disbelievers of God - Holy Quran & Holy Bible What Is The Main Difference Between Religions?

[miladinoski 1]

Einstein was NOT a theist as truefusion says in one of his replies in this thread. He may have believed in some god's concepts but he didn't proclaim himself nor atheist nor theist.

 

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

About.com

See, I believe in God, I pray to him and I believe he hears me and although by me he doesn't do anything about the problem, the sole praying makes me happier and satisfied and cleanses at least a bit from the hard thoughts that are on my mind when I pray to Him. I don't believe every single word in the Bible, I only believe in some of them which in my opinion are good advices and I follow them.

 

I think every person has a right to believe in what he wants and nobody I mean nobody should try to convert him (and if you try to force him, I think that if he's your friend he has to stop being that). You may only advise him once (I don't even do that) and if he doesn't follow you that's it — don't bother him anymore!

 

Also, I found great atheist resources at nobeliefs.com especially the Dark Bible from which I like truefusion to debunk some facts if it's possible. Especially these verses if possible:

God Condones Slavery

Happy To Kill Children

Women Shall Not Speak

Edited January 16, 2009 by miladinoski (see edit history)

[mahesh2k 0]

Einstein was NOT a theist as truefusion says in one of his replies in this thread. He may have believed in some god's concepts but he didn't proclaim himself nor atheist nor theist.

Yes. It's natural reaction of believers to portray science people in favor of the belief. It's useless to debate on this point as we already know how Priests in US threatened him when he sarcastically made fun using statement " God Doesn't play Dice". It was hard knock sarcasm. For this many priests offended for his statement and he has to apologize for that as well.

I think every person has a right to believe in what he wants and nobody I mean nobody should try to convert him (and if you try to force him, I think that if he's your friend he has to stop being that). You may only advise him once (I don't even do that) and if he doesn't follow you that's it ? don't bother him anymore!

True. If creator or God exists. Do you think he/She made differentiation before you born? like you should be Islamic, Christian, bud hist,atheist. theist, agnostic etc? If any religion is preaching something like that and writing something that is discriminating on basis of another religion, unbeliever,agnostic etc then that entire book has to be fallacy and in the favor of that religion and mere a tool for protecting insecurity. So debating for the sake of religion preaching itself shows the gaps and fallacy within that religion. God if exists don't require any faith protection plans per religion every square foot of human being.

[truefusion 3]

I'll run out of quote bbcode if i address this as i have been doing, so i'll take up the numbering system i normally use.

 

1. lol. No .i didn't assume your answer. but said when i asked you about flat and round argument. Your response was rather circular logic instead of accepting that we take shape for granted . And as for sun is bright example, isn't that obvious from question? You could have used another example cause that way it will be better argued how circular logic is presented usually from believers.

 

2. If BIBLE says such things then why Copernicus and Galileo were tortured in the name of religion and holy book? this is my question? so this is straight question, for which i don't want you to answer instead of saying every circle is not sphere type answer.

 

3. lol.Burden on me? I would say it burden on believer to protect their faith as they are the one's opposing science & other religions in the name of their religion and god. It's just that you try to repel it with circular logic.

 

4. Wars are bad for the next generations and for people whom survived in it. So calling this thinking that Sins exist is mere a wishful thinking forced with help of circular logic onto society. Sins are something which are like "you saw what you reap" idiom in society so if you're trying to prove in other words its mere an argument for sake of proving evil and heaven/hell. For those who kill or have hatred hold grudge than something you call committing sins. It's your perspective adopted from holy books.

 

5. I'm not talking about evil and all that. My point is bribing and slavery proves my point that religion manipulates people in the name of god. If you're not familiar with situation of Asia, then Rome around that continent to see how people are being trained to slaughter other people outside their religion. How debates are organized between multiple religions are carried out just for the sake of increasing number of followers in particular religion. Now tell me what's the productivity in this?

