Seven

I get the fact that you don't believe God exists. But, hypothetically, if God appeared before you would you believe on Him (and seek His will) -- or would you still reject Him?

I KNOW there will be those who want to respond by saying, "it's a moot point, God doesn't exist". I hope that most of you will refrain from that non-answer...

Note: I'm just curious as to the divide between those who might be "anti-God" and those who just disbelieve for lack of evidence.

I asked a simple question about whether or not Atheists really read the Bible...and it was reported? I don't post questions very often, but 3 of my last 4 questions were said to have violated "Answers Community Guidelines". What's up with that?!

Note: I didn't intend for my question to be offensive...my apologies to the person whose toes I stepped on... I wasn't trying to "bash" Atheists, I was just looking for honest answers.

I've read a number of responses from historically ignorant people who try to make the claim that "Jesus never existed". Rather amazing how this person "who never existed" had 100s of followers, over 1400 miles away, just 30 years later (during the reign of Nero)....

Just curious, who else are you wanting to eliminate from history? Does Caiaphas (the High Priest mentioned in the Biblical account of Jesus' trial) qualify? Surely he was merely a "myth" to, right? Or do you only assign "mythical status" to those you don't like?

I'm sure you'll all have GREAT reasons why your okay with Caiaphas, or any other Biblical personages, it's just Jesus you have a problem with...right?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story...

I must confess that I worded my original question in such a way that it would provoke responses. I apologize if that put people automatically on the defensive. Here is the original question, which now contains some of my brief responses:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201106...

Although, as I indicated, I worded my question to provoke a response...I find some of those responses very intriguing. For example, posters such as "Tao Man", "HyperDog", "soldier", etc...go off on a tangent about "proving God's existence". Did I indicate I was trying to do that? I was merely commenting on the authenticity of the Shroud. Is this a topic that Atheists feel threatened by? Even if it were proven to be 100% authentic, why would that bother you? And, yes, it appeared that the issue of the Shroud itself struck a nerve.

As someone who 'laughed off' the shroud at one time, my opinion has changed. That wasn't due to reading some fanatic's rant. It was from a careful observation of ALL the known facts. And, yes, I have read both pro and con.

I have no idea who the author is of the below site. So, I am not his "shill". However, I find that site to be very logic-based and measured -- if someone can poke holes in the fact he presents, I would love to hear your thoughts. I don't "need" the Shroud to "prove" anything to myself. I only raised the initial question because it seemed to me that a lot of people don't know the facts...

shroudstory.com

I find it interesting how a number of atheists will demand the application of "science" and "intellectual thought"...and then, when it comes to a topic they want to brush aside, they simply ignore the evidence and make inane comments that make them sound like the very people they ridicule.

The overwhelming scientific evidence indicates the Shroud of Turin is exactly what it appears to be; the actual burial cloth of Jesus Christ. Now you may not care if it is, but at least try to be intellectually honest.

Recently, someone posted a question on the Shroud of Turin:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201106...

Approx 20 people responded with answers that were fully grounded in either ignorance or bias;

FAIL: "It's a painting"

FAIL: "It was carbon dated to the 1300's"

(the 1988 test was invalidated due to the sample that was used..even the labs that were used will confirm that fact)

FAIL: "It can be easily reproduced"

FAIL: "there are scores of fake relics, so this must be one too" (seriously?...how scientific!)

Sorry to burst the Atheist's bubble, but forensic science is on the side of legitimacy...not fraud.

So again I ask, "are Atheists biased or just uninformed?"

Also, why do so many people seem clueless on the scientific facts concerning the Shroud? For all of those suggesting that there is "proof" that it is fake...or that it can be easily replicated:

1) There is currently no proof that shows the Shroud to be fake. Even the chemists who performed the 1988 carbon dating have been quoted as saying that the samples provided were flawed.

2) It has never been replicated....even with 21st century technology. Some attempts have come "close" (in appearance), but they fail to match the chemical composition and other properties.

I live in a neighborhood that was established in 2002. Currently, 460 of 500 homes have been completed. Our covenants state that the developer has 5 votes per lot, while the homeowner has 1 vote per lot, and the association is eligible to be run by the homeowner upon majority of votes (which we now have).

The developer turned the association over to a management company about a year & a half ago. This company has not performed to the satisfaction of the residents, and we would like control of the association. However, the management company said they would not consider turning over the association until ALL houses had been sold.

Question: What steps should we take to "force the issue"?

I am currently considering:

1. Calling a neighborhood meeting.

2. Collecting signatures (of intent to assume the association).

3. Soliciting a list of candidates for a transition committee (or for a board of directors).

Is there a legal process?

I'm amazed at the stuff that continues to get passed off as "factual data" (e.g.- "Constantine edited the Bible's message", "the Bible's message has been edited/revised down through the centuries", or "all the NT accounts were written 100 years or more after Christ"). None of these notions have any basis in fact -- rather, the historical facts flatly refute them.

I'm guessing that people get opinions from various web pages and take them to be researched/factual. 'If I read it on a web page it must be true?'

The trinity doesn't make logical sense? Is it required that God's nature is understandable to our human mind? Is God so small that He must be easily conceived within our brains? God exists outside of time and space. He is eternal and omniscient. That can be difficult to grasp (logic wise), but that is a depiction of His revealed nature. Likewise, the bible teaches there is one God. Our one God has revealed himself to us in three persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There are many scripture passages, but here are two:

John 8:58 (Jesus said...)"Before Abraham existed, I AM"

Acts 5: 3-4: ""Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit....You have not lied to men but to God."

