Hey Callum:
I do not think you are an extremist or a fruitcake. And I HAVE read your post, at least I think this is the one to which you are referring…
There is your answer... your therory again proved to be rubbish.. and don't go on about how got put more water on the earth for the flood... sorry... but i'd rather believe the Goldilocks and the Three Bears story to be true...
Why?
Someone wrote about it so long ago we don't know who actually invented the story although there are many "gospels" written by different authors today, so that shows there are witnesses to it happening.... its old.... people have always talked about it so it must be true... Bears sure do like sugary stuff and many Three Bears story tellers have told us (so it must be true) that there was sugar on the porridge to make it sweeter...
Sound like i'm on drugs? Well just replace a few of those words with God Jesus Miricles etc... there's what ya Bible believers tell us .
Also, if you want to provide links too and take them to be the "truth" I will do the same...
OmFgDoDaBoGaLoO!!!!!!11111ONEONEONETWOTWO --->> Now
THAT is a bombshell.
There's my backing for the HearSay theory... remember I had NOT researched this, yet I came up with the same thing that this guy has wrote (which I searched for the purposes of the argument... it is COMMON SENSE... easy.
(taken from here:
http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/doesgodexist.htm )
If someone in your local pub says that Maggie down the road shovells cats off the road, then eats them.. it will make people laugh... they will tell someone else... and then... so and behold she is known as Maggie the Cat Woman at Number 64. See? Happens today.. no proof, no eyewitnesses... all gossip and stuff..
Remember the logic back then... if you had a mole people thought you were a witch and promptly burned you... everyone now think's it's rubbish and all the "witches" are mad and need a visit from the nice men in white coats...
By the way.. in the last thread someone quoted me saying "Isn't it funny how the non-believers always run out of stuff and then hide and don't reply after making huge claims" but it was locked before I had my chance to answer...
So here is:
Answer: Atheists rarely pretend to know everything on the subject, when we're asked something we do NOT make things up, or enterpret things how we want them to be enterpreted.
In other words... we don't start to lie.
Taken from another artical. And, they are right... you are pushing us CONSTANTLY to provide the proof he doesn't exist, but it should be YOU trying to convince us.. that's what god would want right? Preaching... and some of you had the audacity to call US lazy.... erm yeah... whatever.
Callum,
(Hope this doesn't start a flamefest (no joke intended by the "flame". If anyone wants to know what i'm on about here, PM me
))
So let me take these comments one-by-one…
First, Learguy’s quote regarding the amount of water it would take to flood the earth…According to Learguy, it would take 4,400,000,000 cubic kilometers of water to cover the earth (including the mountains). Expressed in scientific notation this would be 4.4 x 10^9 km^3 (read, “four point four times ten raised to the ninth power cubic kilometers”). And, let me state up front – this is correct; and while we could always quibble over exact numbers, I assure you, it’s not worth it. However, several factors come into play here. First, I think it important to provide you with the information I’m using from the source I’m using; and it probably comes as no surprise that my source is the Bible. Sorry, but that’s what we’re … ah … discussing. The relevant quotes are from the Book of Genesis, chapter 7, verses 11and 12; and, later, verses 19 and 20 from that same chapter. They read as follows:
Vs 11/12: “…all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.”(KJV)
Vs 19/20: “…the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.” (KJV)
I think that getting into a discussion of the amount of water that reportedly came from “rain” is not worth the time it would take. I DO believe that quite a lot of water DID come from that source, and I’ll have more to say about that later, but I don’t believe that was the primary source and that is not what I want to focus on right now. What I DO want to focus on is the phrase “all the fountains of the great deep were broken up.”
The original Hebrew word that is translated to read, “fountain,” is the word
ma’yan, which means “fountain, spring, or well,” indicating that the water source being referred to is, or was, below the earth’s surface. Some pertinent facts: There is nothing in the Bible that describes what the topography of the earth’s surface was at that time, and there certainly isn’t any historical documents that we can check in that regard. Today, also, there is still no accurate knowledge of just how much water is currently beneath the earth’s surface. However, because of the tremendous pressure that likely exists deep below the earth’s surface, it is quite possible that huge amounts of water may be presently “stored” in the abundance of crystal lattices of minerals that are known to exist. I should also point out that there are many volcanic rocks interspersed between the fossil layers in what is called “the rock record,” making it quite plausible that these “fountains of the great deep” involved a series of volcanic eruptions with phenomenal amounts of water bursting up through the ground. It is interesting that up to 70% (more in some cases) of what comes out of volcanoes today is water, often in the form of steam. But, this still doesn’t get to the point of how all the “high hills” and “mountains” were covered by water to a depth of at least “15 cubits” (about 22 feet).