 

6..1 I already gave you proof that BIBLE is human written not written by God. Then how come that be applicable to all type of people like agnostics, atheist, raelians, theists? When one person writes book to protect his faith in that religion he defintely writes things that protects his faith and yes the verse i've pointed earlier is the proof that how thesit who wrote bible feel insecure about other people like agnostics, atheists etc.

6.2If he have understood god and have experience of his existence then he would have understood that such omnipotent creature have no offense from his own creations so worshiping him/her won't make any difference as he can control them isnt it? but BIBLE wasn't written by keeping this thing in mind instead it was written for Followers of perticular religion. Same holds true for quran, for that book all religions except that falls into kafir(unbeleivers) so you and i are kafirs for that religion. So when it comes to protecting their faith they'll slaughter in the name of religion. So now try to prove me which side is more insecure.

 

7. lol. Things which you reject with circular logic and expressing begging of question to those who give you reasons and say you choose to believ itself shows you leav in denial of truth and you think atheist live in denial?

 

8. Lost jobs for suggesting? Look at this debate. If i posted something that is against your belief you'll call me living in denial isn't it? People taking help of spirituality, rebirth and all concept are infecting science these days they're not showing productivity in science theories rather they come and stagnate at point that from this point creator exist, so how come that be entertained? Do you think spirituality can solve all the problems? And how can you say biology is having old-dated data? Oh you mean thats why they found blood group converter recently? How can one invent new things with outdated and old data ? i don;t mind saying old concepts on protein folding is outdated,yes it is. But there is reaserch going on by improving flaws in old data.

 

9. Yes. there is difference. when LHC was criticized when by religious followers around the world in the name of spirituality it showed the biggest difference that even though people wish to advance religion hold them back with old scientific data or from some verses/concepts in holy books.

[1] I don't understand your statement. You said i didn't accept that we take shape for granted, by my statements imply that we do. How else would i be able to say round doesn't necessarily mean spherical? As to my sun question: that was the point, to ask one of the most obvious questions that can ever be said, in order to prove a point. You said asking obvious questions brings things into circular logic. Perhaps you were using a definition of "circular" that is not commonly used or expected. Only way to clear this up is for you state what you mean by "circular."

 

[2] That's an easy burden and can be done away with one word: interpretations. St. Augustine, one of the early church fathers, in his book the Literal Meaning of Genesis^* speaks against those kinds of believers. Concerning your second question, you're going to have to tell me if it was your question. Did you intend a colon instead? Both characters are close to each other and require the shift key. But i seem to have answered your first question without referring to shape.

 

[3] Yes the burden is on you. When the people you talk about come here and start doing what you said, then you can tell them the burden of proof is on them. Until then, the burden of proof is still on you to light science on scripture so that you may prove your statement.

 

[4] The first sentence shows that war can be bad. Bad—you're still using a term that implies objective evil; however, you do away with the possibility of it being objective by stating what you stated. If there is no sin, if you can't reap what you sow, then wars cannot be in any way bad for next generations, for how would they therefore be able to reap what they sowed? Your argument is non-sequitur.

 

[5] It doesn't show religion does that, it shows people do that. Something i have said i don't deny plenty of times. Religion is metaphysical and unconscious—it can't act. Concerning debates, we're in the very same debate you speak of. Debates are productive in that they help provide insight and helps disclose things that are false.

 

[6.1] Heh, you didn't need to give me proof that the Bible was written by humans; what Christian doesn't know that? But that doesn't mean that it is therefore false, and it doesn't mean it wasn't inspired by God. If things being written by humans made things false, every science book in the world would therefore be false. Just because people do indeed write things to protect their faith like we are doing, it doesn't follow that that is the only reason why they (and we) wrote it, and it doesn't follow that that is one of the reasons they (and we) wrote it. It could be for promotional purposes. (I mean, are you insecure of what i'm saying, that's why you write what you wrote?) No need to even argue for their faith in these writings. It seems absurd that devotionals are written because the writers are insecure and seek to protect their faith rather than the many other reasons they could do it for. Begging the question doesn't show that you proved they wrote it for only the reasons you stated; false dichotomies don't prove that either.

