a case for christ

[crowTrobot 2]

Tim do u really not see the differences between the 2? You can test gravity it is quite easy...You drop something and bam you have gravityCan u test electricty? sure you can..u can see it in many different waysCan u test evolution? no u cant...b/c evolution isnt science...it is a theory on how things evolved thats all..

evolution does make testable predictions that are continually being confirmed, such as in what strata transitional forms should be found, and how different modern species should match up on a genetic level.

Yes i understand the theory behind the evolutionary trees...

you comments about it indicate you don't. if you're really interested in disproving it you should research it.

[Mattnxtc 0]

evolution does make testable predictions that are continually being confirmed, such as in what strata transitional forms should be found, and how different modern species should match up on a genetic level.you comments about it indicate you don't. if you're really interested in disproving it you should research it.

haha...um...u migh tneed to do some more research about what exactly matches up at the genetic level...i think ur atheist websites are forgetting to mention a few things

[crowTrobot 2]

haha...um...u migh tneed to do some more research about what exactly matches up at the genetic level...i think ur atheist websites are forgetting to mention a few things

what are you talking about? this isn't "atheist website" stuff, it is common scientific knowledge accepted even by the majority of theistic scientists (at least by the ones that don't have a pre-determined literal-creationist agenda). all higher organisms use the same genetic code mechanism, and the variations in the code itself places them (generally speaking) logically as branches in an evolutionary tree. i HAVE researched this extensively.instead of laughing why don't you reference what specificially you think doesn't match up so we can discuss it?

[Mattnxtc 0]

not that i see the connection to what i was talking about - metaphysical events in the bible logically being potential fabrications, but this is a common christian cop out. "man cannot comprehend the ways of god". pretty useful generic explanation for anything that seems to contradict your belief. kinda pointless though since you can use it for any belief in any god.

haha wow...yes there is a cope out takin place...buts from u not me...think about it please...You have claimed that you cannot know most things b/c our finite minds dotn comprehend teh infiniteness that is the universe...Yet you then claim that I should understand the creator of the universe? Do you see where ur "logic" falls completely apart.

you've twice now said you're here to keep people from "falling prey" to my what-ifs. if christianity is so strongly supported by logic you shouldn't have to worry about it.

2 very different situations...I would like people to study philosophy b/c it really makes understanding the bible much easier and to deal with people like yall...on the other hand i dont want peopel to read ur "what ifs" and actually think u have any sort of evidence to back any of it up...I want them to realize that you are willing to make up any intellectual excuse in order to avoid admitting that you just might not have any reason to not believe

ou're not stupid, just uniformed about how far science has progressed in gathering evidence for evolution. and i'm not a genius - everything i've said here is pretty basic logic. in fact as far as these types of discussions go this whole thread is at a pretty simplistic level.

this does say a lot about ur abilities

what are you talking about? this isn't "atheist website" stuff, it is common scientific knowledge accepted even by the majority of theistic scientists (at least by the ones that don't have a pre-determined literal-creationist agenda). all higher organisms use the same genetic code mechanism, and the variations in the code itself places them (generally speaking) logically as branches in an evolutionary tree. i HAVE researched this extensively.

Then ud also know that u can make a tree show anything you want it to show..that using dna we can make anything be connected to just about anything else...But i guess they forgot to mention that to you

how about after that: luke 24:33-37 says jesus first appears to the disciples while they were breaking bread in jeruselem, matthew 28:16-17 says on a mountain in galilee

I will look into this today and get back to u with what i find....

[Mattnxtc 0]

