that the earth is only 6,000 years old. God did create Adam 6,000 years ago though, in one day.

[bigvin73]

I think that my biggest contention was with this statement that you made:



Let's just stick with the New Testament:
- The NT was written in Greek between 45 and 95 A.D.
- There are over 5,600 early Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament that are still in existence. The oldest being 125 A.D.
- Translations out of the Greek began to occur in 180 A.D.
- The first canon of the New Testament was in 170 A.D. and closely resembled the current one (less Hebrews, James and III John).
- In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea concluded that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. Criteria for the 27 New Testament books was:
1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle?
2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large?
3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching?
4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?
- Several other councils followed suit and agreed with the Laodicean council (i.e., 393, 397 A.D.).

One can certainly debate whether they want to believe the content of the New Testament, but there is more evidence of it's authenticity than any other ancient manuscript, by far.

I definatly worded it wrong was not my intention after re reading it I see your issue bro.
What I meant was that the bible itself was comprised of a lot of different books and it's contents where decided on by a conference of men. Anytime you have a conference of men deciding what the general public gets information wise you will have outside agendas dictate some of it.

Not sure if I explained my point well enough or not I'm not the best writer especially on an iPhone lol

[2nd_chance]

I definatly worded it wrong was not my intention after re reading it I see your issue bro.
What I meant was that the bible itself was comprised of a lot of different books and it's contents where decided on by a conference of men. Anytime you have a conference of men deciding what the general public gets information wise you will have outside agendas dictate some of it.

Not sure if I explained my point well enough or not I'm not the best writer especially on an iPhone lol

Men were involved because that is how God works. He uses people. They followed strict criterion. It's simple for me: if I believe that God divinely inspired the Bible, then I also believe that He divinely worked through men to ensure that we have the canon of Scripture that He wanted. Non-believers will have a hard time following that line of thought, but I find it quite easy.

[bigvin73]

Men were involved because that is how God works. He uses people. They followed strict criterion. It's simple for me: if I believe that God divinely inspired the Bible, then I also believe that He divinely worked through men to ensure that we have the canon of Scripture that He wanted. Non-believers will have a hard time following that line of thought, but I find it quite easy.

While I marvel at your faith I have to respectfully disagree bud. Faith in god is one thing thinking men given that much power could be completely free of agenda and not let anything influence their decision to me is jut to far a stretch. Look at the sheer power the church had at the time. One thing rings true all throughout time. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Take away the book of Ruth and there is next to no mention of a woman being anything more then a caregiver wife mother or negative even. The bibles structure was heavily dictated by te times. I would love to read the books they left out to see if any of it is different.

[2nd_chance]

I will only respect one's choosing to have those beliefs as long as one doesn't feel they have to evangelize on it.

I guess it depends on one's definition of "evangelize." I am open with my faith. I share the truth of the gospel whenever there is an opportunity... because the word "gospel" itself means "good news." However, I never enter an argument over it or try to convince anyone of anything. My job as a believer is not to convince people; that is the Holy Spirit's role... He alone can convict someone's heart regarding these matters. So, just like this thread, I am not trying to convince any non-believer of any part of the Bible. Perhaps, if their heart is already being convicted of these things, something that I or someone else may write could resonate with them. Beyond that, I'll leave the intellectual debates to others who find more satisfaction than I do with them.

[IronCharles]

How numerous books of the bible, ex the books of Thomas and Mary, were tossed out and ordered destroyed off the face of the earth just because a bunch of rich privileged dudes who sat down and decided what goes and what stays were motivated by their own self interests.

So, if the bible is indeed the inspired word of God (2 Tim. 3:16), why would God allow men to alter, edit, or censor it? Do you really imagine an almighty God wringing his hands, thinking, "Oh, drat! Those rich privileged dudes just threw out part of my teachings! Now mankind is doomed to not know how to worship me correctly! Whatever shall I do!"


I'm pretty sure the bible is exactly what God intended it to be.... nothing more, nothing less.

[2nd_chance]

While I marvel at your faith I have to respectfully disagree bud. Faith in god is one thing thinking men given that much power could be completely free of agenda and not let anything influence their decision to me is jut to far a stretch. Look at the sheer power the church had at the time. One thing rings true all throughout time. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Take away the book of Ruth and there is next to no mention of a woman being anything more then a caregiver wife mother or negative even. The bibles structure was heavily dictated by te times. I would love to read the books they left out to see if any of it is different.

You could apply your viewpoint to any area of God's dealing with mankind. Who is to say that Moses came down from the mount and wrote everything that God said. Maybe God gave Moses 12 commandments but Moses didn't like two of them.

I have faith in the process that God used to give us His Word... not the same as having faith in the men who were used.

[bigvin73]

So, if the bible is indeed the inspired word of God (2 Tim. 3:16), why would God allow men to alter, edit, or censor it? Do you really imagine an almighty God wringing his hands, thinking, "Oh, drat! Those rich privileged dudes just threw out part of my teachings! Now mankind is doomed to not know how to worship me correctly! Whatever shall I do!"


I'm pretty sure the bible is exactly what God intended it to be.... nothing more, nothing less.

