2 Peter 2:2

Many will follow their evil teaching and shameful immorality. And because of these teachers, the way of truth will be slandered.

2 Peter 1:20

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation

This ONE MAN, just so happens to be a distinguished Biblical Scholar, a professor of religious studies and former president of the Society of Biblical Literature.

This one man preaches against the scripture and defames it.

The Aztecs didn't find it wrong to make human sacrifices to appease some of their gods. Were they wrong for doing so?

By humanist standards there is no right and wrong. And death doesn't matter as it is necessary for the advancement of the species.

The term atheist is a contradiction of all known scientific laws. They profess there is no Creator, then say that nothing created something. They limit themselves to physics that explain operational science, then they make up occurrences (big bang) that lie outside natural laws.

Atheists use "name calling" as a rescue device when their inane ideals are exposed. When they try to talk down to you then you know you struck a nerve. The atheist foundation is sand nothing more.

I only call people names that fit the actions they take and the words they say.

So you don't take the "high" road with the insults.

But just because murder happened in a secular regime does not mean they were killed for religion, or lack there of. Like how in the soviet Union people were killed for not contributing enough to the system or for something they did.

Stalin was atheist so was Mao and they killed Christians purely for their beliefs.

Atheism is only the disbelief in a deity, that's it, that is all it is. Atheism does not promote violence, nor does it condemn it, it has nothing to say on the matter on anything other than lacking a belief in god. Atheism does not start, encourage or call for wars.

We are discussing atheists not atheism. And atheists are never an impartial participant. In fact most atheists are either evolutionists or humanists so they believe death/war is a normal part of our biological history.

While Stalin certainly was atheist, there is no reason to believe that he killed because of his atheism.

Absolutely it does, he killed many Christians specifically for their beliefs.

If we were to include ALL MURDERS by christians, and not just the ones motivated by it, surely the death toll would be many times greater.

The death toll after WWII would amount far more then any prejudicial speculation you could create. Atheists are far more brutal in torture and killing then any religious sect.

Just because a Dictator possesses a specific trait does not imply that this trait CAUSED him to kill. It is no more reasonable to assert that Mustaches cause genocide just because a dictator happens to have a mustache.

I would contend that a lack of morality is far different then facial hair. Such an argument has absolutely no merit.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/03/21/prweb8219892.DTL

Really? This is credible to you, one man's opinions. You really desire to deny your Creator don't you?

The ingredients for planet formation were present before the birth of the Earth. Does not cause always precede effect?

You aren't considering the "ingredients" first cause, what would have created them?

And how do you distinguish a "natural law" from a "natural force"?

The law is our understanding of the force. Our understanding based on the most universal of those laws (thermodynamics) says that new material can't create itself.

Religions are already grouped by virtue of being religions.

Categorizations doesn't merit stereotypes. Would you generalize an entire race of people based solely on that race? If you believe this type of prejudice then you will never truly understand anything.

It is of no advantage to say that God is uncaused and he created the universe, than it is to simply say that the universe is uncaused.

I disagree, to believe the physical nature has no cause is pure absurdity. Especially if your world is limited to the physical laws of science. If you believe there is no original cause then you would have to believe you don't exist or that anything does.

You believe.

Mine and all other Christians beliefs.

Yet you believe God created the laws of the universe only to actively defy them later. Why is it that we are able to see light from stars millions of light years away?

Miracles demonstrate His power that He can operate beyond those physical laws. The distant starlight isn't proof of long ages. There are many different theories that account for such distance. The amount of mass in space with its gravitational effects on the redshift is not well enough known.

http://creation.com/light-travel-time-a-problem-for-the-big- bang

http://creation.com/how-can-distant-starlight-reach-us-in-just-6000-years

Absolutely you're biased, or absolutely you take God's existence as a presupposition? The argument implies both.

As your argument denies His existence.

Perhaps it's your presupposition that I take God's nonexistence as a presupposition? Perhaps maybe I have reason to doubt the existence of all deities? That's not possible, right?

Then do you find it unlikely that I take something as a presupposition which I formerly did not believe, and only came to believe after years or rigorous contemplation and study?

As opposed to someone who was lucky enough to be born into the correct religion, how lucky are they?

You willfully deny your Creator so you can live without guilt. You know that physics can't explain the origination of energy itself. To state the universe is cyclical is absurd and has absolutely no evidence supporting it.

By Secular Ideals, I must assume you mean Science. We certainly can't allow any of that.

No I mean untestable, unobservable, and unfalsifiable assumptions. That is definitely not science.

Perhaps you want to explain to me how this constitutes a "hole" in big bang theory?

This site doesn't explain the uniformity of CMB through the universe. Their assumptions are based on a rate of expansion. That the redshift is based solely on distance. They don't account for gravitational effects like what we see near black holes, an object with so much mass that light can't escape. The force of the gravity holds galaxies in orbit around it. Dark energy is absurd and the uniform CMB radiation only proves there was no massive thermal expulsion.

Did you not say that believing that order coming from chaos takes blind faith? The fact that elctro-magnetism is an easily testable phenomena supports my statement even more so, than if it wasn't.

The electro magnetic phenomena displays order that is maintained. The fact that it adheres to constants shows that it didn't originate from chaos. As it would return to chaos as there would be no known order.

The extra-biblical accounts of jesus, produced at the time he might have actually lived don't describe him in any real detail and they certainly don't describe him doing any miracles or coming back from the dead. The vast knowledge of jesus comes nearly a century after his death.

Which accounts are that? Don't forget many Christians were killed for proclaiming Jesus. People were slaughtered for speaking of what they knew of Him.

