How can the Old Testament not be a historic record when the belief that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah is predicated on the predictions made in it?

For instance, how could Jesus be in the line of David if David never existed as described? We really don't have any conclusive archeological evidence for David, so you must take his existence as described in Samuel and elsewhere in the OT as fact if you really do believe Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, right?

And from there you'd have to believe the genealogy all the way back to Adam and the Garden of Eden. Heck, Luke 3:23-28 explicitly states that Jesus is a descendant of Adam who is a direct "son" of God.

How can you believe Jesus is the Messiah as predicted in the OT but not believe in the Garden of Eden+Flood history presented in Genesis?

I'm failing to grasp how one accepts the claims of the New Testament but not the Old Testament when the Old Testament claims are actually the premises of the New Testament claims. It seems to me that Creationism is the most consistent (though certainly not wholly consistent by any means) Christian belief. I welcome discussion and possibly reading suggestions if they come with discussion as well.

12/12/2011 1:29:03 PM

What about the books that were decided to not be included in the bible? What about those that portray Jesus as a man and not a god?

12/12/2011 1:36:15 PM

Whether he was a man or an avatar of God doesn't seem incredibly relevant. All Christians believe he was at least born to Mary in a physical fashion and by virtue of Joseph being his "father" he is in the line of David.

(Assuming he even existed as described in the Gospels. I'm referring solely to what Christians generally claim to believe, not what I believe is proven about the history of our world.)

[Edited on December 12, 2011 at 1:44 PM. Reason : clarification]

12/12/2011 1:40:59 PM

Quote :

"and by virtue of Joseph being his "father" he is in the line of David."

<--- lost

12/12/2011 1:56:00 PM

Joseph was a descendent of David, therefore Jesus was in the lineage of David with Joseph as his "father."

12/12/2011 2:03:40 PM

Ahhh debating fiction... one of my guilty pleasures.

Although, I prefer discussing the physics of star wars and star trek.

12/12/2011 2:06:39 PM

To be honest, if public policy that affected me and my family were based on Gene Roddenberry's writings, I'd be questioning the veracity of his works as well.

12/12/2011 2:12:38 PM

^^^ This might be a little inconsistent with the virgin birth.

You know... just saying...

12/12/2011 2:50:38 PM

Which is why I quoted "father". But Christians don't view that as inconsistent with the original Jewish prophecy, and I'm not sure whether Jews even hold that in contention. Worldly father as opposed to genetic father is good enough.

12/12/2011 2:55:53 PM

Quote :

"But Christians don't view that as inconsistent with the original Jewish prophecy"

I mean, I knew Christians will stop making sense after being questioned about their beliefs, but... damn.

Quote :

"and I'm not sure whether Jews even hold that in contention"

Isn't the entire point of remaining Jewish and not becoming Christian not accepting Jesus as the one of the prophesy? Or am I confusing this with the Matrix series?

12/12/2011 3:33:15 PM

There are quite a lot of prophecies that Christians claim Jesus fulfilled. I was just saying I'm not sure whether Jewish scholars take contention with the idea that Joseph is being counted as a father even if he's not a genetic father.

12/12/2011 3:47:28 PM

This thread has shown me something very interesting.
Religious debate on forums can actually be something other than unbearable if only one side is present.

Of course, inevitably some Bible-thumper will join the conversation claiming that everything in the Bible is to be taken word-for-word as true, even the conflicting information. Then that person will get piled upon by the other side, who will conveniently narrow their focus to him as the stereotypical true Christian even if the more reasonable side jumps in, and then the thread will devolve into:
-disco_stu cherry-picking points he wants to discuss and avoiding those he does not,
-aaronburro quoting 20 items at a time rendering the thread utterly unreadable (for more reasons than just the excessive number of quotes),
-GrumpyGOP fighting a hopeless battle from the Christian side because of aforementioned cherry-picking of points from the other side,
-and maybe Wolfpack2K will jump in and quote the Bible like someone from the 18th century.

I think that about covers it. Carry on.

[Edited on December 12, 2011 at 3:52 PM. Reason : -]

12/12/2011 3:50:07 PM

I don't think that's a fair assessment. I try to address everything that's presented to me.

Also, in this thread I am drawing a distinction between Creationists and "Moderate" Christians so I don't think there'll be much generalizing.

[Edited on December 12, 2011 at 3:58 PM. Reason : .]

12/12/2011 3:51:16 PM

^^Christianity basically requires you to cherry pick. If you actually believe 100% of the bible, that makes you a bad person, and if there was a Hell, you'd deserve to go there.

