₦airaland Forum

If anything arsenal and its fans should be embarrased after the play today. No need to go into great argument just look up on www.soccernet.com or www.football365.com ( a site that particularly hates chelsea). After all the ramblings and mouth running by you guys. you should be ashamed

I've never been more sorry today - i criticized Jose for not playing bhoularouz on teusday against liverpool. He was indeed right to show total faithlessness in him. How bhoularouz let that ball bounce in front of him instead of clearing it is beyond me. Again instead putting pressure on the attacker with his body he goes ahead to hold baptista and bring him down from behind. He should be shown the doors out of chelsea now!

How we can make huge mistakes in the market is really disappointing. Since Roman bought the club we've had a wagon of errors in the market and only a handfull of good buys. I hope that would change.

Having said all that I can not fail to tremendously applaud the football played by our team today. They made us proud. Even at one man down, they turned into contenders, they turned into fighters. They represented the spirit and bond that holds us most tightly together.

Hail Roman Abramovich!
Hail Jose Mourhinno and the rest of the technical crew!
Hail the Chelsea Team!
Hail every chelsea fan here and around the world!

Blues Forever!!!

pearl2:
Up Manchester United!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By the time we are through with u guys, u'll have only the Carling's cup (the smallest of the 4) to cradle in your hands.
It's so sweet u guys will be playing us with respect as the new champs on weds. After all the money u've spent , it must be a trying time for you for the massive lost. Liverpool shut up the boisterous Mourinho from Champions league, Arsenal managed to end your premiership hope, and finally Manchester United, the new champs, would wrestle the FA cup from your hands. At the end of the day, the so-called Quadruple would become just the Single (Carling's cup) u were lucky to win from Arsenal because they were the better team that day.
UP Manchester United!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your comments show how ignorant and inobjective you are. It deserves no reply from true supporters that actually know the game. You seem to forget that you had more of the SHUTTIN UP than we did in the champions league and you're so called treble hopes were dashed too. I am amazed at your level of ignorance. No one stops you from celebrating your cup but being silly has nothing to do with celebration or maybe for you it does.

Jesus story is not anywhere close to zeus and jesus is not a myth. There are tonnes of historical evidence supporting the fact.

However, arguing with you is simply pointless.

@software
let us give honor to whom it is due (as much as we dont want to)

Congrats to manure fans. You have won the title and are the current premiership champions. You played a lot of good foot ball this season and deserve to be where you are so enjoy it while it lasts.

PS we'll love our cup back next season.

@nferyn
You were actually correct about the explosion argument. Most websites i go through fall short of explaining it as a chaotic explosion but stick to a gradual expansion.

There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

1. Infinitesimally small object yet with infinitely high temperature and pressure and infinitely densed.

The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

2. This object appeared because , em em err err ugghh! Look I'm a scientist, i'm smart take it that way.

The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models, the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density and concomitantly huge temperatures and pressures, very rapidly expanding and cooling.

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

3. As a scientist that knows a lot about everything i'm allowed to purely speculate without any inference or evidence just pure speculations. My fellow science friends too have their speculations about BB. You go ahead choose which one you want and its okay as far as no supernatural force is involved.

As much as BB has it range of "observational" scientific evidence (that assumes the correctness of a lot of unproved theories like Einstein's Relativity, Cosmological Principle, inflationary theory. Heisenberg uncertainty principle - most basically mathematical models) and its speculations, like -

[list]
[li]Expansion of the Universe [/li]
[li]Origin of the cosmic background radiation [/li]
[li]Nucleosynthesis of the light elements[/li]
[li]Formation of galaxies and large-scale structure [/li]
[/list]

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_pillars.html

it also has a number of scientific issues (problems and puzzles) it is grapling with. Such as

[list]
[li]Horizon problem[/li]
[li]Flatness/oldness problem[/li]
[li]Magnetic monopoles[/li]
[li]Baryon asymmetry[/li]
[li]Globular cluster age[/li]
[li]Dark matter[/li]
[li]Dark energy[/li]
[/list]

and more

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_problems.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

As usual a few of these have their explanations based on more "assumed correct" speculations, principles and models.

