₦airaland Forum

dblock:
So basically you're saying that all the bits and pieces that came together to start the infinite reactions that occur in our universe were created by no one for no reason.

Yes.

It was just a boom out of nowhere

No.

Nothing, No one-----Then-------------Boom-------particles form out of nowhere from nothing---------------

Wow, how reaviling, i'm going to convert to athiesm right away

You can convert to whatever you want to, but yes particles do form out of nothing: virtual particles. It certainly isn't impossible in light of the evidence we have.

Wow does science sayt that?, I never new that

No, but your religion (along with many old philosophies) did. That would explain the opinion you expressed in the part of your post I responded to sarcastically.

The supreme being definitely had a starting point, but he came to been the same second as time came to been, He came to been so that life could be created and void would be non existent.

And how did the Supreme Being come to be? You've claimed that "the fact of change requires an agent of change", so what agent of change caused your Supreme Being?

Is that a scientifical phrase commonly used by Athiests, please rephrase, I'm not begging anything

Begging the question: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

I am not denying that the sages that occured after the Big Bang occured, but i am saying that the Big Bang is definitely not an alternative to christianity, as it may even have being the way that God created Earth(I doubt it though).

I didn't say it was. nd it would be the Universe, not the Earth - I doubt it too.

Me and a mate of mine are positive of a way to produce an Authentic video of the Begining of our planet, 100% exactly as it happened, not a bit different.

When you've produced the video, be sure to share it with the science community. By the way, may I ask how you intend on achieving the phenomenal feat?

Well what i am saying ad you keep answering in a odd fashion, is thatsuch an event as the Big Bang would have to have being created by someone, wheter it be Buddha or Ganeesh

Why would the Big Bang have to have been produce by someone? Also, if you tell me what's odd about the way I'm answering, I'll try to change my future mode of answering to suit you.

I find it impossible to believe that this world which we live in was created for no reason bu no one and if destroyed could possibly be the end of life anywhere in the universe, maybe forever. That is extremely hard to believe, and I am a flexible person

Okay. So?

I trust you will answer appropriately and not with the usual "Yes It can"

To what?

my2cents:
For the same reason, as a Christian, I don't believe in Evolution as it has been put forth, however, I do believe that we do evolve over time

I don't think there's a difference between the former and the latter. In any case, while it's possible that it's Jesus' tomb, I remain sceptical of their claims

dblock:
The Big Bang Theory is not empirical or pragmatic, infact it is a bold statement and a questionable one; to say that is even a fact or based on facts, for a fact is a piece of information or information that is conclusive and leaves no space of any sort for possibilities. The Big Bang theory is adamant to inconclusive and substantial information.

Actually, the Big Bang theory is based on facts, follows the scientific method and the evidence for it are empirical.

Further points to prove the existence of God and thus the credibility of Christianity and the falsification of the “Big Bang Theory” and other preposterous theories.

[color=#005600](1)The fact of change requires an agent of change;

Radioactive decay; Virtual particles. They don't need an "agent of change".

(2)The chain of causation needs to be grounded in a first cause that is itself uncaused;
(3)The contingent facts of the world (facts that might not have been as they are) presuppose a necessary being;

[/quote]Begging the question.

[quote](4)One can observe a gradation of things as higher and lower, and this points to a perfect reality at the top of the hierarchy;

Can one? Is a whale higher than a shark? Why? Is Mars higher than Saturn? Why? You're still begging the question.

(5)The order and design of nature demand as their source a being possessing the highest wisdom.[/color]

Bete]

Not necessarily.

Can such as the Big Bang occur systematically if there wasn't something or someone in the begining to start of the reaction.

Yes.

I have made up no information whatsoever

"Big Bang nucleosynthesis is explained to be the process that began shotly after the Big Bang theory and is said to be what made the expansion of space possible"

"Supreme Being(God)=Time
____________________ = Creation of everything nessecary for life and life itself
Time

If the supreme being is equal to time, that certainly doesn't mean that the being is testable,

Actually, that's what it means. It also means your Supreme being had a starting point. Do you know what "equal" means?

as he is ominpotent, but he can be changed if it is by his will, for only he can determine what happens in our universe or in the rhealm of this or future time.

So your Supreme being is changeable? Just to be clear.

I believe they do, The billions and billions of stars in the universe exist because they are created by a collapsing cloud of material that is composed primarily of hydrogen along with some helium and heavier trace elements to kickstart a reaction. The elements that start this reaction were created scientifically but by the wil of God, for purposes such as Navagating(people use stars to navigate). The biggest star in our galaxy, the sun was purposely created for the effect of heating, photosythesis, evapotranspiration etc. for our Biosphere.

And the Earth is the immovable center of the Universe and everything revolves around it.

God is a reality, accept it

There is no God, accept it. This is fun!

syrup:
@KAG,

As regards the exclusivity of the Bahai faith, let me point out something in the lines you provided:

This is what the public reader is offered, so that the intrinsic exclusivity of Bahaism does not appear initially - until one takes a more practical and experiential approach to the religion.

In the Westernized version of Bahaism, it is often said that the faith is (and has always been) inclusive. However, the true Bahai still practised with its eastern flavours is quite exclusivistic. The quote above about its claim to be "the most recent and beneficial revelation from God to humanity" presupposes its exclusive undertone: in which case, all other faiths outside Bahaism are just at the other end of the scales - ir[/b]relevant and [b]un[/b]beneficial.

No, that's not what I got from both the quoted line and the context as a whole. While they may believe it is the most recent and beneficial compared to other religions, it doesn't mean the other religions are wrong nor does it mean that they are unbeneficial. Remember they believe the other "prophets" and "men-God" of the main religions are all from the God you all worship, and their messages were relevant.

In its inception, Bahaism was as exclusive as Islam ~ "The early version of Bahai faith was as an [b]anti-Islamic faith and it propogated non-tolerance for Islam." ( [url=http://www.ece.rice.edu/~sranjan/history_new.html]please see this website[/url]. )

I haven't sen anything to suggest it was exclusive when it was begun, and the site you gave seems to have misconstrued the origins of Bahai. Looking through the history of Bahai, I find that rather than being anti-Islam as the link claims, they actually embraced many of the beliefs of Islam; Islam was one of the foundations for the new religion; and the leader of the religion had a working relationship with some of the Sufi leaders of the time (see: http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/bahai/intro8.htm). Those suggest the link was mistaken.

Furthermore, even the link it cites as a source doesn't seem to support that view (that or I missed it).

There are two stages of becoming an adherent of the Bahai faith. I apologise for not being able to point you to an official Bahai website for this; but that is understandable in context of the fact that the intrinsic exclusivity of the religion is not often offered publicly.

Then it's your word against theirs, and faced with the fact that I know little about either of you, I'm more compelled to take their word over yours (seeing as it's their religion and all).

However, the second stage (which is of interest presently) involves the signing of a documents that reads:

I declare I have -
"Full recognition of the station of the Bab as Forerunner, of Baha'u'llah as Author and of 'Abdu'l-Baha as True Exemplar of the Baha'i religion; unreserved acceptance of, and submission to, whatsoever has been revealed by their Pen; loyal and steadfast adherence to every clause of Abdu’l-Baha's sacred Will; and close association with the spirit as well as the form of the Baha'i Administration throughout the world".

On the surface, Bahaism seems to be tolerant and inclusive of all religions. However, a member of the Bahai faith is expected to reject faiths outside Bahaism and strictly adhere to the tenets of the Baha'u'llah. Failure to comply could have serious consequencies that sometimes may involve legal prosecution!

Enough said. But the gist is that Bahaism is not what it appears to be on the surface; and until one takes a more realistic approach to investigating its true essence, the argument may continue to be surficial.

