ThunderJam

Ok veg, finally getting around to these questions, and as as to why I haven't yet, I've been busy and this even among Christians is a debated topic, so making a reply to this would take careful thought and time, so I didn't want to post until I could really sit down and think. Jesus, during his ministry often surrounded himself with children. In one account, pharisees rebuked people who brought their children to Jesus, calling the parents foolish and saying a man such as this can not waste his time on kids. Jesus, on the contrary, said bring the children to me, and said "I wish everyone were like little children, for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these." Now you may say this doesn't implicitly say children go to heaven, but many people think that this was Jesus' meaning. Also consider the Christian value on life, such as with the issue of abortion. A lot of christians agree, that kids, before they are able of make moral choices about their sin and trusting in God, are still able to get to heaven. Every account of Jesus/God with kids, has had the theme of love intertwined. I, personally, would think that this same concept applies to those who never had a chance to learn of Christianity. However, some Christians say, and cite certain places in the Bible as "proof" for the argument, that the natural world itself is meant to be evidence enough to make people believe in an alimighty creator, and therefore any adult has had the opportunity to come to know God. I don't quite see this as correct though, because even if they look at creatoin, and think, a God must have created this, how would they know about Jesus or our religion? They could think an indian god created it. So I would venture to say that because God is loving, people who truly had ABSOLUTELY NO OPPORUNITY to encounter god or jesus in some manner, would be shown mercy. Now, if there is a place such as purgatory, (which im not sure if i believe in, again a debated topic among Christians as the book of Revelations' validity is questioned) then this would make your question also a little more simple. Because this way, even if they died without having a chance to encounter our God, then they still wouldn't be sent to !@#$%^&*, but would have an additional time in which they could meet God before they have to face judgement. The reason I thought of this is because, it makes sense that they wouldn't be sent to !@#$%^&* for not encountering God, but it didn't necesarily seem right that by not going to !@#$%^&*, they should automatically get to heaven. Maybe purgatory provides that middle ground.

Who the heck said it is infinite? I'm pretty sure it's scientifically accepted that the universe has been expanding since the time of the big bang. Expanding would imply that at some point, there a place where the universe hasn't expanded into yet. Hence, our discussion moron.

Into whatever is beyond the universe, maybe nothing. I just meant instead one one absolute barrier, where there's universe, then no universe, maybe different aspects of the universe have different boundaries, so you'd experience w/e phenomenon leaving the universe causes over a period of time. Like slowing down gradually for a stop sign rather then stopping in your tracts. Whatever.

Nothing fishy, manuscripts and scrolls can be physically dated. What physical remains do you have frmo Jesus' birth to date? Plus they do have the year of his birth pinned down to within several years.

So you think the number of disciples, 12, was taken after ancient egypt and the signifcant 12 constellations. You imply that the entire Bible is completely made up. It is historical fact the most of the disciples lived. As it is known that Jesus lived, and that many of the instances in the Bible took place. (What's still debated is the nature of Jesus life, whether he did perform the miracles or not, etc). The two fish is a massive massive stretch as is the end of the age being the end of the age of "piecies." You're trying to make connections where none were meant to be. December 25th. Well I believe, though I could be mistaken, that the Ancient Egyptians used a different calendar than us. We are talking ANCIENT, the sun god idea was around from very early in egypts history, we're talking over 4,000 years ago. Furthermore, I don't think Jesus' birth has even been pinpointed to December 25th. Sure an estimate has been made of his birth, but I'm pretty sure December 25th just became the day designated to remember his birth because it falls within the correct seasonal time of the year. I don't think it's exact. Also consider there were prophecies describing Jesus' birth a thousand years before he was actually born, and yes modern dating has confirmed the dates of such writings.

Yea they are, or so the muslim faith say. Jews and Christians of course are, since Christianity is just judaism extended further, and muslims say there god is one and the same. Muslims believe in Jesus, they just think he was a mere prophet and not the son of God. However they feel that their God's need for everyone converted to their religion justifies their violence, which... almost makes it seem as if your talking about a whole different God. Im actually really surprised I didn't catch taht the first tiem around when NBVegita said it... its nothing NEW that the pope would propose, its common fact.

