jump to last post 1-50 of 176 discussions (3126 posts)

Why do Christians use the Bible as evidence in Theological discussion?

  1. 60
    Rabgixposted 5 years ago

    Obviously if i'm an atheist and I don't believe in your God, why would I take your scriptures as evidence? That doesn't make any sense.

    Not to mention the bible has this nasty ideal that everything in it is true because God said its true.

    If it were that simple, everyone could publish a book and say God said everything is true and if you don't believe it you're going to Hell.

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
      Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If you wan to teach math you use a math book. f you want to teach Christianity you use the bible. It's what it was made for. But it is only effective as a text book if you already buy the basic premise that there is a god. It is never going to convince anyone a god actually exists if they don't already think it does.

      They need a separate book of proofs god exists. But that would defeat the purpose of faith.

      That's the choice they are always talking about. You want to believe or you do not want to believe. Believe and god to heaven. Don't and go to hell. If they had proof then faith would e pointless. wink

      1. 60
        Rabgixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        But math is sure to exist. Your analogy has failed.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
          Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          My analogy is fine. wink It isn't about whether one exists and the other does not.
          It was about how the books are used, to teach the subject. I was saying that when they use it to try to prove god they fail because it doesn't do that. It is only good as a text book to teach the subject it self once you already believe.

        2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Math is a construct of man, much as religion is. Just saying...

          1. SlyMJ profile image60
            SlyMJposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No, it isn't. If man didn't exist, maths (math) still would. 2 + 2 would still equal 4. The Sun would still be a measurable distance from the Earth. And the Pythagorean theorem would still be true even if there had never been a Pythagoras or anyone drawing triangles. Maths is not a concept that exists only in the minds of men; it is a fundamental quality of the universe.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
              MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, but can you tell me why 2+2=4.

              Math is just man's way of explaining distances, amounts, etc.  It is a human construct.  I have never seen a 4 walking around in nature.  Nor have I seen a dolphin doing long division.  There are amounts in nature, to be sure, but the process of naming them and categorizing them is purely human. 

              Philosophically speaking, both religion, mathematics, science, and language are all human constructs created for the same reason: To explain things.  Mathematics is repeatable only because man created it to be repeatable.  As a whole, the concept worked because it was essentially just naming things.  Essentially though, it is still based on the principle "It is this because that's what everyone says it is"

              1. SlyMJ profile image60
                SlyMJposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I think my reply went to the end rather than here. So much for my grasp of the fundamentals of life yikes)

              2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Math is the language of science and is used to communicate the concepts of our world. The English language, or any other language, fails to offer the same explanations found in math.

                1. Paul Wingert profile image80
                  Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  There are three types of faith. One is proven due to the laws of physics and observation. For instance, if you put your hand on a hot plate, you will be burned. The second is knowlege and evidenced based faith which mathmatics is a prime example. If you have a room with three chairs and you put two more charis in the room, you'll have five chairs. The third type of faith is unobserved or unproven based on hope - religion is a prime example. When you die, you go (or not go) to heaven.

                  1. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
                    Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Belief or faith in a fact is redundant and not required. Maths depend on logic, not faith.

                    If you know something with absolute certainty faith is not only not required, it is meaningless.

                    Faith is absolute certainty without evidence and counter to existing evidence. That's religious faith.

                    Anything less then that is belief in degrees.

                    However no belief at all is ever required. Belief in fact is not required because it is a fact. belief in a speculative idea is folly. Better to wait and see.

                2. 60
                  goldenfire80posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  math was here before man, the so called english language. think out the box

              3. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
                Vladimir Uhriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Melisa, you are talking about the tools not something existing in foggy mind.

              4. Gary Davis profile image60
                Gary Davisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QBv2CFTSWU   The answer to your argument.

                1. aguasilver profile image88
                  aguasilverposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Brilliant, if it was staged I love the humour, if it was for real, I fear for America.

                2. annlynn9 profile image60
                  annlynn9posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  At my church, the choir director was also a high school math teacher. You can't have music without math, and no one in my church - or any other church I've ever attended - has ever decried math or its teaching. Also, there are many home-schoolers among Christian families, and they have very strict math and science programs.

              5. kripkrip420 profile image60
                kripkrip420posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Although I am religious, I would have to disagree with you about your opinion with regards to mathematics. As the poster before me stated, mathematics exists without the minds of men/women to establish its existence. There are general laws which govern our universe and even events around the big-bang. As we have no concrete idea as to what happened before the big-bang (if there even was a before), we can't say anything of mathematics existence. However, it does make you wonder...How did the big-bang begin? There must have been something mathematical that caused it's and our beginning. If it turns out to be true that big-bang was not the ultimate "beginning", mathematics ultimately becomes the messenger of time. In fact, who's to say that mathematics didn't govern the beginning of time itself? It could also be viewed, as others in history have stated, that mathematics is the language of God.

              6. Druid Dude profile image60
                Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I can tell you how 1=3. The bible says that we live in a perfect universe. Math agrees. I have experienced proof that something equatable to God does exist, but my proof would not convince you. You, if that is your path, must seek your own evidence...and "God" will show you...if that is his plan. Tricky.

                1. Tlherald85 profile image60
                  Tlherald85posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah real tricky

              7. mattforte profile image92
                mattforteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Numbers and symbols are constructs of man. Math is not a construct of man, it is a construct of the universe.
                u u u u  ---- There are 4 u's there. Regardless of whether you use the "4" as a symbol, write it out, or use ë as a symbol for "4", it does not change the value.

              8. RyGuySF profile image61
                RyGuySFposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                2+2=4's existence as we read it is as Melissa says. It is just another result of mankind's ever present need to label, categorize and attempt to explain everything. I believe that by identifying limits and establishing boundaries we allow ourselves to quantitatively perceive our understanding of something to be greater than what it actually is. Taming/naming something allows the fear to be less frightening but also continues to allow mankind's assertion of a false dominance over nature and the universe in general. This somehow translates into the belief that because "I did something",  my existence is validated and I am now measurable.

                Although math is a language of man, in this case we see the actual equation in our familiar English with common amounts of items represented by our familiar cardinal numbers, 2 & 4. No, you won't see a number four walking around in the forest or the mall, but no matter what language we speak or where you live we humans recognize the same things but just use different words to describe the concepts.

                Math is repeatable because at this time it is currently the best (and most widely understood) medium we have for translating huge ideas that span across many pools of knowledge, culture, science and study. Math is a language that seems to make sense to a lot of people around the world. Aspects of achieving clear concise and measurable answers via math is comforting because we all know that math is the language of all life. Math is valuable for assisting in linking nature with evolution and conscious design. The proof is in the pudding. Read up on phi and the golden ratio. Again, more of man's attempt at explaining existence and death and all that fun stuff.

                In the end, truth does not require belief to exist. A name is not necessary for actual realization. Some things just are and that's not so bad.

              9. aravindb1982 profile image92
                aravindb1982posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Awesome explanation. Thank you... smile Am impressed.

          2. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
            Vladimir Uhriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Melisa, you are right. We know who constructed what. Man constructed religion, not God. But faith was given to us by God and we were born with it. The same is with love.

            1. Cagsil profile image84
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Another statement that is partially BS. Yes, you were born with "faith", but how you use that "faith" is what matters. It wasn't given to you by a god and to say it was is absurd.

              1. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
                Vladimir Uhriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                4186 vlad ©
                when you put
                your head into sand
                your but does not exist
                since you don’t see it

                1. Cagsil profile image84
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Are you trying to tell me you're an ostrich? I mean, if that is what you see in me, without proper knowledge and wisdom, you would only see your own reflection. So, you must be talking about yourself, because I've met very few religious folk who have any wisdom. They did have a little knowledge, but just no wisdom.

                  So good luck going forward. lol

                2. Angela Morgan profile image59
                  Angela Morganposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I totally agree with Vlad. Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

                  Have you ever seen an atom? a real atom? not just a picture. Science tells us that these tiny, very tiny, super tiny, these "can't see it with the naked eye cause they're so small" particles are the building blocks of this big, this gigantic, this "can't see the end of it" universe. People have to have faith in what these scientists tell us just as people have to have faith in what religious people tell us.

                  People have to have faith that this universe was created out of nothing, whether on purpose or by accident, or have faith that something was there to cause it to be created, materials and/or creator included.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    LOL! You don't need to have faith in what scientists tell you about atoms, you can actually find out for yourself. One would have to drag themselves screaming and kicking away from the Bible for a while, but it can be done.

                    On the flip side, when we try to find out for ourselves what religious people tell us, we find thin air... and nothing else. lol

              2. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
                Vladimir Uhriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The faith definition: is evidence, substance not seen. When one goes to school he find out shortly that he can believe that 2+2=4. The faith does not confirm 0+0=1 but 0+0=0.
                See atheists have only 50% brain cells. They believe natural, but not supernatural.  Believers know both.

