I don't believe in the Devil or Hell

[jcribb16]

Quote from Falconer:
Our point is that the probability of your beliefs being 100% accurate is quite a crazy wager considering the other massive man-made possibilities out there (both past and present). And considering we've discovered massive faults with this particular belief system, it just makes the 'faith' factor look even more like self-deception after we state the proof.

What kind of "massive faults" have "we've" discovered?  It must be mighty hard kicking against the pricks to "find" as many faults as you possibly can. To make a rebuttal against your "man-made possibilities," a person would have to go back to the very beginning of Biblical history in Rome, Greece, Macedonia, Israel, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, etc., and study the people (who are listed in the Bible) who met Jesus, as a person; knew Him; and even to this day there are roads, buildings, monuments named after these people.  They were real people who helped to shape the history around God (and other idol gods, etc.) If they weren't real, but listed in the Bible, there might be more doubt.  But that's not the case here. Israel believes in God, just as we Christians do here in America.  Are they wrong and living in a "man-made" god-world? No, they aren't.

[jcribb16]

Quote from jcribb:
Queenofnines, some of your responses are really petty.

Quote from Falconer:
Well first off, even though we're good pals, I'd say she did a bang up job explaining the rationality of the whole thing.

That's your opinion. I, personally, do not think she did a "bang up job" in her response.

[jcribb16]

Quote from Falconer:

Well good! That's good to know. But, as Qo9 is bound to state, nobody is really christian when it comes down to it. Especially in this country.

Just because QO9 would be bound to state that "nobody is really Christian when it comes down to it; especially in this country," does not make it true.  I AM a Christian, she is not and you are not.  I repeat, I AM a Christian.  And there are Christians all around this country of ours - you cannot speak for anyone but yourself.

[jcribb16]

Yes, let people read the Bible.  There are prophecies that have come to pass, are coming to pass in our lifetimes, and will come to pass.  "Coincidence?"  I think not. 

You'll love Nostradamus then.

Thank you, kezalter.

[kezalter]

To make a rebuttal against your "man-made possibilities," a person would have to go back to the very beginning of Biblical history in Rome, Greece, Macedonia, Israel, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, etc., and study the people (who are listed in the Bible) who met Jesus, as a person; knew Him; and even to this day there are roads, buildings, monuments named after these people.  They were real people who helped to shape the history around God (and other idol gods, etc.) If they weren't real, but listed in the Bible, there might be more doubt.  But that's not the case here. Israel believes in God, just as we Christians do here in America.  Are they wrong and living in a "man-made" god-world? No, they aren't.

Roads, buildings and monuments are man-made.  It doesn't matter if they're named after Christian figures, after Buddhist figures, after secular figures, they are all man-made.  They are also not proof of anybody existing.  There were countless structures and monuments to Zeus and Thor, to say nothing about the amount dedicated to Eastern figures and philosophies.  It doesn't mean that Zeus existed, it doesn't mean Hercules existed, and so on.   Even today there are places named after people that never existed.  Our planets are named after ancient deities.  Days of the week are named after ancient deities.  Using your logic above we thus have proof of the existence of Roman and Norse gods.

Mount Rushmore doesn't prove Abe Lincoln and George Washington lived at one point.  Actual historical evidence proves Lincoln and Washington existed, not a man-made sculpture.

There are people who are listed in the Bible that aren't believed to have existed.  Ruth, from the Book of Ruth, is one.  Esther, from the Book of Esther, is another.  The reason is because the books have historical inaccuracies within them, and there is no other compelling historical evidence to support that these people existed or these events happened.

[jcribb16]

kezalter:  I'm only saying these things are named after people that lived back then and were included in the Bible. I was trying to make the point that one needs to go back through Biblical history, and history of the countries I listed, and actually study everything that happened with these people and how it led ultimately to the realization and knowledge of God. My degree in Biblical Theology covered extensive research in the history of Israel, Greece, Italy, Persia (at the time), etc. - not just Biblical history, but the actual history background of the leaders, judges, kings, wars, etc. and how everything ties in together to show God's presence and reality. 