Ok crow lets take a look at the contradiction in Matthew and Luke. Matthew says that Jesus tells women to go tell the brethren to leave for Galilee and they will see me there. The disciples then went to Galilee and Jesus was there and gave them The Great CommissionLuke says that Jesus came to 2 men on the road to Emmaus. They talk Jesus reveals himself and thats that. Then Jesus went to others....I think that is the jist of what is necessary to see whats going on here..if not let me know and ill go more into detailFirst lets realize a few things..The disciples were in Jerusalem...they were told to go to Galilee. Off of a map we see that this is roughly 80-100 miles away..therefore the trip would have taken several days to make roughly 8-10 days if u assume its taken them roughly an hr or so to walk a mile and walkin 10 hrs a day.So what we have is around 8 days before Jesus appears to The disciples. This is where the other sightings come in. Matthew wouldnt have known about these since he would have been on the road to Galilee like they were told. But Luke would have known b/c he was a historian that went back and checked his facts. The road to Emmaus is to the north of Jerusalem and therefore not out of the way in any sorts. It is very logical that Jesus would have shown Himself to those who came into His path. I mean he has a lot of time to burn so to speak. What we then see is that Luke 24:36 and on matches up with Matthew 28:16 and on. The biggest problem with reading the Bible is it doesnt give a concept of time. Its hard to read that time has passed unless we specifically see it said. You see this when u read plays...they are hard to understand when time is supposed to have passed in between acts. (takin a shakespeare class right now so i fully understand this part). The "contradiction" falls apart when u see just how far the disciples had to walk. Since they didnt have cars 80-100 miles is going to take a while to make...Matthew probably wouldnt have felt it necessary to mention the walk as it wasnt anything important in terms of the big picture. Thier walk meant nothing in terms of what they were expecting to see in Galilee. Why Luke didnt emphasize it I dunno...I assume he wanted to show just how many people Jesus actually appeared to and so he chose that...Or it could be that he was aware of Matthews Gospel and so he chose to give another specific account while deferring the disciples detailed account to Matthew...But what there isnt is a contradiction of events

[crowTrobot 2]

haha wow...yes there is a cope out takin place...buts from u not me...think about it please...You have claimed that you cannot know most things b/c our finite minds dotn comprehend teh infiniteness that is the universe...Yet you then claim that I should understand the creator of the universe? Do you see where ur "logic" falls completely apart.

again how does this relate? you were replying to a paragraph about whether biblical authors can necessarily be trusted to be accurate or not. that's all. i guess you must be saying we shouldn't expect god to work miracles today just because he supposedly did in biblical times(?) and i would counter by saying we shouldn't necessarily expect all biblical authors to be accurate in their accounts of miracles because it is human nature to want to embellish.if a creator exists i wouldn't expect to comprehend his motives. however it's pretty easy to make logical judgments about whether such a creator if he exists seems to currently be interested in our individual wellbeing or not.as for the first part, i guess you're referring to my comments about your assumption that humans should be *inherently* capable of comprehending the universe (there's no reason to assume we should be). i've only claimed that we can't know absolutes. we can certainly make objective judgments about what is most likely given proven logical methods and the apparent physical facts of the world around us - but that only comes about through prolonged information gathering, and we've got a ways to go in that respect before we can even begin to draw any conclusions about odds for life emerging spontaneously, or the other tough questions you seem to think we should inherently be able to know the answers to. also note that the fact that you have to put haha in front of your replies to me just reveals your insecurity about these subjects

Then ud also know that u can make a tree show anything you want it to show..

no you can't. you can't logically put a fish on a genetically closer branch to a human than a chimp (to state the obvious in simplistic terms).

using dna we can make anything be connected to just about anything else...

of course, because everything IS connected. THAT'S THE POINT.however you can't logically just throw species together. species pairs share widely varying amounts of genetic information, and what and how they share it shows their evolutionary relationships. a human and chimp share more information than a human and a flounder because human/chimp have a MUCH more recent common ancestor and have not diverged as much as human and flounder (with the exception of literal creationists )

[crowTrobot 2]

Ok crow lets take a look at the contradiction in Matthew and Luke. Matthew says that Jesus tells women to go tell the brethren to leave for Galilee and they will see me there. The disciples then went to Galilee and Jesus was there and gave them The Great CommissionLuke says that Jesus came to 2 men on the road to Emmaus. They talk Jesus reveals himself and thats that. Then Jesus went to others....I think that is the jist of what is necessary to see whats going on here..if not let me know and ill go more into detail

please, because i'm not following you. in luke after jesus appeared to the 2 men they went to tell the disciples and found them gathered *in jerusalem* and jesus appeared to them at that time:luke 24:36 (KJV) and AS THEY THUS SPAKE (*while* the two men were talking to the "eleven" IN jerusalem) jesus himself stood yadda yadda..there is no mention of the disciples going to gallilee at all in luke 24, or of jesus appearing to the disciples in jerusalem in matt 28 (must be a mistranslation of the greek in one or the other )