Now is BB the only plausible theory that is consistent with these scientific evidences it offers? Look at what a renowned Astrophysicist has to say -

People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

I see, hmm, any examples? Yes indeed

In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.6 Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

In view of all this i guess Ricadelide, bobbyja and I can bring up our own theory - yes you guessed it write

[center]Genesis 1[/center]

In the begining God created the sky and the earth. The earth was empty and had no form,

Now i find the BBC hard talk link quite interesting, i hope you took a look at it too. i also i'm looking at a the subject -
"Does God Exist?"
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/does-god-exist-c.htm

Will hola!!!

Bobbyaf:
Ricadelide and Somze as soon as you get the time please take a look at these streaming videos and give me your views. I believe you should find them interesting. The one hour or so presentation is worth it.

Here is the link:

http://www.halos.com/videos/index.htm

The Centre of the universe video really shaters the theory of the doppler's effect as it relates to the universe. I know you guys will appreciate the videos.

God bless.

bandwidth is low - using it up for other stuff. Wish i could just download it instead. Anyway will take a look at it.

nferyn:
assumption 1, no evidence; Actually, when it come to biological complexity, the argument from design falls flat on it's face. The non-directional forces of natural selection, sexual selection and gene drift working on natural genomic variations within populations caused by mutations and/or sexual recombination are perfectly capable of explaining our biodiversity starting from simple organic replicators.

I did give evidence - humans. it does not fall due to biological complexity, kindly explain how. natural selection only comes to play when there are actually options does not explain how the options got to the position where they are naturally selected for example survival of the fittest claims the fittest survive but does not show how it became the fittest in the first place. That flaws your logic. The rest of what you say are mere speculations that are no different from religious beliefs, if not can you kindly show proof?

nferyn:
No it doesn't, it appears to be orderly, something different. A snowflake is orderly and complex, yet it finds it's origin in simple natural processes

The universe is both orderly and designed that is why one aspect clearly depends on another as is seen in our solar system. The earth is designed. For you to claim our universe or earth is orderly and not designed is clearly laughable

nferyn:
Yet we have countless places in the universe where those conditions aren't present. Simple probability in the face of the vastness of the universe can account for the fact that our planet is suited for our form of life. Your argument is similar to this: The chance of winning the lottery are so staggeringly small that one cannot win the lottery. If there are enough people participating, someone is bound to win the lottery, you know. I won't touch on the creation/evolution thingy, as you'll bring forward your evidence for ID in another thread, aren't you?

Proves that the earth is designed specifically. Probability? Show where you mathematically got that idea because i can likely say that with thesame probability in the infinite universe there should be thousands of earths, aliens and flying saucers, if not millions.

nferyn:
Here's a quote from Douglas Adams which I find quite applicable: . . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking ,

Water exists, has properties to accounting for it being in a puddle, puddle space can contain. We (humans) have capacity to think - points to design

nferyn:
Ah those evil evolutionists and what they claim. Glad to know you're accurately representing the TOE and are not talking from that place where the sun doesn't shine. Maybe you could find me one evolutionist that makes such a ridiculous claim?

Will search, i remember reading this sometime back.

nferyn:
Medical science, I see where you're coming from lol. Michael Egnor, anyone?
How little you need to be convinced, oh gullible ones.
There's indeed little you have shown, I must say.

Will search.

@nferyn
how u can pick on a few words and overlook the passage is beyond me. At first you claim there was NO explotion at all now its an explosion that was not chaotic or disorderly - let me get this straight. We have a highly densed nuclues (proton, cosmic egg, whatever) at a very high temperature and pressure expanding rapidly through explosion and the result is unchaotic and orderly? You would not know science if it hits you in the face.

nferyn:
Either you accept the scientific method to arrive at truth or you don't. But if you do, you have to accept one of the basic principles of the scientific method as well, the criterium of falsifiability [/b]of hypotheses. You then should accept any attempt at falsification of your hypothesis on the basis of how well the evidence lines up with your hypothesis and if the evidence contradicts your hypothesis, you should accept it to be falsified. You cannot pick and choose the evidence that fits your hypothesis and reject the evidence that doesn't. Either your hypothesis is valid or it isn't.
[b]Christian Cosmology based on a literal reading of Genesis is manifestly not a valid hypothesis, let alone a theory.

