₦airaland Forum

Image123:
Bindex,the scriptures are not merely the words of men but hte words of God.They contain divine inspiration and illumination.They reveal to us the truth about God.There are various possibilities as to how the writers could have known those words.Firstly,it could have been revealed to them.God gives revelations to his people.e.g He could reveal information about someone that you're counselling without previous knowledge of it.Secondly,they could have been told,there's that possibility.Jesus was with them for many days after His ressurection.I don't think they were just winking at each other or giving each other thumbs up during those days.Its possible that Jesus relayed to them,the events.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Unfortunately,I'll not be suprised if you do not understand this possibilities.All the best though.

Mark which is agreed to be the first gospel written about 40 or more years after the said ressurection does not have any appearing of Jesus to his disciples in the original text, even the NIV version of the bible acknowledges this fact go and check it out.Why would such a great event be missing in the original version of the first gospel ever written? All the other gosples were copied from mark with so many other additions.

huxley:
In his sermons, Joel Osteen does not talk about God. Joel Osteen instead talks about almost everything except God. He has a television ministry, a massive church, $43 million a year in tithes and another $36 million a year in mailed in donations, but he won’t talk about God. He, like Pastor Kevin Gerald, talks about more pleasant topics, such as donating money to him and positive thinking. He has written two books, the second of which sold 3 million copies, but his books don’t really talk about God either. It’s just his bland and boring advice on how to live a happy life that has been thought of by other people first, “Think positively about yourself” and other such drivel. More here

He doesn't need to talk about any God because he is God himself.

Paul's epistles were the earliest Christian documents (at least that made it into the Bible). His mission was to bring his version of Christianity to the Gentiles (the Jews, including the Jewish Christians, weren't buying what he was selling so he found a new market). Before Paul's epiphany on the road to Damascus he was a physical extremist and after was a spiritual extremist. Paul was a policeman for the the Jewish High Priest and as such, he persecuted Christians often to their deaths. Paul did not learn his gospel from Jesus or the disciples. At first they didn't believe he was a disciple as it was so different from the "other" gospel.Events in the Christian bible imply that Paul continued to work for the Romans while acting as an apostle which creates an enormous credibilty problem for the writings of Paul since he would have a significant bias in favor of the Romans and against the Jews. Paul was the true founder of Christianity, not Jesus.

It was Paul that substituted "faith in Jesus" for the Jewish bible. It was Paul that took his new religion to the Gentiles. Paul was the one that was heretical to Jewish theology while Jesus preached a continuation of torah law. After the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the Jews, Christian Jews and Jewish Jews, were devastated in number allowing Paul's brand of theology to flourish. Paul's brand of Christianity succeeded because he could convince Gentiles of his interpretations of the Jewish bible. He failed miserably among the Jews because they knew what the passages really meant. The Jews didn't buy his Messiah as Jesus met none of the criteria in their own bible except being Jewish.

By the time of Constantine and the "vote" of Jesus' divinity (which Paul preached and James did not) the number of Christians following James who was the heir to Jesus' teaching were very few in number. Paul's group won by shear numbers. The two dissending votes were the from the token Essenes who preached a non-deity Jesus. If Jesus returned today (assuming he was real) he would go to a synagogue, not a church.

Paul's own writings show he was often accused of being a liar. Remember, Paul himself stated that the ends justified the means. Rom:3;5, 7-8; Cor: 12:16: Phil: 1:18 Paul uses the word "we" when referring to the Gentiles. There are significant indications that Paul was a failed convert to Judaism in The Ascension of Jamesand Panarion 30,16, 6-9 both by Epiphanius. Paul probably lied about being a student of Gamaliel, the leader of the Pharisee party. This can be inferred from the fact that Gamaliel supported the law and opposed the High Priest while Paul opposed the law and worked for the High Priest. Logically, it is much more likely that Paul was a Sadducee since the High Priest was the leader of the Sadducee party

Bastage:
You've almost got it, but not quite.
Paul never tried to be the succesor of Jesus but it was probable that he was trying to overthrow the power of James as head priest of the new Christian movement.
He is definitely an enigma - some think him a conniving self-server while others think him a great free-thinker. The truth is you have to make your own mind up about him.
I must admit, I have swayed backwards and forwards many times!!!

As for his consistency with Jesus? Again, it's a personal take but I see nothing that is out of place when one remembers the circumstances in which Jesus was preaching. You've got to remember, Jesus was teaching in a time when the vast majority of his audience would have been Jewish. "Gentile" was not a word that would have taken up a lot of his time. In fact the only non-Jews he would really have interacted with would have had negative connotations as they would have been the Roman occupiers.
Paul came from a much more cosmopolitan time. Not only were "gentiles" common-place, but he himself was a Roman citizen.

I think the Jerusalem community of Jewish "Christians" (they were observant Jews, and didn't call themselves by that name),led by James, were the original followers of Jesus and reflect his teachings much more accurately than the writings of Paul and his followers. Their beliefs are largely obscured or covered up in the gospels and Acts (written later by followers of Paul). Paul was an accomodationist Jew with ties to the Romans and the Herodians, and he made Jesus into a "safe" figure that didn't threaten Roman authority. Paul set up the Jews (or most Jews) as the enemies of Jesus, this theme was elaborated in the gospels, and the result was a strong streak of anti-semitism in Christianity. I don't think this evidence is worth much. The problem is that the gospels sometimes reflect the period in which they were written rather than the period which they describe. They also reflect the agenda of the authors. By the end of the first century, Christians were separating from Judaism and were being expelled from synagogues. So it's logical to assume that the gospel authors felt a hostility to Jews stemming from their own situation. (This is especially true for John). They wanted to emphasize the Jewish rejection of Jesus, and show that they were even worse than the pagan Romans.

