-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
the right religion
- Thread starter islam abduallah
- Start date
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Ok, I am not getting bogged down here, but If you will pick your pet claim that you want to use, I will address it if I can. Finding a couple of faults created by transmission, interpretation, or the lack of scholarship on the claiments part is not a suffecient reason to dismiss the obfvious accuracy contained in the bible. This does not stop people from trying though so give me ONE.
Answer about the first conversation I supplied by devine inspiration in post# 1241. I mean I was joking when I said I was joking because god told me to.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
what???
Oh dear, surely you understand the first things Adam and Eve said to each other? Or didn't god give them speach? Maybe Adam just grunted before he jumped on Eve? Or maybe they didn't know what the respective bits were for? Maybe why it took hundreds of years to have kids?
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Well the obvious integrity and sincerety of the non-believers position is certainly evident here.
I would be happy if you could point to my lack of sincerity and integrity, please?
1robin
Christian/Baptist
This is bizarre, you are actually asserting that this is a real question.
Or This:
This is sincere questioning.
waitasec
Veteran Member
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Obvious to anyone with an open mind and a couple hours with the internet. It is claimed by scholars to have 25,000 historical claims verified by archeology. It's manuscript tradition is vastly greater than any other work of ancient history.sorry, the accuracy of the bible isn't obvious....
heard of apologetics?
Clearly this is a shaky basis for belief. For every expert cited one can find a number of equivalent experts that disagree.
Even the best that William Phelps can muster is "it is encouraging", but even so his claims do not seem warrented.
We do not have explicit testimony ?? We do not know who wrote Matt, Mark and Luke and they were written many decades after the resurrection.
The Gospel of Mark in the first Bible did not have the resurrection story .. this was a later addition.
Numerous if not the majority of "experts" think that Luke and Matt were written using Mark and another unknown document called "Q" as source material.
As far as Paul is concerned .. he never met Jesus .. ever.
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
No, he's serious
1robin
Christian/Baptist
There is far more information that attests to Christianity than any other religion. I will give you an example: Just take the holy books themselves. Compare the bible to the quran. The Quran has one author and was written over about 23 years. It contains no prohecies worth the label, contains verses out of gnostic texts, makes many mistakes concerning events that the bible recorded many years earlier, and makes many scientific mistakes, etc..... The quran is spread by violence to a great extent. The bible is written over several thousand years (and somehow maintaines a consistent theme) by approx 40 authors. records many miracles and prophecies witnessed by hundreds, has borrowed no text from uninspired sources, has not been shown to make any claim that has been proven wrong, etc.....The bible is not propegated by violence by and large (it has been unjustly missused for violence). It has even gained followers during times of great persecution. It was compiled using great scrutiny and care by many scholars. The quran was dictated by one man who's first thoughts after the revelation was that he was possessed.
The quran is the next most likely to be true religion, the desparity is even greater between other religions.
What first bible are you talking about concerning Mark.
My NIV bible lists the authors of the Gospels. Are you qualified to dispute the scholars that produced it? Even if true is one gospel that doesn't mention something proof where three that do mention something are not?
What, Paul said he met the risen Christ on the way to Demascus.
The time gap between events and the recording of them in the bible is debatebly much sooner than you state but even your timeframe is shorter than any other work in ancient history. For instance Thucydides peloponesian war has a gap of a thousand years yet it is considered very reliable.
A Troubled Man
Active Member
LOL! :bonk:
You actually believe this stuff, don't you? Simply amazing!
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Me and many respected scholars, pick your favorite point of contention. If it can be hashed out without too much trouble I will.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
A reply definately worth the effort which reaveals the sound argumentation of the critic.
What a really stupid challenge. I could try the old favourite...prove that god exists, but of course you can't do that. Or I might ask you to prove that Noah's flood happened or maybe whether Noah actually existed but you'd fail that as well. Perhaps the idea that the bible is a factual, historical and scientific history of mankind and the earth and the universe and time and space, that could be interesting, but of course you couldn't do that. Maybe you could explain objective morality, the idea that GOOD and EVIL are objective and not subjective. I will help you out by explaining that subjective refers to a personal view and objective for the purpose of this discussion is the view of your god and is therefore unchangeable. Whatever is evil is EVIL and whatever is good is GOOD, there are no equivocations or justifications in OBJECTIVE. I look forward to your response.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
My question was not quite as stupid as your answer. I made no claim in the statement being discussed that I can prove God exists, or the flood is provable. I was comparing the relative merit of Christianity v/s it's closest competitor. The bible requires faith concerning many of it's claims. If these things could be proven then faith is unnecessary. The bible contains countless other things that can be proven like the prediction of destruction of Tyre, or Babylon that only a God could have produced. There are over 2000 of these prophecies in the bible. If you will pick one that can be suffeciently evaluated then do so. Keep that proof of anything was not claimed in my statement it was the relative integrity, reliability and amount of information in the bible compared to another religion. Why is the multi verse theory considered valid when there isn't and can't possibly be a scrap of evidence, and the bible which posseses a wealth of data not. The double standards are pathetic. An informal definition of objective truth in the context we are discussing is a truth that is independant of individual human opinion. That can only come from a source outside of us. Most people who claim there are no objective moral values will quickly start asserting them as justification for things they desire. For example in the neurenburg trials the Nazi's claimed they were acting consistent with the moral framework of their society. At this point you would have not been able to say anything meaningful in reply unles you did what the allies did and assert an absolute standard greater than their societal norms. I would bet that if you felt suffeciently threatened you would start appealing to moral absolutes pretty fast.