[Mattnxtc 0]

ur right crow..that was my bad...i was in a hurry to get it done before i had to head out and i didnt read it as clearly as i should have...i have time now so i will clarify it now

[Mattnxtc 0]

ok lets try this one more time...I rushed it before and missed a few verses and threw myself off on my train of thoughtThe short answer is that Jesus saw them in both placesLets start from the beginning again. Both stories are consistant on a few points...Jesus is resurrected..and the angel tells them to go tell the disciples to get ready to head to galilee....I think ull find that to be correct. Now what happens next is a bit more unclear but it is also very easy to see. The problem is still that it is very difficult to grasp the concept of time b/c we are reading words from people who werent nice enough to put dates or times for us. But lets use some logic in our assessment of the situation. What do we know? the disciples were in JerusalemOk so lets start with what happened...Mary goes and tells the disciples to go to galilee..As i established in the last post...galilee is roughly 80-100 miles away..So they start to get ready. Matthew of course wouldnt know about the visit on the Road to Emmaus b/c he would be in Jerusalem...But Matthew would have been well aware of what was going on with the Jews as we see. Next we come to the 2 on the Road to Emmaus...Now we know this is still the same day...and Jesus appears to them but they dont realize who He is. Well when He reveals Himself they immediately run to Jerusalem and tell the disciples. Jesus then appears to them all. Then what happens next? Jesus leaves them and goes elsewhere...But the disciples head to Galilee to meet back up with Jesus (this is to be expected since Jesus is on the earth for 40 days and the disciples were to be the carriers of christianity so we assume they met together several times). It should be clear up to this point....Now they get to Galilee and Matthew in 28:16 that "But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated." Now if u look at verse 10 u see that Jesus didnt designate anything to Mary....What does that tell you? That between the appearance to Mary and the disciples getting to Galilee, Jesus had to have appeared to the disciples to let them know where to go in Galilee...This brings us back to the meeting in Jerusalem as the likely time of this first meeting. Ur correct Luke doesnt mention Galilee but he specifically says there were other visits...Luke doesnt bother discussin the other 5 weeks for some reason...One can only assume why he didnt mention the other 5 weeks that Jesus was on earth. I assume he felt that the other Gospels did a good enough job of it that it wasnt necessary to also take up space writing what was already knownand then the 2 books match up very nicely...

[Mattnxtc 0]

not that i see the connection to what i was talking about - metaphysical events in the bible logically being potential fabrications, but this is a common christian cop out. "man cannot comprehend the ways of god". pretty useful generic explanation for anything that seems to contradict your belief. kinda pointless though since you can use it for any belief in any god.

again how does this relate? you were replying to a paragraph about whether biblical authors can necessarily be trusted to be accurate or not. that's all.i guess you must be saying we shouldn't expect god to work miracles today just because he supposedly did in biblical times(?) and i would counter by saying we shouldn't necessarily expect all biblical authors to be accurate in their accounts of miracles because it is human nature to want to embellish.if a creator exists i wouldn't expect to comprehend his motives. however it's pretty easy to make logical judgments about whether such a creator if he exists seems to currently be interested in our individual wellbeing or not.

Ok crow i was respnding to that not about whether the authos can be trusted as accurate..but nice try...As for ur second part...That to is biased as can be. Does God work miracles today? absolutely...should we expect them? we can but I wouldnt hold ur breath on it especially when we live in the USA. yes man can attempt to embellish things..but if i have seen something with my own eyes...you arent gonna convince me of something else...its common sense...Look at the sermons Peter gives in Acts...He repeatedly makes reference to the fact that the people in the audience saw Jesus...They saw his miracles.....U can claim the seahawks won the superbowl but we all saw it..we all know the Steelers actually where the winners...u couldnt convince us otherwise...same logic appliesThe third part is just ur pride showing through again. You claim that though u cant understand His motives, u can logically make judgements about His interest or lack of interest in us. Do u see how u just contradicted urself. You cant logically deduce anyting about a Being you dont know. You dont know Gods motives therefore if His motive is to help those He created then logically you can assume He would know our day to day actions...If His motives are different then maybe He isnt interested. But u cant make assumptions about something that u admit u dont know anything about. Didnt they teach u that in logic 101?