Your dumb as dirt. Sure, I don't think the Iraq war is exactly patriotic. BUT THEN AGAIN NO ONE IS FRIGGIN CLAIMING THAT MY FREEDOM HINGES ON THE IRAQ WAR. Geez, come on now, I'm talking about wars of independence. Back in the day when there were empires (by the classical definition, don't get started about how you might consider the USA to be an empire) and they enslaved people they conquered, those conquered people had to fight to gain their freedom. Our world is defined by greed and pride, etc. If you are bordered by other nations and maintain no military, then your going to get invaded, because others will see you as an easy conquering. Lives and war are the price of freedom. AND THE MATTER OF FREEDOM was totally introduced by you. Sure I said "Seems simple enough to me, our countries wouldn't remain free if we didn't have brave men and women protecting us." The point was that people have to be there to protect us. Militia's are needed, and therefore freedom is not free.

How couldn't there be an edge? I believe it's been proven that the universe is expanding, even if there's aspects to the universe that we don't understand or know about yet, I think they would be expanding with the rest of the universe, and therefore also have an edge. Although maybe different aspects of the universe could have different edges, so you would have no SINGLE ULTIMATE edge, would be like a drawn-out fading.

So i check ssforum, and JDS has posted in each of the recent world threads, each post completely stupid. JDS grow a brain or stop posting. Oh, and maybe learn to space your writing more neatly? Obviously if my country didn't have any brave patriots who fought for independence, my country wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be free. I'm anticipating that you will say life under british rule would still be free, even if devoid from rights they weren't giving you (im not bashing on england, commenting on the past). Fine be smart!@#$%^&*, theres plenty of third world countries can are currently oppressed and people in them couldn't claim to be free. It would take bravery and fighting to win their freedom, and therefore it obviously isn't free.

Like in the other thread jds, you are dumb.

Wow, what a joke. I don't even think this is worth the effort of me countering. "O you know, well uhm.. zeus was an almighty god, and thats what you think jesus is, so they must be the same.. that means your whole religion is lies."

more so judaism than anything else.. Thank you captain obvious? Christianity comes from Judaism. The first christians were jews who recognized Jesus as the messiah that Jewish prohecies foretold of. Hence the begining of our old testament is the same as the jewish scriptures. Because the rest of the jews did not recognize Jesus as the savior, the ones who believed in Jesus broke away creating their own sect that is now Christianity.

My thoughts went to Toby Keith's song American Soldier. A bit of the lyrics: And I will always do my duty No matter what the price I've counted up the cost I know the sacrifice Oh and I don't wanna die for you But if dying's asked of me I'll bear that cross with honor Cause freedom don't come free Seems simple enough to me, our countries wouldn't remain free if we didn't have brave men and women protecting us.

1) Pulltrip i am no where near denouncing my faith. Im some spots of my argument I am starting from "ground zero" !@#$%^&*uming parts of our faith are wrong, and then working up towards proving them FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT. If these people don't believe our faith, im trying to work an argument in a way that does not use our faith as the explanation. 2) just stop posting, my two posts on the previous page were completely lost once you began posting again, most these people aren't listening to you, if anything your detracting from my and aileron's arguments, which are arguing the same thing as you, but more effectively. Don't ruin it. That was mean ANWAYS GO BACK AND READ MY TWO LONG POSTS ON THE BOTTOM OF LAST PAGE IF YOU DIDN'T READ THEM ALREADY.

My literature teacher has also talked about, what would happen IF you could travel to the edge of the universe? Theoretically, lets just say you got to the edge where the universe is expanding. What would happen if you passed beyond that point? or could you?

Thought I'd add this too. The biblical account of creation does not contradict science, they make perfect sense to go hand in hand. Some of you will say "The earth couldn't be made in 7 days, we've dated things older than that." Very well, I agree with you, and it is a common concept among Christians that the 7 days of creation in Genesis 1 were not 24 hour days as we know days. The jewish word that was used was yom. Yom can mean 1/2 days, full days, or even an indefinite extended amount of time. So from the very get go, the time span of God's creating is ambiguous. Then in the third day, as described in Genesis, it said that God declared that the land should grow vegetation and plants and tree, bearing seed, and fruit to reproduce. Emphasis on THE LAND SHOULD GROW VEGETATION. It is thought that this means he didn't just make vegation appear, he allowed for it to be grown in it's natural process, which would take way longer than 24 hours. Furthermore, when all is said and done in Genesis 1, the begining of Genesis 2 says something like (I don't have a bible with me atm) "Thus went the day when God created the heavens and the earth." REFERRING TO THE PREVIOUSLY CALLED 7 DAYS AS 1 COMBINED DAY? Obviously the definition of "day" is not clear, and is not what we know as a 24 day. All this being established, the fact that the order in which God created things in Genesis, correctly corresponds to the order in which scientists say things took place, shows that God could be behind everything Science has established abotu the begining of time. No contradictions necesary. Maybe, the big bang, which has no scientific explanation of how it was set-off, was caused by God. Maybe that is what entailed When "God created the heavens and the earth" in the first day. Additionally as for more non-bible based "evidence" or information in creationism/ID's favor: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html Just look at the sheer number of factors (and these are probably one a fraction of the factors, because surely there is more at work then we understand) that had to line up perfectly if things were to come to existence how they are now by the way science has said.

