Tell me pox where in the bible does it say the Earth is now 6000 years old? I can't find any age being given in my book.

At 2/20/13 10:50 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Tell me pox where in the bible does it say the Earth is now 6000 years old? I can't find any age being given in my book.

I already said it like 3 times in this topic.
It's arrived at by looking at the lineage of the characters in the bible, which are given in the books.
You can go from Adam to Jesus.
http://www.complete-bible-genealogy.com/genealogy_of_jesus.h tm

There's many different ones that span different books, both in the Jewish and Christian faith. They don't all connect to Jesus but most of them go from Adam to some humans in a vaguely familiar historical context like ancient babylone or egypt, so you can place them pretty easily with an accuracy of just centuries.

None of these genealogies even come close to ever suggesting that Adam was anywhere further than about 10 000 years, with the actual date being closer to 6000. Some guy actually had figured out what day of what month or what year too, it's really funny.

Why did the earth need to be created brand new? I'm just wondering.

At 2/20/13 11:27 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 2/20/13 10:50 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Tell me pox where in the bible does it say the Earth is now 6000 years old? I can't find any age being given in my book.

I already said it like 3 times in this topic.
It's arrived at by looking at the lineage of the characters in the bible, which are given in the books.
You can go from Adam to Jesus.
http://www.complete-bible-genealogy.com/genealogy_of_jesus.h tm

There's many different ones that span different books, both in the Jewish and Christian faith. They don't all connect to Jesus but most of them go from Adam to some humans in a vaguely familiar historical context like ancient babylone or egypt, so you can place them pretty easily with an accuracy of just centuries.

None of these genealogies even come close to ever suggesting that Adam was anywhere further than about 10 000 years, with the actual date being closer to 6000. Some guy actually had figured out what day of what month or what year too, it's really funny.

Yeah, my response was a direct answer to that question, actually (which you seemed to have sidestepped by pointing me to a stupid site where Christians try to work around that). If explaining that the Bible actually shows that there are people other than Adam and Eve in there isn't enough, let me play a word game with you instead - when does it ever state that Adam is the first man that God ever created? It states that God created Adam from the dust of the Earth, but it actually never specifies that Adam was the first (or only) man created. If so, correct me, but I just read it a few times looking for it, and it's not there.

Your argument only works if you can prove that Adam is the first human in existence according to the book of Genesis. People have (incorrectly) inferred it, but since it's not directly stated, and since there is proof that he actually can't be a few chapters later, you conclusively can't use the genealogy as proof of the Earth's age (according to the Bible).

I also fail to see the point of this argument, since virtually anyone can just say 'I agree that the Creation story isn't true' and still be a Christian. In fact, many people do just that. What are you trying to achieve, here?

A common argument to that is
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven

But
1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.
We know Adam as the first obviously. But the second man, the one from heaven would be Jesus and he isn't literally the second man.

The first and second man seem to me to be the first and second god made himself.

By creating himself I meant holy, and without sin. sorry for the lack of clarity.

At 2/21/13 01:20 AM, Ceratisa wrote: A common argument to that is
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven

If Paul had scriptures that we don't, then power to him. For the sake of what I'm saying, another person claiming Adam to be the first (even if it's Paul, since he is presumably using the same text that we are) is irrelevant to the fact that the Old Testament story didn't label him as the first.

If he's referencing the Bible that we can read, it's likely that he's referring to Genesis 2:7. However, my point is that nowhere in Genesis does it say that Adam was the first person on Earth - just that God made him from the dust of the Earth. Again, it's a common inference, but it isn't actually stated in the Creation story.

If Paul had scriptures that we don't, then power to him. For the sake of what I'm saying, another person claiming Adam to be the first (even if it's Paul, since he is presumably using the same text that we are) is irrelevant to the fact that the Old Testament story didn't label him as the first.

If he's referencing the Bible that we can read, it's likely that he's referring to Genesis 2:7. However, my point is that nowhere in Genesis does it say that Adam was the first person on Earth - just that God made him from the dust of the Earth. Again, it's a common inference, but it isn't actually stated in the Creation story.

I think you misunderstood my point, I agree with what you are saying. I was just mentioning a commonly used verse and pointing out that it defeats itself in trying to establish Adam as the first man ever.