                1. Cagsil profile image84
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That's the whole point- evidence requires substance and substance can be seen. So, only a gullible person would believe that. Something that escapes you. hmm

                  1. Angela Morgan profile image59
                    Angela Morganposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Here is the problem with evidence requiring substance. A person's perspective can change whether you see the substance or not.

                    Take an optical illusion for example. You may look at a picture and see an old crone. You now have substantial evidence that there is an old crone in the picture. Another person can look at the picture and see a beautiful woman. That person now has substantial evidence that there is a beautiful woman in the picture. Now, because neither person can see what the other person sees, they can only assume the other person is wrong. And so the argument goes to prove who is right. Then I come up, and as I look at the picture I see both an old crone and a beautiful woman. I now have substantial evidence to back either person up.

                    So here is the choice that lays before you and the other person, you can either continue arguing, take my word that you are both right, or look at the picture again and try to see it from a different perspective.

                    Perspective is very important when viewing evidence for anything.

                    Another example: If you are at the foot of a mountain you cannot see the top or how high it might be. You have to move away from the mountain to see it in full.

                2. Angela Morgan profile image59
                  Angela Morganposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I only half agree with you vlad, not all believers know both. Extreme right wing Christians for example don't believe in either.

              3. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
                Vladimir Uhriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Cagsil, I still love you even you are rude.

            2. brotheryochanan profile image61
              brotheryochananposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Man constructed God.  I think the generation of Hebrews at the time of mt sinai would disagree with that, probably for about 200 yrs after or even longer, well they still believe in it being from God. hmmm
              I suppose the best answer i can give is the sabbatical year of every 7th year they were not allowed to till or plant or reap from the ground. They were to let it fallow. Torah goes further to say that in the 6th year there would be enough for 3 years. Why would something that man made up go to this extreme to be so easily discredited. If man invented Gods ways i am sure this one law and a few others would be left out completely.

          3. WD Curry 111 profile image60
            WD Curry 111posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            How long has math existed? I really want to know. Can you tell me when math came into being?

        3. lizzieBoo profile image77
          lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Maths is theory too, don't forget.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No, it isn't. Math is proofs.

            1. lizzieBoo profile image77
              lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Look it up.

          2. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
            Vladimir Uhriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            lizzie, math is both.

        4. Levertis Steele profile image84
          Levertis Steeleposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You already have your unchangeable answers for this hubs, so, what is the point of attracting commenters, except to enjoy the most dangerous game, the thrill of hunting and bashing Christians for your sick pleasure? You remind me of the soldier who was lost in the jungle and did not know that the war was over. He continued to hunt., but. "It is finished," and the Victor has declared it. People follow someone who has something that they want. What do you have?

      2. mommygonebonkers profile image78
        mommygonebonkersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well, you are obviously just asking this question to argue with Christians and try to sound superior, so I won't even bother to defend my faith to you because it's pointless.

        I would however like to ask you one question: Show me proof where science has effectively created something out of nothing.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
          Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Not even your god can do that. Come now, be realistic. If there was ever nothing, nothing would exist now. Yet another reason the Christian idea of god is flawed.

          Nature, on the other hand, which is energy/mass transforming, is very creative. There is no god required.

        2. recommend1 profile image71
          recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The proof is energy and matter - the question is how it came to be in the first place.  The debate would then be whether the element in the nature of things and non-things that we don't know that caused everything to come into being is by some natural physical action and reaction - or by some supreme being who was here before everything.  If you argue for the supreme being, then where did it come from - and you are back where you started.  And you have to consider why such a being would be necessary or useful, even more to the point, why would such an amazing (if unlikely) being want insignificant little pink blobs like us to kneel down and worship it.

          1. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
            Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Right. That brings us to my ontological argument. If ever there were nothing at all then there would be nothing now. So that means something has always existed.

            Of course even saying if there were ever nothing at all is a meaningless phrase and just a way to talk about it.

            But because energy/mass can not be destroyed and can not be created, and we know it exists, energy/mass is a better candidate for something that always was and always will be in one form or other, than a super being no one has evidence for.

            It does not mean energy/mass actually is what the religious call  god, but it is the best model we have at the present.

            1. recommend1 profile image71
              recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I agree - except that I suspect that matter/energy is in a permanent state of creation.  The concept of something always being in existence is not really valid, maybe because the idea of something with no beginning or end is beyond our imagination (hence making it a god (father) may be easier to get a grip on).

              I suspect that in time we will find that there is only 'something' because otherwise there can NOT be nothing.  Like there cannot be spaces between objects without objects to create the space.  I also suspect that the idea of anti-matter will not be so far from the truth in some form or other, which could of course be anti-energy.

              1. mommygonebonkers profile image78
                mommygonebonkersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I'm hearing a lot of run around talk that's supposed to sound intelligent and make me feel small and dumb but in a nutshell no one answered my question because you have zero proof.
                And if it comes down to having faith in an Almighty, Infallible God that has always existed or some tiny insignificant blob that somehow miraculously did all the right things to create a beautiful, perfectly ordered universe with millions upon millions of stars and planets and animals and people. My money's going on that God every time.
                How did so much incredible diversity come from one eternal blob?

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Which one eternal blob would that be? wink The totality of existence? Al the energy/mass in the universe or multi verse? Tiny is relative.

                  You have to understand the laws of physics to get a sense of how energy transforms and is almost infinitely creative. The most profound revelation of my life happened when I discovered the laws of thermodynamics. It was a truly religious experience. It explains exactly how all this works.

          2. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
            Vladimir Uhriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You know brain has 1400 Gr. And you are boasting you can figure of God.

          3. WD Curry 111 profile image60
            WD Curry 111posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The supreme being can speak on his own. If you were God and someone hated you, would you talk to that person?. In the Bible God says (now this is talking to believers [not unbelievers}who are off task, not putting their hand to what they should be doing, chasing after wanton pleasure, exploiting the weak and defensless, un-following people who rubbed them the wrong way in a forum and stuff like that.) he isn't speaking to these obstinate,stiff necked adulterous believers becase they are facing in the wrong direction. He uses language that would be the modern equivilent. Of Hey! Dimwits, I would smack you awake, but I don't waste energy on stuff like that. If you keep on walking in that direction you find yourself neck deep in donkey dung and you will hollering for me to come get you out again, Come on think about the Christians you know. Most of them hqve to unbutton their shirt to see where they are going, how muck=h money do the gullible idiots give to obvious hucksters who flaunt the successful ruse from gilded, velvet upholstered chairs?.He would knock those villans out of their seat, but for some odd reason, he is going to put the consequences off untill later. Go figure . . .things haven't changed that much.

        3. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
          Vladimir Uhriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          mommygonebonkers, excellent question.

          1. Cagsil profile image84
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, it's not an excellent question, which shows that you don't understand science and neither does the person who you responded to.

            It wasn't nothing that the Universe came to be from. That "nothing" was actually something, but it was something that is beyond measurements, which appears as if it was nothing.

            1. Levertis Steele profile image84
              Levertis Steeleposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              @mommygonebonkers: Your question was excellent and thoughtful.

            2. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
              Vladimir Uhriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Cagsil, I am asking you to do me favor. Please send me your research, scientific papers (to read) what you published. Have you ever work in scientific lab? Please send me references and articles. Thanks.

              1. Cagsil profile image84
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Send my research to you? You're joking right? Send you scientific papers I've published? Again, you're joking right? I'm not a scientist. Then again, I also don't need to be a scientist to understand the singularity.
                I don't need to have worked in a scientific lab to understand scientific knowledge already available to humankind.
                References? Again you must be joking. If you're unable to recognize knowledge already available to humankind and how it was accumulated, and the reasoning behind it, then you've a lot to learn.

            3. Andy Ramjohn profile image81
              Andy Ramjohnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The simplest life form known is the single cell. To create the single cell, you need proteins which are not found anywhere in the natural world, but are created by other cells. Therefore, you need a cell to produce another cell. It is impossible to create the first cell as there are no proteins. Evolution can not find an answer to where the first cell came from - so it avoids the question smile

              1. JMcFarland profile image92
                JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                evolution does NOT address the origins of life.  How many times do you have to be told that for it to sink in?

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                  MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Biblically, it's all rolled together.  He seems to have difficulty with the concept that it is not so outside of the Bible.

                  To be honest, I can't grasp most of the "origins of the universe" theories myself as they seem to be based in hard math sciences (physics mainly, just can't grasp physics)

                  Evolution I grasp more from an anthropological standpoint than from a biological one.  My eyes tend to glaze over a bit when we get to evolutionary biology.

                  The Bible has the lure of explaining these exceptionally difficult concepts very simply.  Unfortunately, it implants the "It all happened at once" idea deeply into the mind.  It's almost impossible to shake that.

