secondeve

Nice idea, Josh. I'll give it a go! 1. What is a Christian? A Christian is someone who essentially believes in the Nicene Creed, who believes the Bible is the inerrant and holy word of God, and who has a living relationship with Christ Jesus. 2. What is having a personal relationship with Christ? A personal relationship with Christ is carrying out one's life in consultation with God, according to God's will, in which the person actively seeks to know God's will and God's plan with regard to them and others, to walk as closely with the Lord as is possible, and to know him and love him in all things. 3. Why is it important for Christians to stay away from sin? Sin should be avoided not only because it is the downfall of man and the work of the Devil, but beause the appearance of sin is just as deadly - that is, if one cannot actively be seen to be distant from sin, then even if it is present but being resisted, it is tempting a slippery slope. Sin is ungodly and no part of God's plan for us; therefore, by not avoiding sin or by coexisting with sin or the potential of it, Christians are not letting God's plan for them unfold. 4. What is the importance of prayer? The Bible enjoins mankind to pray in order to beseech God to reward his children and intercede in their troubles. The Bible says that God will know the devotion of man through the strength and sincerity of their prayer, and that those who truly believe will be rewarded for it. 5. Why is the bible important to Christians? The Bible is the holy, inerrant, living word of God and is his codex for how mankind should live; it is a source of guidance for his will, a reminder of his plan, and the history of God's interaction with his creation. 6. Describe God from a Christians mind. Alpha and omega, beginning and end; Father, Son and Spirirt - the holy trinity; holy, just and merciful; incredible in his goodness and awesome in his power - beyond real human comprehension but deserving of absolute gratitude. 7. What is the importance of humility in a Christians life? Humility is the path which God has ordained that man will walk; if we are not humble, then we do not know God, because if you did know God and all his power, how could you lay any claim to pride? 8. What does it mean to hear Gods voice? Not a describeable experience. To hear a voice, like an actual presence, in a dream, in prayer or thought, to feel a strong compunction to obey; to know, beyond doubt, that a path has been chosen for you and that doing what the voice says is unerringly the right thing, even if, because we are human, we don't always listen. 9. Explain the deity of Christ in a Christian perspective Christ is God and the son of God, who ascended to heaven to His right hand after rising from the dead on Calvary; he completes the trinity and is both God and Jesus, who walked as a man. 10. What are the purpose of trials in a Christians life? To build strength of faith, strength of character; to better understand the will of God; to enable God's plan for a person to unfold; to bring the person closer to God; to bring a better understanding and a deeper faith. 11. Why do we need a saviour? Without a saviour, we are doomed to hell, born sinful since the Fall, inherently requiring of redemption, which is bought by the blood of the lamb; if not for Christ, mankind could never redeem themselves enough of sin to earn a place in heaven- and even with a saviour, we are still sinful, but have been forgiven and granted an ultimate redemption out of love and sacrifice. 12. What does the Holy Spirit do for us? The Holy Spirirt guides us and is a source of good works; Christians bear the fruit of the spirit when they do good deeds and thereby demonstrate that they are walking with the Lord.

I tend to give Christians the benefit of the doubt. What "actual evidence" are you talking about? Ah...the "actual evidence" of the Christian Crusaders themselves and their personal chroniclers recording the pogroms, cannibalism, the in-fighting, battle tactics (i.e. catapaulting severed heads over the walls at Nicea, for example) et al. Here's a quote from a Christian during the period: 'I know not whether by a judgement of the Lord, or by some error of mind, they rose in a spirit of cruelty against the Jewish people scattered throughout these cities and slaughtered them without mercy...asserting it to be the beginning of their expidition to Jerusalem and their duty against the enemies of the Christian faith.' I'd say it's the other way around. People as individuals can do good deeds; but mobs and armies (often a fine line between them, in those days) can do terrible things, even if they are otherwise composed of reasonable people. Actaully, yes. I've studied the Torah at university as well as the history of Islam, Arabic as a language and the Middle Ages. I read a lot, too.

Neither can you, but you're running the line that they were a lot more noble than the actual evidence claims they are. How much reading have you done on the topic, anyway?