At 2/21/13 12:07 AM, Gario wrote:

Yeah, my response was a direct answer to that question, actually (which you seemed to have sidestepped by pointing me to a stupid site where Christians try to work around that).

Rather than explain this further, I'll just remind you that whether God created just Adam or more than him at first, he created all humans at the same time.
So if he made Adam in the garden but some other non-mentioned people somewhere else, they were still all made at the same time.

The creationist page explains at length where the other people came from, basically they're Adam and Eve's kids.

The only reason you don't interpret it that way is because you know it's fucking stupid. You're not working from the actual texts, you're working from science that's outside the texts that already told you how to interpret the text. You KNOW that you HAVE to find an interpretation that doesn't make Adam the first man. You're forcing it onto the text when, for most of Christian history, the text and the mythology were actually interpreted as written.

At 2/21/13 02:17 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 2/21/13 12:07 AM, Gario wrote:

Yeah, my response was a direct answer to that question, actually (which you seemed to have sidestepped by pointing me to a stupid site where Christians try to work around that).

Rather than explain this further, I'll just remind you that whether God created just Adam or more than him at first, he created all humans at the same time.
So if he made Adam in the garden but some other non-mentioned people somewhere else, they were still all made at the same time.

Again, where does it even say that in the Bible? God created the land animals on the planet on the sixth day, whatever that means (yeah, people too, presumably, if you're a creationist - which I'm not, by the way), birds and fish on the fifth day, plants on the fourth, etc., but that creation story and the creation of Adam are actually unrelated events separated by a chapter in the Bible - most Bibles even refer to Adam's creation as the 'Second Creation'. You're linking the spontaneous creation of people and the creation of Adam on a whim.

The creationist page explains at length where the other people came from, basically they're Adam and Eve's kids.

So what? People's argument on here have nothing to do with whatever creationists are saying elsewhere - why do you keep bringing them up? If you want me to call their opinions stupid, fine - their opinions are stupid, ill informed and frankly, incorrect.

Now stop bringing them up - they have absolutely no bearing on this thread, other than to create a red herring for you to hide behind.

The only reason you don't interpret it that way is because you know it's fucking stupid. You're not working from the actual texts, you're working from science that's outside the texts that already told you how to interpret the text.

Damn straight I'm not interpreting it that way because of science proving it to be false. I see no problem with that - you should in fact be praising Christians who do that (which more and more are, as of late), but instead you're trying to pigeonhole us into a corner because of past actions made by others, not to mention the current beliefs of some that do not represent everyone (Baseline fallacy, if the association is unintentional - otherwise it's a blatant straw man).

You KNOW that you HAVE to find an interpretation that doesn't make Adam the first man. You're forcing it onto the text when, for most of Christian history, the text and the mythology were actually interpreted as written.

I do not see the relevance to what people used to believe about all of that has to what people believe now. Throughout most of history, people thought that negative numbers couldn't possibly exist, nor did they see the purpose of the number 'Zero'. Are you going to hold that against current mathematicians, too? You are not allowing people to adjust their beliefs to new evidence as it's presented to them (like scientists would want us to) when you enforce that they somehow must continue to live in the past. Unless people are expressing that they currently believe whatever it is you are presenting, leave the past in the past - there's a good reason people left it behind.

Sure, I'm making up an interpretation to show that Adam could possibly have not been the first person, but that's simply because you're insisting that your position is ironclad when it's in fact full of holes, and your best defense is that... well, that I had to resort to showing you that none of what you said was solid, in the first place (which is what we're supposed to do in an argument). Is it an incredibly silly argument, twisting words and playing word games (like I said it would be, initially)? Sure is - so is your attempt to force the idea that because there is a genealogy in one book that traces to Adam, the Bible cannot be interpreted in any other way than as a Creationist agenda.

By the way, there's another gaping hole in your argument that I suppose you'd be interested in. That genealogy in the New Testament is based on the Old Testament - do you seriously think that the scribe that wrote that had any clue of their genealogy otherwise? We barely have the technology to trace our gene pool today; people back then simply didn't have the means to create such a detailed genealogy otherwise. While it's neat, there is no way to tell that the writer had any clue as to what he was talking about, so your entire foundation is a weak one, at best. It's a very silly argument, overall - I am completely clueless as to why you insist on pushing it forward.

