At 12/1/09 12:53 PM, Drang wrote: How about no. Ever thought there was a good reason why the other thread was deleted?

Umm... no, there was no good reason why the other thread was deleted. Are you incapable of recognizing satire? Why would I post the PM I recieved on the General forum if I were sincerely wanting to discuss "in secretive secretness" what we were going to do? Tell you what. Why don't you shove shards of broken glass up your fucking ass, sit in a bathtub full of tobasco sause, and masterbate to Cathy Bates you worthless pile of shit.

At 12/1/09 12:49 PM, WaffleVoyager wrote: Technically I'm an '02er but my account is an '09er so can I join in this '09er orgy?

*grabs fraternity paddle*

FRESHMAN!!!

So I'm not sure what happened to this topic before, some cock sucker of a mod probably deleted it. We can discuss "I bought a droid" or "my cat got pregnant, how do I give it an abortion with paper clips and a battery" and it isn't spam, but we can't talk about this. Well to whatever mod is responsible for that, go piss up an electric fence so Satan can sodomize you in Hell.

Anyway, sorry for that everyone. What I wanted to do was talk about a PM I got recently.

"Saturday, December 5th is '09er day.
Spam their inboxes/news posts, down-vote their flash/audio/art, and just generally be annoying to them on that day.
Tell other users that signed up previous to 1/1/09."

This PM comes from a user named "FreshmanDay_09" and naturally, said user joined TODAY so it is probably an alt. That means this is likely for real!

We need to discuss, in secretive secretness of course, how we are gonna get those Newgrounds freshmen! Discuss...

At 12/1/09 11:48 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 12/1/09 10:17 AM, studmuffin7 wrote: That graph backs up the solar activity claim. Notice how the number of sunspots is rising with the temperature in the later years and dropping with the temperature in the early middle. You just presented evidence that disproves your claim and tried to pass it off as evidence that it supports your claim.

Except that there's a fairly obvious divergence in the last several decades, which is what you would expect if there was an anthropogenic warming effect.

We would need at least another 5 or 10 years to confirm that it is really a divergence. There are several places on that graph where, if cut off at that point, woulc look like a divergence. As it stands now, it looks like the temperature is correlating with solar activity.

At 12/1/09 01:02 AM, poxpower wrote: Ok here's the graph for anyone else who's never seen it.

So yeah if you ever hear the "solar activity is causing global warming" claim, no you know why it's bullshit.

That graph backs up the solar activity claim. Notice how the number of sunspots is rising with the temperature in the later years and dropping with the temperature in the early middle. You just presented evidence that disproves your claim and tried to pass it off as evidence that it supports your claim.

You sir have officially made an epic thread. Good job.

Best I can say is shove that paper clip as far up your cat as you can, then connect to battery.

haha
You're basically using the argument that tons of scientists agree with you to refute my argument that EVEN MORE scientists agree with me.

Prove it. I'm not convinced that the majority is behind it. Your side may have larger media attention/federal funding because the government wants an excuse for more taxes, but I don't believe a louder voice inherently means more supporters.

He is the one who got everyone riled up about it in the first place.

No, it's been going on for well over 20 years.

I never heard about it until he started up and I'm rather certain it would not even be an issue if he didn't get started.

Nothing in the emails indicate they have deleted any relevant data.
Nothing, anywhere.

You have quite obviously NOT read any of the emails.

See the first two e-mails listed in which they specifically state they are deleting e-mails and "blips" in the data. YOU have not been reading sir.

What if the people who don't agree with them do so for unscientific reasons?
Why would it be wrong to seek to remove them in that case?

1) There is no indication that he didn't agree for unscientific reasons. In fact, most people in the "greenhouse skeptics camp" are scientists themselves.

2) Even if it is true that he didn't believe for unscientific reasons, a person's personal beliefs are their own. So yes, it would still be wrong.

why, in recent years, temperatures are actually colder than they have been in a long time.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
They're not colder. they're much warmer.

Are you on crack? Go take a look outside. We had snow in Pennsylvania back in August for f#^@ sake! As far as I know that has never happened before. Similar cold weather was reported by family back in Illinois. Here is the science:

http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.co m/2009/07/global-temperature-decline.htm l
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Mon itors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/ar ticle10866.htm

I suppose you are going to tell me how other planets in our solar system are heating up without the effects of man if "global warming" is indeed man's doing?

That's entirely irrelevant. In fact, it's retarded.

What!?! Let me explain this to you so that even Al Gore's retarded cousin can understand this. Proponents of global warming claim that 1) the temperatures are rising and 2) the cause is manmade. Skeptics pointed out it is due to solar activity, not human activity. The fact that temperatures are rising rather considerably on other planets as well is compelling evidence of this fact. If you understood basic logic you would be able to put two and two together and think "well golly gee, I guess it was the sun after all and not those dirty suv drivers after all".

Remember the whole "global cooling" scare? My parents and grandparents do. Read about it here:

"This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles,..."

PRECISELY!!! What I am saying is that the same thing is happening here! Because those inaccurate claims had the media's attention, everyone who lived back then just assumed it was the consensus of the scientific community because, after all, there are scientists on national tv telling them so. What is happening today regarding global warming is no different.

I don't think there's even a single scientific paper that predicted imminent significant global cooling and incited people to be alarmed.

You were misinformed.

No, I'm not. Because I never claimed to believe in global colding. I am comparing global warming to the global colding scare of the 70's. They are equally inaccurate and overhyped. In 10 or 20 years you are going to look back on global warming and think "wow, I was a f*$&ing idiot to have believed in that".

why is the mainstream media all over it?

Because they're after a story that supports the political agenda of those who employ them.
Fox news is shit. It's a notoriously corrupt news source.

Fox News is not the only news source reporting it.

The Washington Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/28/scienc e/earth/28hack.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=climat egate&st=cse

Renew America:
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/vern on/091130

An Independent News Source called "Scoop":
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0911/S0 0058.htm

Truth be told, one can google "ClimateGate" and find page after page of sources on this. Personally, I find it pathetic that when confronted with fact you attack the most popular news station in America.

:Just about every time, they will get something wrong, and ESPECIALLY when it's about controvertial issues or politically charged issues.