If I have time, I will investigate further. However, as things stand you haven't presented anything more than your say so and a poor link to make the case that they are lying. The claim above, doesn't actually mean they are exclusive, as the signing on to a religion doesn't mean you believe other religions are misleading and the wrong way.

One of the many - sometimes contradictory - Christian denominations? I do not necessarily agree. Universalism is not sometimes contradictory - it is antithetical to the teachings of Christ in principle and practice

From what I gather, so are many other Christian denominations. Also, they seem to think it's their more "fundamentalist" brethren that are antithtical to the teachings of Christ. Who am I to judge?

A line from the link:
"The incident is an exception to concerted charity in a catastrophe that has left no one untouched.(ANI)"

Something strikes me in reading the report: the name of the NGO or Christian group was not mentioned; and the last line aptly describes the incidence ("an exception", rather than the rule).

It is still an example of the conversion of else tactics that many Christians have employed through time.

I should rather take that as a comic relief. Again, I'm not aware of any case where Jews have sought almost any means to convert people to Judaism.

Okay. But I've always thought verses like:

Deuteronomy 13:

6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods,

8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die


And

13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;

15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword

And verses that call for the execution of people of other religions, witches, wizards etc were another way of forcing religious beliefs i.e convert/remain in my religion or else

True - Christianity isn't singled out. Yet, it is the main official target of the Chinese communist government.

That's not true. Tibetan Buddhism is clearly its main official target. Islam is also targeted (that is, like Christianity, it is regulated and receives interference) by the government.

And that is simply the point - because North Korea and China have an atheistic outlook, religious practices are often at the receiing end of their batons.

Perhaps, but I don't see how that is simply the point.

I don't see how that compounds any problems. The only problem is that any document presented is often excused away by skeptics with the claim that "nobody" outside the Gospel writers mentioned anything about Jesus.

I didn't say nobody outside the Gospels mentioned anything about Jesus, I said and meant (and I quote) "nobody outside of the writers of the Gospels (who came years after Jesus' death) thought to mention the many fantastic things reported by the Gospel writers". I can give you some examples of the fantastic things reported by the Gospel writers that you'd think -at least hope - any one with the ability to use a pen, would have recorded.

Some extra-Biblical authors include Eusebius [Ecclesiastical History III.39], Irenaeus [Bishop of Lyons who been a Christian for 86 years, and knew Polycarp (a disciple of the apostle John)]; Clement of Rome (AD 95?); Ignatius (AD 70-110, Bishop of Antioch and knew all the apostles); and Polycarp (AD 70-156, was a discple of the apostle John).

Eusebius, born over 2 centuries after Jesus' assumed date of demise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius_of_Caesarea). Hardly contemporary, hardly second hand, hardly third hand eye witness.

Irenaeus, born a century after Jesus' etc. Interestingly, had this to say: "The heretics boast that they have many more gospels than there really are. But really they don't have any gospels that aren't full of blasphemy. There actually are only four authentic gospels. And this is obviously true because there are four corners of the universe and there are four principal winds, and therefore there can be only four gospels that are authentic. These, besides, are written by Jesus' true followers." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus)

Polycarp, though born only about a generation after Jesus' etc. clearly wasn't a contemporary, never met or witnessed Jesus' fantastic exploits and the events reported to ahve surrounded him, nor does he even seem to have written, as a report, any of the fantsatic things.

Clement of Rome, same as above.


At this point, I would like to reiterate that it isn't people mentioning the name of the founder of the Christian religion that is a concern, it's the glaring gap in history that is of value here. It's not really difficult to find believers after the assumed date of demise mentioning the name of Jesus; but it's nigh on impossible to find contemporaries or historians that write about the exploits and events surrounding Jesus.

The question I would like to ask is that: considering the dates when they wrote, why is it rather that there's not as much talk about documents written by opposers forcefully declaring that Jesus did not exist?

I don't know. Maybe people aren't just as interested in those the Church have called heretics?

I think you're mixing up issues. In terms of exposure to attacks and proven durability, why did those 'myths' fizzle away?

Because with time and discovery, most myths, and sometimes their religions, die a natural death. The ones that survive are the ones that have been able to adapt and still try to appeal to humanity. Having said that, you should know that there are still people that believe Zeus is the high God - lightening bolts and all - of the Universe and world (mad I know).

And in terms of historicity, Islam is not a myth.

I didn't say it was. Several of the things Muslims believe are myths, however.

That any movement would have fervent believers doesn't necessarily make it a myth - and Christianity is not a myth.

No, Christianity isn't a myth, but several of the elements in Christianity are mythological, ergo Christianity - or parts of it - is a type of mythology.

babyosisi:
I laughed when I read kag say Christians in Nigeria persecuted their muslim counterparts.
You must not be a Nigerian,read our daily papers and find out who the Muslims in Nigeria attack and for what reason and also tell us what led to any counter attacks by Christians.

Just so we're clear, you're saying this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4743672.stm wan't persecution because it was some kind of a Christian counter-attack, yes? I

atheists have to attempt to discredit Christianity to have a voice.
That is their sole ministry.They would rather side with any other religions even though they claim to be areligious.

Is that a fact? Hmm, it certainly explains the views of those Greek atheists - even though they were before Christianity. And no doubt, it neatly clears up the misconception of the many posts and writings of atheists condemning other religions and sometimes defending Christian beliefs. Oh well! By the way, would you like to tell T.H and his cohorts (see: http://www.mukto-mona.com/new_site/mukto-mona/muk-articles.htm), or should I?

We have seen them before,next!!

Indeed, and I'll be leaving after this thread.

batu:
@Prof Syrup and Cute-ass;
When I read the attacks of modern day "Liars" on Christianity, I laugh; because if only they know a little bit of history maybe an "uncommon sense" will have given them understanding.

That's a little telling: call them liars for no other reason than they challange the dogma you hold.

Let me help out a little:
---> (1) In the early times of christianity:
-Apostle Paul was led outside the city gate and then was beheaded for his faith
-Elder Peter was crucified up-side down for his faith
-Elder James was killed in a most violent way
-Stephen was stoned to death outside the city gate for his faith, etc, etc

I'm not doubting the validity of your claim, but do you actually have any evidence that those things occured? Furthermore, you do know those aren't the only religious martyrs, right? They are not even the only "heretics" that were slain by the over-zealot Jews. If the Talmud is anything to go by, a Yeshu and his disciples were executed too.

---> (2) Now let's go to the Roman Collosieum, and see the facts of history which are documented and still available :
- A christian Lady called Perpetual was suspended from a net in the collosieum, and raging bulls with brass tipped horn were released to charge and gore her to death for her faith
- The early Roman christians were "sports" for entertainment of the huge crowd in the collosieum, they were released into the arena and hungry lions set on them to devour them for refusing to accept Caesar as Lord and sticking to Christ.
- Some did not even have the benefit of being devoured by lions but were just tied to the stake and burned

Yes, and when the Christians came to power (so to speak) they repaid the favour - heck they even persecuted other sects of Christianity. Persecution is wrong, but the Christian faith is just as guilty.

---> (3) Now let's move closer and nearer to numerous religious persecutions in Northern Nigeria, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and count the number of churches burnt, christians killed etc.

Could you reference some of those, please? Also, would I be wrong to suggest that the Christians in Nigeria also persecuted their counterparts?

