Tea-Party Candidate: Rape, Incest are Part of God's Plan

science is not a religion
It is these days, when NASA is in charge of Islamic relations, Gaia is worshiped via Climategate, and evolution requires more faith than Creationism.

And, let's get something straight - you deny that Jesus existed? Really? No evidence? Do you mean no 'scientific' evidence, or no evidence whatsoever? Do you dismiss historical evidence? If so, do you dismiss everything that has no physical evidence? If not, Flavius Josephus would disagree with you.
 
you mean the forged passage that doesn't appear in his works until Eusebius quotes it? no other christian fathers before him use it.
many modern christian scholars agree it is a forged passage.

there are no writings of jesus in his time.
Many modern Christian scholars? Really? Okay, I'll bite - give me a list along with their credentials. I want to see CVs.

This is what happens when you spend too much time on atheist websites - you become myopic and start saying absurd things. :rolleyes:

By the way, do you believe in evolution? Because there is no evidence of it and no writings about it before the 1800s.
 
Let it be noted that you still have not answered my questions, and that you are now moving the goalposts. If you aren't interested in a meaningful discussion, then keep being dismissive. Nobody is forcing you to believe that Jesus existed - but you cannot make a compelling argument that he did not without ignoring quite a bit of logic and historical evidence, despite your efforts to dismiss such writings. Now you're actually deciding the standard length of historical evidence - and you haven't the credibility to do so.

Dennis Marcellino in his book "Why are We here?" points out a strong circumstantial point of logic in his book. “Why would the apostles allow themselves to be martyred in such horrible ways for saying Jesus existed when they knew that was false? Instead they said they were eyewitnesses of Jesus' miracles and resurrection. And they all were martyred separate from each other. It could be said that one of them was crazy and suicidal...but it would be hard to make the case that ALL of them were (except John, who wasn't martyred but was exiled to the island of Patmos instead).”

Marcellino then quotes current Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s humorous way of pointing out how absurd it is to conclude that the apostles didn’t really witness the resurrection like they said they did. He said: “We must pray for the courage to endure the scorn of ‘the sophisticated world’. The ‘wise’ do not believe in the resurrection of the dead. It is really quite absurd [to them]. The Ascension had to be made up by groveling enthusiasts as part of their plan to get themselves martyred .” :rolleyes:


Respected historian Will Durant argued: “That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.”

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.” (THE JEWISH ANTIQUITIES, JOSEPHUS, BOOK XX, SEC. 200)

With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, THE NEW ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA states: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus "(1976), MACROPÆDIA, VOL. 10, P. 145.

Cornelius Tacitus
Tacitus lived from A.D. 55 to A.D. 120. He was a Roman historian and has been described as the greatest historian of Rome, noted for his integrity and moral uprightness. His most famous works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals relate the historical narrative from Augustus’ death in A.D.14 to Nero’s death in A.D. 68. The Histories begin their narrative after Nero’s death and finish with Domitian’s death in A.D. 96. In his section describing Nero’s decision to blame the fire of Rome on the Christians, Tacitus affirms that the founder of Christianity, a man he calls Chrestus (a common misspelling of Christ, which was Jesus’ surname), was executed by Pilate, the procurator of Judea during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberias. Tacitus was hostile to Christianity because in the same paragraph he describes Christus’ or Christ’s death, he describes Christianity as a pernicious superstition. It would have therefore been in his interests to declare that Jesus had never existed, but he did not, and perhaps he did not because he could not without betraying the historical record.

As it did with the Hebrew Scriptures, archaeology has brought to light many interesting artifacts in support of the inspired record contained in the Christian Greek Scriptures.

For instance –

Pontius Pilate Inscription. It was in 1961 that the first archaeological find was made with reference to Pontius Pilate. ( the person who put Jesus to death) This was a stone slab located at Caesarea, which bore in Latin the name of Pontius Pilate

Lucian of Samosata
Lucian was a Greek satirist of the latter half of the second century. He therefore lived within two hundred years of Jesus. Lucian was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it. He particularly objected to the fact that Christians worshipped a man. He does not mention Jesus’ name, but the reference to the man Christians worship is a reference to Jesus.

Suetonius
Suetonius was a Roman historian and a court official in Emperor Hadrian’s government. In his Life of Claudius he refers to Claudius expelling Jews from Rome on account of their activities on behalf of a man Suetonius calls Chrestus [another misspelling of Christus or Christ].

