Part 31 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity>>MOD WARNING<<

You're right. Everything you typed is senseless. Now I understand. Thanks for clearing that up and showing your statements are completely invalid.

 

Now we're talking about school history books? LOL.

Can you scientifically explain a contagious disease that would make people dance until they died of heart attacks and exhaustion? I'd love to hear it.

Except that historians are including them in "actual history", otherwise we'd never know about it.

No. Either the entire book is historical or it isn't. Just because a Dr. Seuss book uses real people and real places, doesn't mean its historical. There's tons of children's books found in the past that are not considered historical documents. You don't just pull information from those books and say, "Yeah, this is probably historically accurate". No. Its either the whole thing is historically accurate, or it is not. Make up your mind. One or the other.

So, let me ask you this question.

Is the bible historically accurate?
1) Yes
2) No

 

Get the bible and God out of your mind for a second. Don't think empathetically and reason with me here for a second.

Supernatural - An event that cannot be explained by the laws of nature.

Are there any supernatural events recorded in history? Meaning, are they any events in history that cannot be explained by the laws of nature?

I'll let you think about that for a moment.

This is false. Observe:

[video=youtube;KR9yfG9uHOE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR9yfG9uHOE[/video]
[video=youtube;cP5vAtrt5WU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP5vAtrt5WU[/video]


Assuming the possibility that other life forms exist in our universe, how is it that an object can hover a city without making any noise, descend, and then take off extremely quickly? Now, this was witnessed by several thousand people over a major city. It has been documented and recorded, and exhibits a display that defies the laws of nature. Please, by all means, explain it.

 

Not necessarily?

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

I'm talking about what is accepted today by historians as history, not what Herodotus wrote down.

I don't know how you made the jump from "books mentioning actual historical events aren't necessarily historical" to "A book is either historically accurate or not".

Can a source not get some historical things correct and others incorrect?

 

Yet the Bible says he did. If god created everything he must have created evil. If god only created good, then who created evil? Don't tell me man. Man does not have the ability to create. Satan? But god created Satan. Whatever you say if god did not create evil, evil does not exist. God created man and his nature so he must have created the ability for man to sin.

There is another explanation. The idea of 'evil' evolved with the evolution of man. Man evolved a method of differentiating between the good things that happened to him and the bad things. The word 'Evil' (in various forms) goes so far back that no-one really knows it's original meaning. What is good and what is evil depends on your culture, religion and society.

 

This isn't mass hysteria, and the Dancing Plague shouldn't have been added to this page considering that the people who were dancing could not stop, even though they wanted to.

Seems to me like you do not know what is accepted by historians today. So, case closed.

If the Bible is nothing more than fairy tales and stories, then it wouldn't be regarded as historical text, no matter how similar characters or timelines are. Something is either historically accurate or it is not.

 

Says who? According to this Wiki article:

"Scientists have described dancing mania as a "collective mental disorder", "collective hysterical disorder", and "mass madness".[3]:136"

So, why should we take your word over these scientists?

...And that makes it not hysteria?

It's "case closed" because you said so? Why don't you go ahead and give me some modern day historians that accept supernatural events as actual historical events.

Why do you continue to make strawman arguments? I am not saying that it is nothing more than fairy tales and made up stories.,

Or again, it is partially accurate and partially not. Care to explain why this isn't an alternative?

 

According to your theory/opinion/speculation. So far I haven't seen anyone prove anything concerning this mysterious "shared/common ancestor". Obviously it's because it's made up nonsense.

If we evolved in parallel with them then how do two lines that are in parallel to each other intersect sharing a common ancestor? You are not making any sense whatsoever!

Are you suggesting that this common ancestor gave birth to chimps and humans and just died off in the process and went extinct? Then these chimps procreated with their siblings who were chimps like them while at the same time the humans did the same thing?...that suggestion would be the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard...lol

I accept/believe what our Creator Almighty God told us in His best selling book of all time the Holy Bible in that He created all these different kinds of living beings/species with we humans reigning over the rest of those other kinds of living beings/species.

We read in Scripture:

26 Then God said, &#8220;Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground.&#8221;
27 So God created human beings in his own image.
In the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.&#8221;---Genesis 1:26-27 NLT

Till this very day we human beings still reign over all the other creatures that God created. That was the way God wanted it and that's the way it has been since His creation of all the different kinds of living beings/species He put here on His green earth!

 

he biological family Canidae /&#712;kæn&#616;di&#720;/ [2] is a lineage of carnivorans that includes dogs, wolves, foxes, jackals, and many other extant and extinct dog-like mammals. A member of this family is called a canid (/&#712;kæn&#616;d/, /&#712;ke&#618;n&#616;d/).[3] The Canidae family is divided into two tribes: the Canini (dogs, wolves, jackals, and some south American "foxes") and the Vulpini (true foxes).

Canids have a long evolutionary history. In the Eocene, about 50 million years ago, the carnivorans split into two lineages, the caniforms (dog-like) and feliforms (cat-like). By the Oligocene, some ten million years later, the first proper canids had appeared and the family had split into three subfamilies, Hesperocyoninae, Borophaginae, and Caninae. Only the last of these has survived until the present day.