This is only half true. In the months prior to the Crusades, a contingent of Orthodox Christians did come to the Pope and ask for help against the Muslims; however, there was no war with Islam at that time, no centralised overarching Muslim power in the Middle East, and most importantly, the Pope didn't agree right away - at the time, there was a schism (the Great Separation) between the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Latin Papacy. As for the Muslims taking control of Syria etc, that didn't actually happen just prior to the Crusades - it had happened years earlier, so the Crusaders weren't mobilised in direct response to it. You should also note, Giaour, the Jewish pogroms which went on throughout the Crusade - in Worms, for instance, Jewish families were hunted down and killed; mutliple reports - written by the Crusaders themselves - talk of babies being killed or imapled on swords. Once they reached Byzantium, the First Crusaders swore an oath to Alexius Comnenus, the emperor, to return territories to him which had once beloned to the old Roman empire - in practice, once Antioch was captured, the Latin princes fought among themselves for possession of it, and there's evidence to suggest that at least two of them, Bohemond and Raymond of Tolouse, had set out with the intention of capturing territory in the area for themselves, not for the Emperor. I have never claimed the Pope was vindictive or bloodthirsty. And yes, there were large numbers of Armenian Christians living under Muslim rule, who came out to help the Crusaders. But I think it's utterly prejudiced and partisan to claim that the Crusaders were 'strictly defensive' with only noble goals - in line with warfare of the age, note the decapitating of prisoners and the catapaulting of enemy heads into towns they were sieging, the rape and murder of women, the cannibalism at Marrat An-Numan, where a shortage of food caused many to start eating the Saracen dead, the complete and utter ransack of various cities, the squabbling over plunder and the breaking of the oath to Alexius, and most importantly, the pogroms against the Jews. One thing that cannot be said about the Crusades is that the Crusaders were only 'defensive.' They were, at times, brutal, greedy, viscious and cruel.

There was more tahn one Crusade, Billie, and not all were successful. Jerusalem was won and lost more than once. It was lost quite notably in the time of Saladin and Richard the Lionheart - the time when the film Kingdom of Heaven is set, if you've seen it, and also Robin Hood. I think that was the Third Crusade. There were always losses, but some big successes, too - but overall, it was a brutal period. What's interesting with the First Crusade is that it really is religiously motivated. There was a surge of popular support after Pope urban went on a preaching tour, and the main attractiveness of the Crusade was that in those days, the idea of sin was really poorly understood - war for the nobles was demanded, but the Bible spoke against it, and so society had an obsession with whether or not they were cleansed of their sins. The Pope promised that everyone who went on the Crusade would be absolved of all sins, and the rush of people was so great that prior to the main Crusade, a People's Crusade (with some nobles, but none of the main princes) went ahead, essentially on a massive pogrom - Jews acrosss Europe were slaughtered, entire towns largely destroyed (such as Worms), and atrocities committed on the strength of religious fervour - so when the main body of the Crusade trod the same path later, they found a lot of people reluctant to treat with them or grant them passage, because of all the destruction that had come before. I'll agree to that wholeheartedly.

I'm reading a really amazing book at the moment called The First Crusade: A New History - it's byThomas Asbridge. In essence, it's a very well-written blow-by-blow account of the First Crusade, drawing information about events and the protagonists from sources written by eye-witnesses, participants or commentators just after the period, mainly Franks (Europeans), but also a few Arab sources. It's highly praised as a sort of new definitive work on the First Crusade, and I reccomend it to anyone interested in the period. Anyway, though - something that's really struck me throughout the book just far is the extent to which the Franks saw the hand of God in what they were doing. There was an aurora in the sky at one point and a comet at another; both were seen as signs of heavenly approval at the Crusade. A man called Peter Bartholomew came forward after the capture of Antioch and claimed to have been recieving visions from St Peter as to the resting place of the Holy Lance; a metal spearhead was dug up, but Bishop Adhemar le Puy, the spiritual head of the contingent, doubted its verity, not in the lease because another 'Holy Lance' was already enshrined as a relic back in Byzantium by the Orthodox Church. But after Adhemar died, Peter Bartholomew claimed to have visions from the Bishop, who recanted in death and said that the Lance was real, that he'd been punished in hell for doubting, and that incidentally, he thought it was best that the crusaders throw their support behind Peter Bartholomew's patron, Raymond of Tolouse. Along with this, there were other events taken as signs of godly displeasure, such as outbreaks of disease or loss in battle, whereas the victory against Kerborgha and the Muslim forces was seen as being the work of God, and several witnesses claimed in their accounts that, through various means, God had actually increased the number of men in their army; one description talks about white horses and valiant horsemen riding down from Mt Silpius to join the fight and then vanishing again. What, for me, is so interesting about this is the fact that pretty much every Christian I've spoken to on Worthy holds the position that the Crusaders weren't actually Christian, because of the atrocities they committed (the rape and murder at Nicea, the pogroms against the Jews, the sack of Antioch and the cannibalism at Marrat An-Namun, for instance). Clearly, though, the Crusaders believed they were fighting for God, to the extent of reading divine approval or disapproval into many good or bad occurences. Ultimately, though, the Crusaders did reach Jerusalem; they weren't prevented from acting in God's name by any divine hindrance, and believed wholeheartedly that their mission was sanctioned and blessed by Christ. So what I'm wondering is: why did God allow the Crusaders to succede, to all intents and purposes in his name (however wrongly), if they actually weren't Christian? But if God was supporting the Crusaders and this is why they reached Jerusalem, why was there so much unchecked barbarity in the process?