[Edited on December 12, 2011 at 4:00 PM. Reason : ]

12/12/2011 3:57:06 PM

That's kinda my point as well. "Moderate" Christians cherry-pick while Creationists do not. Even granting the claim of the Resurrection, I can't understand how they can just ignore the OT when it's absolutely necessary for the Resurrection to be plausible. To me, it's just not internally consistent, to say nothing whatsoever about the Resurrection's plausibility aside.

I wasn't even referring to Hell, since the Gospels (and to a lesser extent Revelation) are fairly clear about it. I don't think Hell is a NT/OT distinction really, but I think that because it's such a disagreeable concept moderate Christians try to distance themselves from it.

[Edited on December 12, 2011 at 4:10 PM. Reason : correction]

12/12/2011 4:06:30 PM

Against my better judgement, I'll bite just this once.

During the times of the OT, religion and politics were much more intertwined than nowadays; so, much of what they wrote reflected their cultural views as opposed to what the core religion truly dictates. Where's the line? This topic is not easy, but I would wager the constant struggle to find this line makes for healthy conversation (as opposed to "What do you mean its not all to be taken verbatim?").

And another topic for you...
There's a good bit of the stuff in the Bible that would have different meanings when read today as opposed to back then. Their culture would have implicit understanding of certain rules not necessarily recorded as well. For instance, "Thou shalt not kill" is rather high on the list of 10 rules everyone must follow, but the Israelite people were known to have fought in wars and had some fairly brutal penal punishments that would go against this.

Sure, you can probably claim this as an inconsistency, but that would be as ignorant as those claiming that the Bible is to be taken word-for-word as absolute truth. A more accurate statement would be that much of the understanding of this book was lost between translations and time and cultures.

So enjoy your discussion. I'm sure someone will soon take your bait and give all the fun pre-canned responses that you relish to tear to pieces.

-------

EDIT - Oh, and for what its worth, I do agree that a large portion of Christians follow the cherry-picking understanding of the OT as opposed to my PoV of why everything is not strictly literal. They don't agree with it, so they disregard it without much other thought.

[Edited on December 12, 2011 at 4:32 PM. Reason : ]

12/12/2011 4:27:37 PM

That doesn't really address my question, unless you're suggesting that the genealogy from Adam to Jesus is a reflection of cultural views somehow. It's still not consistent, because in order to fulfill the David prophecy, it must have been an actual bloodline, right? I'm not arguing whether you should eat shellfish or stone homos because it's says so in the OT; I'm not arguing about moral assessments. I'm talking strictly about historicity of David, Adam, and the Garden of Eden being necessary for the claim of truth regarding the Resurrection of Jesus.

(necessary but not sufficient, btw)

[Edited on December 12, 2011 at 4:37 PM. Reason : .]

12/12/2011 4:35:37 PM

Moderate Christians should probably just be called "Cultural Christians". They like going to church and the warm fuzzy feelings they get from the community. The Christians over at Westboro Baptist Church are probably some of the only real Christians left. The God of the bible was a vengeful, hateful god that despised his horrible creation, going so far as to create an eternal torture chamber where the vast majority of human souls would be sent to.

There was recently a chit chat thread discussing Hell, and quite a few Christians there admitted that without Hell, there was no point to Christianity.

I don't honestly believe that those people, if provided with irrefutable proof that God doesn't exist (as if such proof could even exist), would become terrible people. I think they're probably about as good as anyone else, they're just afraid to admit that morality can (and clearly does) exist separate from religion.

12/12/2011 4:41:13 PM

I love this article:

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

Most reasonable readings would hold that Jesus predicted the end of the world in the life of the people he preached to.

But honestly, most of what he said was just reformulated versions of the teachings of the church and other influences at that time. He talked about adultery, and that if you lust for some woman you're not married to then you're better to gouge out your eyeball than go to hell for it. Honestly, this sounds exactly like the kind of crack pot stuff a preacher at that time would say. That and all the typical undying monotheistic devotion to God.

Then again, was this sort of nullified when he died for our sins? Or did the historical Jesus ever clarify that he died for our sins? Given the supernatural nature of the Resurrection, it's probably one of the most suspect parts.

John the Baptist preached the apocalypse. It's not surprising that Jesus did too, or that he was crucified for it!

But let's take the context out, take the popular memes of the day out, and what are we left? Jesus did preach some seriously novel stuff, that seems to have no president. Mainly the pacifism and golden rule type stuff. Frankly, those messages are the only bits to rationally take away.