What in science name have you come up with now? You(and atheism) very well break this rule. You've totally thrown away and rejected the scientific evidence against bb i brought up earlier sticking to the few that bb can cook up. You totally ignore that most of bb is based on speculation and can not be proven. What i've deduced is that atheism is in fact a religion and truly based on faith (refer to my last post). You have a few of your type ("scientific" evidence that points in your direction, you disregard other (still scientific) evidence that opposes it and most of all you conclude based on a huge amount of what is mere speculation and largely unprove-able notions.

And you continually scream science as if you are one professor, when you do not understand the principle of explosion - a principle that your bb theory so thwarts - by claiming the universe exploded within itself and expanded but yet there was no space out of it. That is to say, an atom (actually much smaller and without any exterior space) just exploded within itself and became this huge infinite universe. Wow! I swear you have more faith than i do.

Look if you want to talk science talk science - since you obviously do not understand when ricadelide talks supernatural, but do not hide behind your so called rules that is only rightly interpreted and implemented by you. If you want an open and honest discussion (or research) or bb, intelligent design and/or genesis, i'm always around.

Now to your big bang theory, Do you remember you strongly denied any sort of (disordely or chaotic) explosion took place? Let me remind you

The BB was no chaotic explosion

It is nothing even remotely close to an explosion. An explosion is caused by a rapidly expanding gas, nothing of that sort happened during the BB.

No it can't because it is not an explosion.

Who ever brought forth such nonsensical claims? It's only your flawed analogy between the BB and an explosion that could make you think such a thing. Who again claimed that the singularity was disorderly or the BB event was a disorderly event? It's definitely not the proponents of the BB theory.

I almost believed i was backing up the wrong tree until i found these ( please feel free to check my links) -

About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

Even wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang) points in that direction but uses words like - inflation, expansion but any physics student knowing what happens at incredibly high density, high pressure and temperature that leads to expansion can decifer that some form of huge explosion has occured
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-1738.html

One thing that kept creeping up in most of the study was that the big bang contained so much "speculations" - check wikipedia link, ", it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions." - check liftoff link, ", we can only speculate and give our best guess" - check umich link. ricadelide are you thinking what i'm thinking? It seems clear that nferyn can believe his "literal truth" - we cant believe our Genesis account, he (like most scientist do) can use some observations to validate their theory but we cant either. What a level playing field!

My next post propose intelligent design to validate creation theory. If thats ok with you.

Thanks

nferyn:
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_big_bang_theory_vs_gods_word
So you are believing in the literal truth of the Genesis account, even though it is in clear contradiction with almost all established scientific knowledge? I guess then that all discussion is pointless, but please don't drag in any scientific underpinnings of of your belief.

Observations (some of which i made earlier and many more to come) and occurences are also in contradiction with your "established scientific knowledge". Why just then should i not show natural and scientific validations that point towards what I believe? You dont want ricadelide to show it based on faith, reason and supernatural, now i cant use scientific observations for mine? What exactly do you want? Ricadelide sums you up very well. Atleast you and I agree on something - this discussion is pointless.

@nferyn
Asking about christian cosmology probably means you disregarded my links (wonder why you asked for them). I dont know why you called it that - cosmology- but anyways i'll lift something from the site cuz its a simple summary.

Basically there are two views of the origin of the Universe. One of these is the supernatural position set forth in the book of Genesis (Chapters 1-2), with ample confirmation from other inspired writings. The Genesis narrative affirms that God created the heavens and the earth on the first day of the initial week of earth’s history. Subsequently, during the remaining five days of creation activity, attention was directed to this planet, the abode of man—who was uniquely fashioned in the image of the Creator (Gen. 1:26,27). The sun, moon, and stars were also made (v. 14ff). The Scriptures make it perfectly clear that the whole creation (inorganic and organic) came into being during this six-day period (see Ex. 20:11).

