[Sesquipedalian]

There, answer posted, Kamikaze.  Hope it helps.  PM me if you want.  Now I'm off to bed...

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
*holds head in hands*

No, no, no, no, no.  The mass of mis-assumption and misunderstanding of the Bible is overwhelming here.  The whole discussion is based on a fundamental miscontrual of what the Bible's purpose and intentions are.  The Bible's intent is to guide us into a relationship with God in Jesus Christ.  It uses all sorts of literary genres for this task, including songs, histories, letters, myths, collections of wise sayings, parables, novel-like stories, you name it.  That is what it is doing, and trying to force its every word to be a factual truth is a horrible violence to what Scripture presents itself as doing, and shows a dramatic disrespect for it.  Let the Bible tell you what it is trying to do, don't you tell it!  If it feels like using a myth, let it use a myth!  Who are we to tell God that he's wrong to do so?

On the off chance that anyone is interested in reading a more carefully considered and fully wrought discussion about this, follow this link to a recently completed paper of mine.  
(Note that it was intended for a readership within theological circles, so there is a bit of jargon, but nothing too intense in that respect.)

Regarding hell:  

Contrary to popular opinion, the actual biblical teaching on the final fate of those who choose to reject God is eternal destruction, not eternal torture.  That idea is an inheritance from our pre-Christian past, not from the Bible.  No one will be sitting around in misery, or talking with their fellow inmates or whatever.  They will have of their own free choice decided that death is better than God, God will have granted them their choice, and they will have ceased to exist.

Have you ever read Revelations? It says that all who did not believe will be thrown in the lake of fire. Read the book. No sense in trying to appease the "heathens" on what the Bible says.

BTW I know that my last post was grammerly incorrect. I did it that way to be funny. Now shut your traps and stop calling me arrogant.

As for carbon dating. It's a bunch of crap. Now I'm not just saying that because I'm a Christian. I'm saying that because scientificly it's unscientific. It's unscientific because you need to know the amount of parent/daughter materials in the object and how much left/went into it. The only thing they know is how much is in the object right now. And don't try to reject this with some Artic ice bubble crap. The only thing that tells you is how much of that stuff in right there. Not what was or left/came into the bone you're testing.

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
As for carbon dating. It's a bunch of crap. Now I'm not just saying that because I'm a Christian. I'm saying that because scientificly it's unscientific...

Oh, and claiming as historical fact that a man rose from the dead simply because a 2,000 year-old book of poetry said so IS scientific?

Please. At least carbon dating uses the scientific method to try to prove its conclusions. The Bible doesn't even TRY to use the scientific method to prove its conclusions.

Whenever science reaches a factual conclusion that doesn't fit the current theory, scientists try to find a new theory that will fit the facts. If religion encounters a factual conclusion that doesn't fit the current theory in this case, the story of the Bible), the priests try to completely ignore the factual conclusion and deem it irrelevant, now matter how much evidence there is to support it.

The whole Great Flood thing is a case in point. The Bible says there was a Great Flood thing that covered the entire Earth a few thousand years ago. Geology tells us that while there was flooding here and there in various parts of the world, there's no evidence of such a worldwide flood having ever occurred. Bible-thumper then say when evidence of an extensive flooding in Meditteranean is found, "Aha! There was flooding here! Therefore, there must have been flooding everywhere else at this time because the Bible said there was a Great Flood!"

How "unscientific" does THIS sound?

[Bobboau]

ok we know how much there is now, and we know how fast it disapears, and we know how much is in the atmosphere at any given time, so how is it unscientific to just calculate how long it would take a given amount to go from were it was to were it is?
further how is it that on dates we know, carbon dateing confirms those dates in the vast majority of the cases?

[Stealth]

let's try to keep it to one argument at a time please people... when the argument is done we'll move on to another

[CP5670]

Well, if that fellow can come back to life then so can I. ph34r the zombie mathematician!!

(do NOT start that argument again CP, not in this thread at least, I do beleve the sence of good and evil are an in born instinct and we have a cumpultion twards good, {mearly explaining how the statement does not conflict with my previus statments, not starting the argument})

bah, I already showed you why that made no sense...

Whenever science reaches a factual conclusion that doesn't fit the current theory, scientists try to find a new theory that will fit the facts. If religion encounters a factual conclusion that doesn't fit the current theory in this case, the story of the Bible), the priests try to completely ignore the factual conclusion and deem it irrelevant, now matter how much evidence there is to support it.

