Cameron documentary claims to have found Jesus' Tomb. Oh, and dead body too...

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Yes, you clearly posted that poster of the belief that you believe God doesnt exist and or never existed and so along with the Flood, 10 Commandments, Jesus etc so I am assuming you have evidence to back that up.

The poster clearly attempts to put in clear light that all beliefs that arent based on scientific proof are BS so the burden of proof is on your shoulders.

Since I see you are attempting to back out in providing proof I will provide some. Men have 1 fewer rib than women. Name a monkey or relative of the species that also has that trait since "science" clearly believes we came from monkeys (or an offshoot of such) yet the bible clearly has a different reason for the difference in the number of ribs.

I will even accept a theory on why we might have evolved with men haveing one less rib than women.

I am waiting.

Thanks

MYK

When the Bible can satisfy the same criteria that scientific theories are subject to then perhaps I will give it more credance. But until you can plausible prove where the water came from to cover the earth and how Noah could fit 2 of every animal on an arc, I'm not going to hold my breath.

But with respect to ribs....
"The human rib cage area. A typical human ribcage consists of 24 is a part of the human skeleton within the thoracicribs, 12 on each side of the thoracic cavity, in both males and females. This was noted by the Flemishanatomist Vesalius in 1543, setting off a wave of controversy, as it was traditionally assumed from the Biblical story of Adam and Eve that men's ribs would number one fewer than women's."

So where is thise "difference in number of ribs" of which you speak?

I don't need to prove a negative. But if you have examples that can withstand scientific scruitiny I'm sure there are many biblical scholars that will want to hear from you.


Listen, if your faith helps you function in the world, good for you. If it helps you become a better person (as it does for many) then that is wonderful.
But when posters such as flames85 come on and declare the bible as "true" they should expect to be challenged. To the benefit of Azure and Firefly, if I interpret correctly they were seemed to be trying to "nudge" flames85 away from his extreme view.
The poster I put up may have been harsh, but that is the way I perceive much of these religious debates, and I wouldn't (perhaps shouldn't) have posted it but I couldn't allow some of the views espoused to go unchallenged.

(Edit: of course going to a meeting before posting my response may have meant many people jumped on these points first)

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

OK, the last time I will post this.

I MENTIONED THE WHOLE RIB THING (MALE VS FEMALE) AS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT COULD BE USED and now you can have actual proof and to use as a starting point to scientifically disprove the reason why.

I realize its impossible for me to prove it scientifically - I dont need to. Why do I prefer brunettes and dispise thongs - I cant prove why scientifically but I know thats what I believe

Its like I illuded to earlier, if I make a post that says horses are purple then its up to me to prove it, not for you to disprove it.

The op post inplied that all religion is BS because I assume science has disproved it. If that is the case then its up to the op to provide the evidence disproving it.

MYK

This is really confusing, so in the interest of making it just a little less confusing, please answer this question.

Men and women have the same number of ribs.
A. Yes
B. No

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

And you get Golden Bugles from that?

Thats the stuff I was read as a bedtime story when I was a child.

Exactly. Pure fantasy/mythology that people deliver to their kids as fact. Except that unlike Santa, they're never weaned off of it.

Oh sure, I know all about the jokes with St. Peter waiting at the pearly gates. Doesn't mean I believe it.

Its humor.

Jokes aside, I'm pretty sure that most Christians don't believe St. Peter and the gates of heaven are a joke; they're real, and when you die, if you're good, you'll go through them into heaven (after Pete takes a gander at his book to see if you're good enough). Fantasy (imo).

[photon]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

The op post inplied that all religion is BS because I assume science has disproved it. If that is the case then its up to the op to provide the evidence disproving it.

MYK

I think this is the key point.. You assume that someone beleives religion is BS because science has disproved it, but that's not how it works. Someone believes religion is BS because religion itself hasn't been proven. The default position is incorrect until proven correct, not correct until disproven.

[Hack&Lube]

I generally find amongst the most adamant defenders of science vs. religion that there is a very large belief in a scientific conspiracy of mis-truths being taught in unversities that is somehow aimed against them. Science is not demanding proof of religion but in the course of it's efforts to broaden our understanding of the universe, it has brought to question many elements of dogmatic religion that cannot easily be reconciled.

Back to the very topic of this thread from which we have abandoned...James Cameron is not providing scientific proof that Jesus didn't exist and as stated by the director, is also not trying to prove the Jesus did not rise to heaven as held by many Christians. Merely that there is both the possibility that this is infact evidence (not proof) toward the historicity of the person that does not (in the director's words) discount the possibility of a spiritual resurrection versus corporeal.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Exactly. Pure fantasy/mythology that people deliver to their kids as fact. Except that unlike Santa, they're never weaned off of it.

