288 replies to this topic

[Reflectionist]

In apology and response to the closing of the Discussion of the LDS church due to 'arguementantive' comments, I'm making this thread for those people. So basically, since Vinnie and I supposedly "attacked your faith" this thread is for the folks from every other religion to attack OUR faith. It's only fair. Here's the thing though: we're going to actually defend what you say, instead of playing the blame game, or running away, or pretending we didn't see any questions.

So bring in your college professors, bring in your atheist friends down the street (I know quite a few of them myself). If you're Mormon, come on in... If you a Jehovah Witness, come on in.... that's fine.

;-)

*sits back and waits for the headshots*

[arunma]

Bumpity bump....this ought to be an intriguing thread.

[Alakhriveion]

What in the name of Coca-Cola were you thinking in making or approving this? It better not get fun...

[arunma]

Aw come on Alak, you know I couldn't resist it. Besides, this thread has merit as an opportunity to stimulate debate. And let's face it, this place could use more traffic right now. Well, I think I'll do a separate post to "officially" debate.

[arunma]

I'll start of with a non-insulting but simple question how can you maintain belief in an ancient religion, which could easily be described as a mixture of superstition, tradition and doctrine in the face of the knowledge modern science has brought.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Modern science doesn't disprove Christianity; it doesn't even address Christianity. But just for fun, let me walk through the basic issues.

Creation and evolution. Personally I don't believe in evolution. But just for kicks, let's say I did. The creation account can easily be interpreted as a theological treatise of creation, explaining why humanity is here, why we require redemption in Christ Jesus, and how we're supposed to live.

Miraculous events. Some people claim that science proves that such things as the resurrection are impossible. But hopefully, by merely hearing the argument, you will recognize its absurdity. That miracles are scientifically impossible is why they are miraculous. If the average joe could be resurrected on the third day, then Jesus wouldn't be all that special, would he?

The existence of the Divinity. Actually, this one is more of a theological argument than a scientific one. You might ask why God doesn't talk to people anymore. But I could quite easily find a few people who claim that God does speak to them. The Bible admits that God is unseen (see 1 John 4:20). So it's not as if God revealed himself to people more in Biblical times than he does now (except through the person of Jesus Christ, who ministered to Israel).

The truth is, there's no less reason to believe in God today than there was in earlier times. Recently, I've been reading the works of America's founding fathers. They were mostly deists, and they denied such things as the Resurrection of Christ for the same reason that people do today. In other words: atheism hasn't come up with any new arguments for quite a long time. So perhaps the question should be: why should people in the modern age believe in atheism?

[Reflectionist]

I'm sorry I couldn't have replied sooner, I had some password problems. And not to mention I have company over for a week, so I couldn't get to the computer as often as I'd have liked to.

Thank you arunma for answering the question for me.

So Fenrir, ask me another question, and really, put some zing on it, you're an atheist, I know you can do better. trouble me with a Bible contradiction or something.

[Alakhriveion]

Personally I don't believe in evolution.

Oh come on. God created the world this way for a reason, no?

The truth is, there's no less reason to believe in God today than there was in earlier times. Recently, I've been reading the works of America's founding fathers. They were mostly deists, and they denied such things as the Resurrection of Christ for the same reason that people do today. In other words: atheism hasn't come up with any new arguments for quite a long time. So perhaps the question should be: why should people in the modern age believe in atheism?

Atheism isn't a positive. Show me a negative number of apples and I'll believe we can go below zero in math, right?

[Nevermind]

I'd like to know what your take on Christianity is, Re. Also what do you believe regarding people from other religions? What kind of God do you think God is like? And what are your thoughts on what the ideal Christian should be like?

[Korhend]

Atheism isn't a positive.

There is a tree in upstate new york. Whether one is asserting there are no apples on the tree or that there are a certain number of apples on the tree, one is making an assertion. Since you brought up math, zero is still a number. If you're asserting something is zero your making a positive assertion. Atheism isn't a lack of religion thats agnotism.

[Nevermind]

Here's one I've pondered in response to you, Vinnie. God could make the earth, the universe, everything in existence in an instant, as far as Christians are concerned. Why take six days?

[Nevermind]

I always theorised that it was to establish a sense of time for the sake humankind.

[SOAP]

A DAY IS A DAY, NO EXCUSES!