Somehow, I think they only get it wrong when you disagree with them. You're egotistical.

At 11/30/09 11:05 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/30/09 10:32 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

In here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,5777 46,00.html?
There's no quote in here, only Fox news fabricating wild claims about intricate lies and data manipulation.

Umm... no they specifically discuss the deletion of e-mails and "blips".

"Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."

or this gem,

"It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip"

How is going through official channels dishonest?

What is dishonest and frankly enraging is that they would fire someone for no other reason than the fact that they disagree. It is not at all uncommon for scientists to disagree with each other on various matters. How would you feel if you were a scientist and your creationist boss fired you because you discussed evolution in the context of your work?

Anyway the problem that was being discussed in these emails ( as far as I understand ) is how the deniers have infiltrated some journals and have them put themselves in a place to be able to give a passing grade to pure junk for political reasons.

"Infiltrated some journals"? Journals are public domain. Any student at any university has free access to any article in any journal through the university. I assume you are talking about how they illegally infiltrated their e-mails. No one is denying that the hackers broke the law, but the crimes these false scientists have committed are the big picture.

Basically they suspect HIM of being dishonest and tried to figure out a legit way to get him out of there.

No they specifically state in their e-mail that he is in the "greenhouse skeptics camp". Reread that e-mail above. Would you like it if a bigot fired you for not sharing his beliefs?

Creationists have done the same thing whereby they managed to put a few of their ideologically-motivated people in positions of power to publish junk science. Expelled was about this, notably, where a scientist used his position as the editor of a journal to forego the peer-review process and publish ID-supporting bullshit in a serious journal.

First, that is precisely what is happening, except that it is the Church of Climatology banishing the skeptics. What happened to the days when scientists were inherently skeptic? Second, Expelled was actually in favor of ID and tried to discredit (poorly) the theory of evolution.

That's really really bad for science.

And yet it is happening and you support it.

At 11/30/09 09:06 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 11/30/09 07:14 PM, studmuffin7 wrote: As a chemistry graduate student myself,

Just going by your profile and your complete lack of understanding of the issues here, I'm guessing that this one is a fib.

You do realize that probably nobody on this site uses their real info? I don't even think the place I listed exists. I attend Penn State as a grad student in Chemistry, that is a fact. That is how I know about Penn State's investigation of one of their own professors in their department.

At 11/30/09 07:35 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/30/09 07:14 PM, studmuffin7 wrote: Other than AI and Mr. Money, I don't think very many people on Newgrounds fully understand the issue. They have admitted to dumping raw data

Where? Where's the quote

It was in the link I provided. I thought that was clear.

They stated in one of the e-mails AI kept bringing up that they were going to "oust" one of their employees for being a skeptic.

What email is this?

"Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted."

That one

Contrary to what they would have you believe, the "entirety of the scientific community" is NOT behind this global warming idea

The majority of climate scientists ARE. You know, the scientists who's job it is to figure that out?
In the year 2009, you have to be plainly misinformed to still deny man-made global warming. It was understandable 20 years ago, but not today.

And you are going to tell me thousands of scientists (ranging from bachelors to ph.Ds) are all misinformed? But I guess you are certain that you are right huh. How egotistical you must be.

Nonetheless, people like Poxpower are going to continue following climatology and Al Gore

The existence of Al Gore is inconsequential in the face of the facts about global warming.

He is the one who got everyone riled up about it in the first place. If people were not taken in by his sensationalism, nobody would be discussing global warming right now. I guess I just assumed he was your guru.

As a chemistry graduate student myself, I am increasingly disheartened at the state of science.

Well you're part of the "deniers" now, congrats. You're impeding science.

I'm not the one greasing falsehoods through in the name of science.

Thankfully, steps in the right direction are being taken. Penn State has launched an investigation into one of its own, a chemistry professor who was in on this little scheme.

Let us know how that turns out. As is predicted by 100% of everyone I've heard on this: nothing's gonna happen as far as exposing research-related misdeeds.

Regardless of whomever you've been talking to in your little bubble, the truth ALWAYS has a tendency to be found. It is but a matter of time before the lid on this whole thing is blown wide open and justice is done.

Al Gore's lies about melting ice and rising sea levels are already being exposed,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHWvHVjhT sI&feature=related

Lol that's classic, that guy actually has a redneck accent.
It's like you found your own stereotype.

That's it? You offer up no argument other than "Lol redneck accent"? I am starting to understand AI's frustration, how in the Hell did a troll ever get to be a mod? Perhaps you should learn something and come back when you actually have fodder for the argument.

Anyway if you're ACTUALLY interested in debating man-made global warming, I'd be happy to indulge you any day. Ask me specific questions, give me specific data etc.

There's several people on this forum who can answer your questions too.

Ok, explain to me why people like you continue to believe it is real when their own e-mails expose them for deleting data (first link), ousting those who don't agree with them (if it was pure science, such things would not be necessary), and instructing their coworkers not to inform people that they have a right to see the data under the Freedom of Information Act? Of course, I suppose you are about to tell me that people always act so secretive when they have nothing to hide huh. I suppose you can also tell me why, in recent years, temperatures are actually colder than they have been in a long time. I suppose you are going to tell me how other planets in our solar system are heating up without the effects of man if "global warming" is indeed man's doing?

Remember the whole "global cooling" scare? My parents and grandparents do. Read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cool ing

They actually told people in the 70's that man's habits were gonna bring on a new ice age! I think its funny how they've switched gears and started crying "OMG global warming" and the temperatures are getting colder XD. I sometimes wonder if fate is doing that so those of us with common sense will get up, look outside, and recognize the crock of horse shit for what it is.

I leave here with one final point. If there truly is nothing to these hacked e-mails as you claim, why is the mainstream media all over it? I have already provided a couple links to Fox News (including the thread opening post) but here it is in the Washington Times in case you aren't a big fan of that News station,

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009 /nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-coolin g/

Other than AI and Mr. Money, I don't think very many people on Newgrounds fully understand the issue. They have admitted to dumping raw data (the data originally used to sell global warming in the first place) as discussed in the news article below,

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,5777 46,00.html

They stated in one of the e-mails AI kept bringing up that they were going to "oust" one of their employees for being a skeptic. Banning a scientist from science for not sharing your views is, by itself, a capital offense.