Lid, i love you lol Where did God come from? Very good question indeed, one that the believers of every major religion still ponder, and that we may never, much like some scientific issues, have the answer too. At least until we die, if in fact there is a heaven where we may come into further knowledge. Thank you falco As to primordial soup: Check this page out. These are inconsistencies with the theory that first simple organisms sprung from lifeless primordial soup. http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html And need for real evidence: Ill quote from a website, ""It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a biblical reference ." (6) The liberals made wild claims against the Bible a hundred years ago but now they are silent. This is not true of other religions. The Mormon claim for inspiration of the Book of Mormon has been categorically condemned by the Smithsonian Ins!@#$%^&*ute because of the fallacies shown by archaeology; this is not so with the Bible. A.N. Sherwin-White, a respected classical historian at Oxford says about the book of Acts, "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming...any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd." " Also did you know that Christianity is the only major religion whose creation account lines up chronologically lines up with the events which science has "proven" to be fact? (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/model.html) Another fun fact, the destruction of Jericho was dated to 1580 give or take 15 years (done scientifically). And scientists, using have found evidence of a volcanic eruption from the Aegean island of Thera, which recently has been dated to 1628 B.C. (15). This would place the eruption at 45 years prior to the destruction of Jericho, at a time which coincidentally corresponds to the time of the plagues the Lord unleashed upon Egypt. The eruption is commonly thought to be a physical explanation for Egypt being covered in darkness in the plagues. Coincidence or not, that science, via carbon dating, tree rings, and other things, has found these two events to be 45 years apart, which is the same length of time that the Bible spaces between the two events.

It was from a single site, and if I give you a url your going to say its all christian-slanted nonsense probably. I will say the little bit of that account that I did google to check up if other places had similar data, showed that the dates (at least the ones i looked up) were correct or correct approximations. Try to check the dates on those scrolls and manuscripts against other sources, see if you find the same information. site was: http://godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html

Some stuff I found online Old Testament: How do we know the Bible has been kept in tact for over 2,000 years of copying? Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, our earliest Hebrew copy of the Old Testament was the Masoretic text, dating around 800 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls date to the time of Jesus and were copied by the Qumran community, a Jewish sect living around the Dead Sea. We also have the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament dating in the second century B.C. When we compare these texts which have an 800-1000 years gap between them we are amazed that 95% of the texts are identical with only minor variations and a few discrepancies. New Testament: In considering the New Testament we have tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in part or in whole, dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century, when the printing press was invented. These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, making collusion unlikely. The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript, has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed in Asia Minor). Many early Christian papyri, discovered in 1935, have been dated to 150 A.D., and include the four gospels. The Papyrus Bodmer II, discovered in 1956, has been dated to 200 A.D., and contains 14 chapters and portions of the last seven chapters of the gospel of John. The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, discovered in 1931, has been dated to 200-250 A.D. and contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation. The number of manuscripts is extensive compared to other ancient historical writings, such as Caesar's "Gallic Wars" (10 Greek manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), the "Annals" of Tacitus (2 manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), Livy (20 manuscripts, the earliest 350 years after the original), and Plato (7 manuscripts). Thousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries (first and second century) cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is nearly possible to put together the entire New Testament just from early Christian writings. For example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (dated 95 A.D.) cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, !@#$%^&*us, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. The letters of Ignatius (dated 115 A.D.) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and !@#$%^&*us. These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D. In addition, there is internal evidence for a first century date for the writing of the New Testament. The book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul in prison, awaiting trial (Acts 28:30-31 (1)). It is likely that Luke wrote Acts during this time, before Paul finally appeared before Nero. This would be about 62-63 A.D., meaning that Acts and Luke were written within thirty years of ministry and death of Jesus. Another internal evidence is that there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Although Matthew, Mark and Luke record Jesus' prophecy that the temple and city would be destroyed within that generation (Matthew 24:1-2 (2),Mark 13:1-2 (3), Luke 21:5-9,20-24,32(4)), no New Testament book refers to this event as having happened. If they had been written after 70 A.D., it is likely that letters written after 70 A.D. would have mentioned the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. As stated by Nelson Glueck, former president of the Jewish Theological Seminary in the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, and renowned Jewish archaeologist, "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D." Conclusion: With all of the massive manuscript evidence you would think there would be massive discrepancies - just the opposite is true. New Testament manuscripts agree in 99.5% (5) of the text (compared to only 95% for the Iliad). Most of the discrepancies are in spelling and word order. A few words have been changed or added. There are two passages that are disputed but no discrepancy is of any doctrinal significance (i.e., none would alter basic Christian doctrine). Most Bibles include the options as footnotes when there are discrepancies. How could there be such accuracy over a period of 1,400 years of copying? Two reasons: The scribes that did the copying had meticulous methods for checking their copies for errors. 2) The Holy Spirit made sure we would have an accurate copy of God's word so we would not be deceived. The Mormons, theological liberals as well as other cults and false religions such as Islam that claim the Bible has been tampered with are completely proven false by the extensive, historical manuscript evidence.