OK. Let’s get to that specific point. Bear with me as I go through the postulates that science has made regarding this specific event in history. The landmass that existed at that time, and on which Noah and the rest of his civilization lived, was not as rugged or as mountainous as the topography of today’s earth. Mountain ranges were not the 20 to 30 thousand feet “Everests” or “McKinleys” that we know today; they were more in the range of 5 to 7 thousand feet. Also, the continents, as we know them today, were not located where we know them to be today. In fact, there is considerable evidence, with more mounting every year, indicating the landmass that did exist at that time, existed in probably two very large masses or one large and two somewhat smaller masses. These landmasses (making up the lithosphere – the outer part of the solid earth composed of rock essentially like that exposed at the surface, consisting of the crust and outermost layer of the mantle, and usually considered to be about 60 miles, or 100 kilometers, in thickness) were, and to some extent, still are, divided into a small number of plates which “float” on and travel independently over the earth’s mantle. Geologists believe that much of the earth's seismic activity occurs at the boundaries of these plates. These same geologists are currently researching the theory that at some point in history (and the focus is on the period immediately preceding, during, and for approximately 8 to 10 months following, the flood) there was a catastrophic shift in the subterranean plates that had multiple effects on the topography of the earth’s surface. Currently on-going testing of this theory is proving this theory to be more and more likely true. The premise is that the onset of “the flood” was triggered by a catastrophic shift in the subterranean plates, either causing, or caused by, equally catastrophic and massive, wide-spread subterranean volcanic activity. This activity and the associated plate tectonic did several things simultaneously. A massive amount of volcanic hydrothermal discharge was spewed into the air and into the seas. Huge increases in subterranean temperature occurred and the horizontal movement of the plates accelerated, moving portions of these landmasses away from one another. This temperature increase caused large vertical movements in the earth’s crust, including the oceans’ floors, rapidly lifting those floors between 6000 and 8000 feet. The moving of these huge, continent-sized landmasses, generated tidal waves of “Biblical” proportions all over the globe. The volcanic activity and the rising temperature would have resulted in the breaking up of that pre-flood floor, releasing superheated steam from the ocean all along these breaks, much like linear geysers, causing intense global rain.
With 70% of the earth’s surface covered by water, as we know it today, and the topography of the pre-flood landmass, catastrophic, wide spread volcanic and tectonic plate interaction, the ocean floors being elevated the estimated amounts, a combination of the rising seas, the subterranean water being released, tidal waves being generated, and the copious amount of superheated steam being converted into a global rain, it is more than logical that the land mass could easily have been covered by water, and covered by the amounts indicated in the Biblical account. Additionally, lest we forget, at that time (pre-flood), because of the water-vapor canopy that did exist, a greenhouse effect was in place providing a pleasant sub tropical-to-temperate climate all around the globe, even at the poles, where today there is ice. Speculative? Well, if true, this would have caused/allowed the growth of lush vegetation on the land all around the globe. The discovery of coal seams in Antarctica containing vegetation that is not now found growing at the poles, but which obviously grew under warmer conditions, has been documented on repeated occasions. And, without the polar ice caps that exist today, the quantity of liquid water would have been increased by at least 3.3 x10^7 km^3; perhaps not “Biblical” in proportion, but substantial nonetheless. Furthermore, as a major portion of this catastrophic activity continued for a month and a half, heating and cooling, re-heating and re-cooling of various portions of the earth’s mantle, it should be easily recognized that new continental landmasses (containing new mountain chains of folded rock strata – which can be seen today in all major mountain chains around the globe) were uplifted from below the water, while large, deep, ocean basins, and very long, very deep trenches, and similar very long, very high submerged ridgelines were formed.
As the newly formed (or re-formed) ocean floors cooled, they would have become more dense and sunk, allowing water to flow off the continents. Movement of the water off the continents and into the oceans would have weighed down the ocean floor and lightened the continents, resulting in the further sinking of the ocean floor, as well as upward movement of the continents. The deepening of the ocean basins and trenches and the rising of the continents would have resulted in more water running off the land. The movement and ultimate collision of the tectonic plates would have pushed up mountain ranges also, particularly toward the end of the flood.
