Posts by RWC

37

Prayer, Pascal, and the Anthropic Principle

by JosephAlward in

the anthropic principle .

it's true that life as it exists on earth, and the behavior of the universe as a whole, is finely tuned.

these constants, most physicists believe, were introduced at the time of the big bang, when the universe seems to have been created, or at least, to have begun again another cycle of creation.

RWC

The idea expressed by stocwatch that the apostles willing died is worth more thought than it has been given. The issue is not that these apostles "believed" in something that had been told to them be someone else but had no way to test it. The issue is that they had been told by Jesus that he ws the Christ and that he would die and rise again and than they saw him and talked to him, so they knew it was true. David Koresch is not the same, neither are the terrorists. They and their followers may believe something to be true, but theirs is a belief on faith alone. The apostles had the evidence to back up their believes and likewise, if it never happened had the eveidence to know that their believes were wrong. What you have is evidence of men who either went to their deaths knowing because they never saw the ressurected Jesus that they were preaching a lie or they went to their deaths preaching what they knew from their eyewitness evidence was the truth. It is clearly more logical to assume that they went to their deaths preaching the truth.

And you can't say with any degree of logic that all of these men were mentally delusional. Jesus appeared to numerous men who than were killed for their believes. The available evidence is that these men acted normal in all other aspects of their lives and there is no evidence that they were mentally insane. Also, the belief that all of them would be so insane is not very probable.

So Christianity is based upon the preaching of numerous individuals who preached that they saw and talked to the risen Lord and than went to their deaths for this knowledge. Logic does not support the thought that Christianity is based upon the preaching of numerous men who went to their deaths with the knowledge that what they were preaching was a lie or a hoax.

67

Bible Error: The Visit to the Tomb

by JosephAlward in

the following two accounts of the morning visit by the women to anoint jesus body are contradictory.

according to mark, the women wondered how they would remove the stone covering the tomb, but they found that it had already been rolled away.

matthew, however, says that when the women went to the tomb, there was an earthquake, and an angel came down from heaven, went to the tomb, and rolled the stone back.

RWC

Joesph,

I do not mind and in fact actually enjoy having these dbates with you, because on most occasions, despite our differences, you present your points accurately from scripture in the sense that you quote it correctly and then place your spin on it. Here you did not.

I agree that Mark chapter 16:9-20 do not apear in the earlist manuscripts of Mark. However, Jesus' ressurection and Mary talking to the angel appears in Mark Chapter 16 verses 4-8. The angel specifically tells her that the tomb is empty because Jesus had risen from the dead.

As to the verses 9-20 the NIV says : "These verses do not appear in two od the most trustworthy MSS. of the NT, though they are part of many other MSS and versions. If they are not a part of the genuine text of Mark, the abrupt ending of verse 8 is probably because the original closing verses were lost."

The truth remains: The evidence of Jesus' ressurection appear in every Gospel.

29

Questions for Evolutionists

by RWC in

jw
friends

it appears that alot of people on this board believe in evolution (either by that name or by another) as the explanation for the origins of life.

to those people i would sincerely ask the following:.

1. where did plants come from?.

RWC

Thank you for the replies. I wasn't just attempting to start things up. I engage in some discussions with individuals on the existence of God and such and we occasionally end up discussing evolution. My questions were directed towrads evolution as the basis for the origins of life in a macro sense, not in a micro sense such as the devlopment of different variations of the same animal over time. That is where I believe that the theory falls apart.

Clearly animals have evolved within their species over time, but have they changed from one species to the next?

My understanding is that the thought is that over millions of years as different chemicals mixed over the earth that one celled organisms, presumably plants at first, began to evolve. That was why I asked the question regarding the DNA. If plants do not have DNA and animals do, where did it come from?

Thanks for the cites. I will study.

29

Questions for Evolutionists

by RWC in

jw
friends

it appears that alot of people on this board believe in evolution (either by that name or by another) as the explanation for the origins of life.

to those people i would sincerely ask the following:.

1. where did plants come from?.

RWC

It appears that alot of people on this board believe in evolution (either by that name or by another) as the explanation for the origins of life. To those people I would sincerely ask the following:

1. Where did plants come from?

2. Where did the DNA come from to make animals?

3. Why aren't molds and other simple celled life forms continuing to evolve into more complex life forms?

4. Why aren't entirely new creatures being evolved today from other ones that already exist?

5. What is the fossil evidence to support the change from one animal to another as opposed to a different variation of the same animal?

