Reviews for How to Destroy Christianity

Reviews For: How to Destroy Christianity - Reviews: Page 1 of 2

Angry Catholic 2008-03-09 ch 1, anon.	abuseSo, atheists, and all other “counter enemies” of our faith, to obliterate us from the face of the earth, I challenge you, as many have before, find the body of Jesus Christ and you will never hear from us again! This is a CRAP challenge. Atheists will not respect you for it. If someone did find the body of christ, how can they prove that it is so? will it have a sign saying 'jesus' on it? hell no! Here's a question: Can god make a stone that is too heavy for him to lift? If you can answer that correctly, you gain points against atheism. The way this is written in confusing, and very paolini-ish. when i say 'paolini-ish, i mean arrogantly and stupidly arguing a point in such a way that it can be refuted easily and well. Don't just concentrate on defending your own faith - comment on the 'faith' of the atheists. Why do they care so much about chrsitianity? Is it because they are scared that we might be right? Atheists will never know if they are right, but they WILL know if they're wrong. Christians on the other hand, won't ever know if they're wrong. So, who wins? :D
The Critic 2008-02-27 ch 2, anon.	abuseOkay. I'm just going to say it: this has made me cringe. I got highly confused while reading this, not least because of the awful layout - ever heard of paragraphs? These make the reading a lot easier, and the reader a hell of a lot more likely to continue reading. Right. Now that's out of my system, I have some constructive criticism for you! Yay! And I really hope you read it, 'cause it took a while to write. :D "If Allah or multiple gods are worthy of worship, then tell me what they did that Jesus didn’t do and did they do it better?" This line really bugged me - it's quite clearly a 'my horse is bigger than yours' - and Jesus would not have you brag, I am sure, especially about him - he told his disciples on numerous occasions "Tell no-one of what you have seen", and as a follower, should you not follow his advice sometimes? It is also not a case of whether or not they did it better - anyone can say they did it better. It would be more of a case of: how does what they did make them more believable? I am sure that some of the heathen gods did many things Jesus would not do, period - why shold Jesus have to compete with them? He should be as he is, and that should be enough for those who believe. Maybe my version of the question is crap, but yours was quite cringe-worthy - not that mine isn't, but still. "The proof: the resurrection and ascension of Christ" I would truly love this to be considered proof. Truly. But alas, saying it does not make it so. You cannot 'prove' something to someone using fact alone. You do not need to totally and utterly convince them - all you need to do is put a shadow of doubt in their minds about what THEY believe in. So instead of detailing that Jesus rose from the dead with his awesome powers, talk (or rather write)instead about the logicality of that assumption. Why did they want Jesus dead so quick? It was actually illegal to put him on trial on the night of the week that they did, but they did it anyway - why could it not have waited? When he was dead, a spear was stuck into his side - blood and water came out, and the soldiers - who were no fans of Jesus or his teachings - verified his death. There are historical records of a man named Jesus, who lived around that time and was crucified. Jesus was put in a tomb, and a stone was rolled across the entrance - I'm not talking about a measly little rock, but a huge stone, that took several men to roll (the stone also rolled downwards to cover the entrance, so it would have had to have been pushed up to get it away from the entrance, requiring a much bigger shove :D). If Jesus had been alive, he would have been in a severely weakened state, due to the flogging he had received, the wound sustained by the soldier's spear, and the strain of being on the cross so long. Tell me, would he have been able to roll that stone back up? Furthermore, the tomb had a watch set over it - the persons responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus did not want his body stolen by his disciples and hidden so that they would then say that he had risen. So, we have a huge stone and a watch. Watches can be evaded, can they not? Well, when you look at the context, back then if you as a Roman guard fell asleep on your watch, the penalty was death - so the guards had a pretty good incentive to stay awake, no? The gospel tell us that they said they had seen nothing. All you need to do is start the fire of doubt. Now, about the bible itself. Made by god? Bullsh*t. It was written by men - and THAT has been proved. These men may have been told what to write by god, or they recorded prophesies, or they were just recounting what they had experienced - it wasn't god's hand that wrote the words. That idea (that the bible is written by god) would be better placed in Islamic beliefs - the Koran was shown to Mohammad by the 'angel' and he memorised what ti said, because he could not read. THAT is more like god writing it. And now, evolution. What is wrong in believing in