Pliny the Younger
Pliny was the Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor (AD. 112). He was responsible for executing Christians for not worshipping or bowing down to a statue of the emperor Trajan. In a letter to the emperor Trajan, he describes how the people on trial for being Christians would describe how they sang songs to Christ because he was a god.

Thallus and Phlegon
Both were ancient historians and both confirmed the fact that the land went dark when Jesus was crucified. This parallels what the Bible said happened when Jesus died.

Mara Bar-Serapion
Some time after 70 A.D., Mara Bar-Sarapion, who was probably a Stoic philosopher, wrote a letter to his son in which he describes how the Jews executed their King. Claiming to be a king was one of the charges the religious authorities used to scare Pontius Pilate into agreeing to execute Jesus.

Josephus
Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born in either 37 or 38 AD and died some time after 100 AD. He wrote the Jewish Antiquites and in one famous passage described Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works and calls him the Christ. He also affirmed that Jesus was executed by Pilate and actually rose from the dead!


Martyr
Justin Martyr, born A.D. 100 in Palestine, called himself a Samaritan but was probably of Greek or Roman ancestry. A well-educated philosopher, he studied the doctrines of Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, and the Stoics, but decided Christianity was the only philosophy that was "safe and profitable." When forced to defend his beliefs to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, he referred the emperor to the report written by Pontius Pilate at the time of Jesus' crucifixion for details of the incident--a report which Martyr presumed must have been on file in the imperial archives but which has unfortunately been lost through the centuries. Martyr, of course, was killed for his beliefs.

The four Gospels
The four Gospels are the four accounts of Jesus’ life, which are contained in the New Testament part of the Bible. Historians will tell you that the closer an historical document is written to the time of the events it describes, the generally more reliable it is as a source of information about those events. Matthew’s Gospel account of Jesus’ life is now reckoned to have been written sometime between AD 70 and AD 80. Mark’s Gospel is dated between AD. 50 and AD. 65. Luke’s Gospel is dated in the early AD 60s and John’s Gospel sometime between AD 80 and 100. If Jesus died sometime in the AD 30s, it is clear that Mark, Luke and Matthew wrote their Gospels within living memory of Jesus’ death. John’s Gospel comes later and probably outside of living memory for most as John lived to an unusually old age for the ancient period, but the accuracy of his Gospel was verified no doubt by those who read the earlier Gospels.

Another feature of the Gospels is that they were written by men who either knew Jesus personally, or who knew people who themselves knew Jesus personally. Matthew was a former tax collector who became a disciple of Jesus. Mark was a close associate of Simon Peter, who is regarded as being Jesus’ most prominent disciple whilst Jesus was on the earth. Luke was a close associate of Paul who is the most famous of Christian missionaries and who wrote the largest contribution to the New Testament. Paul, in turn, was a close colleague of Simon Peter. John was the former fisherman who became the closest disciple of Jesus. The accounts of such men need to be considered at least seriously.
 
Don't bother, I'm not interested in reading your posts since you don't read mine.

You’re only reading, seeing, and believing what you want to. You’re ignoring many of the facts that have been laid out here. So your argument, or attempts at debate are invalid.
 
This is what happens when you spend too much time on atheist websites - you become myopic and start saying absurd things. :rolleyes:

By the way, do you believe in evolution? Because there is no evidence of it and no writings about it before the 1800s.

Foss - do you believe the earth revolves around the sun? Until Copernicus in the 16th century, the western world pretty much was geocentric in belief.

There were Greeks who seemed to grasp the concept of the Sun being at the center of the solar system, just as there were Greeks that had a philosophical notion that there is descent with modification. The Catholic Church and the Middle Ages certainly took care of squashing any progression along either of those lines of thought.

And there certainly were writings about evolution before the 1800s - Kant, Linnaeus...

The evidence for evolution was there - we just had to get beyond the church to allow science to present its case. Just as the church balked at a heliocentric solar system, it also balks at evolution. Now, over 400 years after Copernicus we sort of snicker when we think of people believing that the earth was the center of the universe. Will the same be true in 2336 regarding evolution? Will our 'future selves' be snickering slightly when they look back at the early 2000s and reading how people still believed in creationism, or I.D.?
 
One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth


Scientific Savvy? In U.S., Not Much

By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: August 30, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html


CHICAGO - When Jon D. Miller looks out across America, which he can almost do from his 18th-floor office at Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago, he sees a landscape of haves and have-nots - in terms not of money, but of knowledge.