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_big_bang_theory_vs_gods_word

I'm studying about the big bang to fully understand it. Due to your "no explosion ever occured". will get back to you

@nferyn
Sorry
This is the link, but that one is good too.
http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/december99.htm

I'm assuming this is a christian-only thread and if it is we already know the answer to that question. If however, you want a moslem or an atheist to respond to that question then even the thread falls short of making proper sense. ( i mean this in the best way possible)

We have atheists arguing in almost every christian thread and trying to invalidate claims you make concerning christianity. Moslems are doing thesame (this is not an attack on islam or atheism). You sef, look at it from an atheist point of view if you do not believe in God's existence why in the world would you believe in a heaven or a hell - it would be mere superstitions. A moslem that does not believe you will make heaven as a christian would have his own views on the subject too.

Battling with both atheism and islam on thesame thread is not an envious task besides threads exist where this is presently occuring.

@nferyn
Document was saved on my computer way back but would find the links and send asap, i normally post reference links. Yes it was from Wayne Jackson. Never said it was mine as you noticed i left references to other stuff there.

1 the BB theory fits with the observations, does Chrsitian cosmology?
A few obsevations were given in my last post that it does not seem to fit with.

2 it allows for predictions, which perfectly fit with the observations (i.e. cosmic background radiation points to a singularity)
It also shows discrepancies with clear evidence provided and how much of the "predictions" have actually fit with the observations.

3. the tornado in a junk yard argument is ridiculous prima facie, because it uses concepts from our everyday experience that don't apply to a singularity, e.g. there was no explosion
My paragragh which you refer to -
Never in the history of human experience has a chaotic explosion been observed producing an intricate order that operates purposefully. An explosion in a print shop does not produce an encyclopedia. A tornado sweeping through a junkyard does not assemble a Boeing 747. No building contractor dumps his materials on a vacant lot, attaches dynamite, and then waits for a completed home from the resulting “bang.” The idea is absurd. Evolutionist Donald Page was correct when he wrote: “There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state” (1983, p. 40).
What exactly are you saying? BB is a once in a forever plural (dont know what caused) explosion? It can not be compared to anything else that explodes? Even scientists presume that there is uniformity in the universe. Thats why experiments done in a place can be carried in another place and thesame result expected. Though it is not yet proven, it is accepted everywhere. If i give you a recipe i expect the outcome to be thesame as what i have irrespective of when i wrote the recipe. Is Wayne Jackson wrong to point out that disorderliness or chaos or "nothing" can ever leat to order, design and "something"? Not even science is with you on this matter.

4. the anthropic argument is plainly ridiculous, because it is above all begging the question and presupposes what needs to be proven and does not offer any basis for falsification, which makes it scientifically useless
For this you would need the complete link, i cut some things out becuz of reference and length.

Maybe we can validate your alternative cosmology using the same criteria the author of your post, Wayne Jackson, has used to critique the Big Bang theory
You can do that, it would only be fair to use thesame standards for the two theories but for now lets stick to disvalidating yours. Thank you

Ok here's the link
http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/noDesignerArgument.htm

@nferyn
First of all i notice the futility of this discussion. I'm not here to be convinced of the existence of my God (Jehovah/Yhwh - both christians and jews believe in thesame God) neither are you genuinely here to be convinced otherwise (no such thing as a God but bing bang, evolution etc), but for clarity sake and for those on the wall here goes:

The Design Argument (theory) is:

(1) Everything we’ve encountered that appears to have been designed does in fact have a designer;
(2) The universe does appear as if it has been designed;
(3) Thus, the universe has a designer;
(4) This designer is God.”

Wanting to narrow this down a bit, i'll deal with - "There is no design, ergo, no need for a designer. Why don't you start by bringing evidence for the existence of design in the natural world (I'm not referring to design by humans)?"

Yes there is a design(non-human) take our solar system for example, every planet orbits round its axis at its speed and never deviates. If one planet was to be taken off, science says we would all squash into each other and that would be the end of our solar system. The planets revolve round the sun, we have a galaxy of our own that stays on its path without interefering with others. Even in our earth, we have a design, from the tropics to the antartic, every creation has a design. Insects, animals and humans.

