20 Questions Christians Can't Answer!

reply to post by MarkJS


MarkJS, that was a great post and a topic that is well deserving of a thread of it's own.

I've spent a lot of time researching this subject and I thought there was also an interesting connection between ancient mythology and where the Bible starts. The earth was dark, void, and covered in water before God turned it into what we know it to be today. When reading the Bible, I kept noticing all of the references to things(?) that resided deep in the earth or came out of the seas of the earth (none which were good). Then I noticed that some of the notable ancient "gods" were considered lords of the sea and had temples that were located under water. Much more research to do.

Looking forward to researching your post further!

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by MarkJS
While you're giving salutations to all these different dieties... may I suggest that you do something different with Jesus? You see, only Jesus died for our/your sins. In that, God has honored Him above all:

Slow down there, Turbo. I extended the olive branch and you returned to me a gospel tract.

With that aside, I think we see where the other is coming from. I don't feel the need to recruit you and I also know you are sort of obligated to attempt to recruit me so I'll let it slide. In any case, thanks for the rest of your response. Ultimately, we both answer to higher authorities and I'm very thankful we live in the age when these things can be discussed without one of us ending up burned at the stake or cooking in a giant kettle.

Thanks for the olive branch. Yes, it's the civil thing to do - to be able to discuss beliefs w/out attacking each other's....

More importantly (vastly more important) than our civility, is your civility with.... the diety we call Jesus...

reply to post by wildtimes

IQ and religiosity are negatively correlated.

Just so you know, scientists and egos have been heavily correlated too.

reply to post by namine


Point 1: Infallible word of god?

Not really. As mentioned, the bible (particularly the NEW Testament) is an edited, compiled collection of books. I think many christians even will admit that it is not entirely the "inspired word of god." IMO I agree that this is one of the bigger failings and mistakes of mainstream christianity.

The OLD testament, on the other hand, has been shown not to change for many thousands of years. On the other side of the coin, I don't think a lot of people realize that most of mosaic law (like in deuteronomy) was very PRACTICAL advice for the time and culture in which it was popular. Most of that stuff has little or nothing to do with actual morality. What is immoral about eating pigs or shellfish? Nothing. However, if you are a tribe of primitive jews in the desert with little understanding of trichinosis, and shellfish poisoning, it is best to avoid those things. Wash your hands before you eat. Have intercourse with women...not men... during particular times of the month in relation to her menstrual cycle... so you can conceieve a child and the tribe will grow...

This stuff is not rocket science. Nor is it moral commandment, IMO. It is practical advice for a smoothly running and growing society.


Point 2: As I explained in my previous post, "regret" may not be the best translation. "Grieved" is equally, perhaps more, fitting. Also, I can regret that something happened, or grieve that it happened, even if it is not my fault, correct? Even if it was not MY mistake, but someone else'? Like I said, this point is foolish semantics and possibly poor translation. It also ignores the VERY important element of christian belief that is free will.

Point 3: I do not agree that he was trying to say jesus didn't die. He was trying to say that he died, and was resurrected, which is not the same as a permanent death. Get what I mean? Like "You brought him back, so that's not a sacrifice." This is one of the dumest ones in the whole video because he's ignoring that Christians believe in an afterlife. Even if Jesus stayed dead and was not resurrected, he would have presumably gone to heaven, right? So even if he was not resurrected, it still (to christians) ends up the same. One of the many reasons I called this guy stupid is his really poor logic and stupid assumptions. He was envisioning his question from the limited viewpoint of an atheist where "dead = gone forever"

The reason I didn't answer the last question in the second vid is that it was not one question, but several. And each of them were based on really really really stupid presuppositions and assumptions. I'll think of tackling that one later if I have some extra time.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by winofiend

 

You have a religious belief that god will intervene and save you.

Can science tell you how stupid that is ?

Sadly, it can not. But logic actually can... which makes that extra bad.

Once upon a time online atheists were great for a debate, as many of them were actually challenging to debate with. Now that it's become seemingly "trendy" to be atheist and bash christians, you get lots of very empty, logic-fail comments like this one. Makes me honestly feel a little embarrassed for the people that write them. I almost feel like shaking them and asking if they realize they're sounding about as back-woods educated and in-the-dark as the "superstitious" religious-folk they enjoy making fun of.

If you're going to attack someone else' beliefs, at least figure out a method where you won't end up looking like a buffoon in the process.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

On the whole, I couldn't care less what you expect of me. In fact, you're better off keeping those comments to yourself because I'm likely pick my ideas from a hat, just to keep it interesting. Who knows, maybe I'll toss in a "dance naked at the pulpit" slip. You only live once!

Alright, well I can't say I don't appreciate your humor. Even tho that's something I for sure wouldn't want to comment on let alone experience or even visualize.
Good one.