Now what's the point? The point's are: If with all these historically recorded, horrendous physical and mental attacks on 'faith in Jesus Christ called christianity', the body of christ was and is still waxing stronger and growing as it is; then you can know that not a loud-mouthed Dan-Brown, nor confused filmaker Cameron, nor pointless secular humanism/liberalism, nor peadophilic prophet muhammed and his anti-christ ideology of Islam, etc can reduce or take away the Glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yes, maybe there are many different types of Heaven (e.g utopia for hippies, al-Jannat for Islam, etc) but Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father. (God bless you, Syrup, for that statement)

Okay. By the way, would you agree that you calling Muhammed a "pedophilic prophet" could count as one of the several "lies haters of truth" have tried to use to discredit Islam, and in spite of those "lies", the "truth" of Islam is still waxing stronger and growing?
Again I say: you can discredit a lie with the Truth, but you can never discredit the Truth with a lie

[quote][/quote]

syrup:
@KAG,

I'll offer you two things:

#1. I doubt if it is possible to completely falsify Christianity - especially in context of time and theories so far proposed.

I agree. Religions are notoriously impossible o falsify - consider, as another example, the fact there are still Hellenists.

#2. That some leave the faith is not unique to Christianity; but that in itself does not disprove the Christian faith.

I would never suggest that leaving a faith disproves the religion; however, I do believe that the close examination of a religion can lead to deconversion. That's what I was suggesting.

I could not have made my point earlier with any degree of certainty if I had no real understanding of the Bahai faith. The member who mentioned whatever might have expressed a personal opinion than a core Bahai belief or principle.

To be honest, I'd have to take their words over yours:

"Bahá'í doctrine emphasizes the unity of mankind, the unity of the world's religions, and the progressive revelation of God to humanity.

Bahá'ís believe that the founders of great religions (such as Moses, Jesus, the Buddha, and Muhammad) were sent by God to reveal God's attributes and will in the terms that were appropriate for the time. "

Source: http://www.religionfacts.com/bahai/beliefs.htm


"One of the fundamental doctrines of the Bahá'í Faith is the unity of the world's great religions. This does not mean that all religions are the same, but that there is only one true religion and all of the Messengers of God have progressively revealed its nature.

The world's great religions are progressive expressions of a single unfolding Divine plan, "the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future."

Bahá'ís teach that the founders of the world's major religions, including Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ, and Muhammad, are divine Messengers sent by the one God to educate humanity through teachings and laws suited to its stage of development.

The Bahá'í Faith recognizes two additional Teachers for this age: the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh. Bahá'ís believe that religious revelation will continue in the future to provide guidance to "an ever-advancing civilization."

Bahá'ís do seek to spread their faith, believing it to be the most recent and beneficial revelation from God to humanity, but they strongly emphasize unity, harmony and respect between the world's existing religions."

http://www.religionfacts.com/bahai/beliefs/other_religions.htm


Those pretty much suggest to me that it is a core principle as opposed to the opinion of one member.

A mere claim does not establish the fact that they actually are not a Christian denomination (though I respect your rights to see them so for argument sake). So many cultic groups have claimed a Christian identity, whereas in reality are far removed and antithetical to the Christian faith.

At the moment they haven't completely broken away from Christianity, so they should still count as one of the many - and sometimes contradictory - Christian denominations, no?

Which I noted earlier:

Fair enough.

I'm glad that this is only in your opinion; but please excuse the fact that the claim is far removed from reality.

Except it isn't. History is littered with many "convert or else" stories, from the inquisitions, to the recent "convert to receive aid" scandal: http://in.news.yahoo.com/050116/139/2j1rp.html

Judaism has not sought almost any means to force people to conversion.

Oh, I'm sorry, it just slaughtered all of them for worshipping different Gods (see the Old Testament).

Islam has a well documented history of the case to the point. Christianity has had its share of a bloody history - not because it is the core belief taught by Jesus Christ; but rather the outcome of political exchanges.

I doubt the last part. In any case, I would like to revise my original claim (I don't know what I was thinking!): Islam, not Christianity is actually the world beater when it comes to getting converts by hook or crook. My apologies for putting Christianity at the top of the list.

In current events, would you still be otherwise convinced that Christians are far more persecuted than people of any other worldview?

No.

Which again is highly debatable in view of current events.

How so?

If we were to excuse the population size of adherents (and not counting those in the West), what would you say in the case in China and Korea, among others?

Those two persecute/restrict many (most?) religions and worldviews. In fact, in China, for example, Tibetan Buddhism isn't even allowed (source: http://www.persecution.org/suffering/countryinfodetail.php?countrycode=16).

Which exactly proves the point. Many people in debates of this nature are quick to reference the secularized West. I'd like to request for a moment that they apply the same cosmetics to events in the middle East, China and North Korea. I only seek an objective and honest response about atheism and Christians in these parts of the world.

The secularised West is quickly mentioned, not only because it's the region we are most familiar with, but also because persecution of that sort isn't expected in a region that preaches democracy and secularism. To the question of the Middle East, China and North Korea. With the exception of North Korea, those regions that do discriminate against other religions that aren't theirs, don't usually single out Christianity. From what I hear, most Middle Eastern countries accept Christianity (apparently it's the extreme minority that don't accept Christianity), and it's those that have associated Christianity with atheism and America that despise Christianity. China accepts Christianity too (although it regulates it like it does most other religions). As far as I'm aware, Christianity isn't singled out. I'm not really familiar with North Korea, so I can't say.

What do they feel about atheism in general? I think North Korea and China don't really mind it, but the Middle Eastern countries do.

This again lends weight to one of my deep concerns. Did you say "nobody" outside the Gospel writers? Not even one reference?

Yes; I can't think of one, can you? I've got a good example of something written in the Gospels (other than the usually know fantastic stuff) any writer worth his/her sort should have referenced, but yet, nothing.

Secondly, the objection that the Gospels were written "years after" is no grounds for discrediting them. In ordinary events of life, there are many biographies that have been written "years after" the death of the personalities.

Oh, it really isn't grounds for discrediting, it just further compounds the problem of a lack of any contemporary sources during the time of the happenings.

How the mythologies reported in fables haven't survived with the same fervour as Christianity is telling enough. To me, there is just no myth about the reality of Jesus Christ whose power has been proven once and again in my experience.

But they did survive just  as strongly in their times, and some are not so far behind Christianity in terms of acceptance. Certainly the Greco-Roman myths survived for a very long time - some still believe in Zeus; Egyptian mythology also survived for long, still survives, and has adherents as fervent as Christianity; Islam, there's another one; Hinduism has survived longer. So, while you and many in our time don't believe them anymore (in much the same way most don't believe the myths contained in the Bible, from the Genesis creation account, Noah's flood, etc), doesn't mean they don't have fervent believers.

syrup:
@KAG,

Given the 20 centuries of having been subjected to scrutiny, one wonders how much time is required to "falsify" the truth of Christianity.

I don't know if it's quite possoble to completely falsify a religion (for example, consider the fact Mormonism is still going despite strong evidence against its Native Americans belief), but then again I was merely pointing out that some universally held "truths" have taken millennia to be falsified. In any case, there are aspects of it that have come under scrutiny and have led many to leave the faith.

I think - I'm not sure - religions like Bahai have done that, a denomination of Christianity: Universalism have done so also.

On the surface, it appears that Bahai has adopted an inclusive (rather than exclusive) approach; however, in reality it is not so.

Are you sure? A member of the religion mentioned something along the lines of hoping and praying their Christian and Muslim brethren will realise that they both have it right.

On the other hand, Universalism in essence is not considered a 'denomination' of Christianity in so far as it has a repute for very shifty ideologies, more so tending towards secular humanism.

They came from Christianity; they claim to be Christians; that's good enough for me.

The definition was not mine - that's why they appear in quotes as referenced from jagunlabi. Even so, it is improbable that Hinduism and Buddhism have received just about the same attacks as has the Christian faith.

