Grungekid

Yeah, those are the Middle Eastern deserts, though. nomads still live there in fairly large numbers, and they don't leave behind tons of evidence. Considering how long ago this would have been, and how little they needed to survive (nomadic people do not need large settlements) it makes plenty of sense that there is little evidence. Part of the miracle of the Exodus was God's provision for the Israelites, too. They subsisted on manna, and he led them to water when they needed it.

Jacob? Sorry, I was way off. It was sometime last year that I was in Genesis, and things get mixed up in my head. I can't find the verse I was thinking of - it turns out it was a different story than the witch at En Dor.

Yes, but it's important to note eventually Sheol will be emptied into the lake of fire.

If there is no risk involved, then it isn't faith. Erm... in your little hypothetical, there was a risk involved. Yes, I know. Why did you think I said otherwise? You said if there is no risk involved, then it isn't faith. I have no idea why you would say that unless you assume that my That kind of faith can't be equated to faith in god, though. My assessment of the percentages will be weighed by certain facts that I know: such as the distance I have travelled without seeing a homestead (this will influence my judgment of how likely I am to run into another homestead), my knowledge of the water table, my assessment of the state of the pump and so on. Now, I could be wrong, but my decision could easily change if other facts came to light that changed my assessment. If, for example, there was a map which showed that there was a town only a couple of miles away, then that would change my assessment significantly and the percentages that I would come up with would be different. So essentially, I'm putting my faith in known facts, and if you're going to use "faith" to describe "a trust in things that are there", then it's a pretty meaningless term. On the other hand, your faith in god basically amounts to "the bible said so". But if archeologists fail to come up with any signs that (for example) there was ever a mass migration of a million people travelling from Egypt to Israel (if this happened, there should be quite strong evidence that it occured), your faith in god will be unchanged. If you pray and continually discover that your prayers go unasnwered, then like Job, your faith in god will still be unchanged. Perhaps even if Zeus came down from Mount Olympus and started begetting children upon the women of the world once again, you would still have the same unchanged faith in god. I wonder exactly what could make you change your assessment of god. I have already stated that the percentages that I come up with are subservient to the facts, but how about god? Uh, there could have been a movement in the ancient world. An article on it you might like is here edited for an embarassing mistake

If they had the chance to know their creator, and decided they did not need Him somehow, then doesn't that change things?

I have a few questions of my own: 1) There must be other spirits out there, because God let one trick Saul when he went to see the witch of En Dor, right? 2) Why did God wrestle with Abraham (I think, but my memory is shot at the moment), and then somehow lose?

Because I know a few psychopaths, and there really is a major difference, especially in that none of them are followers of Christ. Nah, when I think of injustice, its difficult for me to direct it at God. We've all seen what people can do; if Sodom and Gamorah, the Canaanites, and even some of the children of Israel were even half as evil as what is said of them, then I can't say that I pity them. God's judgment is righteous; and frankly, I wish there were more of it to go around these days.

This may not be your case, but it's also possible the local church was overtaxed with other programs. Charity is not always as easy as it seems.

Odd . . . my experience in these discussions is that non-religious people belief "faith" is something only religioius people have (thus the reason I started this thread). We Christians will explain how the atheists and agnostics we are discussing things with have faith in science, or faith in human reason, and the reply will always be (and I mean it truly has always been) something to the effect of, "No, we don't have faith. 'Faith' is a religioius term." That is because you are confused between trust and faith. Trust is an expectation re-enforced by previous actions, and faith is an expectation that is re-enforced by nothing at all. Trust is expecting that a doctor will heal your broken bone, and faith is responding eagerly to the fellow who says you have inherited kingship of Nigeria, and they need your bank details to transfer your money to the royal account. Then you won't deny that you do not believe the Christian 'faith' is different from the word in its other contexts.

Odd . . . my experience in these discussions is that non-religious people belief "faith" is something only religioius people have (thus the reason I started this thread). We Christians will explain how the atheists and agnostics we are discussing things with have faith in science, or faith in human reason, and the reply will always be (and I mean it truly has always been) something to the effect of, "No, we don't have faith. 'Faith' is a religioius term." Absolutely. Every website I saw when I first started looking into the debate had a huge 'rebuttal' article on scientists and their non-existent faith.

Man, that's the same thing they all say, in one way or another.

examples please..also prophecies that are both given and fullfilled in the bible do not count as there no evidence that the prophecy was given BEFORE the event and would be no differant than me prophesizing that on 9-11-2001 the twin tower will collapse after being hit with air planes The books have been dated by textual style, and they have been differentiated. The prophecies in the Old Testament mentioned in the New Testament were not being created after the fact.

It's definitely more fair to the victim: who didn't even have a fair trial.

It was taken from Ishtar. Christians have been using those words for longer than most modern institutions, and even so, it is entirely possible to have words take on new meanings over time, and that is expected when what Christians are iterating about is so different from many ordinary concepts.

Yeah, the article head is a bit ridiculous, but you're a much better person than I am: I honestly feel very little pitty for anyone offended.

This is such a barrel of tripe. I don't know how many times I have had to go over it. Are you not fallible? You can have wrong ideas about morallity; it doesn't change the fact that there can be such a thing as ethical truth. If you really don't believe in right or wrong at all, then you should really just stop complaining about anything you consider to be wrongdoing, since it has no substance at all.

Lol. Sad that they have to die.

Surprise, surprise: that has never actually changed. No one is without bias, that is part of being human, which is of course relative to what HisMindinme is saying. Why not?

I know it's OT, but where does everyone learn Hebrew? Did you have to go to Bible college, or are there more available courses?

That's a good point. Our relationship is so much deeper than just expecting rewards, and many people get the idea that we are just children looking for a different way to get kudos.

Look at all the atheist blogs bragging about how they think they have disproven God, for evidence that blog to occasionally have offensive material, and Christians certainly aren't the only ones with a problem.

You are correct, The Epic of Gilgamesh was written far before the bible...something like 2500 years before. How then is it a distorted version of God's word when "God's Word" hadn't even been compiled yet? Ever heard of an oral tradition? It's hard to put a date on early scripture. Ancient Hebrews were articulate people, and they were well-versed in preserving their stories from generation to generation.

It is not your fault, SecondEve. A great number of folks, thanks to the Columbus myth and fellas like Andrew Dickson White and John William Draper, point to the early Christians as ignoramuses who believed the earth was flat. This was never an official Christian position. The round earth was accepted because it was easy to figure out. A man watching a ship set sail could see the hull of the ship disappear before the mast. This certainly implied a round earth. As for the heliocentric theory, Galileo himself could not prove it at all. It went against the science of the time, and even Galileo would admit that it was bad Science. It is why he still chose to remain in the Church. It is also why his fellow scientist, Tyco Brahe, looked at Galileo's "evidence," part of which concluded that the motion of earth causes tides (he was wrong...the motion of the moon causes tides), and came to his own conclusions that it was more reasonable to accept the Geo-centric theory. He was put under house arrest in his palace for a few years and then died peacefully in his bed, wishing to be buried at a Cathedral in Florence. Truth makes a comeback.

What kind of a speech was that?