Dr. Miller, 63, a political scientist who directs the Center for Biomedical Communications at the medical school, studies how much Americans know about science and what they think about it. His findings are not encouraging.

While scientific literacy has doubled over the past two decades, only 20 to 25 percent of Americans are "scientifically savvy and alert," he said in an interview. Most of the rest "don't have a clue." At a time when science permeates debates on everything from global warming to stem cell research, he said, people's inability to understand basic scientific concepts undermines their ability to take part in the democratic process.

Over the last three decades, Dr. Miller has regularly surveyed his fellow citizens for clients as diverse as the National Science Foundation, European government agencies and the Lance Armstrong Foundation. People who track Americans' attitudes toward science routinely cite his deep knowledge and long track record.
"I think we should pay attention to him," said Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, who cites Dr. Miller's work in her efforts to advance the cause of evolution in the classroom. "We ignore public understanding of science at our peril."

Rolf F. Lehming, who directs the science foundation's surveys on understanding of science, calls him "absolutely authoritative."
Dr. Miller's data reveal some yawning gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.

At one time, this kind of ignorance may not have meant much for the nation's public life. Dr. Miller, who has delved into 18th-century records of New England town meetings, said that back then, it was enough "if you knew where the bridge should be built, if you knew where the fence should be built."
"Even if you could not read and write, and most New England residents could not read or write," he went on, "you could still be a pretty effective citizen."
No more. "Acid rain, nuclear power, infectious diseases - the world is a little different," he said.
It was the nuclear power issue that first got him interested in public knowledge of science, when he was a graduate student in the 1960's. "The issue then was nuclear power," he said. "I used to play tennis with some engineers who were very pro-nuclear, and I was dating a person who was very anti-nuclear. I started doing some reading and discovered that if you don't know a little science it was hard to follow these debates. A lot of journalism would not make sense to you."
Devising good tests to measure scientific knowledge is not simple. Questions about values and attitudes can be asked again and again over the years because they will be understood the same way by everyone who hears them; for example, Dr. Miller's surveys regularly ask people whether they agree that science and technology make life change too fast (for years, about half of Americans have answered yes) or whether Americans depend too much on science and not enough on faith (ditto).
But assessing actual knowledge, over time, "is something of an art," he said. He varies his questions, as topics come and go in the news, but devises the surveys so overall results can be compared from survey to survey, just as SAT scores can be compared even though questions on the test change.
For example, he said, in the era of nuclear tests he asked people whether they knew about strontium 90, a component of fallout. Today, he asks about topics like the workings of DNA in the cell because "if you don't know what a cell is, you can't make sense of stem cell research."

More here
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/New-Poll-Gauges-Americans-General-Knowledge-Levels.aspx

Four out of Five Americans Know Earth Revolves Around Sun
Probing a more universal measure of knowledge, Gallup also asked the following basic science question, which has been used to indicate the level of public knowledge in two European countries in recent years: "As far as you know, does the earth revolve around the sun or does the sun revolve around the earth?" In the new poll, about four out of five Americans (79%) correctly respond that the earth revolves around the sun, while 18% say it is the other way around. These results are comparable to those found in Germany when a similar question was asked there in 1996; in response to that poll, 74% of Germans gave the correct answer, while 16% thought the sun revolved around the earth, and 10% said they didn't know. When the question was asked in Great Britain that same year, 67% answered correctly, 19% answered incorrectly, and 14% didn't know.

______________________________________________________________-

You spoke too soon foxy.
Some people still believe the sun revolves around the earth
I wonder who these 20% of clueless americans are.
Probably part of the proudly untutored.
 
Foss - do you believe the earth revolves around the sun? Until Copernicus in the 16th century, the western world pretty much was geocentric in belief.

There were Greeks who seemed to grasp the concept of the Sun being at the center of the solar system, just as there were Greeks that had a philosophical notion that there is descent with modification. The Catholic Church and the Middle Ages certainly took care of squashing any progression along either of those lines of thought.

And there certainly were writings about evolution before the 1800s - Kant, Linnaeus...

The evidence for evolution was there - we just had to get beyond the church to allow science to present its case. Just as the church balked at a heliocentric solar system, it also balks at evolution. Now, over 400 years after Copernicus we sort of snicker when we think of people believing that the earth was the center of the universe. Will the same be true in 2336 regarding evolution? Will our 'future selves' be snickering slightly when they look back at the early 2000s and reading how people still believed in creationism, or I.D.?
No, they'll likely be as discredited as the eugenics crowd is - and probably lumped in with them.

