Welcome to Gaia! ::

Actually, I would argue that the opposite it true. A peice of writing which does not claim that it is true or false, but merely presents itself as what it is, can be trusted to be nothing more than it is.

However, I peice of writing which FEELS THE NEED to proclaim itself as "true" is immediately suspect. Why would it not assume it's truth was self-evident?

In addition, most other religious writings also claim to be "true." These often come in direct contradiction of one another


All we have of Jesus's sayings (which are accepted by the Christian community) are in the Bible. Therefore, this is a null and redundant point.


That is an opinion. Since morality is maleable, it is impossible to say that one form of morality is "superior" to another. You will believe that YOUR morality is superior, because why other reason than that would you subscribe to it?

The Bible IS a facinating peice of literature. However, if you would assay the vast body of writing that is literature, 99% of it is considered fiction. Less than 1% of it is considered "historical." The works that are labeled "historical" is because the intent of it was to record history, or at least purport that it relays history. However, these bodies of literature are never taken at face value. This is because early historians had a very loose handle on what is truth- a handle that modern historians do not trust. Neither should you.



A can of worms indeed.
Such surprising unity! And indeed, these men were not eyewitnesses! Even in eyewitness accounts, the accuracy of tales vary widely. An eyewitness is a prosecuter's nightmare- they so often contradict eachother that it's difficult to get any proof from them.

Historians believe that these particular Gospels were chosen and edited for uniformity, out of THOUSANDS of such documents. The remainder were destroyed, although a few escaped this fate. (This is supported by the discovery of other documents from the same time period which offer alternative stories of Jesus- many that contradict the idea of his divinity)

It is true that the people and places in the Bible actually existed. It would be folly of the writers of the Bible to not be accurate in this manner if they expected it to be taken seriously. However, there are numerous historical inacurracies in the Bible.

For instance, the Philistines in the Bible are characterized as uncultured, uncouth people- in fact, the word "Philistine" in the English language has come to mean a person that demonstrates these very characteristics. However, archeological studies have found that the Philistines were anything but Philistines. The pottery at the time was decorative and artistic, implicating the existance of a culture that appreciates asthetic beauty. Jewish pottery, on the contrary, was purely functional and demonstrated no such sign of advanced culture.

These prophecies you speak of were both predicted and fulfilled within the context of the Bible, and therefore are invalid for this argument due to statement 1.
There are a lot of copies of it. So what? Does that make this month's New York Top Bestseller also true?

Many people have been persecuted for a great many reasons in history. The most recent have been the Japanese in the US during WWII, the communists during the Red Scare- the witch hunts in early Salem. Socrates was sent to death for HIS writings. Ethnic and religious cleansing are as common as day. Dying for something does not mean that it's real or true- it just means that people are convinced of something SO STRONGLY that they will die for it.

Last I heard, being convinced of something with so little doubt was called being "close-minded"



No, because we don't believe that we will be saved eternally for doing so. Someone who dies for their belief only does so because they are told that their sacrifice will bring lasting paradise.

Ever heard of suicide bombers? The operate on the same principal that your Biblical heros did. I suppose that should make them holy men in your eyes?

catholicism is not the same religion as christianity, and im not sure where you got this lilith idea... can you please give me references? im pretty sure lilith isnt in the bible. she never existed.
a tightrope stretching from where to where? they were in the middle of a lake more than a mile across and to have a tightrope from the shore to the boat would be hard to conceal from the apostles who were "astounded" to see him walking on water
he was both. god isnt one person, god is three seperate people that are all together called God. there is God the father, God the son and God the holy spirit. God the son was part of the trinity therefore he had all the powers of God and was still Gods son in the flesh. after crucifixion, jesus came back from the dead and conquored death and was said to ascend to heaven to be with the trinity. he now sits at the right hand of God. the holy spirit was sent to the apostles to give them courage, power over the devil, etc. and people often refer to the holy spirit as your conscience.
again, i refer to the holy spirit. the indwelling of the holy spirit made it possible for biblical writers to write scripture that can be applied to any situation in life.
this book you speak of sounds alot like it was influenced by christianity. the parralels i saw just from what you wrote are astounding. Iluvatar and the Valar sound like god speaking the world into existance, melkor sounds like lucifer, former angel of light. writers all over the world have been influenced by the bible, even writers of The Silmarilion! of course the bible is an astounding peice of literature! and im not saying this alone makes it true, I'm just saying that you should read it.matthiew mark luke and john are all diaries of jesus' life and ministry. the dead sea scrolls werent covered up. ill post more historical data in myu next post

That's my point genius.



Lilith, as I said, was from the text the Old Testament WAS BASED ON. Adam and Eve isn't a Christian invented story, it's Judaic. As is the Lilith part of it. It's from the Hebrew Apocrypha.

And Catholicsm is a BRANCH OF CHRISTIANITY. As is Lutherism, Protistant, Baptist, etc. etc.



Okay, so in that case Christianity is Polytheistic.



That still doesn't account for all the crazy people. Again, how do you know that the authors of the Bible aren't the same as today's schotzophrenics?



The fact that The Silmarilian was influenced by Christianity (as are most of Tolkien's serious works, Lord of the Rings included, I've done research) isn't the point. The point is, you don't see people praising Iluvatar and damning people to Melkor.



Actually they were covered up. To this day no one knows what's in them.

But here's the thing. Jesus spoke to God all the time. Which means that God and Jesus were two seperate beings. And Jesus questioned God, in which case if they were one and the same, there should be no disagreement.

"Why have you forsaken me Father" if memory serves me right.

that was a very nice and thorough post xander ^^'

and, lmao, I just found an E.D. post that says that nothing in the bible is real. Not even Jesus.... thanks for trying 2 back up creastionism but cmon!!! their is historical data saying that their WAS a Jesus.... He might not of done magical things but he was their..... nice try but no cigar X.D

If the Church said "God is Three Persons - but really only one Person," or "There are three Gods - but really only One God," those would be contradictory statements. But it says that there are Three Persons in one God, meaning that the Three Persons share one and the same Divine Nature. The words person and nature describe two different things. Person denotes who someone is, while nature denotes what one is. So if we ask "Who is God?", the answer is "God is Three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit". If we ask "What is God?" the answer is "God is One - a Single Divine Nature". If we put these two truths together we find that God is Three Divine Persons who share one Divine Nature.

In example Let's say there are three men - John, James and Joe. Each one thinks, loves and decides for himself, yet they are joined in such a way that they all share the same soul(and I know some of you don't believe in souls just bear with me). John can think with James' intellect, because it is also his own; James can love with Joe's will, because it is his will as well.

Now, if we ask John; "Are you a person?" he'd say "Yes, I am a person." James and Joe would say the same thing, for each is a distinct person from the other. Yet we can't say there are three distinct human beings, since they share one human nature among them. Likewise with God. There are not three Gods, there is only one God; one Divine Nature possessed equally and totally by three distinct Persons.

Yeah, you did own him intellectually. It kind of gets irritating when creationists bring up the same points, which have been refuted so many times, but I usually learn something new with every "evolutionist" response. In this instance, I learned about the world's oldest organisms...

Nebetsu's first point disturbs me. Not, of course, because it's true--it couldn't be further from the truth. But because it was what made me aware that he stole the article from Kent Honvid's site. I can't possibly comprehend how anyone--no matter how dumb they are--can think Kent Honvid's arguments hold any merit.