                  1. Andy Ramjohn profile image81
                    Andy Ramjohnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Macroevolution (Darwinism) claims that all things came from the same primal source - the 'primordial soup.'  Specific evolution, or microevolution states that all animals evolve or adapt within their own species, and Christians agree with this.  Is there something I'm missing?

                  2. Andy Ramjohn profile image81
                    Andy Ramjohnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Or, how about this, "For an atheist to be consistent with the very idea of atheism means that debating is absurd. The whole concept of debate assumes someone is right and someone else is wrong; so right away you are assuming a standard by which this truth can be measured, i.e., absolute truth. However, the atheist will deny absolute truth from the onset. To be a true atheist, you must eventually deny all knowledge.
                    The concept of atheism eliminates the very need for debate. If the atheist’s worldview is correct, then we are nothing but the result of accidental chemical processes and our thoughts are merely chemical reactions that take place in our brain. Therefore, nothing you ever do, or say, or even believe, matters. In the end, we all go back to “star dust.” So, why argue? Why waste your time talking to someone about the truth or falsehood of something when it doesn’t matter in the end?
                    Atheists will respond to this accusation in a couple of different ways. With incredibly shallow logic, the atheist may reply, “Well then, why do you argue for the existence of God?” Thinking that they’ve really pulled one over on you, but in fact, all they’ve done is commit a logical fallacy called the “Too Quote” fallacy or “You Too” fallacy.  In essence, what they are saying is, Well you argue for your view so I can argue for my view. When this response is given, you know that the atheist does not understand the argument you are putting forth. They are not giving a valid reason for why an atheist should argue in the first place. You see, since God exists, it is right for us to argue for his existence. However, if atheism is true, then arguing has no purpose. Some atheists might respond, “I argue so that America will not be a Christian nation. The idea of a Christian nation means that we would kill homosexuals, stone our disobedient children, and all have to wear long skirts and cover our heads.”
                    The very idea of arguing for atheism shows that they do not really believe what they claim they are saying they believe. The premise is that atheists have no reason, no basis, and no foundation for arguing. And in response to that accusation what will they do? Argue."

              2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That is a another lie and an admittance to not know anything about evolution.

      3. GinaCPocan profile image59
        GinaCPocanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If you wan to teach math you use a math book. f you want to teach Christianity you use the bible.

        This seems pretty logical to me.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You left out a rather important point: that Christianity can only be taught to one that either already believes or strongly wants to believe if you use only the bible.

          The bible can only be considered true if you already believe it is; there is little supporting evidence and none at all for the miracles and other supernatural happenings described.

          1. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
            Vladimir Uhriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            wilderness, I do not want to put you down but you are in wilderness. The faith and Word of God could be tested. You are talking about miracles. 20 years ago I got tumor (cancer) in colon. God healed me by faith. No medicine radiation or surgery. 20 years later I got metastatic carcinoma to the bone (2 spine and one face bone). Two years later bone scan was repeated and all Ca was vanished. Thanks and glory to God! I did not have checked and diagnosed before, since I was asymptomatic.
            We do not see miracles, since we practice and exercise doubt about everything.

          2. Levertis Steele profile image84
            Levertis Steeleposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I once doubted the Bible but became a believer after multiple experiences that always led me back to Jesus, the WORD. Whenever I branched away to do my own things, I always ended back at the feet of Jesus, so, though I am far from perfect, I try to remain. I just get tired of being "dragged in." Something loves me, and I believe that something is Jesus.

            1. dfbishopsr profile image65
              dfbishopsrposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Amen! Great testimony.God is faithful o never leave us nor forsake us.

            2. 60
              Rabgixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              But God's not real.

              1. 70
                paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                How could you say  that? Why to doubt the Creator God?

                1. 60
                  Rabgixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  What's your proof outside of the Bible that we even have a Creator?

                  And don't say faith. That in itself is just wishful thinking.

                  1. 70
                    paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    It is very natural to believe that the Creator God exists; like one believes in everything natural that exists.

              2. annlynn9 profile image60
                annlynn9posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Hmm.  Before Columbus a spherical earth wasn't real, before Newton gravity wasn't real, before Schwarzschild black holes weren't real, before Einstein the atom wasn't real, and before Schmidt quasars weren't real. Well, even today there are flat-earthers who refuse to believe what is real, and even till the end of the world there will be those who reject the reality of God.

                "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, 'Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us,' BUT He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision." Psalm 2:1-4

                1. Evolution Guy profile image60
                  Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  God is not real. This is not rejecting reality - it is embracing reality. See the difference?

                  Your Lord has me in derision huh? What a fantastic way to attack people and not be held accountable for your attack.

                  1. annlynn9 profile image60
                    annlynn9posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    The words are God's, not mine, and one person's reality is just another person's future discovery.

                  2. Levertis Steele profile image84
                    Levertis Steeleposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Evolution Guy,

                    If God is not real, what would be the consequences for those who are "deceived" by His existence? If He is real, what would be the consequences for those who have rejected Him? Which of these two beliefs offers more and is safer? Use logic, please.

                2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  LOL! Comparing the real world to magical sky fairies? lol

                3. annlynn9 profile image60
                  annlynn9posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  It is interesting that people who claim to be the reasonable, rational ones are the very people who can do nothing but ridicule and hurl insults. Where is the intelligent debate in that?

                  1. earnestshub profile image89
                    earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Where is the intelligent debate in endlessly quoting myths and pretending that is a form of debate?

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Are you saying that intelligent people are not capable of laughing at the hysterical and fantastical things others believe and say? And, do you actually believe those fantasies are valid for reasonable, rational and intelligent debate? Seriously, dude.

      4. Eaglekiwi profile image76
        Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Not true in my case.
        I knew the bible was primarily about God,but I really didnt understand how he rolled (so to speak) until I started reading it..

        Proverbs was the first book.
        I guess I nibbled info here n there,decided I liked the food smile

    2. liftandsoar profile image80
      liftandsoarposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      OK, Rabgix, I'm gonna assume you are not just attempting to bait Christians and try to give you a serious response.  I think you are on to something to note that Christians resort to the Bible to prove their points.  However, as has been mentioned already, that should be more of an "in house" practice than a strategy for converting non-Christians to Christ.  When Christ and others quote the Scriptures, they are usually speaking to the Jews who already accepted the OT as their authority.  Paul, when he visited Athens, didn't quote the OT.  Instead, he made reference to his audience's longing to know God evidenced by the many monuments, even one to the "unkown god."  (in case they missed one)

      When I interact with non-Christians I'm satisfied to say that the Christian faith is a reasonable world and life view.  To assert proof of in any area outside of hard science is to assume a breadth of knowledge no mere mortal has. And that, by the way, is the biggest problem I have with non-Christians - their being so absolutely certain that their view of things is right.  Given the record of mankind, that takes a stretch far beyond anything the Christian faith asks you to believe.

      Now back to reasonableness.  Let's take the central tennant of the Christian faith - the substitutionary atonement.  We believe that, because of our sin, we have lost the right to receive any good thing from God. However God has made a way by which we can be restored to friendship with him.  He, in the person of his Son, accepted the penalty for our sin on himself.  He offers himself as a substitute for the believing sinner.  That is not only overwhelmingly loving, it is reasonable.

      The other day I foolishly (for the sake of this analogy, read "sinfully") cut in front of a truck that was in my blindspot.  Fortunately, no one was hurt, but I did knock the bumper off the vehicle.  $1,500 worth of body work.  An expense I had no way of paying.  However, I had an insurance policy (read a relationship with God through Christ).  I filed the proper reports (read, confessed my sin) and the insurance company paid the debt (read, forgave my sin).  Pretty reasonable, I'd say.  And I suspect you own an insurance policy as well.

      Note, I have not quoted any Scripture to you.

      One more thing. The persuasiveness of the Christian faith is not to be found in its intellectual "proofs" but in the loving principled lives of those who follow Christ.  In that respect, many of us have failed our Lord and you.  But, still, there is enough of it out there to arrest your attention.  But are you looking?

    3. GinaCPocan profile image59
      GinaCPocanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Rabgix, this was truly a loaded question and you know it. You knew you were going to incite an argument and you got one. I have noticed, you only poke your head out of the foliage for a second just to add your two cents, only  enough to add more fuel to the fire, when you think it may be dying down then pull it back in again to watch more reactions.

    4. AEvans profile image71
      AEvansposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Can you explain to me what you believe, so that I can understand how to answer the question? How do you think we were created? You say "if I am Atheist" which are the keywords for your discussion. Do you or do you not believe? Your word obviously leads me to believe that your discussion can take either direction.

