So what makes Jesus right?

Originally posted by Omnislash
He promotes love and peace throughout the world.

http://eaqffj.ytmnd.com/

Yeah, and his dad tells George W to invade Iraq apparently.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Was Jesus intelligent?
Yes

Could Jesus compete with the advanced IQ's of this society?
Yes

Conjecture, then why should his ethical teachings be trusted?
His teaching need only be trusted by those following Him, since He is
Lord. Others would do well to make him Lord and follow His teachings,
but if they don’t it doesn’t matter what they do, they ...[text shortened]... e results, just as those that follow
Christ will live the results of making Jesus Lord.
Kelly

Fair enough- its a faith thing isn't it?

Originally posted by Conrau K
An argument from ignorance is hardly authoritative or conclusive.
Perhaps your using words the way they're not intended- because this doesn't seem to respond to what I wrote.

The established facts do nothing whatsoever to refute the biblical account of creation. One can accept anything as factual; however doing so does not certify the same. ou must explain why you accept bibles' moral truths and not the quasi-sceintific truths.

Perhaps your using words the way they're not intended- because this doesn't seem to respond to what I wrote.
Just the opposite, actually. I try to be as precise as possible in order to avoid sit-com confusion. You are equating the (so-called) debate between evolution and creation with a bona fide struggle for truth. In your scenario, the supposed superior position, evolution, should be reflected in the world view of Jesus if we are to accept anything He had to say as compelling.

In light of the overall ignorance on the issue on both sides, you cannot conclude that Jesus should have 'cleared up the issue.' You can conclude that ignorance exists, but little more than that can be determined from the arguments here.

Radioactive dating contradicts the creation story. Or is that just nasty scientists using erroneous equipment?
How so, exactly?

I'm just looking for any record (no matter how remote) that might depict Jesus trying to reolve the problem of creation.
He "resolved" it by affirming the Bible as the Word of God.

So long as you don't accept the bible as literally truthful on everything it says, then you must explain why you accept bibles' moral truths and not the quasi-sceintific truths.
Again, you're on your own: the Bible is the literal words of God, and He intended for man to live by them.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Fair enough- its a faith thing isn't it?

YEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSS!!!
Next question
WHHYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!

God requires faith according to scripture. In fact, there are two possibilities. Either God does not exist or he requires faith. Why?

Have you ever considered the possibility that the Bible stears clear of trying to prove itself because of this fact. It is certainly not a scientific text. It is mostly derided by science because of the creation story. Millions and millions of scientific texts and scientific discoveries are used to attack one or two chapters in Genesis. On top of that those two chapters in Genesis leave a lot to leave to the imagination and much to be assumed such as a day equaling a 24 hour period and such. A day to God is as a thousand years to us.

I will therefore not waste my time trying to prove God via science or any other venue. However, scripture certainly has relevance, truth, legitamacy and significance to humanity. Why do I say this? What are the major religions in the world? Is it the religion of the speghetti monster? The major ones include Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Judism. Three of those can trace its origins to Abraham who is a man of the Bible. In fact, many other religions point to the Bible as a starting off point. JW's, Mormons, and Muslims to name a few point to the Bible as the word of God. Then they then incorporate seperate teachings of their own that contradict scripture and say that the original text has been corrupted in some way. Then they write a seperate Bible of their own which they deem correct the original Bible. In fact, they all point to Christ as a man of God and hold great reverence for him. They just can't all come to terms with exactly why he was here or what exactly he said.