The Biblical scholars that use the context are the ones who make that distinction.

That assumes complete authenticity of the bible, and the absolute fact that Christianity is the only correct language.

Your right I do make that assumption that the Bible is the absolute authority.

All religious doctrine has been written and many times translated by humans. Regardless of the truthfulness of the content, you can't say for 100 percent certainty that all the words and grammar are perfect.

The grammar and the message are two different things. With the Bible we have the oldest translations available and we can compare the different translations verse by verse. So I would say that the message is exactly the same.

Many translations from one language to another have varied meanings, mostly up to specific interpretation.

This is not the case with the Christian Bible. You must provide evidence for such a claim.

The many different versions of the bible and proven inconsistencies between many similar religions prove just that. The roman catholic church follows the same doctrine of many different religions, yet interpret many things different.

I do not support the catholic ideology, and I believe much of their doctrine goes against what the Bible says. I am a Christian Apologist and adhere to a non-compromising interpretation of the Bible.

I live a moral and upstanding life. I strive to help people around me and follow many of the same morals as theists.

If you are an atheist then you wouldn't believe in morals, as they are only a product of religious philosophy. But it is nice that you do try to help people.

The only real difference is what goes through my head when I think of death and beyond. If you believe my choice to no believe will condemn me, then so be it. Its your right to do so.

Christianity is far more concerned with just an afterlife. It is the very foundation of who we are as people. It's about recognizing our Creator. It's our relationship with God. Your relationship with God is your business, I just couldn't let that comment go by without pointing out what God's word says. Anyone who reads this discussion needs to know what the scriptures say.

I feel that our very basic infant knowledge of the world around us is not a proof for your beliefs.

That is understandable, I would like to say that those same basic knowledge can't prove naturalism.

Don't us our lack of informational development as an argument.

I absolutely will use that as an argument. Especially when atheists state "assumptions" as scientific fact.

Each side striving to answer the glaring flaws that each side has. Not likely to ever be answered but well accept many many of us.

There are no flaws in God's word. That's the difference between man's word and God's word.

In the same sense that lightning has the inability to create itself, yes?

No it isn't. Lightning is the result of strong currents of electrons in the atmosphere in a heavily active convection zone. The ingredients for a strike are already present.

This cause is a set of circumstances which are acted upon by natural forces.

Natural forces that can't originate from known natural laws. This doesn't explain the creation of the first cause.

It is a primitive human tendency to anthropomorphize all causes, as is seen in most old world mythology.

This isn't true at all. You are trying generalize all religions into one group. You should know better then to make such claims.

The earth no more needs an earth-maker than lightning needs a lightning-thrower.

Without a creator there would be no planet, solar system. galaxy, universe, or energy. Because natural laws can't account for the first cause. We know that God created and maintains His creation. Therefore He doesn't have to actively be involved in every occurrence. Lightning throwing really? Let's not throw pantheism into a Christian debate. As my position is well established.

Well, in order for one to believe that humans were created by god(s) one would first have to believe that there is/are god(s). Yes? So then aren't you guilty of precisely the opposite?

Absolutely I am bias. I believe in the Christian Triune God. I definitely don't hide that fact. But don't come here and claim "honest" inquiry when you clearly have a presupposition. To state such a claim proves a dishonest and uncredible position from the beginning.

And I don't think you know what the word "Fallacy" means.

I think you are quite mistaken. Your "honest" inquiry is anything but honest. As I have demonstrated with your bias i.e. worldview.

Definition of FALLACY

1a obsolete : guile, trickery b : deceptive appearance : deception

2a : a false or mistaken idea b : erroneous character : erroneousness

3: an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fallacy

Some of my Christian friends seem to think the Big Bang is strong evidence for God.

I will stop you there. Your friends have compromised the Bible with secular views. As a Christian Apologist I don't allow secular ideals contort the interpretation of the Biblical account.

They think this is how God created the world, albeit it took a little bit longer than your 7 day creation.

You are referring to the day-age theory or the progressive gap theory. These are not concurrent with theistic interpretations of the Genesis account.

The thing is, you only think it has holes because it contradicts your religious beliefs.

Really that is what you think is the only reason. Explain to me why the Big Bang model states the microwave radiation temperature of space should be 3 Kelvin, yet it has been shown to be 2.7 Kelvin throughout. Do you know how they solve this? With dark energy, that is an unknown and untestable form of energy that we can't detect. It was made up to explain the discrepancy. What about the fact that all visible objects (that is through the electromagnetic spectrum) only comprises 10% of the mass in space. So they can't account for the mass that holds galaxies in place. This is when they made up dark matter. An unknown mass that is not detectable (that is through the electromagnetic spectrum) is what comprises the other 90% of mass in space. And this is more believable? Talking about blind faith right there. How could you say naturalism is the answer when it is all hypothesized? Don't confuse operational science with secular assumptions.

What?

Read above statement.

Drop a handful of iron shavings around a magnet. Perhaps it is by blind faith that I believe that these shavings will align themselves according to the magnetic field. But what do I know?

No that is operational science and physics. We can test, observe, and falsify our theories. The Big Bang doesn't fall under any of these categories.

Which are recorded in the bible.

We know the events of the harry potter Novels are true, because Hermoine and Ron witnessed these events firsthand.

The Bible is the compilation of 66 books written over several thousand years. It has extrabiblical testimonies of the people in it i.e. Jesus. Its accuracy has been verified in archaeological explorations. Not to mention the thousands of generations that testified to the occurrences in it. Does your nerd book have any of these?

I say the fear of death is the primary motivator for religious faith.

That is your opinion and nothing more then unverifiable arbitration at best.