Contrary to what they would have you believe, the "entirety of the scientific community" is NOT behind this global warming idea, thousands of scientists have signed a petition as long ago as the Kyoto treaty urging our leaders to disregard bad science.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

(go through the pages and look at the credentials of those signing).

Nonetheless, people like Poxpower are going to continue following climatology and Al Gore because they are zealots to their own religion. They probably are not even aware of the fact that Al Gore, the Nobel Prize winning enviornmentalist, uses more energy in his gigantic house in one month, than any of us do in a year.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environment al-news/latest/al-gore-house-47062202

As a chemistry graduate student myself, I am increasingly disheartened at the state of science. Men of greed have corrupted what once was a a pursuit of truth. They have turned science into a cheap whore. I long for the day when all the B.S. that was greased through the scientific community throughout the last 20 years will be thrown out.

THESE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THEIR DOCTORATES REVOKED AND BE FULLY DRUMMED OUT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY FOREVER!!!

Thankfully, steps in the right direction are being taken. Penn State has launched an investigation into one of its own, a chemistry professor who was in on this little scheme.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/200 9/11/30/psu_investigates_climategate.asp x

Al Gore's lies about melting ice and rising sea levels are already being exposed,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHWvHVjhT sI&feature=related

I doubt if anything will be successfully done about this in time to stop Obama's summit, but all successful movements must start at the grassroots and we have the truth on our side. I just hope I live long enough to see integrity return to the realm of science.

I liked that documentary they did regarding Area 51 and how alien technology from Roswell is the reason we Americans have the most advanced aircraft in the world.

http://boards.history.com/topic/Ufo-Hunt ers/Ufo-Hunters-Area/520037344

So I was helping my little sister with her geography homework and I had a rather interesting question of my own come to mind... Russia is on the Asian continent. Does that mean that Russian people are Asian people by definition?

Discuss.

At 11/21/09 12:00 PM, data662 wrote: Stewie Griffin.

Would you shave my coinpurse?

Naruto

End of discussion.

At 11/20/09 05:40 PM, gamekillereater wrote: a lot of things

There really is nothing more to say on this matter. If you seriously wish to continue believing in that which is less likely to be true than that which is true then there really isn't anything I can do for you. I just hope you cease this denial/rebellion deal of yours and pull your head outta your ass before its too late.

At 11/20/09 05:01 PM, madzakk wrote:

At 11/20/09 04:21 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 11/20/09 03:35 PM, madzakk wrote: You got this from Faux News......LOL

You misspelled Fox News... What's wrong with Fox News? They are probably the only decent news network left. The others all make shit up and twist quotes out of context.

I spelled it right....look up the word "faux" in the dictionary. Fox and MSNBC are not news, they're infotainment.

MSNBC is infotainment, you are right on that one, but Fox IS news. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is the only REAL news source left. Certainly not "Faux News :/"

At 11/20/09 03:35 PM, madzakk wrote: You got this from Faux News......LOL

You misspelled Fox News... What's wrong with Fox News? They are probably the only decent news network left. The others all make shit up and twist quotes out of context.

At 11/20/09 02:52 PM, Prinzy2 wrote: There's a lot of money in global warming, everybody going green means that people spend a lot of money and these scientists get to keep their jobs in research. My understanding of it was that there was a general climate change cycle every 40-60 years.

I'll bet you're right! The truth is, man made climate change is a hoax and a massive number of scientists are lying to keep the popular misconception alive as "scientific fact". I realize it is a benefit our economy desperately needs, but it is a terrible day indeed when the very integrity of science and the Nobel Peace Prize breaks down.

Damn you science, you cheap whore!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,5760 09,00.html

It seems some clever hackers broke into the servers of some British scientific community and exposed e-mails in which scientists got together and secretly agreed to hide evidence of lowering global temperatures and such. This makes perfect sense as we actually had snow in the fall out here in Pennsylvania a month ago, which is NOT normal. If anything, we need a few more holes in that ozone layer to fight the war on global colding.

I applaud these heroes for exposing what common sense conservatives have known for a long time. Global warming is a hoax and these scientists should have all their degrees revoked. It is nothing short of a terrible crime that the Nobel Peace Prize was given to people like Al Gore. Seems like integrity is lost on scientists these days :(

At 11/20/09 01:55 PM, gamekillereater wrote:

At 11/20/09 01:15 AM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 11/19/09 02:24 PM, gamekillereater wrote:

You've just proved my point, you're a bigot.

You must be trolling. I suppose I am a bigot for hating murderers and rapists too huh?

First of all, give some links to back it up. Second of all, even nowadays you have books that are fiction but still pick a current situation, so even those have historical significance if time passes, meaning that the Bible isn't that special when it comes to historical significance. And I happened to know that the Bible is a collection, like

There is always the great wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_a nd_history

Or something a little more professional,

http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeol ogy/

I do think logical and I'm not stupid, I can recognise sarcasm...
And it happens to be that you're the one being stupid right now, Christianity came after Judaism and before the Islam, making it not that special that Jesus is seen as a Prophet in the Islam.

Your point being...?

Now for jewish texts, most of these miracles were in texts that got in the Bible, I believe that there are several jewish books/documents also present in the Bible, such as The Old Testament.

Again, your point being...?

None of that in anyway invalidates the fact that acts of God have been witnessed and recorded.

Heaven is a reward, it's spoken of as a paradise, where only followers of Christianity are allowed. Meaning that you'll get a reward for being Christian.
And it's pretty clear to see that you've been heavily indoctrinated, seeing as you keep on saying that it's the truth, yet you aren't able to think outside the box or even back up your claims.

1) Christ specifically says you need only place your faith in Him and be saved. HE paid for our sins, we don't earn anything. What Christians do when spreading the truth is purely selfless and without reward.
2) Why do you say I cannot back up my claims? Have you done any reading at all? Have you not done your homework on what the Bible even is? Have you bothered to watch the video I posted already? Forgive me for assuming you were intelligent to do your own homework on the subject, there are certain facts I assume you already know.

First of all, you ignore the fact that he could've been crazy or have another reason to keep on telling a lie. Yet, if he was the son of God, or even part of God, as the trinity suggests, why didn't he respawn and stay to guide the people? That's just weird.