The “uplift” of the new continental landmasses from under the flood waters would have meant that, as the mountains rose and the valleys sank, the waters would have rapidly drained off the newly emerging land surfaces. The collapse of natural dams holding back the floodwaters on the land would also have caused catastrophic flooding. Such rapid movement of large volumes of water would have caused extensive erosion and shaped the basic features of today's earth surface. The erosion caused by receding floodwaters surely would have had an effect on the immediately surrounding topography. And, due to the quantity of water under discussion, the water flow that should have carved the river valleys would have to have been far greater than the volume of water we see flowing in those rivers today. The river valleys seen today are far larger than the rivers that are now flowing in them could have carved, and this is consistent with voluminous flood waters draining off the emerging land surfaces at the close of Noah's flood, and flowing into the rapidly sinking, newly prepared, deep ocean basins. A prime example of this is the Colorado River, flowing through the Grand Canyon in the western US. That river simply does not have the volume or speed of water flow to have caused the erosion that exists absent such a receding flood water explanation.
Second, Learguy’s comment regarding the “heavens” holding that much water…Since I’m not making the case for the flood waters coming from the “heavens,” although as I mentioned, the superheated steam rising from the world’s oceans undoubtedly DID cause torrential rains, I’m going to by-pass commenting here.
Third, Learguy’s comment about getting fossils at high elevations being easy…Because of the explanation I gave regarding the “mountains” being covered with water, I, too, believe that explaining how fossils of sea creatures got to the tops of the mountains we have today is easy.
Fourth, Learguy’s quote regarding getting the animals on the Ark…Well, let’s start with the size of the ark – again, the Bible says the dimensions were 300 cubits, by 50 cubits, by 30 cubits … that converts to 450 feet (135 meters) long, by 75 feet (22.5 meters) wide, by 45 feet (13.5 meters) high. There are other conversions that would make the ark larger, but these dimensions will certainly do. OK, but what does that mean? Well, given these dimensions, the volume would have been 1,500,000 cubic feet OR the capacity of 570 modern railroad cattle cars.
What kind of animals would have to have been on the ark? According to most scholars, the Genesis account excludes sea creatures and insects from being loaded on the ark. This seems reasonable, since remnants of each of these creatures could have logically survived the cataclysm apart from the ark. That leaves mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and Noah's family. Next, we must consider that God instructed Noah to bring animals on the ark "after their kind." This means we should appreciate the scientific concept of variations within a Kind. For example, most biologists agree that wolves, coyotes, dingoes, jackals, foxes, and the hundreds of different domestic dog breeds could all come from a pair of original "dogs." Although genetic code won't allow for variations from Kind to Kind, we now understand how DNA allows for variations within a Kind. Taking such variations into consideration, there are roughly 16,000 distinct “Kinds” of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians now living or known to have lived in the past.
So, let's be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals (25,000 pairs), far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens. Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the elephant or hippopotamus, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck railroad stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the ark. This would leave an additional 363 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people. Say what you will, but I believe the ark had plenty of space.
We don’t know how long it took Noah to build the ark so we can’t determine how long Noah would have had to collect the necessary animals. The first time Noah is mentioned in the Bible he was 500 years old. He was 600 years old when he entered the ark. So, he had something less than 100 years to both build the ark and gather the animals it would house.
Fifth, your comment about someone writing Biblical accounts that were written “…so long ago we don't know who actually invented the story although there are many "gospels" written by different authors today, so that shows there are witnesses to it happening.... its old.... people have always talked about it so it must be true...”You are not the only one who believes that because the Bible was written so long ago, it simply cannot be believed. Typically, ancient manuscripts that are considered valuable are judged reliable by a combination of four components: the number of manuscripts that are available; the date when the document was written; the date of the oldest manuscript available; and the number of years between the original and the oldest manuscript available. Here is a list of what is considered to be valuable and authentic ancient manuscripts (you are welcome to check this information through any source you choose):
The Tetralogies by Plato. There are 7 known manuscripts; the document was written in 400BC; the oldest manuscript available was written in 900AD; meaning that there was about 1300 years between the original and the oldest manuscript.
Gallic Wars by Caesar. There are 10 known manuscripts; the document was written in 60BC; the oldest manuscript available was written in 900AD; meaning that there was about 1000 years between the original and the oldest manuscript.