[crowTrobot 2]

The third part is just ur pride showing through again. You claim that though u cant understand His motives, u can logically make judgements about His interest or lack of interest in us. Do u see how u just contradicted urself.

no. you can only guess at what a creator's motives might be, but the fact that he doesn't seem to be interested in us believing in him (without brainwashing ourselves) is directly observable from the physical evidence we have available in the world today - apparent totally mechanistic evolution of both life on earth and the universe in general, lack of documentable metaphysical occurances, etc. if he cares that we believe in him, and the salvation of our souls is so critically on the line, why is the world this way? you can make all the excuses you want about the incomprehensibilitiy of his motives, but the logical conclusion is more simply that HE DOESN'T EXIST.

[crowTrobot 2]

The short answer is that Jesus saw them in both places

it doesn't say that in any of the four gospels. in fact apparently the angel at the tomb tells mary and company to tell the disciples "jesus goeth before you to galilee and there you will see him". that doesn't preclude jesus first appearing in jerusalem, but given that none of the gospels mention jesus appearing in both places it doesn't make any sense either. i see your omission explanation as contrived, when the more simple logical alternative is that the gospel authors are all writing their own personal non-first-hand versions of oral tradition.i'll let you slide on that one though it's just one of many. what about the sequence of events at the tomb itself? did mary and company (whoever that was) see the angel decend, freak out the guards, and roll the stone away, or were the guards already gone and the stone already rolled away when they got there?

[MDXS 0]

I haven't fogotten my upcoming post. I'm busy the next two days, so it'll probably be Sunday instead of tonight.

[Mattnxtc 0]

no. you can only guess at what a creator's motives might be, but the fact that he doesn't seem to be interested in us believing in him (without brainwashing ourselves) is directly observable from the physical evidence we have available in the world today - apparent totally mechanistic evolution of both life on earth and the universe in general, lack of documentable metaphysical occurances, etc. if he cares that we believe in him, and the salvation of our souls is so critically on the line, why is the world this way? you can make all the excuses you want about the incomprehensibilitiy of his motives, but the logical conclusion is more simply that HE DOESN'T EXIST.

um...are u serious? You think you can look at recent events and decide whether God has been here or not? If that is true then haha wow. Your like that poker player who plays every hand for a day and wins and thinks thats the best strategy...The truth is for to make this statement shows a level of ignorance I havent seen from u yet. You have no clue whether these events are necessary. People like u are so focused on the short term that u make fools of urself when it doesnt turn out that way in the long termRealy quick example of this. A guy was supposed to be watchin his baby while his wife was backin the car up...You can guess what happened next. There isnt much worse then watchin ur baby die. But from this disaster the guy turned to God for support quit his job in the business world and became a pastor. He now helps others deal with these tough decisions. They have a new family now but from that short term disaster came something better of in the long term.... If you really think u are capable of lookin at the grand scheme of things and deducing that there is no God then im not sure whats the point of any more conversation

[crowTrobot 2]

You have no clue whether these events are necessary. People like u are so focused on the short term that u make fools of urself when it doesnt turn out that way in the long term

i have no idea what you're talking about. what events? necessary for what? when what doesn't turn out what way?

Realy quick example of this. A guy was supposed to be watchin his baby while his wife was backin the car up...You can guess what happened next. There isnt much worse then watchin ur baby die. But from this disaster the guy turned to God for support quit his job in the business world and became a pastor. He now helps others deal with these tough decisions. They have a new family now but from that short term disaster came something better of in the long term

example of what? you've totally lost me. what does any of this have to do with evidence for god existence? an emotionially distrought person turning to christianity to fill a void isn't evidence of anything.

.... If you really think u are capable of lookin at the grand scheme of things and deducing that there is no God then im not sure whats the point of any more conversation

it is impossible to deduce that there is no generic universal creater, and i haven't been trying.however it is quite possible to deduce from objective logic and physical fact that the biblical christian version of god is 99.9999% likely to be a human-created fabrication. obviously there never was a point to this conversation in terms of you and me - this is for show on both our parts just in case anyone else happens to be reading this thread. i already pointed that out several pages ago.