 

   Have you been reading the latest from the Catholic church?  Apparently they have decided to admit in the face of OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE that Evolution did indeed happen.  Gee, they’ve come along way!  I suppose since they aren’t a government any more that can’t poke out the eyes of leading scientists like they did in Galileo’s day.  Shouldn’t evolution invalidate the Biblical/Pentateuch creation account, hence throwing Christianity in the toilet?  (Even orthodox Jews are now claiming that Genesis is metaphorical and not literal.)  Why yes it should, but the Catholic church presented a loop hole that the masses have been touting as a mantra ever since.  I’m sure you all heard the lie they are spreading, the lie which tries to reconcile evolution with the 6 days of creation.  It’s the “a day can be like a thousand years to god” lie!  Here is an excellent example of this lie in use:

The Jehovah’s Witnesses argument that each of the six days encompasses thousands of years:

   “... some may say even the idea of this planet passing from a ‘formless and waste’ condition to its present form with continents, forests, plants, animals, and men, all in just six 24-hour days--this still is incredible!  But where does the Genesis account say that the 6 days were 24-hours each?  Though some religious groups teach this, the Genesis account does not say it.  You yourself use the expression ‘day’ in a broad sense of your ‘grandfather’s day.’  Likewise the Bible often used the word ‘day’ in a broad sense-Genesis 2:4.  Keep in mind that the works spoken of in the first chapter of Genesis are those of God, not of man... Are God’s ‘days’ of work controlled by the rotation of this globe?  Obviously not.  Of God, the Bible says: ’One day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day’(2 Peter 3:8). And that even to God a ‘day’ can have more than one meaning is seen when comparing this text with Psalm 90:4 which says: ‘A thousand years are in your eyes but. . .as a watch during the night.’ So it is plain that the word ‘day’ can be used to refer to a 24-hour day, a person’s lifetime, 1,000 years or even longer” (Is the Bible Really the Word of God, p.18-19).

   You free thinkers reading this are surely nodding your head knowing the fault in this circular reasoning.  You Christians reading this are probably still clinging to the mantra like a pedophile to a 6 year old boy.  Well, no matter how hard you try to hold on Jesus pimps, I’m going to blow a hole through your lie and spread it’s short comings to everyone I meet.  We all know I find it my self appointed duty to expose the Christian/Jewish scriptures.  Which is precisely what I’ll do right now:

   FACT: the world is at least 4.6 billion years old.  The bible claims to be approximately 6,500.  Christians try to argue this by saying the usage of the word “day” in genesis is actually a term for thousands of years in time.  This rationalization, they believe can help evolution be accepted into the bible. In other words Christians are trying to say that the word “day” is not meant to be as a 24 hour period.  This idea is COMPLETELY FALSE AND NOT PLAUSIBLE.  All it takes is a little research into the meaning of the Hebrew word for day and the usage of it in consistency.  Of course, it should be common knowledge that the first five books of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew.  The Hebrew word for day used in the genesis is account is “yom”, which is a definite 24-hour period.  Christians attempt to say that because there was no sun until the fourth day, that the word yom is null and void.  This cant be, for the lord claimed there was light, a morning and an evening PRIOR to the sun being created, hence the sun was not even needed.  (Also note another contradiction here, that Christians/Jews refuse to notice. They’ll claim the word yom is void because there is no sun, yet that would mean that there couldn’t have been light or a way to decipher between morning and evening. Obviously this is a MAJOR scientific blunder on Jehovah’s behalf.)  Now this fact alone pretty much blows the shit out of the bible, but let’s pretend to accept the word yom is really meant for eons of time, how then can we reconcile the following?:

1) If a day is an era, why are an evening and a morning even mentioned?  Actual days must be intended, otherwise, men who lived hundreds of years, e.g., Seth and Noah, would really have lived millions of years.  If a day is an era, then a year must be tremendously long, perhaps encompassing hundreds of millions of years;

2) If a day is an era, then much of the Old Testament becomes chaotic.  For example, in each of the following verses the same Hebrew word “yom” is employed: “And the flood was forty days upon the earth” (Genesis 7: 1 7), “And he [Moses]was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights” (Exodus 34:28), and “Thus I fell down before the Lord forty days and forty nights...” (Deuteronomy 9:25). If “yom” means era instead of a 24-hour period, Moses was “there with the Lord” for a VERY long time.

3) If a day means more than 24-hour period, then how are we to interpret the following verses, as well as scores of others.  “Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath. . . . in it thou shalt not work... For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth… and rested the seventh day” (Exodus 20:9-11).

4) Genesis 1:16 (“And God made two great lights: The greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night”) states the sun rules the day and the moon rules the night.  This obviously is referring to time as we know it, time with days that are 24 hours long with daylight ruling half of each.

5) Adam was made on the sixth day (Genesis 1:26-31) which was supposedly thousand of years long.  This was followed by the 7th day which was also thousands of years long. Following the 7th day, Adam fell into sin and was expelled from the Garden.  This would mean Adam lived thousands of years, which is false, since he died at age 930 (Genesis 5:5).

6) Genesis 1:5 surely spoke of literal day and literal night, and the inference from the statement, “And the evening and the morning were the first day,” is that it was a literal day of evening and morning, 24-hours.  There is no Biblical evidence that the days of this chapter were longer periods.

7) If we do try to buy into what the Jehovah’s quote as “a day can be a thousand years” even this isn’t sufficient enough time.  For the earth is at least 4.6 billion.  The biblical passages concerning time should’ve read that days can be like MILLIONS of years.  Obviously, their claim falls apart under mathematic speculation.

