Which law was she guilty of at the time ?:confused:

Adultery. I think I said "guilty of adultery."

The only thing to understand as you put it, is your mental state at the time you went looking for something that was missing in your life at the time

My mental state "at the time" was parrrrtttyyy. I wasn't looking for anything but the next party.

Adultery. I think I said "guilty of adultery."
Yes sorry my eyes are tired after trying to read through Jenny's gibberish,
now I wonder why if Jesus stopped an execution, Americans carry on the practice with gay abandon, seems to me that the bible's message has not gotten through to America?:confused:

My mental state "at the time" was parrrrtttyyy. I wasn't looking for anything but the next party.
Sounds like fun to me:confused:

The only thing to understand as you put it, is your mental state at the time you went looking for something that was missing in your life at the time

Maybe, But why did it last?

You're not going to maintain that I don't have the intellect to comprehend the value and viability of science are you?

I am first a scientist. But I understand science for what it is.

A system to evaluate, categorize, and measure, events.

It makes no attempt at proving or disproving the existence of any underlying power, as yet unseen. Only its practitioners with their preconceived prejudices; use it as a tool to disseminate their faith.

Make sense?

I think so. Thanks for that.

Not at all Matt, that was directed at all who claim faith is based on a lack of logic.


But faith is able to exist entirely without the presence of logic, isn't it? Logic suggests proof and if something need be proven before someone can have faith in it, where is the trust? While faith isn't based on a lack of logic, I do think that the two can, indeed must, often be mutually exclusive.

If one believes that God created the universe and eveything in it from scratch, there isn't really a logical way to explain how He did it. Whatever method was used would have been so far beyond any human conceptions of 'logical' as to be outside the accepted definition of the word.

Also, one may have a family member who is suffering tremendous pain in spite of having lived a good life. One may also believe in a kind and merciful God. The fact that Logic - as humans understand it - can't really reconcile the belief with the physical evidence, doesn't mean that one's faith disappears.

Maybe, But why did it last?

.
Because you haven't found anything of true value in your life

Because you haven't found anything of true value in your life

And you’re in a position to evaluate that?

As I have stated throughout this discussion. The non-believers are as adamant in their faith as the believers.

And you’re in a position to evaluate that?

As I have stated throughout this discussion. The non-believers are as adamant in their faith as the believers.
I'm not a non believer, I have every faith in my family thanks

But faith is able to exist entirely without the presence of logic, isn't it? Logic suggests proof and if something need be proven before someone can have faith in it...

If one believes that God created the universe and eveything in it from scratch, there isn't really a logical way to explain how He did it. Whatever method was used would have been so far beyond any human conceptions of 'logical' as to be outside the accepted definition of the word.




Take for example the laws of the universe.

Now admittedly, as with most people, my ability to completely comprehend them drops off at some point or another (depending on how much sugar is in my blood at the time) they were devised in advance in a universe completely alien to this one. Whereby the very nature of this preexisting universe it had to have different laws because that universe does not exist any more, and could not exist in the one we live in. Namely that the speed of light was irrelevant because light cannot exist in that much gravity.

Yet from this universe a new one was instantaneously created. What conditions changed? Why had it existed for countless time then all at once metamorphed into what we now call the universe?

Only faith on the part of evolutionist will ever explain that one. We simply cannot go observe the pre big bang existence.

I think so. Thanks for that..
Your welcome



But faith is able to exist entirely without the presence of logic, isn't it? Logic suggests proof and if something need be proven before someone can have faith in it, where is the trust? While faith isn't based on a lack of logic, I do think that the two can, indeed must, often be mutually exclusive.

If one believes that God created the universe and eveything in it from scratch, there isn't really a logical way to explain how He did it. Whatever method was used would have been so far beyond any human conceptions of 'logical' as to be outside the accepted definition of the word.

Faith without logic, able to exist? Off the top of my head, I think "no." At least not my faith in God. I believe there is proof of His exisistance. I think logic can get me to that point. I also have faith and trust that He is real. I think there are logical explainations to God creating but also think that one man reads the explaination and says, makes sense. Another reads it and says "hog wash." Same is true of evolution. There are probably just as many books on one way being true as there are books on how it can't be. Somewhere along the way a man makes a choice as to what he wants to believe.

Also, one may have a family member who is suffering tremendous pain in spite of having lived a good life. One may also believe in a kind and merciful God. The fact that Logic - as humans understand it - can't really reconcile the belief with the physical evidence, doesn't mean that one's faith disappears

True, but I do think this can have an explaination also. The Bible says that the rain falls on the just as well as the unjust. No one is immuned from good and bad things happening to them. Whether they are good or bad doesn't factor in. Somehow religion has turned God into a magic wand or a jennie in a bottle. If I'm good everything good happens to me and not bad. If I'm bad the other way around. This is not taught in the Bible. Jesus said take up your cross and follow me. Doesn't sound like I'm immuned from pain, suffering or bad things happening to me.

Yet from this universe a new one was instantaneously created. What conditions changed? Why had it existed for countless time then all at once metamorphed into what we now call the universe?

Only faith on the part of evolutionist will ever explain that one. We simply cannot go observe the pre big bang existence.
No it's simple all the matter in the pre existing big bang period simply drew the pre existing universe back into a mammoth black hole, the elements of the universe have always been there

yes, and in the context it was used

Did you see where I said I was sorry?

Yet from this universe a new one was instantaneously created. What conditions changed? Why had it existed for countless time then all at once metamorphed into what we now call the universe?

Only faith on the part of evolutionist will ever explain that one. We simply cannot go observe the pre big bang existence.

and why hasn't it happened again? Big bang? Yes, I do believe in it. God spoke and bang it came into existence.:D (Don't run with this just having some fun)

No it's simple all the matter in the pre existing big bang period simply drew the pre existing universe back into a mammoth black hole, the elements of the universe have always been there

Where did the elements of the universe come from? If they are eternal, have alway been, then there's your answer Col. You should believe in the universe is God, not the sun.

No it's simple all the matter in the pre existing big bang period simply drew the pre existing universe back into a mammoth black hole, the elements of the universe have always been there

And you know all this how?

Ah yes faith.

Where did the elements of the universe come from? .
Where did God come from?

And you know all this how?

Ah yes faith.
Logic :cool:

Where did God come from?

He's eternal. Has no beginning and no end. That's why, for me, He's God.

Where did God come from?

BTW you answered my question with a question. Mine is still on the table.:D

Take for example the laws of the universe.

....

Only faith on the part of evolutionist will ever explain that one. We simply cannot go observe the pre big bang existence.

