Isn’t Eyewitness accounts proof enough? of course there isn’t going to be “photo’s” from the era of Christ, without photo’s today when you die, what will be the proof YOU existed, birth records, and writings about you, and eye witness accounts… hmmmm. even a picture of you couldn’t prove it was you without the eyewitness accounts professing to be you.
There will be little if any proof that I existed. Perhaps fate, or skill may change that, but I’ll tell you this. If a bunch of people 2000 years from now try to prove that I existed using a book that had been writen by other people about me, even first hand accounts, I would be severly disapointed.
So no… Eyewitness accounts are not good enough, especially not, 2000 year old eye witness acounts which have been translated from a different language by a group of people who have knowingly lied, stolen, and killed in order to alter those words to their liking. Your eye witnesses may very well have been true and honest people. Unforturnately the caretakers of your record have not been so.
Okay I am totaly against proving belief… but there is one thing… I want your opinions on…
I guess its a piece of proof, but beleif does not require proof…
still…
okay, anway…
Turin shroud , there is alot of proof it was the cloth that covered Jesus. It something, from the date it dates that just cannot be reproduced: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_599548.html
There are scientists on both sides who have pretty decent arguements. Personaly I have no opinion. I don’t trust the people who have had the shroud all along, and I don’t trust the people who want to disprove it’s validity. Both parties have too much to gain from “winning” the proof of belief. Since I personaly will never be allowed to do my own carbon dating on the cloth, and I doubt that anyone I trust will be allowed either, I cannot validate it as proof of anything.
(keeping in mind that by “carbon dating” I’m just refering to general pherensics. A carbon dating test is not accurate enough to tell us the date of the cloth.)
*Originally posted by upuaut *
**
So no… Eyewitness accounts are not good enough, especially not, 2000 year old eye witness acounts which have been translated from a different language by a group of people who have knowingly lied, stolen, and killed in order to alter those words to their liking. Your eye witnesses may very well have been true and honest people. Unforturnately the caretakers of your record have not been so. **
so…this is new to me, exactly which part of the Bible was altered from the original language to the english translation?
*Originally posted by RussianBeer *
**Okay I am totaly against proving belief… but there is one thing… I want your opinions on…
I guess its a piece of proof, but beleif does not require proof…
still…
okay, anway…
Turin shroud , there is alot of proof it was the cloth that covered Jesus. It something, from the date it dates that just cannot be reproduced: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_599548.html **
for me personally, I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior , without knowing anything about the shroud, and today could care less about it. Just like (upuaut) said, both sides trying to prove and disprove its validity have to much to gain, and neither can be trusted.
As for belief not requiring proof. Christianity is not a blind faith and the Bible calls all believers to test everything including its own contents. I’m not scared to test the Bible with fear that it may be wrong, I test everything and everybody, that’s the only true way to avoid being led astray. The people that do not believe Jesus is God are lookin at the information objectively and testing it which the Bible calls people to do there’s nothing wrong with that.
The people that say Jesus is not God <b>without</b> testing the information and researching it for proof, are the ones who actually are moving on blind faith.
Eyewitness accounts proof enough? No. The Salem Witch Trials are one extreme example of this. There were people that were eye-witnesses to the activities of witches. We know today that this is hogwash… But there were still people who claim to have seen it happen… ;(
sorry can’ tpost more… gotta run… be back in a week or so…
Upuaut, again… I really hate going after proof,
but give it a little more credit than that. Sure, its nothing concrete but its something. I mean it was more than carbon dating, if you read the article it was research on the type of cloth, the traces of on the cloth .
The thing is , the main research at the time, it was conducted by a doctor who was aithiest, after he was finished with the research he didnt know what to beleive.
I am not saying that this is the final proof, but it makes you think…
Since I personaly will never be allowed to do my own carbon dating on the cloth, and I doubt that anyone I trust will be allowed either
Well, we are in a society so other people can specialize and branch out and specialize, and as a society we usualy accept their proffecional opinion. Cmon Upuaut, honestly thats not a good way to discredit evidence, because YOU didn’t do it. When your sick, you dont do surgery to yourself, you trust a doctor, same here. We trust the scientist. I dont think you gave a good enough reason to discredit it, just beacause you, personaly didnt do the reaserach on the cloth.