 

[6.2] I'ma assume "he" here are the writers of the Bible. God can control them, but He doesn't eliminate freewill from people for no reason. But i don't understand your statement: why would God be offended for people worshipping Him? The Qur'an only says to end the life of those who previously believed and then disbelieved. If they commit an act that the Qur'an speaks against, the followers of Islam would be subject to the same hells as anyone else. I don't know if it is mentioned because of insecurity or not—i can't even validly prove that it is because of insecurities. All i can say is what i have already said in this topic: i have shown that the Biblical verse that "parallels" the Qur'an (accusation by the unbeliever) is taken out of context; that i am not a Muslim, so it is better off if they addressed the issue for their Qur'an; and that my faith is elsewhere.

 

[7] You are accusing that all my statements are circular (you've done this more than once, though). You've given yourself a heavy burden. I suppose it can be said you were in some ways attempting to prove that all my statements are circular. However, those attempts were fallacious—which you keep on repeating; then you tell me my statements are circular. If it can be said that my statements are in any way circular, it's because i have had to address your statements more than once, showing the same fallacy. And here you bring up another straw man: you accuse me of saying that i said atheists are in denial of truth. I said it can be seen that they live in denial because they choose to deny that which is impossible, for man is too ignorant to deny these things. This changes the definition of the word "denial" where it excludes any bad connotations; but you chose to assert that i said that atheists deny the truth.

 

[8] I didn't call you denial the way you took it as (assuming you're an atheist; i can't remember if you said you were), that would be another instance of the previous straw man you committed. But i do believe spirituality can solve problems; it can solve problems that science can't. I can understand stuff like god of the gaps, but a lot of the examples you give don't necessarily "infect" science. The word "science" means the study thereof. Place an adjective before it and you have a specific term for it rather than a general term—like "social science." Some words don't even include the word science but fall under the category—these tend to end in "ology." Anything can be a theory, especially in theoretical science. Many of these religions try to prove these theories in their own scripture. Anything that's a theory can be entertained. You bring up another straw man: i never said Biology has out-dated data, i said many of the biology books do. I don't mind if research is being done to find accurate truths, but if the information is old and inaccurate and it is being protrayed as if it is true, then toss out the books, or at least constantly point out what is now false.

 

[9] You've just avoided all the information and sources i gave out. How can you still say there is a difference? You're just adding to the list i added to. But you try to make it seem that when scientists do it, it's okay—which only supports my previous statements and shows your faith.

 

1. Einstein was NOT a theist as truefusion says in one of his replies in this thread. He may have believed in some god's concepts but he didn't proclaim himself nor atheist nor theist.

 

2.

About.com

3. See, I believe in God, I pray to him and I believe he hears me and although by me he doesn't do anything about the problem, the sole praying makes me happier and satisfied and cleanses at least a bit from the hard thoughts that are on my mind when I pray to Him. I don't believe every single word in the Bible, I only believe in some of them which in my opinion are good advices and I follow them.

 

4. I think every person has a right to believe in what he wants and nobody I mean nobody should try to convert him (and if you try to force him, I think that if he's your friend he has to stop being that). You may only advise him once (I don't even do that) and if he doesn't follow you that's it — don't bother him anymore!

 

5. Also, I found great atheist resources at nobeliefs.com especially the Dark Bible from which I like truefusion to debunk some facts if it's possible. Especially these verses if possible:

[1] Straw man: i never said he was a theist, i said he was a deist. These are two different things: the latter is inherently illogical. (Read my Xisto profile to understand why.)