Yes. But as we find out new things about the universe and it's contents, different theories emerge and are considered. A religion is bound to faith-based explanation for certain things, regardless of whether or not logic dictates otherwise.

Look at the whole 'Sun revolves around the Earth' argument. It was only very recently (1992) that the Catholic church officially acknowledged that this wasn't the case. This was in spite of considerable logical evidence to the contrary having been accepted by most people for a long time. Who's to say that - in a hundred or even thousand years from now - the same won't happen with regard to other areas of thought? Some people will still choose to believe what they have learned from their religion, based purely on faith.

Yes. But as we find out new things about the universe and it's contents, different theories emerge and are considered. A religion is bound to faith-based explanation for certain things, regardless of whether or not logic dictates otherwise.

Look at the whole 'Sun revolves around the Earth' argument. It was only very recently (1992) that the Catholic church officially acknowledged that this wasn't the case. This was in spite of considerable logical evidence to the contrary having been accepted by most people for a long time. Who's to say that - in a hundred or even thousand years from now - the same won't happen with regard to other areas of thought? Some people will still choose to believe what they have learned from their religion, based purely on faith.

I don't remember the Bible saying anything about how the earth and sun revolve. Wonder where the Catholic church got there information to make a stand on that?

Where did the elements of the universe come from? If they are eternal, have alway been, then there's your answer Col. You should believe in the universe is God, not the sun.

At the most elemental state, it is theorized that matter doesn't exist at all; that all matter is made up of pure inertia. This is supported by many of the simpler Einsteinian observations on time and space.

The very fact that an electron can move virtually at the speed of light presupposes a mass of 0. Otherwise its mass would grow to infinity as it approaches C.

So at what point in did it become "tangible"?

BTW you answered my question with a question. Mine is still on the table.:D
The universe is eternal, it has no beginning and no end.

The universe is eternal, it has no beginning and no end.

Then is it God?

Then is it God?
If you define mother nature as the universe then yes

Sorry guys, but I have to go do my job, which means I have to get in my truck and drive. Dang it, this was the first time in a long time that I have enjoyed being here. Thanks to all and have a good day. (whats left of it to are UK folks):D

The universe is eternal, it has no beginning and no end.

And you know this how?

Sorry guys, but I have to go do my job, which means I have to get in my truck and drive. Dang it, this was the first time in a long time that I have enjoyed being here. Thanks to all and have a good day. (whats left of it to are UK folks):D

Well it looks like we have more in common than I might have imagined earlier. next time I'm back home I'll look you up for a lunch or something. Mom and Dad own a small farm right outside of Lone Star.

I believe there is proof of His exisistance. I think logic can get me to that point. I also have faith and trust that He is real.
The significant question here is which came first for you. Faith, by definition, is belief held without proof. If you contemplate the existence of God and use logic to prove He exists, then your belief is not faith. It is based on logic. This is a mutually exclusive relationship.

However, you can start the process with faith - a proofless belief in the existence of God - and from there construct logical arguments to support your belief. In that case, faith and logic are not mutually exclusive.

Faith without logic, able to exist? Off the top of my head, I think "no." At least not my faith in God. I believe there is proof of His exisistance. I think logic can get me to that point. I also have faith and trust that He is real.
One of the definitions of faith is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". That statement, in itself, says to me that it is possible to have faith without needing proof. Faith is a belief that stands upon the strength of its own conviction. After all, not intending to mock in any way the 'logic' behind the existence of God could as easily be applied to the existence of anything that can't be seen, touched, etc.

One is perfectly entitled to believe that He created everything since - as many people observe - we can't be sure he didn't and everything came from somewhere. That doesn't prove logically that he did, though. Suppose I believed wholeheartedly that dragons created the universe. Who's to say that they didn't? There's just as much evidence for it.

The Earth came from somewhere. I don't know where, so God must have created it. That is faith in it's purest sense - and there is nothing at all wrong with it - but it isn't logical.

And you know this how?
I read it in a book

Well it looks like we have more in common than I might have imagined earlier. next time I'm back home I'll look you up for a lunch or something. Mom and Dad own a small farm right outside of Lone Star.

Make sure you do that. I don't know where Lone Star is but I am in the DFW area.

The significant question here is which came first for you. Faith, by definition, is belief held without proof. If you contemplate the existence of God and use logic to prove He exists, then your belief is not faith. It is based on logic. This is a mutually exclusive relationship.

However, you can start the process with faith - a proofless belief in the existence of God - and from there construct logical arguments to support your belief. In that case, faith and logic are not mutually exclusive.

Hey Kraj,

Always good to have your brain involved. Wish you would share it more often. If pinned down I would have to say that the second choice is probably the most likely answer. With that said, I guess I really didn't do a good job of answering Matt's question.

One of the definitions of faith is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". That statement, in itself, says to me that it is possible to have faith without needing proof. Faith is a belief that stands upon the strength of its own conviction. After all, not intending to mock in any way the 'logic' behind the existence of God could as easily be applied to the existence of anything that can't be seen, touched, etc.

One is perfectly entitled to believe that He created everything since - as many people observe - we can't be sure he didn't and everything came from somewhere. That doesn't prove logically that he did, though. Suppose I believed wholeheartedly that dragons created the universe. Who's to say that they didn't? There's just as much evidence for it.

The Earth came from somewhere. I don't know where, so God must have created it. That is faith in it's purest sense - and there is nothing at all wrong with it - but it isn't logical.

Matt, take a look at my post to Kraj. I don't think I answered you question very well.

Your second paragraph is interesting and I really can't disagree with what you have said except for the very last part. We do have a Book that the authors in it are real people who have written thousands of years ago that this is how everything was created. Dragons can't say that.:D

We do have a Book that the authors in it are real people who have written thousands of years ago that this is how everything was created. Dragons can't say that.:D
Dragons may not be able to say it, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/) has written evidence.

The notion of God as Creator jars because you are posed the question of how did God come to be.

Dragons may not be able to say it, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/) has written evidence.

The notion of God as Creator jars because you are posed the question of how did God come to be.

Why is that jarring? God has always been. No beginning. No end. That's what makes him God.

I'll come back to it tomorrow. It's 01:06 and I'm back up at 06:00. :(

Your second paragraph is interesting and I really can't disagree with what you have said except for the very last part. We do have a Book that the authors in it are real people who have written thousands of years ago that this is how everything was created. Dragons can't say that.:D
How do you know any of these (http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html) aren't the "true" story of the creation of the universe?
They are no less believable than the Jewish/Christian creation myth.

How do you know any of these (http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html) aren't the "true" story of the creation of the universe?
They are no less believable than the Jewish/Christian creation myth.

