well this is beyond sources for the validity of the bible. but there are a few points i can still argue if you wish to put aside the search for proof. i mean obviously if you were interested into God you would just as easily find sources to prove his existence as the argument against it.
one the roman empire was strongly anti Christan until later, some time after Nero who was documented for burning Christians alive as candles. but yes later Rome adopted Christianity as its official religion.
as for indoctrination, its curious to see what denomination you studied under. for there are many denominations who have other agendas tied to their teachings that are also considered inaccurate to the Christan world, for example jw's, Mormons and so on.
and for not worshiping a a all powerful being because they should not require it or is the mark of a Deva i dont agree. God does not require our pray, it is simple pleasing to him. its ultimately a way of talking to him because God explains it is a way of reaching him. as for him wanting conversation making him a Deva is wrong, he wants a relationship with us because he made us. well we can argue more on it later.
and heres an other site that could be of interest to explain my stance on things, it is a Christan site arguing for the existence of God with a load of different topics. read if you wish
first of all, usually you find truth from accounts of what people wrote and preserved, this is called history. but OK heres some sites.
and surprisingly it may seem to you. there is no religious bias or zeal in it. so you may find it acceptable to read.
fist of all i have been given proof of God through the site i listed. As for your scientific chronology of existence. it is not absolute and is only a theory of existence. scientist still have not and never will answer how the universe or big bang happened or why, how life came from no life, or that we absolutely evolved from a lesser species of primates. while it is popular information that is commonly recited as fact due to the growing age of atheism. it is still not absolutely true or provable the claims science suggest. scientist forget they are just observing the laws of nature, not making political or spiritual claims. until it is completely feasible that science has for sure proved a non divine intervention or creator of greater power than us created our existence. scientist only make a guess or suggestion.
again. your opinion verses profound intellectual theologians. you may think your cute with your whole pasta Deity but again you have proven nothing to show your made up Deity is more reasonable than God.
as for your remark about god giving birth to himself and all. your right, i did not become a Christian by reading the story of a talking burning bush, no one would. nor would you believe that a 4 ton metal object that flew hundreds of miles than dropped a small object the size of a couch that once hitting the ground killed 75 thousand people instantly. anyone can dumb down or mystify a situation beyond belief. and if you did not know what i was talking about, i was talking about the nuking of Hiroshima.
i became Christian by asking the big questions, why am i here, who created the order of the universe, who left absolute laws like mathematics or the ability of the discovery of science, who or what created life. things unexplainable by science, through a long process i came to believe that the Christan God is the most reasonable explanation for existence.
yes they did, you must be referring to the Judges of the Hebrews who would rise up and slay Israel's enemies. however the difference is. while the Koran calls for the conversion, segregation or slaughter of all infidels regardless of ethnicity, culture, or time period. the Judges were brought up as warriors to liberate Israel from oppression, slavery, immorality. so the Judges were noble, admirable, the caliphs or followers of Muhammad, hostile, cruel, oppressors.
yes if both sides agree to it, as i mentioned in the next sentence, but honestly, how many children do you know or parents that would allow their child to have sex with an adult, as i also said. no government does not mean no morals or parent leadership. kids are still at the whim of their family.
first of all i had to lawl at the name of the creator of this debate "monarchist" funny due to what were debating.
any way as an other person pointed out, your arguing from a view of how society would cope with out government than a non government society functioning in the first place. i have to disagree, since we dont have a single anarchist society in the world the only way to get to anarchy would to figure out how to lead a government society to a non government society, the reality is that not enough people would want to do that. government has made life easy, at the expense of some freedoms, government is something someone can easily become dependable on. government is the forced organization of society. and for most people it works fine.
i would love to try out a society based on libertarian views but this would never happen. so instead i advocate for smaller government interaction and dependency, a far more reasonable thing to do.
libertarians call for minimal or no government but that does not mean no order, or law. simply law is enforced differently, how this works, i dont feel like going into this. instead look up some libertarian stuff, its really interesting, even if you dont agree with it. like communism is an interesting idea, but is a bad idea to use.