 

[2] That quote is out-dated. That quote is most likely taken before he became a deist, which would be before he reached middle age or so. People can change their minds when they grow up. To prove it i'll give you two things you can look up: search:deism albert einstein and search:dinesh christopher hitchens (click on the video on YouTube). Even Christopher Hitchens admits Einstein was a deist. How can an atheist of his stature admit such a thing?

 

[3] M'ks.

 

[4] I'm not sure whether this is accusing me of something or not, or addressing the topic at hand, or something else. But i believe people do indeed have every right to believe what they want. The Bible shows similar in Ezekiel, the Gospels, etc. Indeed, if they choose to deny it, that's their choice. However, that doesn't mean i should allow falsehood concerning my religion (or any other religion if i knew it was false).

 

[5] Assuming they're facts as you say (though i find it weird that you are even showing me these things, since you claim you are a believer), i have already addressed the first one on one of my websites (link). (I think i've been to Dark Bible before.) Since i've seen these arguments before, it should be safe to assume that you are asserting the Bible promotes sin. Rather than attempting to address all these pages here (though if you want i can PM my rebuttals to you), i'll mention the irony of these arguments: Sin only exists if God exists; an atheist has to show these things are evil objectively. Objective morality is only possible with God, since the consequences are unavoidable. Anything moral where the consequences are avoidable is subjective, and you can't prove anything with subjectivity. Since God does not exist in the world of atheism, neither does objective "good" and "bad." Therefore it is fallicious to say that the Bible promotes evil. The arguments presented always run off of assumptions, the most common one being that the unbeliever is justified when they claim things are evil. Moral pluralism is the thing unbelievers also run off of, but for some reason they don't know it. It doesn't follow that because we don't like something, it is therefore evil and wrong. Take for example pain. Although some people like pain, the majority of poeple don't. Is pain therefore inherently evil? Or is it necessary for whatever it is necessary for? Therefore it is not the case that pain is evil, but rather that which causes the pain can be evil. But it wouldn't follow that that which causes pain is always evil. For example, popping a bone back into its socket. Does the person that popped the bone back into the socket become evil therefore? So pain and suffering is not the deciding factor on whether or not something is evil. A child could always argue that they suffer from the spanking they receive from their parent, whether it was one spank or several. I heard some humanists are trying to do away with spanking though discipline is required. Children can't reason on the same level as adults, therefore logic isn't going to prevent them from committing foolish acts. People commit foolish acts all the time. Many who have never been spanked in their lives have been arrested for committing crimes. Therefore sin is not entirely what we think it is. Therefore it cannot be argued that because we don't like something it is therefore wrong.

 

1. Yes. It's natural reaction of believers to portray science people in favor of the belief. It's useless to debate on this point as we already know how Priests in US threatened him when he sarcastically made fun using statement " God Doesn't play Dice". It was hard knock sarcasm. For this many priests offended for his statement and he has to apologize for that as well.

 

2. True. If creator or God exists. Do you think he/She made differentiation before you born? like you should be Islamic, Christian, bud hist,atheist. theist, agnostic etc? If any religion is preaching something like that and writing something that is discriminating on basis of another religion, unbeliever,agnostic etc then that entire book has to be fallacy and in the favor of that religion and mere a tool for protecting insecurity. So debating for the sake of religion preaching itself shows the gaps and fallacy within that religion. God if exists don't require any faith protection plans per religion every square foot of human being.

[1] You may click on the same links i gave miladinoski.

 

[2] Wanting God to be one way does not follow that because He turned out to be different He therefore does not exist. The case may be said that you want there to be more than one path to heaven so that unbelievers can argue against God if God were to place them elsewhere come Judgment Day. This is why you should stop arguing from insecurity: your very own statements can be seen as insecure if we use the very same logic you've been using to claim insecurity. By believing in a God that does not discriminate, you get rid of hell and consequences. Getting rid of hell and consequences, a more peaceful afterlife can come about it. It is a form of security therefore. So stop arguing from insecurity, for the same can be turned around.