      If you are Atheist, why would you even wish to have the Bible as evidence? You would believe in Scientific theory? It doesn't make sense to me that you would even argue the question. I wouldn't ask you to take the word of God as evidence just like I do not believe in scientific theory. Most Athiest's have read the Bible completely and came to there conclusion. Have you did that?

      God is powerful and you can bet your bippy, if you were in a plane that was going down you would probably be praying for what many of us believe in. You certainly would not pray to an amoeba. I can tell you this no where in the Bible is it written that people(human beings) go to hell. I have read that Bible front to back and I am Christian. People listen to what they are taught but do not always read the word themselves. So no worries you won't be cast into a lake of fire, but at some point you will believe.

      Who do you think designed all of this? When a mother carries a child in there womb, who created that little miracle? How are the sperm and the egg able to create a human being? I am a nurse and I know it is God's design. smile

      1. Cagsil profile image84
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        lol

      2. autumn18 profile image69
        autumn18posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Who do you think designed all of this? When a mother carries a child in there womb, who created that little miracle? How are the sperm and the egg able to create a human being? I am a nurse and I know it is God's design.
        ------
        So God actively creates little miracles in the wombs of women? Not the soul of the unborn baby but the physical matter created from the connection of the sperm and egg. That needed God to happen? What makes him decide to let some women conceive and carry a child and some not? I'm just curious to see how people rationalize God creating the miracle of conception but then also letting horrible things happen. God's design must have flubbed up on me since I have not been able to conceive a child after years of trying.

        1. Levertis Steele profile image84
          Levertis Steeleposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Horrible things that happen almost always improve someone's character. We learn from horrible things. Sara, Abraham's wife probably said some of the same things that you've said after she was not able to conceive. Even though she was old, she conceived and learned some valuable lessons about faith in God.

          1. 60
            Rabgixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That is so much bullshit.

            If your daughter gets gang raped tell her it happened so she could learn something.

            1. Andy Ramjohn profile image81
              Andy Ramjohnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It didn't happen so 'she' could learn something - it happened because of bad choices - which is something we ALL can learn from

      3. Eaglekiwi profile image76
        Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well written and great to see you sharing your faith,respectfully smile

      4. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
        Vladimir Uhriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        AEvans, Thank you.

    5. 62
      ebemusicposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      if you don't believe in God don't even worry about the scriptures because they can't help you anyway.

    6. 62
      ebemusicposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The question is do you believe there is a hell? I promise you when Jesus returns you will wish you had believed in God.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jJySc7Ytihk/Ta2v_wkPYfI/AAAAAAAAAB8/4IL5F-IlA4g/s1600/church_lady.jpg

      2. 0
        jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You mean, "you will wish you had believed in me and my priests"?

      3. 60
        Apollonerosposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Lmao are you kidding me Your telling me that in a nut shell if I don't make believe the same thing as the majority I'm destined to failure or well eternal damnation do you even begin to understand how this is a manipulated society in which you are a slave your culture your religion your life worth is what you are told it is supposed to be. get off it grow up stop sucking your thumbs you don't need faith in something imaginarily absolute you say god is absolute but then say math and sience are not the same as god because they don't need faith and to prove god so that you don't need god destroys the point of faith but faith destroys the point of something absolute man discovered math and sience man has yet to discover god man has only discovered that religion gives man hope to get through the struggle of his seemingly insignificant existence but it is the world we allow our selves to live in that binds our minds and makes us think little of our selves has any one stoped to think that you are living in this life for the sake of the people around you and not a higher being I mean look at your arrogance you say you have a relationship with a supreme being but you can't even have proper relationships with the people in the world around you, I dare to say mankind will never ever know god until mankind truly knows mankind and all have a proper relationship with each other, it is inept and lazy and just down right an abandonment of your people your humanity and your responsiblity to say some god will come down to clean up your world for you, if that were the case why has he not come yet, well the only answer you could possibly come up with is the lesson has not truly been learned yet, so if that's the case I ask you what could that lesson possibly be if not that we need to get our heads out of the clouds out of the sand and quite being fourth graders saying who has less braincells and who has who's head in the sand or up they're butt

        1. 62
          stampschickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          WOW!!  That must be the longest sentence in the history of the written language,  Apolloneros!  Nearly unreadable because of lack of ending punctuations.

        2. Andy Ramjohn profile image81
          Andy Ramjohnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It's says a lot when 90% of the scientists working in the field of micro-biology, believe that an intelligent, creative agent is responsible for the creation of life. This is because in the past 40 years this science has discovered such complexity in the simplest life forms. Complexities that were unknown when theories of evolution first started. Yet, most of the posters here, who do not appear to scientists in the least way, feel they can argue with what scientists admit. wink

          1. JMcFarland profile image92
            JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            where did you get your numbers from, or did you just pull them out of your rear?  Everything I've read and studies says the opposite of what you've claimed.

            There have been several studies over the years on the rates of atheism in the top scientists in various fields, the people who are recognized as being highly accomplished. This is a letter in Nature in 1998 describing the findings of the most recent iteration of this study.

            In 1998, members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences were polled on their beliefs in human immortality and a personal god. Only 7% of the respondents reported belief in a personal god. In earlier versions of this study (in 1914 and 1933), with different groups of "greater scientists," rates of belief in a personal god are always less 30%.

            Moving down a step in terms of scientific street cred, there was also a 2007 paper which surveyed 1,646 academic scientists at 21 top universities on their belief in god. Their findings show rates of atheism at about 30% and agnosticism also at 30%, and find that the rates are not dependent on academic discipline; academic scientists in the natural and social sciences have similar rates of atheism.

            In contrast to the high rates of atheism among academic professionals, there was a study carried out by The Pew Forum on religious belief in the general population along with several other social factors, including education. 17% of American adults surveyed identified as "unaffiliated" and only 1.6% of the population said that the were atheists and 2.4% agnostic. The ~4% of the general population that identify as non-believers is clearly significantly different than the ~60% of professors and ~90% of top scientists who are non-believers. The Pew study also shows that in the population of adults with at least a high school diploma, rates of atheism do not increase with increasing educational attainment.

            This neat plot, from a Discover Magazine blog post graphs the amount of Biblical literalism in a specific religion vs the amount of postgraduate education level of its adherents found in the Pew Forum survey.

            As for students in the sciences going through a change from theism to atheism, a 2009 study of 26,200 college students over 6 years actually showed that students in the social sciences and humanities are more likely to become less involved in, and lose interest in, their religion than students in the physical sciences. The explanation the authors give for the lack of change among science students is two fold: 1) Religions have already effectively worked to integrate belief in science with belief in religion, so learning about science doesn't change the way a student views the world and 2) There's a lower level of religiosity in science students to start with. Very religious students are drawn to humanities and social sciences degrees, and have more potential for a significant change in their religiosity than the less religious students in the physical sciences.

            Bottom line: Becoming a scientist doesn't seem to make you an atheist, but badass scientists tend to be atheists.

            1. Andy Ramjohn profile image81
              Andy Ramjohnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Well my friend, I could say those bits of info are biased. Or I could ask what happens to the scientists who admits a belief in a God, in a Darwinian society? Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, expertly demonstrates the overwhelming problems that evolution theory has in explaining the complexities of the simplest life forms.  For example, the system in the body that causes blood to clot to prevent bleeding to death is irreducibly complex. To reduce coagulation cascade in the slightest would mean certain death to an animal or human. Behe claims that, "no one on earth has the vaguest idea how the coagulation cascade came to be."
              Evolution claims that all life evolved through many gradual changes and mutations, yet scientists have discovered many irreducibly complex systems which did not evolve gradually at all, but are the creation of intelligent design. Note that to reduce these systems in the slightest would mean they would not work at all, not that they would work less efficiently. the defense system of the Bombardier beetle, the complexity of a bacterial flagellum, the movement of a cilium, the mind-boggling complexity of vesicular transport and even the immune system are all excellent examples of systems which evolution is totally helpless to explain.
              Behe points out that in america, evolution theory has become like a religion for many scientists, partly because of the heated debate amongst some Christian fundamentalists and scientists over the years. The fundamentalists attack the scientists, who in turn defend their positions for reasons that are no longer scientific. The argument has become one of pride, rather than seeking to discover the truth. Sadly, this positions has also meant that textbooks continue to be used in schools and universities which are grossly out of date, namely, because the alternative - teaching that an intelligent agent created the world - would be seen as a backward step and a defeat by liberal Darwinians.

              1. JMcFarland profile image92
                JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                you didn't answer my question.  I asked where you got the statistics that you claim state that over 90% of biologists are Christians - or believe in some other god.  If you can't point to a non-biased, independent study that supports those numbers, I'm going to assume that you just made them up.  Unlike your points that pull numbers out of a hat, what I posted points to independent studies that can be looked up and critically examined.  where's yours?