[davezz5 0]

May I ask a poker playing Christian,when you flop a full-house do you whisper- 'praise be the Lord' and when you take a beat on the river mutter- 'tis the Devils work'. How do you believe God interacts with you and your daily life, and do you think being a christian makes you a better person and/or poker player?

[FullDeck 0]

Daniel I appreciate your post, and as a fellow poker player and Christian I appreciate it.Jesus is the Son of God and should be respected.That's all I have to sayJonathan Kerr

[Mattnxtc 0]

however it is quite possible to deduce from objective logic and physical fact that the biblical christian version of god is 99.9999% likely to be a human-created fabrication.

the sad part is ur probably really think this is trueThis does show a good point though...People like u will go to great lengths to think up intellectual was to avoid beleiving...usually b/c it makes it easier to continue to live the way you live. The hardest thing any person has to do is to lay down thier pride and realize that the life they lead just isnt good enough...nice try though

[crowTrobot 2]

This does show a good point though...People like u will go to great lengths to think up intellectual was to avoid beleiving...usually b/c it makes it easier to continue to live the way you live. The hardest thing any person has to do is to lay down thier pride and realize that the life they lead just isnt good enough...

more facts, less preaching.

[Mattnxtc 0]

more facts, less preaching.

shocking comment comin from a guy who doesnt show any facts at all...and yes this is something that has been studied...most poeple would rather not believe instead of give up something that is "important" to them....B/c getting drunk or having sex is just such a necessity these days

[crowTrobot 2]

...and yes this is something that has been studied...most poeple would rather not believe instead of give up something that is "important" to them....B/c getting drunk or having sex is just such a necessity these days

most? obviously the vast majority of people world-wide who don't believe in christianity don't either because they've decided there's no reason to, because christianity is not their cultural belief, because they've found some other belief to appease their insecurity and/or fill their emotional void and don't need christianity, or just due to general indifference. anyway you could say that anyone who feels there is a compelling reason to believe in christianity already does believe. whether they choose to ignore those reasons or not for the sake of lifestyle is irrelevant.if the "study" you are talking about is done by a neutral non-christian-biased source ( ) and you want to reference it i'd be happy to read about it.

[Mattnxtc 0]

most? obviously the vast majority of people world-wide who don't believe in christianity don't either because they've decided there's no reason to, because christianity is not their cultural belief, because they've found some other belief to appease their insecurity and/or fill their emotional void and don't need christianity, or just due to general indifference. anyway you could say that anyone who feels there is a compelling reason to believe in christianity already does believe. whether they choose to ignore those reasons or not for the sake of lifestyle is irrelevant.if the "study" you are talking about is done by a neutral non-christian-biased source ( ) and you want to reference it i'd be happy to read about it.

I was referring to americans...Yes there is a lot of the world that hasnt heard the full gospel yet but that is christians fault not theirs and if i have my way ill be out this summer to work in asia. And no u miss my point. What i was referring to was the fact that people (americans specifically) will hide behind some excuse. Take LMD for an example...He said he just wasnt ready to give up poker to be a christian so he didnt classify himself as one. It wasnt that he didnt believe it was that he didnt want to give up those things he was a "slave" to. We are all slaves to something...we all worship something...some choose to worship the temporary things..others choose the eternalAnd i dont have any specific cases to point to as the book i was reading didnt point to specific trials that had been done but that it was the overwhelming consensus. And of course it would be a christian doing the survey...why would a nonchristian company do a survey as to why people convert to christianity? Wouldnt make sense would it?

[Randy Reed 0]

Each of us, a cell of awarenessImperfect and incompleteGenetic blends, with uncertain endsOn a fortune hunt that's far to fleet

[crowTrobot 2]

Each of us, a cell of awarenessImperfect and incompleteGenetic blends, with uncertain endsOn a fortune hunt that's far to fleet

5 stars for quoting from an anti-theistic song that happens to also include a poker reference - "there are those who think that they've been dealt a losing hand, the cards are stacked against them.."

[Randy Reed 0]

Yeah, it was better than the Roll the Bones quote I had saved up anyway