That's very interesting...considering an atheists point of view is fairly ruthless and dog eat dog..everyones on their own and it's a life without True validation. Wouldn't a goodwill 'wish' be utterly useless because it falls on deaf ears?........Well, obviously not, as I KNOW and deep down you must HOPE as well ..as you write...'JUST IN CASE SOMEONE IS LISTENING'..... That someone doesn't have to be the Christian god - if I anthropomorphise at all, I tend to think of Luck. I don't think my worldview is ruthless, and I do spare a thought for friends. Call it hoping, then - I hope that good things will befall them.

Well, just to throw in an athiestic perspective, there have been times when I've had an epiphany or reached a conclusion about things that were blocking or bothering me, or times when odd things have happened, but in all of that, I've never had a sense that any of it was the work of any kind of god, even when I was a kid. The only other thing I have to add is that, without being religious, I do 'pray,' in a sense - perhaps this is better termed wishing. If I want something good to happen to someone, I tend to think 'please let this happen,' but I don't have anyone in mind that I'm asking - it's just a goodwill-wish - just in case anyone's listening, be it luck, the universe or whoever . Apparently, my father does this every night - he goes through a list of people in his head and thinks what good thinks he'd like to have happen to them, and that way falls asleep.

Well to be honest your response did not address the substance of my original remarks. My response was designed to further clarify what you missed. You did not repsond to my actual argument, so I offered further clarification. Since you took my remarks far afield, from the point I was making, I felt it best to respond in the manner that I did. My apologies for any confusion. Let's start from the beginning again, shall we? You asserted that the Bible could not have been written by man. Your original statement about why this was so was quite brief, and so I misconstrued your argument. You have subsequently clarified your point, but even in light of this, I feel that my point about salvation, although it was not actually in response to your beliefs, can stand on its own as a separate argument for how the Bible might have been generated by man. In brief, my view is this: that in terms of defining mankind as weak and sinful while still offering a chance at heaven - regardless of whether or not this is achieved by God's grace or man's effort - the Bible follows the same pattern as all other religions, namely: belief and adherence to a set way of life and in a given set of mores ensures happiness after death, while disobedience results in a less positive outcome. Although Christianity is not the same as any other specific religion, neither are any other two religions identical: each has its own, singular definining characteristics despite the reocurrence of similar themes with regards (for instance) to mythology, worship and morals. Therefore, I reject the idea that Christianity's individuality as a faith is proof of its divine authorship when arguably its most important characteristic of sin and redemption (as defined above) are in line with the pattern of all other religions. I would further argue that where Christianity is unique or different, the signifance of these differences as might relate to Biblical truth is wholly subjective, and is largely argued by Christians because, to them, the significance is already apparent, whereas to others, the significance is not automatically obvious: it is therefore reasonable to conclude that the significance and potential truth is something imposed on the ideas by the individual, rather than being innate. For all these reasons, I submit that - regardless of whether or not this is true - it is possible, as was the original conjecture, that the Bible could have been written by man without divine inspiration, interference or ultimate authorship.