To write Him off as crazy is a lazy attempt to explain something without actually explaining it. He was certainly cogent enough to heal the ill, gather followers, etc... And He DID rise again from the dead, that is what Easter Sunday is all about. He whole purpose for why He died was to pay the price for our sins. As for why He didn't stay after that, all I can say is it is not our purpose to understand Him. It is OUR place to serve GOD, not vise versa.

Or he doesn't exist, and every thing that happens is just a matter of chance, and has a rational reason behind it. Not giving any signs of existence, isn't being vague or overcomplexity.

God has given many signs of His existence. Read the Bible and pick out numerous miracles (many of which are also recorded in jewish texts as well if you still hate the Bible). Moreover, many people who have been revived from clinical death have reported alarmingly consistent accounts of what comes next (I personally believe God allows this as warning). I end by saying once more: it is OUR place to serve GOD, not vise versa.

I'm sorry, I forgot that it was written by multiple writers, such a thing can happen. Yet my second claim still stands. "Thus making it unreliable, and you seem to have lost the track of what is reliable, for something to be a fact it, you should be able to reproduce it, none of the events described in the Bible can be reproduced."

So you recognize that the books in the Bible are written by many different people from different time periods and places, yet you still believe there is some coherent conspiracy among all the writers to invent some kind of a lie? Archeology backs up much of the Bible, and jewish texts corroborate many of the acts of God listed within. You have no proof whatsoever with which to declare the Bible unreliable.

He would not have died anyway. According to the accounts of the disciples, Paul took off a Roman solder's ear to protect Jesus until He told him to back off and gave Himself up willingly. Pontius Pilate offered the people a choice: I will release a murderer (Barabas) or Jesus. It was clear that while Pilate did not believe Jesus, he did not want to kill Him. The people left him no choice. No, it is abundantly clear to those who know the historical facts that only one possible explanation fits these events.

I don't even understand what you're saying here. But I'm quite certain that my claims still stand, since a series of events can't take away the chance that he was crazy or had an unknown reason to keep on with the possible lie. Or maybe he was just bluffing, thinking that he might still convince them.

Again, you are reaching for an answer instead of taking the most logical explanation. Writing Him off as crazy is a lazy attempt to explain something by not explaining it. He was perfectly cogent when He healed the ill. According to the accounts left by the disciples, he drew crowds to hear Him speak. His disciples left their lives behind to follow Him, so you know He was convincing and passionate. If He were babbling incoherently and bouncing off of walls, none of this would have been possible.

Prove to me it is the truth, spawn Jesus in my bedroom. See? You can't, therefore you can't prove anything. And lots of people die daily, regardl

I cannot spawn Jesus because I do not command Him. You act like I should be able to give orders to God Himself or He doesn't exist. Such is what happens to one's ego when they go atheist.

Indeed, lot's of people DO die daily. Those that are revived from clinical death have spoken of their experiences. Despite coming from many different backgrounds, some good people, some bad people, from different locations, etc... the accounts are alarmingly similar. The fact that many people die daily and the adherence of society to Christianity has slipped further and further away only makes this issue more and more alarming. I mean you no ill will, but I sincerely hope that one day, you too will have a near death experience and be revived from clinical death so you too can see what others have already seen. Only then, will you see why this matter is taken with such seriousness.

At 11/20/09 01:24 PM, Im-A-Pirate wrote: Inform him that's he not funny.

What are you talking about? Stephen Colbert is awesome.

I never eat at Burger King anyway. In fact, I refuse to eat at fast food joints of any kind because I value the sexayness of my sexayness. Fast food is nothing but grease, salt, and fat which is very bad for my sexay figure. Salt will make you put on loads of water weight overnight. Did I mention that I am very sexay?

At 11/19/09 02:24 PM, gamekillereater wrote: 1. Homosexuals shouldn't even be dragged in this conversation, since nowadays we live in a society where we accept people for who they are. Studmuffin7, you're a fucking bigot, paedophiles are dangerous to society, and necrophiliacs are mentally ill, homosexuals are harmless, I know it scares you, but most homosexuals are normal people who just have the equal sex as their partner.

The only bigot here is the one who thinks its cool to engage in rampant debauchery and rebel against the very fabric of right and wrong. There really isn't anything more to say here.

2. The Bible itself doesn't count for evidence simply because it has no other written documents supporting it.

In case you are not aware, the Bible is a collection of books. It is a compilation of many documents and historical records. Even if you are a heathen, the mainstream historians will tell you that the Bible holds considerable historical significance.

3. The fact that these cities have existed doesn't say anything about the trustworthiness of the Bible, for all we know it could've been some fiction written by some guy.

And I suppose all the other guys who lived in different parts of the world in different time periods were in on this little conspiracy. They were all so stupid weren't they? I mean the wall of Jericho, the plagues on Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, etc... Every single one of those miracles, many of which are also mentioned in jewish and muslim texts by the way, must have been made up for the same purpose huh. (In case you didn't catch it, that was all sarcasm).

Seriously, think logically or stop talking. If something doesn't add up, don't post it.

4. You keep bringing up the hell threat, I find the idea of a hell and a heaven a very unlikely.
And another thing I will add to it, is that you kept calling me a person with a inflated ego, sort of claiming that only christians know compassion and selflessness, but the idea of a Heaven is actually some sort of a reward which you get at the end of your life(and Hell some sort of a vengeance), making all their help not really that selflessness since what they're expecting is a reward.

Why do you say it is unlikely? Besides the Bible, it has been witnessed by many who were revived last minute from clinical death (or even death in extreme cases). Try actually watching the video I posted twice before you speak on this matter further as I prefer to argue with educated minds.

And nobody "earns" Heaven. The teachings of Jesus are very clear. Accept Him as your Savior and be saved. That is it! That's all! None of us deserve Heaven, in fact we ALL deserve Hell. It is only because of the sacrifice He made for us that we are allowed to go. Do you really think I'm expecting a reward for my efforts in spreading this truth? Cuz I don't.