Nobody delivered it to me as fact. It was a freakin' bedtime story.

Quit making assertions.

Jokes aside, I'm pretty sure that most Christians don't believe St. Peter and the gates of heaven are a joke; they're real, and when you die, if you're good, you'll go through them into heaven (after Pete takes a gander at his book to see if you're good enough). Fantasy (imo).

Link?

Your best source would be the Bible. I suggest you start backing up your ridiculous claims.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Nobody delivered it to me as fact. It was a freakin' bedtime story.

Quit making assertions.

Do you know what an assertion is? It was delivered to me as fact, just like all good young Catholics I knew. Angels, demons, the body and blood of Christ are all real things, not just examples or stories. Maybe you're taking your own personal belief structure and applying it to all Christians, a dangerously stupid way to go about discussing this.

Link?

Your best source would be the Bible. I suggest you start backing up your ridiculous claims.

(jeesh, hard to imagine you've got a blue skill square!)

Well, I've read the bible enough times to find it dry, I've read far better fantasy novels (I highly recommend a Song of Ice and Fire to fantasy fans!).

Here's a quick Wikipedia on what I was referencing about fantasy re: the Pearly Gates of heaven;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearly_gates

The Pearly gates, in Christian beliefs, is an informal name for the gateway to Heaven, inspired by the description of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21:21— The twelve gates were twelve pearls, each gate being made from a single pearl.[1]
The image of the gates in popular culture is a set of large, white or wrought-iron gates in the clouds, guarded by Saint Peter (the keeper of the "keys to the kingdom"); those not fit to enter heaven are denied entrance at the gates, and thus descend into Hell.[2]

I'm not telling you whats in the bible or not, I'm commenting on what many, MANY Christians (Catholics) I've met truly believe in.

"The archangel Gabriel is attributed with sending the message of God to all the Prophets (including the Psalms, Torah, Bible and Qur'an). Other angels include Michael who discharges control of vegetation and rain, Israfel who will blow the trumpet at the day of resurrection"

[Calgaryborn]

The Old Testament and the New Testament are just that: "Testaments"- as in "last will and testament". The Old Covenant was introduced in Exodus 19:5-8. The Ten commandments as well as many other laws were declared in Exodus 20-23 and then in Exodus 24:3-8 were agreed upon by the people of Israel. The jist of the Old Covenant was basically that this is God's standard for conduct and any failure to meet and sustain God's standard is rightly punishable by death. In most cases an innocent animal
was sacrificed as a substitute for your own life as a payment for your sin.
Hebrews 10:1-4 tells us that it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins but, rather it stood as a reminder of the fact we
are sinners and also under the penalty for sin. Galatians 3:24 tells us "the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ" meaning that the law made us conscience of sin(missing God's mark) within our lives, the penalty for said sin(death), as well as our own inability to fix the situation. By the law we know we need a Saviour.

The New Testament was not God changing His mind but rather(as someone has said) a continuation of His redemptive plan. It was prophesied as early as Genesis 3:15 in the old testament.
Jeremiah 31:31-34 probably declares it best within the Old Testament. The fact that this new covenant was to be given to the whole world rather then just the nation of Israel was hinted at in the Old Testament and by Christ but was revealed through the Apostles: Ephesians 3:5,6.

To put it simply the New Covenant stands alone. It is not a revision of
the law but rather a different contract with different promises and different conditions. In the Old testament you received a limited communion with God through ritual and priests if you followed the Law and
provided animal substitutes for your own life when you failed to keep it.
In the New Covenant we are adopted as God's children and need no ritual
or priest to communicate with God. When we sin we are treated as disobedient children and are offered immediate reconciliation upon confession and repentance. We are never condemned as law breakers because the penalty for our sin was paid by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ once and for all! Hebrews 10:8-18.

If anyone is struggling with the relationship of the old and new covenants I
would suggest you read the book of Galatians and Hebrews in the New Testament. Galatians was a letter written by the Apostle Paul because
some Jewish Christians were trying to tell Gentile(non-Jews) converts that they need to be circumcised and follow other parts of the law. Hebrews was written primarily to help Jews to understand the separate places these Covenants have in God's plan.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Do you know what an assertion is? It was delivered to me as fact, just like all good young Catholics I knew. Angels, demons, the body and blood of Christ are all real things, not just examples or stories. Maybe you're taking your own personal belief structure and applying it to all Christians, a dangerously stupid way to go about discussing this.

That would be exactly what you're doing. Taking what you were taught as a young child, and applying it in general to all Christians.