On a final unrelated note, Bart Ehrman is at least one atheist historian who claims to know that Jesus existed as a person. Look him up - just thought you'd rather see an atheists perspective on that issue.

I legitimately missed your response earlier, Charlette - sorry about that.

At 2/20/13 02:17 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote:

At 2/19/13 12:34 AM, Gario wrote: there is proof within the Bible that Adam couldn't be the first human on the planet

This is false, and your following statements are based on this assumption rather than evidence of it.

http://roguepreacher.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/bible_fa mily_tree.gif

Daughters are not included in the family tree, and it is entirely reasonable that Cain's wife was a cousin, niece or sister. Moreover, this genealogical record does not include the families that branched from sons other than those in direct lineage of Noah. In other words, the generations before Noah's string could be seven times larger than what we can derive from information given in the Bible.

Um, actually my statements following were an attempt to clarify that statement. I was not assuming anything save for the text that was in Genesis.

Cain could very well have married his sister. I can't say, and neither could you with any certainty, based on the Bible alone (did it say it was his sister?) - assuming that it was his sister/relative out of necessity is actually making the very mistake you're accusing me of making (making a statement based on an assumption and not on what is there). I agree that it could have happened, though. However, I can say with some certainty that since he was exiled from his home by God that he had nothing to fear from his father and other brother. I ask the question again - who did he fear when God marked him?

This was a question asked by a Calvinist teacher that I had once (it was a lead in to why they didn't believe in Creationism), and I thought it was a very interesting question. The sections on Noah... I don't see the relevance; all I'm trying to point out is that it's possible (very likely, even) that Adam wasn't the first person created by God, even if we took it all in the context of the Old Testament.

Charlotte, unless you're taking early Genesis literally I don't see the benefit of arguing with me on this one, as I personally don't even see too much before Abraham as being literally true (even after, I won't necessarily cast my lots on the things past that point until I do proper research on it, which I'm too damn lazy to do). This whole argument is therefore entirely moot, if you're trying to convince me of something about my faith. I'm not arguing to prove that something is true, per se - I'm just doing it to show that Pox could be quite wrong, given the confines of what he's arguing. Even if you are arguing for a more fundamentalist reading of Genesis I would ask to do so in another forum (PM me if you want some idea of where). I doubt this would be the right place for that.

At 2/21/13 03:56 AM, Gario wrote:

Again, where does it even say that in the Bible?

Genesis 1 and 2.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&versio n=NIV

He made the animals on the 5th, THEN man on the 6th day. Then it goes on to detail what he does with man.

So what? People's argument on here have nothing to do with whatever creationists are saying elsewhere - why do you keep bringing them up?

I want to see what Charlotte has to say about this because she's a Christian but not a creationist, although she thinks she has a great explanation for all this.

Are you going to hold that against current mathematicians, too?

No, because math isn't a religion or based on religious texts and laws.
But Christianity is, you are stuck with the texts and instead of just admitting it's all bullshit, you pick and choose what you want and ignore what you don't feel like following anymore.

Why should I respect that?? That's pathetic. Just come clean and admit the whole thing is bullshit already.

By the way, there's another gaping hole in your argument that I suppose you'd be interested in. That genealogy in the New Testament is based on the Old Testament - do you seriously think that the scribe that wrote that had any clue of their genealogy otherwise?

It comes from the Jewish tradition as well.
I've never heard or seen anyone dispute it in any part. Of course, I'm not religious so I know most of it is made up, but if you're Christian, you can't know this from the book itself.

You can't be Christian but then decide that the bible isn't the word of God or the truth. That defeats the entire purpose of it since then you're basing your faith on literally nothing whatsoever but your own made-up ideas loosely based on something you heard one time from an old book you don't really believe is true.

"Oh the bible? No that's all bullshit, I'm a CHRISTIAN, not some kind of crazy anti-science person!".

What? Lol.

On a final unrelated note, Bart Ehrman is at least one atheist historian who claims to know that Jesus existed as a person. Look him up - just thought you'd rather see an atheists perspective on that issue.