No that is not the point I am attempting to make. The point is not that the Bible sees humans as more sinful, but rather that the Bible says that man is helpless to do anything about it. The Bible teaches that man cannot improve himself enough to be acceptable to God all on his own. Most other religions I am familiar with, offer a path to enlightenment, or teach that spirituality is a personal journey of growth and discovery and so forth. The idea being that other religions while they see the problem offer a solution that involves man ridding himself of his own personal evil. The Bible doesn't offer any such thing. It is the Bible's teaching on the utter hopelessness and futility of man's "goodness" attempts at spirituality that set it apart. The Bible teaches that God and God alone is possesses all the of the answers to need of the human heart, than no other religion does. The difference is that the Bible does not offer "religion" as the answer. The Bible offers the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross as the answer to the sin problem. Something that even Paul acknowledged is considered "foolishness" by the rest of the world. It makes all the difference in the world. Motive is everything. The Bible makes teaches that the law was given that the trespass would increase. The commandments were not given as path to enlightenment or self discovery. They were not given to make you better, but to show you where you don't measure up. What your missing is that it doesn't matter how good you are, without Christ, the Bible teaches that your heart is still coal black because of sin. You could be another Mother Teresa, but if you don't know Jesus, it doesn't matter. It is the condition of the heart that the commandments speak to. If humans would have written the Bible, the Torah would have been cast as a means of reaching God, but it isn't. The Law was given to try and get men to look at their need for a savior. No matter how good they are their goodness is tainted by the sinfulness of their heart. What the Bible teaches about sin is unique since the God revealed in the Bible rejects man's attempts to reach him. Rather it is about God reaching down to man. In the Bible, God offers himself as the solution to man's sin problem. He offers to die for man so that man can be free. God identifies the problem, and identifies man helpless to do anything about it, and then gives Himself as the solution. God is not obligated to accept and does not even want man's righteousness. While other religions teach that the path to salvation (however they define that concept) is reached through good deeds, self sacrifice, etc. The Bible teaches that salvation is a work of God alone. He does not share the credit. In other religions, there is an ambiguous search for truth, they are all out looking for truth. In the Bible, you don't have to look for the truth. Truth comes looking for you. I'll respond to all of this when you respond to my actual argument, which was about salvation. The original point in question was whether or not humans could, concievably, have come up with the ideas presented in the Bible, and I'm arguing that this is possible if you look at the Bible in the context of salvation. These are interesting points, but they don't actually debunk or address in any way the main thrust of my position.

I know the point you're attempting to make here - that because the Bible arguably sees humans as being more sinful and wretched than any other faith, this perception couldn't have been generated by humans. The fact of the matter is that the idea of human failings and evils is not exclusively Christian - and even if there was a consensus on the idea that the Biblical perception of humanity's faults was the most extreme and unforgiving (although I doubt this to be the case), it still wouldn't prove anything except that one religion had taken a common theme to a different level. The most important point here, though, is the idea of salvation. Such a dark view of Christianity as you've described can and does work as a human construction precisely because of the element of redemption offered by belief. If you can teach that humans really are corrupt at the same time as providing a ray of hope, you've got yourself a mixture for success shared by every religion: the idea that devotion and belief alone will save you. If the hope of heaven is there, then the potentates of the faith can pretty much say what they like about how weak, viscious, damned and otherwise lowly humans are - it only helps their cause, which is getting people to obey and believe. In this respect, it isn't a coincidence that throughout history, religious power has equated to social power. Look at it this way: religion couldn't command any authority if it couldn't convince people, in some fashion, form or extremity, that they needed it. If religion taught that humans were all born as wonderful lambs of goodness and were capable of getting themselves into heaven without any official doctrine, code or other structure, there'd be little point to it. As it is, and as I said before, it doesn't take a genius to work out that humans are capable of terrible things. All you have to do to capitalise on it is say that this wickedness is inherent rather than learned in ever instance, and that people need to do what you say (and incidentally, follow your rules, give money to your institutions and elevate your status) if they want to survive. It's no surprise that all religions focus on the afterlife as the time of these rewards being delivered, either - trying to claim that it would happen in this world is clearly not a pragmatic or true statement in any case, and because we don't know what happens next, all humans tend to fear death. The point I am making: it doesn't matter that Christianity says humans are sinful to any extreme, because they can still be saved. No matter how exclusive the club, it still provides hope, and is therefore no proof whatever that humans didn't come up with the idea. Why does the different purpose of the commandments matter? What we're trying to establish here is whether or not man could have come up with the idea. And as I've just said above, there is still hope of salvation. So the Bible can say all it wants about wickedness - humans could still have written it. If you are going to give people laws which give you power, you need to give people a reason why they need to behave. And if that reason is getting into heaven and avoiding hell - well! The worse you make people out to be, the more they need the religion for their only chance at survival. It makes sense - human sense. It doesn't need to be divine in order to work. So I say, it's not impossible for man to have written the Bible.