Funny though, that Science uses modern words to describe an event that is essentially the same.

Amazing that those uneducated Jews could have such insight.

I note that my question asking why America does not follow the teachings of Jesus has gone unanswered

Here’s a question for all of the atheists amongst us.

Have you ever known a non-believer alcoholic, to get sober and stay that way his (her) entire life?

I'm sorry but I think this is an ill conceived question but I'll answer it honestly, you might see the flaw in your approach.

Personally I'm sure I've known several acoholics in my lifetime, however I don't recall any one of them letting me in on the secret. They tend, I believe, to be either in denial or trying to conceal their problem from others

Also I've known many people of different persuasions from atheist to extreme God-botherer. In general the only ones who let their convictions be known socially/publicly were the proselytisers like Jehovas Witnesses, otherwise people here at least tend to keep their views to themselves.

Meeting/recognising a reformed, 'born-again' alcoholic is probably an unlikely event in most peoples' lives.

Ergo your question is unlikely to to be anwered because the central characters are a bit thin on the ground.

Now - is there a reason why you haven't answered my question?

Now - is there a reason why you haven't answered my question?
I'm not evegelical.

I note that my question asking why America does not follow the teachings of Jesus has gone unanswered

That's because it's a stupid question.;)

Matt, take a look at my post to Kraj. I don't think I answered your question very well.
No, you didn't. Kindly get your act together.:D


We do have a Book that the authors in it are real people who have written thousands of years ago that this is how everything was created. Dragons can't say that.:D

So, to continue the analogy, how about if I do have a book and know that my dragon book was written by real people - as opposed to surreal ones? - and that they swear blind they were writing the truth? :D

I have a bit of difficulty with the whole 'truth' bit. I mean, my dragon guys are as good as they come, honest to a man, but they're only human and so are fallible (unlike the dragons themselves). Even though they say they are writing down everything exactly as it happened - or as dictated to them by one of the dragons - there's always the chance that they've misremembered or misunderstood something, no?

I'm also awfully conscious of the fact that you can show five people the same event and get five different stories back, if you immediately ask them to describe what happened. This is for a recent event, too, never mind things that happened thousands of years ago and have been translated from the original dragon language.

on this too, the authors of the bible arent the people whose names are on the books themselves. the actual books of the bible werent put down on papyrus until over 100 years after the last of Jesus' disciples went to meet there buddy. so the bible is hearsay and he said she said. which by the way would not be allowed in a court of law. :D

on this too, the authors of the bible arent the people whose names are on the books themselves. the actual books of the bible werent put down on papyrus until over 100 years after the last of Jesus' disciples went to meet there buddy.

I was deliberately trying to avoid this bit :D

If I told you something detailed and said you could go and write it down immediately, you would still probably get at least parts of it incorrect.

If, on the other hand, I said you had to pass it verbally from person to person, for a prolonged perdio of time, before someone a century from now was allowed to write it down, how much would still be a true representation of what I said?

so the bible is hearsay and he said she said. which by the way would not be allowed in a court of law.
However, it has been. I think the most famous recent ocasion was the Scopes/Monkey trial in the '20s.

Dragons may not be able to say it, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster has written evidence.
I was deliberately trying to avoid this one, but it's a valid point. Why is one piece of information taken to be more valid than another, when both were written long after the event allegedly occurred? Yes, I know the spaghetti monster is deliberately untrue, but if one didn't know this, what would differentiate it from other religious texts?

I'm not evegelical.

I was asking a serious question and you respond with a fatuous comment like that.

If you don't wish to enlighten us as to how you arrived at your current beliefs as a matter of privacy, you could have just said so.

Many of your posts seem to show that you consider that Rich and Col only offer stupid, obtuse and evasive arguments but then you go and act in the same manner.

Forgive me for thinking that your alleged beliefs were worthy of intelligent discussion as even you apparently don't think they are.

Hey Kraj,

Always good to have your brain involved. Wish you would share it more often. If pinned down I would have to say that the second choice is probably the most likely answer.
Thanks, Shane! Nice of you to say. Small doses, my friend; I can only handle small doses these days.

I was asking a serious question and you respond with a fatuous comment like that.

If you don't wish to enlighten us as to how you arrived at your current beliefs as a matter of privacy, you could have just said so.

Many of your posts seem to show that you consider that Rich and Col only offer stupid, obtuse and evasive arguments but then you go and act in the same manner.

Forgive me for thinking that your alleged beliefs were worthy of intelligent discussion as even you apparently don't think they are.


That's not it, at all.
I don’t aspire to have anyone believe the same way I do.
And the last thing I am about, is being evangelistic. So when anyone tells you their beliefs it is mostly to try to get you to believe that same as they.

Which is why I started this thread. Several people have entered into the debate and are stoic in their beliefs.

Here’s what I can tell you; (and I came to this all by myself) religion is mostly a method that humans use to keep themselves tuned to the holy part of the universe. Some people don’t need religion to connect, for others it’s a great comfort. Still for many; they wish they could feel the power, but it eludes them.

For me; I feel the power in varying degrees, depending on how much time I spend trying to stay connected.

God exist, I have witnessed his power. That has nothing to do with faith or a contradiction with logic. It is merely a statement of fact.

As far as science goes; I can tell you that for most people, that use the science argument, to disprove the existence of a supreme being, they have no clue as to the size of the holes in which they place their faith.

Hope this cleared it up for you.

So yes I came by it on my own. There’s a lot more to what I think, about the true nature of the universe, but I'll hold on to it until some of ya’ll get through dissecting my post.

Well, that pretty much ends the debate in a disappointing way. Pity. Nobody expects anyone to be converted one way or the other but it was interesting hearing the reasoning behind people's thinking.

"I know X to be true but I have no desire to convince anyone else of that fact. My knowledge is based on neither faith nor logic but I will, however, say that most people who claim Y to be true are using flawed reasoning"

I do have to admit that I don't understand this bit. Once you remove both logic and faith from a decision making process, what else is there to base your opinion on? One 'knows' that dropping a ball will cause it to fall, based on a logical inference made after seeing it happen before. Most Christians 'know' that God exists because they have faith in it being the case, despite no provable evidence.

If you don't think God exists for logical reasons and you have no faith that he does, how can you 'know' it?

Well, that pretty much ends the debate in a disappointing way. Pity. Nobody expects anyone to be converted one way or the other but it was interesting hearing the reasoning behind people's thinking.

If you don't think God exists for logical reasons and you have no faith that he does, how can you 'know' it?


Well at the risk of sounding insane, all I can say is that all my life, others have wondered at my "luck" and all my life, I knew it was not luck.

I can remove other peoples pain.