God gives I separation IC man has free will. God doesn't control a mans action a man can choose to listen or choose his own path. Like I said earlier as inspired as the bible is and being the word of god it was still selected by man and mans free will

[DaddyJax]

Why is it easy for a person to believe that someone over 2000 years ago was the son of god but if a man or woman today was to come out and say that they are the son of god they get locked up?

"Where does it say it was 1 24 hour period? Does anyone really know gods time line?"
Apparently the guys who wrote the book since they are the ones who created the character, like Bram Stoker wrote the rules and guidelines for Dracula and Vampires

"I'm not one to take the bible absolutely literally in ever aspect."
Then why take it literally at all? Where do you decide and who are you to decide what to take literally or not?

[IronCharles]

God gives I separation IC man has free will. God doesn't control a mans action a man can choose to listen or choose his own path. Like I said earlier as inspired as the bible is and being the word of god it was still selected by man and mans free will

That doesn't give God much credit for being able to disseminate his own word, does it? Do you really think He would leave understanding the path to salvation to mere chance, or the whims of men? For example, he didn't tell Moses to carve the ten commandments out of stone, did he? He carved them out with his own "hand", and told Moses to pick it up and take it to the Israelites. Doesn't sound like much room for misinterpretation there.

[DaddyJax]

That doesn't give God much credit for being able to disseminate his own word, does it? Do you really think He would leave understanding the path to salvation to mere chance, or the whims of men? For example, he didn't tell Moses to carve the ten commandments out of stone, did he? He carved them out with his own "hand", and told Moses to pick it up and take it to the Israelites. Doesn't sound like much room for misinterpretation there.

Anyone other than the old man see this happen? Or is it the word of a old desperate man who was gone long enough for his people to start messing around(losing faith) come back with the tablets and say so?

[bigvin73]

That doesn't give God much credit for being able to disseminate his own word, does it? Do you really think He would leave understanding the path to salvation to mere chance, or the whims of men? For example, he didn't tell Moses to carve the ten commandments out of stone, did he? He carved them out with his own "hand", and told Moses to pick it up and take it to the Israelites. Doesn't sound like much room for misinterpretation there.

I understand what your getting at, however after Jesus gods been a lot more hands off then he was in the old testiment days comparing mosses to a bunch of men who decided what books are in the bible is a stretch. God didn't come to those men and say use this list of books or zap the bible together like he did the ten commandments.
And if I'm not mistaken the bible was basically reinterpreted into what the now a days known as Christians believe to be the bible by 1 man. As I said earlier a man the catholic church excamunicated for being a radical and extremist hence the split off of the Protestant Christians.

To think or believe man and organized religion has no flaws because god wills it it going to far past blind faith. If you speak with 10 different pastors/priests in the differet segments of Christianity you'll get 10 different interpretations of almost any given chapter of te bible.

I grew up catholic went to both baptist and southern baptist church's as a teen. Been to non denominational and Pentecostal churches as well as a few others and while they all read the same book save catholics they all interpret it differently.

[Frnkd]

I get it!!!!!

[bigvin73]

I get it!!!!!

Where in HI brah? Moms in Ewa Beach spent 5 years as a kid there. My little brothers at UH now

[IronCharles]

Anyone other than the old man see this happen? Or is it the word of a old desperate man who was gone long enough for his people to start messing around(losing faith) come back with the tablets and say so?

I understand what your getting at, however after Jesus gods been a lot more hands off then he was in the old testiment days comparing mosses to a bunch of men who decided what books are in the bible is a stretch. God didn't come to those men and say use this list of books or zap the bible together like he did the ten commandments.
And if I'm not mistaken the bible was basically reinterpreted into what the now a days known as Christians believe to be the bible by 1 man. As I said earlier a man the catholic church excamunicated for being a radical and extremist hence the split off of the Protestant Christians.

To think or believe man and organized religion has no flaws because god wills it it going to far past blind faith. If you speak with 10 different pastors/priests in the differet segments of Christianity you'll get 10 different interpretations of almost any given chapter of te bible.

I grew up catholic went to both baptist and southern baptist church's as a teen. Been to non denominational and Pentecostal churches as well as a few others and while they all read the same book save catholics they all interpret it differently.

You guys are right. To first believe the bible is the inspired word of God, one must first believe in God, and his reason for having the bible written. It's silly for me to defend the authenticity of the bible to those who don't believe in the first place!



Carry on.

[Wayne Evans]

I guess it depends on one's definition of "evangelize." I am open with my faith.

Shooting from the hip: "Those who feel they must always offer their religious beliefs to others around them at every opportunity. Those who are self absorbed and self rihgheous enough to think they must pontificate to others on their own self-proclaimed god given their belief that they speak from a higher moral ground."

That's my quick definition.

IMO....
The Bible has it's history significance and there are gems of wisdom yet mixed in with much fantasy and absurdities which I don't need to itemize.
The Bible was written, re-written and re-interpreted by men with agendas.
Yes....especially in the political context.

Carry on....