I think Acts is one reason for a lot of the confusion about early Christian history. It pretends to describe the immediate years after Christ's death but it's clearly not a good historical source, being written many decades later and including a lot of mythologizing. Paul is one of the main characters, but at times it contradicts Paul's own accounts of events in his letters. It clearly has an agenda - it wants people to believe that all the problems between Paul and the Jewish Christians were smoothed over and resolved (in Paul's favor) and Christian unity was achieved.

Paul's letters make it clear that James (who he calls the brother of Jesus) was the unquestioned leader of the early Christian movement, and that they were at odds - he criticizes both James and Peter pretty viciously. Acts practically writes James out of the picture. He's not mentioned at all in the early sections, then suddenly pops up to issue a command at the "Jerusalem council" with Paul. If he was such an important figure that he could make decisions that were binding on Peter and Paul, how is it that Acts tells nothing about him except for that one brief appearance?

Acts also contains a lot of myth-making and unbelievable magical acts by the apostles. There are stories of apostles winning duels with magicians, and Peter striking dead a Christian couple who didn't turn over all their income to the church! (I wonder why that part was included in the book)

We also find out that Peter insisted on following Jewish dietary laws, until God sent him a vision of a magic "tablecloth" covered with all kinds of food and told him they were all "clean". (i.e. Paul's position). This would seem to prove that Jesus taught nothing of the kind! If Jesus had really proclaimed all foods to be clean, wouldn't Peter have known? Why would God need to send this vision to his No. 1 apostle?  This seems to be a perfect example of fabricating scriptures, in this case to put God's stamp of approval on Paul's pro-gentile teaching.

IMO the point of Acts is to establish Paul as the successor to Jesus (to the detriment of Peter and James) and Luke as the successor to Paul (to the detriment of John Mark and Barnabas). It's pure propaganda.

I would like if someone could quote for me some Bible verses, allegedly spoken by Jesus, which indicate that salvation is available to Gentiles as well as God's chosen people, the Hebrews/Jews/12 Tribes of Israel, because I can recall nothing in my readings of the Bible indicating this(Jesus saying that salvation is for everybody).

Mat 15:21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon.

Mat 15:22 A Canaanite wo[/b]man from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."

Mat 15:23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

Mat 15:24 He answered, "[b]I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel."

Mat 15:25 The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.

Mat 15:26 He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

Mat 15:27 "Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

I also recall Jesus fully endorsing OT Law, saying we his followers must be "as righteous as (or was it "more righteous than"?) the Pharisees."

Mat 19:16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?"
Mat 19:17 And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments."

(OT laws)

Then Paul comes along, claims to have met Jesus in a strange vision, and turns it all around.
Why take him seriously? If Jesus actually performed the miracles the gospels said he did, then those eye-witnesses to those miracles must have been mightily impressed (not that anyone hearing or reading about it much later should be convinced). But Paul did not raise the dead, walk on water, feed a multitude with two loaves and five fishes, etc. He just claimed to have had a vison on the road to Damascus. Maybe he had just been out in the sun too long and was hallucinating (or maybe he was just making it up). Why take him seriously when he reverses two fundamental principles of Jesus' teachings?
Did Jesus ever say anything nice about the Gentiles after calling them "dogs" and specifically saying that he was sent ONLY for the lost sheep of Isreal? Did he offer Gentiles salvation too (or was it just Paul who later said that?). Did Jesus ever say that salvation depended solely on faith, not on works?
It seems to me that a lot hinges on this. I think any Christian would agree that if there is a contradiction between what Jesus says and what Paul (or anyone else) says, that Jesus' word trumps Paul's.
And if God is not concerned with Gentiles because he certainly didn't care much for them throughout the Old Testament, except to order the Israelites to slaughter them from time to time, whenever the he feels like it.

In the book of acts it was written that the bibleGod spoke to speaking to Ananias in regards to the upcoming visit by the recently converted Paul. Meaning that it was the bibleGod that called Paul to take the gospel to the gentiles, not a decision by Paul himself.

Acts 9:15- "But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:"

The question then is
(1)Why should people trust this Ananias character? There is no indication that he was among Jesus' disciples while he was supposedly on earth.
(2) How do are people supposed to know that the "voice" speaking to both Paul and Ananias is not "satan"? satan is said to have spoken to so many people in the bible claiming to be the bibleGod.

I looked it up, and read that most scholars date the book of Acts between 60 and 100 years after the crucifixion and resurrection. The Epistles were also written decades after Jesus left the Earth (one way or another). If Jesus wanted to say that salvation was available to Gentiles as well as Jews, why did he not say so himself instead if describing Gentiles as "dogs" and telling his disciples he was sent ONLY to "the lost sheep of Israel"? If Jesus meant to say that people can be saved by faith alone, then why did he so emphatically state that his followers must follow the Law?
Why did it take Jesus between 50 and 100 years to deliver this revised message to Paul posthumously?

To me it seems far more likely that the Gospels, Acts and Epistles were written by different men, with different agendas, and no help from the God they espouse, they didn't do a very good job of comparing notes to keep their stories consistent with one another.

He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me." Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. "Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?" he asked Peter. "Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak." He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done." When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing. Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour is near, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us go! Here comes my betrayer!"