Actually, that's one thing I really like about these "extreme" religions over the "moderate" religions; at least they are honest, and they don't claim to hold any consistency with science. They just say that science is all wrong, and now god will smiteth you.

[Dark_4ce]

Funilly enough, I also believe in god, yet I also believe in evolution. Why couldn't he have created everything in that way, that he just makes it happen as if it looks like its all random acts of uncertainty that created stuff and then let that stuff evolve over time? Whats the fun in making everything in a second? I love building model airplaines and making puzzle, there'd be no fun in doing it in a second! I don't understand why it has to usually be one or the other extreme really... Science or Religeon... The reason I believe in evolution is that theres pritty damn solid evidence that it exists and the reason I believe in god is that even if evolution exists how the hell did a mass of atoms decide to group together to create something living? How does something inorganic and not alive, turn alive? And I also have faith, cause there would have been no chance in hell of me making it through the army if I didn't have any.  Oh well, heading back to the topic of this whole thread I guess his name would have to be Pablo. But thats just his nickname....

[CP5670]

How does something inorganic and not alive, turn alive?

There is an easy answer to that; what we call "living" matter is really just as dead as the "nonliving" matter, and this will start becoming more apparent in the coming centuries.

[Dark_4ce]

good point.

[HotSnoJ]

Now I ask.
What do you have to lose if you believe that God is real? Give me five good answers, not jokes. And no crap about sex, drugs, and beer. No crap about changing your lifes before either, Jesus accepts you as you are. Though He changes you in the end. Like clay, the sculpter take the clay as it is. The sculpter doesn't take the clay already sculpted, no thats why he takes it in the first place, to make something with it. It's the same with you. Jesus (sculpter) takes you as you (clay) are and makes you a masterpiece.

And all you who are anti-christian and for science. How come all the first great scientists were Christian? They were against the Roman Church (current day Cathlic Church). Read a Christian based History book and you'll see (I say Christian based book 'coz I know of no secular book that will tell you the truth).

[01010]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Now I ask.
What do you have to lose if you believe that God is real? Give me five good answers, not jokes. And no crap about sex, drugs, and beer. No crap about changing your lifes before either, Jesus accepts you as you are. Though He changes you in the end. Like clay, the sculpter take the clay as it is. The sculpter doesn't take the clay already sculpted, no thats why he takes it in the first place, to make something with it. It's the same with you. Jesus (sculpter) takes you as you (clay) are and makes you a masterpiece.

And all you who are anti-christian and for science. How come all the first great scientists were Christian? They were against the Roman Church (current day Cathlic Church). Read a Christian based History book and you'll see (I say Christian based book 'coz I know of no secular book that will tell you the truth).

Looks like Jesus ****ed up royally with you my friend.

The whole point in believing that something is real is just that. Believeing, I find it hard to believe and therefore don't. You can't just say to someone "Believe, c'mon what have you got to lose" and expect them to just go "ok".

[Warlock]

This is starting to become amusing thou

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ


Have you ever read Revelations? It says that all who did not believe will be thrown in the lake of fire. Read the book. No sense in trying to appease the "heathens" on what the Bible says.

*sigh*

I'm taking the Bible as what it presents itself to be.  The opinions of non-believers play no part in the issue, nor do the preconceived notions of fundamentalists, evangelicals, neo-orthodox or liberals.  If one wants to hear what the Bible actually says, HotSnoJ, one has to read what it actually says.  That's what I try to do, and surprise, surprise, my theology doesn't fit nicely into any of the usual camps as a result.

If you really have respect for the Bible, let it teach you.  If you read all your assumptions into it, you aren't listening to it, just to yourself.

[phreak]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
How come all the first great scientists were Christian?

They were killed otherwise

[CP5670]

How come all the first great scientists were Christian?

Depends on what you include in your category of "great scientists;" the truly first ones probably lived before any religions existed.

[phreak]

now that i realize it, i forgot pythagoras and all the other ancient greeks

[Kamikaze]

Interesting answer Sesquipedalian, I see you've put thought in your religion.

However this is the deducing of historians with their limited evidence right? So I guess my conclusion is that it was possible that Jesus was revived but we don't really know for sure. I won't refute it since we don't know enough about biology to claim that revival isn't possible (though I'd assume something like this is highly unlikely) 100%, but I can't accept what historians think with their limited evidence.