We humans have functions that every single part (organ, cell or system) performs. Earlier when the functions of some parts where unknown evolutionist thought it was proof to their theory (claiming the parts had funtions in primitive forms and after metamorphosis came into no use). Now medical science indeed has shown the functions of those parts. An indeed beautiful and intelligent designer must have been involved no doubt - and we are totally convinced that the designer is our God.

What convinces us is our bible -love it or hate it- its authenticity, its historical accuracy, its message. Nature also helps solidify our position, and even science does (from the little i've shown).

Theories concerning the mechanistic origin of the Universe come and go. Today’s “science” is tomorrow’s superstition. A few years ago scientists were touting the Steady-State Theory as the most reasonable explanation of the origin of the Universe. It asserted that new matter is constantly being created to replace that which is lost by the expanding Universe. “Today most astronomers regard the steady-state theory as dead” (Weaver, 1974, p. 625). The current inclination concerning the beginning of our Universe is known as the Big Bang Theory, but even the “Bang” notion is receiving competition from a newer view called the “Plasma Theory” (DeYoung, 1992, pp. i-iv).

@nferyn
do you seriously believe that we can get this beautifully designed universe by chance or an explosion? No designer involved, just an explosion and the universe just crept up. Never in the history of human experience has a chaotic explosion been observed producing an intricate order that operates purposefully. An explosion in a print shop does not produce an encyclopedia. A tornado sweeping through a junkyard does not assemble a Boeing 747. No building contractor dumps his materials on a vacant lot, attaches dynamite, and then waits for a completed home from the resulting “bang.” The idea is absurd. Evolutionist Donald Page was correct when he wrote: “There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state” (1983, p. 40).

Since the big bang theory alleges that all of the matter in the known Universe was tightly packed into a microscopic cosmic “egg.” before the bang, can you please tell be where this cosmic egg came from - what bang produced it? Or have you found any cosmic chicken yet?

If the Universe started with an explosion, one would expect that all matter/energy should have been propelled radially from the explosion center – consistent with the principle of angular momentum. It would not be expected that the Universe would be characterized by the curving and orbiting motions that are commonly observed, e.g., the revolution of our earth around the sun (cf. Morris, 1984, p. 150).

For years scientists have been attempting to measure the microwave radiation that is coming in from all parts of the Universe. It is conjectured that this radiation is the left-over heat from the original Big Bang. The problem is, wherever this radiation has been measured, it has been found to be extremely uniform, which does not harmonize with the fact that the Universe itself is not uniform; rather, it is “clumpy,” i.e., composed of intermittent galaxies and voids. If the Big Bang Theory were true, there should be a correlation between the material composition of the Universe (since everything emits thermal heat) and the corresponding radiation temperature. But such is not the case.

The Big Bang Theory is without validity. It has the support of neither genuine science nor responsible biblical exegesis. For once we agree with several evolutionists who admit: “Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on very few facts” (Arp, et al., 1990, p. 812).

In view of that, it can hardly be classified as “science.”

dblock:
On what basis, there are so many contradictions and uncertainties in the good Book.

I better go to church tommorow, I've strayed away from christianity for a very long time, I might just become an Athiest.

Check if the following links explain and/or answers your contradictions

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm
http://contenderministries.org/discrepancies/contradictions.php

nferyn:
Another one of those weak apologetical intellectually coated attempt at reasoning that even a cursory reading of the argumentation within the book can easily demolish. Just one example:
The defense on the rationality of the Christian world view rest on the argument that all world views have certain presuppositions or premisses and that these have to be accepted by faith. The main problem with that argument is the premisses of Christianity as presented in the book are not nearly reductionistic enough and as a matter of speaking must [b]also [/b]presuppose [b]all [/b]premisses of the materialistic world view as well (I'm not going to delve into the caricature of atheism the author makes, because that would lead us too far).

What do you mean that there are not nearly reductionistic enough? Even you cant meet your outrageous standards. Do you want the author to write about all the religions and belief systems in the world? Did you study all those systems before you decided on atheism? I'm thinking you hardly went through the book.

nferyn:
Christianity must not only accept revelation on faith, but must also accept the overall lawfulness of nature and the applicability of logic, the [b]only [/b]presuppositions of naturalism. A whole lot more faith, it seems to me.
Besides, to 'prove' revelation, one can only use the presuppositions of the naturalistic method, but one can easily toss out the same method when it contradicts that revelation.