Oh, and you don't need a church. That was a Jesus original too.

So basically everything rational people advocate today.

12/12/2011 6:18:29 PM

Quote :

"That's kinda my point as well. "Moderate" Christians cherry-pick while Creationists do not."

How many people do you know that believe it ok to execute someone for working the Sabbath, or that there is a moral way to buy a slave?

Everyone cherry picks.

12/12/2011 7:03:27 PM

Fair point. It would be more accurate to say that Creationists cherry-pick less than others, especially in regards to the historical accuracy of the events laid out in Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament.

12/12/2011 7:14:14 PM

^

Yeah I don't understand why that gets special treatment over other parts of the bible...

12/12/2011 7:37:20 PM

Because science has cast serious doubt and in some cases has conclusively disproven Genesis and the historical accuracy of the Bible. You don't have to ignore a mountain of evidence to believe in some amorphous deity that vaguely interacted with humanity in some way that doesn't exactly match up with the OT.

Except I'm arguing here that you do. I don't think that it's internally consistent to believe the Jesus story without believing the Genesis story. Luke says that Jesus is a descendant of David, Abraham, Noah, and Adam. Which you'd have to believe is true if you want to believe he's the Messiah right?

[Edited on December 13, 2011 at 9:33 AM. Reason : s]

12/13/2011 9:16:05 AM

As a kid I was confused by the change of covenant. It seems contradictory to me that a God who was supposedly perfect and all knowing would have a change of heart/mind like that. If he was going to relieve all our sins through Jesus, why wait for so many generations before doing so?

Why go from city-destroying, jealous, petty, vindictive God to warm, kind, loving God? Is he more perfect now? Did the definition of perfect change as God did?

12/13/2011 3:14:35 PM

Quote :

"Yeah I don't understand why that gets special treatment over other parts of the bible..."

It's pretty hard to get chicks when your official policy for dealing with women during menstruation is derived from Leviticus.

12/13/2011 3:16:09 PM

Quote :

"How can the Old Testament not be a historic record"

it'd be nice to get a dead sea scroll copy and compare it to the versions we have now.

Quote :

"What about the books that were decided to not be included in the bible? What about those that portray Jesus as a man and not a god?"

source?

Quote :

" If he was going to relieve all our sins through Jesus, why wait for so many generations before doing so?"

i thought it had something to do with israel literally having no clue how to follow the higher law therefore they were simply subject to a lesser set of laws that were 'easier' to obey?

12/13/2011 3:43:30 PM

its important to not let man-made words get in the way of your relationship with God

12/13/2011 4:21:01 PM

i beleive god created the heavens and earth, but i also 100% believe evolution took place

i don't get why so many christians, and people in general, feel you must pick a side

12/13/2011 4:48:01 PM

Quote :

"its important to not let man-made words get in the way of your relationship with God"

Not relevant to the thread. If you really want to open this can of worms, let me know how you can know anything about the nature of a being without having any evidence even of its existence.

Quote :

"i beleive god created the heavens and earth, but i also 100% believe evolution took place i don't get why so many christians, and people in general, feel you must pick a side"

That's fine. The question is, do you believe the Jesus story and that Jesus is the prophesized Jewish Messiah? If so, how is that possible since you must believe he was a descendent of David, Abraham, Noah, and Adam as described in the OT. Genesis is not compatible with Evolution.

Or explain why it doesn't matter that he didn't actually fulfill the Jewish Messianic Prophecies.

[Edited on December 13, 2011 at 7:37 PM. Reason : .]

12/13/2011 7:33:16 PM

why can't there be a big bang, and an intelligent entity that has a role in why we are here currently, and evolution, and the laws of physics be universal all at the same time?

the big bang, still-state infinitely large universe, or infinite dimensions or multiverse... it doesn't matter. we know this current universe been around for at least 13.7 billion years (proven by hubble) and a lot of intelligent lifeforms could have developed and had an impact in our reason for existing here. who am i to laugh at someone for having that belief.

it's built into us genetically to search for that answer (why / what) is going in the universe and our origin. and eventually we'll figure it out. just a matter of not killing all our own species before we find out.

[Edited on December 13, 2011 at 8:53 PM. Reason : 0]

12/13/2011 8:52:46 PM

^

That's just dodging the question entirely. He's asking how someone can believe in evolution at all and still believe in Jesus.