There is no scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution - only biased, filtered interpretation of physical remains and computer models that have no basis in reality. Still waiting for that missing link.
 
No, they'll likely be as discredited as the eugenics crowd is - and probably lumped in with them.

There is no scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution - only biased, filtered interpretation of physical remains and computer models that have no basis in reality. Still waiting for that missing link.

Just as Copernicus' ideas were claimed as heresy... Galileo was convicted of heresy for going against the Bible and following Copernicus - that was the crime he was 'guilty' of - that is why he spent a large part of his latter years under house arrest. He went against the Bible.

Isn't that similar to evolution - it goes against the Bible - against God's word.

I certainly feel that creationism will be likely as discredited as the flat earth crowd is today - and probably lumped in with them.

Foss - God is no less if you follow the path of evolution, ID or creationism - or do you believe that somehow He will be 'less' as evolution becomes more and more accepted as fact? The church certainly tried to hold onto the geocentric ideal - the idea that the earth/man was God's chosen center as their 'fact'. That a heliocentric model would lessen us, and our God. But, that wasn't the case. Truth is what matters... the truth that we aren't the center of the universe was more important than holding onto an archaic religious based ideal. It was the way astronomy was advanced. You seem to be afraid of finding truths, that somehow it will lessen God - it won't. Biology advances as evolution became accepted, with no lessening of God.
 
Just as Copernicus' ideas were claimed as heresy... Galileo was convicted of heresy for going against the Bible and following Copernicus - that was the crime he was 'guilty' of - that is why he spent a large part of his latter years under house arrest. He went against the Bible.

Isn't that similar to evolution - it goes against the Bible - against God's word.
No, he did not. I'd love to hear your argument that the Bible argues geocentrism.
 
No, he did not. I'd love to hear your argument that the Bible argues geocentrism.

ohhhh.... dueling Bible verse - I get to go first - Bible supports geocentricism...

Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
-1 Chronicles 16:30

Your turn foss - your verse that shows that the earth revolves around the sun...

Oh, and yes, according to the church, and their priests' interpretation of the Bible, Galileo was a heretic. He was going against the Bible's support of geocentricism - and to keep from going to prison and being threatened with torture he publicly confessed that he had been wrong to have said that the earth moves around the sun.
 
ohhhh.... dueling Bible verse - I get to go first - Bible supports geocentricism...

Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
-1 Chronicles 16:30

Your turn foss - your verse that shows that the earth revolves around the sun...
More like 'dueling websites' I'm sure. :rolleyes:

1. Your translation is flawed - this is the KJV:

30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

2. You took the verse out of context, as the meaning of the passage is talking about the world's population, not the physical planet. This is a praise from Asaph the psalmist, and he's not making a claim about cosmology, but referring to the stability of mankind when it worships God.

Nice try, fail. What website did you get that out of context reference from, Vapo-rub? I know you didn't know the verse on your own. :rolleyes:

26 For all the gods of the people are idols: but the LORD made the heavens. 27 Glory and honour are in his presence; strength and gladness are in his place. 28 Give unto the LORD, ye kindreds of the people, give unto the LORD glory and strength. 29 Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come before him: worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness. 30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved. 31 Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice: and let men say among the nations, The LORD reigneth. 32 Let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof: let the fields rejoice, and all that is therein. 33 Then shall the trees of the wood sing out at the presence of the LORD, because he cometh to judge the earth.
As far as my verse - no, it's your claim, so it's your burden of proof.

You haven't met it yet.
Oh, and yes, according to the church, and their priests' interpretation of the Bible, Galileo was a heretic.
You mean according to the CATHOLIC church. You know where I stand regarding the Catholic church. Wouldn't be the first time the priests misinterpreted something.

He did not go against the Bible per your claim. FAIL again. But it's not surprising that your secular mind would equate 'Bible' with 'church' and 'church' with 'Catholic church.'

In the middle ages and well into the Renaissance, the Roman Catholic Church did teach geocentrism, but was that based upon the Bible? The Church’s response to Galileo (1564–1642) was primarily from the works of Aristotle (384–322 BC) and other ancient Greek philosophers. It was Augustine (AD 354–430), Thomas Aquinas (1224–1274) and others who ‘baptized’ the work of these pagans and termed them ‘pre-Christian Christians’. This mingling of pagan science and the Bible was a fundamental error for which the Church eventually paid a tremendous price.