Much less faith than you need to prove the inexistence of deity or disprove the designer's argument-where there is a design there must be a designer(which the author refers to). Or can you show clear and incontrovertible evidence that God does not exist? My guess is you needed your own bunch of presuppositions to arrive at that belief (faith).

Now about Judas not being "properly evidenced." - here with your standards again. What then is your definition of "properly evidenced." and how does it fit with the culture that was existent more than 2000 years ago?

@stimulus
I understand, thanks.

Anyway, I believe the bible is complete. Referring to other books do not contradict this - i can refer to another book when doing my project but it does not mean that my project is not complete. To understand its completeness and which bible (protestant or catholic) is complete we need to do some study of how books were accepted into the bible - which is another thread altogether. But for the records, the catholic bible adds books to only the old testament - if i can remember it correctly- overlooking the fact that even jews (both ancient and modern hebrews) do not insert those books in their bible. Check up on the septuagant - hope that is the spelling.

Christianity is not just faith, it is faith with reason. Christians should endeavour to research about their faith.

http://www.apologetics.com/ebooks/farinaccio-faithwithreason.pdf

eeman:
if christianity is not a sham then christians ought to honour judas for ensuring that jesus died on the cross.
you guys call him a betrayer but he did it so crist could died for you ,so give honour to whom it is due

What is our concern with Judas? Its up to him and God. By your logic we should honor racist because without them equality wont have existed in US, or Hitler should be honored since his killing of millions of jews led to their returning to their land or lets honor criminals cuz without them we wont have laws to protect us. Your logic is gravely flawed.

All this and more contradictions in the bible have been answered or explained. Dont be suprised anyone they have been around for years (since the 1960s) and since then have been answered. Moslems and skeptics just keep bringing it every day as if its a new information.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm
http://contenderministries.org/discrepancies/contradictions.php

and many more,

The writers of the Gospel accounts – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – quite definitely affirm that Jesus Christ claimed to be the Son of God, and that he performed miracles to authenticate that affirmation.

Further, they allege that even though Jesus was put to death on the cross, after three days he came out of the grave, thus, forcefully demonstrating that he is Jehovah’s beloved Son, and that his authority must be respected. There is really no dispute about what the record claims.

How do skeptics address these historical records? Generally speaking, they assert that the New Testament writers fabricated the accounts. The writers knew that Jesus did not do these things; they simply invented the stories.

Will this charge stand up in the light of logical inquiry? Let us think about it for a moment.

Logically speaking, either there is existence after death or there is not. If there is post-death existence, there either is accountability for one's earthly conduct, or there is not. The "law of the excluded middle" demands one or the other. If there is no post-earthly existence, it matters not what one does in this life. If, however, one believes that he will be held accountable for his earthly conduct in eternity, he will be more inclined to act in a morally responsible way in this life.

Now, reflect upon the implications of this principle in light of the charge that the New Testament writers lied about the events in the life of Christ.

If they believed in eternity and accountability before God, why would they falsify the records regarding Jesus, knowing that such lies would exclude their entrance into heaven? Lying is conceded to be unethical universally, and, according to the Scriptures, liars will be excluded from heaven (Rev. 21:.

On the other hand, if the Gospel writers did not believe in eternal accountability, and so, they callously fabricated the documents that affirmed Jesus’ divine nature, why would they have subjected themselves to the persecution that accompanied Christianity, since “this life” would be all they believed they would ever enjoy?

The infidelic theory makes no sense at all. This is a problem that no skeptic can explain. The New Testament documents are reliable!


http://www.christiancourier.com/

ONLY and I repeat ONLY IDOITS deny that someone called Jesus Christ once existed. Even Historians and Scientist dont go down that path becuz there is more than overwhelming evidence saying he did.