This is an area for disgusing such things, nothing more nothing less.
And Russian, I wasn’t saying that Carbon dating was the method that they used on the shroud. I know that there have been numerous tests related to the cloth including a spore collection for pollin correlation tests. I was just saying that a carbon dating method wouldn’t work on the shroud since it is inaccurate within a few thousand years.
*Originally posted by RussianBeer *
**From this whole argument, it seems that
Alot of Releigious people what to convince that there is God and that there is proof!
-Alot of the Athiest want to go out of their way to convince everyone that there is no God, and there is no proof.
Why do you guys want to convince each other? Cant you leave people beleifs or lack-of, alone? Who cares, Que sera, sera! **
science and religion can not both be compared under the term “belief”. For the record im not the one spreading superstitions as truth. My truth is based on fact. BTW you are mistaken i could care less about what ignorant religious zealots believe in or not. That being said i DO CARE when they come to my home and spread their ignorance as truth and salvation when the real products they are selling are submission, enslavement, ignorance and hate. I have many friends that are christian, many good friends actually, and i personally dont care what they believe in because they respect my right to be. They have never asked me to join their church and we avoid the topic of religion entirely. The tolerance we share as friends is one not reciprocated by the rest of the christian community who is bent on turning everyone in this planet in to cult members. i say: “No thanks and leave me the hell alone”
People should understand “No” for an answer. But I disagree that releigion is ignorance, enslavement and the rest. It can be, if used that way. As a knife is not a weapon , until used as one.
Relegion to many is hope, its sometimes all they have, and to some it is salvation. Whenever its true or not, the belief alon is such a powerfull thing.
Hanz Guderian, When in charge of Army Group Center, later Commander and advisor of Eastern Front, 1939-45 once said:
“Soldeirs who beleive in God, outpreform those who do not in everyway. They fight better, the fight longer, they survive better and lead better. This I can tell you from first hand opservation.”
To alot of people releigion is good, and alot of people, like my freinds who are missionaries, truly beleive that they are instruments of God. They are nurses, and doctors who work with the church to save people. For very little back. And I think that is truly noble thing.
I have only had 1 friend in my life that truly believes in God and when I say that, I mean he does not drink, smoke, swear, or commit any other sins. He is the most pure person I have ever met and for that I respect him very much.
However, there are all these people out there that say they have God but spend more time sining in God’s eyes than being pure. I think it is a bunch of crap.
I personally do not believe in god and feel that it was something created back in time to keep people in order because there were no laws. I have no fear of what will happen to me after death and if there is a God than I will face him when I arrive to ‘heaven’. I think that most of the bible is crap and contradicts itself. Also though, I think you can learn a lot from the bible, it sets a lot of morals and is not necessarily a bad book to live by.
In the end, do what you want, everybody is different and live how you want to. I’m never going to try to get anybody to lose belief but don’t come to my door trying to make me believe.
*Originally posted by RussianBeer *
To alot of people releigion is good, and alot of people, like my freinds who are missionaries, truly beleive that they are instruments of God. They are nurses, and doctors who work with the church to save people. For very little back. And I think that is truly noble thing.
I think that’s a bit too harsh, just like when I was saying it’s a propaganda. I don’t thin it’s much of an instrument, but now I think of it as a safeway in or out of a situation. Although atheists don’t have this safeway and many of us don’t need this, thats what makes us different.
The bible must be the most mis-unterpreted book in the world, that and the quaran.
I think that’s a bit too harsh, just like when I was saying it’s a propaganda. I don’t thin it’s much of an instrument
No, they beleive they are instruments of God, and so be it, they think thier fate is on a hospital ship saving people in the name of God. I think thats a noble cause.
Originally posted by upuaut
um… the whole thing.
seriously though. The whole of the bible has been translated first from hebrew into Latin, and then from Latin into various other languages.
of course there are translations, what I was refering to are ALTERATIONS, do they exist and what are they?
I knew what you were talking about, but what I was refering to was translations specificaly. Granted, both are tied together. Things are left out, or put in depending upon the current moral trends in the Church.
If you want a for instance, then I guess the most obvious and easily verifiable one would be Lillith being the first woman created by God. She’s completely missing from any modern translation of the bible.