Not that I was ever inclined to listen anyway.

Ya I for sure don't expect that AI.

reply to post by iwilliam


So tell me, have you met anyone who was able to provide conclusive evidence that a higher power directly influenced the authors of the Bible?

reply to post by Deetermined

Don't forget about the flood.... It covered a lot of crap.

A lot of phenomena can be explained from the Nephilim.

Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.

3 And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Genesis 6:1-5 NKJV

They were 'sons of God'... but they were 'man' in that they lived among men, and had to be destroyed, with the meanings of their works. That's why you find a lot of things in the ocean... Also, weird things like Stonehenge, the big aerial markings in South America (??), the Easter Island stuff... weird things like that can be explained biblically by them.

reply to post by namine


This is all pretty easy...Faith.

God did things because he gave us free will. He let us make decisions based on free will. How can someone have complete Faith and Dedication if God went around doing everything for them and not letting evil happen?

I always find it hilarious when people question these same things. I mean can't you come up with something better? It's always the same 30 questions atheist come up with. You are basing it off of again, man's word. If i tell a story right now about a major event, the more i tell it i will end up using different words which can be interpreted in a number of ways. Two donkey's one donkey, doesn't matter cause he was there. You don't try to say he wasn't there instead you try to discredit meaningless details.

Come up with a solid question and then we can talk.

Originally posted by namine

Well, to my understanding there's only supposed to be one God. OT God and NT God are one and the same, and since Jesus was God, it follows that he must be one and the same too, or at the very least support both the OT and NT ideologies. I suppose you have the liberty to believe what makes most sense to you, but doctrine says Christians are not meant to believe one part of the Bible and reject others -- it's meant to be accepted as a complete work inspired by God.

Which doctrine? Who said?

And re: one god and Jesus. This is part of what I mean... why some of the vid questions were dumb, and how people make a lot of bad assumptions. As mentioned, not all christians believe the same things. Not even all mainstream christians, belonging to very big church groups. Look at catholics versus protestants if you want just ONE example.

Some christians believe Jesus was god. Some believe he was a separate being. Any question you begin with the assumption that jesus and god are the same can NOT rightfully be aimed at "christians" generally speaking. Only SOME christians think this. To the rest, it is a horrible and false presupposition.

I personally do not believe jesus was god. Where does he say this? Ever? He does not. He said he is the SON of god. He didn't even say he was god's ONLY son (that was John, not Jesus). It was just "son." In fact, jesus taught the prayer known as OUR father. Think on that one....

reply to post by iwilliam

Some christians believe Jesus was god. Some believe he was a separate being. Any question you begin with the assumption that jesus and god are the same can NOT rightfully be aimed at "christians" generally speaking. Only SOME christians think this. To the rest, it is a horrible and false presupposition.

So which ones are right?

I personally do not believe jesus was god. Where does he say this? Ever? He does not. He said he is the SON of god. He didn't even say he was god's ONLY son (that was John, not Jesus). It was just "son." In fact, jesus taught the prayer known as OUR father. Think on that one....

So why would John make such erroneous assumptions? You'd think Jesus would spend as much time rectifying these misunderstandings as he did preaching...preaching does no good if you're just gonna play the telephone game.

reply to post by iwilliam


Here's what else Jesus said in John 14...

John 14:13-21

13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth [Holy Spirit]; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

So, according to Jesus, we have the Father in us, we have Jesus in us, and we have the Holy Spirit in us.

Ever hear these words?

Matthew 28:19

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

And once again, why do you think Jesus said, "If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it."?

Originally posted by Cuervo
I was speaking from an objective standpoint. If you were to read Genesis for the first time, without church influence, it clearly leads the reader to believe there are several gods involved in the creation process. The one that created Adam isn't necessarily the one who created people (read Genesis chronologically and you'll see these are two different events).

Different scholars and mystics will give different reasons for why there are two creation accounts.

I think you actually touched on an important point, but allow me to elaborate about something you may be missing. I say this because of how you write, and the fact that most people seem to be unaware of this.

In the bible, when you read the name "God" or "the lord" in english, these are being translated from more than 2 different terms. There are actually a number of terms, or names, in the bible, which end up translated to "god." One of these names, Elohim, which IS in fact used in the Genesis creation account, is actually a plural word, not singular.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

So why would John make such erroneous assumptions? You'd think Jesus would spend as much time rectifying these misunderstandings as he did preaching...preaching does no good if you're just gonna play the telephone game.

edit on 19-11-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

To be clear, I'm not certain that he did. This could be one of the many really bad translations-to-english found in the bible.