People believe that the bible was written by "eye witness" who were with Jesus, saw and heard all that he did, why then are some of the stories written in the second or third person? Ok now let's take a look at the above passage, It clearly says that all of Jesus disciples were sleeping when he went away and prayed, how did they know what he said when it is very clear that he never told them because after the said incident he was taken away and crucified, how did the "eye witness" writer of this passage know what had transpired when it was written that they were sleeping? how did he("eye witness" writer) know when he was supposed to be among all the disciples that were sleeping?

By the way who was Jesus praying to? I brought this up because 4him on another thread said that since Jesus is God he does not need to dance and sing praises to himself because he is God.

4him said 1. Jesus Christ is God Himself . . . to whom would He have been dancing and singing to?

Since Jesus Christ is God to whom was he praying and crying to? or why was Jesus praying and crying to himself?

OLAADEGBU:
Since you believe that my God is imaginary why then do want me to ask Him to give answers to your questions? The similiarity between us is that we don't know all the facts, hence we have to have faith. I have faith in the existence of God and If I have any question in life I go to Him and seek His face diligently and He will answer me. But you have faith that God does not exists, you only have faith in what you can see, hence your humanistic and naturalistic religion; take your questions to these people and if you come stuck, its your choice. I believe in the One who is absolutely certain about the answers to our questions, therefore, my faith is based on absolute certainty. My faith is based on rock solid evidences, which is the Word of God and His creation. His Spirit is in me to guide me into the right path. That is the difference between faith based on solid evidence and blind faith which is a myth.

Bla bla bla bla bla demonstrate the Jocob's genetic enginerring model and win 1 million dollars. By the way why dont we have people running faster than horses, manna falling from heaven, people surviving inside a fish for 3 days, talking donkeys, talking snakes, people dividing rivers into two, people feeding 5000 people with 5 fish and 2 loafs of bread and all the other outlandish lies in the bible happening in todays world any more? I am yet to see the bibleGod kill off the enemies of Christain the way he used to in the bible.

I find it so quaint to watch creationists change their minds as science makes this myths a complete nonsense. Do you realize that there are two different creation stories in genesis 1 and 2? The bible writers never intended it to be read by everybody as it was in the beginning it was never intended for mass public distribution(even inside the bible only the priest and religious teachers were allowed acces to the scripture and to teach word of the bibleGod) Only the church priests were allowed a copy and dictated what they wanted to the people.

duduspace:
Sounds like something from "The Simpsons" pray, is Davidylan Homer's dumber brother?

wirinet:
correction, genesis never said God created the universe, It says in the beginning god created the heaven and earth. Now how do you think the person/persons who wrote genesis knew the extent of the universe, when they thought you could see the whole round earth from a mountain top. the whole world to them extend to only the middle east and parts of Europe.

Also the earth as a dry land was created later and not in the beginning, also heaven (firmement) was also created later, and mot the beginning.

Apart from that there are two different creation stories in genesis one and genesis two. One says God created plants on the second day while the other said it was after the whole creation, one said God created the animals before man while the other said God created the animals after man(this was cleverly edited and corrected in some versions of the bible).

OLAADEGBU:
Talk is cheap. Anyone can talk and not many of you have any moral responsibility to admit the truth. Again take your question to another thread and come back here to give your candid opinion about what you think would be the answer to the challenges posed on this thread, and if you feel you are really sure about yourself don't just blow hot air take the bold step and win some money for yourself instead of showing your frustration about the God you do not believe exists. I may not know all the answers but I know the One who is certain about all the answers, and I can communicate with Him if I am not sure about any question. But you have no hope since you don't believe that He exists so all your questions would remain a mystery and that explains all the frustrations and confusion that you display on this forum.

Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla, go ahead and tell your imaginary God who you believe knows everything to explain the Jacob genetic engineering model to you, come and demonstrate it and win I million dollars. Its as simple and that.

This just show that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet?

lawyer:
@lady

Well, your mistaken and i will show where it is written in the bible that God created Evil

Isaiah 45:7 , “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

There you have it!

There is really no need showing her, just tell her to go read her bible. Christians are quick to show that their God can stand no evil, when the moronic monster is there in the bible beating his chest declaring that he created evil. The people that created that imaginary fraudulent monster of a God did not think this one through before including it in that book of death they call the bible. I am about to finish reading the old testament and all I can say is WOW what a monster of a God and what a very violent people the ancient Jews are.

OLAADEGBU:
The opportunity for you evolutionists and atheists to make your statement and settle this long overdue debate. This is a free entry to win $10,000 for the scientic proof of Evolution. Guys this is your chance to make a couple of nikels if you are really serious about your claims.

http://www.intelligentdesignversusevolution.com/

I will give 1 million $$$ to any christian that can display how the Jacob's genetic engneering model works. I want to have a white baby so I hung a picture of a white baby while having sex with my girlfriend both she and I all kept our eyes on the picture through out the entire process but she just give birth to a black child, any christain that can demonstrate how that process of genetic engineering works will get 1 million dollars in cash.

agaba123:
I wish you have read the bible.
I wish you have read the bible again.

Its very clear you have'nt read the bible. I believe you only cherry pick and read the pleasent parts. Does the bibleGod advocate slavery, segregation, death and destruction of people of other faiths? YES go read it up its all over your bible.

Kobojunkie:
Isn't that what you are doing right now ; The WE(those of us who do not care for religion) And Them ( The religious numknots to you)?  Gosh!!! When you start insulting people's beliefs, you show that you are just like those you claim to despise.