To pick a couple of people out of the Bible and say they weren't real is not accurate.  Everyone listed in there is in there for a reason and yes, they were real.  It would be very interesting to be able to see the censuses from way back then with all of these people listed on there who were included in the Bible.  I support the Bible literally as "God's Word" written by men who God chose to get it down on paper.  Faith is the basis of accepting God (trusting in what you cannot literally see) and to Christians, the Bible is definitely one proof of God's existence. You don't have to accept that as it is your choice to say yes, I believe, or no, I do not.

[Falconer02]

AM a Christian, she is not and you are not.  I repeat, I AM a Christian.  And there are Christians all around this country of ours - you cannot speak for anyone but yourself.

I think we should have aimed a little better at what we were trying to say-- all die-hard christians talk the talk, but they hardly walk the walk. And when we state what the bible says, they usually find other random verses to work around it to justify where they stand.

What kind of "massive faults" have "we've" discovered?  It must be mighty hard kicking against the pricks to "find" as many faults as you possibly can.

Education is key. When you study other mythological characters from histroy, you start to see patterns. For instance- your protagonist Jesus follows a basic heroic quest pattern that's even still used in the media today. This pattern has been used throughout time with many different heroes predating the jewish carpenter. I was reading an article a few months ago and found something called "Lord Raglan's Hero Pattern" which I was just mesmerized by since it spells it out so well for all to understand. The fact that I've been hearing about this mythical quest pattern since highschool and that it actually blossomed into a full study of world-lit characters is pretty cool.

http://department.monm.edu/classics/courses/clas230/mythdocuments/heropattern/default.htm

Read the steps quick and then click on Jesus near the bottom. Click on the others next if you want. Can you come up with anything that can counter this? Anything realistic? I can't. I've come to the conclusion that if there actually was a Jesus character, his story has been tossed, mangled, and exhaggerated so many times that it's completely different from what the bible says. And the problem with that is when you see people worshipping this hero, the naivety is very awkward to deal with and annoying when it's asserted.

The other example I could give is the problem with arguing that christians have free will. This one was actually found by Queen a while back and I got a kick out of it. I've given a basic demonstration of how free will can't be achieved with the christian god, but I have heard no opposition to it aside from 'i dunno. have faith' or that odd example Teflon made.

Edit: Pulled from another thread- http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god19.htm

Above, Kezalter makes another good point about the problems that pretty much cover the rest of your post.

[kezalter]

Sometimes the reason a person is included in the Bible is to tell a story with a moral, not to teach history.  The Books of Ruth and Esther are believed to be something like historical fictions, designed not to tell literally true stories but to provide guidance and understanding of the themes portrayed and/or the subjects at hand.  Similar, in fact, to the parables that Jesus Himself taught.  He wasn't telling absolutely factually true stories, necessarily.  He was making a point.

I majored in history, took a few classes in religious studies.  One of the things that intrigues me is how the narratives of the Bible fit into history, or how they don't.  You approach the subject with the assumption that the Bible is true in everything it states.  I approach all sources as just that--sources.  All capable of being right, all capable of being wrong, all capable of being somewhere in between.  This is why I can say that there are plenty of people mentioned in the Bible that probably never existed.  The evidence leans in a different direction.  I'm not coming to a conclusion because it's the one I personally want to come to--I come to a conclusion based on what is in front of me.

[Falconer02]

I'm not coming to a conclusion because it's the one I personally want to come to--I come to a conclusion based on what is in front of me.

Very well put.

[teflonfanatic]

And what star is the brightest or more powerful then the sun?

...omg dood...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Planet-star-sizes-01.jpg

The star "Deneb", for instance, is 60,000 times brighter than our own sun.

@falconor: Is that a star or a planet?

[kezalter]

@falconor: Is that a star or a planet?

Deneb is a star.  You can also see how planets and the sun stack up against other stars through this video.  I have a series of pictures demonstrating the same thing with the most relevant ones to the discussion being these two:





Obviously, some stars are enormous.  To say the least.

[mattymatt79]

That's pretty cool to say the least seeing how tiny comparatively everything is.