In regards to history the Bible has a great track record. In fact, it is the only religious text in which a scientific discipline has formed. This scientific discipline is Biblical archeology. Does this contradict my previous statement about the Bible being proven by science. In my opinion, no. This does not make the Bible a scientific text and does not prove the Bible as anything. It simply makes it a reliable historical source of information. Are all archeology findings in agreement with scripture? No. However, archeology, as in all scientific processes, is not a perfect science. Take the city of Jericho, for example. It was conquered and reconquered and built and rebuilt countless times. Therefore, it is difficult at times to ascertain exaclty what happened there during the Biblical accounts. Some say the findings contradict scripture and others say otherwise. One thing is for certain, however, it existed. Another example is the question of David in the Bible. Many Biblical archeologists questioned whether or not David actually even existed. No evidence was found of him in the ruins dug in Jerusalem and many regarded him merely as a myth. Here again, Jerusalem had been conquered and reconquered and built and rebuilt many time over again to exacerbate finding remains. Not only that, there are many restrictions in digging sites due to religious friction with Muslims like on the temple mount. Recently, however, there has been unearthed a reference to David in a dig outside of Jerusalem that has helped to confirm his existance. In fact, archeologists had no idea the Philistines had existed apart from scripture. Only with the help of scritpure did their existence come to light. I guess you could say that for a book that has supposidly been tampered with so much as others have charged, it has a pretty good track record of archeological truth.

As far as the Bible being a source of truth, you must ascertain this for yourself. As for myself, the teachings of Christ and the Bible speak to me as being such. Whether or not you credit Christ for saying the things he did, simply take them for what they are. Is it the truth? Is it wisdom? Does it give you hope? After all, faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.

Originally posted by whodey
YEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSS!!!
Next question
WHHYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!

God requires faith according to scripture. In fact, there are two possibilities. Either God does not exist or he requires faith. Why?

Have you ever considered the possibility that the Bible stears clear of trying to prove itself because of this fact. It is certainly not a scientific text. I ...[text shortened]... e? After all, faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.

So belief in God demands a leap of faith. Yeah, I guess the procedure for adopting unjustified belief can be bossy that way.

FYI, belief in elves and unicorns requires faith, too.

He Came alive, and is still alive today.

Originally posted by LemonJello
So belief in God demands a leap of faith. Yeah, I guess the procedure for adopting unjustified belief can be bossy that way.

FYI, belief in elves and unicorns requires faith, too.

I think you can distinguish between blind faith and faith based on something of substance. As I have shown the Bible has historical accuracy. These stories and teachings do not seem to be pulled out of thin air. Take for example the story of Noah's ark. When you first read it you may think it to be pure fantasy. However, there are other references to a great flood by other ancient civilizations that corraborate the evidence of a major flood in ancient times. I will provide a web site (not Christian in origin) to prove this to you if you like. As I have shown many other archeiological digs have also helped corraborate stories in the Bible.

As far as the major teachings in the Bible include loving your neighbor as yourself and the hope of redemption in a fallen world, also ring true. These truths are self evident. From my vantage point we do live in a fallen world and I am no exception. The love message also is based on the human need to love and be loved and is the only answer to combate our fallen nature.

I have also shown that many other religions try to lay claim as having its origins based in the Bible. Why if it is such rubbish?

Originally posted by whodey
I think you can distinguish between blind faith and faith based on something of substance. As I have shown the Bible has historical accuracy. These stories and teachings do not seem to be pulled out of thin air. Take for example the story of Noah's ark. When you first read it you may think it to be pure fantasy. However, there are other references to a g ...[text shortened]... eligions try to lay claim as having its origins based in the Bible. Why if it is such rubbish?

Yes, please provide a link that demonstrates this evidence for 'The Flood'.

I'm not interested if some of the teachings of the bible 'ring true'. Fictional stories can have morals that 'ring true'. They can also make you feel warm and cozy inside.

The fact of the matter is that the Bible posits a bunch of supernatural claims that are completely arbitrary. You accept them on faith -- that is, you take them to be basic beliefs that do not require sufficient evidence. What I am wondering is whether or not you consider them properly basic. Do these faith-based, basic beliefs on supernatural matters have a place in any rational noetic structure? I don't think they do.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yes, please provide a link that demonstrates this evidence for 'The Flood'.

I'm not interested if some of the teachings of the bible 'ring true'. Fictional stories can have morals that 'ring true'. They can also make you feel warm and cozy inside.

The fact of the matter is that the Bible posits a bunch of supernatural claims that are completely ar ...[text shortened]... al matters have a place in any rational noetic structure? I don't think they do.

The fact of the matter is that the Bible posits a bunch of supernatural claims that are completely arbitrary.