Evolution != big bang. Evolution == life grew more complex from a starting point. It doesn't answer how the starting point happened, how the universe started etc.

12/13/2011 9:59:13 PM

As though I'm not already in a terrible mood, I might as well post in this thread.

I think that a lot of people more educated in Christian theology than I am would say that the OT's value as a "historic record" is minuscule in comparison with its value as a collection of moral rules and prophecies.

"Moral rules" for a couple of reasons. One, a lot of the no-brainers get covered there -- "Don't kill each other" being the classic and possibly most ignored one. Two, the old rules provide a point of departure and comparison for the NT rules.

"Prophecies" because, from a Christian point of view, the OT is mostly just a run-up to Jesus. It's full of foreshadowing and allusions and shit, all of which are supposed to point to a Messiah. You can't found a religion around a record of what has happened. We can ask grandpa about what's already gone down. For a religion, you need the stuff that's going to happen.

We've got pretty good evidence that the Old Testament predated Christianity by a long while. Whether or not every historical statement in the OT is bunk isn't important. If we assume that the events of the New Testament did happen, then the prophecies of the OT did a pretty good job of predicting them.

Quote :

"How can you believe Jesus is the Messiah as predicted in the OT but not believe in the Garden of Eden+Flood history presented in Genesis? "

Adam and Eve did not have to get molded out of clay in a specific garden for them to be progenitors of humanity and ancestors of Jesus. They don't even necessarily have to be the only ancestors of the human race by OT standards, since it's a little cagey on where some of the spouses came from early on.

As for the flood...I don't have a huge problem with the flood story. I doubt that the Earth's entire surface or even a large part of it was inundated, and I doubt that Noah and his crew were the only people who survived, but all that's necessary to keep the connection with Jesus going is that they be, for lack of a better term, the most important people who survived it.

---

And then there's another, more radical angle to take, which is that the Old Testament doesn't matter at all if you buy into the New Testament. You can accept a statement as fact without doing the same for the explanation. Think about what parents used to tell their kids about "where babies come from." A sharp kid might accept that, yes, it starts out as an invisibly small thing inside the mother that starts to grow. Initially he can see no outward sign of this little thing, but they buy that it's there because eventually the stomach swells up and so forth. They can accept all of these things as facts, and be right, while still being highly dubious about some trumped-up carrion bird delivering a package to the parents.

As you well know and enjoy pointing out, Christians are taking all of this on faith anyway. So how is it more ridiculous to say "I believe Jesus did X, Y, and Z" based on faith than to say, "I believe Jesus did X, Y, and Z, and that he was Noah's great-great-whatever-grandkid"? Put another way, why is a guy who thinks Christianity as a whole is as crazy as believing in a flying spaghetti monster now trying to divide Christianity into separate ranks of crazy? That shit is inconsistent, friend.

12/13/2011 10:46:54 PM

Quote :

"We've got pretty good evidence that the Old Testament predated Christianity by a long while. Whether or not every historical statement in the OT is bunk isn't important. If we assume that the events of the New Testament did happen, then the prophecies of the OT did a pretty good job of predicting them. "

This doesn't logically follow.

That's like saying that whether John Edwards (the psychic) was bunk is not relevant, if it turns out that his channeling was even remotely accurate. This is how they WANT you to think, but it's obvious that there are underlying factors that are kept hidden in order to maintain the illusion.

Quote :

"As for the flood...I don't have a huge problem with the flood story. I doubt that the Earth's entire surface or even a large part of it was inundated, and I doubt that Noah and his crew were the only people who survived, but all that's necessary to keep the connection with Jesus going is that they be, for lack of a better term, the most important people who survived it. "

This is a perfectly acceptable belief, but it belies what the flood story actually said.

Quote :

" which is that the Old Testament doesn't matter at all if you buy into the New Testament"

This seems to be the preferred method of hand-waving that most Christians selectively choose to use, when they don't feel like defending the nuttier parts of the OT.

[Edited on December 13, 2011 at 11:40 PM. Reason : ]

12/13/2011 11:40:07 PM

Quote :

"Not relevant to the thread. If you really want to open this can of worms, let me know how you can know anything about the nature of a being without having any evidence even of its existence."

its relevant, albeit maybe not specifically tailored to the NT vs OT question, especially the way i addressed it in a seemingly simple sentence..

how you can know? you can't really can you? that's why one needs to believe.

i'm just saying, if you get hung up on all the man-made shit, it gets in the way.