Next, there is much evidence that Jesus did not always teach overtly. There are non canonical (apocryphal) books where he pulls a disciple aside and says the he will reveal the "true" meaning of his teachings, which were sometimes hidden from the public, or even some of the disciples, or otherwise masked in parable. Why would he do this? I can only speculate. Many would probably bring up his "pearls before swine" parable. And I suspect that may be part. There is also much to be said for the impact of learning, discovering, or figuring out something on your own. The learning is deeper, more profound. Sticks better. Also many of the ancient mystery schools were secretive about their inner teachings.

Also consider that the gospels were probably not written by the disciples whose names they bear. Many scholars have believed that John actually wrote "John," but not all.

If you study christianity in the context of history, you will see that it did not take long (after the life of Christ) for many widely diverging beliefs to spread. People are often as fanciful and speculative as they are ignorant and stupid, IMO. Combine that with power, ego, and agenda, and you end up with all kinds of idiocy.

I've got another question to add.... Why does hell exist? If God can forgive anything than why can he not forgive you for not asking forgivness?

reply to post by iwilliam

To be clear, I'm not certain that he did. This could be one of the many really bad translations-to-english found in the bible.

So, bottom line: the Bible is completely unreliable. Which means Christianity is completely unreliable. Wow, that simplifies the matter a lot. Thanks!

Originally posted by iwilliam

Originally posted by Cuervo
I was speaking from an objective standpoint. If you were to read Genesis for the first time, without church influence, it clearly leads the reader to believe there are several gods involved in the creation process. The one that created Adam isn't necessarily the one who created people (read Genesis chronologically and you'll see these are two different events).

Different scholars and mystics will give different reasons for why there are two creation accounts.

I think you actually touched on an important point, but allow me to elaborate about something you may be missing. I say this because of how you write, and the fact that most people seem to be unaware of this.

In the bible, when you read the name "God" or "the lord" in english, these are being translated from more than 2 different terms. There are actually a number of terms, or names, in the bible, which end up translated to "god." One of these names, Elohim, which IS in fact used in the Genesis creation account, is actually a plural word, not singular.

In Genesis, God talks to His other part....

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Genesis 1:26 NKJV

Who is He talking to? The other part of the Godhead.... Jesus... and/or the Holy Spirit... They were all involved in the creation of man. By the way, that is why man is a three-fold being...... body, soul, spirit.

Jesus is God. Why? Because God the Father required a Perfect sacrifice to satisfy Him for the sins of mankind... Perfect...

17 So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.... Matthew 19:17a

You might think that this proves that Jesus is not God.... but what he is doing offhandedly is saying that He Is God. He did not deny in the statement that He is good, or say that he wasn't God.

Here, Jesus says that he and God the Father are one....

John 14:9-11

New King James Version (NKJV)

9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.
John 14:9-11 NKJV

Does that cover everything?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by iwilliam

 

To be clear, I'm not certain that he did. This could be one of the many really bad translations-to-english found in the bible.

So, bottom line: the Bible is completely unreliable. Which means Christianity is completely unreliable. Wow, that simplifies the matter a lot. Thanks!

edit on 19-11-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Yep, iwilliam pretty much defeated his purpose for being in this discussion, didn't he?

No wonder everyone's confused about the true definition of Christianity. We have more "Christians" making it up as we go along.

reply to post by namine


1. When Noah’s ark landed, how did the kangaroos make it back to Australia?

Answer: Probably the same way humans and other animals made it to Australia. Either by boat, or a connection that no longer exists.

2. If the ark was covered in pitch or tar to make it watertight, it also made it airtight -- how did the animals survive more than one or two days living in complete darkness without any fresh air? Remember, the rain lasted 40 days and 40 nights. Noah couldn’t open the window in the top.

Answer: The Bible states that the ark was made with a ‘tsohar.’ While this word is not completely translatable it is something similar to a roof or a window. There would have been no problem as far as them breathing or having light. Even when it is raining in the daytime some light from the sun makes it to the ground, I don’t know if you were aware of this or not.

3. Since Adam and Eve didn’t know right from wrong before eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, why did God then punish them for something they didn’t understand they were doing?

Answer: Adam and Eve were created in perfection with perfect health and placed in a beautiful paradise with all their needs taken care of. They had all the food they could want; there was complete peace and harmony with nature. No wild animals, no stress, no bills to pay, no wars to worry about. Everything bespoke of a Creator that was loving and cared for them. Now that Creator, Jehovah God, told them they could eat of all the trees of the Garden of Eden, except for one. If they ate from that tree they would die. Notice that everlasting life was theirs to loose. Would they be obedient and listen to their loving and wise heavenly Father, recognizing his right as Sovereign of the universe? Or would they rebel against his rule? They rebelled and thus sinned. The wages of sin is death. They were created in perfection and with imputed righteousness within themselves. It was theirs to lose it was their choice. And they decided to disobey. Perhaps some may think that it was only a small thing, this disobedience of theirs. But you must remember that in the Garden of Eden everything was perfect. This simple act was a complete disregard for all the good that God had done for man.