A point I'd like to talk about is, if Jesus really was revived. Is there not a possibility that the responsibility goes to the construction of the body rather than god? What if there was no 'divine intervention' in the matter? What evidence is there that god was reviver and no the human body?

About famous scientists being religious: Bull....
many scientists were religious but quite a few questioned their faith or twisted their religion to suit their scientific claims.
For example Kepler originally thought orbits would be circular because of god but he found they were elliptical, he questioned his faith but I think he twisted his religion to suit his vision of the creator and science.
You are also limiting yourself to famous scientists which aren't necessarily the most important.

BTW: carbon dating is better than saying god faked the world to look older like many religious nuts say...

[Lonestar]

The fact we still speak of God after such a long time, and the fact the bible has lasted longer then any book in the entire world should reinforce ones beleif there is a God. Also, many stories in the bible have been proven scientifically to have happened, however some will say people were writing the bible, but what happened was a mere geological happening and had nothing to do with God.

The whole thing in a nutshell, all of what we speak of here, those who oppose and are for, has been foretold. In the end its all about faith. Either you beleive or you dont, those who dont will not have a spot with God and those who do will.

Its God's way of cleansing the earth, so let the non-beleivers take their place, so us Beleivers can have ours.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by Kamikaze

Interesting answer Sesquipedalian, I see you've put thought in your religion.

However this is the deducing of historians with their limited evidence right? So I guess my conclusion is that it was possible that Jesus was revived but we don't really know for sure. I won't refute it since we don't know enough about biology to claim that revival isn't possible (though I'd assume something like this is highly unlikely) 100%, but I can't accept what historians think with their limited evidence.

A point I'd like to talk about is, if Jesus really was revived. Is there not a possibility that the responsibility goes to the construction of the body rather than god? What if there was no 'divine intervention' in the matter? What evidence is there that god was reviver and no the human body?

Know for sure?  No.  We know nothing for sure.  But as near as I can tell, it is as sure as claims that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River with his armies in 49 B.C. (which he did, going on to march on Rome and take it, ending the Republic and starting the Empire).

We know nothing for sure in this world, not even that own own experience is valid and true.  Look at John Nash, the brilliant schizophenic mathematician whose life story became the basis for A Beautiful Mind.  He only attained a right relationship with the world by not believing what his experience told him.  So even this most fundamental source of information must still ultimately be trusted as a matter of pure faith.  That faith in our senses is the foundation for just about everything else we do or think, but it itself has no basis except that we just plain assume it to be true.

So what do we do?  How do we decide what to believe?  By wieghing up the implications of each alternative belief and seeing which best fits with the rest of reality as it has presented itself to us.  Given my experience, Christianity looks to be true.

Anyway, about the other question: Well, it may be theoretically possible, sure.  But I'd say not.  If something this odd happens, with nothing else like it recorded in history, it seems more likely to me that God intervened in the course of nature than that nature just spontaneously decided to reverse it's laws for this one special occasion.  Nature never does that, and couldn't really, being the impersonal force it is.  To decide to change the laws like that in this one case only makes sense in the context of an active will, an active person.

Resurrection isn't the same thing as revival, by which I mean that Jesus wasn't just "mostly" dead and then his body repaired itself via some strange, unknown natural process.  Jesus was 100% dead, and was raised again to life via the supernatural act of God.  The resurrection is significant precisely because it wasn't explicable by any natural means -- only God could have done it.

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian

Anyway, there's one other small point I need to make.  Resurrection isn't the same thing as revival, by which I mean that Jesus wasn't just "mostly" dead and then his body repaired itself via some strange, unknown natural process.  Jesus was 100% dead, and was raised again to life via the supernatural act of God.  The resurrection is significant precisely because it wasn't explicable by any natural means -- only God could have done it.

Of course I agree that nothing can be truly 'known' in the true sense of the word but because of that I will not put my faith in atheism or christianity. I'm an agnostic.

Anyway, about resurrection do we really know that it was truly resurrection rather than revival? any evidence that he was 100% dead? Are you sure it can't be credited to the writers imagination/exaggeration? Is it truly impossible to ressurect the human after it's '100% dead' via natural processes? (god is not what I call natural btw).

These kind of questions give me reason not to have faith... we can't say anything close to definite about events that happened far before us.