Ponder this verse:
Job 26:7 (King James Version)

7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
And this one:
Psalm 103:12 (King James Version)

12As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.
 
:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:

I'm sorry, it strikes me as funny when someone who is unable to understand most of what Hume says cites Hume. ;)
 
you can't see a tree to the END of ALL earth, unless the earth is flat.
It's always amusing when an atheist who doesn't understand the difference between a vision and reality tries to quote the Bible.:bowrofl: Not only that, but the view of a pagan in the Bible is not necessarily endorsed by the Bible. FAIL.
 
from a high mountain, this is only possible if the earth is flat.
Weak.

Aside from whatever opinion you have of the Bible, the fact is, it would actually be impossible for the supernatural to be absent during a meeting between Jesus and the devil, as described in Matthew 4:1-8. How else would the devil manage to find Jesus in the desert in Matthew 4:3? How else would the devil bring Jesus to the 'the highest point of the temple' in Matthew 4:5? And how else would he transport Jesus to the 'very high mountain' in Matthew 4:8?

Matthew's portrayal of the meeting between Jesus and the devil involves the supernatural. So how did the devil represent to Jesus 'all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor'? The answer seems obvious: by means of the supernatural.

So why does the devil take Jesus up to a 'very high mountain' when he could have used his supernatural powers in a valley, or in a plain, etc., to show Jesus all the kingdoms of the world? Because, a king is elevated. It is the king who has the highest seat in a palace. It is the king who has the highest seat in a coliseum. It is the king to whom others lower themselves by bowing.

So if the devil is going to tempt someone by offering to make him the king of the world, where else would be more appropriate than the top of a 'very high mountain?'

Consider the succession of temptations in Matthew 4:1-11:

• The first takes place in a desert.

• The second involves the highest point on the Temple in Jerusalem.

• And the third takes place on a mountain.

The pattern is clear: As the loftiness of the temptation increases, so does the height from which it is offered.

But, for the sake of argument, what if a person, who lived during the time of Jesus, actually thought that the earth was flat? Would that person really think that if he stood on a high mountain that he would be able to see the entire world - all the kingdoms in their splendor?

That would be easy to doubt. You don't have to be a 21st-century scientist to realize that there are limits as to how far the human eye can perceive detail and color. Anyone standing on a hilltop overlooking a valley, or standing on a shoreline looking out to the sea, would realize that the human eye can see only so far before details are washed out into the horizon.

Even a person living in ancient times would have realized that he could not see far enough, under any normal circumstances, to see all of the kingdoms of the world from any one vantage point.

Remember, the ancients traveled by foot. They often measured their journeys by the number of days that it took to complete the trip. The Bible records many examples of this. A man living in ancient times, taking a journey that lasted a day or more, would have realized that even when there are no trees or mountains or hills to obstruct your view, you still can't see your destination point at the start of your journey.

You really need to stop getting your info from www.atheistpussy.org.
 
you are not trying to debate an arguement with me so much as try to evangelize me.
Don't flatter yourself. I don't even know you.

Besides, you're in so much denial that you wouldn't be worth the effort.

Trust me, you're beyond evangelizing.
 
still believe in miracles?
Proof by assertion from a known racist. Yawn.

Exit question: Does Renan assert that Jesus did not exist?

I highly recommend this book:

Amazon.com: Who Moved the Stone? (9780310295617): Frank Morison: Books

Frank Morison set out to disprove the resurrection and ended up confirming it.

Of course, you're not open minded enough to bother, clinging to your beliefs with an unshakeable, blind faith, but it's out there if you change your mind. Either way, I'm bored with continually smacking down your silly attacks. I'm moving on.
 
irony yet again.
Unlike you, I've thoughtfully responded to your silly attacks and claims directly, and not with the inane one-liners oozing denial and reeking of condescension that so frequently lace your 'responses.' Your only recourse is to continue throwing spaghetti against the wall in the hope that something will stick. You don't have anything to follow up with because you've gotten your 'information' from atheist websites that don't themselves tolerate rebuttals. Thus, you are left with shallow, meaningless talking points followed by snarky 5th grade level insults.

Classic example below:
you haven't smacked down any.
Reality is obviously not your strong suit.

Once again you demonstrate that you don't read my posts.

Go ahead and talk past me - it's what you do - and that's beside the fact that you are a one trick pony with no other interest or knowledge of anything outside attacking Christians and religion in general.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top