The Illiad by Homer. There are 643 known manuscripts; the document was written in 900BC; the oldest manuscript available was written in 400BC; meaning that there was about 500 years between the original and the oldest manuscript.
(history) by Herodotus. There are 8 known manuscripts; the document was written between 480 and 425BC; the oldest manuscript available was written in 900AD; meaning that there was about 1300 years between the original and the oldest manuscript.
(general writings) by Sophocles. There are 103 known manuscripts; the document was written between 496 and 406BC; the oldest manuscript available was written in 1000AD; meaning that there was about 1400 years between the original and the oldest manuscript.
(general writings) by Euripides. There are 9 known manuscripts; the document was written between 480 and 406BC; the oldest manuscript available was written in 1100AD; meaning that there was about 1500 years between the original and the oldest manuscript.
(general writings) by Aristotle. There are 49 known manuscripts of any one work; the document was written between 384 and 322BC; the oldest manuscript available was written in 1100AD; meaning that there was about 1400 years between the original and the oldest manuscript.
Bible Old Testament There are more than 10,000 known manuscripts; the document was written between 1500 and 400BC; the oldest manuscript originally available was written in 900AD, but with the Dead Sea Scrolls the dates are between 100BC and 100AD; meaning that originally there was about 1300 years between the original and the oldest manuscript, but with the Dead Sea Scrolls the dates are between 1300 and 300 years.
Bible New Testament There are more than 5,664 known Greek manuscripts, between 8000 and 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts; and 8000 Ethopian, Slavic and Armenian manuscripts – that is more than 24,000 manuscripts; the document was written not later than 100AD; the oldest manuscript available was written in 200AD, with a recent fragment written prior to 100 AD; meaning that there was about 100 years between the original and the oldest manuscript with many about 25 years, which is well within the life time of John, an eyewitness and Disciple of Jesus.
With just a quick glance at this information, you should be able to see that both Old and New Testaments are well situated with regard to the number of years between the original writing and the oldest manuscript – and, according to the scholars who put together this comparison evaluation, “wins” hands down in the category of the number of manuscripts currently available. The Bible should be able to be at least as accepted as the other ancient documents.
OK, so what about the reliability of these documents? How can we be sure that what we have written today is what was originally written? Good question. Let me point out that we have an unprecedented number of individual manuscripts of the Bible that have survived history and are available to us today. Why is this important? The more often you have copies that agree with each other, especially if these copies come from different geographical areas of the world, the more these manuscripts can be cross-checked to confirm or deny what was originally written.
As an added bit of comfort, we should all be aware that even if all the Greek manuscripts and early translations of the New Testament were lost, the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the mountain of quotations in commentaries, sermons, letters, etc. still in existence, that were written by the early church founders.
Some ask isn’t it true that the original documents were copied, by hand, over and over again? Wouldn’t that present endless opportunities for unintended, yet perhaps devastating, errors to be made? What about distractions on the part of the scribes or poor eyesight or other human-based errors? All good questions as well. However, there are factors that go quite a distance to rectify such problems. The first, and probably one of the strongest is the Greek language itself. Greek, unlike English, is an inflected language. This means that a specific word in a sentence functions as the subject of the sentence – and this is true regardless of where it is placed in the sentence. Therefore, if, in the English language, a scribe had translated “Dog bites Man” as “Man bites Dog” we would have a serious error. However, in the Greek language, the meaning of the sentence would not be distorted because the subject, verb, and object of the sentence are not changed even if the word sequencing does change.
What about non-human errors, like ancient ink flaking away on some words or letters and giving the reader a different challenge for translation? Another good question. Lets suppose you received a series of telegrams from Reader’s Digest Magazine telling you the following:
First telegram, “You have won the Reader’s Digest One Million *ollar Sweepstakes!”
Second telegram, “You have won the #eade#’s Digest One Million Dolla# Sweepstakes!”
Third telegram, “You have won the Reader’s Digest One Million Dollar S^eepstakes!”
These telegrams contain errors. What would your reaction be? Would you throw out the notifications on the basis that they were in error and therefore unreliable? Or, would you believe that despite the errors, the message is clear and undistorted? You decide.