Anywho, if this is going to turn into one of those many US vs THEM arguments that we see in the religion section where non-religious and religious people alike battle themselves to the end with no end, then no thanks.

@Admin, Maybe you ought to move this to religion cause it seems to be going the same way most all those ramblings in there do.

Do the deities in the bible and the koran teach discrimination, segregation, and racism against people of other faiths? YES, so what is it you are saying? I am not talking about religion I am talking about what is in the bible and the koran.

Kobojunkie:
Sounds more like what religious people do. They live their lives by what they feel is right which also happens to be what their respective religions teach. WOW!! Roflmao!!

Yeah killing of the infidels is right isn't it? or slavery? Why do christains frwon at slavery today when the bible strongly advocates slavery? I don't see most moslems stonning to death their gay friends all over the place even though that is what the koran teaches them.

davidylan:
Bindex, unfortunately the bible is clear . . . Jesus Christ is the only way. See i cant apologise for something i simply believe but did not include in the bible, Christ didnt seek my input to say that.

Like i always say, if you dont like it you are absolutely free to give it a wide pass.

I dont give a Bleep about who Jesus Christ is what he said or what people said he said, Jesus Christ can be the way from here to the bibleGod's anus that is his bleeping problem all I am saying is that this is what happens when you allow religion to destroy your brian cells. There are no better advocates of racism, descrimination, intolerance and the permanent we vs them divide amongst humans like Allah and Jehovah the God of the old testament are there? If there is one then pls go ahead and tell me.

davidylan:
If being "unequally yoked" is equal to having ONLY christian friends (as christians) then Zacheus would never have met Jesus neither would Judas have lasted 3 days with the disciples.

The only problem is when you have friends who are unsaved and you fail to reach out to them in some way with the gospel of salvation. One of my uni roommates was a smoking unbeliever from a muslim home. He got saved after a few months living with us and he made one statement i will never forget - he said he only wanted the peace the rest of us had and he found it in Jesus. He turned out to be one of the best friends a man could ever ask for.

In the same vein there are those friends who have no interest in hearing the bible anyway, you've done your part . . . carry on being best friends.

This is what happens when you allow religion to destroy your brain cells. Its either your way or the highway.

@Poster, you are either a christian or you are not. If you do not follow the tenets of the belief to the fullest, then you are not, as there is no way one can be a semi-christian. You are either fully in or you are fully out. No inbetween in the religion. Maybe that was what the person was trying to tell you.

There is no connection between light and darkness the bible says there by advocating the permanent we vs them mentality. What a shame

@ poster don't come here whining about how people prosecute you for befriending moslems because that it what the two religions teach. The bible teaches christains not to accept moslems just as the koran teaches moslems not to accept christains. Read the bible and the Koran both of the Gods that are taught in those books strongly advocated segregation, racism and intolerance towards people of other faiths(Christainity teaches maiming of body parts if it causes you to sin and total seperation from the already condemmed while islam teaches total segregation and the utmost racism form the already condemmed unbelievers.). So to come here and start whining that people prosecute you is to not know what your religion teaches. Most people live their lives according to what they feel is right not according to what they were taught by their respective religions.

Mad_Max:
There is more to this than meets they eye. And that's after reading a single article on wikipedia. Believe me, you want to read a few more books on the subject. You quote from Professor Moody's study, I think. I don' think I made any declarations concerning a religion. I merely stated there is an invisible,spiritual dimension, and that quite a lot of atheists have experienced it and accept that,quite a few having to modify their beliefs. For instance, in 1988 Professor Ayer, an Oxford university professor and avowed atheist, flatlined for four minutes at the University College hospital in London. Whie medical personnel worked on him, he said he left this world and was in the presence of a light. This light was like looking into the sun,but it didn't hurt his eyes. This light somehow communicated to him that it ruled the universe. Then he was resusitated. Professor Ayer called the experience 'positive' and said he wasn't sure death was the end of everything anymore. If it was some brain thing, all those brilliant researchers would have their answer and stop looking for answers, right?Yes, a lot of the world's finest universities are still looking into it.

I spent the day reading some few articles on the NDE and I will likely agree that death is not the end to everything. Its possible, all I know is that the 72 virgins, river of wine, golden building , new jerusalem and the worship of a deity for enternity as written in the bible or the koran is all a fiary tale.

isbelhma:
@ bindex
kaima mahaukachi!!!

in kana son hauwa to sai ka fito don ka shirya dambe, don ko ina jiran
duk wanda ya gita mani hanya sakkanina da hauwa, in bashi kashi sosai.

Kai mallam mei ya yi zafi? danmbe ka ke so ka yi? ne ko zan ba ka kunya a gaban hauwa kuwa. Na lalataka na kuma baka kashi kuwa. Ka yi a hankali. Ne dan daba ne, na yanyan ka ka kuwa. barandami na ta na nan a hanuna ina jiranka ka yi wani mosi ka sha mamaki.

Ndipe:
In December 2004 it was announced that long time British Professor and Philosopher, Anthony Flew, regarded by many as "the world's most acclaimed atheist", had renounced his atheism in favour of theism,

I read about Ross and i discovered that he is not a "world's leading cosmologist." He became a very weak deist, in the sense that there might be "something that started this all off". He rejects the afterlife, a benevolent, personal God, and all organized religions.