Some in "Yahoo Answers" have disputed the reliability of the Biblical text. Is this based on fact or bias?

There is no question over the wording of 98.5 percent of the Bible. Despite the centuries of copying the OT/NT Biblical manuscripts, only 1.5% contain any questions on content/wording (BTW: the NT is 99.5% accurate to original wording). No ancient writings of the entire world approach the accuracy of the biblical documents.

That 1.5 percent does not affect any doctrinal beliefs. The vast majority of variant readings consist mainly in variations of wording and spelling.

People can reject the Bible if they want, but they should at least have the intellectually honesty to admit that it is a very reliable document.

A recent questioner asked about the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John). The responses were simply astounding. Do people really believe the things they write or are they just seriously misguided by others?

Quote: "Because the gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John were not written by those people."

Fact Check Matthew: Papias (the Bishop of Hieropolis in Phrygia ca. AD 130) Cited Matthew as the writer of the Gospel now bearing his name.

Fact Check Mark: There are scores of ancient writings that not only identify Mark as the author, but also relate the fact that he wrote the Gospel while in Rome.

Fact Check Luke: Irenaeus (130-202 AD) associates Luke to his Gospel. The earliest manuscripts (175-200 AD) identify Luke as the author.

Fact Check John: Irenaeus is of the earliest sources to associate John with the fourth Gospel.

Do you have evidence to prove these sources incorrect?

Several writers have suggested that "Jesus did not exist"...that the Christian faith is mere invention. This silly notion has absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever. Even secular sources (such as the Roman historian Tacitus) acknowledge the early Christian faith. Nero persecuted/killed hundreds of CHRISTIANS around 64 AD. Domitian did the same at the close of the 1st century. Did these people die for a "myth". If the historical account of Christ could be so easily disproved...why wasn't that done? The fact is, NO ONE challenged the historical record of Christ...they only disagreed with who He said He was.

My last posting on the Shroud received all the same old tired and predictable responses. Why are people afraid of the Shroud? Anyone who would maintain the Shroud is a "painting" are either ignorant or biased (e.g.- Walter McCrone). This has been proven to be an absurd impossibility. The scientific community (not Christians) has determined that the carbon dating sample was flawed, and there are a number of other dating methods that point to it being from the 1st century. Finally, Leonardo Da Vinci was a brilliant man...but was he able to accomplish what our technology can't? Where did Leonardo supposedly get the 6 foot sheet of clear glass that he would need to even attampt such an act? If this would work, why can't we duplicate it today?

The chances of the Shroud being a forgery appear to be nil.

The chances of the Shroud not belonging to Christ would seem to be the same.

Do the math...

www.shroud.com

www.shroudstory.com

www.SkepticalSpectacle.com

I recently posted: "Can someone be persecuted if they don't exist?". The response I recieved were...well, amazing.

One write suggested that yes people were persecuted by Nero etal...but they were not followers of Jesus. Christians didn't come on the scene until a couple hundred years later. So if I understand the writer correctly....ROME called them Christians during the persecution, but they really were not Christians. 200 hundred years later they decided to BECOME Christians?! Madness...

Another writer attempted to "scold" me for not `knowing history'. This same writer misspoke the facts and said of Roman Historian Tacitus, "Tacitus wrote about Christians too, almost 100 years after he supposedly died. It means nothing." Hmmm. Tacitus lived from 56 AD - 117 AD Look it up for yourself. Tacitus made mention that the FOLLOWERS of CHRIST were in ROME. What is difficult to understand about this? Sigh... I wish there was room to write more...

Several writers earlier today suggested that Christianity was not formed until several hundred years after Christ. This notion has absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever. If you want secular sources alone, fine, take Roman historians (such as Tacitus). Nero persecuted/killed hundreds of CHRISTIANS around 64 AD. Domitian did the same at the close of the 1st century. How did they persecute a group that didn't exist?

Several writers have suggested that Christianity was not formed until several hundred years after Christ. This notion has absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever. If you want secular sources alone, fine, take Roman historians (such as Tacitus). Nero persecuted/killed hundreds of CHRISTIANS around 64 AD. Domitian did the same at the close of the 1st century. How did they persecute a group that didn't exist?

A number of atheists have raised the point that they don't believe in Christianity because of the people they've met. I don't doubt your experience for a second, I'm just a little surprised by the statement.

My only question is this: is that logical?

Is Wal-Mart a crappy store because the "greeter" was rude to me yesterday? If you don't like Wal-Mart, fine. But can you say the whole store is rotten just because they have a few bad employees?

I'm just a bit surprised by the line of reasoning...especially from atheists.

In response to a recent posting, I asked an individual the above question. I decided that I'd like to hear from as many as possible, so I posted it here. I'm very curious to hear what your answer will be...

I've seen a large number of comments from various atheist who maintain that "they are sick of religion being shoved down their throat". If you really feel that way, don't you think that there is just a SLIGHT possiblity that you MIGHT run into some spiritually-minded people on Yahoo's "Religion and Spirituality" category?!

So, if I could get some of you to be serious for just one moment: why DO you come to this page?

PS- I don't mind at all that you are, I'm just asking the question...

I've seen so many absurd comments about the Bible being "edited"...or there being a "catholic conspiracy". Do you realize that those statements betray your ignorance of the facts? No unbiased scholar or student of history would agree with your opinions. If logic is your god, then please check out some facts before making illogical statements...