                The rest of your post is just an argument from authority/popularity and it doesn't address the questions at all.  I can quote single people all day long that refute your claims.  You're going to have to do better than that.

                1. Andy Ramjohn profile image81
                  Andy Ramjohnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The numbers come from Dr. Michael Behe, in his book "Darwin's Black Box" p.239. i'm sure he cites the references in that book, which I can not look up as I do not have a copy available atm. I know you will say this is biased information, but nonetheless...
                  He is a Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. He received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. His current research involves delineation of design and natural selection in protein structures. In addition to teaching and research I work as a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture.
                  In addition to publishing over 35 articles in refereed biochemical journals, He has also written editorial features in Boston Review, American Spectator, and The New York Times. His book, Darwin's Black Box, discusses the implications for neo-Darwinism of what he calls "irreducibly complex" biochemical systems and has sold over 250,000 copies. The book was internationally reviewed in over one hundred publications and recently named by National Review and World magazine as one of the 100 most important books of the 20th century.
                  He has presented and debated his work at major universities throughout North America and England.
                  smile

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                    MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I can google too:

                    Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community,[3][4] and his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing Behe's views and intelligent design.

                    and:

                    Behe served as an expert witness for the defense in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Under cross examination, he was obliged to admit: [3]
                    That no peer-reviewed scientific journal has published research supportive of intelligent design's claims.
                    That Behe's own book was not, as he had claimed, peer reviewed.
                    That Behe himself criticizes the science presented as supporting intelligent design in instructional material created for that purpose.
                    That intelligent design seems plausible and reasonable to inquirers in direct proportion to their belief or nonbelief in God.
                    That the basic arguments for evidence of purposeful design in nature are essentially the same as those adduced by the Christian apologist Rev. William Paley (1743–1805) in his 1802 Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected From the Appearances of Nature, where he sums up his observations of the complexity of life in the ringing words, "The marks of design are too strong to be got over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is GOD."[4]
                    That the definition of "theory" supplied by the US National Academy of Sciences[5] did not encompass ID, and that his broader definition would allow astrology to be included as a scientific theory.[6][7]
                    That he had claimed in his book that evolution could not explain immunology without even investigating the subject. He was presented with 58 peer reviewed articles, nine books, and several textbook chapters on the subject; he insisted they were "not good enough."[8].

          2. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I'm wondering if this is willful ignorance or just plain blatant lies?

            Why are believers so compelled to lie to us as if we're little children trying to understand where the presents under the Christmas tree came from?

      4. Levertis Steele profile image84
        Levertis Steeleposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        @ebemusic: So true!

        @Apolloneros: You said,
        "you say you have a relationship with a supreme being but you can't even have proper relationships with the people in the world around you, I dare to say mankind will never ever know god until mankind truly knows mankind and all have a proper relationship with each other" So, so true!! How can we say we love God, and we prove daily that we do not love each other. " If we believe that "God is love," and we do not love our fellowman, we are liars. Now, the rest of what you said is another story.

    7. Pintoman profile image60
      Pintomanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Why do atheists say they use reason when they can't believe it exists? Where is the atheists proof that there is no God? You only believe in absolute proof right?

      1. 60
        Rabgixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Empirical evidence vs. an old book written ages ago

        If this is how your reasoning works then I suggest you give up on life altogether.

    8. Dim Flaxenwick profile image57
      Dim Flaxenwickposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There IS NO Hell!!!!  Religious leaders for thousands of years have used this abhorent teaching to frighten people into ´´behaving thmselves´´  i.e. behaving as the religious leaders would like them too.
      For many years that meant poor people giving money to the church ,., oh the poor church......   Just look at the Vatican or remember that the Church of England is one of the largest landowners after the Queen.
      In America are the Evangelical´ Billy Graham type preachers EVER poor???
        l don´t think so.   Religion is a snare and a racket, but if you can find the time to read and understand the bible properly (just let it interperate itself) you´ll see that the whole book , fits together like a jigsaw puzzle, despite being written by Shepherds, Fishermen, Kings,  a tax colector, a doctor. and others with extremely diverse occupations.
        To understand and believe in the bible (not organised religion) is  true blessing and makes for a happy way of life.
      l hope l haven´t gone too far away from your original question.

      1. Levertis Steele profile image84
        Levertis Steeleposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Organized religion is a problem because there are so many! There are so many people in these religions who are earnestly trying to do their best for Jesus. How can a loving God overlook them? I believe that they will be saved, even though they are from a variety of religions. They are doing their BEST, and that means that their hearts are right.

        Your view of the Bible speaks volumes. Only one who studies it diligently can see the puzzle pieces coming together.

    9. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
      Vladimir Uhriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Mr. atheist, senses and faith really do not make senses. They are completely different levels.

      1. Cagsil profile image84
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You do realize the above statement is BS? Right?
        Only to the gullible. wink

    10. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
      Vladimir Uhriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Rabgix, you must be product of college professors. They never run any business except loan mover. They use Marxist's books. Bible never say it is all truth. The Bible is truly recorded. There is also devil's lie. Jesus was talking truth and it may set us free. Secondly, God does not want anyone to die or go do Hell. It's only depending on our decision.  You do not know anything about Bible.

    11. TJenkins602 profile image76
      TJenkins602posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Because the Bible says so tongue

      1. Cagsil profile image84
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And, if it told you to jump off a bridge or the tallest building you could find, does that make okay to do? lol

      2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Therefore, we must accept this as absolute truth big_smile

    12. Dave Mathews profile image59
      Dave Mathewsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Why did you bother asking the question since you have apparently already made up your mind what answers you will accept and what you want to hear. You are a closed minded individual.

      1. 0
        jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        As if you are the most broad-minded person alive!!

        Luke 6:37 - "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
        Luke 6:42 - "How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."


        At least try to practice what you preach!!

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
          Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          At least he has a theory to preach about wink

          They say black -you say white

          1. 0
            jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The same as politicians, and look where they have got us!! lol

      2. Andy Ramjohn profile image81
        Andy Ramjohnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        In 2 Thess. 2 Paul was speaking of a future generation of Christians who would be deceived and led away into a great falling away from New Testament Christianity. He predicts that they would get involved in an unrighteous deception, “because they did not receive the love of the truth that they might be saved, and for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be condemned who do not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”( 2 Thess. 2:10,11).  "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." John 3:19 smile

    13. 0
      jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What else they got?
      They obviously can't use reason and logic.

    14. Dave Mathews profile image59
      Dave Mathewsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What would you have us use, a dictionary, a baseball bat, or maybe like Muslims strap a bomb to ourselves. We use the Bible because it is the truth, God's Truth, and just may one day what we try to help you to learn will sink in.

    15. dfbishopsr profile image65
      dfbishopsrposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If a 'person' stood before you and said, "I am God" would you believe him?
      Faith is the only way to know God. It is to the person of faith that He makes Himself known. The evidence of things not seen iare the things that are seen. Look at the intricate harmony of the human body, with it's seven systems and the dependence all seven have on each other. See photosynthesis and it's interaction with, and dependence on, human life, look at the heavens and say their majesty just happened: and we could go on and on and on, example after example, evidence after evidence Oh there can be dispute but the years have taught me that he who does not believe chooses so.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        LOL! None of those things are evidence for a gods existence. lol

        1. dfbishopsr profile image65
          dfbishopsrposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          What do they tell you? Evolution? Happenstance? What? Surely when you look at the nature of things some thought, question, or opinion as to their origin enters into your mind - Speaking of mind, where do you suppose the reasoning mind comes from?

          1. Evolution Guy profile image60
            Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            LOLOLOLO Majik?

            Sorry you are incapable of reason.

            FSM dunnit - there is no other answer.

            RAmen

            1. dfbishopsr profile image65
              dfbishopsrposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              It is a shame that  'derogatory' has to become your communication tool.

              1. Evolution Guy profile image60
                Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry you are incapable of understanding.

                Jesus must be turning in his grave.

                I pity you.

          2. Cagsil profile image84
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The origins? If it wasn't for science determining how the Earth was formed and how evolution works, then there would be no explanation for why nature exists. But, since it does, we know.
            It comes from the left side of the brain, which was brought on by human consciousness(self awareness) and a need to understand the world around us.

            Why? Where do you think reasoning comes from? God? Not!

            1. Andy Ramjohn profile image81
              Andy Ramjohnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Science also 'determined' that the Earth was flat, punishable by death if you didn't agree. That's science. You also answered the question with a question... "Why? Where do you think reasoning comes from? " How about giving it some thought instead? Also, if evolution is correct, where does the desire to love come from?

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this
                1. Zelkiiro profile image84
                  Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Love -> creates attachment between mates -> ensures more reproduction -> more babies -> species survives -> evolution successful!

              2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No, that is an archaic belief from ancient civilizations, long before science. It was around 6th BC the Greeks began to conceive of a spherical earth using astronomy. That's science.

