Atheism->Deism->Theism (page 4)

sabastious

Sab, that was an extremely well articulated essay on your observations. Well done!

Thanks Tammy! The post has been bouncing around in my head for months and I finally just decided to write it down.

-Sab

tec

The fact that the bible's middle-eastern male god was only mentioned from around 3,500 - 4,000 years ago, EVEN THOUGH WRITING IS MUCH OLDER, is solid evidence that "he" was not worshipped prior to that time.

It is not SOLID evidence of anything. Peoples other than the Hebrews worshipped Him and knew of Him, even according to writings in the bible, long before someone was commissioned to write anything down as scriptures. Obviously not by the same name, because that name was not given. But still worshipped. Abraham came from the East. Who knows how far east?

Peace,

tammy

ziddina

tec, if you cannot even understand that various forms of writing came into existence long before the bible was written, then you lack sufficient [absorption of] information to fully understand my comments.

Christ Alone

And Christ Alone may not want to wade thru THIS pdf, but I'm linking it in order to come back to it and read it thru, when I have more time

Zid, you get me wrong! I love reading this stuff! And believe it or not, with an open mind.

That teaches me to open my big fat mouth when I don't know about a subject! :-) I really was wondering where the 200,000 year thing came from. Thanks for the refs.

NomadSoul

'Anyone that tells you that they know, I promise you they don't. How can I be sure? Because I don't know,and you don't possess special mental powers that I do not.'

Christ Alone

you're confusing laws with theory

laws don't change, theories do

No, I wasn't confusing the two. I know the difference between law and theory. And I wasn't necessarily talking about either. I was talking about what men, in times past, viewed as an unalterable truth. Modern physics and modern science in general is a relatively recent understanding. Before modern physics there was not an understanding between theory and law like there is now.

I was speaking in more general terms in saying that what men believe is an unchangable fact now, can be proven to be false tomorrow. I'm not saying a law such as gravity can be proven untrue.

Christ Alone

The fact that the bible's middle-eastern male god was only mentioned from around 3,500 - 4,000 years ago, EVEN THOUGH WRITING IS MUCH OLDER, is solid evidence that "he" was not worshipped prior to that time.

Not necessarily, Zid. Even in the books attributed to Moses, there are references to older books. There is even a reference to a book of Adam, that some scholars say may have been written by Adam himself. If this is the case (and if Adam WAS the first man), then this would mean that the OT God was worshiped first.

Of course that is speculation, and can't be proven since there is no existing book of Adam, or any of the others referenced in Genesis.

Christ Alone

and then there's the agnostics are cowards bit.

I wanted to comment on this too. If someone does not believe in Christianity, I find agnosticism the best route. I think it's ridiculous to call people that lean to an agnostic way of thining cowards. I think it's a place of being humble in knowing that you don't have all the answers (yet or ever) to make a solid decision. How is that cowardly? Isn't that better than saying "I have all the answers" even when you don't?

cofty

Of course that is speculation, and can't be proven since there is no existing book of Adam,

It can be scientifically proven to be false since there was no Adam. We are monkeys in shoes.

rather be in hades

then you are comparing apples and oranges. science then mixed religion and philosophy.

science now is a totally different breed of animal. there are stricter guidelines for laws and theories as well as the review process etc.

you would have to direct the other question to the person who made that statement.

Atheism->Deism->Theism

Share this