Lol he's not an atheist, he dedicated his entire life to religion and writing about Jesus and now he says he's an agnostic because he can't figure out the problem of evil.
That's so retarded is makes me cry.

Anyway, none of that matters as he still has no new evidence that I know of.
All you're doing now is trying to convince me with an argument from authority. That becomes a fallacy when I can plainly see that they have no actual evidence, they're more self-appointed authorities than actual historians.

Basically, these "expert scholars" are theologians and philosophers, not archaeologists and historians.
They're career Jesus-writers, they're about as much experts on the historical Jesus as cryptozoologists are experts on Bigfoot.

I think you'd understand better if you knew the difference between the Hebrew words Asah and Bara, Pox.

At 2/21/13 10:32 AM, Ceratisa wrote: I think you'd understand better if you knew the difference between the Hebrew words Asah and Bara, Pox.

This?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/did-god-c reate-or-make

Man this is a weaksauce argument.

Once again, isn't it strange how no one had the idea to make this distinction before science came along and cast doubt on the story?
Isn't that weird how this same exact thing works every time society or science advances too?

For 1700 years, slavery is OK! But then miraculously, just at about the time the slaves are freed in the Christian world due to secular, social, political and economic factors, the bible ACTUALLY meant to free the slaves all along! Yes! Of course!
Same with segregation, women's rights, homosexuality, sodomy, infidelity, the death's penalty, wars, Heliocentrism, evolution etc. etc.

Gosh darn it, isn't it strange that throughout history, it's always the believers who are the last to adopt these changes in a widespread manner, when all they'd have to do is interpret the book correctly because the bible totally says exacrtly all those things exactly like they are now today in the 21st century.
Of course when / if vegan-ism becomes popular in the 22th and it becomes socially untenable to eat meat, LO AND BEHOLD, the bible will have turned out to be pro-vegan the whole time too! What? Christians eating meat for 2000 years? No, they were just foolishly misreading the ancient Hebrew texts, which clearly states to "not eat pork" which, as we now know, obviously means all animals. DUH!

Amazing how that works if only you "read correctly".

At 2/21/13 09:49 AM, poxpower wrote: You can't be Christian but then decide that the bible isn't the word of God or the truth.

Not if you're like my mom. In her later years she's gotten into that whole A Course in Miracles bullcrap, which was supposedly written by Jesus (through the medium of some new-agey old lady). So while she believes in God and Jesus Christ and identifies as a Christian, she thinks the meaning of the bible was misinterpreted by the people who God spoke to (whereas the Course in Miracles was totally written by Jesus directly... through that old hippy lady).

Then there's those pesky Mormons to consider. I'm not sure they take the bible as seriously as they do their book of Mormon, but they believe in Jesus Christ and consider themselves Christians.

At 2/21/13 12:05 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: consider themselves Christians.

Well in 2013, anyone can really do that anyway.
You just have to write "I'm a Christian" and that's pretty much good enough. Haha. When someone tells you they're a Christian, you can guess almost none of what they think or believe, but you do know they're probably dumb.

At 2/21/13 12:05 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Then there's those pesky Mormons to consider. I'm not sure they take the bible as seriously as they do their book of Mormon, but they believe in Jesus Christ and consider themselves Christians.

;;;
When the early Church was forming its dogma & getting itself set up by ridding itself of women preachers (yes prior to the Emperor Constantine setting up the Roman Catholic Faith. Woman could be priests.) Many men right back to Jesus's supposed disiple Peter hated the idea of Mary Magdeline & woman teachers/priests, but I degress

One of the reasons so many gospels were dropped as being part of the official doctrine was they portrayed Jesus as a human & the church officials wanted him to be 'devine'. I've read that in the early days of the church there were as many as 90 different gospels.

When the 'official' 4 gospels were proclaimed they went as far as to make it a crime to teach the other gospels. Going so far as to place a death sentence on those who disobeyed ...how very very Christian of them ~:D

At 2/21/13 09:49 AM, poxpower wrote: Genesis 1 and 2.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&versio n=NIV

He made the animals on the 5th, THEN man on the 6th day. Then it goes on to detail what he does with man.

