Tony C

It should not be translated into any other language, or so I've heard, so have you read it entirely in Arabic?

In short, the Old Testament, a religious document, had a lot of competition from religious documents of more powerful neighboring countries; but it was kept in tact and copies of it were more available for longer than, for example, the Epic of Gilgamesh. The New Testament survived for years while Christianity was outlawed in Rome. Not only did it survive, but there are far more manuscripts left from the first, second, and third centuries than most other literature. Then Rome endorsed a defiled version of Christianity, and Catholicism outlawed owning a bible. They burned people alive for trying to translate them. The protestants, and movements since then have generally removed faith from the bible by claiming it has errors etc.

I find it remarkable that the bible is still easily accessible and even found in many atheist homes (perhaps alongside "Thus Spake Zarathustra" or their Guy Fawkes mask or God delusion or Iliad/Odyssey, but generally there nevertheless). In fact, many people still respect and believe in the bible.

In summary, how do you think that a book -which according to some should have been discarded along with mythology and animism long ago- is in many cases still respected?

If you ask some one: "what is your religion?" And they say: "Humanism", do you think there is a good chance they are atheist?

I'm not saying quantum mechanics is wrong... but has anyone taken the time to realize how crazy it sounds?

You don't have to believe in God if you believe in Quantum Mechanics, but you must admit it takes faith, and you have to abandon any sense of logic to believe in it.

How can two particles be "entangled"? How can you actually say that two particles that have random probabilities of acting this or that way, will always act like each other? Not only do they always act like each other, but when you do something to one of them, it happens to the other. Doesn't this defy logic way more than a God?

Atheists have to admit that a deity is no less logical than quantum mechanics (the scientific equivalent of voodoo).

Some one said that they took 360 degree turn, because they were agnostic and now they are Christian.

Isn't 360 degrees a complete circle?

Have you taken a 180 degree turn, or have you just come back to your original conclusion?

Some one used an argument saying that the trinity is proven in the bible because:

Matthew 1:18 says in part: "she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit"

Then the argument states that Jesus is called the son of God, and thus "God" is a term that includes the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the son.

Of course, this argument would have been great given the premise that the Holy Spirit is a being, but I am yet to see a verse that states that.

So my question is:

Is this argument simply a logical fallacy, or does the bible really back it up?

Please don't rush out after answering, as I plan to ask more detailed questions on the subject.

Hebrews 4:12 - "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."

Clearly, the soul and the spirit are different, even though some people think they are the same. The reason I am pointing this out, is because I disagree with people who say we have an immortal soul.

Genesis 2:7 - "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Humans don't have a living soul, they are a living soul! So when the human dies, so does the soul! Though some people try to make a connection, the fact that the soul dies has nothing to do with what happens to the spirit.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 - "and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it."

In short, immortal soul is false.

Comments?

lol, its a follow up on:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmihK...

What bible verse says that you should follow traditions or authority of a child molesting church like the Catholics?

After all, the Jews have proven many times that the trinity is false.

Catholics killed millions in the name of Christ, when Jesus said to be loving.

The religion was created so that Constantine could combine the pagan doctrines with the Christian ones and dominate everyone.

Shouldn't Christians follow what Jesus said instead of what the "Catholic pope " says? How is he any better than me?

Some say that Jesus is not the messiah because Jeconiah, an ancestor of Jesus was "cursed". Let's see what this "curse" was...

Jeremiah 22:30 - "This is what the LORD says: 'Record this

man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his

lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none

will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in

Judah.'"

The verse is absolutely correct, which is why Jesus never

sat upon a throne in Judah. That doesn't mean he cannot be

king "ANYWHERE ELSE"! (heaven)

Selecting "none of his offspring will prosper" from the

rest of the verse is intellectual dishonesty, as there is

no period after that phrase. In other words, the phrase is

not meant to stand alone, rather it means that none of his

offspring will prosper as kings in Judah.

For those who say that Jesus is not the messiah because

one of the genealogies says he is son of Nathan and not of

Solomon, they are wrong because the genealogies in Matthew

and the one in Luke both show Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. In

other words, shealtiel and zerubababel have the "blood" of

Solomon, and so can trace Jesus back to Solomon no matter

what genealogy you choose.