One of the reasons cited by Prof. Flew was "the evidence." He admitted that for a long time the growing problem of Evolution's inability to explain how life began, or for that matter, how anything began, led him to the inevitable conclusion that it was an inadequate answer in the face of the evidence.

Flew later admitted that he hadn't read any papers on abiogenesis for 10 years and hadn't realized how advanced the modern theories were, besides thats a classic creationist rhetoric. Evolutionary theory does not account for the origin of life, the universe, or anything but the diversity of life on earth.

Then when the DNA Genome code was unraveled the evidence for Design became "undeniable". These two pieces of evidence (1. the existence of life demanding a Life-Source, and 2. the scientific evidence of an extremely complex code in the make-up of that life- DNA) were enough for Prof. Flew to renounce atheism.

Flew is quite simply wrong about this. We have several explanations for the origins of life (see Abiogenesis), none of which require a God, and many of which account for DNA.

PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD,
1.

cause
Everything has a cause,

Then what caused God? The argument defeats itself.

We either posit an infinite regress or an arbitrary starting point. With an infinite regress no god is necessary. With an arbitrary starting point positing a god is no better than positing the universe itself as the First Cause. In fact it's worse. We know the universe exists because we can see it. We can't see any gods. Occam's Razor shaves away any gods.

2.

design
There is evidence for design,

This argument is also self-defeating. The argument appears to be that something complex (like the human eye) can't arise from something less complex. Complexity requires a designer. This means that God must be more complex than the universe. If God is more complex than the universe then certainly God must have been designed by something even more complex. The result is an infinite regress of increasing complex designers. Since there is no upper bound to the allowed complexity there can be no ultimate designer and therefore no God.

There's another problem with this argument. Nature is filled with examples of "bad design". The human eye is a marvel of bad design. It's wired badly so that every human has a blind spot. It makes inefficient use of size. It's not that a more efficient design is impossible. The fly has an efficient eye. There's probably more bad design in nature than good design. This makes sense in terms of evolution (which has no ultimate goal), but no sense for an Intelligent Designer.

3.

morality
There is intrinsic morality which needs a point of reference,

Morality comes from evolution. There are survival advantages in not committing murder. If I attack someone it's likely that they will act in self-defense. This increases my risk for being killed. Likewise there's a survival advantage to not stealing. If I try to steal your food you'll act in self-defense and again my risk of getting killed increases. However, if we agree to share resources then we both benefit. Perhaps I'm a better hunter than you, but you're a better forager than I. I do the hunting for both of us and you do the foraging for both of us. We're basically diversifying our mutual fund. But what happens if you decide to break your agreement with me one day when the hunt doesn't go well? Other people are going to see that you don't keep your word and they won't want to enter into these mutually beneficial agreements with you.

How do we know what "evil" is? How do we know what "good" is? These concepts demand either the existence of a standard to make such evaluations, or an understanding what these concepts mean. Each of us are born with an innate sense of morality. We each fundamentally know what is right and wrong. It is incredible to consider that no matter time, culture, geographic location, or people, the Moral Law has been universally acknowledged

There are great variations over time and in different cultures about what is wrong and right. For example, the writers of the Bible had absolutely no problem with slavery.Most of the mordern world believe its a very bad institution. Greek thought that the love between a man and a boy was the highest form of love. In modern some parts of the world homosexuality is generally seen as something between icky and deserving of death. 60 years ago divorce was socially unacceptable, as was marrying someone outside of your own race. Today both are commonplace and without stigma.

4.

resurrection
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ,

The only "evidence" comes from the Bible, which was written by non-eyewitnesses, copied numerous times with both deliberate and accidental changes, and highly edited. The Bible is pure hearsay.

"Proof" though is measured and determined according to the type of claim. The type of proof needed to substantiate a claim involving chemistry is different to the type of proof needed to substantiate a claim made about history. Proof in physiology is different to the type of proof needed for psychology. Proof in philosophy is different to the proof required for philology. Proof required for biology is different to the type of proof required for theology. To demand that "hard" science (physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy) proof tests be the only acceptable means for testing a "soft" science (psychology, history, philosophy, literature) claim is unreasonable. Thus, imposing natural proof tests on supernatural claims is an unreasonable measure and totally inadequate. But where supernatural claims are made which have natural implications, such as "an invisible God created all that we see" (Romans 1:20) "proof" takes on the garb of "supporting evidence" when looking at the natural evidence to support this supernatural claim.

This guy needs to back up his bible with something. He's not going to convince anyone by spouting scripture.

and it is the point at which all of the history of Christ and Christianity rests. This means that if anything of Christ and Christianity is true then the Physical Resurrection of Christ is also true. The opposite is also true. If Christ did not literally rise from the dead then none of his history or teachings have any credence.

There are Atheists and other non-Christians who see value in his moral teachings, even though they don't believe in his resurrection, divinity, or even existence.

But if the resurrection of Christ can be seen as a reasonable historic fact (based on over 500 eye-witnesses

Not a single one of whom bothered to write down what they saw. We only have Paul's word for it that there were over 500 eye-witnesses. More hearsay.

the preparedness of all of those witnesses to defend their testimonies even at the point of losing their lives

Please provide evidence that even one of these eye-witnesses lost his life defending his testimony

the resultant baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues- still available today) then this is perhaps the most overwhelming piece of proof for the existence of God.

I would have been more if these tongues were human languages that the speakers never learned. How come none of these people ever spontaneously start speaking yoruba or hausa? Why is it always gibberish that they don't even understand?