I agreed that Genesis claimed that men were all made at once (derp if I mixed up the 5th and 6th day - the point stands that I did concede that all people were made simultaneously in the beginning, regardless). I asked where it said that Adam was the first, which you still haven't answered (On the sixth day He created mankind, not Adam, and the creation of Adam is considered an entirely different story altogether, even among fundamentalists), nor do I think you even have an answer to it. My initial point still stands strong, and at this point I think it's safe to say you're in checkmate on this one. Good game, though.

Are you going to hold that against current mathematicians, too?

No, because math isn't a religion or based on religious texts and laws.

Math is nothing more than a few guesses (postulates) that people have made in the past, and all the results that occur if you come to certain conclusions - you'd be surprised just how analogous theology is to that. You're hating Religion for no reason other than it's religion. By definition, that makes you a bigot, you know. Making your bigotry the basis of your argument is completely illogical, but okay. I legitimately wonder if you had severe problems with some religious people in your early childhood to develop such a blind hatred to those people.

No, seriously, why all the hate? I find it mildly annoying when people are flat out wrong about other things (like when someone plays a minor chord and insists that it's major, or people that insist that pop is inventive music), but I honestly can't comprehend why someone would hate someone else so much just because they disagreed with them.

But Christianity is, you are stuck with the texts and instead of just admitting it's all bullshit, you pick and choose what you want and ignore what you don't feel like following anymore.

You completely missed the point - texts from the Bible are not the same as texts from a random site. Let me try again - why don't I pull up this page about atheists - http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/the-10-commandments-for -atheists-20130205-2dw83.html - and simply assume that it's what you follow, down to the tee (which means you're fucking up the tolerance thing hardcore, breaking your own code)? Because that would be trying to apply a generalization when it's inappropriate. It is precisely the same thing as bringing in a random Christian thing and insisting that I have to acknowledge it, somehow - you can't expect to make an intelligent argument by doing that.

Why should I respect that?? That's pathetic.

If your goal is for Christians to not attack science and accept it, tolerate atheists, understand why they don't believe and coexist with them, then Christians who do so I would think would be respectable. If that's not your goal, then what is, crushing Christianity?

Just come clean and admit the whole thing is bullshit already.

Hmm, why wouldn't I do that...? Oh yeah, probably because I don't think God is bullshit. Big surprise, especially considering the weakness of your arguments so far. I'm willing to live and let live, understanding why atheists and non-Christians don't believe that it holds any truth, but you seem intent on bullying and attacking people because they believe in something that you don't. You do realize that this sort of attitude is at the core of most genocies involving religion, right?

What exactly do you think you're accomplishing by doing this? All you accomplish is getting more Christians to ignore the atheists more intently, and possibly provoking them to act out against you more violently (which, by the way, would be entirely your fault, at that point, since you provoked them) - is that really what you want?

By the way, there's another gaping hole in your argument that I suppose you'd be interested in. That genealogy in the New Testament is based on the Old Testament - do you seriously think that the scribe that wrote that had any clue of their genealogy otherwise?

It comes from the Jewish tradition as well.
I've never heard or seen anyone dispute it in any part. Of course, I'm not religious so I know most of it is made up, but if you're Christian, you can't know this from the book itself.

Now you have heard someone call it into question - congratulations. I'm curious, do you know what 'Sola Scriptura' means, and the implications of it when a person says that he doesn't practice it?

You can't be Christian but then decide that the bible isn't the word of God or the truth. That defeats the entire purpose of it since then you're basing your faith on literally nothing whatsoever but your own made-up ideas loosely based on something you heard one time from an old book you don't really believe is true.

Yes I can, actually. It's called 'Sola Verbum Dei' - the idea that it's not the Bible that Christians hold true, per se, but the 'Word of God'. That means there are plenty of other things that they base their religion off of. Not every Christian practices it, but I'm one of those that does. The Bible, while considered to be inspired by God isn't considered the direct Word of God - the possibility of human error is there, both in interpretation and in the act of writing it down.

Ever hear of Oral Tradition? Magesterium? Spiritual writers that come to post-biblical revelations? Doesn't sound like you have - the Bible doesn't need to be the sole source of the religion, even if a lot of Christians have turned it into such.