4. Why would God place a forbidden tree in the garden so close to his innocent creation and allow Satan to tempt them into eating from it, all the while looking on without doing a thing to prevent it?

Answer: The answer to this question I answered for you in the answer to question three. Jehovah was putting their obedience to the test. Jehovah did not intend for Satan to tempt them but Satan did. He, being a spirit being with free will as his spiritual Father Jehovah also had free will. Yet Adam and Eve should have known better than to listen to a beguiling spirit that contradicted their loving heavenly Father. They could have very easily reasoned that Jehovah is not a liar or restrictive like Satan painted him. In fact we know that Adam knew better because he was not deceived, yet he willingly disobeyed.

5. When the women went to Jesus’s empty tomb, was the stone already rolled away, or did the angels roll it away after the women got there?

Answer: Early Sunday morning Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, along with Salome, Joanna, and other women, bring spices to the tomb to treat Jesus’ body. En route they say to one another: “Who will roll the stone away from the door of the memorial tomb for us?” But on arriving, they find that an earthquake has occurred and Jehovah’s angel has rolled the stone away. The guards are gone, and the tomb is empty! Matthew 27:57–28:2; Mark 15:42–16:4; Luke 23:50–24:3, 10; John 19:14, 31–20:1; 12:42; Leviticus 23:5-7; Deuteronomy 21:22, 23; Psalm 34:20; Zechariah 12:10.

6. On the first day of the week, when Jesus rose from the dead, how many women went to the tomb, and which ones?
Answer: The answer to this is in question 5 answer.

continued....

continued...

7. If you believe the creation account in Genesis is mere allegory, then why don’t you throw out Paul’s epistles? Because he believed that the creation account was a historical fact.

Answer: The creation account in Genesis is accurate. Genesis 1:1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Nowhere does the Bible state how long in the distant past this took place. But Jehovah God did at one point create the heavens, and the earth. The rest of Genesis 1 is talking about Jehovah preparing the earth for life, not the creation of the physical universe.

Did you get that? Verse 1 and the rest of the chapter a separate from each other. Verse one is a statement of fact, God created the heavens and the earth. Afterwards God goes on to inspire from a human’s standpoint a brief account of how he prepared the earth for life, and how it came about on earth.

Quickly: Day 1: God made a division between night and day. Obviously before this point no light from the already existing sun moon and stars reached the surface of the earth. This must be because the atmosphere was thick with gases, think the type of atmosphere Venus has.

Day 2: Jehovah made a separation between the waters. An “expanse” between the waters on the earth and the waters in the sky. So somehow God began to clear the earth’s atmosphere and made a division between the waters on the ground and the waters in the sky. The expanse God called heaven (our sky). Below the sky existed an Ocean of water, and above the sky a water canopy enveloped the atmosphere of the earth.

Day 3: God decreed that the waters on the earth would come together in one place. During this process dry land appeared. He also created what was first necessary for oxygen breathing life. Yes plants. So in this nitrogen and carbon dioxide rich atmosphere plant life was created on the dry land. And thus the process of clearing up the atmosphere and filling it with oxygen was created.

Day 4: God decreed that the luminaries would appear in the sky. This is not, what some people claim a repeat of day one, when the light from the sun became visible on the earth’s surface. Rather because of the separation of the atmosphere above the earth and the waters, and the division between dry land and the ocean, and the appearance of vegetation needed to filter the carbon dioxide and nitrogen from the atmosphere and the infusion of an oxygen rich atmosphere, the atmosphere cleared enough now that light from the sun and moon became clearly visible on the surface of the earth, during this time the atmosphere cleared so much that the stars also now finally became visible. Notice they were not created on this day. They were created in verse one, some time long in the distant past. But now they became visible to an observer, if there was one, on the surface of the earth.

Day 5: God created life in the sea.

Day 6: God created animal life on land and then finally at last man and woman.

All of these statements found in Genesis one, the order of creation, of plant life, animal life in the sea, animal life on land, and finally the appearance of man is all scientifically accurate. Also the fossil record shows that the divisions between these creative days were indeed distinct and sudden. All scientifically accurate. These creative days were long periods of times and need not to be taken literally. To prove this point in the verse next chapter we are told this:

(Genesis 2:4) . . .This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.

Exactly. All the six creative days in Chapter one are referred to as one “day” in chapter 2 verse 2. Obviously we are not talking about literal 6 24 hour periods.

continued...

reply to post by AfterInfinity


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Inconsitancies in the bible