- Locked due to inactivity on Aug 4, '16 4:20pm
Thread Topic: Christianity
At that point with the surgeries, the drugs would make rapid regeneration just that much more likely.
Human origin as we know it can be traced to the middle east near Israel. This is true. And as for the part about Jesus, that would require that he actually did anything that we can prove. I can sit here and say that someday someone is going to be famous for something and they're going to be really cool. That doesn't make me a prophet. And it doesn't mean I have holy guidance.
Also, the bible isn't all that old (don't flatter yourself). It's barely 2 thousand years old as compared to other beliefs that have been around much longer. There are errors and falibilities all throughout that book.
Further more, I must ask what can be proven by archaeological finds? And how does any of it "prove" guidance from God?
I must be off for now, But I will return later.
Lol rapid regeneration, as in instantly after we prayed for him? Sorry, but even science says there aint no coinkidinks (coincidences).
The reason they said he would be born was because they were prophets, and they did have holy guidance.
The new testament is only 2000 years old, but the old testament goes back to when moses wrote the first 5 books, about 4-5 thousand years ago.
Archaeology doesnt directly suggest holy guidance, but it suggest that the bible is right, meaning that there was some holy guidance.
i probably wont be on for a while, we'll see... my dads anti computer, video games, but since its so hot out he might let us stay inside.
Look, I don't know exactly how his insides fixed themselves. But the logic you're using is post hawk ergo procter hawk. Latin for, "after this, therefor because of this." It's a logical fallacy. Actually the most common logical fallacy used by theists when it comes to "prayer". Because it's the only logic that can be applied to prayer. Post hawk simply means taking an event and saying that an unrelated event caused it.
Archaeology suggests that the events in the bible may be right. Such as names and people may have actually happened. A king throwing all the newborns to crocodiles. Or a city wall crumbling when protesters marched around it. This DOES NOT mean that Archaeology says that the biblical aspects are accurate. Only the historical aspects.
And don't tell me what science does and doesn't do if you're not willing to apply it correctly and check your facts. Your prayers had no provable influence on the man. That is a coincidence. It would be no different if I went to the zoo wishing death on an elephant and while I was there one dropped dead of a heart attack. I had no influence on that event. And me simply thinking about it doesn't change the fact that I had no influence. That is a coincidence. Now if I stuck something in the elephants water supply, that makes me influential in the outcome. It is no longer a coincidence. But simply hoping someone gets better and them getting better does not mean that your hopes had any influence.
alex014 NewbieNow, those are the christians I like [refering to the first post by barberbob]. The only one I hate are the ones who: Follow everything wrong is a sin; sin themselves; forget the tolerance part. [they go together, not just one part by itself]
lol they are the dead, or lukewarm christians. they follow the letter of the law, but do they really truly love god? not very often, as they use christianity as a security blanket, not a bungee cord (meaning they hide in it, not use it for "extreme things"
i'm not using logic to describe his healing, because i can't logically explain it. The medicine could have healed him, therefore answering our prayer, and even if it did, that's how God works.
Archaeology does prove the historical aspects, but my point is that it gives physical evidence, and that the Bible does fill the gaps by providing names and other context.
I love science! My life's dream used to be that I would become a scientist and learn about the stars and cancer and that I could somehow leave a mark on humanity by using science. I'm not saying that science is for lame old fogeys who don't know anything, I'm just saying that they aren't 100% correct about the ways of the world.
The whole point of prayer is not just asking God for something and getting it, because that's not always what He wants. The way God works is by providing means for something to happen. If you went to the zoo wanting a dead elephant, and you prayed for one to drop dead, then God could answer your prayer by providing someone to poison them. I don't think that I've ever seen God just "poof" the answer to someone's prayers into existence, for me He usually sets it up. Just like with the medicine, I thought about it and realized that maybe God did use them to heal the guy right as we prayed, but as your science proves, there are no "coincidences!"
Out of everything you explained there, the bottom line is that you're giving God credit for something that there is no logical reason for him to have credit for. If the medicine healed the man. That was the medicine. There's no need to apply another step and say God did it. The same goes for the elephant. It was the poison. Not God providing the poison.
That word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
A remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection.
YES, coincidences do happen! They do logically happen! Improbable does not mean impossible. All a coincidence implies is that there is no connection. Or that the connection isn't obvious. Science does NOT state that things must obviously be connected for two UNRELATED events to occur. Stop trying to use the opposition to your advantage. Especially with faulty information.
Also, with your logic on the bible being true because it provides some historical facts, makes it no more verifiable than Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter. It provides some accurate names and places, but fills the rest in with mysticism. In the end, it's a fairy tale.
But you know, I can understand why you're feeling the way you do on a lot of this stuff. With trying to say God used things that were already here for his "miracles". After all, in the past there used to be a lot more signs of his "miracles". Getting well after being sick, or a broken bone healing used to be God's "miracles". But as science progresses, more and more of his "miracles" suddenly aren't all that miraculous. So now God requires preset events to be able to perform miracles. How cute.
PurpleCherries JuniorWhoa, interesting argument.
This thread is locked. You may not post.