Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Because it would have been Noah's descendents writing about it. In the accounts, it doesn't seem to take Noah's sons very long to leave the homestead and settle in different parts of the world, particularly around Mesopotamia, Persia, and Africa (which is where most of these legends originate).

_________________

You mean like how current history testifies that no such thing as a global flood ever happened?



And yet you still make assertions and fail to provide links to them. I can't exactly refute any sources that you fail to provide.



Let me try to explain this to you as simply as I can: You made claims. I asked for sources for those claims. You either failed to provide sources, or just told me to look it up myself. That's intellectual laziness at best, and outright lies at worst. I'm not familiar with these other posters you are citing, or your debates with them. You shouldn't expect your opponent to have to go and look up vague, unspecified sources. You have to provide them yourself.



Like someone else already said, there are flood mythologies in many cultures, yet they are very different, and isolated, non - global floods are known to occur or have occurred in the regions those cultures developed in. For example, in China, many large and devastating floods are caused by the overflow of the Yellow River. As for the entire idea of a worldwide flood occurring, you should realize that it is in blatant defiance of scientific evidence and the laws of physics. Here, read this article: http://www.creationtheory.org/YoungEart ... an-6.shtml



You do realize that cosmology is one of the most rapidly changing fields in science today? The books you are talking about are most likely outdated. Besides, what they're suggesting doesn't propose that the laws of physics were constantly changing throughout history, like you're proposing. There have been some changes observed, but the rates observed are far, far too low to make any significant impact. If said constants, such as the speed of light, for example, really did change that much in 6000 years (if you're proposing that the speed of light used to be faster), then that would accelerate the rate of natural radioactive decay and fry the Earth. Ref: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE410.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE411.html

In addition, the following article: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE411_1.html seems to be what these books you are talking about are referring to, yet as the article explains, there are problems with it causing what you are suggesting.


Okay, but you have to realize that I am not any of these other people you have been debating with, and just because you cite evidence in one debate doesn't mean you don't have to cite it in another debate with a different person. As for the actual link, the majority of texts there dated back to the 5th or 6th centuries, and the earliest were around the end of the 2nd century. As I stated, that's still 200 years too late.



I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, I thought you were a literal 6 - day creationist. Still, if you take such things as the Flood literally, then that means I still have a reason to debate you.



Well, as I stated, I am unfamiliar with any of these other posters, so you should not try to equate them to me. Personally, I do not have a problem with Christians in general (most of my family is Christian), I just dislike Christian fundamentalists and evangelists who try to force their religion on others. I'm also sorry for assuming you were a 6 - day YEC.



My view of deism states that the being (God) who created the universe merely set everything into motion and does not interfere afterwards. Even if I see direct evidence of supposed supernatural occurences (which I have not) does not mean I will immediately suppose they the work of God. Many things that people once attributed to gods can now be explained with science (for example rain, lightning, the stars, the phases of the moon, etc.) Deism is a personal belief of mine, not a scientific theory, and it has no place in a scientific debate.

woah dude, watch your words, didy is a paitient guy, and no sort of weird athiest dork like u doesnt stand a chance debating about this against Didymus, he will school you in it! and i suggest you stop right now cause some people,(me) are starting to not like you, alot. so in the end all i say is respect what didymus says, and he'll respect what you say.

_________________

Please, Choco. Let's not resort to name-calling. I appreciate the confidence, but name-calling doesn't really serve much purpose except to get the Mods ticked off.

_________________

Would both of you chill out. Seriously, don't start a flame war, that is the last thing we need.

Torg-dork: Dr. Zaius was a user here on the forum. He frequently engaged Didymus in R&P debate and was quite good at it, but he had a tendancy to be a jerk, which he eventually got banned for. You're a good at debating, keep it up. I like somebody who can give Dids a run for his money.

Choc-o-lardiac Arrest: You need to quit saying things like this, it angers a lot of people. There is no need to call somebody an "athiest dork." You ask why people get angry at you, well that is because you say things like this, it happens. Remember this line that a very wise man once said, "Do unto others as you would want to have done unto you."

Now......toastpaint.

_________________

Trog-dork:

I'm going to address some of these issues, but one at a time. I get tired of trying to sift through all these different posts and trying to cover everything. I will begin with the dating of the New Testament writings.

There is a flaw in your calculations. 2nd Century AD is NOT 200 years later. In fact, it is less than 100 years later. St. John the last of the Gospel writers, died in 93 AD, and P52 is dated around 140-160 AD, That's about 60 years, give or take. But, what's more, there is further evidence of earlier composition dates based on the writings of other people in the Church. I'll just post this from the Wikipedea:



Keep in mind, these are more liberal estimates about when the books were likely written.