12/13/2011 11:41:01 PM

pack_bryan, Cael addressed your points exactly as I would have so respond to him or myself regarding that if you need to.

GrumpyGOP, my entire point is that in the New Testament Gospels, it refers to Adam, Noah, Abraham, and David as real people, which they must have been if you want to believe that he was the Messiah. Also, in the New Testament Gospels it refers to Adam as being the direct son of God.

The mechanism by which God created Adam is not relevant. The story is that God created Adam, fully formed as a human as the first human. (and that God created all life-forms, fully formed and in their present state)

Quote :

"As you well know and enjoy pointing out, Christians are taking all of this on faith anyway. So how is it more ridiculous to say "I believe Jesus did X, Y, and Z" based on faith than to say, "I believe Jesus did X, Y, and Z, and that he was Noah's great-great-whatever-grandkid"? Put another way, why is a guy who thinks Christianity as a whole is as crazy as believing in a flying spaghetti monster now trying to divide Christianity into separate ranks of crazy? That shit is inconsistent, friend. "

Because their faith is based on New Testament writing. I get ignoring the OT but I'm trying to figure out how one can ignore the fucking Gospels and still believe in Jesus. The writers of the Gospels clearly believed the OT was historical record. If you don't believe them on that, why do you believe them on Jesus?

The fact is I'm studying the Bible and trying to figure out where "Moderate" Christianity is getting their beliefs from, because it doesn't appear to be from the New Testament. Creationists read the NT and see what I'm seeing. They believe it, of course, while I don't.

Quote :

"This seems to be the preferred method of hand-waving that most Christians selectively choose to use, when they don't feel like defending the nuttier parts of the OT."

Which is the point of this thread. This cannot be logically done because the NT references the OT as fact. I know it is done commonly by "Moderate" Christians but it doesn't make a lick of sense internally.

Quote :

"how you can know? you can't really can you? that's why one needs to believe. i'm just saying, if you get hung up on all the man-made shit, it gets in the way. "

The evidence suggests that every holy book is man-made, so what do you have to go on? I'll gladly ignore holy books, so now what?

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 9:16 AM. Reason : .]

12/14/2011 9:15:01 AM

Quote :

"Because science has cast serious doubt and in some cases has conclusively disproven Genesis and the historical accuracy of the Bible."

can you provide some examples, please?

Quote :

"Genesis is not compatible with Evolution."

how so? what if the "first day", "second day", etc weren't consecutive, but millions of years apart?

12/14/2011 9:49:33 AM

Quote :

"how so?"

Fifth day: birds
Sixth day: reptiles and other land animals, humans
Sometime after the seventh day: plantlife

It's not compatible with the evolution of life on Earth, and it's in complete conflict with the most basic scientific conception of the order in which things appeared.


[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 10:01 AM. Reason : .]

12/14/2011 9:56:15 AM

Day and night are caused by the rotation of the earth facing the Sun.
The Earth was formed after the Sun.
The Earth was formed after other stars.
The stars aren't set in the Heavens, and new stars are being formed every second.
There is no water above "the firmament" and there is no "firmament" either and no windows to let it in.
We know that humans and other primates have been on Earth much longer than the complete genealogy from Adam to Jesus allows.
There is no evidence of a world-wide flood and in fact species distribution on our planet make the concept impossible.

We know that humans are themselves apes and evolved from other apes so that there never was a "first" fully human pair. We did not start out as 2 fully formed humans which then propagated the entire species which then at some point was wiped down to a single family which then repopulated the entire Earth.

This isn't new stuff. There's a reason why creationists hate science. Moderate Christianity is an attempt to reconcile scientific facts with belief in Jesus. I don't think you can biblically get to Jesus without Genesis.

12/14/2011 10:20:15 AM

Quote :

"This seems to be the preferred method of hand-waving that most Christians selectively choose to use, when they don't feel like defending the nuttier parts of the OT."

Yeah it's not like belief in the Bible isn't often defended by relating the prophesies in the OT to their completions in the NT or anything...