                1. Klush profile image60
                  Klushposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Science?? lol lol

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm glad science makes you happy. smile

              3. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No, that was Christianity.

                Evolution has not only given us love it's given most other mammals the same emotion. Without it we wouldn't survive because we wouldn't take care of our families. Love is actually been proven to be an addiction to affection.

                1. Andy Ramjohn profile image81
                  Andy Ramjohnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Galileo was imprisoned by the Inquisition and then lived the rest of his life under house arrest for suggesting the world wasn't flat. Yet the bible told us it was round long before we figured it out. The Bible also told us that air has weight and we should bury the dead and the washing of hands to avoid germs. something we didn't figure out until the 1800's!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

                  1. Zelkiiro profile image84
                    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Burying the dead is superstitious nonsense that takes up way too much real estate. Cremation is far more sensible.

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    But, the Bible didn't tell us the earth was spherical. Being round can still be two dimensional; ie. flat.



                    Show us the verses in the Bible that validate your claims.

                  3. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes the Inquisition.

                    ( the Inquisition ) an ecclesiastical tribunal established by Pope Gregory IX c. 1232 for the suppression of heresy. It was active chiefly in northern Italy and southern France, becoming notorious for the use of torture. In 1542 the papal Inquisition was re-established to combat Protestantism, eventually becoming an organ of papal government.

                    The church ordered Galileo to keep his finding of the earth not being the centre of the universe to himself or face death. The bible says nothing about a spherical earth. It talks about it's corners and pillars and a circle and it talks about the heaven being a dome over the earth.

                2. Michael-Milec profile image61
                  Michael-Milecposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Pardon me " evolution" you didn't give " us " love . LOVE, word translated from Greek ' agape ' which occures in Greek original New Testament, a word not found in Classic Greek, bu only in revealed religion. " agapaos " -to love indicate direction of the will and finding one's joy in something. Translated 'agape ' means benevolent love. It's benevolence, however  is not shown by doing what  the person loved desires, but what the one who loves deems as needed by the one loved. Clearly, my dear " science"  AGAPE- LOVE is owned and possessed by The God of the Universe the creator and sustainer even us humans. Himself in His nature of love GAVE not what man wanted, but what man needed as God perceived  man's need. Love is God's will directed toward man. But for man to show love of God he must first appropriate God's AGAPE, for only God has such unselfish love.
                  A statement above " without it ( love) we wouldn't survive" , is very correct  in a sencse that God is love and you know as all of us that without God there isn't life nor life's needs . Meanwhile in inter human relations and quite  recklessly used word  ' love ' is Greek word  " philia " denoting common interest, ( care for family ) , feelings emotions, affections ,etc.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Please read a modern book. Love is an addiction to affection. When someone breaks up with you, you go through the same withdrawal an addict does, that why some young people take there own lives. It's a product of the brain and a result of evolution. No God required.

      2. Dave Mathews profile image59
        Dave Mathewsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        dfbishopsr: I am in agreeance with you, and since God is my Father and Jesus is my Brother I would recognize either or both in a heartbeat.

      3. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
        Vladimir Uhriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        dfbishopsr, I like it.

    16. Titen-Sxull profile image94
      Titen-Sxullposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well in a "THEOLOGICAL" discussion the Bible is the resource for Christians. Of course they are going to use it since it is the official scriptures of their faith and contains most of what they believe. Obviously it isn't evidence to us atheists and non-Christians but when it comes to matters of Faith most people aren't looking for evidence. In my experience most religious folks don't care that deeply about whether the beliefs are legitimately true and in some cases questioning those beliefs is an act shunned or even forbidden by those in 'authority'.

      When I was a Christian and went to church they often talked about having a "crisis of faith" which is basically where you have doubts or question God. Most of the time what they advised in this situation was praying away the doubt or "putting it in God's hands". In other words switch your brain off and just believe blindly.

      1. must65gt profile image81
        must65gtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        In 2007, the attorney Frederick A. Larson produced a DVD entitled The Star of Bethlehem, in which he uses date mapping to establish evidence of the Christmas star.  http://www.bethlehemstar.net/ Then in December 2010 Dr. Danny Faulkner provided his findings offering other possibilities as to the validation of the facts presented by Larson ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … hlehem-dvd). Both contend their views are backed by scientific facts. Historians have used the bible to prove or disprove events in history as Biblical records provide the "Why" in explaining events in history when only the "who", "where" and "when" are provided. On more than one occasion archaeologist have discovered what is believed to be Noah’s Ark, when they returned to document their findings, it was not to be found. No facts may ever be found because God wants decisions to be on faith and faith alone.  Nowhere does the Bible state that it is anything but an explanation of Creation, a record of birth providing the lineage of King David from Abraham to the Birth of Christ (provable) Gods laws and the punishment for our disobedience; the prophecy and the fulfillment of those throughout history. Non-Christians will not believe in the Bible, God or his existence because it is contrary to the lifestyle they wish to adhere to. Christians use the Bible as their only recourse, because it offers the only irrefutable evidence they have to base their faith on. But the key point is faith itself. It is the evidence of things unseen, a concept non-believers cannot grasp. I would not try and convince someone God is real, because that is a choice that is made individually and cannot be forced. But I would also not allow someone to force me into believing God is not real. Ultimately time itself will prove who is right. I strongly believe my view is right, non-believes need to pray that I'm wrong.

    17. lizzieBoo profile image77
      lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Another thread to pillory Christians. Hooray!!

      1. Evolution Guy profile image60
        Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Awwww. How persekuted ur

        LOLOL

        1. lizzieBoo profile image77
          lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          you wish. xxx

        2. Andy Ramjohn profile image81
          Andy Ramjohnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Can you add anything productive to these threads, other than bash and be defamatory? How old are you? Do you know what b"come let us reason together" means? (this would require reasoning to figure out).

    18. Don Crowson profile image78
      Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The scriptures that you refuse to believe are two witnesses. The Old Testament and the New Testament give their witness..  The Old Testament points to the coming of Christ and the New Testament declares that He has come and has risen. 

      And like any two witnesses of any event you may choose to believe or to reject what they say.  May I suggest that you read Psalm 22 that was written a thousand years before the crucifixion yet gives the perfect description. You may choose to believe it as real testimony or you may choose to believe that somehow many people conspired to make it all appear that Jesus is the Messiah. See, it is true or false because you believe the witnesses or you reject the witnesses.

      BTW this is just one instance of may.  You should do some more homework.

      1. Cagsil profile image84
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And maybe YOU should do some homework. lol

        1. Don Crowson profile image78
          Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Hey, I gave one example.  Many believers read this scripture and believe its witness.  You don't believe the witness. Nothing wrong with that. Therre are many other scriptures that you may accept or reject. But isn't that the difference between believers and nonbelievers.

          1. Cagsil profile image84
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Like Jesus said- they know not what they do.
            Learn more about it before you talk about it. That's what should be done. And, quit worrying about what I believe. I've not once told you anything I believe, which is part and parcel your problem to begin with.
            I reject the entire religious book of the world, because each have been manipulated by man for reasons you refuse to understand.
            The difference is knowledge and wisdom, which is the difference. Those who choose to be ignorant with regards to knowledge and wisdom, make this world a more dangerous place to live in.

            1. Don Crowson profile image78
              Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              First of all, I don’t care what you believe.  That is not the subject of this thread. I simply pointed out what one Psalm said.  Many Christians believe it points to the crucifixion. Nowhere did I say you must accept it as total proof.  I simply asked you to look at what many Christians believe is evidence. That is the subject of the thread.

              And in your assertion that I need to learn more about it, you assume that I have not looked at both sides. And you further assume that if I had looked at both sides, I would agree with you because “each have been manipulated for reasons you refuse to understand.”  Great assumption when you do not state the reasons that I don’t understand.

              One does not choose to be ignorant when he/she looks at all sides of the argument.  He chooses to be ignorant when he/she refuses to look at one side or the other.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                This particular post, I agree with. (I've only read bits and pieces of other posts)

                1. Don Crowson profile image78
                  Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Melissa,  There is no reply button available on your post post below. No idea how to continue that topic, but when a person lives in a place where there is no communication, there are no food stamps and no  one to help that hungry person. And if that person is fed, there are no hungry people.

            2. annlynn9 profile image60
              annlynn9posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Cagsill, people manipulate the civil law, medical knowledge, financial institutions, the internet, etc., etc. It is not those things which are wrong but people. Just so, people manipulate the Word of God. God is not wrong. People are. Another evidence of man's inherent nature to sin.

            3. Andy Ramjohn profile image81
              Andy Ramjohnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "Learn more about it before you talk about it" - Practice what you preach?