Also, just because the originals are no longer available does not mean that they did not exist many decades prior to the currently available Papyri. Papyri is not acid-free paper. That there were any early copies preserved at all is quite incredible. Furthermore, during the persecutions (80 - 300 AD), many of the writings of the church were destroyed. Yet there remain numerous copies available to us today due to the wide dissemination of the texts in those early centuries. I would contend that the best explanation for the wide dissemination is that they were in fact written very early, in the mid First Century.

I'll stop there for now.

_________________

I already stated that I am a deist, not an athiest, and it is not up to you whether we should continue our debate our not, it is up to me and him.

And how is it, exactly, that all these people lived to such old ages, when the average lifespan back then was much lower than it is now, due to more unsanitary conditions and more primitive medical care? It seems highly unlikely that even one person involved with the writing of the Gospels, much less more than one, would live so long in that time. Even the wiki article you quoted says that this isn't likely. Not to mention that it states that many of the earlier datings of the books are quite speculative.

Also, I should point out that the events of the New Testament are only mentioned in texts from Israel, and not in records of other cultures, even when they were to be expected. For example, the Romans were obsessive record keepers, they recorded pretty much everything in their writings in some form or another. Yet there are no records from that time of anyone named Jesus ever being put on trial and crucified.

The fact remains that we still have no records of Jesus dating from the time when he supposedly lived.

Note that I am not categorically asserting that there was no Jesus, he very well might have been a real person, or at least based on a real person, however my point is that the matter is far from clear.

I'm inclined not to, if such evidence won't even have any weight ...

Therefore, if you won't take my word for it, I instead recommend you keep your eyes and ears open around internet circles; watch and you'll eventually see it happen if my record of running into "evangelizing atheists" has been any indication.

I mean, if it wasn't a widespread deal, Mike Reed wouldn't have added the Atheist Flame Warrior to his site on common internet forum carciatures.

Also--you mention being a Deist instead of an Atheist. Well, Didymus and I got the impression you were atheist because you fight like one, or perhaps like an agnostic--your choice of wording and tone suggested that you don't believe in the divine yourself. *shrug* I would have expected a Deist in a religious debate to avoid talking as if he didn't believe in the divine, and instead focus on the details of, in this case, Christianity and the Bible.

_________________

This is an objective debate on historical records and geological events, not a subjective discussion of religious principles. My religion has nothing to do with this debate.

If I was a Christian theistic evolutionist I would be debating the same way (except for, you know, arguing that Christ might not have existed)

So, what you're saying is that, based on average life-spans of people in those times, that St. John couldn't have lived as long as he did? Most estimates are that he was about 90 or so when he died. Polycarp was about 86, so it's not completely unheard of for someone to live that long. But just because some people at that time died at earlier ages does not mean that some people did not live beyond typical life spans. So, at least in my opinion, to simply say, "No one at that time could possibly have lived to be in their 90's," is mere speculation on your part. As for answering the question, that would require medical speculation which is beyond my expertise. Nevertheless, I have no reason to doubt St. John's age, or Polycarp's for that matter.


Jesus is mentioned in the annals of Josephus, a Jewish historian who wrote for the Romans. One thing to keep in mind is that Josephus was not himself a Christian, and yet he mentions Jesus twice in his annals (Antiquities, Book 18, Chap 3 and Chap 9).

Not only Josephus, but also Tacitus, a Roman historian who wrote about the reign of Nero, also confirms the historicity of Jesus' life. Here is an excerpt from his annals: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/pt ... oc=15%3A44

What we do have are books written about the man written by men who knew him personally (Matthew, Peter, John, James, Jude, etc.). And whether they're testimonies are thoroughly attested by outside sources is not important. You should remember, lack of evidence on one hand does not constitute proof to the contrary.

Here is yet another point: you might want to look at the title of this thread carefully. This is not a "scientific" question, but one of motives and theology. The question is why we Christians feel compelled to make disciples. The answer to that question is found within our own faith. So, if your goal in debating us is to dissuade us from making disciples, then it is your responsibility to prove that we are wrong for doing so, and not necessarily ours to prove we are right.

The evidence to me is compelling. I do not feel obligated to prove every minor point of it beyond doubt. Only to offer to you, and to others, that our faith is not unreasonable, nor are our reasons for carrying out our mission.