Well, I've read the bible enough times to find it dry, I've read far better fantasy novels (I highly recommend a Song of Ice and Fire to fantasy fans!).

So you can't provide Biblical evidence that St. Peter will be standing at the pearly gates waiting for us? Perhaps you should quit with your BS then?

The internet is amazing with finding Bible verses. Especially if you've read the Bible 'that' much.

Here's a quick Wikipedia on what I was referencing about fantasy re: the Pearly Gates of heaven;

Nice quote. I can't make out anything, outside of a fanatical version of heaven.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

The op post inplied that all religion is BS because I assume science has disproved it. If that is the case then its up to the op to provide the evidence disproving it.

MYK

I thought that picture was saying that religious logic is flawed (or nonexistant).

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I thought that picture was saying that religious logic is flawed (or nonexistant).

Perhaps that would be the problem then.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

So you can't provide Biblical evidence that St. Peter will be standing at the pearly gates waiting for us? Perhaps you should quit with your BS then?

I gave you a peice of BS already (though I thought you respected the bible...), Revelations 21:21.

The internet is amazing with finding Bible verses. Especially if you've read the Bible 'that' much.

Uh.. yeah... thats why I provided a verse... and thats where I got it from.

Nice quote. I can't make out anything, outside of a fanatical version of heaven.

Yep, thats what you're supposed to see, a fanatical version of heaven.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Azure

That would be exactly what you're doing. Taking what you were taught as a young child, and applying it in general to all Christians.

How is an outsider suppose to know what christians to listen to? There is so much conflicting evidence among fellow christians. It's like a fail safe in an argument.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

That would be exactly what you're doing. Taking what you were taught as a young child, and applying it in general to all Christians.

Sooo... stories like David and Goliath, King Solomon, Jesus turning water into wine... these are just children's stories, but not meant to be believed in literally? Because these were the stories I was taught, and they were all presented as 100% true and accurate, not a children's concept like the Easter Bunny or Santa. In the end I realize they're fantasy (imo), but many many children are indoctrinated successfully to believe in them.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Azure

Perhaps that would be the problem then.

I thought the problem was the proving/disproving of god?

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I thought the problem was the proving/disproving of god?

It seems that Athiests look at the God issue from a scientific point of view, that there is no proof of God therefore He doesn't not exist. So it's put to them that they have the burden of proving He doesn't exist. Christians don't have to prove it because it's a leap of faith that they hold Jesus in their hearts.. ie no science needed, it's just something you believe in your heart to be true.

There's no proving either way. It's just something you hold to yourself to be true.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Its like I illuded to earlier, if I make a post that says horses are purple then its up to me to prove it, not for you to disprove it.

So in other words--if you make a fantastic claim about the human anatomy (saying that men and women don't have the same number of ribs) then it's up to you to provide evidence of that, correct?

Also, if you make a claim about the theory of evolution ("we came from monkeys") that may or may not be an accurate representation of that theory, then it's up to you to provide us with the relevant passage in Darwin which makes this claim. Right?

For the record, it's not monkeys. It's apes. And we didn't "evolve from" apes--we ARE apes. All you need to do is turn on Jerry Springer, and it should become abundantly clear.

[Cain]

I just kinda want to throw this out there, as I saw it earlier in the thread even though it is not being debated currently.

Regarding Athiesm and Agnosticism. I would wager that there are far fewer athiests than agnostics. However, most people tend to lump agnostics together, which is far far far from true. I believe that there is a spectrum, where at one end, the devout theists reside, and at the other, the absolute athiests. In between these two remain all the agnostics...but there can be a huge difference in their belief systems.

I am an agnostic. we'll say sitting at the 10-15% mark (with theists at 100, athiests at 0). There "could" be a god. I find it very improbable that there is, but I cannot discount the possibility.

I do think that pure athiesm is fundamentally as flawed as pure theism, BUT I think that most athiests are wrongly classified, and are really just very low on the spectrum. I could be wrong, just my thoughts.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by kermitology

It seems that Athiests look at the God issue from a scientific point of view, that there is no proof of God therefore He doesn't not exist. So it's put to them that they have the burden of proving He doesn't exist. Christians don't have to prove it because it's a leap of faith that they hold Jesus in their hearts.. ie no science needed, it's just something you believe in your heart to be true.

There's no proving either way. It's just something you hold to yourself to be true.

No no no. That's not what I was getting at. MYK was all bent out of shape about this.

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

MYK was demanding that he show evidence of god either existing or not existing because of this image. I was stating that the image was not out to prove or disprove god but rather show that religion lacks logic.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I gave you a peice of BS already (though I thought you respected the bible...), Revelations 21:21.

That verse makes no mention of St. Peter standing at the pearly gates.