Genealogies found in:

Matthew 1:1-16 Luke 3:23-38

Opinions?

Its a joke, don't take it seriously.

Pure curiosity, but as I was browsing around in the website JewsforJudaism.org, I came across a few prophecies that Jews say Jesus did not complete. They are:

"He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve one G-d "

"He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe G-d's commandments"

"He will rule at a time of world-wide peace"

Didn't Jesus refuse to become king when he was here on earth?

So pretty much all these things are supposed to happen when he rules, but he never ruled when he was on earth, so how did he fail the prophecy?

Is there any verse that says Jesus won't have a second coming, and rule after that?

Pure curiosity.

Here is an excerpt from my honors biology textbook last year:

"A theory is a proposed set of statements or principles used to explain a group of facts or natural phenomena—evidences that support the theory. No matter how well one theory fits observations, upon the discovery of new evidences, a new theory might fit them as well or better. In science, the testing, revising, and occasional discarding of theories, new and old, never ends.

As the research continues, it leads scientists to a better understanding of how things work in the world, but not to absolute truth. Scientific discovery is limited by technology. As technology improves, so will the evidence that supports, alters, or disputes theories of all kinds.

In contrast, a scientific law is a conclusion that is made based on repeated scientific experimentation over many years and has become universally accepted by the scientific community. An example of a law would be the law of gravity."

So in the year 2006, an honors 9th grade biology class shows that theories are lesser than laws, when really, in the scientific community, laws don't exist anymore right?

This means that along with all the other outdated information that schools are teaching, new generations are leaving high school without any idea what science has been up to the last 20+ years.

So when a Christian says: "Evolution is just a theory", it isn't that the Christian is dumb, its that the school system is not capable of producing educated individuals.

Opinions?

Claim CB350, or the claim that sex cannot have evolved is something that creationists use a lot against evolution. Lets see what talk origins says against this claim:

It starts by saying:

"The variety of life cycles is very great. It is not simply a matter of being sexual or asexual. There are many intermediate stages. A gradual origin, with each step favored by natural selection, is possible (Kondrashov 1997)."

This appeal to authority sites Alexey Kondrashov. If you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex and search for his name, you will find the "deterministic mutation hypothesis" which he created. In the last paragraph you see that "there has been much criticism of

Kondrashov's theory, since it relies on two key restrictive conditions." In other words, Kandrashov should not be considered an expert as talk origins has considered him by citing his work.

Talk origins continues:

"The earliest steps involve single-celled organisms exchanging genetic information; they need not be distinct sexes. Males and females most emphatically would not evolve independently."

In an attempt to debunk the proposed argument, they attempt to attack one of the weaker arguments. In other words, instead of focusing on the evolution of sex, they focus on the fact that there is no need for males and females to evolve independently. So what? That doesn't support their argument.

Talk origins finishes:

"Sex, by definition, depends on both male and female acting together. As sex evolved, there would have been some incompatibilities causing sterility (just as there are today), but these would affect individuals, not whole populations, and the genes that cause such incompatibility

would rapidly be selected against."

This conclusion deviates from the argument, because ultimately it didn't answer how sexual organs were slowly created, and how the switching between asexual and sexual reproduction happened. In other words, it never got around to explaining what the intermediate stages actually were.

Under injustice in the bible, the second argument says:

"God likes Abel's dead animals better than Cain's fruits and vegetables. Why? Well, no reason is given, but it probably has something to do with the amount of pain, blood, and gore involved"

If you want to talk about unreasonable arguments from ignorance, you got one right here. Just one from over 1,000 arguments with absolutely no solid ground.

Or this other one under injustices too:

#883: "Jesus blames his the Jews (who were then living) for 'all the righteous blood' from Abel to Zecharias"

I just started to laugh when I found it. How about proper diction when making an argument? The fact that Jesus blames the jews of anything is irrelevant to showing injustice in the bible, after all the Jews did kill him.

Don't all of you think the arguments should be reduced to the ones with solid ground, and then have Christians explain only those?

... Why do people ask science questions in Religion and Spirituality?

I have noticed an increase of questions that belong in the science section. For a time it was only biology questions, but now its everything that has to do about science.

Its not Religion and science.

Why do some people say they are Christian but can't explain the bible?

No the questions don't have anything to do with each other.