In other words, what I would expect from you is an alternate history with supporting evidence.

Incidentally, here's an article you might find interesting. It seems that the earliest forms of writing do not date back quite as far as you estimated in your previous posts: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/334517.stm

I had remembered reading in Michael Jackson's Great Beer Guide that the oldest document in existence was a Mesopotamian Cold One recipe. I was looking to see if I could find it when I found that article. I once asked Dr. Adams at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, if this were true (about the Cold One recipe), and he could not confirm it, but he did say it was firmly within the realm of possibility. All I can say is, those Mesopotamians had their priorities straight. A little Cold One humor.

Anyway, Toastpaint.

_________________

Please be nice. I'm willing to admit, I have encountered my share of evengelistic athiests in the short time I've been here, but that certainly doesn't mean that all athiests are like this. i.e. Destroy_us_all

anywho........

There's very little doubt in my mind as to wether or not jesus existed. Though he is supposedly the son of god, he was also once a human being, meaning that it wouldn't make too much sense to make him up. People has so much faith in god back then, I doubt it would occur to them that god would send his son to earth when he could just do anything himself. He is supposed to be all powerful after all.

If jesus didn't exist he probably wouldn't be remembered all these years.

_________________

One of the distinct theological differences Christianity has from other religions is the Trinity. God is 3 in one: the Father who created us, the Son who saved us, & the Holy Spirit who counsels & comforts us. People might illustrate this as turning on a light: You turn a switch that sends a current through a wire to a light bulb. All 3 produce one light.

It's the same with the Trinity; the Light of God comes from all 3 of these bodies. This does mean that Jesus is God; there was a time in history when he was human. He went back to Heaven & sent the Holy Spirit to live inside us.

_________________

Uh, I was being nice.

Read the entire post, please. When I said he fights like one, I was referring to the context and choice of words regarding the discussion, using words like "If there really is a god" and the like. The post was not in any way trying to imply that atheists are all the "village atheist" type Didymus mentioned.

_________________

Strawman. I never said that it was IMPOSSIBLE that anyone lived that long in that period, I just said it was HIGHLY UNLIKELY, and it was even more unlikely that so many people, who were connected in such an important way by events, all lived that long.



Key word: Jewish historian. It's unimportant that he wasn't a Christian, since the Christian faith was still relatively new at that time, and Christ was supposedly known in his life as 'The King of the Jews'.



Sure, you have one source (not written by official record keepers and not dating from the time of Christ's life) so you base all of this on that? How do you know it's reliable? How do you know the date is correct? Most importantly, how come there are no surviving records of Jesus from the time when he supposedly lived?



I never said it did. However, it most certainly does not constitute proof of the affirmative. Also, there are other theories: http://www.nightly.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=73;t=000441;p=0




Another strawman. My goal is merely to prove that the Bible is not an accurate historical document, and is in fact incorrect about many things.



What mission? Evangelism? Because personally I find that to be immoral, although a significant improvement over the Inquisitions.



I'm not attempting to categorically disprove the existence of Jesus, as I already stated, I think it is very possible that he lived (although of course I don't believe that he had supernatural powers). I'm just saying that it is not a sure thing that he existed. In fact, that's not even the main point of my argument, I have no idea how we've gotten sidetracked this way.



That speaks of writing as a fully formed system, not in its early stages of development, as pictograms and ideagrams. Cultures and civilizations have existed without fully developed writing systems. Incidentally, the supposed 'earliest writing' in the article you cited is not even agreed upon as such by a majority of archaeologists! Check out this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/334517.stm



Archaeologists date beermaking back to the 5th millenium BC, far before your supposed flood. Other than that, I don't see any reason for this paragraph.

Incidentally, you might want to check this page out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_millennium_BC

No, most believe that's about what time the flood happened.

_________________

From your post, it seemed to me that you were presenting it as evidence to contradict a point I was making. I simply countered by saying that I did not think the life span issue was relevant to my post. Now if you did not mean to present life spans as evidence, then why bring it up at all?


Why does there need to be a record from his exact time? It would seem to me that biographies written by men who knew him personally would be sufficient.


How does the fact that he’s Jewish change anything? Isn’t it a bit biased to dismiss his testimony just because he was actually from the region? Nevertheless, he is an extra-biblical source of historical data for the history of the region, and barring exclusion based on his being Jewish, I see no reason not to consider him a valid source.


The link does not work for me, so I must apologize that I cannot address it directly.