Sixth, your comment about it appearing “that the four known Gospels were taken from the accounts of Paul. Paul never met Jesus.”In the first place this is the very first time I’ve ever heard the allegation that the Gospels were written from the “accounts of Paul.” To my knowledge there isn’t any evidence anywhere that anything like this could be alleged. Look at the following:
Matthew. While the gospel itself does not say who the author is, it has been known from a very early time that Matthew wrote this gospel. No one disputed it among the early believers and the early church, when certainly there were many who were Matthew’s contemporaries and some who were antagonistic enough to challenge his authorship if there was any doubt. Matthew was one of the original Twelve Apostles and an eyewitness to the entire ministry of Jesus. It is clear that Matthew’s intended readership was the Jewish population and included many quotations from the Jewish Scriptures (what we call the Old Testament). His intent in writing this Gospel (aside from the inspiration from God) was that he intended to earnestly show the Jews that the Jesus they saw, talked with, listened to, or heard about was the Messiah (the Christ).
Mark. Very early tradition states that Mark, the son of Mary of Jerusalem, wrote this Gospel as a comprehensive look at the life of Jesus, and was directed primarily to those who lived outside of the immediate area of Jesus’ ministry. Here too, no challenge was mounted by any of Mark’s contemporaries as to the validity of his authorship of this Gospel. This is the shortest of the Gospels and emphasizes the superhuman power of Jesus. Mark presents Jesus to his intended readership as God’s Son in action – demonstrating His divinity by His miracles; focusing more on what Jesus did than what He said.
Luke. There has never been much doubt at all that Luke, “the beloved physician” as described in Colossians (4:14), was the author of this Gospel. Just like the authors of the previous Gospels, had there been any disbelief regarding Luke’s authorship, certainly there were many who would have made their objections known. Luke pictures Jesus as the Messiah of Jews and the savior of all mankind, and wrote the Gospel with a universal appeal, but directed specifically to the Gentiles. The aim was to the Greek mind and therefore had to be written in a comprehensive, logical, and orderly manner. In reading the context of Colossians 4:14 (referenced above), we see that Luke was “not of the circumcision,” and was, therefore, probably the only Gentile author in the New Testament.
John. The author of this Gospel identifies himself as the disciple “whom Jesus loved” (see John 13:23 and 20:2). The writer was John the Apostle, and he focused on and stressed the deity of Jesus. The purpose is clearly stated in chapter 20, verses 30-31; “Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book, but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.”
Unfortunately, Christians are still saddled with critics who insist that since these Gospels are written about the same person, there should be no differences in what is said or how it is said. These critics fail to understand (or more likely - they choose not to understand) that although these Gospels were written about the same person they were written by different persons for different reasons to different audiences. While it is not only likely, it must be expected that some “differences” would be present, but the significant factor that must also be recognized is that none of these “differences” are in conflict with one another.
Seventh, your statement that there is no credible ex-Bible supporting evidence for the miraculous events of this period. It is all very suspicious hearsay, full of inconsistency and inaccuracy mixed with made-up astounding occurrences not recorded elsewhere...Actually, there is very good reason to believe in the biblical miracles. One highly pertinent factor is the brief time that elapsed between Jesus' miraculous public ministry and the publication of the gospels. There was insufficient time for the development of miracle legends between when the miracle occurred and when it was written about. Many eyewitnesses to Jesus' miracles would have still been alive to refute any untrue miracle accounts (see 1 Corinthians 15:6).
One must also recognize the noble character of the men who witnessed these miracles (Peter, James, and John, for example). Such men were not prone to misrepresentation, and were willing to give up their lives rather than deny their beliefs.
There were also hostile witnesses to the miracles of Christ. When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, for example, none of the chief priests or Pharisees disputed the miracle (John 11:45-48). If they could have disputed it, they would have. Rather, their goal was simply to stop Jesus (verses 47-48). Because there were so many hostile witnesses who observed and scrutinized Christ, successful "fabrication" of miracle stories in His ministry would have been impossible.
Regarding the issue of hostile witnesses, theologian James Oliver Buswell comments: "In the Biblical events strictly regarded as miracles, the adversaries of faith acknowledged the supernatural character of what took place. After the healing of the man 'lame from his mother's womb,' the rulers and elders and scribes, 'beholding the man that was healed standing with them... could say nothing against it.' But they said, '...that a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it' (Acts 3:1-4:22) In the case of the miracle at Lystra (Acts 14:8-23), the pagans said, 'The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.' With reference to the resurrection of Christ, Paul could ask a Roman court of law to take cognizance of an indisputable, publicly attested fact, for, said he, 'This thing was not done in a corner' (Acts 26:26)."