5. Jesus keeps getting put into this conversation, most of the time to attempt to make us feel guilty. First of all, crucifixion was a normal death sentence back then, so it wasn't like he was only given this death. Besides that, how do you even know other than the Bible, that Jesus performed these miracles and if he truly was the son of God, why did he go back to heaven and not just stay here in order to guide the people, what you're basically saying is that he was like "Fuck this" and left.

At what point did I ever say Jesus left? I specifically said He was crucified. And I do not bring it up to make people feel guilty, I bring it up to prove a point. Jesus could have easily avoided this extruciating death penalty if He would have simply shut up as told. The fact that He refused and went through with it all is proof that 1) He must have been telling the truth and 2) He really did die for our sins. No one indoctrinating Jesus into believing He was the Son of God, He said that. And nobody makes up a lie like that only to die for it. I bring it up as evidence that yes, Christianity IS more likely to be true that atheism.

6. In the current conditions the world is in, it's hard for me to believe that there would be a benevolent God, world hunger, global warming, wars and the list goes on. Now, some will say that he didn't cause these things, but even so, it doesn't really seem that big of a priority to him to stop it.

Don't bother trying to understand God. Such is not our place. We are only here to serve and obey Him. That is it.

The Bible is a historical account of people who were there. Even if you don't accept it as the Word of : God, it still possesses considerable historical value. Even to a heathen, that IS a reliable source of
information.

No, to my knowledge the Bible was written several years after the events and written by 1 person, making it a one person's view of it. Thus making it unreliable, and you seem to have lost the track of what is reliable, for something to be a fact it, you should be able to reproduce it, none of the events described in the Bible can be reproduced.

Well you are mistaken. Talk to a historian. Even a nonChristian historian will tell you the Bible was NOT written by the same man. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote their individual books when they were with Jesus, Paul wrote Romans, Moses wrote some of the earlier ones I think, but they were written by individuals who lived in different time periods. The Bible is a compilation of all these books. You cannot simply make something up (Bible was written by one man) and claim it as evidence. Don't believe me? Go do some reading and come back.

Maybe he was crazy or something, or knew he would die anyway, because if he stopped preaching, he would be seen as a betrayer and a liar, which would also lead to his death. Or maybe he was still trying to get the people on his side. Bottom-line he could have had plenty of reasons.

He would not have died anyway. According to the accounts of the disciples, Paul took off a Roman solder's ear to protect Jesus until He told him to back off and gave Himself up willingly. Pontius Pilate offered the people a choice: I will release a murderer (Barabas) or Jesus. It was clear that while Pilate did not believe Jesus, he did not want to kill Him. The people left him no choice. No, it is abundantly clear to those who know the historical facts that only one possible explanation fits these events.

I totally believe you, I will get my coat and you'll show me the gate, right? Right? You're prone to get delusions and hallucinations about things that are dear to you, and besides try to imagine all of the people that have died in over 20,000 years or 3000 years as most Christians believe, and imagine them being put into 2 rooms, hell holding the most, you know how impossibly large they have to be? Good luck, trying to find your loved ones in heaven.

I'm sure I probably don't have all my loved ones in Heaven, that is why it is so imperative to spread the truth and not be so lazy and apathetic about it. People like you are more interested in a watered down version of Christianity because you are more concerned about making your practices fit within the confines of your daily life instead of vise versa. But as you so elegantly pointed out, most people now probably haven't accepted Christ as their Savior, many such people are on their death beds now. What the world needs is more men to stand for the truth and spread it, despite the disdain and anger it seems to invoke in others (like the OP).

At 11/19/09 12:00 PM, blazer133 wrote:

At 11/19/09 11:22 AM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 11/19/09 07:30 AM, xXShortEmoKidXx wrote:

At 11/19/09 01:06 AM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 11/18/09 07:02 PM, xXShortEmoKidXx wrote:

At 11/18/09 06:37 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 11/18/09 06:22 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote:

At 11/18/09 06:13 PM, xXShortEmoKidXx wrote: I don't know what to believe in anymore.

At 11/18/09 06:16 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

What do you mean it has no relevance? It is probably the most relevant thing in this entire discussion! Why would He allow Himself to suffer so unless He was serious about His teachings? I use that to counter the claim that there is no compelling evidence for Christianity.

he was serious over a lie, heTHOUGHT there was a god, ansd he beleived his lie to the point that it killed him

Nobody told Him or indoctrinated Him into believing He was the Son of God because He was the one who started such teachings. And, if it were all a lie as you suggest, why would He stick with it and be crucified? I mean surely if it were all a scam of some sort, it isn't worth dying for. Where's the profit in that? As I said, it doesn't add up. Think a little harder on this matter.

Actually, it IS too sinful to comprehend. Do you really think He would willingly allow Himself to suffer for no reason whatsoever? I cringe at the thought of the nails, let alone everything else. Seriously, just think about things.

he did not want anyone else to suffer, he was a saint. but he was NOT the son of "god." He was a normal human being like you or I with his vision clouded by HIS OWN lies of religioun

See above response. How did Christ's dying on the cross prevent suffering in this life? Truth is, it didn't. The blood Christ shed for us on the cross was to prevent us from suffering the Hell we all deserve in the next life. And really, you honestly think He died for a lie He made up? Any four year old from any household (Christian or otherwise) could tell you that doesn't add up.

The Bible is a historical account of people who were there. Even if you don't accept it as the Word of God, it still possesses considerable historical value. Even to a heathen, that IS a reliable source of information.

yes, but how much of it is a lie? they could have written anything in thaat old book. He think it's all true, but do we really know for sure?

What would be the purpose of such a thing? The parting of the Red Sea and the plagues on Egypt for example. This are not only documented in the Bible, but in jewish texts as well. If you were around then and witnessed God do that, would you really feel like messing with Him and making shit up?

At 11/18/09 06:17 PM, Mecha-Bear wrote:

Oh no, diversity. I bet you hate Jews and blacks too, you bastard.

Why would I hate jews and blacks? My stand against filth does not equate to a hatred for diversity. Funny how you make comments like this, then accuse ME of twisting other people's words.

So you think jews and blacks are filthy then? they'er people too yea know. skin colour has nothing to do with there personality. and jews... well, it's a religoun just like christananity, you guys really have no right to call them filthy.

