The Bible's Embarassing Details

www.csseminar.com

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• apologetics
• christianity
• god
• frank
• turek
• massachusetts
• turners
• falls
• ma
• western
• mass
• christian
• sanity

[upplsuckimcool16]

Well even religious scolars admit that the gospels were written many years after Jesus' death through word of mouth.

[Roper122]

Actually... it's the believing in it part that's the most embarrassing

[GoodyBob]

@GoodyBob And even more than embarrassing & helps prove reality & evidence of non-editing events when His disciples lied about knowing Jesus & even said they hid or ran away like "girlie-men". Go figure some more.

[GoodyBob]

Many embarrassing parts provide evidence itself that an event actually happened & was passed on correctly w/o editing. For example: Why would all say that it was women who first discovered the empty tomb & told the others when women were looked down upon in those old Jewish days & were not allowed to testify in court, etc. That was VERY embarrassing for the gospel writers yet nobody lied to cover it up! ETC. Go figure.

[neoxeno09]

@MrHobiecat you are just sticking on the flood. One thing is sure. only 8 people where there after the flood and It is the new geography we see after the flood. In Hindu mythology also account for one.. How do they know it if there no flood. Other than bible, there is no religious book which has all its history accounted from, time to generation to Kings to places and also the prophecy. can you prove otherwise. Bible declares Jesus is God.(not 'not a god') -1 Corinthians 15:14-19 John 8:58.

[neoxeno09]

@MrHobiecat Thanks for your comment. Can you give any proof of its absurdity, I have give notes, that cannot say it is written in modern times, yeah you believe in The radio isotope.. and my friend, 4000 BC is after noah, not at the time of flood.. so do native americans. The

life of adam is also far beyond 4000 BC. in that pre history he is a man not a monkey. If you have only a brain and no moral inside, it is just a machine with electicity in it.

[Roper122]

@LarsTheHonest " You really dont think your answer is affected by the obvious outcome of admitting its really wrong? "

- You really don't think the trick is revealed by the fact that you cannot show that it is objectively wrong?

Even if you could, that still doesn't follow that it has anything to do with any god.

It's a lovely little game that apologists play.. pick something bad, make you agree that it's wrong, and then pretend that means god exists.

Sorry.. but it proves ...nothing

[LarsTheHonest]

@Roper122 I know the following example is often used, but for a good reason. Is raping and torturing a child just for the fun of it, not really wrong? Do you really believe that is just a matter of opinion? You really dont think your answer is affected by the obvious outcome of admitting its really wrong?

[Roper122]

@LarsTheHonest .. I think you need to think about this a bit more yourself.

It's a nice apologist trick.. they point out something terrible ( holocaust is always a favorite too ) and then tell you that if you don't agree with it, there must be objective morality.

Sorry.. doesn't work that way.

You show me something that you think is morally wrong that I can't reason out... then you'll have a point.. otherwise.

[LarsTheHonest]

@Roper122 I think you need to reflect alittle more on this. Think about it. What if you had a daughter, and I snuck into your house and tortured her for fun. It would devastate you, but if I never got caught, would it still not be necessarily wrong? Think about that one.

[Roper122]

@LarsTheHonest .. Nope. But that's always a good argument to try...

Totally impossible to prove.

Besides, I can subjectively show that terrorists are wrong.. that's enough.

( oh and even if objective morals did exist, there's no way to link them to any god... )

Next?