5.
experience
The claims of Christ can be experienced

People from all religions have religious experiences. Are all of their (mutually incompatible) religions true?

OLAADEGBU:
If you are looking for an unmistakable evidence of the existence of God you need to look at the nation called Israel today. This evidence confirms what God has said in the Bible, which reveals to us how nation came to be in the past it predicted both the present and future incidents. If you want to now about God's time table you need to look at the nation of Israel today.

http://www.timesofnoah.com/israel.html

What evidence? Do you want me to go ahead and list some of the failed biblical prophecies corncerning the people of Israel in the bible? By the way the people of Israel do not believe in the bibleGod(and Jesus) they also do not believe some Christian dogmas like hell etc .Don't confuse yourself. The fact that the old testament was based on Judaism doesn't mean that the new testament was.

~Lady~:
Seriously were you lying about being open minded or what?

I really don't want to continue this discussion with you because you really do not care, you don't want to be open minded, and you don't want to see it from a different persepective. You only want to rant and vent to everyone. You want to rant and vent call your mother or girlfriend or anyone close to you who's willing to listen.
I have no time for internet rantings. Stop deceiving yourself and me, by saying that you're going to be open minded. You aren't, you don't want to, at least be truthful with yourself if not me.

.

I am not jumping the gun. Pls go ahead and show me how I have not been open minded, all I said was that the people that wrote about the bibleGod in the old testament did so based purely on their culture, their little understanding of how the world really is and their prejudice. How does that amount to raving?

So because an atheist became a theist means God exist? you want me to list a few Christian preachers that became moslems or vice versa? how does their conversion prove the truth of the koran or bible? Your entire write up proves nothing but shows how desperate the writer is at grasping at straws.

4.

resurrection
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Skeptics may dispute this historical claim that Jesus Christ rose again from the dead but they do so perilously. This is because there is enough evidence to validate it and it is the point at which all of the history of Christ and Christianity rests. This means that if anything of Christ and Christianity is true then the Physical Resurrection of Christ is also true. The opposite is also true. If Christ did not literally rise from the dead then none of his history or teachings have any credence.

But if the resurrection of Christ can be seen as a reasonable historic fact (based on over 500 eye-witnesses, the preparedness of all of those witnesses to defend their testimonies even at the point of losing their lives, the resultant baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues- still available today) then this is perhaps the most overwhelming piece of proof for the existence of God.

Any claim out side of the bible to show that Christ died and resurrected as it was written in the bible? Remember that there were very extra ordinary things that were said to have happened when Jesus was crucified, it is written in some accounts of the gospels that there was darkness all over the land for 3 hours when Jesus was crucified, it amazing that nobody bothered to write about it any where. What about this extra ordinary event of the many dead bodies of jewish saints in jerusalem that were also resurrected and walked around the city? no single eye witness bothered to write about this extra ordinary events and you keep bandying the lie that there are evidence to support the resurrection story in the bible. Just list one source outside the bible that supports the resurrection story as portrayed in the bible,. Just one external and independent source out side the bible.

KunleOshob:
Topics in the bible are not subject to peoples opinion but verifiable bible based facts. If the bible doesn't answer the question ( which i don't think it does) i don't think you should be soliciting for peoples opinion as they would only confuse you further.

Mad_Max:
And what about atheists who held no prior religious convictions and yet experienced the spiritual dimension after clinical death?

It's not at all as simple as you make out,and if it could be discountenanced like that some of the world's most prominent scientists and universities wouldn't have been investigating if for decades. The resusitated didn't necessarily see beings from religious literature,and a lot of their experiences are similar and have motifs in common,irrespective of race,background,education and religious belief.That's how scientists could determine a pattern to them.

For starters you may wish to examine the refences and further reading material on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience

I can also list a few of the hundreds of books,articles and research findings in the area by scientists,psychiatrists,psychologists,doctors and university professors,many of them atheists prior to their investigations. A staggering number of them discarded atheism after research, but touted man as divine instead,and birthed Omega and New Age and other spiritist groups. I guess that's their way of acknowledging the spiritual and the afterlife without bringing God into it.

These are some of the Characteristics of near death experienced by so many people that were prounced clinically dead regardless of their religion, race or gender. According to the link you prodived.

In some cases, a NDE any particular person experiences varies depending on the beliefs that the person held[citation needed]. Children, who typically do not have enough time to develop strongly towards one faith, had very limited NDEs. Examples of this include a boy simply having talked to his brother in his NDE and a daughter having a conversation with her mother. The phenomenology of an NDE usually includes physiological, psychological and alleged transcendental aspects.Typically, the experience follows a distinct progression:

1. A very unpleasant sound/noise is the first sensory impression to be noticed (R. Moody: Life after Life);
2. A sense of being dead;
3. Pleasant emotions; calmness and serenity;
4. An out-of-body experience; a sensation of floating above one's own body and seeing the surrounding area;
5. Floating up a blue tunnel with a strong, bright light or garden at the end;
6. Meeting deceased relatives or spiritual figures;
7. Encountering a being of light, or a light (often interpreted as being the deity or deities they personally believe in);
8. Being given a life review (the "life-flashing-before-your-eyes" phenomenon);
9. Reaching a border or boundary;
10. A feeling of being returned to the body, often accompanied by a reluctance.
11. Feeling of warmth even though naked

This goes a long way to show that even when people are pronouced clinically dead, their beliefs still acompany them and helps in forming what ever it is they tend to experience, moslems see their deceased relatives, same with hindus, shirks, chriatians etc. What then does that tell you? Why does every body seem to see his/her relatives regardless of their religion? some also see the deities in which they believe in regardless of their religion. There is much more to all these things than meets the eyes I must say but to declear that christainity, islam, hinduism or judaism alone has an answer to all these things is a farce. Moslems see mohammed, Christians see Jesus, athiest see some strange things(neither jesus or mohammed) children see their parents etc. This alone should be able to give you an insight into how beliefs constitute or plays a very important role in a persons life as long as his brian is still functioning.