yep regulated economy is what caused all most all of the problems that libs love to scream as the fault of capitalism when actually it was government interference. just like today, obama taking over one sixth of the economy and forcing us to pay for a health care plan that is actually unconstitutional to make some one pay for against their will, and the new "cap and trade" thing going on which is really just cap and tax.
libertarians don't have a solidified stance on this, thats the thing about libertarianism. libertarians just believe that government should not interfer or exist in our daily lives. you can be and in fact are a lot of Christian libertarians who believe government is unnecessary but still hold to their moral beliefs. so to a libertarian, they don't care what your sexual orientation is as long it does not infringe on the freedoms of some one else. so you people arguing that child molestation and child sex is supported by libertarians, no its not, unless for some weird reason the child agreed to it.
but any way, so i have traditional views on sex but am ideological libertarian.
first of all your claim that the bible is not real has no viability as you say my claim that the bible is real, so you got nowhere with that statement.
anyway, umm yes the dead sea scrolls that are over 2000 years old show over 90 percent of modern translations are authentic to its ancient text, and the few percent difference is just grammatical difference. so disproved there. also the entire old testament was already finished 400 years before Jesus and the new testament meaning modern bibles did no alteration to the Torah and the Torah today is accurate to ancient Torahs we still have today, most notably in Israeli museums. there are also more ancient manuscripts that show todays bible is accurate to back than. your claim is blatantly ignorant and idiotic with out proof.
as for scrap of papers, i just shown that there our numerous non Christan or Jewish sources that recount numerous biblical events. it only takes a little effort to type in a search on google to find these sites.
but anyway thank you for supporting your claim. now we had a subject to argue about.
first of all the new testament was the final Revelation of god through his son Jesus, numerous old testament scripture support the coming of a messiah to save the world. the dispute Christan's and Jews have is over Jesus being the old testament acclaimed messiah. as for proof of the bible you and any one else reading this please take some time on this site. it is great and answers numerous questions. for a logical man can easily conclude there is more proof for the Christan god than your spaghetti monster.
as for science, we discovered science? which begs the question. it was here before us, and the big bang proves that the universe had a beginning. so what caused it and what created science?
as for your scientific remark on gravity. it does nothing to disprove god so what were you trying to do?
or religion could clean its self up and kick out sex drived people to the world. and instead of getting rid of prisons secure the border and get rid of all the illegals in our prisons so we have more room for disobedient citizens. more room, less chance of a bun finding a oven.
I'm afraid you misunderstood what i said. God is perfect and when the bible was canonized it was done for all people to be able to read and understand the full revelation of God. and to stop other literature form creeping in that was not of the Christian God.
no good points. as i mentioned my validating the bible was just showing to other religious people who claim the bible is not the complete revelation of God aka Mormons and jws. as for your other part. the spaghetti monster is a made up idea with no proof. i did not become Christan by reading of how a man was eaten by a whale and lived in him for 3 days. no one would be convinced by reading that story alone to believe in the biblical God.
but through logic, such as there being a beginning to this universe that is unexplainable by science. the unity of the universe. the absolute laws that exist. aka gravity, the ability to use science to regulate the actions of our existence. our superiority to all other creatures. our morality. led me to ask the big questions and over time i came to believe in the biblical God as the only true god.
as for the remark on no religion being placed higher then an other. its hard to do that when almost each religion you mentioned considers its self the only true one, and thats the reality. only one is true. but i don't need to bore you any more. i just wanted to give a simplistic reply.
i was using the sources as proof that the bible self claims what it is. not as support for what the bible says it is. your question is that how do i put faith into a book written over two thousand years ago, then canonized by religious scholars? well if your interested check these sites out. their more in depth then what i feel putting the effort into writing here, since that you, if at all, would probably be the only one to read my statement.
First of all i don't know why China wants Korea. they have tried for years competing with japan over it. obviously china would use the conflict between the south and north as means of invading the north for "peace". as for America doing anything. why should we? we would endanger our number one trade partner and a larger scale war. we would probably defend south Korea if china expanded its conquest but then china would have no reason to do that ether.