While it would be difficult to measure the persecution levels, it is clear they have both received their fair share. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Buddhists

That is debatably untrue, and would only be considered so by those who tend to make it appear so. All factors considered would not lend credence to that idea.

It is debatable, but the Christian faith has persecuted many, castigated people of other religions for not sharing their beliefs, and have even forced or attempted to force others to follow the faith by almost any means. In my opinion, Christianity has attacked more faiths than any other. Islam and Judaism are not far behind, though

Again, not true. Every worldview has had their fair share of attacks; but current trends of on-going attacks against the Christian faith proves otherwise the claim that atheism in particular has seen just as much or more.

Yes every religion has had its fair share of attacks, but my arguement is that pagansim and atheism have had just as much (if not more) attacks as Christianity. By the way, what current trends of on-going attacks? From what I know, Christianity is not only the religion with the most population, it's also the religion practised by most in the Western world. Furthermore, polls suggest that atheists are the least trusted group according to Americans. Many atheists have also been persecuted in America (a democratic country that preaches secularism). You can imagine what it must be like in other less tolerant societies.

Editted to add: Examples of contmporary persecution by Christians against other beliefs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_persecution_by_Christians#Contemporary

It is even more suggestive that the theories advanced by most skeptics to discredit the Gospel are in themselves more mythical.

How so? I can't see how you can get around the fact that nobody outside of the writers of the Gospels (who came years after Jesus' death) thought to mention the many fantastic things reported by the Gospel writers. To me it's no different from the mythologies that were reported in fables and are now taken for what they are.

syrup:
It is not the quality of truth to be universally accepted without exposure to doubts and attacks of sorts. Infact, the quality of "truth" is its durability in the face so many attacks, and the fact that it stands strong inspite of increasing attacks.

Indeed. Although sometimes a "universally" accepted truth that has stood teh tests of time can still be falsified with time.

Islam is an exclusivistic religion, tolerant to no other worldview; so are several other beliefs systems which are ready to deny theirs as one out of many routes to the heavens. Why then have they not been asked to adopt the "common sense" of seeing theirs as just one of the "routes"??

I think - I'm not sure - religions like Bahai have done that, a denomination of Christianity: Universalism have done so also.

One more hilarious claim. What stands on 'dubious and shaky grounds' cannot survive massive attacks for over 20 centuries!

Depends on how you define dubious and shaky: last I checked, Hinduism, Buddhism an many other -isms are still around despite the attacks they've also received.

No other worldview has been severely attacked and reviled as the Christian faith; and for all that, Christians are not permanently on the defensive.

And perhaps no other worldview has attacked and reviled others like the Christian faith. In any case, I would argue paganism of all kinds and atheism are two examples of worldviews that have seen just as much (if not more) attack as Christianity.

The simple reason is that they cannot bring themselves to trust that the Bible is a trustworthy account of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

To be fair, it's hardly a historical text. I mean, there a notable scarcity of extra Gospel sources for the strange happenings of the time, which suggests myth.

babs787: @KAG,

Do you have any proof to debunk the claim that jesus was neither killed nor crucified?

To be honest, I don't. The problem is the story only appears in a few texts and despite some of the problems those texts have, they are all we have to go by.

Nella:
ok i know scientists say there is no God n all, but there r some incidents that happen,
which they just tend 2 ignore why? bcuz dey can't explain them!!!
D stuffs in diz video is unexplainable!!!,

( copy n paste)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ETJ61xMjRpo&mode=related&search=

My guess: frauds/hoaxes and natural phenomena caused by the material or what is within the material.

trini_girl:
_*sigh*

again i tire.

no matter how much proof people get they will always believe what the want to believe, and not the truth, even if it's staring at them from a mountain peak in Turkey.

Indeed.

I think I'm sticking to the Games and Cartoons forum from today.

If that's how you feel.

trini_girl:
An archaeologist was digging in the Negev Desert in Israel and came upon a casket containing a mummy.

After examining it, he called the curator of a prestigious natural-history museum.

"I've just discovered a 3,000 year-old mummy of a man who died of heart failure!" the excited scientist exclaimed.

To which the curator replied, "Bring him in. We'll check it out."

A week later, the amazed curator called the archaeologist.

"You were right about the mummy's age and cause of death. How in the world did you know?"

"Easy. There was a piece of paper in his hand that said, '10,000 Shekels on Goliath'."

I know it's a joke, but why is Goliath placed at 3,000 years ago?

4get_me:
@KAG,

I actually thought so myself - that to ask them to show there's no object on the site was a bit quizzical. But having tried to follow the argument, I came to understand that the challenge was put forward based on the claims earlier made by those skeptics that (a) there were no objects on the site;

I'm not aware of any sceptics that have made that claim

and (b) they have failed to identify what object was on that site.

General consensus seems to be that it is a natural formation

Anyone can make allegations and accusations across the fence. Not that I'm in for Wyatt's claims. However, I am still wondering why the particular object actually located in question is yet to be identified if it was all a fraud. Or did I miss it out in following the article you recommended on Answers in Genesis?

Yes.

By the way, here's more from the tentmaker link:

Briefly, the rock formation has a rather streamlined shape, is of a size consistent with the Biblical dimensions given in cubits, and is within the region called "the mountains of Ararat" in Genesis. However, that is where its similarity with the Genesis Ark ends. The formation is situated in a sloping valley and is surrounded by a deposit of loose soil and crushed rock which is slowly sliding down hill, flowing much as a glacier flows. The formation (properly called the Durupinar Site after its discoverer, Ilhan Durupinar) consists of a stable area around which the material flows, and just as does water when it flows around a rock in a stream bed, the site has acquired a streamlined shape, due to the dynamics of the slowly flowing material. It's sides, which are in places nearly vertical, are abraded by the flow, and are in their character exactly equivalent to the scoured vertical walls on the hillsides adjacent to the valley. The material with the formation is also equivalent to that in the surrounding hillsides.
Samples taken of every rock type in the formation have been chemically analyzed and studied in thin section under a microscope. While it is acknowledged that the rock types are rather exotic, there is nothing present which must be attributed to human construction.


The geologic scenario which is evidently responsible is rather remarkable. The suite of rocks present represent a ophiolite belt, extremely rare on the earth's surface. These (ultra-basic) dark crystalline rocks are the type normally found on the ocean floor, and were squeezed to the surface at this location, in one other locale in Turkey, and in only a few places worldwide. The several rock types give evidence of hydrothermal activity on the ocean floor, and are highly altered. Manganese nodules, frequently found on the ocean floor are also present, and are misinterpreted by some as ""metal fittings" on the Ark, as are occasional rocks high in iron.

Advocates of the site claim to have found linear bands of metallic material representing "beams" in the Ark. These were discovered using a technique commonly known as "dowsing," complete with brass rods held in one's hand, which dip downward or cross in the presence of the desired metal, or so it is claimed. (This is similar to "witching" for water using a forked stick, a practice almost universally condemned by evangelicals. There are no known principles of physics by which it operates.) According to Dr. John Baumgardner, creationist geophysicist and formerly an advocate of the site, the anomalies discerned by this technique were not confirmed by use of a metal detector, which operates on known principles of physics. The presence of manganese modules throughout the area, as well as iron and copper ore nearby render any sober metal detection effort futile.

http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/BoatShaped.html

Incidentally, AiG and ICR's John Morris are YEC's who actually believe in (the implausible) literal Naoh flood. While they've been lambasted in the past for perceived disingenuity, I feel they can't be faulted in this matter.

4get_me:
@KAG,

That is simply not true. The same people challenging the videos have been asked to go to the site to identify the object in question with only one goal - to declare that there is no such object on the location. But rather than do that, they came out with that terse claim that the video was false data. How they managed to conclude that is an on-going debate.