I'm sober; all the things in my life are gifts, not earned but simply there. People will dismiss them as hallucinations, so I tend not to talk about them much.

And there’s something else, because of the agreements I have with God I have to be very good (as I can) because I seem to get punished, rather severely, whenever I’m not.


Non-believer and believers alike tend to look at you weird when you tell them these things.

So from most people point of view, I’m just extremely lucky.

I could tell you how to get this but you wouldn’t believe me.

Well at the risk of sounding insane, all I can say is that all my life, others have wondered at my "luck" and all my life, I knew it was not luck.
So, have you always explained it as God's actions or did that come later in life?


I'm sober; all the things in my life are gifts, not earned but simply there.

Isn't there at least one 'branch' (for want of a better word) of Christianity that believes what happens to you is pre-ordained, so it makes no difference if you're good or bad? Or does that pre-ordination just relate to whether or not someone gets into Heaven?

People will dismiss them as hallucinations, so I tend not to talk about them much.
The objects themselves, who provides them, or the means by which they're provided?

..because of the agreements I have with God I have to be very good (as I can) because I seem to get punished, rather severely, whenever I’m not.
You don't watch 'My Name is Earl' by any chance? :D

I could tell you how to get this but you wouldn’t believe me.
I don't believe in God but it hasn't stopped me trying to understand how others can. If you were willing to share this I'd be interested to hear it.

P.S.

I can remove other peoples pain.

Physical or spiritual ('cos I notice from the forum you don't have much luck with removing pains in the a** :D )

So, have you always explained it as God's actions or did that come later in life?


Later, after I got sober.


Isn't there at least one 'branch' (for want of a better word) of Christianity that believes what happens to you is pre-ordained, so it makes no difference if you're good or bad? Or does that pre-ordination just relate to whether or not someone gets into Heaven?



I’m not really much of a theologian. But I think too many people have religion as an entryway into the afterlife, based on fear of perishing I guess. There is much more to the Creator and his family than the Pearly Gates




The objects themselves, who provides them, or the means by which they're provided?



Don’t follow you there Matt.




You don't watch 'My Name is Earl' by any chance? :D


Don’t watch much TV.




I don't believe in God but it hasn't stopped me trying to understand how others can. If you were willing to share this I'd be interested to hear it.


This will take a long time, but be warned, it may not tale you where you think you're going.






P.S.

Physical or spiritual ('cos I notice from the forum you don't have much luck with removing pains in the a** :D )

Physical.

And yes, I am ashamed of the way I have treated him.

One more thing Matt,
I such a pitiful servant, There are others you could learn more from.

This part:


I'm sober; all the things in my life are gifts, not earned but simply there. People will dismiss them as hallucinations, so I tend not to talk about them much.

Do you mean the things you have in your life (e.g. health, possessions, luck) could be viewed as hallucinations, the person/thing that provided them (e.g. God) could be viewed as an hallucination, or the means by which they were provided (e.g. a dream) could be viewed as hallucinatory?

This part:


Do you mean the things you have in your life (e.g. health, possessions, luck) could be viewed as hallucinations, the person/thing that provided them (e.g. God) could be viewed as an hallucination, or the means by which they were provided (e.g. a dream) could be viewed as hallucinatory?

I don't really hold much stock in possessions, other than my tools. I like my tools, I’m the tool man.

That I would choose to attribute the luck to divine intervention instead of just luck. People find it easier to be lucky than blessed.

That I would choose to attribute the luck to divine intervention instead of just luck. People find it easier to be lucky than blessed.
An interesting statement, and one that I don't think holds true as a generality. I think whether this statement is true depends on the individual. Whether one path or belief set is "easier" than another depends mostly on the path an individual is already on and the belief set they already hold. It's not easier to believe in one thing over another, it's easier to keep on believing what you believe than it is to question or change your beliefs.

That's because it's a stupid question.;)
Well I didn't expect a sensible answer from an American:rolleyes:

Well I didn't expect a sensible answer from an American:rolleyes:

Sorry. :o

Where you been - Working on a heater?

Where you been - Working on a heater?
Several, now answer why American society is based on the old testament and not the new?:p

now answer why American society is based on the old testament and not the new?:p
Because our crappy education system only teaches us Hebrew. We can't keep up with modern Aramaic texts.

Because our crappy education system only teaches us Hebrew. We can't keep up with modern Aramaic texts.
well a good answer, but not the correct one:p

Several, now answer why American society is based on the old testament and not the new?:p

Hum - That's a good question... I can see how it might appear that way. I'm not very articulate when it comes to religious topics and it appears you have the upper hand when it comes to biblical issues. So..... I'll try to keep my opinions regarding faith to myself. :)

Sorry I got everyone riled up when I zonked your four letter word a while back - Don't know what I was trying to accomplish. :o

Sorry I got everyone riled up when I zonked your four letter word a while back - Don't know what I was trying to accomplish. :o
I'm not a vindictive person, so provided you send me one of the WMV HD dvd's only available in the States, I'll forgive:D

I'm not a vindictive person, so provided you send me one of the WMV HD dvd's only available in the States, I'll forgive:D

How much are they and where do you get them?

How much are they and where do you get them?
Well he only asked for a single DVD, so it shouldn't be very expensive. A few doallars, maybe. You could probably order it online and have it shipped direct. :D

Well he only asked for a single DVD, so it shouldn't be very expensive. A few doallars, maybe. You could probably order it online and have it shipped direct. :D

I could probably swing that - PM me the address you want it shipped to - :p

Well he only asked for a single DVD, so it shouldn't be very expensive. A few doallars, maybe. You could probably order it online and have it shipped direct. :D
They are only a few dollars each, unfortunately they won't ship to the UK:(

How much are they and where do you get them?
One of them is here http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0001FGBUC/qid=1082152841/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-4483769-2865562?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846

I don't know how much the postage is to the Uk though, obviously I'd send you the money if I knew how much to send:confused:

One of them is here http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0001FGBUC/qid=1082152841/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-4483769-2865562?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846

I don't know how much the postage is to the Uk though, obviously I'd send you the money if I knew how much to send:confused:

Serious - I wouldn't think the postage should be more than $5-10 ...

You want me to pm you my address?

Edit - I'll stop by the post office on the way home and see what the shipping would be...

Thank you:)

on this too, the authors of the bible arent the people whose names are on the books themselves. the actual books of the bible werent put down on papyrus until over 100 years after the last of Jesus' disciples went to meet there buddy. so the bible is hearsay and he said she said. which by the way would not be allowed in a court of law. :D

Hey Kale,

If your saying the books in the Bible were not written down until 100 years after the disciples died, I'd like to know how you came to this determination.