        2. Andy Ramjohn profile image81
          Andy Ramjohnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Reasoning?

      2. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        As Cagsil says, perhaps you should do homework.   There is not one word of the crucifixion.  Nor of the Romans, Ceasar or Pilate.  Not of when or where it took place.  No indication someone died or who it was.

        Hardly a "perfect description" unless you want to count Jesus' quotation of a small bit of it.

        1. Don Crowson profile image78
          Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          As I have stated before, not everyone will believe the witness.  We all interpret different events and data in different ways.  Global warming is a farce to those who do not believe the evidence. The PSA test was great for testing for prostate cancer, but now some believe it is useless. Therefore, you may interpret one scripture as invalid.  But there are many more.  Have you investigated all of them?

    19. Tlherald85 profile image60
      Tlherald85posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Christians use the Bible in Theological Discussion because it is ALL they have to TRY to Prove their case to NON-believers. Which wouldn't be a problem IF they maybe just maybe went off the Bible as it was ORIGINALLY written. I don't believe someone who has NOT done their research on the bible in its originally written context ( the Hebrew language) should call themselves a Christian. When translated to English it was NOT FULLY translated properly. Do some research and you will find the accuracy of my statement. I am not here to fight or argue just to point out a fact. For example: Virgin as in the Virgin Mary. The hebrew word for Virgin is Almah the Hebrew Definiton is "a young woman of marriageable age". If that had meant the English definition of Virgin they would have used the word bethulah which means specifically OUR definition of Virgin. How about the saying "suffer a Witch not to live" hmmm once again translated incorrectly folks. Hebrew definition of the word is Thief! English Definition of the word is Use of Witchcraft, sorcery, magic, etc. So with that said. IF you want to argue the facts please people research them first. The English written Bible has SO many errors and INCORRECT definitions it is truly ridiculous.

      1. Don Crowson profile image78
        Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Interesting. Nowexplain why a young girl haviing a baby is so uncommon that we would recognize it as the Messiah being born?  We wouldn't.  Young girls have babies every day.  BTW I am aware of that interpretation of the term virgin.

        1. Tlherald85 profile image60
          Tlherald85posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That's the point. WHY did they think it was Messiah?? Why was it SO important?? Or was it?? From the research I have done Miss "Virgin" Mary was NOT even CLOSE to being a "virgin" the english definition of "virgin" that is. NOT even close. And its in history books at the library. It's sad really.

          1. annlynn9 profile image60
            annlynn9posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            When the angel told Mary of the child she was to have, she asked "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" [Luke 1:34] In King James English, the verb "know" was used to indicate not merely being acquainted with someone but having an intimate relationship. Going back to Genesis, the "knowing" is very clear: "Adam knew his wife Eve, and she conceived." [Genesis 4:1] But Mary knew NOT a man. Surely, Mary did not grow up without ever meeting a single man.

            As to Jesus being recognized as the Messiah, John the Baptist got a clue while he was in prison, by hearing about the things Jesus was doing. He sent two of his followers to ask Jesus, "Are you he that should come, or do we look for another?" Jesus replied: "Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them." [Matthew 11:2-5]. Here, Jesus was referring to two of Isaiah's prophecies about the coming of the Messiah: (1) "The eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing" [35:5-6]; (2) "the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek" [61:1], The word "gospel" in King James meant "good news", but it's been adopted now to mean specifically the message concerning Christ, the kingdom of God, and salvation.

          2. 0
            Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I'm sorry, but I have to ask. Other than the words written in the Bible, how much research can you do on the figure of Mary?

            1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
              DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              There are other texts that never made it into the bible that covers things along these lines.

              Are they authentic? That is debatable, but some were written in the same timeframe as the biblical texts.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Do they say Mary was a floozie? I'm curious.

                1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
                  DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Some do imply that she was other than portrayed in the bible. I wouldn't say a floozie, but not a virgin (single girl of marriage age). Same for Jesus, he was portrayed abit on the violent side and not always so loving and forgiving.

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You know, I’ve read some of the ‘accounts’ of Jesus as a child. It’s funny, because you don’t know what to do with all of it. Are the gospels true?  Are any of the other writings true? If you believe one, why not the other?

                    It would be very helpful to know who wrote what, outside of the NT. What motivated them to write it? When was it written? What relationship did they have with the early Christians?

                    I see it all, top to bottom, as just a question of what you want to believe. I could be wrong. But, it seems like we have collected enough information and /or dis-information  to believe anything we want; we can’t verify anything. So we run with whatever works for us.

                    I’d love to know the facts.

      2. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
        Vladimir Uhriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Tlherald85. Lady you brought an interesting topic. I am student and now teacher of Bible for about 60 years. I read and listen Hebrew Bible as well. There is nothing wrong with the Bible. What is wrong is understanding. Yes, Virgin translation as you point out is young woman. But it is not the point. Mary was virgin and I will tell you why. God said to woman and Serpent there will be enmity between you two. It said that woman seed not man seed will crash the Satan skull. See the man sperm is genetic transferring of blood of child. The same time is transferring genetically chromosome of sin. The Messiah cannot be both parents son since he would be unable to defeat Satan who became master of the world. See here is the point. She was virgin also from other reason. The required to be virgin otherwise she would be stoned if husband will find he was deceived. In my past practice in Europe there was almost all virgins in Mary's age. America is different now.
        The second point is that Bible is written not in analog, but in digital mode. It is unchangeable. God and His Word is unchangeable even not understood. It is not scientific book but important message for salvation and victory life. We have now about 50 translation of Bible. Student may check and compare and knowledge is increasing as predicted. I do not have time to explain to you in details all. But there are two factors we forget it and it is faith and love. That's all what man needs and God demands.

        1. Tlherald85 profile image60
          Tlherald85posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I do not disagree with you. I do disagree with the misrepresentations most use of the bible. I believe Faith is important and you find faith within yourself. It is PERSONAL. And shouldn't be based on a "book" whether it be holy or not.
          My problem is I have done TONS of research attended multiple different churches and realized that yes tyhe bible does contain some fact and truth BUT it has been rewritten so many times and translated so many times that SO much has been lost, misinterpreted, translate incorrectly, etc. I met ONE preacher in my lifetime that actually took the time to do the FULL research and preached in HIS church facts. I loved it. He never stated most of the things that are taught in the common church. He did NOT just READ from the bible and say this is how it is. He would read from the bible yes BUT he also helped people to UNDERSTAND what it ACTUALLY meant. And even spoke of the wrong translations and tols people how it SHOULD have been translated. He was a very close friend of mine. Very open-minded, loving and caring. Which a lot of Christians are NOT these days. I am very open-minded and NOT judgemental at all. I do not believe it is OUR place as mear humans to judge one another.

          1. annlynn9 profile image60
            annlynn9posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Your experience is not so different from mine. You've done tons of research and attended multiple different churches, and so have I. You've met one preacher that took the time to do "full" research and preached facts, and I've met several preachers who did research both in and outside the Bible (one of them has a library containing hundreds of books), and they preach truth. They've studied both Greek and Hebrew, and they read from the Bible and tell you what they believe it means, but they also tell you to read the scriptures for yourself and to pray for understanding from God. Your friend is very open-minded, loving, and caring, and so are the men of whom I speak.

            No, we are not to judge one another, but what does that mean? It doesn't mean you can't say a person's words or actions are wrong. It only means you can't say whether they are going to heaven or hell. That is for God alone to pronounce. He is the Judge of men's souls, but we are to discern between good and evil.

    20. mosaicman profile image85
      mosaicmanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Many atheists use science in the discussion as to why God is not real etc. Both sides of the discussion are like night and day. We are thinking spiritually and others are thinking Carnally.

      1. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Science too sexy for you?smile

    21. rwburns3rd profile image60
      rwburns3rdposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Let me just be clear on your question.  You're asking why do people who follow Christ use the book(s) that's written about him as evidence of him?  I don't know that seems like a common sense answer to me.  Then to even further I guess disqualify your question you add the phrase "theological discussion."  So you want to "discuss" Christianity and want theological evidenced other than the book written about it.  Good luck with that. 
      Here's what the question sounds like.  "Why do scientists keep trying to convince me what the core of the earth looks like and is made out of using science books and no one has ever been there or seen it?"  Its because thats what they believe based off what they know.  It's their best guess.  People who follow Christ follow him based off what they know and what they believe.  If you don't believe it thats fine its your decision.  But here is the difference.  If we are wrong about Christianity and we die.....so what?  But lets say you're wrong and there is a God and heaven and hell.....so what?  I think you know the answer.  Which odds would you rather take?

      1. 60
        Rabgixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That's called Pascal's Wager and its by far the weakest reasoning for belief in God in Philosophy.

        1. annlynn9 profile image60
          annlynn9posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The so-called Pascal's Wager is not a reason to believe, it's just a challenge.