There is an object on the location - in fact there are many objects on the location; however, the objects are all natural. To ask them to show there's no object on the site, is dishonest at best. Furthermore, if you read the Answers in Genesis link, for example, you'll see how they managed to conclude Wyatt's claims were lies.

babs787:
Islam is the Fastest Growing Religion on Earth[/b]

Yes, it's from a crazy fundie site; I still think it's valid.

Introduction:

The Islamic religion has a long history of myth making. The claim they are the fastest growing religion in the world is pure myth. We have collected the latest statistics from David A. Barrett’s huge two volume, "World Christian Encyclopedia", the 2001 AD edition. In case you haven’t heard of this work, it is the world standard for religious statistics.

Muslim's claim that their growth rate is 235 percent and 47 percent for Christianity. This statistic came from the Readers Digest Almanac and Yearbook 1983, and represents 235 percent increase over 50 years. Muslims always leave off the 50 year fact to make it appear they are going 235% every year. A simple review of the readers Digest study shows that the growth rate of Islam vs. Christianity is directly linked to the birth rate in Third World countries where Islam dominates and not actual conversions to each religion. Christianity has always been larger than Islam. These statistics from Readers Digest are over 20 years old. Further, we do not consider readers digest to be an authority on such matters. Why will Muslims not quote real authoritative statistics from certified research groups who show Islam is not the fastest growing religion in 3/4’s of the worlds countries.

There are over a billion Muslims in the world today, including 3 to 5 million in the U.S., making it the second most populous religion on earth after Christianity. According to some estimates, Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world. (The Joy of Sects, Peter Occhigrosso, 1996, p394-397)
Islam is the religion which has developed from the preaching and life of Muhammad, a citizen of the city of Mecca in Arabia, who early in the seventh century of the Christian Era appeared as a preacher of monotheism to his own people and founded a religious movement which today counts perhaps as many as 300,000,000 followers, mostly in the heat belt from Indonesia to Morocco. (Islam: Muhammad and His Religion, Arthur Jeffery, 1958, p xi-xiv)
Before we examine the true facts from informed statisticians, we want to make it clear that we are not claiming Christianity is the fastest growing religion on earth. Such a claim is a needless as it is irresponsible. Having said this, in terms of sheer numbers, there are more Christians being added to planet earth, than any other religion on earth, including Islam. (see Table 1-2 for proof.)

Relative size and growth of Islam to Christianity:

From Table 1-1, there are 1.9 Billion Christians making up 31% of the world population, whereas there are only 1.2 Billion Muslims making up only 20% of the population. It seems that Allah's little trick by making Judas appear like Jesus, so Jesus could escape crucifixion and Judas was crucified in his place, kind of backfired, since 31% of the world's population never learned Allah played a trick and really believes that Jesus not only died, but was raised from the dead! This should be most troubling for Muslims to think that "Allah's deception" (Qur'an 4:156) actually became the world's largest religion!
From Table 1-1, the relative growth rates of Islam to Christianity are compiled from data that ended the very year before the great terrorist attacks of 911 against the world trade towers in 2001 and the train bomb in Spain in 2004. Statisticians are predicting that Islamic motivated terrorism will last the decade and bring Islam into great disrepute with the world population. This will have a very strong dampening effect on the long term predicted Islamic growth rates for the years 2025 and 2050.
From Table 1-1 you can see that the world growth rate of Muslims is 2.13, and for Christians it is 1.36. A closer look reveals, however that the birth rate of Muslims world wide, is literally double that of Christians. This is due to the fact that Muslims are largest in the developing world where dirt floors, thatched roofs and large families are common. When you the actual conversion rate, where men chose their religion, rather then are born into it, you can see that Christians are converting, on a percentage basis, almost twice as many as Muslims (1.7:1). This means that individual Christians are out converting Muslims almost two to one! What this means, is that as third world Muslim controlled countries gain the advantages of education and technology found in the Western world, their birth rate will drop off to match that of the West, but Christians will still continue to out convert them at a rate of 1.7:1.
Total adherents
New from conversion
Number of adherents to make one new convert:

Muslims
1,188,242,789
865,558
1,372

Christians
1,999,563,838
2,501,396
799


From Table 1-1 you can see that while Muslims claim they are the fastest growing religion in the world (2.13), the statistics say that Baha'is are growing at a faster rate (2.28) and faster still are Zoroastrians (2.65).
From Table 1-1 regarding world distribution, you can see that Islam is only in 204 of the worlds 238 countries. Christianity, on the other hand is in all 238 countries of the world. Christianity has a 100% penetration rate world wide!
From Table 1-2, you can see that presently every 24 hours, the world population of Christians increases by 69,000, whereas there are only 68,000 Muslims. The only reason Muslims are anywhere near Christians is because of higher birth rates in the parts of the world where Muslims are largest. The vast majority of the 69,000 Christians will be educated, whereas the majority of the 68,000 Muslims will be illiterate peasants without clean drinking water.
From Table 1-4, you can see the relative growth rates of Christianity vs. Islam broken down into 6 continents. In each of the 6 continents, Christianity enjoys a wider distribution of countries.
From Table 1-4 the continent "Africa" we observe that Christianity slightly larger but is growing at a much faster rate than Islam. Although the birth rates are about identical, individual Christians are making twice as many converts as Muslims. In the African continent, Christians are both the largest and fastest growing in relation to Islam.
From Table 1-4 the continent "Asia" we observe that although Islam is 25% and Christianity is only 10% of the population, again Christianity is growing at a must fast rate. Even the Jews are growing at a faster rate (2.99) than the Muslims in Asia! While birth rates for Muslims are higher than Christians, individual Christians are 13 times more effective at making new converts than Muslims. In the Asian continent, Christians are growing faster than Muslims.
From Table 1-4 the continent "Europe" we observe that while Muslims are growing faster than Christians, Buddhists claim the prize for the fastest growing religion at a rate of 1.39. Muslims make up only 5% of the population in Europe and most of the Muslim growth in Europe is from immigration. Although 77% of Europeans are Christians, Buddhists, not Muslims, are the fastest growing religion in the continent of Europe.
From Table 1-4 the continent "Latin America" that we observe that while Muslims (1.99) are growing faster than Christians (1.63), they make up only 1/3 of 1% (.3%) of the population, whereas Christians are 92 % of the population. The down trend in Christianity conversion is mainly defects from Catholics to non-religious. It must be troubling for Muslims to know that although they are growing faster than Christians, Baha’is are growing much faster than Muslims at a rate of 2.87! In the Latin American continent, Christians make up 93% of the population. Although tiny Islam is fastest growing faster than Christianity, it is the Baha’is, who take the prize for fastest growing the Latin America.
From Table 1-4 the continent "North America" we observe that while Muslims are growing faster than Christians, they make up only 4% of the population, whereas 84% are Christians. Most of the Muslim growth in North America is from immigration. Canada alone immigrates more Muslims apart from the USA, to account for almost all the growth in all of North America every year! It sure must be a hollow boast for Muslims to claim they are the fastest growing religion in North America, when it is because of the kindness and generosity of Christians who let them immigrate, often fleeing the persecution between hostile Muslim sects. There are still 50% more Jews in North America than Muslims in 2004. Muslims lie when they tell you they are the fastest growing (1.56) religion in North America. From Table 1-4, we can see that they are no better than 5th place in growth behind: Atheists (3.51), Hindus (3.13), Sikhs (2.81), Buddhists (2.75), Baha’is (2.25). We tire of the lies and myth making of Islamic spin doctors.
Muslims claim they are the fastest growing religion in Canada, based upon the National Census: 1971: 33,000; 1981: 98,000; 1991: 253,000. But from Table 1-4 shows that there were less than 11,000 Muslims in Canada in 1900! Sure on a purely statistical basis, dividing the small initial numbers by those added by immigration, they come out on top, but that’s because of the kindness of the Christians who let them into their country! It is a myth that Muslims are converting any measurable numbers of non-Muslims. The most common reason somone converts to Islam is through marriage. These same individuals would have converted to be Jews or Christians, if that was their new spouses religion.
From Table 1-4 the continent "Oceania" we observe that Christians represent 83% of the population and Muslims are a miniscule 1%.Yet the facts are that in Oceania, Muslims are indeed growing at a fast rate than Christians at 3.04. But the fastest growing religion is "new-religionists" at a staggering rate of 9.02, followed by Buddhists at 5.19, then Sikhs at 3.55, then Zoroastrians at 3.18. Muslims are no better than the 5th fastest growing religion in Oceania!
Conclusion:

There are more new Christians added to the world population than any other religion on earth every day. This data makes the entire discussion about "rates of growth" irrelevant. The fact is today, that Christianity is the fastest growing religion on this most critical basis. This may change, but today, in 2004 AD, Christians take the prize for being the fastest growing religion.
On none of the 6 continents are Muslims the fastest growing religion.
That Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world is pure myth at best and at worst a deliberate deception of solid statistical facts.

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-fastest-growing.htm

From Wikipedia

There are several different religions claimed to be the “fastest growing religion”. Such claims vary due to different definitions of “fastest growing”, and whether the claim is worldwide or regional. Because it can be difficult to gather accurate data for some regions, such claims are often disputed.

Claims to the fastest growing religion

Note that it would be an argumentum ad populum to claim that being the “fastest growing religion” has any logical consequences about the truth of that religion.

[edit] Buddhism

The Australian Bureau of statistics claims Buddhism to be the fastest growing religion in Australia in terms of percentage gain with a growth of 79.1% for the period 1996 to 2001 (200,000→358,000).[2]

[edit] Falun Gong

No reliable data is available for the number of adherents of Falun Gong but as this religion was only established in 1992 most of the growth must have been by conversion. Estimates for the number of adherents for 1999 range from 2 million[3] to 100 million.[4]

[edit] Christianity

As Christianity is the largest religion in the world, any increase in the world population will give Christianity a greater absolute number of new members.

* The U.S. Center for World Mission claimed a growth rate of 2.3% for the period 1970 to 1996, (slightly higher than the world population growth rate at the time). This increased the percentage of Christians from 33.7% to 33.9%.
* The World Christian Encyclopaedia estimates that there were 2,883,011 converts to Christianity each year between 1990 and 2000.[5]

[edit] Islam

Data for Islam reveal that the growing number of Muslims is due primarily to the higher than average birth-rates and consequent population growths of Muslim countries and communities.

* In 2006, countries with a Muslim majority had an average population growth rate of 1.8% per year (when weighted by percentage Muslim and population size).[6] This compares with a world population growth rate of 1.12% per year.[7]
* According to the World Christian Encyclopaedia, between 1990 and 2000, Islam received around 865,558 converts each year. This compares with an approximate 2,883,011 converts each year for Christianity during the same period.[5]
* A United Nations' survey showed that between 1989 and 1998, Europe's Muslim population grew by more than 100 percent, due mainly to the effects of immigration from Muslim countries. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance have an unsourced claim of 2.9% per year.
* The World Almanac Book of Facts 1935 estimated 209,020,000 Muslims in the World. The Readers Digest Almanac 1983, estimated 700,000,000, Comparing these two estimates gives an average annual growth of 5% or 10,228,750 for Islam over these 48 years.[8] But note that this value is unreliable as these rates are calculated from two separate sources, which may have used different counting rules.

[edit] Non-Religious

* The American Religious Identification Survey gave Non-Religious groups the largest gain in terms of absolute numbers - 14,300,000 (8.4% of the population) to 29,400,000 (14.1% of the population) for the period 1990 to 2001 in the USA.[1][9]

[edit] Wicca

* The American Religious Identification Survey gives Wicca an average annual growth of 143% / 11,454 for the period 1990 to 2001 (8,000→134,000 - U.S. data / similar for Canada & Australia).[1][9] (And this figure does not include self-identified pagans and druids, many of whom are also Wiccan).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest_growing_religion

trini_girl:
Noah's Ark

There is only one verse in the Bible which gives us a hint of where we the ark came to rest, "the ark rested, upon the mountains of Ararat." Genesis 8:4.

Where is Ararat? The name Ararat is a large area or ancient country covering eastern Turkey, western Iran and western Russia

The Ark has been found and confirmed since 1960.

That's not true.

"The American Academians confirmed the soil pile nearby the village of Uzengili in the township of Dogubeyazit is Noah's Ark. The surrounding area is declared to be a national park and it is opened to tourism."

They even found more conclusive evidence of animal dung, cat hair, the base of an antler, human hair, and man-made fiber.

Tle last photo shows the ark deeply embedded in the surrounding terrain. In 1978, when Mr. Wyatt, one of the excavators, was returning to Nashville, he prayed that God would send an earthquake to "excavate" the site.

When arriving in Nashville the headlines read "Earthquake in Eastern Turkey."

The earth dropped from around the sides of the ark, defining the formation more clearly and making it more accessible for research.

Please enjoy, and let God be true and every man a liar.

God Bless!


Source: http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah's_ark.htm

You've been lied to (I don't know what that does for the "let God be true and every man a liar" statement) and badly too. I posted this a while back, and it deals with Ron "pious fraud" Wyatt and the Ark:

"If Ron "I found the blood of Jesus, honest" Wyatt doesn't convince the skeptics out there, then…something more tangible than a hack will have to be presented. I can't believe people still take Ron "I don't trust scientists, so I won't let them see and test my discoveries" Wyatt seriously. I mean even AiG have pretty much agreed with the E.A.C. and shown the guy for the fraud he was. See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/report.asp, http://www.isitso.org/guide/wyatt.html, and finally tentmaker's: http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/

"To date, none of those who invested this money has seen a shred of scientific evidence substantiating Ron Wyatt's claims. Where is the report from the blood sample analysis of what Ron claims is the blood of Jesus Christ? Where is the Ark of the Covenant? Which museum is housing the ancient chariot wheels he claimed to have been from the Red Sea Crossing? There is no evidence because the video is a fraud. On the Noah's Ark video, all the so-called scientific data cannot be duplicated, a clear sign that what was given the labs was false data"

Incidentally, I used the same Troy example in the thread (must get new material!): https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-21231.0.html

Odysseus's tomb may have been found:

http://maderatribune.1871dev.com/news/newsview.asp?c=167178

Troy has also been found:
http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/troia/eng/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy

Archeological proofs the Greek Legends are facts, not fiction?

Pain:
Fellow Nairalanders, have you ever stopped to wonder why there are so many attacks against Christianity popping up all over the place?

I mean, is Christianity the only religion with a large following around the world?

While Christianity isn't the only religion in the world with a large following, you have to appreciate the facts that it has the most adherents and it is the "standard" religion of the West. It's also arguable that it's the religion that receives the most attacks - even several of the things you consider attacks may not be attacks.

Let’s take a look at these two countries China and India.
India is set to overtake China as the world's most populous nation by 2050, while some countries will shrink by nearly 40%, according to new research.

The Population Reference Bureau (PRB) says the next half century will see wild swings in population sizes. It predicts that the number of people on Earth will reach 9.3bn by 2050, compared with 6.3bn today. –Source BBC

The Fact is that large parts of population of these two nations constitute Buddhists & Hindus. But does the present system bother about their influence?