I don't think you can actually back this up. More religions than Christianity have claimed that man is inherently flawed - in fact, I can think of several ancient myths offhand in which the world starts out as perfect but in which the error of man brings death and suffering. There's a West Indian creation myth, an African one, Pandora's Box - it really doesn't take a genius to work out that human beings aren't perfect, and so to say that a religion must be divinely authored because it points this out seems wildly sensational, not to say unfounded. If you're talking about the fact that people would never have invented the Bible because of the restrictions it imposes on mankind or the standard it provides to live up to, that still isn't uniquely Christian. The Ancient Egyptians believed that all human deeds would be weighed in the afterlife - good people went to heaven, while the wicked had their souls devoured by the monster Amamut. Islam is also a good example of humans coming up with difficult restrictions to place on themselves - Muslims are called to prayer five times a day, but only after Muhammad bargained with Allah, saying that the original number of times, something like thirty, was too many for his poor servants. Also think here of the ancient Mayan religion, which believed that the gods required blood in order for the sun to come up. Victims were taken from every caste of that society - which is hardly in people's interests - and yet humans came up with that religion, too. Or consider Moloch and the killing of children; or the incredible complexities of Hindu castes. To me, these are on par with the 'why would humans invent such laws for themselves' question as the example of the Mosaic law in Torah. The point I'm making is, human beings could certainly have invented the Bible, and human nature could most certainly have produced it.

HEYOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! I certainly agree with this statement. Now here comes the "What if Christianity is right and you end up in hell?" shpill..... In which case, I'll leap in in advance. What if the ancient Greeks were right? What if Judaism, Islam or Zoroastriansim is right? If there is a god/s, then the odds aren't in anybody's favour of having picked the right one - whereas athiesm offers a 50% chance of being right. Which, by the way, isn't why I'm an athiest. I'm just trying to say that a lot of Christians ask this question as though the 50-50 probable split were between Christianity and athiesm, when it isn't, or as if this were a question which seriously plagued the majority of athiests. It isn't. Athiesm doesn't doubt the existence of just one god, after all - it doubts the existence of any and all. If we're wrong and somebody else is right, it really doesn't matter if that somebody is Christianity or the ancient Egyptians: we won't know until we're dead, and as there's no possible way to hedge your bets and believe in everything to be on the safe side, it seems kind of odd to worry about a specific hell or afterlife, as opposed to the more generic uncertainty of what happens. After all, not every religion has a hell. Anyway, in conclusion, I think it's about as pertinent a question to reasons for belief as asking a Christian 'what if Islam is right and you end up in hell.' If they don't worry about that, then why should I? And why, for that matter, should any of us?

I see this as a kind of Catch 22. If God exists, he would do so even without the Bible. On the other hand, the Bible is the only means of 'proving' that God exists in the first place, so without the Bible, there's no reason to believe he exists, even if he does. But then again, my belief has been for some time that if there is an all-powerful deity/s, it would be far more likely that all human religions had got it wrong than that one had somehow miraculously got it right - and that even if one had got it right, there would be no actual way of knowing (or of proving) that this was the case. In which instance, if you were choosing your beliefs based purely on odds, athiesm is 50/50 - right or wrong - whereas any other religion is, in the case of a deity/s existing, one in the number of human religions which have ever existed.

I see what you're asking: if God still exists, is he weakened by the fallability of the Bible, or is he still God?