We all know who the Jesus is in the bible, lets all non-christians stop this crap. Just like we know who the mohammed is. I wont bring up a thread titled who is mohammed and instead on focusing on his life. I'll tell you there is one mohammed in my street.

Reverend:
If he did ever live at all then Jesus wasnt his real name.

There was no letter "J" until the 15th century. This form of His name came from the Greeks. The Greeks loved to hear their gods name, "Zeus in their names and cities. Hence, you can usually tell a Greek influence when a word ends in "us." Ephesus, Tarsus, Paulus, on and on. The Greeks give the Hebrew Yeshua a Greek name meaning "Hail to Zeus"

So you are all talking about Zeus in reality!

HAIL ZEUS!

Jesus is the english name, greek name Yeshua. Even at this you make no sense.

I thought this thread is about the completion of the bible (i'm not referring to catholic bible). Why do we so easily transform it to an argument with the koran. Sometimes i get tired of this religious wahala. Well it has always been there and it would never go away.

But can we please POLITELY answer questions raised about the bible no matter how deragatory they may seem. Fighting with Babs787 and plunging your self into the accuracy of the koran is way off context. Save that for another thread. DEAL WITH THE COMPLETION OF OUR BIBLE.

Do my masters

Do certifications in SAP, MSCD and Project Mgt

Hell! Go get a job and bring me ALL the money.

Can i get more than one person involved?

Mustay:
@ somze thank God you're learning. Don't waste your time replying meaningless threads.
@ 9ja4eva, you don't know babs na 'd preacher's son'?

My bros, i'm learning oh. Its just so hard to understand how ASSnal fans that have lost it all this season will make more mouth than manure that we are contending with. How they have the guts to come here and start talking history is beyond me. Does that account for their pathetic season or the one before? I really have a lot to learn.

software:
@somze

My brother, i just dey feeeeeeeeeeeeeeel u. How the body? No mind them oo. they are the most inutile FC in England, Yet their mouth still Run like tire,

Chelsea Rules
Unstopable Chelsea
che che che che che che chelseaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa all the way

I dey jare. i no dey mind SMC na becuz e neva see any cup and silverware for long time e dey beef us.

But seriously SMC - our money can not buy recognition, are you sure? I mean even your "big three" recognises us very well. They've been looking up at us for two years now. Every club in europe and the world knows who we are. And yes even you do, thats why you are here in the first place.

First of all, my deepest sympathies and condolences to sesin's family and friends. May God comfort you all.

Waiting for moslems (both top islamic clerics and the ones on this forum) to categorically condemn this or any other islamic related violent will prove futile. Islam (as i understand it) gives very little room to question or condemn anything done with islam given as a reason.

The reason why we can look at it in the true light of what it is - criminally inhumane - is either because we are christian or we are exposed.

About jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter - Neither God nor christianity supports it. No where in the bible says that she was actually sacrificed or that it was accepted by God. As a matter of fact places in the bible says God does not accept human sacrifice. He only accepted one - Jesus (his son). If jephthah infact sacrificed his only daughter then it was sinful and wrong. Every and any christian would straight up condemn it in the harshest terms. Would a moslem do same? We all know the answer of that.

You cant be anymore stupid.

Oh! Actually, you can.

I've stayed with a girl in thesame room and nothing happened. Even when it was tempting, its all about self control from the both of them.

But seriously, are u stupid? I wont let my girlfriend live with any guy even if he was gay.

I see you are plenty of words but short of action, thats why this thread is here in the first place. Well here goes - Dump the Chick!

loyika:
Wow so CHELSEA FC started with the coming of Maureen What will happen if he is not there next season Most naija chelsea fans will run and join "Whoever is winning FC".

Silly Rabbits

GOONER 89

Where will Manchester be without Fergie?

Where has ASSnal been for the past three years with wenger? Go on learn to console yourself, you may be doing that till 2010.

kitaun, what dirty trophy cabinet are you talking about? When have you become manure or liverfool supporter? If you claim ASSnal stick to it and dont make your self look good by liasing with rival clubs, which using your history lessons are superior to ASSnal.

As arrogant as your manager with that bulk of rubbish. You're lucky you dont get fines here as your manager does with the FA.

See you after sunday.