I'd wager most of the people on this forum have never had a Hindu or Buddhist knock on their door trying to convert them to their respective faiths. I'd also bet that many of Hindus and Buddhists in the West aren't suppressing medical matters (that could be advances) and science. Most - at least in the West - aren't subjugating and persecuting others based on their (alledgedly) holy scriptures.

Now here is the reason for so much attack on Christianity:

Christianity is Light. Light Exposes Darkness.

Bible Quote: Hebrews 4:12-13 says
12:”For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”
13: “Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the Eyes of Him to whom we must give account”.

Christianity is the Last beacon of Hope. Christianity is the only religion that still gets in the way of many evil intentions of men. Men want to be carnally free to do what ever they wish without the voice of inner conscience bugging them in anyway.

Imagine how low the earth would have descended without the few left voices of inner conscience that the doctrines of Christianity water by way of the Word.

Really? I find that extremely doubtful, not least because Christianity has encouraged (or being used to encourage) what I deem to be evil intentions of men. Even before the onset of the new religion, its precedent - Judaism - was no different. Furthermore, how do you explain the morality in non-Christian cultures?

I mean, men want to feel okay when they Sin, when they murder, when they blow up other people, when they cheat you, when they have sex with animals, when they open “Kinky Churches” for the promotion of whoredom.

They want to know its okay. They want their consciences seared with hot iron.

But tell me which religion is getting in the way. Genuine Christianity!!!!!!!!!!

Considering Genuine Christianity(Tm) has racked up a high number of adherents who enjoyed most of what you mentioned and many still enjoy them, then I suppose it's safe to conclude it isn't getting in the way.

Remember we Talking about Christainity and not "Some Motivational Speaker's Chapel"!!!

Isn’t the bible more than in fallible in it’s prophesies of the last days? What else do you expect? Some people have to come up with all sort of blasphemous shallow utterances.

No

They make up Phony Tales, Coin up names from old philosophies that never stood the test of time. Philosophies that were buried and only dug up from lost tombs, from the realm of death to fulfill latter day prophesies.

Like what? The philosophies of Plato? Aristotle? Gautama Buddha? I can assure you those philosophies weren't buried and only dug up to fulfill latter day prophesies (then again, it has always been the last days, so I suppose you could argue that a philosophy that went out of public consciousness for a few years must have been dug up to fulfill the last days). I think you are generalising a lot.

God knows the Grave Could Not Hold our Testimony. It Gave it Up In 3 days!!! Allelujah!!!

If not how would the Bible Prophesies be fulfilled.

Subjective interpretation and dodgy exegesis.

Some Guys have to do the dirty job! But definitely not me!. They are fulfilling the Prophesies of “A Great Falling Away”!!

This is the Spirit of Anti-Christianity that would usher in the Anti-Christ. That is where the word comes from. People against Christianity!!!!!

We sure are in the Last Days!!!

Okay. Incidentally, I can't wait for a Muslim to use a similar ploy.

dblock:
And your reasoning differs?
Let us not make this a i'm a religious stooge situation, I study science my dad studies science my step mum studies science Gawd Doe, science runs thoriugh my blood. Yes I am indeed creating holes in science, but if I'm am just a feeble minded idiot why don't you prove me wrong by not going in circles and explaining abosolutely and practically nothing. I am not saying that christianity is more credible than the Big Bang Theory but i think it is just as credible and i may even be able to prove it to be mor credible .

You're not doing a very good job of showing its credibility, then.

"In the begining was void, " That seems to make more sense than energy fluctuations, awwww that just ahhh awww were in ahhh space started a ahhhhh chain reaction which ahhhh, started a ahhhhh "Big Bang" yeah.

The major difference is one is ad hoc, the other is based on evidence.

Let's make this debate based on reasoning and not on the immunity of scientists saying that science is paramount and Religion is fables. I have given questions that were answered quite well, but don't you see, it's the same thing, it will lead to; nothing but an infinite number of scientifically unanswerable questions.

Look, I don't know why I exist today and I don't know why there is such a thing as energy, or dark matter or the universe, but what I do know is that things just don't exist for the sake of existence, they had to be created by something or somebody, my argument isn't extremely plaudible, but I believe it makes a lot more sense that what sientists are leading us to believe.

I disagree. First, things don't necessarily have to exist for a reason. Not only haven't you given a reason for the assumption that things have to exist for reasons other than just existence, it could be argued by showing things like: radioactive decay, the billions and billons of stars and bodies in space, etc, that things just exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

It doesn't say that space expansion was directly created by Big Bang nucleosynthesis, but the process begasn almost instantly, therefore, there must have been some connection

Basically, you've made a connection for no other reason than probable misunderstanding.

Thatis because Science makes it impossible to interleave anything religious, my theory would have to be backed up by reasoning of the highest level which I am still working on.

It doesn't make it impossible, it just discourages it - what with its insitence on trivial silliness like evidence, repeatbility, peer-review and other silly things designed to weed out illogic, hoaxes and pointless ad hoc.

S
The reason why, I said the Supreme Being is equal to time was due to the fact that the supreme one couldn't possibly have existed before time and time couldn't have existed befor the supreme being hence they would have to be the same and religious documents do back this up, although it is not clear and it is a little circumstantial

A little circumstantial? In any case, I guess since the supreme being is equal to time it would suggest the supreme being is changeable, testable and came into existence from either "previous" non-existence, or a causation.

The supreme being wasn't created by anyone because nothing existed before him.

Except Space. By the way, why and how is the supreme being a he?

It seems to me that you are attacking me with my own evidence , that's understandable but I do believe that the reason why scientists can stand around saying things like what you are saying and obviosly implying, is due to the presence and existence of the suprem being.

I doubt that.

I cannot explani to you today or tommorow why the supreme one came to existence or how, becaue I have no such knowledege but I long for such knowledege

so making up stuff is the next best thing?

Pain:
The Is A Hint To The 666 code:

Isn't it 616? I hear 666 was an error in interpreting.

gwiz_32:
If present the verification to refute both social and neo-Darwinism convincingly, any scientist merited his critique would render it awake. The renown and status they would obtain would be unparalleled amongst todays scientists. His surname would be cited in the same breath as Newton and Einstein. There’s no immense conspiracy in the midst of the scholastic society to brush off creationism beneath the rug. Its just creationism has ZERO pragmatic confirmation to back it up.

Word salad? That is, I'm not sure I understood most of what you wrote.

And to restate evolution does not invalidate the existence of a God or Jesus’s divinity. It controverts the unwise concepts of youthful earth creationists.

I didn't say it did. It does raise questions, though.

babyosisi: Kag,your opinions are just that,your  personal opinions,no more no less and you are certainly entitled to them.

You know it was more than my opinion, so stop that. I mean, you could argue that it's my opinion Yeshu of the Talmud isn't Yeshua of the Gospels, but when you consider the facts I presented to back up my assertion, it becomes more than opinion. Lucian is a little weaker, but I believe it stands.

dblock:
It is actually, acoording to my research

Do you have the names of and/or links for the sources you used for your research?

My theory is;

Supreme Being(God)=Time
____________________ = Creation of everything nessecary for life and life itself
Time

That's not a theory, that's just putting undefined terms with mathematical symbols.

First, what exactly is the Supreme Being and what is the evidence for the Supreme Being you've multiplied by God (that or you're calling the supreme being God - another undefined term). Also, why is it Supreme Being and not Supreme Beings.

Second, why is the Supreme Being equal to Time? Not only isn't there any reason for that, it also means the Supreme Being had a beginning. That leads to the next question, what caused the Supreme Being or how did it come to be?

Finally, how and why is Time divided by Time equal to "Creation of everything nessecary for life and life itself"?

