Answering Christianity’s Critics

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]"People's ideas on the circumstances under which life might emerge have really changed and developed over the last 30 or 40 years. I think it's fair to say that when I was a boy those few people who thought about the origin of life thought that it probably was a set of improbable reactions that just happened to get going over the fullness of time. And I t ...[text shortened]... .livescience.com/10531-life-began-research-suggests-simple-approach.html

The Instructor

And it has advanced quite a bit further than those days. In fact a recent re-analysis of the original work showed the reactions produced even more complex molecules than the original scientists thought.

You are just putting down a baby science. Hitting babies is your stock in trade. Come back in 500 years and see how many people agree with your pathetic so-called arguments.

Originally posted by sonhouse
And it has advanced quite a bit further than those days. In fact a recent re-analysis of the original work showed the reactions produced even more complex molecules than the original scientists thought.

You are just putting down a baby science. Hitting babies is your stock in trade. Come back in 500 years and see how many people agree with your pathetic so-called arguments.

If you were able to come back in 100 years you would see that nobody believes in your Evil-lution theory anymore.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
If you were able to come back in 100 years you would see that nobody believes in your Evil-lution theory anymore.

The Instructor

You live in a dream world with no more reality than a neutrino passing through your ass.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You live in a dream world with no more reality than a neutrino passing through your ass.

I will say one thing in your favor. You are a funny dude. Ha, Ha 😀

The instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I will say one thing in your favor. You are a funny dude. Ha, Ha 😀

The instructor

They are MY thoughts not some wrung out pathetic regurgatations from men dead 3000 years.

Originally posted by sonhouse
They are MY thoughts not some wrung out pathetic regurgatations from men dead 3000 years.

I am sure they are your thoughts. No one else would come up with such nonsense.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am sure they are your thoughts. No one else would come up with such nonsense.

The Instructor

I can come up with better nonsense than your pathetic bible any time.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I can come up with better nonsense than your pathetic bible any time.

I know. Your nonsense is pretty good.

The instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I know. Your nonsense is pretty good.

The instructor

You can play your arrogant little games all you want, all it proves is you are no instructor, only a joke among jokers and not worth the toilet paper to flush you down the toilet of time, where you are for sure headed, along with all the other neanderal relics of religion.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
If you are going to make outlandish statements back them up!

Can you give a date when The Theory of Evolution suggested life happened by accident?

Funny how you people hang on to your evolution theory like an oxygen mask. Why don't you address the rest of the OP, it makes your theory irrelevant.

How can we be sure that the Bible is reliable? The copies of the Old Testament manuscripts are of a far superior quality than any other equivalent document. The oldest books of the Old Testament date from around the same time as some of the oldest Egyptian works. And where scholars find significant differences between Egyptian documents relating to the same events, they find almost no differences in Old Testament documents that cover the same material. And where there are differences they are minor ones like spelling and make no changes in the actual material covered. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1950’s confirms the historical reliability of these ancient documents. And archeology has never disproved an Old Testament historical event. It has only confirmed the Scriptural account.

What about the New Testament? From an historical point of view the New Testament is unquestionably the most reliable ancient document in the world. Two factors are crucial in determining the reliability of an historical document. These are the number of copies in existence and the time between when the document was first written and the oldest copies. Take for example the writings of Julius Caesar. His works were written between 100-44 B.C. The oldest copies of his works come from one thousand years after the fact and there are ten copies. With the writings of Plato there is a span of twelve hundred years between when he first wrote and the date of the oldest copies of which there are seven. And with Aristotle there are five copies of his works and the oldest manuscripts date from fourteen hundred years after he wrote.

Now let’s compare the New Testament to these other works. Whereas we have ten copies of Caesar’s works and seven copies of Plato’s, and five copies of Aristotle’s, there are over twenty four thousand ancient copies of the New Testament! And the oldest copies date not from one thousand years after the fact, nor even five hundred years, but from twenty-five years after the originals were written. No other ancient document even comes close to meeting the test for historical authenticity and reliability as does the New Testament.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Funny how you people hang on to your evolution theory like an oxygen mask. Why don't you address the rest of the OP, it makes your theory irrelevant.

How can we be sure that the Bible is reliable? The copies of the Old Testament manuscripts are of a far superior quality than any other equivalent document. The oldest books of the Old Testament date fro ...[text shortened]... lose to meeting the test for historical authenticity and reliability as does the New Testament.

Bart Ehrman will poke more than a few holes in your assessment of biblical reliability. I'd recommend the following books, the first two of which I've read:

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them)

Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics

Edit: Here's one more by Ehrman:

The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament

That one looks pretty interesting. Maybe I'll get a copy myself.

Originally posted by rwingett
Bart Ehrman will poke more than a few holes in your assessment of biblical reliability. I'd recommend the following books, the first two of which I've read:

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them)

Forgery and Counterforge ...[text shortened]... xt of the New Testament

That one looks pretty interesting. Maybe I'll get a copy myself.

Interesting fellow...you might be surprised, but I like some of what he says...I would be interested in his book about Jesus becoming God. I don't know if is released yet...he has failed to answer some of his critics as you will find here..

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=4253

But I do not think he can so easily dismiss F.F.Bruce, nor does he claim to.
He has a website, but it is a pay membership to see his blog...

Originally posted by checkbaiter
In the book of Acts, chapter 17, the apostle Paul, while in Athens, was invited to speak about Christianity to Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. After his presentation Scripture records the response, “some mocked, while others said ‘We will hear you again on this matter…However, some…believed (Acts 17:32, 33).” Today, just like in ancient Athens there ar ...[text shortened]... he test for historical authenticity and reliability as does the New Testament.
GraceMinistryUSA

Objections like this come from the atheist and the agnostic. But think about this: atheism demands complete knowledge of all things in order to say that God doesn’t exist.

I am an atheist,* and I don’t demand any such thing. Nor do I recall any atheist that I know (including all of them on this site) making any such demand. Nor is such “complete knowledge” required to arrive at a justified belief about any proposition.

_____________________________________

* There are possible exceptions vis-à-vis definitions of theos that do not entail a dualistic, personalistic, supernatural entity of some sort (e.g., the ancient Stoics).

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Objections like this come from the atheist and the agnostic. But think about this: atheism demands complete knowledge of all things in order to say that God doesn’t exist.

I am an atheist,* and I don’t demand any such thing. Nor do I recall any atheist that I know (including all of them on this site) making any such demand. Nor is such “complete ...[text shortened]... entail a dualistic, personalistic, supernatural entity of some sort (e.g., the ancient Stoics).[/b]

Hi V, I was wondering when someone would take this to task, myself. I cannot argue the point you make, I will have to ask the author what he meant here.
Hope all is well with you...

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Objections like this come from the atheist and the agnostic. But think about this: atheism demands complete knowledge of all things in order to say that God doesn’t exist.

I am an atheist,* and I don’t demand any such thing. Nor do I recall any atheist that I know (including all of them on this site) making any such demand. Nor is such “complete ...[text shortened]... entail a dualistic, personalistic, supernatural entity of some sort (e.g., the ancient Stoics).[/b]

The author's response...
"Your blogger friend is being illogical. To truly believe that there is no
God you would have to know for sure everything about the universe and
creation to say that God does not exist. You would have to understand
every dimension, time, space, etc. If you didn't then God might exist in
some possible way that you were not sure about.

And to say that you have a view of theos that is not of a personal god,
means that you still believe in a theos - a god of somekind. If so then
you are not an atheist."