For those of you Christians who are STILL clinging to the idea that evolution can be reconciled with the bible, take a little advice from one of your own brethren on the matter. The following is a CHRISTIAN AUTHOR who admits that the word yom does mean a 24 hour period in the creation account:

"The Hebrew word for ‘day’ is ‘yom’ and this word can occasionally be used to mean an indefinite period of time, if the content warrants.  In the overwhelming preponderance of its occurrences in the O.T., however, it means a literal day…  Still further, the plural form of the word (Hebrew 'yamim') is used over 700 times in the O.T. and always, without exception, refers to literal ‘days.’"  (The Bible Has the Answers, Henry Morris, p. 94).

Obviously even Creationist Morris admits the idea that each day represented an era is ridiculous. Not only is the day-age theory unacceptable scripturally, but it also is grossly in conflict with the geological position with which it attempts to compromise.  My suggestion?  Make a valid justification as to how the creation account can be plausible, until then don’t pimp feeble lies to cover up for your even more errant book.

Copied and pasted off a very evil site. Still, they make a good point. A day is a day is day is a day.

[Doopliss]

One question. Why do you believe in religion if it's just a mere hypothesis that explains a possibility of how it could, though it isn't based on anything? I can invent all the religions that I want to invent and claim that the only reason to believe in them is faith, but nothing gives me a reason to create them in a certain way.

[Armeggadon]

The bible claims the world was created only about 5 millenia ago and people and current animals were put here at that time, yet bones of dinasaurs and plant-life have been dated back millions of years. Do you simply ignore the existence of these or how are they explained?

[arunma]

Copied and pasted off a very evil site. Still, they make a good point. A day is a day is day is a day.

Oh, but that's not true. The church fathers speculated that the creation days were at least a thousand years in length, and this was long before the modern theory of cosmology ever took shape. In 155 AD, Saint Justin Martyr wrote, "For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject." (Dialog with Typho the Jew chapter 81). In my opinion, young earth creationism is a new belief, and it is rather non-traditional. More importantly, it doesn't necessarily follow from a literal reading of the Bible. That's why I don't believe it.

One question. Why do you believe in religion if it's just a mere hypothesis that explains a possibility of how it could, though it isn't based on anything?

You are correct to say that anyone can create a religion, and that it need not be based on any fact. However, Christianity is based on what we believe to be a historical fact: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Saint Paul said to the Corinthians that if Christ was not raised to life, then our faith is in vain, and Christians are to be pitied more than any other people on the earth. We hold that our faith is based on an historical event, which is why we don't see it as a mere hypothesis.

[Nevermind]

The original Hebrew word used for day in the Bible literally refers to the length of time from one sunrise to the next.

[Doopliss]

You are correct to say that anyone can create a religion, and that it need not be based on any fact. However, Christianity is based on what we believe to be a historical fact: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Saint Paul said to the Corinthians that if Christ was not raised to life, then our faith is in vain, and Christians are to be pitied more than any other people on the earth. We hold that our faith is based on an historical event, which is why we don't see it as a mere hypothesis.

But the belief of Jesus resurrecting isn't based on anything that can be proved. You could be living your life according to the invention of crazy fiction writers, and faith is not a fair explanation for me.

[arunma]

The original Hebrew word used for day in the Bible literally refers to the length of time from one sunrise to the next.

It obviously does not refer to a 24-hour day in Genesis 2:17. For those of you who don't have your Bibles handy, it says, "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." And yes, the Hebrew word for day is the same word that is used in Genesis 1. I checked.

[arunma]

Actually, Saint Justin Martyr presents an argument for Old Earth Creationism in his work Against Heresies. He points out that according to the Apostle, "But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." (1 St. Peter 3:8). If a day is as a thousand years to the Lord, then the fact that Adam died after 900 years vindicates the word of God as recorded by Moses in Genesis 2:17.

[Doopliss]

In this reasoning, nothing can be proven. History is based on documentation, and the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ are both well docemented. Therefore, nothing in history can be proven beyond what each individual remembers, and when that memory is lost from first-hand knowledge, it no longer becomes realistic to believe it happened.

I agree at some extent, but often proves that the narrations of historians are true are found and in several cases, hundreds, thousands or even millions of persons witnessed the facts apart from the physical proves that are found. And we know that all the history facts that don't involve religion are scientifically possible.

[arunma]

I agree at some extent, but often proves that the narrations of historians are true are found and in several cases, hundreds, thousands or even millions of persons witnessed the facts apart from the physical proves that are found. And we know that all the history facts that don't involve religion are scientifically possible.

But if we may be honest with each other for a moment: if an eyewitness claimed to see the resurrected Christ, would you believe him? I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't, because Saint Paul and Saint Peter claimed to be eyewitnesses. The major historians of the time did not dispute the apostles' claims to have seen Christ resurrected. I contend that many people don't believe the resurrection because in general, they aren't willing to believe in the supernatural. So if I may make a supposition, you're not arguing with the historicity of the resurrection. You're arguing that God does not do miracles before men.