In another Apologetics thread started by emeraldgirl, I was just reading a side-debate between systemstrike7 and Floatingaxe. The argument was about the infallable word of God, and whether or not it actually is infallable: systemstrike7 said no, whileFloatingaxe said yes. The debate is an old one. If you have faith, then God's word is perfect, regardless of the imperfection of its human scribes - a perfect, all-powerful being would permit no corruption or falsity to enter the Bible. On the other hand, it can seem to some that the Bible is not a perfect book - seemingly contradictory ideas appear, and entire sections and stories are told twice, often with differences in the telling. If the person believes in God, this leads to the suspicion that human error has, in places, clouded the word - but this is a dangerous belief, as it imperils the idea of faith: if there is any human falsehood at all in the Bible, and if no means exists to separate this from the divine word, then how can any of it be trusted, if it is all potentially incorrect? But in the debate, systemstrike7 asserted that he wanted to keep asking questions. Floatingaxe assured him that this was still possible at the same time as putting faith in the Bible's infallability - but I'm not sure this is the case. If I am reviewing the actions of the accused in a murder trial in order to establish the likelihood of their guilt or innocence, I must be as impartial as possible. If I have already reached the conclusion that the accused is guilty, then I will read the evidence in that context: no matter how stretched my reasoning becomes at times, I will be looking for a certain outcome. Even if I were voicing questions, I would not necessarily be asking them - because I would already have assumed the answer. Systemstrike7 was talking about questions in the context of asking about the fallability or infallability of the Bible. If he were to do this from a position of faith, he would be prejudicing his outcome - either that, or asking a completely different question. From a position of faith, it would not be possible for him to ask 'is this fallable' - instead, he would be asking, 'how is it that this seems fallable,' which is entirely different. Similarly, in the murder trial example, if I already believe the accused to be guilty, then I am not asking of the evidence, 'is this person innocent,' - I am asking 'how is it that this person seems innocent.' So, my question is: If certain truths are presumed to be divinely infallable - which is, I think, distinct from being scientifically infallable - beyond the ability for their truth to be questioned, then can it actually be said that these questions are being asked? Or is the only question ever for an explanation which can more readily confirm the existing worldview?

This is a question I think Runner's High is better equipped to answer than me. From my own knowledge, I'd say there isn't actually scientific evidence per se which supports ID - the case for it is constructed largely around criticism of evidence for evolution and by pointing out a lack of knowledge in other areas. As a theory, I don't think it was ever constructed for its own merits so much as to constitute a direct attack on evolution - I mention this because the parameters which define it are more about discrediting another field than trying, through scientific evidence, to establish an alternate theory. As for strata dating, I think they check the age of the rock plus its position in the layers, and then check those with the age of the bones - but that's just my guess. Just wondering because I've looked around on "other ways to date objects" Carbon 4 methods cannot measure a million years, and for other methods, I havn't found any, I have seen strata layers dated by the fossils in the layer, and I've seen fossils based off the strata layers. Theres a book I think you should check out, it's called the genises floodby john c. whitcomb, and henry M moris, it had a thing about the footprints, It's funny how the dinosaur footprints where found real, some footprints where discredited, and some where interprited to go along with evolution, there was no valid evidence to discredit any of them. one interesting fact is that the majority where around 15 inches long, In Genises it makes mention that giants walked the earth. After looking at both sides, I saw evidence supporting the footprints, and the only evidence disproving them where doubt, and suspission, which isn't evidence at all. Well, the only thing I'm going to add when it comes to doubt and suspicion is that both sides partake of it in liberal quantities. Something you can't ever really change en masse is the fact that people tend to believe first and find evidence second. I've met a lot of Christians who discredit evolution because of what they already believe and because this makes them suspicious of it, not because they have any evidence to the contrary. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

This is a question I think Runner's High is better equipped to answer than me. From my own knowledge, I'd say there isn't actually scientific evidence per se which supports ID - the case for it is constructed largely around criticism of evidence for evolution and by pointing out a lack of knowledge in other areas. As a theory, I don't think it was ever constructed for its own merits so much as to constitute a direct attack on evolution - I mention this because the parameters which define it are more about discrediting another field than trying, through scientific evidence, to establish an alternate theory. As for strata dating, I think they check the age of the rock plus its position in the layers, and then check those with the age of the bones - but that's just my guess.