No, you didn't. Kindly get your act together.:D



So, to continue the analogy, how about if I do have a book and know that my dragon book was written by real people - as opposed to surreal ones? - and that they swear blind they were writing the truth? :D

I have a bit of difficulty with the whole 'truth' bit. I mean, my dragon guys are as good as they come, honest to a man, but they're only human and so are fallible (unlike the dragons themselves). Even though they say they are writing down everything exactly as it happened - or as dictated to them by one of the dragons - there's always the chance that they've misremembered or misunderstood something, no?

I'm also awfully conscious of the fact that you can show five people the same event and get five different stories back, if you immediately ask them to describe what happened. This is for a recent event, too, never mind things that happened thousands of years ago and have been translated from the original dragon language.

Matt, Just a curious question. How much have you studied on the Bible, it's origin, it's authors and historical studies of it?

Hey Kale,

If your saying the books in the Bible were not written down until 100 years after the disciples died, I'd like to know how you came to this determination.
It was penned by the aged Apostle John around 95 AD and describes the new heaven and the new earth when God's kingdom will embrace the universe and all rebellion and death will be a thing of the past.

It was either hearsay or John must have been at least 120 yrs old

Isn't there at least one 'branch' (for want of a better word) of Christianity that believes what happens to you is pre-ordained, so it makes no difference if you're good or bad? Or does that pre-ordination just relate to whether or not someone gets into Heaven?

It is not a branch or denomination, but there is a doctrinal teaching that sounds close to what your asking. It's called Calvinism or hyper-Calvinism. Calvinist would fall more in the "someone gets into Heaven" camp. Hyper-Calvinist would fall more in the predestined so it doesn't matter camp. Just trying to lend a hand.;)

Thank you:)

They said .84 cents/oz. Or they have a flat rate package for around $5 that it should fit in. Don't worry about the money this time - if it looks like a flick I'd be interested in I make me a copy :)

Let me know if you want to give it a try - I'll pm you an address...

It was either hearsay or John must have been at least 120 yrs old

Does this make a difference? and I was more referring to the older books of the Bible say like Isaiah, Jerimiah, and etc.

According to tradition, during the persecution of Domitian John was exiled to the small island of Patmos (one of the present Dodecanese Islands) where he put in writing his Christian visions in the form of the Revelation as we have it today. According to the same tradition, John died in Ephesos about the year 104 A.D. over 100 years old.

http://www.carm.org/bible/biblewhen.htm

http://www.carm.org/bible/biblewhen.htm

OK, I need a little help as to why your sending me to this site.

You wanted to know when the books were written

You wanted to know when the books were written

No, I wanted to know how Kale was making the statement that the books of the Bible where written down 100 years after the death of the disciples. (if that was what he/she was saying). Your chart that you directed me to clearly shows dates way before then.

I suspect the writer was referring to the new bit

I suspect the writer was referring to the new bit

New bit? as in New Testament?

New bit? as in New Testament?
Yes the bit that America forgets

That's not it, at all.
I don’t aspire to have anyone believe the same way I do.
And the last thing I am about, is being evangelistic. So when anyone tells you their beliefs it is mostly to try to get you to believe that same as they.

Which is why I started this thread. Several people have entered into the debate and are stoic in their beliefs.

Here’s what I can tell you; (and I came to this all by myself) religion is mostly a method that humans use to keep themselves tuned to the holy part of the universe. Some people don’t need religion to connect, for others it’s a great comfort. Still for many; they wish they could feel the power, but it eludes them.

For me; I feel the power in varying degrees, depending on how much time I spend trying to stay connected.

God exist, I have witnessed his power. That has nothing to do with faith or a contradiction with logic. It is merely a statement of fact.

As far as science goes; I can tell you that for most people, that use the science argument, to disprove the existence of a supreme being, they have no clue as to the size of the holes in which they place their faith.

Hope this cleared it up for you.

So yes I came by it on my own. There’s a lot more to what I think, about the true nature of the universe, but I'll hold on to it until some of ya’ll get through dissecting my post.

Thankyou for responding. I don't begin to understand where you're coming from on a lot of this, especially your choice to attribute occurences in your life to an unseen deity rather than random chance (and others have dissected your post more succinctly than I would) but if it works for you it does me no harm and I wouldn't try to change your mind - I'm not evangelical either.

And yes, I am ashamed of the way I have treated him.

I always thought you were Wooley's side kick, still if you feel guilty about your treatment of him go ahead and apologise

And there’s something else, because of the agreements I have with God I have to be very good (as I can) because I seem to get punished, rather severely, whenever I’m not.

I admire your open honesty with these posts,:) and would like to understand more. I look on God as an energy force, rather than a deity. This energy force is what we are all made of. This energy force flows through everything, and is an energy force that can be tapped into. Telepathy and telekinesis are some of the energy levels. Our sixth sense is also linked into this energy field.

To me, it doesn't seem possible for God to punish anyone. I can't believe it is a part of God's nature. So I would like to try and understand your point of view on this.

Did you see where I said I was sorry?
Yes. I figured it was as sincere as all your other apologies - in other words,
I think a GWB speech is more sincerely meant than that.

Col

Yes. I figured it was as sincere as all your other apologies - in other words,
I think a GWB speech is more sincerely meant than that.

Col

Gee whiz... You can really be bitter and hateful at times...:(

Matt, Just a curious question. How much have you studied on the Bible, it's origin, it's authors and historical studies of it?

Formal study? Very little, to be honest. Casual reading? A bit, on and off. What articles/books etc. I have read suggest that non-believers have one set of ideas about it's origins and accuracy, religious people have an entirely different set. Since I fall into the former category, I've probably tended to read more pointing out the 'lack of proof' than the other way round (in the same way that many believers will have read more articles 'proving' the bible's history and accuracy).

The first New Testament was published some time from 52 to 100 AD, as I understand it? Partly in Greek and partly in Aramaic.

As I understand it, the whole bible (new and old testament) is a compilation of a lot of pieces, by a lot of different people, written over a lengthy period of time. The period appears to vary, based on who wrote the article the information is contained within, as - obviously - does the writer's opinion on how accurate the writings are. According to at least one Christian website I read (sorry, a while ago, so I have no idea on the link) it's the end result of hundreds of revisions and translatons, which doesn't instill me with any confidence, for the reasons I gave earlier relating to human fallibility.

also say we go with the site RIch posted, then that says the first of the new testament books was written 10 years or so after the crusifiction (sp) in 42 AD. how much would have been misremembered and been forgotten, elaborated on or out and out changed?