If your goal is to prove that the Bible is not accurate, then aren’t you obligated to present evidence to refute it? That is what I was asking for, you realize, specifically compelling evidence to refute the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. I know there’s plenty of possible theories, but without any supporting evidence.


I’m glad you recognize the improvement. But, as I have stated before, our impetus for evangelism comes from the very words of Jesus himself, “Go and make disciples of all nations.” Therefore, in order for me to be convinced it is immoral, I would need to be shown that these are in fact not the words of Jesus and should not be heeded. To me, making disciples is a moral imperative, in fact, a calling. And if it is morally wrong to convert someone, then how is it different than trying to convince them their religion is incorrect?


Okay, so maybe your point isn’t to disprove the man’s existence. But you do point out one of the key issues in this discussion: whether or not he was a supernatural man. You and I operate on opposing assumptions regarding the miraculous (that is, unless I misunderstood what you meant when you explained your beliefs as a deist). In my view, God, being the Creator of the universe, not only has power to operate within that universe, but actually in fact does so on occasion. This is what we Christians call “miracle.” In your view (if I understand you correctly), God is perhaps able to perform miracles, but for some reason is unwilling to do so. This is what I do not understand.

So here we have it. We have on one hand the biblical texts which testify to miraculous events (such as Jesus being raised from the dead). If one’s worldview is that God can and does perform miracles, then one can accept the validity of the texts, barring compelling contrary evidence (which is my position). On the other hand, if one’s worldview is that God is either unable or unwilling to perform miracles, then the texts must be considered invalid, even in the absence of compelling contrary evidence. Am I understanding this correctly? I would contend, then, that the only compelling reason for you to not accept the biblical texts is the fact that they testify to miraculous events. That’s circular reasoning: I reject the documents because they testify to the miraculous, and I do not believe the miraculous because there’s no valid documentation for it. That is, if I understand you correctly.


Looks just like the article I posted. What’s different about it?


Thanks for the information, but I'm still no closer to finding that beer recipe.

EDIT: Found It! http://www.alabev.com/history.htm

But about the flood. That's assuming that Ussher's dating system is correct, which I'm not convinced it is.

_________________

Sorry I took so long to respond, I was busy. Anyway, the point is that it is highly unlikely that they all lived so long, so you shouldn't necessarily believe that so easily.



How do you know these biographies were really written by these people?



He would have more of a reason to lie, than, a Roman for instance.



Weird, it works fine for me.



Well how about this: People don't just come back from the dead, so the account is obviously supernatural. Therefore, why should it be taken any more seriously than any other story from any other religion involving the supernatural? People don't believe the oracle at Delphi could really see the future, for instance.



Since when have I done that? I'm not try to make you abandon your beliefs, just recognize that most of them are not corroborated by evidence. My deist beliefs are irrational and have no supporting evidence, yet I still believe in them.



My belief is that God, or whichever being created the universe, was perfect, and created it perfectly, so he would have no need to interfere later. There is no need for any floods, or disaster, or plagues, or miracles, or prophets, everything just proceeds as it was meant to proceed.



No, I reject them because there is no clear evidence for these miracles, and I do not require belief in them for my faith. It's the same way you don't require belief in the Koran or the Hindu Vedic texts for your belief, since they are not part of it.



It's about a different archaeological find from an earlier time in a different place.



So when do you believe the flood occurred?

OFF-SUBJECT
This is my first pulsing paper popular post.
I'm so proude of my P.P.P.P

_________________
TIRES TIRES TIRES

Uh, what? I do believe that was spam, Watson.

i'm ever so sorry but i am just over joyed. Now i will slam my head in an oven door to repay for my spamming.

_________________
TIRES TIRES TIRES

DUA, I'm afraid you'de killed your PPP with that last ibt If I were you, i'd be thrilled too though!!!!! I shall take a stab at revival. CLEAR!!

I'm definetly going for a mixed view on the bible. There's no doubt in my mind that many of the events portrayed in the bible are accurate, and yet I also have trouble believing that everything actually happened.

The best of the bible is the life lessons though. You don't have to be christian to understand the song of songs

_________________

Let me just say this about God:

Better One than none...

_________________

Why is God so harsh to people who don't believe in him? As long as they are a good person, and don't follow the devil, shouldn't he let them go to heaven anyway. I don't wanna die, then end up finding out it's true and having to be punished. In society, if you do something good, you are sometimes rewarded, if you are bad, you are punished. If you don't do anything and just stay in the middle, nothing happens to you. Whay are there just two extremes? Shouldn't there be a medium in there somewhere?
Does it really matter to God is one person doesn't believe in him?