Regadless of the order of the activities and reactions etc. God would have to come first because it seems to me that it is the only logical explanation to explain what created energy or what created atomic particles, because they couldn't just create them selves.

Except it isn't. If you want to talk logic, then, parsimoniously speaking, Gods are unnecessary. Furthermore, since particles, sub-atomic particles etc have being observed "creating" themselves, your objection is a moot one.

God--------------Infinite Number of Prerequsite reaction-------Life as we know it

https://i18.tinypic.com/2nasq5e.jpg

regardless of the order you put the reactions or the theories scientists may come up with, it'll still lead to the same question, what came before that and that's where God comes in.

The tactic of plugging deities into the little gaps in knowledge (or perceived gaps) has been employed for milliennia. You can probably guess how that's worked out in the long run. Anyway, nothing necessarily needs to have come "before" the Big Bang

Things do not exist for the sake of existing, everything is created by something and for a reason.

Unfounded assumption, unreasonable conclusion.

dblock:
A lot of Scientists are disguised Stand up comedians, they say things such as we evloved from apes but the reason why we aren't evolving now or why evolution isn't all too clear is because it happens over millions of years, that's comedy channel material, anyways.

The trouble with internet forums and religion is that it gives ignorant laymen the chance to denegrate a field of which they evidently know next to nothing.

My theory is;

Big Bang nucleosynthesis is explained to be the process that began shotly after the Big Bang theory and is said to be what made the expansion of space possible, considering that Space is indeed expanding, then the process would have to be true.

Er, nucleosynthesis isn't the reason for the expansion of Space.

Sub-atomic paticles or particles smaller in mass than atoms-----------------Multipies and reacts---creates Gases and other particles and creates senser energy-------------This energy because of the enormous pressure supposedly starts of the "Big Bang Theory--------Then Big Bang nucleosynthesis-------Okay Good all makes sense

Energy should before sub-atomic particles, and sub-atomic paricles came after the Big Bang, not before.

But----What created the Sub-atomic particles, was it demi-sub-atomic particles, what created the demi-sub-atomic particles, was it micro-demi-sub-atomic particles? hmmmmm, do you see where I am going with this.

You really aren't paying attention, energy fluctuations cause(d) sub-atomic particles.

scientists are only simplfying entities or elements that exists today to explain their theories but they fail to explan the upmost begining, The Big Bang is the begining of the Universe and not the begining of anything befor it

Well, it may be senseless to call it the "beginning" of the Universe; and yes, the Big Bang is not the beginning of anything before it, nobody has said it was (except you).

By the way, where's your theory? You still haven't presented it.

They melt into the Sun.

dblock:
Mu theory isn't based on complicated formulas or what not

You have a theory? Share.

It is simply, I believe you are right but what came first, oh so that cam first but what created that, if those simple questions cannot be answered without coming up with drastic and qustionable theories "Big Bang", then i think i shall rest ma case.

What are you trying to say? In any case, the Big Bang theory happens to be based on evidence, so it's hardly drastic, etc.

dblock:
Unfortuanately your reply answers nothing,

Then you didn't read them.

and yes I am aware that Religion doesn't automaticaly become right if the big bang theory is proven wrong

And vice versa. In any case, the dichotomy was more or less contained within your post.

You say the first things were Most likely subatomic particles. Energy fluctuations., then what created this particles, a previous Big Bang maybe, or were they just there since the begining of time just for the sake of being there

No, and energy fluctuations was for "how was it created?"

and no the Big Bang or a Big Bang Most Definitely and absolutely did not create Time, due to the fact that nothing can exist or function without time then how could a rection create it if it couldn't function without time, Time was here before there was anything

No.

and my answer to what may have created time is God and God is Time becuase he is everywhere in everytime and in Everyplace.

This will be the part where, rather than resorting to ad hoc, you actually bring some evidence.

dblock:
I've come up with a theory that I hope can turn some people around, it turned me around. Scientists say that religion is just something made up for human benefit and security. Well I say, if religion is wrong and the Bing Bang is indeed right then they should explain their theory even more, I've got a couple of questions

Ignoring what you think scientists say about religion, I'd like to point out that you are setiing a false dichotomy. It isn't an either/or thing. Religion doesn't automatically become right if the Big Bang theory is unknown, and vice versa.

(1) The Big Bang Theory is said to be how the universe emerged, it is said to have emerged becuase of a tremendously hot and dense state, Okay let's just say I believe in this theory, but How were the Gas particles that started of the reaction created and who created them, was it another Big Bang, A previous One?

Not exactly. The classic Big Bang theory is that the Universe expanded from a singularity. Gas came after the expansion (see: nucleosynthesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis)

(2) Was Time also created by a Big Bang?
(3) Was Space also created by a Big Bang?

Yes and yes.

(4) What was the first thing in the Space and how was it created?

Most likely subatomic particles. Energy fluctuations.

(5) Is every thing that we can see or feel on any planet in any part of Space created by a big Bang, if so, then how was the Big Bang created, if the things that created it, were created by it.

Could you rephrase your question? I couldn't parse it.

Which brings me to a conclusion, that Christianity coexists with science, but Science doens't beam over Christainity.

How did you reach that conclusion?

A aby being born is science but it is God that makes this science possible and all science possible,

I would have thought conceiving is nature and science is the study of nature, but I guess I could be wrong. Do you have anything to back up that which you've claimed (it is God that makes this science possible and all science possible)?

but if scientists and much more specifically physicists insist that religion and in particulat Christiniaty reamins nothing but utter nonsense, then let them answer my questions

Dichotomies and untrue assumptions make for a bad argument.

babyosisi:
As a prelude,take a look at this which I had posted in another thread and you had read it and responded that you did not know Christ was indeed crucified.

[b]RECORDED IN THE TALMUD

The Talmud, which consists of Jewish traditions handed down orally from generation to generation, was organized by Rabbi Akiba before his death in 135 A.D. The writings in the Talmud embrace the legal, ritual and exegetical commentaries that have developed right down to contemporary times. In Sanhedrin 43a, reference to Jesus is found. "On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."If Jesus had been stoned, his death would have been at the hands of the Jews. The fact he was crucified shows that the Romans intervened. The Talmud also speaks of five of Jesus' disciples and recounts their standing before judges who made individual decisions about each one, deciding that they should be executed. No deaths are recorded.

I doubt the Yeshu(s) mentioned in the Talmud have anything to do with the Jesus of the Gospels. For one thing, the descriptions and deaths of the two differ significantly - in my opinion, stoning and hanging are different from crucifixion. Furthermore, I don't see how the disciples mentioned bear any similarity to the disciples mentioned in the Gospels. Remember, the names mentioned in the Talmud are: "Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah" (http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html)

Other Talmud references to Jesus indicated that Jesus was "treated differently from others who led the people astray, for he was connected with royalty."

Or the Government. In any case, so?

These Talmud accounts were written long before the New Testament was assembled. They provide clear evidence that Jesus did live. The Talmud does not embrace Christ as a deity and would have no reason to sanction his existence. The Talmud also states that Jesus was 33 or 34 years old when he died. The risen Christ is the foundation of Christianity. But Christ would have to have lived and died before His resurrection could become an historical factor.

I don't think I've come across the 33/34 years old thing. In any case, you'd have to stretch and twist a lot to state that the Talmud is evidence for Jesus of the Gospels.

another non Christian source.

The second century Greek satirist Lucian, though speaking derisively of Jesus and the early Christians, does establish the worship of Christ within the first century of his death. "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day, the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account, You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods, alike, regarding them merely as common property." [/b]

Lucian was writing centuries after Jesus could have died. He may or may not have been speaking about an historical fact (he, like several others, would have been going on the words of others).

let us hear your best argument

Carry on.