[miladinoski 1]

[1] Straw man: i never said he was a theist, i said he was a deist. These are two different things: the latter is inherently illogical. (Read my Xisto profile to understand why.)

Well, sorry I didn't knew of the term of deism (though I know that people which believe in God solely exist) and I took your quote out of hands.

[2] That quote is out-dated. That quote is most likely taken before he became a deist, which would be before he reached middle age or so. People can change their minds when they grow up. To prove it i'll give you two things you can look up: search:deism albert einstein and search:dinesh christopher hitchens (click on the video on YouTube). Even Christopher Hitchens admits Einstein was a deist. How can an atheist of his stature admit such a thing?

If we trust the date of the quote (September 28 1949) it leaves us to only 5 years of the living of Albert Einstein, then I'd believe he was a deist if you supply me a quote from him from any period in between..

[3] M'ks.

What? I don't get what you're trying to say.

[4] I'm not sure whether this is accusing me of something or not, or addressing the topic at hand, or something else. But i believe people do indeed have every right to believe what they want. The Bible shows similar in Ezekiel, the Gospels, etc. Indeed, if they choose to deny it, that's their choice. However, that doesn't mean i should allow falsehood concerning my religion (or any other religion if i knew it was false).

Re-read it and you'll get who I am trying to accuse there. If you still don't get it, I'll address it in my next reply more elaborate.

[5] Assuming they're facts as you say (though i find it weird that you are even showing me these things, since you claim you are a believer), i have already addressed the first one on one of my websites (link). (I think i've been to Dark Bible before.) Since i've seen these arguments before, it should be safe to assume that you are asserting the Bible promotes sin. Rather than attempting to address all these pages here (though if you want i can PM my rebuttals to you), i'll mention the irony of these arguments: Sin only exists if God exists; an atheist has to show these things are evil objectively. Objective morality is only possible with God, since the consequences are unavoidable. Anything moral where the consequences are avoidable is subjective, and you can't prove anything with subjectivity. Since God does not exist in the world of atheism, neither does objective "good" and "bad." Therefore it is fallicious to say that the Bible promotes evil. The arguments presented always run off of assumptions, the most common one being that the unbeliever is justified when they claim things are evil. Moral pluralism is the thing unbelievers also run off of, but for some reason they don't know it. It doesn't follow that because we don't like something, it is therefore evil and wrong. Take for example pain. Although some people like pain, the majority of poeple don't. Is pain therefore inherently evil? Or is it necessary for whatever it is necessary for? Therefore it is not the case that pain is evil, but rather that which causes the pain can be evil. But it wouldn't follow that that which causes pain is always evil. For example, popping a bone back into its socket. Does the person that popped the bone back into the socket become evil therefore? So pain and suffering is not the deciding factor on whether or not something is evil. A child could always argue that they suffer from the spanking they receive from their parent, whether it was one spank or several. I heard some humanists are trying to do away with spanking though discipline is required. Children can't reason on the same level as adults, therefore logic isn't going to prevent them from committing foolish acts. People commit foolish acts all the time. Many who have never been spanked in their lives have been arrested for committing crimes. Therefore sin is not entirely what we think it is. Therefore it cannot be argued that because we don't like something it is therefore wrong.

I read your Christian Debaters Handbook. It's really good in some aspects and I'll try to use it when I debate. But I still don't get this. God is omnipotent and omniscient and all the stuff like that you surely know. Before he created people and animals and nature, he KNEW that we WILL sin. Why did he create us? If he gave us free choice he knew what would happen and he knew that we will still fight over religion and atheism and make wars and people will get killed — simply said, he knew the consequences, then why did he made us? Why did he create the apple tree if he knew all of that? Even if Adam didn't try the apple how long and how many generations would have to pass (by you) for anyone to make the sin? Did he want Adam and Eve to be thrown away from the heaven?