There's a difference between being buried in the same grave and being found in the same sedimentary layer. The way it works is that different strata represent different time periods, and no human remains or artefacts have been found in strata from the same time period as dinosaurs. That's utterly different to the idea of graves, or even of being found in the same area of the world - if you cut a slice in the side of a layer of rock and found human stuff in a later layer but dino stuff far below it in a different layer, that just means they lived in the same area at different times; not that they lived in the same era. As for evidence supporting the hoaxes, look it up yourself - not from a genesis website or a science website, but just in general, if you want a more impartial view. If you're of the view that science websites have an agenda to their research and should therefore be suspect, it makes no sense to believe that the same isn't potentially true of creatonist or Christian websites. So have a look on the net in general, and see what turns up.

Yes, just like other triple deities in mythology - three separate aspects, three separate deities, that are also one deity and one aspect.

How can you have evidence of something that doesn't exist? Following this logic, it would be reasonable of me to say that the lack of evidence to disprove the existence of trolls could balance out any and all knowledge which suggests they were just made-up creatures. There are no dinosaur skeletons. Not a single human artefact or bone has ever been found in the same level of rock strata as dinosaur remains. This is not conclusive proof, but it should be fairly convincing evidence - what are the chances that, if dinosaurs (or dragons) and humans did live together that not a shred of archeological evidence in the future would suggest it had ever happened? Do you have any evidence that they didn't? Neither of us can, if no record exists. If nothing else, there's certainly a historical precedent for later cultures digging up what was buried in previous centuries. Pompeii was buried, but then ages later, people began to find the stone underground, quarried it, removed it and built new buildings from it. Given the digging and quarrying that would have gone on throughout ancient times, I find it hard to believe that not a single dinosaur bone was ever encountered. Which seems more probable to you: that ancient cultures never found a single dino bone, or that they found some?

The biggest flying dinos were hollow-boned and pretty much all wing. Compare that to an image of something the size and weight of a T-Rex trying to get off the ground. I'm not averse to the idea that pterodactyls and rhamphoryncus were the inspiration for dinosaurs having wings, but I don't think any kind of 'dragon' ever existed that looks like we think of them now: massive creatures who are somehow still light enough to fly. Unless you believe in creatures for which the normal laws of gravity don't work, there's no way any creature that fits our current preconception of 'dragon' ever existed - maybe something similar did in the dino era, but with absolutely zero evidence to suggest that humans and dinos ever lived during the same period (bar one or two now-debunked hoaxes), I can't see how you can make a case for us getting the idea from what we saw, unless it was inferred through the mixing of pre-existing cultural ideas of monsters and then reinforced by the accidental finding of dino bones. Your missing the fact that you DONT have all the answers and since we dont have dragon fossils to study heh we can't make a judgement on whether they could or could not have ever existed or if they could or could not have taken flight. Remember something flying only needs to be calculated by lift vs. drag (drag includes gravity). hence: IF dragosn were really the humungous monsters we think of then heh if their wings grew according to their size they'd be able to fly. I dont think if dragosn ever existed they were behemoths. no one to take on that other part i said about dragons possibly being incorporeal I don't have all the answers, but please consider my point of view more carefully: I'm only trying to put forward what, to me, seems more logical. An absence of dragon fossils to study does mean we can't make a judgement on their potential size - but similarly, the fact that there are no such fossils suggests that dragons were never around to leave them. Lift and drag is an important consideration in flight, but if a jumbo jet had flapping wings instead of engines, it couldn't get off the ground: if you've ever seen Chicken Run, you'll know I'm talking about thrust. A creature as colossal as a traditional dragon would not simply have to have wings proportionate to its size - they would also have to be strong enough to lift that weight in the first place, not just keep it aloft. Have you ever seen footage of an eagle or a large vulture taking flight? From a standing start, they need a run-up; they can't just flap and become airborne. But compared to a dragon, eagles and vultures are light, nimble animals, well-able to run at speed and still far lighter to lift in the air. The muscluar wing strength required to lift even a dragon the size and weight of a rhino would be phenomenal - jet planes can burn fuel, but living creatures don't have that luxury. As for the idea of dragons being incorporeal, while this would potentially explain their existence, it is not proof of its possibility by any stretch of the imagination. It is simple a claim which, by its very nature, can neither be proven nor disproven - it can be considered as a theory, but it hardly lends weight to the idea of dragons, because you're essentially defending one scientifically unproven and improbable idea by introducing another. I see no logical problem with thinking it is possible that dragons existed on these grounds (although I do think it's a pretty thin premise), but to claim this view is in any way inassailable proof or reasonably supported scientific speculation is ludicrous. If I said to you that I believed chimeras could exist because they were incorporeal and therefore not bound to the normal laws of physics, I can't honestly see how either I could substaintiate this position with evidence or how you could be expected to think it was reasonable - even if, like God, it was ultimately unproveable either way.