        2. Andy Ramjohn profile image81
          Andy Ramjohnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You ignored the entire post and only ridiculed the very last point - nice smile

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Then there's the lion and the tiger from different parts of the world, but still able to produce offspring.

            Let's not forget the horse, donkey and zebra.

            Oh and there's the E. coli long-term evolution experiment.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lo … experiment

      2. Tlherald85 profile image60
        Tlherald85posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly, who cares were all gonna die and find out eventually.

        I'm sorry but personally I don't believe in the "man-made" satan/devil or in anyplace called HELL. Even those who have close encounters with death NEVER say 2 words of NO such place. The most I have heard of that is in the bilbe. Which is not trustworthy in my own personal opinion anyway.

    22. rwburns3rd profile image60
      rwburns3rdposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Here's a better question for you.  How many times has math and science been proven WRONG?  So called already "proven" math and science.  Math itself calls most of its ideas Theorems! 

      Now in contrast give me an example when Christianity has been PROVEN wrong.

      1. 60
        Rabgixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well, men don't come back from the dead for one thing.
        Oceans don't part.
        You obviously can't house every animal today on a boat.
        People don't live to be over 900 years old.

        I can give you more

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
          Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          ..It would be all according to mans understanding, and mans knowledge.

          God asks that you accept His, big ask ,but then again ,not really wink

        2. Andy Ramjohn profile image81
          Andy Ramjohnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Men don't come back from the dead - https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=ch … mp;bih=707
          Oceans don't part - you're right, God parts them.
          Every Animal - it wasn't 'every' animal, it was 2 of every unclean and 7 of every clean. At least read the book you disagree with.
          People don't live to be 900 years old - but they used to. .. http://www.apologeticspress.org/APConte … rticle=681

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Even though the title of that article is, "The Bible, Science, and the Ages of the Patriarchs" there is no science in the body of work or in any of the references cited other than a minor article from a pop-sci magazine.

            It mostly talks about what the Bible says. Rubbish.

            There is plenty of evidence to understand folks had pretty short life spans back then. Claims of living hundreds of years is just another half-baked fantasy.

            1. Zelkiiro profile image84
              Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Don't you find it fairly suspicious that people stop living for hundreds of years after the books of Moses?

              1. Andy Ramjohn profile image81
                Andy Ramjohnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Up until the flood the common diet was fruits, nuts, veggies and grain, after the flood meat eating increased due to lack of vegetation... and yes, interesting how this decreased the life-span wink

            2. Andy Ramjohn profile image81
              Andy Ramjohnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Ha ha - classic atheist defense. Everything we produce as evidence is 'biased' right?

              http://www.inplainsite.org/html/methuse … long_.html

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No one said that, but certainly that article was rubbish.



                More rubbish.

                1. Andy Ramjohn profile image81
                  Andy Ramjohnposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The bottom line, as stated before is quite simple. There are two choices - God, or evolution. Evolution has been proven 'scientifically' impossible - now what? It does not matter if you understand the Bible or how you interpret the Bible. It does not matter how you translate the Bible, the fact remains. Therefore, it is not up to Christians to 'prove' the Bible, it is up to atheists to disprove it. Many men throughout history, greater men than you or I, have tried... and failed. Just saying you do not believe oceans part, or people resurrect from the dead, or a 'fairy-tale' God, is not evidence in any form that the Bible is wrong smile
                  https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=ch … mp;bih=707

                  1. JMcFarland profile image92
                    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    shifting of the burden of proof.  There are plenty of Biblical Scholars out there with degrees in history and biblical literature that have pointed out the flaws in the bible more than adequately.

                  2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                    MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    There are more than two choices.

                    There's an infinite number of ways that things could have gone down to get us here...

                    Evolution/Big Bang (Which are two completely separate theories answering two completely separate questions) are two choices.  Either one is compatible with believing in a God to modern Christians.

                    If you bring other religions into it, the list of possibilities just grows.

                    Black and white thought processes are signs of a rigid indoctrinated mind.

          2. Chris Neal profile image83
            Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, the Red Sea does part. This is an actual, though rare, weather phenomena where the Red Sea, which in some places is very shallow, has been held back by a strong wind, not unlike the actual description in Genesis.

      2. Tlherald85 profile image60
        Tlherald85posted 5 years ago in reply to this
    23. ediggity profile image60
      ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Why wouldn't a Christian use the BIBLE as evidence to support their belief in a Theological discussion?  Do you not understand what Theology is?

      1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
        DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        the·ol·o·gy   /θiˈɒlədʒi/  Show Spelled[thee-ol-uh-jee]  Show IPA
        noun, plural -gies. 
        1. the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.
        2. a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study.


        Nothing here about a bible or other texts.

        1. ediggity profile image60
          ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That's interesting, how does one study something without a source to study from?  I stand by my original statements.

          Here's the Merriam Webster definition:

          http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theology


          the·ol·o·gy noun \thē-ˈä-lə-jē\
          plural the·ol·o·gies



          Definition of THEOLOGY

          1
          : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world
          2
          a : a theological theory or system <Thomist theology> <a theology of atonement>
          b : a distinctive body of theological opinion <Catholic theology>
          3
          : a usually 4-year course of specialized religious training in a Roman Catholic major seminary
          See theology defined for English-language learners »
          See theology defined for kids »


          Why wouldn't a Christian use the BIBLE as evidence to support their belief in a Theological discussion?  Do you not understand what Theology is?

          1. recommend1 profile image71
            recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Scorpion TOLD you already what the definition is - and your quoting from a different source gave you the same answer - NEITHER MENTIONS THE BIBLE as an element of that study.

            I sometimes wonder at the intelligence level in these threads !

            1. ediggity profile image60
              ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Again I state, Why wouldn't a Christian use the BIBLE as evidence to support their belief in a Theological discussion?  Do you not understand what Theology is?  I often wonder the same thing you do ( except I wonder about, not at - insert irony here), especially when the discussion is outlined by a definition.  smile

          2. DoubleScorpion profile image86
            DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Theology and Biblical studies are two different things. Theology can be based on any doctrine or dogma writing and is not limited to a bible. Theology covers more than just christian teachings. That is what many do not understand. And if someone has no belief in a certain text, then attempting to use it to support your theological theory is pointless. One can present a theological theory using a multitude of sources. The problem is with most of the amateur Christians theologist, they only know the one source.

            And yes I know what Theology is quite well.

            1. ediggity profile image60
              ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I realize there are more sources to consider during a Theological discussion.  Again I state, in congruence with the title of the thread, Why wouldn't a Christian use the BIBLE as evidence to support their belief in a Theological discussion?

              1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
                DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Because if the person you are talking with does not view the bible as a creditable source, then one has to use something else to support their side of the debate. Christians tend to use the bible, because it is the only source they know. When discussing theology, there are many other sources, besides the bible which can be used that is deemed as reliable by both parties of the debate.
                One cannot prove a point to an opposing party, if the document used is not regarded as factual by both parties.
                So for a christian to use the bible, which the majority of atheists feel is mythological stories, would be completely pointless in attempting to prove thier side of the debate.
                If I was attempting to prove the theology of Greek Pagan beliefs and only used the Greek myth stories as my proof, you wouldn't regard my side as holding much water now would you? Be honest...It is the same when discussing Christian theology. Use a source or evidence that both parties see as factual.

                1. ediggity profile image60
                  ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You can use whatever sources you want to prove your side of the debate.  It's not science, it's debating.  Unless constraints are set prior to the debate then all sources are fair game. Additionally, the OP never even referred to debating, only discussion.

                  I stand by my original statement:

                  Why wouldn't a Christian use the BIBLE as evidence to support their belief in a Theological discussion?

                  1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
                    DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Your points are about arguing the validity of the bible, not theology.
                    The majority of debates is arguing the facts and the interpretation of those facts. Both parties have to agree on what is fact though.

                    And my point about christian TEND to use the bible, still holds true. This includes most, but not all.
                    Ask a christian where they get their "facts" from. Then ask them to name other documents that support might also support their "facts". The mojority will tell you that they need nothing but the bible (because it is the word of God), and all other documents are pretty much useless (if it was supported by God, it would be in the bible).

                    People who debate abortion? Let's see the bible is used, statistics are used and a whole lot of personal opinion is used.

                    Not even all Christians agree on the bible. Which is why there are so many denominations of Christianity.

                    So far you have shown nothing that supports a valid debate/discussion on theology, you are, however attempting to valid the bible, which is not required for a theological discussion or debate. Which is the point behind the OP. If a Christian truly knows the theology behind their beliefs, then the bible is not required for them to discuss the topic using sources that both parties deem as factual.
                    I would venture to guess that most Christians don't even know the background or history behind the bible we see today.
                    And it has been proven through studies that the Atheist/Agnostic know and understand more about the Bible and Christian beliefs than the Christians do.