The earlier post was from a text book and a few docs on the natl geo channel, discovery etc that I have watched over the last decade or so. You have to take alot of the dates we are given anymore with a grain of salt, I have watched docs that have given the dates of the Gospels as having been written in the late 100's AD and other where they say they were written in the 50' and 60's AD. We all also need to realize these things were put to papyrus almost 2 millenia before any of us were born, so there is really no concrete way to pin down the actual date of publication, unless one of you lot has a time machine and isnt sharing :p

Formal study? Very little, to be honest. Casual reading? A bit, on and off. What articles/books etc. I have read suggest that non-believers have one set of ideas about it's origins and accuracy, religious people have an entirely different set. Since I fall into the former category, I've probably tended to read more pointing out the 'lack of proof' than the other way round (in the same way that many believers will have read more articles 'proving' the bible's history and accuracy).

The first New Testament was published some time from 52 to 100 AD, as I understand it? Partly in Greek and partly in Aramaic.

As I understand it, the whole bible (new and old testament) is a compilation of a lot of pieces, by a lot of different people, written over a lengthy period of time. The period appears to vary, based on who wrote the article the information is contained within, as - obviously - does the writer's opinion on how accurate the writings are. According to at least one Christian website I read (sorry, a while ago, so I have no idea on the link) it's the end result of hundreds of revisions and translatons, which doesn't instill me with any confidence, for the reasons I gave earlier relating to human fallibility.

Thanks for your answer Matt. I asked because you do appear, to me any way, as a person who researches and finds answers for yourself. With that being said I was going to let you know that there are books written by very educated, intelligent men, some who started out to disprove the Bible, that have some very interesting arguements on the validity of the Bible. If you ever wanted to dive in and check out points made from the other side of the arguement.:)

Thanks for your answer Matt. I asked because you do appear, to me any way, as a person who researches and finds answers for yourself. With that being said I was going to let you know that there are books written by very educated, intelligent men, some who started out to disprove the Bible, that have some very interesting arguements on the validity of the Bible. If you ever wanted to dive in and check out points made from the other side of the arguement.:)

Thanks for that. If you want to name a couple, I may give them a look. The only time I really get to just sit and read is on the train, but I find I can get through a book a week that way. I'm alternating between fiction/easy reading and titles I may learn something from (keeps my brain from both overloading and getting flabby). Those might make it into one of the fiction weeks (kidding :D ).

also say we go with the site RIch posted, then that says the first of the new testament books was written 10 years or so after the crusifiction (sp) in 42 AD. how much would have been misremembered and been forgotten, elaborated on or out and out changed?

The earlier post was from a text book and a few docs on the natl geo channel, discovery etc that I have watched over the last decade or so. You have to take alot of the dates we are given anymore with a grain of salt, I have watched docs that have given the dates of the Gospels as having been written in the late 100's AD and other where they say they were written in the 50' and 60's AD. We all also need to realize these things were put to papyrus almost 2 millenia before any of us were born, so there is really no concrete way to pin down the actual date of publication, unless one of you lot has a time machine and isnt sharing :p

Don't know if this will make a difference to anyone or not, but when these letters, poems, laws and etc., that make up the Bible, where received, a process began. There were men, called scribes, who's job it was to take the original copy and begin to copy it (over and over again), just as it was written. This process has gone of forever, so stating that men trying to write down what had been repeated to them over centuries is not really accurate. As each generate went by they had copies of these documents. When the dead sea scrolls where finally found, in the 60's (I think), scholars checked the original manuscript found to the copies that had been used to translate the Bible and found 7 errors. 5 of the errors were punctuation. I would say that is pretty dog gone good since the dead sea scrolls contained some of the oldest books in the Bible.

Thanks for that. If you want to name a couple, I may give them a look. The only time I really get to just sit and read is on the train, but I find I can get through a book a week that way. I'm alternating between fiction/easy reading and titles I may learn something from (keeps my brain from both overloading and getting flabby). Those might make it into one of the fiction weeks (kidding :D ).

Give me a little time to check into some titles and authors. See if I can't load up your fiction weeks.:D (that was funny by the way) A book that do remember, but it really doesn't deal with just the subject of the authenticity of the Bible, but does cover many Christian beliefs is "Evidence that demands a verdict" by Josh Mc Dowell. You may find that an interesting read.

Don't know if this will make a difference to anyone or not, but when these letters, poems, laws and etc., that make up the Bible, where received, a process began. There were men, called scribes, who's job it was to take the original copy and begin to copy it (over and over again), just as it was written. This process has gone of forever, so stating that men trying to write down what had been repeated to them over centuries is not really accurate. As each generate went by they had copies of these documents. When the dead sea scrolls where finally found, in the 60's (I think), scholars checked the original manuscript found to the copies that had been used to translate the Bible and found 7 errors. 5 of the errors were punctuation. I would say that is pretty dog gone good since the dead sea scrolls contained some of the oldest books in the Bible.
It's still hearsay

It's still hearsay

Thanks for keeping an open mind Rich. It's easy to make an accusation. Doesn't take any thought power. No research. Just words. From there you put some one on the defense of having to defend words that are said that could contain little or no truth. You need to come to America and run for office you would make a good American politican.

Thanks for keeping an open mind Rich. It's easy to make an accusation. Doesn't take any thought power. No research. Just words. From there you put some one on the defense of having to defend words that are said that could contain little or no truth. You need to come to America and run for office you would make a good American politican.

Would his hearsay thing about the Bible be like his hearsay knowledge of the US? :eek: :D

Would his hearsay thing about the Bible be like his hearsay knowledge of the US? :eek: :D
There is a difference between modern communications and translated stories that were stories to start with. Tell me why nothing of note has been added to the bible in nigh on 2,000 years?

You need to come to America and run for office you would make a good American politican.
Rich couldn't do that, he has morals and scruples.

Col

Morals? you mean Rich has those neat paintings on walls? thats great I always wanted one of those. ((sorry trying to lighten the mood a bit))

There is a difference between modern communications and translated stories that were stories to start with. Tell me why nothing of note has been added to the bible in nigh on 2,000 years?

Maybe the cost of distributing the addendums would be cost prohibitive :confused: :p :p

Maybe the cost of distributing the addendums would be cost prohibitive :confused: :p :p
It would be classed as junk mail so gets a cheaper rate anyway

Col

Morals? you mean Rich has those neat paintings on walls? thats great I always wanted one of those. ((sorry trying to lighten the mood a bit))
There are one or two here who'd like to have my head on their wall:cool:

Tell me why nothing of note has been added to the bible in nigh on 2,000 years?

Your own King James made substantial "upgrades" in the translation from Greek.