 

In your opinion it's absurd because you have no clear understanding of our Creator Almighty God!

Yes He did but He did not create Satan to be evil. It was Satan's decision/choice to turn evil.

Initially when God created Satan, Satan was good but again it was Satan's decision/choice to turn towards evil and he's been evil ever since his decision/choice to be that way.

Yes, God created humans but He did not create us to be evil. It is every human's decision/choice to do evil or to do what is good.

God always wants us to do what is good but He is not going to stop us from doing what is evil. He gave us the gift of free will to choose. He did not make us His puppets/robots just to do His will which is to always to do good, He left it up to us as free will agents to choose.

With that said, you can't blame God for all the evil that goes on in this world of ours. It's the sinful nature of mankind that is to blame.

 

The claim of "mass hysteria" in the wiki has no citation. As a matter of fact, someone questioned it on the Wiki with no answer back in 2008. Also, this wiki is hardly ever maintained and has been subjected to vandalism. A guy named Bartholomew wrote the alphabet as his citation for the claim.

Then you missed the point.

No. I think we're done here.

 

Your claims to have a clear understanding of the Creator are laughable and absurd. I never made any such claim.

All I did was post what the Bible states. The Bible clearly states that the humans that God created were evil. So evil that God regretted creating them.

Obviously God knew that his creatures had the "potential" to be evil. If humans had this potential, and God did not create this potential, then who did ?

If God did not know that Satan and the rest of his creations would turn to evil, then God is not "all knowing" is he ?

If God did not know that Satan and the rest of his creations would turn to evil, then God is not "all knowing" is he

.

If God did not know that Satan and the rest of his creations would turn to evil, then God is not "all knowing" is he

If God is not all knowing, and did not know what he was doing when he created humans, and did not give humans a sinful nature, and had no idea that humans would turn to evil, then God is not to blame.

 

Uh, it actually has six separate citations, are you blind?

Where do you see that?

It's been updated like five separate times in 2015 and so what?

/facepalm

You clearly don't understand how citations work. Just wow.

Bartholomew didn't write a citation, Bartholomew IS a citation. He's an author of of a psychological journal article that's cited in the Wiki article.

I mean, really?

Was the point that you're making up my arguments for me and pretending like I said them?

Of course you don't care to explain, because you're wrong. Again. Run away from the debate again, Qchan.

 

I leave conversations when I feel I'm talking in circles.
We're done.

 

Okay, I'm going to ask one that I hope doesn't offend anyone.

Do you actually believe the stories in the Bible?

 

I do. I have no reason not to.
But if you believe the stories are ridiculous, then you are free to believe whatever you want to believe.

I mean... Most white people don't believe black people are being discriminated against still to this very day. Doesn't mean it's not happening. So, believe whatever you want to believe if it brings you peace.

 

What do you mean you have no reason not to? Don't you think that some of the stories in the Bible are impossible? I consider them to be more like parables or lessons.

 

Qchan, you thought the citation for Bartholomew's article was some guy named Bartholomew writing down the alphabet, and you claimed there were not citations on the page when there were several. You clearly have no idea what the hell is going on with anything.

 

What???

Let's get things straight here . . .

First of all, I didn't quote you to ask you any questions. I quoted the original poster. You seem to have taken over his thread and seemed to WANT to answer the "hard questions." Silly.

If you don't want to answer the hard questions, then I suggest you stop responding to them.

Secondly, your question has absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread. Perhaps you should start your own thread before being bossy and demanding? Hmm?

 

Then why come to a religious debate? The whole thing is based on circular reasoning.

 

EVERY Wikipedia article has been vandalized at some point, Qchan. How you think this is an argument is astonishing to me.

No, SOME of the updates were people vandalizing the page, others were people fixing those edits

"A guy named Bartholomew wrote the alphabet as his citation for the claim."

You certainly didn't seem aware when you wrote the above.

...It doesn't HAVE to link to anything, it's a citation to a BOOK. If you want to double check the citations, read the book that it cites. Again, you claim that I'm doing "damage control" when you are flopping around trying to figure out how citations work.

 

I'm making a point, and my point was made very clearly for you to understand. I will make this point again:

Did you catch the point? The point is, just because you don't believe something, doesn't mean it didn't/doesn't happen. I gave you a real life example that happens to this very day.
If you can't answer the question, say you can't do it. Once you're unable to answer the question, then you would've proved my point and you will be humbled by the answer you, yourself, come up with.

No, Dairyair. Just no.

Doesn't magically make your link any less wrong.

 

No, it just magically makes your argument not relevant because it isn't a valid criticism. And considering your cluelessness about citations.... well...

"A guy named Bartholomew wrote the alphabet as his citation for the claim."

 

Of course I believe the stories in the Bible...all of them! but I just don't understand why you would have to say by asking your question you hope it doesn't offend anyone.

How would it offend anyone?

 

Well, some people do in fact get offended at anyone who questions the Bible and it's stories.

I would also like to ask you how can you believe such outrageous claims? The Bible was written by men who were quite ignorant as to the way the world works and would attribute many natural events to "works of God."

- - - Updated - - -

Your point is absolutely ridiculous and has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.