Tasma:
Right people may have strange stories to tell during near death experiences, many people have had dreams that seem very spiritual,deep and complicated. How the brains works in a semi conscious or unconscious state is not something humans beings know much about. Brain activity of a person in a coma is something medicine is still struggling to deal with. Mankind as a whole is in a learning process, several things we know today were not known hundreds of years ago. My simple argument is that why can't we simply be humble enough to say we don't know that much about our existence. Why must we create a concept of God to account for everything we cannot figure out. It's all so embarrassing when some years down the line we are forced to apologise for absolute statements we have made about God due to our limited knowledge - case in point, God created a flat earth or the sun revolves round the earth.

You also forgot to add the rainbow and drought explanation in the bible and the koran.

Mad_Max:
Atheism seemed to have moved beyond the point of denying there isn't a spiritual dimension.
Modern medicine has made it possible to resuscitate an untold number of clinically dead patients and they came back with somewhat similar 'good' and 'evil' experiences,labelling the encounter 'unbelievable',and this includes high-ranking military men and Oxford professors. There has been extensive scientific research into clinical death experiences and out-of-body experiences,with a vast number of documented cases and books on the subject from some of the world's leading psychiatrists,psychologists,doctors and reseachers. Most of them were atheists but the undenyable proof of the 'other world' converted most from atheism to New Age and Omega. From Carl Jung to Elizabeth Kubler Ross,prominent Yale and Harvard professors and scientists, they conducted research into death and spirituality,were astonished to discover there is a dimension invisible to the physcial eyes, but this led them into the occult,stuff practiced by the ancients and which still works,apparently.

There are also many clinically dead patients that have been resuscitated and never saw or experienced anything all. Christians, Moslems, Hindus etc that have experienced the so called out of body experiences all witnessed what their beliefs told them will happen when they die, Moslems see Mohammad the Moslem heaven Moslem angels etc while Christians see Jesus, Christians heaven and the angels etc. What does that tell you about the so called out of body experience?

It's interesting that in ages past where vast geographical distances separated nations and tribes,they somehow managed to come up with gods of staggeringly similar descriptions and attributes.

What are the similar description of Zeus, Brahma and Jehovah? What about Allah and Sango? do their share any similar description? Do the Chinese Gods have the same attributes with Allah or the shirk Gods?

OLAADEGBU:
@bindex,

I truly pity your frustrations, and as I said your case is an example of what unequally yoked marriages does to Christians who choose to marry unbelievers and in your case Muslims.  The result as we are now seeing is half baked Muslim and half baked Christian which will ultimately end up in confusion.  Your misconception of Islam and Mohammed is so glaring for even the Muslims on this forum.  And I am sure none of them will agree with you that Mohammed did not die but was ascended to aljanah alive.  Neither will any Christian agree with you that Jesus did not say that "I am the way, the truth and the life". Your confusion which has now made you to become an atheist means that you neither believe in the existence of Jesus Christ nor of God the Father, do you even believe in yourself?  Do you believe that you exist? or that you are random particles?  It is said that if there were no God there will be no atheists, so if you believe that you exists then that means that God is, God was and God is come, the Almighty, unless you believe that you don't exist.  For God not to exist means that you don't exist, and that can only be answered by you.

For the reasons that I stated above, I don't think it will be necessary explaining the Bible text and Jesus that you don't believe exists, unless you can convince me that you now believe that they exist before I can engage you in any meaningful explanations regarding the questions you asked.  Before you continue on this journey to oblivion that you have embarked on it will be wise for you to know what happened to those who went before you who renounced their disbelieve at the times of their affliction and death, people like Sir Francis Newport, Voltaire, Tom Paine, David Hume, Altamont, Ethan Allen, Thomas Hobbes and many others pleaded for mercy from God and regretted their atheism in their dying hour.  God doesn't want you to go to Hell.  Please, forget your arguments, repent and put your trust in Jesus and be saved from God's wrath.  Make Psalm 51 your prayer, then read your Bible daily and always obey what you read; God will never let you down.

A word they say is enough for the wise.

The problem with your own frustration is that I showed you where it is written in a Hadith that Mohamed acended into heaven from the alaqsar mosque in Jerusalem. (See Kitab al-Miraj).

When was Jesus crucified?

9:00 a.m. -- “It was the third hour when they crucified him.” mark (15:25)

12:00 p.m. -- Jesus was not crucified until after the sixth hour! john(19:14-15)

What were his last words on the cross? (john "It is finished", mark and matt. "my god, my god, why have you forsaken me? ((which is like saying "myself, myself, why have i forsaken me?") or luke, "father, into your hands I commit my spirit".

I don't even know what to make of the rest of you drivels. Continue on this Journey of delusion that you have decided to take. God doesn't want me to go to hell? I wonder if Christianity would have ever survived without the concept of hell. OK I want to go to hell go and tell Jehovah or Jesus to come and take me there the next minute.