Further, in Acts 2:22 recall that a bold Peter told the Jewish crowd: "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, AS YOU YOURSELVES KNOW." If Peter were making all this up, the huge crowd surely would have shouted Peter down. But they didn't, for they knew that what he said was true.
Eighth, your statement that the alleged proceedings took place in a time of total superstition when ‘messiah’s’ were a dime a dozen. The people were scientifically ignorant and prone to harsh Roman rule and were in need of reprise from their situation. Imagine for a moment if on the touted death of Jesus, the dead Saints rose from their graves and mixed with the population. The Romans would have their version of the CIA investigate this wonder in an effort to make their armies invincible to death. Why have we not read about this in history?Well, perhaps you know something that I don’t, but I’ve not yet heard that there were people running around all over the place claiming to be the Messiah. Remember, there were very specific expectations of the predicted Messiah and many considered it to be incredulous that Jesus would have the “moxy” to claim to BE the Messiah. Any other claimant to that title would certainly have suffered similar scrutiny – and we read about no such occurrences.
Also, it was not the “Saints,” as you call them, who died and rose from their graves. It was Jesus who did that. And it was His Disciples who saw the resurrected Jesus and believed. It was they whose lives were changed as a result, and it was each of those Disciples (except for John) who died a horrible death instead of retracting what they had said about Jesus’ resurrection. If it was a lie, all they had to do to live was to reveal the lie, and probably be made a national hero to the Roman Emperor. I know many people who have believed so very strongly in their cause, that they have died for it. But in no case did any of these persons die knowing that their cause was a lie.
Ninth, your statement about “walking on water and feeding the multitudes etc. would have evoked the same result…”Here, we’re back to the same thing we discussed regarding the accuracy of the Gospel accounts. If there were reasons to discount any of the miraculous deeds performed by Jesus, certainly there were enough “hostile” persons around who could have publicly discounted, not even all of them, but any ONE of them, and that would have been noteworthy – and probably put a damper on the entire ministry Jesus had. The fact is that no one did. Nowhere is there a claim that Jesus performed miracles in secret. He performed them in the open, on the streets of a very busy Jerusalem.
We also have to recognize that Rome was, at that time, the “center” of civilization – and that Jerusalem was a very long way from Rome. What went on in Judea and Samaria was of little concern to the Roman Emperor as long as it was “under control.” Not very many of the Emperor’s “staff” would want to come in and say something like, “excuse me but there is someone else claiming to be God, and says you’re NOT God.” Remember that the saying about “killing the messenger” got started somewhere.
Tenth, your statement about Christians “…pushing (non-Christians) CONSTANTLY to provide the proof he doesn't exist, but it should be YOU trying to convince us.. that's what god would want right? Preaching... and some of you had the audacity to call US lazy.... erm yeah... whatever…Actually, Callum, you are correct – the only thing I would add (as I did in my earlier post on intellectual honesty) is that both of us should be trying to provide as much information as possible regarding why our respective world view is more correct than the other. My attempt here with this interminably long post is not to “prove you wrong.” If it comes across that way, I apologize – that is NOT my intent. My intent is to merely answer the questions and respond to the statements made. As I said also in another earlier post, it is NOT my goal to convert you, or anyone else, to Christianity. I see my role as one to provide information, answer questions when asked, and once in a while, to prompt discussions. That’s pretty much it. I don’t normally go around flaunting my religious beliefs – but when I’m asked, I’m certainly not shy about explaining not only what I believe, but why I believe it. If you should choose to believe what I say, then that would be great as far as I’m concerned. However, if you choose to not believe what I say – that’s your choice. What you believe is not my fault (whether it is that God exists or does not exist – your beliefs are not my responsibility) and, therefore, I don’t owe anyone a diligent effort to go “capture” you into the fold, as it were. If I’ve answered your questions and responded to your statements, and I have done so honestly and to the best of my ability, that is all I am obligated to do.
Now, having said ALL this – did I do what I set out to do … answer your questions and respond to your statements? Just let me know – and if you’re still reading this, please accept my thanks for allowing me to believe that my tired fingers and my tired brain have been useful to that extent at least.
Rant Master is bit of an under-statement....
Give me a few days to read the above post.
I agree totally with everything you mentioned
Umm... No. I don’t think so. 
Also... you seem to have failed to read my reply... either you aren't reading it.. or simply not responding...