[bigvin73]

You guys are right. To first believe the bible is the inspired word of God, one must first believe in God, and his reason for having the bible written. It's silly for me to defend the authenticity of the bible to those who don't believe in the first place!



Carry on.

Where have I ever said I dont believe in god? I don't believe in organized religion or that any one religion is right but I most certainly believe in god bro. I just don't agree with mans interpretations all te time.

Gotta be honest IC and I sincerely don't mean any disrespect but I expected a better responce.

[IronCharles]

Where have I ever said I dont believe in god? I don't believe in organized religion or that any one religion is right but I most certainly believe in god bro. I just don't agree with mans interpretations all te time.

Gotta be honest IC and I sincerely don't mean any disrespect but I expected a better responce.

No, I just realized that this whole thread is pointless. Everyone has their viewpoint, and at the end of the day, nobody's viewpoint will be changed. It starts out as, "This is what I believe", and then becomes everyone else trying to disprove everyone else's theory. No offense, Vin.... it's not personal. It's just the way it is.... and the way it will be 20 pages from now!

[bigvin73]

No, I just realized that this whole thread is pointless. Everyone has their viewpoint, and at the end of the day, nobody's viewpoint will be changed. It starts out as, "This is what I believe", and then becomes everyone else trying to disprove everyone else's theory. No offense, Vin.... it's not personal. It's just the way it is.... and the way it will be 20 pages from now!

Point well taken and probably right bro. If it gives you any splice though the thread yesterday put me into a conversation with a pastor I know for a few hours and has me thinking about spirituality in general so for me it hasn't been pointless.

I'll see ya in dat ass thread later on IC always a pleasure

[2nd_chance]

No, I just realized that this whole thread is pointless. Everyone has their viewpoint, and at the end of the day, nobody's viewpoint will be changed. It starts out as, "This is what I believe", and then becomes everyone else trying to disprove everyone else's theory. No offense, Vin.... it's not personal. It's just the way it is.... and the way it will be 20 pages from now!

It isn't pointless, nor is the object to change anyone's viewpoint. Maybe we can simply understand the others' viewpoints a little better and perhaps learn something along the way. And possibly what we learn will be about our self as we look within to form a response...

[bigvin73]

It isn't pointless, nor is the object to change anyone's viewpoint. Maybe we can simply understand the others' viewpoints a little better and perhaps learn something along the way. And possibly what we learn will be about our self as we look within to form a response...

Well said your on spread bud.
Dan I'm to blunt to speak that well lol least in text

[IronCharles]

It isn't pointless, nor is the object to change anyone's viewpoint. Maybe we can simply understand the others' viewpoints a little better and perhaps learn something along the way. And possibly what we learn will be about our self as we look within to form a response...

That's true.... my taste for debate is cyclical. Some times it's fun, other times tedious. Maybe I'll look at it differently after I go kill legs this afternoon!

[chickeneater]

I actually find comfort in the fact that I know as much about heaven and hell as any Pope that ever walked the earth..............Absolutely Nothing.

[Brackneyc]

It isn't pointless, nor is the object to change anyone's viewpoint. Maybe we can simply understand the others' viewpoints a little better and perhaps learn something along the way. And possibly what we learn will be about our self as we look within to form a response...

Sadly, this "understanding" cannot usually be reached without someone getting mad, or their feelings hurt. What passes for understanding tends to be one side giving up on being able to make the other side understand their position.

[2nd_chance]

Sadly, this "understanding" cannot usually be reached without someone getting mad, or their feelings hurt. What passes for understanding tends to be one side giving up on being able to make the other side understand their position.

While it may be true, why set the table for it?

[Brackneyc]

While it may be true, why set the table for it?

It might save some time and energy. Both sides may benefit from knowing this, because most of them appear not to know this.

[2nd_chance]

It might save some time and energy. Both sides may benefit from knowing this, because most of them appear not to know this.

Someone may not know that they will get mad?

[mslman71]

Sadly, this "understanding" cannot usually be reached without someone getting mad, or their feelings hurt. What passes for understanding tends to be one side giving up on being able to make the other side understand their position.

On this subject I stopped feeling that way around 15 years ago. I believe what I believe, and that's a fact. I'll accept whatever you believe as just that. So long as your feelings don't translate into some regulation of the choices I can make then we're all good. The rest is simply friendly discussion.

[Brackneyc]

Someone may not know that they will get mad?

It would be great if they could get mad (we all do), yet maintain a civilized conversation. I'll not hold my breath.

[chickeneater]

Jesus to come into my heart. He did!

Now what if you were born in the middle east? Had never heard of Jesus. Would'nt you then be putting on some middle east version of the o35 misc a story of how Allah saved you? And talking about the latest book written by a non-believer who became a believer with evidence to prove the Koran is full of facts?

Is there a seperate heaven and hell for Christians and Muslims?

Based on the law of averages and the sheer number of humans on the earth, there is no doubt some hulking muslim bodybuilder who had the same experience that you did, but claims that it was Allah's doing. He would no doubt think you're crazy for believing in Jesus, and you think he's crazy believing in Allah.

You believe what you do because the Bible says it. He believes it because the Koran says it. The only true provable fact is that both books were written by humans.