What are you talking about? I never said jews and blacks are filthy. My stand against filth is against sin, against homosexuality, against pedophilia, against heathenry. YOU are the one who put jews and blacks in that category. Try actually reading my post deuchbag, it specifically says my stand against filth has nothing to do with jews or blacks.

Anyone who uses the word "homophobe" has instantly revealed themselves to be ignorant of the issue. To call me a homophobe is to say I am afraid of homosexuals. I am NOT afraid of homosexuals, rather I stand up against it as a vile and unrepentant lifestyle of sin. Pedophiles disgust you right? Necrophiliacs disgust you right? I put homosexuals in the same category.

It's a mental illness, it's been explained many times over. it's not thier fault.

It doesn't matter. Kleptomania is a mental illness too, but theivery is still a sin. Some people are prone to violence too. I'm not saying any of us are perfect, we all have plenty to repent for. I'm just saying, sin is what it is, despite how you feel about it.

Whose to say Christianity isn't false? I am a Catholic, but I often stop to wonder 'What if I'm wrong?'

Oh yes, that makes perfect sense. Jesus allowed Himself to be humiliated, beaten to within an inch of his life via whipping, had nails driven through His hands and feet, these nails held Him up on the cross, He was left that way in the sun for days, He was given vinegar when He asked for drink, and finally the Romans had to use a spear to the ribs to finish Him off. Of course, none of this would have happened if He stopped preaching, but since Christianity must be wrong I guess He held to His invented teachings and died for nothing. The miracles witnessed in the Old Testament were also equally meaningless too I guess.

Yup, all meaningless. He may have gone through all that, but what if he was wrong? dying for a lie? (bad example but what ever.) take the halo series for emaple, the prophits thought that firing the rins would take them to a new land, but in reality that were just going to kill every last liveing thing in galaxy.

You have yet to explain the gaping hole in your logic I've been pointing to since this topic started. Why would He make up a lie and die for it? Nobody would do such a thing. It doesn't make sense. And I'm afraid I have never played any of the Halo series before so I cannot attest to that, but from what you tell me nobody died because they refused to back down from the truth. A galaxy died because of other people's ignorance yes, but they didn't have the choice to live if they agreed to shut up. Such was the choice given to Jesus and He took the whipping and the crucifixion.

Because I am revealing a flaw in your logic. Perhaps you are not aware of this, but if Jesus had stopped with His teachings, He would not have been crucified. Answer me this: why would He continue to preach His teachings and suffer unless He were actually telling the truth! This is a question I ask of all nonChristians because the ONLY logical answer is that He was for real. Nothing else adds up.

He was blind to the truth, he made up a religion and believed in it so much that he thought it was the truth. he dies over lie.

You honestly think that makes sense don't you? Nobody makes up a lie and actually believes it. For the love of all things sacred THINK!

It is not a threat, it is a reality. Again, I post this as educational value. A great many people who have been revived from clinical death, and were atheists prior to their experience, report remarkably similar experiences. You can chalk it up to loss of oxygen in the brain, lunacy, whatever; but the truth is hallucinations and delusions are not shared! Assuming you are not too stubborn to see the truth, see this!

Yes, but even if you are an atheists, there are still thoughts of religioun bouncing around in your head, and probable just before they die, they think of that shit and thats where the hallcinations come from.

Besides. actions speak louder then beliefs. what if you are an atheists but you were a saint to all those around you, would you still go to hell because you idn't believe in some fake higher being?

Based on what the Bible says and what these people (some of them WERE very good people) experienced, I would say yes. Not because I want it to be so, but because that is simply how it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSgH2AHkf kw&feature=PlayList&p=01652508A34E808B

At 11/19/09 03:53 PM, xXShortEmoKidXx wrote:

At 11/19/09 11:22 AM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 11/19/09 07:30 AM, xXShortEmoKidXx wrote:

At 11/19/09 01:06 AM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 11/18/09 07:02 PM, xXShortEmoKidXx wrote:

At 11/18/09 06:37 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 11/18/09 06:22 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote:

At 11/18/09 06:13 PM, xXShortEmoKidXx wrote: I don't know what to believe in anymore.

At 11/18/09 06:16 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

You can't just say "ZOMG Jesus died for your sins!!!" in order to prove the existance of Christianity. Maybe Jesus was the almighty holy son of God before whom we should all fall onto our knees and beg for forgiveness from, and maybe he wasn't. You need more proof than the fact that he died, alright? A LOT of people died on the cross.

You are missing the point entirely. Jesus would not have died on the cross if He had taken the warnings He was given about not preaching, but He continued. If you got arrested and the police said you would get the chair unless you stop talking crap, you probably would. Unless of course, you were standing up for the truth. The others who got crucified were murderers/theives/political enemies/etc... they were not given the same kind of choice. And if they were, there is no doubt any one of them would have taken the deal.

Actually, it IS too sinful to comprehend. Do you really think He would willingly allow Himself to suffer for no reason whatsoever? I cringe at the thought of the nails, let alone everything else. Seriously, just think about things.

Maybe he DOESN'T THINK HE'LL SUFFER, dumbass. It's not half as unbelievable as rejecting gravity, because it's been proven to be true. Christianity, on the other hand, hasn't been. I'm not saying it's false, but you can't say it's true.

Watch the video I posted twice already that pretty much DOES define Hell as being as real as gravity. Until you educate yourself on this matter, you have no room to discuss it.

But you couldn't possible know if there WAS a God because you don't know for sure what happened either. Sure, there's the bible, but can you prove THAT is a reliable source? Not exactly.

The Bible is a historical account of people who were there. Even if you don't accept it as the Word of God, it still possesses considerable historical value. Even to a heathen, that IS a reliable source of information.

Actually, I look at it the other way. I don't look at it as a source of information, but as a source of moral support, like what to do when I'm in a rough patch in life. For the record, Heathen is an incredible offensive term for someone who isn't a Christian. Try going to Iraq and calling a group of Muslims 'Heathens' and see just how many times you get shot lol.

You can look at it as a source of moral support, but you cannot deny its historical value. Mainstream historians by career will attest to its historical value. This is not a matter of debate or opinion, it is established fact. And yes, nonChristians ARE heathens. I use that term because people have gotten desensitized to matters that SHOULD be shock and awe. And I cannot help the the fact that the Middle East has become a heathen mess.