The Mormons (Church of Later Day Saints) certainly have added a few to their's as well.

There are one or two here who'd like to have my head on their wall:cool:
Well they've certainly got the guns to do it and they like the thrill of killing things

Col

Your own King James made substantial "upgrades" in the translation from Greek.

The Mormons (Church of Later Day Saints) certainly have added a few to their's as well.
But no new messages from god

Well they've certainly got the guns to do it and they like the thrill of killing things

Col
Yes they and god have something in common, perhaps if they worshiped Satan instead

Maybe the cost of distributing the addendums would be cost prohibitive :confused: :p :p

I remember an episode of a sitcom some years ago, where the main characters were talking and you could hear the TV in the background. It was set in the future and the guy on screen was saying someting along the lines of

"...the discovery of a new page for the Bible has caused controversy amongst church leaders. The page is believed to have come from the start of the text and reads 'To Helen, with love. This book and all characters portrayed in it are fictional. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental'."

Made me laugh, anyway.

There is a difference between modern communications and translated stories that were stories to start with. Tell me why nothing of note has been added to the bible in nigh on 2,000 years?

but they aren't translated stories. Matthew, an eye witness; Mark, an eye witness; Luke, an eye witness; John, an eye witness; James, an eye witness; Most of the New Testament are letters written by Paul to the various churches he started; James, an eye witness; Psalms, written mostly by David and Moses; the list goes on. These writing were written by the men themselves and then the scribes copied from the original manuscripts. The flying noodle monster is a cute story but it can not make these factual claims. It is just a story.

but they aren't translated stories.

They most certainly are translated stories given that they have started off in Hebrew, and ended up in English by way of Coptic, Greek, Latin, and Middle English. It's along this route that many days and many nights has become forty days and forty nights; that fellow Jew has become neighbour; and so on.

Matthew, an eye witness; Mark, an eye witness; Luke, an eye witness; John, an eye witness; James, an eye witness;
They were not eye witnesses. Biblical historians place the writing of the gospels as independent pieces appearing at different times between 60CE and 150CE.


The flying noodle monster is a cute story but it can not make these factual claims.
The flying noodle monster has as much of a claim to existence as the stories of the Bible. Just because they were written down doesn't make them true. There's no physical proof of Jesus either.

They most certainly are translated stories given that they have started off in Hebrew, and ended up in English by way of Coptic, Greek, Latin, and Middle English. It's along this route that many days and many nights has become forty days and forty nights; that fellow Jew has become neighbour; and so on..

I understand that. My comments, I guess wrongly stated, were toward the word of mouth comments passed down through history and then some where along the way someone decided to write all this stuff down and do the best job of remembering how the story goes.


They were not eye witnesses. Biblical historians place the writing of the gospels as independent pieces appearing at different times between 60CE and 150CE.

How do you figure? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Timothy, all walked and talked with Jesus. That does not count as eye witnesses?




The flying noodle monster has as much of a claim to existence as the stories of the Bible. Just because they were written down doesn't make them true. There's no physical proof of Jesus either.

There is not physical proof of Jesus? Your kidding...right? Do you only stay studing in the areas that best fit into how you want things to be? The flying noodle may have as much claim, to you, but it does not have any where near the historical evidences that the Bible has. How do you account for so many people for so many years being tricked into this made up story? or the amount of very intelligent individuals that believe in this made up God, made up Jesus and their incredibly made up story?

There is not physical proof of Jesus? Your kidding...right? Do you only stay studing in the areas that best fit into how you want things to be? The flying noodle may have as much claim, to you, but it does not have any where near the historical evidences that the Bible has. How do you account for so many people for so many years being tricked into this made up story? or the amount of very intelligent individuals that believe in this made up God, made up Jesus and their incredibly made up story?
The mere fact that so many people believe in something, intelligent or otherwise is no basis for proof of existence. There were probably a lot of religions or belief systems going on in other parts of the world before and during the time of Jesus. I also don't think any ancient text has any more credence than say an ancient artifact of similar religious significance to the tribe that owned it.

The mere fact that so many people believe in something, intelligent or otherwise is no basis for proof of existence.

"no basis for proof" Maybe not in the way I think your referring to it but the point I'm trying to make is that this trick that has been concocted has got to be the best one anyone has ever come up with. The number of people who have bought this story, throughout history, has got to be an unbelievable number. How could so many people be so wrong?

"no basis for proof" Maybe not in the way I think your referring to it but the point I'm trying to make is that this trick that has been concocted has got to be the best one anyone has ever come up with. The number of people who have bought this story, throughout history, has got to be an unbelievable number. How could so many people be so wrong?
I think the thing about a belief is that as long as you are happy and getting along, what's the harm in it. In this case it doesn't have to be wrong if it's primarily doing good. Remember that there are millions in the world that don't believe in this doctrine, probably for the very reason that it doesn't stack up, for them. The bottom line seems to be that religion is a personal matter. I think it's because a person is placing a lot of trust in their beliefs, and they don't want to be thought of as stupid or silly for believing the way they do.

How could so many people be so wrong?
So what number is the cut-off point? Very large numbers of people have believed a lot of wrong things throughout history. Or on the flip side of the same coin, how can 600 million Hindus be wrong?

So what number is the cut-off point? Very large numbers of people have believed a lot of wrong things throughout history. Or on the flip side of the same coin, how can 600 million Hindus be wrong?


Humans are not capable of understanding God, so we all try to see IT within the context of our culture.

Humans are not capable of understanding God
On what do you base this idea? Given that each religious sect, in most cases, has pretty much created their God, what's not to understand?

Did you have any response to my other post? .. about punishment?

Did you have any response to my other post? .. about punishment?


Been thinking about that, all I can say is that it seems to happen with more than just coincidental regularity.

On what do you base this idea? Given that each religious sect, in most cases, has pretty much created their God, what's not to understand?





When you say that God is created by the religion you are by your very words deciding that you will not have an open mind about the possibility of God existing.

Or at least that’s the impression.

Hence the reason I started this thread. Non believers seem to always use language designed to denigrate the act of believing.

Why do you suppose it is, that the most rigorous thinkers in history contemplated the existence of God; without the preconceived notion that IT could not exist.

If you approach it from that perspective, requiring explanation to conform to your sensibilities, than why discuss it at all?

Why not instead focus on, Economics, Physics, Biology, or something else, equally complicated?

Why religion?

I said earlier I am not religious, but I have no doubt that the power of God is an influence in my life. So why don’t I demand that people prove that I am mistaken.

