Does God Exist?

[USUK]

Yes wheres your souce he was a black man?

 

Well for a starter there were no white men in Bethlehem 2,000 years ago

[flamingjimmy]

Well for a starter there were no white men in Bethlehem 2,000 years ago

 

come to think of it, where's your source for that?

[plekhanov]

It rather depends upon what you mean by 'black' and 'white' doesn't it.

 

If Jesus existed (which is likely but not certain) the chances of him being the pasty faced Northern European featured guy seen in much European religious art seems most unlikely. Likewise he's unlikely to have been "black" as in sub-Saharan African black.

 

Chances are that a Jewish guy born 2000 years back in the Middle East would have looked not unlike the inhabitants of the eastern Mediterranean today and as such possibly 'black' or 'white' depending upon where you draw those arbitrary distinctions.

[inkheart]

Nope, definately black

 

 

Lol how so? Hmmm maybe because fossil evidence indicates that modern humans originated in Africa...

Edited July 3, 2010 by inkheart

[sandie]

Black,White Yellow or even Green it is not important, once again I will ask where is the proof.

The answer is there is not any, so the type of skin tone is rubbish and yet again we are making asumptions of events over 2000 years ago.

 

I do not know if the events in the Bible took place and nobody alive knows the facts. can we accept what is written in the Bible is true, I dont think so.

 

The Bible is a book of fairy stories that gives comfort to people, but not a book of Law and it might be a good idea if people took it's content with a pinch of salt and stopped trying to impose their beleif's on the rest of us.

[Grahame]

Black,White Yellow or even Green it is not important, once again I will ask where is the proof.

The answer is there is not any, so the type of skin tone is rubbish and yet again we are making asumptions of events over 2000 years ago.

 

I do not know if the events in the Bible took place and nobody alive knows the facts. can we accept what is written in the Bible is true, I dont think so.

 

The Bible is a book of fairy stories that gives comfort to people, but not a book of Law and it might be a good idea if people took it's content with a pinch of salt and stopped trying to impose their beleif's on the rest of us.

 

Well Sandie, you talk about taking the Bible with a pinch of salt and here is one man who did just that. He is a regular old cynic and because of that he became a Christian. Have a read here:

 

http://www.anointedlinks.com/cynic.html

 

[John1954]

Well Sandie, you talk about taking the Bible with a pinch of salt and here is one man who did just that. He is a regular old cynic and because of that he became a Christian. Have a read here:

 

http://www.anointedlinks.com/cynic.html

 

 

Difficult as it was I have read the whole of the drivel in the link you posted. Surely a Christian apologist such as yourself can see that the arguments put forward in your Christian website have been destroyed many times by rational thinkers.

 

If you want to debate them one by one I will be glad to oblige. However, from your past record of cowardly not wasting any time on me I doubt we will be discussing the matter further.

[MadnBad]

Black,White Yellow or even Green it is not important, once again I will ask where is the proof.

The answer is there is not any, so the type of skin tone is rubbish and yet again we are making asumptions of events over 2000 years ago.

 

I do not know if the events in the Bible took place and nobody alive knows the facts. can we accept what is written in the Bible is true, I dont think so.

 

The Bible is a book of fairy stories that gives comfort to people, but not a book of Law and it might be a good idea if people took it's content with a pinch of salt and stopped trying to impose their beleif's on the rest of us.

 

These are some of the main points about the bible we do know that the bible in part is based on actual events but we don't know for sure which events are factual or how factually the bible portrays them, so we can say with some certainty that the bible is a semi historical record.

 

We certainly can't say for certain that the bible is just a load of fairy stories though you are obviously entitled to your own opinion, whilst it is not currently a book of law for us it has certainly been so in the past.

And yes it should be taken with a pinch of salt as should all religious records since we can neither prove or disprove belief.

And who on earth has been foisting their beliefs on you did you go to catholic school like a few others on this forum or are your parents devout or what,in any case tell them to sod off whoever they are belief is up to the individual and not something that should be forced on anyone.

[plekhanov]

These are some of the main points about the bible we do know that the bible in part is based on actual events but we don't know for sure which events are factual or how factually the bible portrays them, so we can say with some certainty that the bible is a semi historical record.

To say that the bible is "a semi historical record" would seem to suggest that it is atleast half right, can you back up this grand claim? If you don't mean to say the bible is half right roughly what kind of a figure would you put upon its historical accuracy?

 

What specifically do you consider to be the "main points about the bible" and which of these do you think "is based on actual events"?

 

We certainly can't say for certain that the bible is just a load of fairy stories though you are obviously entitled to your own opinion, whilst it is not currently a book of law for us it has certainly been so in the past.

And yes it should be taken with a pinch of salt as should all religious records since we can neither prove or disprove belief.

Nonsense we can disprove lots of beliefs including many of those set out in "holy" books such as the bible.

[Cavegirl]

There is no proof whatsoever that the bible is a historical record in anyway shape or form.

 

There is some archaeological evidence that does give some credibility to the history described in the Old Testament, but most archaeologists have now stopped trying to tie the historical narrative to excavated remains.

 

I'm not sure whether this is due to more to modern politics, modern archaeological theory or the fact that the evidence rarely stacks with the text.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology

 

John Romer's 1988 book 'Testament: the Bible and History' is a good introduction to the subject.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Cavegirl