As to judaism and budhism over christianity: Christianity believes the things that judaism teaches. The difference is judaism is still waiting for their messiah, and christians think that they have missed their messiah. Theres lots of christians who are racially jewish. Yea theres some places that are closed on sundays. Not a lot. A couple well known chains like Chik-Fil-A is owned by a christian and none of their stores are open on sunday. Other places that close on sunday aren't really for religious beliefs. I used to work at a tutoring center that was closed on sunday, no religious reason provided. and NB: please give me some sources that I should read. First thing that came to my head was the gospel of judas, did a few google searches and read the gospel again (yes I had read it before). I know you are going to shout that wikipedia isn't credible, but take a look anyway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas . Was written in the second century? carbon dated to + or - 50 years of 280 AD (Jesus died in 30 something AD i believe) and it isn't claimed to have been written by Judas Iscariot himself? So what gave the people any authority about the topic of Jesus' life?

Fair enough, I'll look into it more, although being a Christian implies a belief in the bible. No I didn't say that. How did repeitive prayer come into any of this? As i said earlier (may have been in a different topic) I, as well as most the other christians on this board, are protestants. It's the catholic church that has the repe!@#$%^&*ive prayers, I agree with you. I did not say irrefutable, that was pulltripsquid, and I even responded to his post say I didn't agree.

NB you are sadly mistaken. Let me quote, VERBATIM, from the gospel of John. John 14:5-6 "Thomas said to him, 'Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?' Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me'." I don't know where you are getting your information, but try actualyl reading the gospels (Matthew - John in the new testament) before telling me what YOU THINK they say. I have rarely seen such a misinformed statement as "Jesus never claimed the he was the way to heaven, he said it was through each man." And as for praying in private: high-five, you got something right, he did say this. Now let's get the next step correct, and learn the context it was in. Jesus had conflicts with the jewish religious rulers of his day who were called Pharisee's. The pharisee's had become corrupt and would make a show of praying loudly in public places, praying not really for communication with god, but rather they were trying to make themselves look good by being over-abundantly spiritual. Jesus called these men out, saying that what they were doing was disgraceful, and that they should rather be praying in private. What Jesus meant by they shouldn't be made in public is that your relationship with God is your business. SURE you can go pray in public, but you don't need to be drawing attention to yourself, be loud, praise yourself, etc. Taking a knee, bowing your head, and whispering your feelings to God in a public park is in no way against Jesus' teachings.

I think all the people debating as christians on this board are protestants (maybe with the exception of aileron? donno). The oppression and inquisition and all of that was conducted by the catholic church. Furthermore, the protestants were among those persecuted by the catholic church. Most protestants think that the catholic church, to put it bluntly, is not up to par, and we don't really want to identify with it. For example, jesus says that only through him can we get to heaven, but the catholic church heavily emphasizes physical works to get into heaven. Jesus said only through me can you get to the father, why then do catholics pray to saints? Saints were just normal people who are being honored after their death. Sure its fine to honor them, but why are they praying to fellow human beings? Kinda went on longer then I meant to there...

Wow. I go with the big bang because normally if any Christian starts off on creationism, you will all shout "THATS NOT NECESARILY WHAT HAPPENED." So, in my post I go along with taking what you all regard as the accepted scientific explanation, and show how it does not dispel creationism, but rather they could go hand in hand. After that, what do i get in response... "THE BIGG BANG ISNT NECESARILY WHAT HAPPENED." If you can explain yourself, I'd be happy to hear why you think it is a joke, but otherwise I have to respectfully disagree with you.