12/14/2011 10:25:38 AM

Quote :

"The evidence suggests that every holy book is man-made, so what do you have to go on? I'll gladly ignore holy books, so now what?"

don't ignore the books... go the other way. the books have a lot of wisdom in them, and can help you get close to the mind of God. they are also oftentimes cluttered with facist intent -- which from a utilitarian view is inevitable, as the books were a matter of public policy as much as they were a way to get closer to God.

maybe you take them all in, and use your consciousness to figure out God's word. there's a sort of "collective unconscious" as Jung described it, that permeates all of them. this of course requires an advanced tolerance for amiguity, while avoiding the traps of moral relativism that inadvertently leads you to commit evil acts.

and this will ofcourse be hard to pull off, if you were born and raised to believe that Emperor Joe's Version 2.0 of the Holy Book as preahed by Pastor Billy Bob or Deacon Tyrone is the end all, and that the letter of that version trumps everything up to and including the spirit of the version.

even for highly conscious individuals, its too daunting to immerse yourself in a ton of different holy scripture. not only is it hard due to the seemingly conflicting messages between the texts (let alone the conflicting messages WITHIN the texts), its difficult due to the sheer volume of reading and absorbing one has to do.

...ultimately its what you believe. believing, for nearly all human purposes, trumps knowing.

12/14/2011 2:25:44 PM

You've been watching way too much Deepak Chopra. That entire post was nonsense. Believing does not "trump" or is in anyway better than knowing.

12/14/2011 2:36:50 PM

Quote :

"That entire post was nonsense. Believing does not "trump" or is in anyway better than knowing."

that's what you "believe" brother.

..and i don't watch or read Deepak Chopra, but i see what you're getting at. i suppose similarities between what i said and stuff he would say, might could be explained by similar cultural and spiritual exposure via our Indian/Hindu backgrounds.

12/14/2011 2:52:37 PM

In a semantic sense, everything is "believing", but the importance lies in whether your beliefs are justifiable.

Religious beliefs generally are not, while beliefs supported by reason and evidence are. In this way, trying to equivocate religious belief with what I "believe" in is a dishonest attempt to put woo on the same level as science.

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 3:18 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2011 3:17:22 PM

I just love it when people are all GAYS ARE BAD NO LET GET MARRIED RAWR while they're wearing synthetic fibers and eating shellfish and planting more than one type of crop in their garden, and pretty much every other thing Leviticus says will send you to hell.

Fuck 'em.

12/14/2011 3:21:54 PM

The best is when a creationist hits rock bottom and says, "Yeah well, you BELIEVE in evolution so both our positions are based on faith so I guess this is a draw."

First it's a riot because of the implication that all beliefs are equally plausible.

Second it's that their last resort is trying to find a way to say "Yeah well your beliefs are just as unfounded as mine!"


[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 3:27 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2011 3:27:03 PM

That's just the thing right there. You don't believe in evolution. You don't believe in any scientific theory. You give weight to them because until there's reproducible evidence that the finding is in error, it's accepted to be true. Accepting something as truth isn't believing in something.

They believe in something, as there's nothing to prove it. It's completely irrational.

12/14/2011 3:31:45 PM

Yes I dodged the question entirely b/c I believe it's irrelevant... and a totally personal belief since no one has 100% tangible evidence or proof of the validity of either

I'm just pointing out that humanity, as long as we don't wipe ourselves out, will eventually travel the stars and possibly meet other intelligent life or find clues as to the reasons behind our existence.

--On the topic of the NT or OT though directly:

If a person doesn't want to believe in the NT or OT or both or neither then that is their opinion. But the OT does specify prophecies that are fulfilled in the NT and therefore are probably connected and difficult to just simply 'throw one of them in the garbage yet believe the other entirely'

But I'd rather not discuss that since it's a matter of spiritual sensing and not purely scientific logic to find out your beliefs there. If a person feels inclined through a spiritual feeling or sense to believe in them...it is up to that person. And if a person has no 'spiritual' abilities or inclinations then good for them. They can rely on their own merits and findings of others in the world to create their own opinions as well as judge or not judge others for theirs. Or you can just not care about humanities origins and be at peace with simply existing.

12/14/2011 3:57:06 PM

Quote :

"Yes I dodged the question entirely b/c I believe it's irrelevant... and a totally personal belief since no one has 100% tangible evidence or proof of the validity of either"

So what you're saying is that all things that are not 100% certain are equally uncertain? Woooooo

12/14/2011 4:01:50 PM

You like to respond to my posts and put them through the str8foolish filter and pretend they mean other things

It's a pretty fun to watch sometimes. Carry on. I'm waiting for this same thing in the OWS thread.

12/14/2011 4:08:04 PM

Quote :

"But I'd rather not discuss that since it's a matter of spiritual sensing and not purely scientific logic to find out your beliefs there"

I was with you until you got here. I'm not sure what you mean by 'spiritual sensing'. Can you describe this further?

12/14/2011 4:13:21 PM