If there are no answers to these questions, than aren't you believing in something that you think will be figured out in the future and thus you are exhibiting faith in the unkown?

67

Bible Error: The Visit to the Tomb

by JosephAlward in

the following two accounts of the morning visit by the women to anoint jesus body are contradictory.

according to mark, the women wondered how they would remove the stone covering the tomb, but they found that it had already been rolled away.

matthew, however, says that when the women went to the tomb, there was an earthquake, and an angel came down from heaven, went to the tomb, and rolled the stone back.

RWC

Joseph,

I do not think that the Gospels are ambiquous as you imply. I was simply pointing out that you can ask for alot of details that were not included in every Gospel to the point of being silly in an attempt to disprove them. The fact is that each writer wrote what he thought was important for his intended audience in his own writing style. The essence of each Gospel is the same and the accounts match on the truths attempting to be conveyed.

67

Bible Error: The Visit to the Tomb

by JosephAlward in

the following two accounts of the morning visit by the women to anoint jesus body are contradictory.

according to mark, the women wondered how they would remove the stone covering the tomb, but they found that it had already been rolled away.

matthew, however, says that when the women went to the tomb, there was an earthquake, and an angel came down from heaven, went to the tomb, and rolled the stone back.

RWC

Joseph,

Were her feet moving or were they not? I don't know. How far did she run, from the tomb when she met Jesus? Was she still at the tomb and had only run a few feet? Had she stopped running and was she standing still when she met Jesus?

Do you see how silly this becomes when you try to find a contradiction that is of no substance? The story is the same. The result is the same. One writer says it slightly different than another. So I say, so what? Does that invalidate the account completely?

67

Bible Error: The Visit to the Tomb

by JosephAlward in

the following two accounts of the morning visit by the women to anoint jesus body are contradictory.

according to mark, the women wondered how they would remove the stone covering the tomb, but they found that it had already been rolled away.

matthew, however, says that when the women went to the tomb, there was an earthquake, and an angel came down from heaven, went to the tomb, and rolled the stone back.

RWC

Joseph,

Your response reflects that my analogy about the trip was correct. You are concerned about showing that the Bible has errors in it to show that the Gospels writers didn't know what they were talking about, thus you cannot believe in what they wrote. However the alleged inconsistencies that you point out do not support that conclusion. You show different versions of the same event with some differences in the account, yet the event is never contradicted. All of the Gospels say that Jesus rose from the dead. All say that Mary discovered he had risen from the dead at the tomb , that she met him, and that she talked to angels and that she went to tell the disciples. You cannot find an alleged difference in the end result of that account.

To answer your question though:

Matthew mentioned one angel who spoke to Mary, John mentions two. Maybe John was more inclusive than Matthew, but the essense of the accounts match.

Matthew mentions that Mary was filled with joy when she met Jesus, John says that she was filled with joy after she realized she was speaking to Jesus. In both accounts Mary sees and speaks to Jesus and is filled with joy.

Are you saying that the truth in these stories cannot be believed because they are not exactly alike word for word? To me it is nothing more than a rationalization for choosing not to believe.

Abaddon, Have a great weekend.

I am not saying that an atheist would not be moved by Schindler's List. Of course anyone who has feelings for their fellow man would regardless of their belief in God. My point was that I cannot attribute to mere societial evolution that this disgust at that behavior would be so universal. Man's history doesn't show that without a believe in God, man would have developed that sense of justice. Societies that have attempted to be built without a religious basis or that even allowed religious practice have not proven that this type of justice can be achieved. Man on his own is incapable of seeing past himself enough to develop the sense of common good for all involved. This even happens when religious organizations are corrputed and lose sight of their calling as you pointed out with the Spanish inqusition. Bur my point is that at somw point in our distant history, man collectively had to begin thinking that there was a greater good and that they were more than merely surviving so that they devolped emotions and moral that went beyond survival of themselves or those that they cared about. These led to universal moral truths. That thinking in my belief had to come from God because man has not been shown to develop that on his own.

God bless

91

What is you occupation

by Beans in

jw
friends

im a liceinced electrician now working in wireless communication installations.i love the electrical industry,there is so much to learn and so many different things do work with and technology is always changing.never a boaring day especially when we are working in the office buildings downtown,chicks everywhere!.

beans.

RWC

I am what is normally referred to as a shark, a bottom feeder, an ambulance chaser or just scum. I am a trial lawyer with my own litigation practice ( which this board has taken me away from for quite awhile since I found it). But I want it to be known that I am not an ambulance chaser, I pride myself on arriving before the ambulance.