~Lady~:
Funny enough you believe it to be accurate that God doesn't exist, I guess you just refuted your own claim.

I believe it to be accurate because no God can be seen. Study every religion and you will see that men created all the religions and all the Gods. Moslems, Buddhist, Hindus etc all see and feel their God perhaps even better than the way some Christians see, interact, and feel the presence of their own God.

By the way you asked your question as if the Bible is trying to hide information. There is no conspiracy theory, I've only found people to be too lazy to study, and when something is brought to their attention, they've already made up their mind on what the Bible is and then they get this big, not so much surprise, surprise and then they loose faith as if it's been hidden from them all along. Nope they've just been too lazy to study.

But when you've read the above let me know, and I will move on to Genesis 1.

By the way, what do you think about Christ's teachings, are they good priniciples to live by or not? (pls answer, thanks)

Your write up is nice I must say but it answers little. The problem is that 80 percent of Christians do not know the Christian history or how the bible was written most just believe that it came from heaven. Moses never wrote anything in genesis and your writing just confirms that. I just wonder why genesis is still called and believed to be the first book of moses when truly the authors are unknown. Some of the teachings of Jesus are good. Love your neighbor as you love yourself. Remember the same Jesus never condemned slavery. His messages were based on the level of morality that were acceptable at that time. Our level of morality as out grown that of the bible today. In the old testament the bibleGod advocated slavery, tribalism, racism, rape etc of the non Jews. These vices that we frown at today because the people that wrote all the biblical stories wrote the stories based on their culture, level of morality and how they viewed the world and thought life should be lived. Pls read the old testament again if you haven't, read it up and tell me how you guys still associate the God that is talked about in those books with mercy or love. A God that will instantly kill people because they looked into an ark, harden a persons heart and punish him and other people around him for hardening the persons heart clearly does not understand what love or mercy is. The people that wrote those stories never knew that the world was going to change so much and that their writings were going to be exposed to so many people long after they have died, in fact they never knew other regions existed in the world apart from theirs. Now to genesis 1. It says in the beginning God created the universe, the question is what beginning?

OLAADEGBU:
This is what the marriage of unequal yokes does to their children.  The result is that you were neither a muslim nor a christian.  Before you became an atheist, didn't you have the faintest idea that neither the Qur'an nor the Hadith claimed that Mo was resurrected.  Mo himself was not sure of his destination, he admitted that by saying and I quote: "By Allah, though I am the Apostle of Allah, yet I do not know what Allah will do to me" (Hadith vol.5. no.266).  Buddha said "I die seeking truth",  but Jesus Christ said that "I am the Way, the Truth and the life". and his grave is empty.

Muhammad is believed by many Muslims to have ascended into heaven at the site of the Dome of the Rock. (See Kitab al-Miraj). Jesus never said anything about him being the way the truth and the life, they people that created the Jesus story said that and by the way what do you mean by his grave is empty? Where is his grave? even the so called eye witness could not give the same account of events with regards to how he lived his life, how he died and resurrected in to heaven. Read the gospels once again and tell me when exactly did Jesus die? One of the gospels said he was crucified by 9am while another said he was crucified by noon,

9:00 a.m.  -- “It was the third hour when they crucified him.” mark (15:25)

12:00 p.m.  -- Jesus was not crucified until after the sixth hour!    john(19:14-15)

so which is it 9am or noon?who bore the cross on the way to golgotha prior to crucifixion (jesus himself or simon a cyrenian), did the two brigands crucified with him believe in him (yes, one did in luke 23:39-41, no, mark 15:32 and Matthew 27:44), his last words on the cross, (john "It is finished", mark and matt. "my god, my god, why have you forsaken me? ((which is like saying "myself, myself, why have i forsaken me?") or luke, "father, into your hands I commit my spirit".  did roman soldiers guard the tomb? (yes in matt 28:4 or no in John 20:1) matthew uniquely added details (unknown to the other gospels) that an angel rolled back a rock from in front of the tomb, a guard was present at the tomb, the veil of the temple was torn in two accompanied by an earthquake, and amazingly, many dead bodies of jewish saints in jerusalem were also resurrected and walked around the city    yet no single eye witness bothered to write about all these extra ordinary events outside of the bible until about 40-70 years after the were believed to have happened some "eye witness" wrote about them as the gospels and got the whole story all so mixed up. If the so called eye witnessed got it all so mixed up why then are you still saying that his grave is empty?

Can you quote either from the Qur'an or the Hadiths to support your claims?  Even the Muslims see you as a serial joker with all your preposterous claims.  Tell me where it is written that Mo is presently enjoying in Aljanah, he was not sure where he would end up and he was honest enough to tell his disciples that he had no assurance of salvation.  The only assurance given to them is if you or any former slave of Islam discloses their identities to any of those slaves of Allah and they succeed in eliminating you then they have the assurance of entering into aljanah otherwise they will have to wait to know their fate on judgment day.  The other spurious claim that you have been bandering about is the so called visions of those who went to aljanah and that they saw allah, do you care to show us at least one of the links or videos or references to support your far fetched claims?

Muhammad is believed by many Muslims to have ascended into heaven at the site of the Dome of the Rock. (See Kitab al-Miraj). There is a book by Nasril Alfiasal a moslem from yemen who claimed to have been to Aljannah. I once read it in dubai about 6 years ago you can go and look for it and read. Also keep in mind that a homosexual christains(Roberts Liardon ) also claimed to have been to heaven where he saw Jesus and the angels.