I am not some genious, of course. I dont claim to be nor want to be and I am 21 actually. That is besides the point anyway. The truth is, the Bible says so many things that really happened and even says things that will happen that havent yet. There isnt a single bit of evidence proving how the Universe was created. The only thing close is the Bible, which says God created us and everything else. So I will go with that. History reveals so much truth that the Bible states. Like the cart ruins at the bottom of the Red Sea, where Moses parted the water 1000s of years ago. Or the ship remains found in a mountain somewhere, yeah, I guess somebody built that stuff and just threw it there. You say paraphrase, I dont own a computer, so I can only do this at work on my lunch break and other breaks. I will pop in when I can. One more thing, God is the only God who hasnt failed or faded out, except for the Gov't taking it out of everything they possibly can. This nation was founded on Christian beliefs and now people just dont care and they pick some easy religion or no religion that lets them do whatever they want with no guilt.
How does remains of something that's thousands of years old give evidence to prove gods existence? Also, what's the point? To cure the spread of delusion that's infected this planet.
In context it said true things. As in mentioning that Egypt had a pharaoh. It's true but it doesn't make the bible the true word of god. It just means people of the time were writing in the context of the time. That being said there are certain things the bible could say that it would make it the divine inspired word of god assuming the things it said came to pass. Jonah living in a whale and not dying would be one. Impossible to prove. Jesus turning water to wine. Impossible to prove. If you can show a miracle or a seemingly impossible event coming to pass that does not require faith it is a step in the right direction for the bible. Congrats. It said something that hasn't happened. Doesn't mean its accurate or even worth our time. I predict that in 'X' years a great king will encircle the great city and claim it for his own. It's vague, it can be interpreted many ways and it has a bit of end-timeyness to it, people love that. Everything makes prediction. Conspiracy theorists (2012ers), evolution and religion all make predictions about what will happen under given circumstances. It is generally observed that conspiracy theorists are wrong, scientific theories are verifiable and often reach the correct conclusion, and that religion is untouchable and unchallengeable and even if it was, you have to be a member of that religion to understand why the result matched the prediction so perfectly, even though no one else sees it besides the people immediately within your own group-think. There is. That's why the big bang is a theory, because it contains a collection of evidences worded into a propositional phrase that can be shown to be falsifiable and takes no state of infallibility because the arrogance of such a claim, if heeded, would impede immediate research into the subject. The Bible is not evidence for how the universe was created anymore than any other holy book is. Could the universe have been created by the Christian god? Sure. Is the bible evidence for that creation? No. It is just a baseless assertion that claims a faith based audience of believers, not people who accept it due to its rational, logical, evidential claims. Show me. Refuted twice 20 pages back. No it isn't. Hinduism is the oldest extant religion and it is still going strong. Buddhism is older than the Jewish faith and claims millions of believers. Many people still practice paganism which is an ancient form of loosely banded faiths that regard the earth and the sky as the gods of infinity. It, however, is not a religion. Only a conclusion reached independently throughout the ages by many ancient and modern cultures. It is the oldest, extant form of belief and it has guided humanity thousands of times longer than Christianity has. Spoiler "Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society. " [George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses." [SIZE=-1] -- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88), from Adrienne Koch, ed, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT] "Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient allies.[/FONT]" [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1][SIZE=-1]-- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assemby, June 20, 1785[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]"Torrents of blood have been spilt in the world in vain attempts of the secular arm to extinguish religious discord, by proscribing all differences in religious opinions." [SIZE=-1] -- James Madison, from Joseph L Blau, Cornerstones of Religious Freedom in America (1949) p. 85, from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT] Whatever dude. The deists say otherwise. Atheists have been refuting claims since before Christ was born (Epicurus). It's nothing new. One man's trash is another man's treasure.
It just annoys me when Christians say the Bible is infallible. Something that contradicts itself cannot be infallible. In Genesis, it says light was created on the first day. Later, it says the sun was created on the fourth day. Genesis also claims the moon makes its own light. Obviously this isn't true, therefore the "the Bible is absolutely infallible" argument cannot hold water. Zombievillan, saying this nation was founded on Christian beliefs is also a misconception. Thomas Jefferson himself, one of our respected founding fathers, was an agnostic and questioned the existence of God often. Also, many of today's religions have been around longer than Christianity. Christianitywas created by Constantine as a means to control the masses and make them obey secular laws. Many religions have been around since then. And if you count the Hebrew God as the same God, Hinduism, Bhuddism, Paganism, Agnosticism, and Islam have been around longer.
No . Didn't you take high-school history? Constantine was just the guy that stopped killing Christians, and allowed them to have there own religion. He didn't create Christianity or use it to control anybody.