 

Also I looked for debunking the links and quotes from the bible I told you. I didn't say that the Bible was evil. I said I don't trust every word in it. And I wanted explanation because I wanted to know how can I act if someone attacks the bible and me as a believer not to attack you. I'm terribly sorry but because from the false opinion you got from my previous statement — I won't comment on anything that is stroken-trough because I may get too false impressions about you too.

 

About the slavery you say this:

How were slaves long ago treated in the U.S. when they didn't please their master? Were they not beaten and punished even to the point where they lost body parts? What does the Bible say if such were to happen? As we see in the Exodus, chapter 21, verses 20, 26 and 27, even the master can be punished and the slave is to be released if the master goes too far. Surely this isn't the kind of slavery that countries have banned.

Why did God approve ANY form of slavery? Define too far in the first century and compare it to now. Do you think it's the same?

 

How can you believe that the Bible has been kept in its original form for all these years and the first people couldn't even seclude away from the tree which would be a simple task. You'll say that the serpent told them. How can the serpent speak? If you say that the serpent was the Satan speaking, how and why did God allow the devil to enter the heaven? He most assuredly knew the consequences of that. If the Satan was an angel at the begging, we go again with the fact that God knew that he will let him down.

 

So if he somehow slipped away that entering of the heaven by the angel which he didn't knew that'll betray him (which by his omnipotence is impossible) means he's not powerful as we think he is and he can again not see that the Bible together with his words would change.

 

No, I'm not spreading FUD I'm just speaking the things which are on my mind about the Bible right now. Oh and please note that I'm 16 and you may find stupid things and contradictions in my statements, so please take into mind that I'm confused (and not how South Park depicts the 'confusion' in one of its episodes) :P

 

Also, this is just out of curiosity too. Can you give me other written proof except the Bible that a man with special powers who was crucified and later resurrected himself in the first century (i.e. Jesus)? I really want more info on this.

[truefusion 3]

If we trust the date of the quote (September 28 1949) it leaves us to only 5 years of the living of Albert Einstein, then I'd believe he was a deist if you supply me a quote from him from any period in between..

Okay, i was wrong, it wasn't only after—it was during and before as well, that he was a deist. Re-read the quote you provided by Albert Einstein. He isn't condemning impersonal gods, only personal gods. So it isn't childish for him to believe in an impersonal god. Read numbers 2 and 3 (number three is dated 1954): http://atheism.about.com/od/ Practically all of his statements wherever a personal god is mentioned either implicitly or explicitly refers to the Biblical God and he speaks against. But when an impersonal god comes in, it's accepted.

 

What? I don't get what you're trying to say.

I don't really mean to say anything with that. I just understand your position.

 

Re-read it and you'll get who I am trying to accuse there. If you still don't get it, I'll address it in my next reply more elaborate.

If i assume "you" is plural, then you're not accusing any one, just speaking against an act, therefore it's on something else. I have reason to believe it's plural—it's also the better choice out of the others.

 

I read your Christian Debaters Handbook. It's really good in some aspects and I'll try to use it when I debate. But I still don't get this. God is omnipotent and omniscient and all the stuff like that you surely know. Before he created people and animals and nature, he KNEW that we WILL sin. Why did he create us? If he gave us free choice he knew what would happen and he knew that we will still fight over religion and atheism and make wars and people will get killed — simply said, he knew the consequences, then why did he made us? Why did he create the apple tree if he knew all of that? Even if Adam didn't try the apple how long and how many generations would have to pass (by you) for anyone to make the sin? Did he want Adam and Eve to be thrown away from the heaven?

(I should update that handbook some time...) I don't know why He created us. Yet He says our sinful ways trouble Him deeply. I don't know why He would put Himself through that either. The Bible isn't always clear on purpose or God's thoughts and ways (though things become more clear the more you read). I've seen this statement before and it's hard to explain away. I wouldn't say that just 'cause He allowed it to happen means He wanted it to happen, or else why would He grieve about it? Thanks to the Book of Exodus, Deuteronomy, and 1 Samuel, we understand that God has standards that He follows before He takes away freewill. The most apparent one which is found both in Exodus and 1 Samuel is that the person must first decide the path themselves. This is also reflected in the New Testament in one of (or some of) Paul's writings.