At 11/18/09 06:17 PM, Mecha-Bear wrote:

Anyone who uses the word "homophobe" has instantly revealed themselves to be ignorant of the issue. To call me a homophobe is to say I am afraid of homosexuals. I am NOT afraid of homosexuals, rather I stand up against it as a vile and unrepentant lifestyle of sin. Pedophiles disgust you right? Necrophiliacs disgust you right? I put homosexuals in the same category.

Homosexuals are completely different than pedophiles or necrophiliacs. Pedophiles have sex with children either against the child's will (rape), or the child doesn't understand what is going on. Necrophiliacs have sex with dead bodies, not because they love the dead bodies, but just for sexual relief. Homosexuals have sex with people of the same gender, but they do it with people they love. SOME homosexuals have permiscuis (spelling?) sex with several partners, BUT the same practice also exists within heterosexuality.

I'm not denying that all three are different, I'm saying they are all equally offensive.

Congratulations, you went to go see The Passion and you know what happened. What in the fuck does that have to do with what I said?

Because I am revealing a flaw in your logic. Perhaps you are not aware of this, but if Jesus had stopped with His teachings, He would not have been crucified. Answer me this: why would He continue to preach His teachings and suffer unless He were actually telling the truth! This is a question I ask of all nonChristians because the ONLY logical answer is that He was for real. Nothing else adds up.

Maybe he was crazy, maybe he lied about being the son of God so people would listen to him, or maybe it was some other reason taht we can't even fathom. However, while it is incredibly logical for Jesus to be the son of God, athiests have every right to not believe it. First Amendment, bitch.

I'm not saying they lack the legal right to believe it, I'm saying it is foolish at best. If I wanted to walk off the roof of a building because I didn't believe in gravity, would I be breaking the law? No. Would I be dumb as Hell? Yes. Same line of logic works for those who don't see the simple spiritual truth in front of them.

It is not a threat, it is a reality. Again, I post this as educational value. A great many people who have been revived from clinical death, and were atheists prior to their experience, report remarkably similar experiences. You can chalk it up to loss of oxygen in the brain, lunacy, whatever; but the truth is hallucinations and delusions are not shared! Assuming you are not too stubborn to see the truth, see this!

I know there are people who die and come back, but then again, it still COULD have been a delusion, or a hallucination, or lack of oxygen, or something otherwise. We don't know. No one does, until they die and go to Heaven or Hell (near death experiences don't count).

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how a delusion can be SHARED. How is it possible for hundreds (documented) and probably thousands (total) to have such "hallucinations"; all with the same experience. If you actually bothered to watch that, you would see people from all walks of life and various beliefs having similar experiences. Coincidence? I think not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSgH2AHkf kw&feature=PlayList&p=01652508A34E808B

At 11/19/09 07:30 AM, xXShortEmoKidXx wrote:

At 11/19/09 01:06 AM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 11/18/09 07:02 PM, xXShortEmoKidXx wrote:

At 11/18/09 06:37 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 11/18/09 06:22 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote:

At 11/18/09 06:13 PM, xXShortEmoKidXx wrote: I don't know what to believe in anymore.

At 11/18/09 06:16 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

I DO accept that Jesus was crucified, but I just want you to stop using that in arguments when it has no relevance to the argument whatsoever, which you have done several times here.

What do you mean it has no relevance? It is probably the most relevant thing in this entire discussion! Why would He allow Himself to suffer so unless He was serious about His teachings? I use that to counter the claim that there is no compelling evidence for Christianity.

He's saying that he doesn't believe Jesus was the savior, and therefore did NOT die for his sins. Or is this just too sinful to comprehend?

Actually, it IS too sinful to comprehend. Do you really think He would willingly allow Himself to suffer for no reason whatsoever? I cringe at the thought of the nails, let alone everything else. Seriously, just think about things.

But you couldn't possible know if there WAS a God because you don't know for sure what happened either. Sure, there's the bible, but can you prove THAT is a reliable source? Not exactly.

The Bible is a historical account of people who were there. Even if you don't accept it as the Word of God, it still possesses considerable historical value. Even to a heathen, that IS a reliable source of information.

At 11/18/09 06:17 PM, Mecha-Bear wrote:

Oh no, diversity. I bet you hate Jews and blacks too, you bastard.

Why would I hate jews and blacks? My stand against filth does not equate to a hatred for diversity. Funny how you make comments like this, then accuse ME of twisting other people's words.

I just hate people who use religion as an excuse to hate gay people. If you don't agree with what they're doing, fine, but don't be a homophobe online.

Anyone who uses the word "homophobe" has instantly revealed themselves to be ignorant of the issue. To call me a homophobe is to say I am afraid of homosexuals. I am NOT afraid of homosexuals, rather I stand up against it as a vile and unrepentant lifestyle of sin. Pedophiles disgust you right? Necrophiliacs disgust you right? I put homosexuals in the same category.

Whose to say Christianity isn't false? I am a Catholic, but I often stop to wonder 'What if I'm wrong?'

Oh yes, that makes perfect sense. Jesus allowed Himself to be humiliated, beaten to within an inch of his life via whipping, had nails driven through His hands and feet, these nails held Him up on the cross, He was left that way in the sun for days, He was given vinegar when He asked for drink, and finally the Romans had to use a spear to the ribs to finish Him off. Of course, none of this would have happened if He stopped preaching, but since Christianity must be wrong I guess He held to His invented teachings and died for nothing. The miracles witnessed in the Old Testament were also equally meaningless too I guess.

Congratulations, you went to go see The Passion and you know what happened. What in the fuck does that have to do with what I said?

Because I am revealing a flaw in your logic. Perhaps you are not aware of this, but if Jesus had stopped with His teachings, He would not have been crucified. Answer me this: why would He continue to preach His teachings and suffer unless He were actually telling the truth! This is a question I ask of all nonChristians because the ONLY logical answer is that He was for real. Nothing else adds up.

Remember, the average lifespan for guys is like...76 years? Eternity is eternity!

Again, trying to convince nonChristians by threatening them with Hell.

