quote:
I disagree completely. Rather [evolution] is based on the INTERPRETATION of physical evidence that exists today. But that belongs in an entirely different thread.
Well, hold on for a sec. I am not going to argue whether or not evolution is true, but rather the difference in the evidence between scientific claims and biblical claims.
Firstly, what physical evidence do I have that would lend credence to the biblical stories. What physical evidence am I able to interpret for myself. In the case of the evolution vs. creation debate, all of the physical evidence is available to both sides of the debate. From there, both sides interpret the evidence. With biblical claims the only interpretation of events that we have are the gospel writers. That's it. No matter your opinion of evolution, you have to admit that biblical claims and evolutionary claims are on different levels.
quote:
You're asking some very intelligent questions, no doubt. Since you already discount any eyewitness reports, I can't help you further on that. But to your:
I don't discount eyewitness accounts out of hand. I am discounting the gospels as eyewitness accounts because they simply can not be shown to be eyewitness accounts. For instance, none of the gospel writers were there for the birth of Christ, so the nativity stories are obviously not eyewitness accounts. Crashfrog has also outlined other evidence which demonstrates that the gospels were more than likely oral tradition. Next, we have a very biased source, a religious movement that needs to cement itself as worshiping a divine figure.
quote:
Yes... the big "IF". If some other people would have written down what happened, then I would believe (I predict you would still discredit the writings as forgeries or plain B.S.). Or, if God would show himself to me, I would believe. Or, "If Jesus would come down from the cross" they would have believed back then. I doubt it. Jesus performed many miracles, healed the sick, cleansed the lepers, the blind saw, the lame walked, fed thousands with a handful of food, even the dead were raised. And they still didn't believe because they chose not to. Even the highly esteemed Pharisees saw the miracles of Jesus, and they refused to believe.
Firstly, I never said that I would believe, only that it would lend more credence to the gospel stories. The only source for the stories found in the gospels is from the religion that depends on those stories. Even you have to admit that this is a biased source, even if the stories end up being accurate. Why don't we have stories written by the Roman soldiers who witnessed the angels? Why would the Pharisees deny a risen Messiah, a Messiah they had been waiting for for hundreds of years? Why would an educated Roman, unbiased by previous religious beliefs or by the Jesus movement, write about this supposed risen figure? I can't see why these type of people would not have written an account.
quote:
But let's not go back and forth on those items. Instead, respond to this:
We have reliable records of the early Christians being persecuted and killed. WHY do you think they were persecuted and killed? And what do you think the CHRISTIANS thought when they were giving up their lives as they were being slaughtered? Where did their belief come from?
We have early records of Muslims being persecuted, persecuted by christians nonetheless. We have Muslims crashing planes into tall buildings for their religion. How can you deny that Muhammed is the Prophet of God, and the Koran is the Word of God?
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 01-20-2005 12:42 AM
™ Version 4.2