 

(Concerning Adam and Eve in heaven: the Garden of Eden was not planted in Heaven.)

 

Also I looked for debunking the links and quotes from the bible I told you. I didn't say that the Bible was evil. I said I don't trust every word in it. And I wanted explanation because I wanted to know how can I act if someone attacks the bible and me as a believer not to attack you. I'm terribly sorry but because from the false opinion you got from my previous statement — I won't comment on anything that is stroken-trough because I may get too false impressions about you too.

I see.

 

Why did God approve ANY form of slavery? Define too far in the first century and compare it to now. Do you think it's the same?

I can't say He approved all forms of slavery, i can only say He approved the one He set up laws for. If i compare it to now, where do i look? If slavery is still going on today, and it's not being done according to the Biblical laws, then i can't say He approves of it. "Too far," i suppose, would be causing damage that causes the receiver to lose something irreplaceable. Every consequence has their own degree of punishment. I don't know how slaves were punished in the first century, but i wouldn't be surprised if the slaves in the slavery known in American history were begging to be released on the seventh year.

 

How can you believe that the Bible has been kept in its original form for all these years and the first people couldn't even seclude away from the tree which would be a simple task. You'll say that the serpent told them. How can the serpent speak? If you say that the serpent was the Satan speaking, how and why did God allow the devil to enter the heaven? He most assuredly knew the consequences of that. If the Satan was an angel at the begging, we go again with the fact that God knew that he will let him down.

 

So if he somehow slipped away that entering of the heaven by the angel which he didn't knew that'll betray him (which by his omnipotence is impossible) means he's not powerful as we think he is and he can again not see that the Bible together with his words would change.

We don't have just one copy of Scripture, we have several. Scholars not only compare and contrast, they also use other verses to verify the integrity and meaning of the text. Third party sources are references of the Bible from early church fathers. They would often quote the verses in their writings. Human errors in the text were found and corrected based on other findings of scripture (like the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc). But the ones that were found aren't significant enough to deny the existence of God and the Biblical events. It also showed that if there are still some insignificant ones, it was due to mere copy mistakes. Concerning the act of Adam and Eve, even people today fail to do simple tasks. Concerning Satan entering Heaven, he didn't. The Garden of Eden wasn't planted in Heaven, it was planted somewhere in the East of the earth. Satan didn't get by any security, he just needed a disguise so Eve can't say, "Say, aren't you the devil?" I only know of one Abrahamic religion that says the Garden of Eden was in Heaven, but it's not Judaism or Christianity.

 

No, I'm not spreading FUD I'm just speaking the things which are on my mind about the Bible right now. Oh and please note that I'm 16 and you may find stupid things and contradictions in my statements, so please take into mind that I'm confused (and not how South Park depicts the 'confusion' in one of its episodes) :P

M'ks. But i have no idea how South Park treats the word "confusion."

 

Also, this is just out of curiosity too. Can you give me other written proof except the Bible that a man with special powers who was crucified and later resurrected himself in the first century (i.e. Jesus)? I really want more info on this.

Outside of the Bible there are Apocryphas which mention Christ's death and resurrection. However, the majority of these are of Gnostic Christian origin and therefore are not trustworthy. You can tell they're of Gnostic origin when you see the word "sophia" (since they tend to use this flawed form of logic), when it talks about actual multiple gods (i.e. not false gods) existing, and just things that sound paganistic. You're not bound to find any references within secular history sources. Bibles were taken out of public schools a long time ago in the US.

[dre 0]

We don't have just one copy of Scripture, we have several

That's an understatement - we have many, many manuscripts with an agreement rate of well over 99%. Edited January 17, 2009 by dre (see edit history)