It was. Constantine created Christianity as a means to make people obey secular laws. Any disobeying of God was a straight ticket to Hell. Since all rulers had to be "appointed by God" this meant to disobey them was to disobey God. It was a means to control the masses out of fear. Christianity is about 650 years older than Islam. You are correct. That was a type-o. EDIT: Before Constantine converted to Christianity, it was not popular, or widely spread. When he did, he tweaked the belief system to suit his own needs, so yeah, he created it, or at least what we know as Christianity. Any yes, he used it as a means of control.
No... that's exactly how it didn't work. All the leaders before him (and one or two after him I believe?) killed Christians just for having their own religion. He most certainly didn't create Christianity.
You're absolutely incorrect. After he adopted Christianity as the religion of the Holy Roman Empire, beliefs from Constantine's previous religion, Mithra, start to pop up in Christianity. The entire religion develops in the next 50 years more than it did in the last 200. This is because Constantine slipped his beliefs in and used the fear of Hell to control the empire. The book Christianity: The Ultimate Urban Legend, illustrates my point, and can be found here.
Are laws not related to morality? It doesn't matter what it is. I was speaking in shorthand, and regardless of what I said, you are drawing an irrelevant conclusion from it. Tom does not know killing people is bad. Tom kills people. Tom goes to jail. Therefore, Tom is punished without knowing. If you couldn't already understand what I was talking about, I made it clear that one cannot be defined without the other, not that one must be there before the other. You have quite an erroneous understanding of things. You're indirectly implying that light cannot exist without the sun. This is not true. In fact, light existed before the sun did. The sun is around four and a half billion years old. The universe is suggested to be around 13.5-14 billion years old. Do the math. Light existed before the sun. 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. Where does it say the moon makes it own light? It says that there was [the moon] to govern the night, and give off light, and we know that light goes off of the moon. Constantine didn't create Christianity.... -_- The only religions you listed that were older were Hinduism and Paganism. You're forgetting Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and Animism, which might be the oldest, but is uncertain and therefore Hinduism is recognized as the oldest. However, the oldest religion can vary to what you believe, and that belief's validity. If it turns out that the creation story and the Garden of Eden are true, then Judaism would turn out the oldest.
Even if that is true, which I highly doubt, he still didn't create Christianity like you stated previously.
Emperor Constantine should rightfully be credited as being the founder of Christianity. Prior to his reign, there was no such word, nor a single official imperial religion for the Roman Empire—with multitudes ofcults, gods and worship across the Empire. The Edict of Milan is just one of many absurd forgeries still honored today to claim that Constantine “converted” to Christianity and somehow lifted the restrictions on Christians. Unfortunately, the groups known as early “Christians” who were persecuted were neither “Christian” nor “peaceful” but actually satanic and human sacrifice cults such as the Sarmatians and Boethusians—the descendents of the bloodthirsty Phoenician traders. The claim that Constantine lifted the ban on these ancestors of the Roman Cult families through any “edict” is highly unlikely. Source
No. Emperor Diocletian was ruler of the eastern most fourth of the Roman Empire (he maintained control over the other three but they were governed by independent rulers as well). To keep the other three rulers in line he kept their sons. One of whom was Constantine. Constantine was pagan as Diocletian was. Diocletian ruled with an iron fist and saw Christianity as a threat so he ordered the whole lot to be killed. Constantine came to rule Gaul. In this time, he battled a bloke named Maxentius when he received a sign from god, converted to Christianity and won the battle. He then battled a dude named Licinius, won, consolidated power and brought about the New Roman Era. The Empire was divided into the east and west and Constantine set about reforming the east. He legalized Christianity (as a Christian himself) and returned much of the property siezed. He then removed all pagan symbols and replaced them with Christian ones. With the support of the empire the already successful Christian church was no longer persecuted an expanded at an exponential rate (mirrored only by Mithraism - a Roman adaptation of a Persian god). Constantine, nor any other Roman leader of that time period, claimed divine placement. Your source fails.
You, my friend, are also incorrect. Refer to the post I made after the one you quoted. This is all irrelevant anyways since the Christian God cannot exist.
Dude your source describes itself as "Official website of One Evil, unified understanding, revelation and truth of Evil." How is that a reputable source?
Simply saying my source fails says and proves nothing. If you cannot provide logical evidence for why, then why would I believe it? *sigh* There's no winning in any religious debate really, especially with those who are believers in the religion. Agnosticism is the way to go.
Here's some logical evidence it has NO accreditation from any noteworthy organization (or any organization for that matter).
You are basing your argument upon an unreliable source, which therefore draws into question your entire argument. Exactly the same way people say the inconsistencies in the Bible lead it to be unbelievable.
Once again, arguing over the creation of Christianity is irrelevant since the religion itself has so many self-contradictions, and the like. There's no way the religion itself is even credible. And by the way, inconsistencies in a book that is supposed to be INFALLIBLE, should definitely bring the credibility of the book into question.