Long before the discovery of oscillating magnetic fields, people would have said it was illogical to look at a picture of something a thousand miles away. Before Einstein proved that light was bent by gravitational fields, his contemporaries said bunk.
If for some reason I an able to connect to the power of God why should it be my responsibility to make it understandable to anyone else. I might as well be describing light to blind person.

I will tell you that it is easy to discover the power.

Just seek.

When you say that God is created by the religion you are by your very words deciding that you will not have an open mind about the possibility of God existing.

Or at least that’s the impression.
I was actually try to point out an observation I had come to. I do in fact experience God, in my own way. I have in the past learnt and practiced reiki and other healing modalities. I have no explaination for why this works and why people feel the way they do after a session. It could very well be psychosamatic. However I believe otherwise.
This is not a forgone conclusion I continue to quest for more knowledge.
I wonder if you have seen the movie, "What the Bleep!" which was followed later with additional material (Director's cut sort of thing) by "What the Bleep, down the Rabbit Hole" Talked about reality at a quantum level, and how things can be affected by sheer observation.?

Did you have any response to my other post? .. about punishment?
You'll find that many questions, remarks go unanswered or are met with abuse here, welcome to the club

You'll find that many questions, remarks go unanswered or are met with abuse here, welcome to the club
I subscribe to the notion of "what goes around, comes around" or in biblical terms "as you sow, so shall ye reap" I think abuse just comes out of fear, it's always seems to be about the one trying to make the most noise. I'm fine with all that. thanks all the same, Rich :)

So what number is the cut-off point? Very large numbers of people have believed a lot of wrong things throughout history. Or on the flip side of the same coin, how can 600 million Hindus be wrong?

I see what your saying, Kraj. I guess in the late hours of the evening, I came up with a bad example. My bad. Scratch this one. *note to self, don't try using this as an example, in the future, cause it doesn't hold water. end note*

You'll find that many questions, remarks go unanswered or are met with abuse here, welcome to the club
Who is abusing him?

Who is abusing him?
Aren't your eyes open in the mornings, note the word OR

Got to reading this thread..... hung in there until about page 7.
:)

Funny thing though.... when I read the initial post, I had no idea it was bashing atheism..... LOL... it sounded like a pretty good deal to me and I was all ready to sign up!

Who is abusing him?
I think he meant, in general not me specific.:cool:

Funny thing though.... when I read the initial post, I had no idea it was bashing atheism..... LOL... it sounded like a pretty good deal to me and I was all ready to sign up!
I was wondering where the compromise was then?:confused:

I see what your saying, Kraj. I guess in the late hours of the evening, I came up with a bad example. My bad. Scratch this one. *note to self, don't try using this as an example, in the future, cause it doesn't hold water. end note*

Shane:

I'm just curious if you got that argument from McDowell. Josh McDowell uses that type of thinking all the time. One of his "best" arguments is "the Apostles wouldn't have allowed themselves to be martyred had they not believed in the resurrection"

Using this line of thinking, McDowell completely ignores that almost every known religion has people who have given their lives for their religion. THis includes many who gave their lives to be tortured and burned NOT to embrace Christianity. This is the type of typical "let's ignore all reality" argument posited by McDowell.

I only raise his name because you mentioned him earlier. I know someone who was Christian for 11 years and became non-Christian when she realized how poorly researched his "Proofs" are.

And by the way, you mentioned that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. I guess you missed the first verse in Luke where he says clearly otherwise.

SHADOW

Shane:

I'm just curious if you got that argument from McDowell. Josh McDowell uses that type of thinking all the time. One of his "best" arguments is "the Apostles wouldn't have allowed themselves to be martyred had they not believed in the resurrection"

Using this line of thinking, McDowell completely ignores that almost every known religion has people who have given their lives for their religion. THis includes many who gave their lives to be tortured and burned NOT to embrace Christianity. This is the type of typical "let's ignore all reality" argument posited by McDowell.

I only raise his name because you mentioned him earlier. I know someone who was Christian for 11 years and became non-Christian when she realized how poorly researched his "Proofs" are.

And by the way, you mentioned that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. I guess you missed the first verse in Luke where he says clearly otherwise.

SHADOW

No, I didn't get the argument from Josh Mc Dowell. I have had folks tell me about the book but have never read it myself. I recommended to Matt based off of what I have be told. As far as Luke goes. Did you read the second verse? or even down to verse 5? Besides, my reference to the eyewitnesses was to the fact that these men walked and talked with Jesus. Luke was one of those men and he wrote The Gospel of Luke as well as The Acts of the Apostles.

No, I didn't get the argument from Josh Mc Dowell. I have had folks tell me about the book but have never read it myself. I recommended to Matt based off of what I have be told. .

Ok, maybe you want to read McDowell's book before promoting it. He is poorly researched and some of his arguments make me laugh.

As far as Luke goes. Did you read the second verse? or even down to verse 5? Besides, my reference to the eyewitnesses was to the fact that these men walked and talked with Jesus. Luke was one of those men and he wrote The Gospel of Luke as well as The Acts of the Apostles

.

Yes. Verses 2 and 3 say that Luke was NOT an eyewitness. In fact, Luke was a companion of Paul's and nowhere is there indication that he met Jesus.

SHADOW

Ok, maybe you want to read McDowell's book before promoting it. He is poorly researched and some of his arguments make me laugh.



Yes. Verses 2 and 3 say that Luke was NOT an eyewitness. In fact, Luke was a companion of Paul's and nowhere is there indication that he met Jesus.

SHADOW

Lukes reference in verses 1 through 5 is to indicate that he was not there when Jesus was born and was not there as He grew up, so Luke is letting you know that he is telling this story according to eyewitnesses that were there and did see these things.

As far as Josh Mc Dowell's book goes. Maybe I should read it someday, but I doubt that I will come up with the same results as you. I did not promote the book. Read my post again. I told Matt that he appears to be a person who likes to research things. I recommended Josh Mc Dowells book as one he could check into someday. Didn't promote it just recommended it.

Lukes reference in verses 1 through 5 is to indicate that he was not there when Jesus was born and was not there as He grew up, so Luke is letting you know that he is telling this story according to eyewitnesses that were there and did see these things..

Agreed. From your post, it sounded like you said that Luke was an eyewitness. I apologize if that's not what you meant.

As far as Josh Mc Dowell's book goes. Maybe I should read it someday, but I doubt that I will come up with the same results as you. .

Depends. If you just rely on his "research", then you're right. If you look into his sources, then you probably will arrive at the same conclusion as me and many reviews I've read.

I did not promote the book. Read my post again. I told Matt that he appears to be a person who likes to research things. I recommended Josh Mc Dowells book as one he could check into someday. Didn't promote it just recommended it.

"Promote" versus "recommend". Got it now.

SHADOW