It is not a threat, it is a reality. Again, I post this as educational value. A great many people who have been revived from clinical death, and were atheists prior to their experience, report remarkably similar experiences. You can chalk it up to loss of oxygen in the brain, lunacy, whatever; but the truth is hallucinations and delusions are not shared! Assuming you are not too stubborn to see the truth, see this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSgH2AHkf kw&feature=PlayList&p=01652508A34E808B

At 11/18/09 07:02 PM, xXShortEmoKidXx wrote:

At 11/18/09 06:37 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 11/18/09 06:22 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote:

At 11/18/09 06:13 PM, xXShortEmoKidXx wrote: I don't know what to believe in anymore.

You can't prove it, but you can't disprove it. The same can be said about every single religion or ideology that ever existed. Bravo, Shilock. Don't try to persuade people with 'what ifs' and 'maybes' alright?

What is your problem? ARE YOU SERIOUS??? Either you lack the forethought necessary to understand the implications of what you are trying to say or you are purposefully trying to mislead people.

At 11/18/09 06:16 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

There is no proof whatsoever that he was crucified. I believe he was, because I just do, but you can't say that he was, because other than the Bible, which has several flaws in itself, there is no recorded history of it, and no body to inspect.

Actually, there is written proof. The disciples recorded it happening. Even if you dislike the Bible, it DOES have historical value in this regard. Moreover, Pontius Pilate and the Roman Empire kept records of such executions. Finally, the jews kept record of it as well. Even if you are a heathen, the accepted fact among historians is that Jesus WAS crucified.

Sounds reasonable. I see no reason why he needs to acknowledge Jesus if he doesn't want to.

Maybe in your warped mind it sounds reasonable, but what it is REALLY saying is "I'm good all on my own. Jesus suffered and died to save me but I'll dismiss His gift because I am just that righteous by my own merit."

Really, you need to stop trying so desperately to deny what is so blatantly apparent.

No. By saying there is not God, that is saying that he doesn't KNOW what happened, or that there was a big bang, or some shit like that. Making accusations like that makes you look like a huge asshole. You disgust me, you sick fuck. You spew lies and twist people's words around to make others believe what you want them to. No, you are not a man of God. No God would want you.

No, in order to say there is no God you would have to know what happened, otherwise you would not know for sure there was no God. This is as basic as logic gets so if you don't get that then just stop typing. As for the rest of the commentary, I have never read anything more backwards in my life. YOU and the others on this thread are the ones that are twisted. One even stated that religion should be abolished because he thinks moral decay is equivalent to advancement. Name one lie I have stated thus far. Your failure to understand what people are saying does not mean I am twisting words, it means you don't understand the issue.

At 11/18/09 06:17 PM, Mecha-Bear wrote: They are fucking over our world. If we didn't have religion, the world would be a better place.

Actually, they are not taking over the world. That is why homosexuals are allowed to marry.

Oh no, diversity. I bet you hate Jews and blacks too, you bastard.

Why would I hate jews and blacks? My stand against filth does not equate to a hatred for diversity. Funny how you make comments like this, then accuse ME of twisting other people's words.

That is why we are legally bound to tolerate it when false religions exist all around us.

Whose to say Christianity isn't false? I am a Catholic, but I often stop to wonder 'What if I'm wrong?'

Oh yes, that makes perfect sense. Jesus allowed Himself to be humiliated, beaten to within an inch of his life via whipping, had nails driven through His hands and feet, these nails held Him up on the cross, He was left that way in the sun for days, He was given vinegar when He asked for drink, and finally the Romans had to use a spear to the ribs to finish Him off. Of course, none of this would have happened if He stopped preaching, but since Christianity must be wrong I guess He held to His invented teachings and died for nothing. The miracles witnessed in the Old Testament were also equally meaningless too I guess.

The world would be a better place if people would just accept the very simple teachings of Christ and put an end to other false religions like atheism.

Agreed, so ALL we need to do is put all people of other religions into death camps. Sound familiar?

Remember, the average lifespan for guys is like...76 years? Eternity is eternity!

True, but can you prove Heaven or Hell really exist? No, you cannot. While at the same time, I can't disprove you, you can't just say something and make it so. You aren't God.

You are right, I am not. If I was, Hell would not exist. But I am not, and it does. Perhaps you should consider what those who have been revived from clinical death have witnessed, assuming you even care to hear the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSgH2AHkf kw&feature=PlayList&p=01652508A34E808B

At 11/18/09 06:46 PM, gamekillereater wrote:

At 11/18/09 06:41 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 11/18/09 06:24 PM, gamekillereater wrote:

At 11/18/09 06:16 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 11/18/09 05:58 PM, gamekillereater wrote:

At 11/18/09 05:46 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

You're talking absolute bullshit now, not believing in a God =/= overinflated ego.
And God isn't the answer, it's just adding another layer on this cake we call the universe, since who created God?

Excuse me? So you are incapable of being civil and logical so you start posting profanity?
If a person refuses to accept that God exists because they are too selfimportant to believe there could possibly be someone more divine than themselves they are egotistical. If a person believes they don't need Christ's sacrifice to be saved, they are self-righteous and insane.

Nobody created God, He is God. There was never a point in time in which He did not exist. The universe did not exist until He made. it. He is the alpha and the omega.

At 11/18/09 06:43 PM, gamekillereater wrote: I've refrained from quoting the entire thing again, but I like to point out a few things.

1. Many people had witnessed it according to you, but I highly doubt there are any sources from around
that time, besides the Bible, to confirm it, since most people couldn't write back then.

How does that purport to explain anything? Many people HAVE witnessed it, how else would they have written accounts of it? And of course the fact that many were illiterate back then restricts the number of primary sources we have. How does that change the fact that the Bible itself is a wealth of historical account of divine intervention and activity?

2. The fact that archaeologists find old stuff from around that period and it's being claimed holy or at least gets connected to Jesus is nothing new, since those archaeologists aren't stupid, if you say that it's holy it greatly drives up the price in those auction houses, and besides, Jesus, if he lived, would be unrecognisable making it impossible to identify him.

It isn't "claimed to be holy" it is of historical importance. Sodom and Gomorrah are cities the Bible makes reference to. Archaeologists have found it. Lot's cave is mentioned in the Bible. It too has been found. The fact that these places are found provides backup to what the Bible says about them.