[Annella]

If you don't believe the Bible kezalter, just say so.  The stories of Ruth and Boaz are not true?, or that Queen Esther and King Ahasuerus (Xersus) who ruled over India, Persia and Media, Ethiopia, etc., are bogus?  You might get a few Jews on here pause.

You have a choice to believe the Bible is the Word of God or not, but to blatantly say that some of it is true, and some isn't?  What is that?  It's in with the same thing as "a little bit pregnant".  God is not some trickster to give us a book full of holes.  Neither is He the author of confusion.

You say you majored in history? So did I.  You took religious studies?  Me too.  How about the Jewish Generations and the progressions of the bloodlines written between the Bible's pages?  Have you traced those?  The Jews have, and still have the 12 tribes of Israel.  Have you studied Jewish history?  The Jewish holiday of Purim is based on Queen Esther's triumph for her people.  King David (who wrote a good portion of the Psalms) came from the bloodline of Ruth and Boaz. How about Passover, the celebration of deliverance of God and the Exodus of the Jews out of Egypt?  Every one of these happenings are written in Jewish transcripts and history.....and the Bible.  Jews are very careful to pass down from generation to generation their legacies and history.  How about the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran near Engedi, and how they are exact replicas of some of the books in the Bible?

I don't think you have studied enough.  If you are really seeking the authenticity of the Bible, then you haven't even scratched the surface.

[Annella]

Falconer says:

I think we should have aimed a little better at what we were trying to say-- all die-hard christians talk the talk, but they hardly walk the walk. And when we state what the bible says, they usually find other random verses to work around it to justify where they stand.

And just what is walking the walk with you Falconer?  Since we live our life by the scriptures, we are living what God laid down as what is befitting a Christian.  No verse is "random" to us one bit.  The Bible in it's whole is provided for us.  If we choose a verse(s) that matches a situation that you are trying to beat us over the head with, and you don't like it?  Oh well.  However, I find it interesting that all of you who don't believe the Bible still refer to it to blatantly "bash" Christians that we are not living up to what a Christians should be in your eyes.  Just where does this Christian measuring stick come from if you don't believe in the Bible?

You all have had a good time "bashing" Jcribb, and she gave excellent answers, but that's not good enough is it?  No, your not happy until you thoroughly insult her, and her walk with God, which is actually none of your business, but between her and God.  Falconer, you've gotten mean, and I don't know where that came from.  You used to have some courteousness to you.  Now?

[kezalter]

You're making a million assumptions.  I am ethnically Jewish, so don't get so condescending to me about how I might make "Jews on here pause."  Some books in the Bible are not reliable histories.  I have Jewish and Christian friends who agree with me that the Book of Job, which is taken very seriously by people of both faiths, was possibly or even probably meant to be allegorical.  You're assuming that everybody of the Jewish or Christian faiths is as fundamentalist as you are.  You would be wrong.

Notice I did not ever say Xerxes was not a real person.  You either missed this and made the incorrect assumption that I considered him fictional, or you deliberately injected that name in here in the hopes of putting me on the defensive because Xerxes, unlike Esther, has plenty of corraborating historical evidence that suggests he existed.

Before you go around telling me what the Jews believe about Queen Esther, consider this passage from the entry on Esther in the Jewish Encyclopedia:

In view of all the evidence the authority of the Book of Esther as a historical record must be definitely rejected.

And this was written in the early 1900s.  But go right ahead and tell me I'm the one who needs to study further.  Go ahead and assume I don't know anything about the history of my own ethincity just because I have a different opinion than you do.

It's easy for me to say that Xerxes existed but Esther didn't entirely because I studied the issue beyond taking the Bible literally.  There are plenty of references to the historical Xerxes outside of the Book of Esther.  Some sources portray him one way, some sources portray him another.  You assume they're automatically inaccurate if they don't jibe perfectly with the Biblical account.  I don't make any such assumption.  Just because Xerxes existed doesn't mean that everything everybody ever wrote about him is reliable history.  There's plenty of evidence that the city of Troy(Ilium) existed.  That doesn't mean Homer's Iliad is a perfectly reliable historical source.