"Oh the bible? No that's all bullshit, I'm a CHRISTIAN, not some kind of crazy anti-science person!".

I never said that. I claimed the Creation story is not true and that I have not explored anything past Abraham to verify if any of those stories are true or not. I hold a lot of the Bible to be quite important and informative - you're simply focusing on one of the small areas that I do not consider important or informative.

On a final unrelated note, Bart Ehrman is at least one atheist historian who claims to know that Jesus existed as a person. Look him up - just thought you'd rather see an atheists perspective on that issue.

Lol he's not an atheist, he dedicated his entire life to religion and writing about Jesus and now he says he's an agnostic because he can't figure out the problem of evil.
That's so retarded is makes me cry.

I gave it an effort. He claims to be an atheist, so that's all I went on - if you want to fight with the details then go for it. It's honestly no skin off of my back, here.

Anyway, none of that matters as he still has no new evidence that I know of.
All you're doing now is trying to convince me with an argument from authority.

To a point, that's why I personally hold that to be the case - I'm not a historian, so I am just going to go by what the majority says is true. It's not perfect, but it's the best that I can go on (arguments from authority are actually great for an inductive argument - I'm not making a deductive argument, here). I'm not trying to prove anything to you, other than your position is the minority, to which you've not provided anything to show that not to be the case (just because you don't believe it to be the case doesn't mean that you're position is the majority). If you have an issue that a lot of the scholars are Christians then convince more atheists to become historians so you can have more balanced representation of the issue. Until then, I don't think we have anything to go forward with - I will agree to disagree with you at this point.

At 2/21/13 11:09 AM, poxpower wrote: Once again, isn't it strange how no one had the idea to make this distinction before science came along and cast doubt on the story?

Not really. If there was no reason to doubt it then why would you bother to doubt it? Same thing with the theory of the four elements and people's understanding of nature - no one really questioned it until they had to.

At 2/21/13 08:00 PM, Gario wrote: I asked where it said that Adam was the first

Genesis 2.
It clearly talks about only Adam as if he was the first and only human. It doesn't sound at all throughout Genesis that there's other people than Adam until God makes Eve.

Math is nothing more than a few guesses (postulates) that people have made in the past,

Math is pretty much the furthest thing humans have ever created from "guesses".
It has virtually no parallels with religion. Lol.
You can actually prove things in math. Things that can never be overturned, ever.

You should have picked something else closer to religion, like the Star Wars: Special Edition.

You completely missed the point -

No idea what you're even talking about anymore, pretending like Christians don't follow the bible and that atheists have some kind of atheist manifesto.

If that's not your goal, then what is, crushing Christianity?

My goal is to point out when people are being hypocritical and logically inconsistent.
Not really to change their minds, because they won't. Mostly for my own amusement / edification and that of others.

Now you have heard someone call it into question - congratulations

Based on what?

I'm curious, do you know what 'Sola Scriptura' means, and the implications of it when a person says that he doesn't practice it?

Yeah it sounds like you get to make up your own personal religion but still call it "Christianity".

the Bible doesn't need to be the sole source of the religion,

So explain to me again why not everyone can just be a Christian by making up any rule they want?
Why can't I be a Christian then? I don't believe in God, but personally, I think Christianity is not about God, I think it's about bananas and watching Game of Thrones.

lol

I gave it an effort. He claims to be an atheist, so that's all I went on

It says he claims he's an agnostic.
Not that it matters.

To a point, that's why I personally hold that to be the case - I'm not a historian, so I am just going to go by what the majority says is true.

Hum you can actually look at the evidence yourself.
This is not complicated like global warming or particle physics where relying on experts is actually mandatory for laypeople.

This is just a blurb from a text. I'm pretty sure I'm competent enough to figure out that people claiming Jesus was definitely a real person are full of shit.

At 1/30/13 01:34 PM, DickChick wrote: I'm not talking about whether or not Christian morals are beneficial to society. I'm asking simply, is it possible to prove or at least argue that the Christian religion is the closest to truth... or... you know what I mean.

No. Christianity, and many other religions for that matter, are for the weak, insecure and fearful.

Be a free-thinker and instead of believing in the God that they all tell you to obey and command, believe in the God within yourself.