The biggest flying dinos were hollow-boned and pretty much all wing. Compare that to an image of something the size and weight of a T-Rex trying to get off the ground. I'm not averse to the idea that pterodactyls and rhamphoryncus were the inspiration for dinosaurs having wings, but I don't think any kind of 'dragon' ever existed that looks like we think of them now: massive creatures who are somehow still light enough to fly. Unless you believe in creatures for which the normal laws of gravity don't work, there's no way any creature that fits our current preconception of 'dragon' ever existed - maybe something similar did in the dino era, but with absolutely zero evidence to suggest that humans and dinos ever lived during the same period (bar one or two now-debunked hoaxes), I can't see how you can make a case for us getting the idea from what we saw, unless it was inferred through the mixing of pre-existing cultural ideas of monsters and then reinforced by the accidental finding of dino bones.

As I said before - dino bones. You dig up a big skeleton or a massive femur, if you don't know how old it is, you're going to think that kind of creature might still be around. I seriously doubt there was a team of ancient paleontologists digging up bones and then rendering images of what they thought they might have looked like. Logical conclusion: They saw something, and rendered an image of it. The fact that there were no paelentologists doesn't mean nobody was digging. A lot of the dino bones found in the 19th centuary were discovered by accident when people were exavating for other purposes. Imagine you were digging the foundations for a massive city like Antioch, and you come across some massive bones - or in places where earthquakes reshape the land, bringing up older bedrock or stone with bones in them. And as for 'rendering an image,' you're looking at it the wrong way. Imagine your culture already has an idea of monsters - then someone finds some bones which don't fit to anything else. Clearly, they belong to the culture monster. And if you find a skeleton intact, as people sometimes do today, then that only helps - but give a little credit to human imagination. You can see how you'd get dragons from dinosaurs, but human imagination is still going to be responsible for things like the chimera or the bunyip. You're looking at this as if these ancient folks were sitting down like we would today. Probably, they didn't, and a lot of the process would have been fuelled by pre-existing folklore or mythology and then garbled by word-of-mouth accounts of these so-called remains, changing the appearance again.

This post, for me, exemplifies what I think is at the heart of emerald's original question. When we ask a friend if things are going well for them, we usually mean events: has such-and-such an occasion worked out, has blah good thing occured, did they well at this or that. If the answer is negative, our next thought is to how they are coping with this: are they happy, are they dealing, are they working towards a better future outcome, does it seem like events will turn around soon. If they tell us that yes, they're fine, the implication remains that they are happy in spite of difficulty, not that there is none. So, pragmatically, they are fine, but their life could use some improvement. Emeraldgirl asked if people's lives were better; not if they, themselves, were better since becoming Christian. I can't speak for her intentions, but for me, this distinction is crucial. To say that someone is better at dealing with bad situations is a far cry from saying that they are encountering fewer such obstacles. Arguably, a peron's life is made better by their own attitude in many respects, but we still draw the distinction between life as a thing and our way of coping with it: the reaction and its cause are different things. From what I've read in this thread, I'm not sure the original question has been properly answered. People have been saying that they are happy, but whether or not this happiness has actually bettered their lives hasn't been made clear. An increased ability to deal with difficulty is most certainly a personal improvement, but in this context, I would restrict its relevance to the question to situations where the altered attitude has directly led to success in other areas - namely, doing better at work, school or at home, changing one's situation or helping to eradicate pre-existing or otherwise longstanding problems. So, to wrap this up - and bearing in mind that this is just my interpretation of the question as something I'd like to hear back on - have your circumstances in life improved since you became Christian? If so, do you think this is the result of your own attitude changing, allowing you to deal with old problems in new ways, or do you think it could only be because God has intervened in mortal affairs? And if it hasn't improved, would you still say that you're a happier or otherwise better person?