Really? What exactly do you mean by "completely"? Could you give an example?

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]The fact of the matter is that the Bible posits a bunch of supernatural claims that are completely arbitrary.

Really? What exactly do you mean by "completely"? Could you give an example?[/b]

'Completely' here is basically redundant.

Example: it posits the existence of a supernatural being with a particular set of attributes -- God. There is no evidence for His existence. There is merely a bunch of stuff that may well be considered compatible with His existence.

I would say that there is ample evidence against His existence (which would not make the belief arbitrary but likely false), but I don't think the Bible really means to claim that He is omnibenevolent (I mean, just peruse the OT, for example).

Originally posted by LemonJello
'Completely' here is basically redundant.

Example: it posits the existence of a supernatural being with a particular set of attributes -- God. There is no evidence for His existence. There is merely a bunch of stuff that may well be considered compatible with His existence.

I would say that there is ample evidence against His exist ...[text shortened]... le really means to claim that He is omnibenevolent (I mean, just peruse the OT, for example).

Readings on a Geiger counter can also be considered compatible with the existence of Beta particles.

Or am I misunderstanding your evidently material criteria for the measurement of existence? As my above example illustrates, existence can also be measured by means of impact or effect, rather than embodiment.

Originally posted by Halitose
Readings on a Geiger counter can also be considered compatible with the existence of Beta particles.

Or am I misunderstanding your evidently material criteria for the measurement of existence? As my above example illustrates, existence can also be measured by means of impact or effect, rather than embodiment.

But the 'impact' or 'effects' that you claim are evidence for God are nothing of the sort. They are merely compatible with the claim that such a God exists. But it may just as well be those magical green elves; or purely natural phenomena.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yes, please provide a link that demonstrates this evidence for 'The Flood'.

I'm not interested if some of the teachings of the bible 'ring true'. Fictional stories can have morals that 'ring true'. They can also make you feel warm and cozy inside.

The fact of the matter is that the Bible posits a bunch of supernatural claims that are completely ar ...[text shortened]... al matters have a place in any rational noetic structure? I don't think they do.

Here is the web site from the McClung museum

http://mcclungmuseum.utk.edu/specex/ur/ur-flood.htm

It talks about the story of a devistating flood in a number of Mesopotamian compositions that include the Sumerian kings list.

If you ask me if this proves that there was a great flood in ancient times or that the Biblical account is the true account I would say no. However, I would argue that it is evidence none the less. This is what I mean when I say that I do not consider my faith a blind faith, but is a faith nontheless. I would argue that it is not like believing in the tooth fairy for example. To say that you do not believe that there ever was a flood also takes beleif. How can you prove there was not?

Originally posted by whodey
Here is the web site from the McClung museum

http://mcclungmuseum.utk.edu/specex/ur/ur-flood.htm

It talks about the story of a devistating flood in a number of Mesopotamian compositions that include the Sumerian kings list.

If you ask me if this proves that there was a great flood in ancient times or that the Biblical account is the true account I wo ...[text shortened]... do not believe that there ever was a flood also takes beleif. How can you prove there was not?

OK, thanks. I'll check out your site.

To say that you do not believe that there ever was a flood also takes beleif. How can you prove there was not?

I lack belief in the Flood because there is insufficient evidence to warrant such belief.* If you want to say that this position defaults me to the position that I believe that no flood occurred, then whatever. Then in the same way I also believe that magical elves (and god) do not exist. Point is this: if you claim that a flood occurred, you should have sufficient evidence to back it up.

*Actually, there's a lot of evidence against the Flood account -- certainly enough to warrant belief in that direction.

Originally posted by LemonJello
OK, thanks. I'll check out your site.

[b]To say that you do not believe that there ever was a flood also takes beleif. How can you prove there was not?

I lack belief in the Flood because there is insufficient evidence to warrant such belief.* If you want to say that this position defaults me to the position that I believe that no flood occurr ...[text shortened]... ence against the Flood account -- certainly enough to warrant belief in that direction.[/b]

Evidence that there was no flood? Such as?