67

Bible Error: The Visit to the Tomb

by JosephAlward in

the following two accounts of the morning visit by the women to anoint jesus body are contradictory.

according to mark, the women wondered how they would remove the stone covering the tomb, but they found that it had already been rolled away.

matthew, however, says that when the women went to the tomb, there was an earthquake, and an angel came down from heaven, went to the tomb, and rolled the stone back.

RWC

Pope - That is funny!!

Joseph, I do not know why Matthew chose to include some things and not others. He was writing to a different audience so maybe somethings were thought to be more important than others, such as the geneology for example. However, the fact that this is in John and not Matthew does not make one account wrong and the other right. One just includes more information.

That goes for the other supposed contradictions you mention. The important fact is that Mary encountered Jesus at the tomb. You cannot refute that both accounts reflect that Mary encountered Jesus alive after he was dead. Why don't you find a "contradiction" in one Gospel where it says that Jesus did not arise from the dead and one says he did. That would be a contradiction.

Let me give you an example of what you are arguing. Suppose
I and a friend go on a trip. In recounting the story I say that we stopped at McDonald's before noon. My friend says that we stopped at McDonald's after noon. You would say that because of this "contradiction" that we never made the trip or stopped at McDonald's. That is not logical nor does it follow from the supposed contradiction. The supposed contradiction does not invalidate the trip.

Abaddon,

First, the evidence of God has developed over thousands of years. You cannot look at a snapshot in time today and say that it is hearsay. When Moses reported that he talked to God that would not be hearsay at the time he reported it. It was eyewitness testimony. The same goes for the disciples who stated it. If they were alive we would bring them before the court to testify on the stand. You have not given any reason why they should not be believed.

Second, to say that the Illead maybe in part archeologically correct doesn't validate the Greek Gods, does not invalidate the Bible. The Illead will have to stand or fall on its own. We are hearing proving the case for God.

Third, circumstantial evidence is used all of the time to prove a fact beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, most criminal trials are prosecuted on circumstanital evidence.

Fourth, we have discussed the existence of universal truths before. But I would present one here for an example, the Holocaust. Now even those who engaged in that behavior thought it was right when they were doing it, the world's population declared it wrong. The fact that one person thinks he is justified in his actions, does not mean that it is not univesially accepted that killing millions of people is wrong. Yet societies evolution could support the idea that inferior people should be killed to insure the survival of the most healthly race.

God Bless

67

Bible Error: The Visit to the Tomb

by JosephAlward in

the following two accounts of the morning visit by the women to anoint jesus body are contradictory.

according to mark, the women wondered how they would remove the stone covering the tomb, but they found that it had already been rolled away.

matthew, however, says that when the women went to the tomb, there was an earthquake, and an angel came down from heaven, went to the tomb, and rolled the stone back.

RWC

Joseph,

Again I tell you that you have a timing problem. To answer your question, Mary told Peter what she did because she had not yet been told what happened to Jesus, nor had she seen him.

The sequence of events as described by both Gospels is that Mary went to the tomb, the stone was rolled away, without going in she runs back to Peter to tell him Jesus has been taken away, Peter runs to the tomb sees the wrappings and leaves, Mary stays behind ans talks to the angel and then sees Jesus, and then goes to tell the disciples what she has learned.

Abaddon,

Greetings. I am not asking atheists to prove there is no God and when they can't thus there must be one. I was responding to the argument that even atheists will say there might be a God, only not the God from any established religion. See Expatbrits post.

But, to answer your questions: Evidence that there is a God that could be presented in a court of law: First, to make it relevent the evidence will be presented as gathered over time. Second, direct and circumstantial evidence will be presented.

Eyewitness testimony from those who spoke with God: Moses, Abraham and Elijah for example.

Eyewitness testimony from those who heard from Jesus that he was God, said he would die and be raised again and then saw him after his death.

Circumstantial evidence: the creation itself- something from nothing and complex design (that has been discussed before); absolute moral truths that are beyond the need for survival and that cannot be explained by society evolution (which we have discussed before);archeological evidence that validates the description of events in the Bible showing it is accurate; miracles performed by individuals who attribute the power to do them to God such as Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead in front of a crowd of people..etc.

I could go on but you get the point. Now in a court of law you would get the opportunity to rebut this evidence but you cannot do that by simply saying you don't believe it. You must show that the eyewitnesses are lying for example. I look forward to your response.

God Bless