_________________
Guten tag, Johann, du riechst ganz richtig. Danke schon, Heidi. Und du auch. - A Bit of Fry and Laurie

Think about it like this, Sean'd. If you were married to a person who never spent time with you, never wrote to you or called you, and pretty much never bothered to acknowledge your existence, then wouldn't you begin to get the idea that the relationship was a waste of time?

That's what it's like for God (in fact, the unfaithful wife metaphor is his favorite way to describe unbelieving people). God created us to love him and to enjoy his presence. As St. Augustin said, "Thou hast made us for thyself, O Lord." That is why the first three commandments are essentially to love God. When a person does not, then they are not fulfilling the purpose for which he created them.

And what does "being a good person" have to do with it? Who gets to set the standard as to what "being a good person" looks like? I would say that "being a good person," at least according to God's standards begins with the command, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength." Without that, nothing else matters.

The problem in part is that, in our modern society, there is no consistent ideal for what "being a good person" is, and I think for most people it just translates into, "I haven't raped or killed anybody, so that must be good enough."

As I pointed out on another thread, look at what's at stake, as well: an eternity of perfect bliss. Now, let's think about that for a moment: is it even possible to live a good enough life to deserve something like that? Even the greatest saints would say that it's a prize even they don't deserve. The gift of eternal life is such that it cannot be earned, because it is far too great. No one can ever be good enough to earn it. That's why it must be given and received only as a free gift.

And the only way this free gift can be received it by being reconciled to the one who has it, namely God.

_________________

Didymus, doesn't the Bible also say "Love thy neighbour" as a standard for being a good person? This would mean you should try to help other people, and treat people kindly. Say you were an atheist who was a nice person to people around him and not unnecessarily antagonistic toward anyone, hated war, gave to charity and worked hard to provide for his family. Does this man deserve hellfire?

Yes, I'm back after a long time being away. And I've decided to stop shying away from the Religion and Politics board, as long as I can stop myself from being rude.

Just as an answer to the original poster: in Christianity one of the things you're meant to do is spread the word of God - in other words, get non-believers to convert. It may annoy you (it'd annoy me, definitely) but look at it this way: they're actually acting in what they consider your best interests.

_________________
"They've taken Mr Rimmer! Sir, they've taken Mr Rimmer!"
"Quick, let's get outta here before they bring him back!"

Click my SC banner for my thoughts on that.

I would point out, however, that Jesus calls the other command, to love God, the greatest of the commands, and states that the second is like the first. He further says that, in loving people, we are to do so as if loving God. In other words, our love for God should be our primary motive for everything else. Without love for God, love for one's neighbor still does not count for much. Why? Because it's relational, as I stated above. Even if one were to love one's neighbor wholeheartedly, if one has no love for God, then there still is no basis of a relationship with God.

To sum up, the vertical relationship is far more important, and is in fact the basis for, all horizontal relationships. But it is interesting that, both taken together, form the sign of the cross.

_________________

Whether we go to Heaven or not depends not on the good we do/or dont but whether or not we accept what Jesus has done for us - (dying on the cross and rising to new life ) a gift of Grace, to save us from damnation. Basic Christianity.

Its his gift to us. The ultimate sacrifice. No one can save but Jesus. That's definetly not a reason to not care for fellow mankind. But without Jesus all our good works are nothing but dirty rags. May sound unfair to you but its Jesus working through Christians that makes our good works a spiritual blessing to others. Again not what we do, but what God can do through us.
Put it this way, if you were God (which you aren't) would you want people worshipping what you created (angels/parts of creation/idols?) I don't think so. He's a jealous God but also a loving God.

Hope this helps.

Or, let's go back to an analogy I used earlier. Suppose you were married to the sweetest, kindest person in the whole world. But here's the catch: this person is never kind or loving toward you. In fact, this person treats you like you don't exist. Now, do you think you'd feel very good about being married to this person? I certainly wouldn't, and would probably get out of the relationship as soon as possible. To me, it wouldn't matter how much affection she has for others; if she had none for me, there would be no basis of a relationship.

The same is true with God. God does want us to love other people, there's no doubt about that. But, his ultimate desire is that we come to love him above all things.

And how did he make that possible? By reconciling us to himself through the cross.

_________________

Sorry Dids, I'm getting confused over that unfaithful wife analogy. I was taught that God exists inside us all in the form of the soul - is that right? If it is, other people aren't a separate entity from God. I don't want to get into the whole messy business of "good works", but is there a point in that?