evolution? Sure, the entire idea of it was to make it so God was no longer needed (my great great uncle Russell was a friend of Darwin, and a priest, so naturally, they didn't get along so well after his theory came out :D) but can we not say that it was a mechanism? How does evolution disprove god in any way? That would be a better road to go down than trying to disprove evolution itself, which has plenty of scientific evidence to support it, even if a lot of it is fake (e.g. the progression of the horse). Who's to say that God didn't invent evolution? Because using evolution as a way to disprove God has one fundamental flaw: it HAS to have started somewhere. So who, or what, started it? Right. About the sex thing - when did god ever say that it wasn't meant to be fun? He meant it to be wonderful, but only to be between man and wife, so it means that much more. Thinking that sex is just for producing children is an archaic idea, but one that features in the middle east, where, in places, they castrate women so that sex is not pleasurable for them. But that's allah for you - hate women. No wait, that's the interpreters of allah - the koran never details that women are inferior. But that's off subject. Finally, about the whole challenge thing: don't. Just don't. It's not a very intellectual thing to say, and readers will just scoff at the rest of the essay - I know my eyebrows raised when I read it. Find the body. Right. Ever heard of the shroud of turin? Research is a wise man's friend: reasearch it and see what you think. Maybe even include it in the next installment of this...essay. And may I just finish with telling you that I am 15, and a Roman Catholic. It would be nice to have a response sometime. :D
Tiefling 2008-02-17 ch 3,	abuseThis chapter struck me as a load of pointless waffling. "Though merely an introduction, it is so critical to grasp that the Bible is not just a book created by men –though it was written by men—but a book who’s origin is God Himself." And we are to believe this simply because it says so in the Bible. It's circular reasoning. "In this chapter, however, I want to spend time addressing a person’s internal knowledge system; that is, their conscience." No, a person's 'internal knowledge system', what they store their knowledge in, is called a MEMORY. A conscience is something different. "However, the most powerful thing that a person has is a conscience; everyone has one." Actually, some mentally ill people don't. Look it up. "It is the very evidence that they live with everyday that proves that God exists and has put the knowledge of God and evil in their being. " No, it isn't. Even if you assume (as you appear to have done) that a conscience couldn't arise in a creature naturally, but had to be put there by a god, its presence isn't evidence that it was put there by your God. Also, people's consciences tell them different things. People have different ideas of what constitutes good and evil actions. This has to do with the enormous influence of the culture in which a person is raised. "The idea that the knowledge of good and evil came through means other than the Garden of Eden doesn't exist when looking at occultic religions because the idea of man being responsible for sin also doesn't exist. " What do you mean by 'occultic religions' in this context? Many religions such as Satanism (if that's what you mean) most certainly do feature the idea of personal responsibilty for one's actions, although they may disagree on what is sinful, or whether there is even any such thing as a sin. As to the idea of where the knowledge of good and evil comes from in such religions, it varies. You generalise a great deal about other religions without any evidence of research on the subject. "this puts the entire world guilty before God because all of us were born in this world into sin." Many great thinkers have had issue with the obvious contradiction between a supposedly all loving God and the fundamental unfairness of a baby being 'born into sin' (how can someone who has never had a chance to do anything be a sinner?), hence the birth of Protestantism. "Only Christianity defines truth as being directly from God and found in His written Word" Oh really? What of the Koran and the holy books of other religions? You don't know what you are talking about. "If anything contradicts scripture, then it is unacceptable and passed down as a lie. " Right. So I should feed my pet snake dirt because it says in the Bible that that's what snakes eat? And when he starves to death I can comfort myself with knowing that at least I didn't listen to the lies of the pet shop owner and the vet who must have been lying because they contradicted the scripture. Great advice. shakes head By your definition, so many advances in science and philosophy must be dismissed as 'lies'. We must now all go back to living in dung huts with no sanitation, treating women as property and beating children to death when they disobey their parents.
Jeannie-Redd 2007-11-08 ch 2,	abuseI must say that I'm rather glad to find a work such as this posted. It's encouraging to see others write about Jesus and give Scriptures to back themselves up, which is sadly a rare thing. It's also encouraging to see people who are unafraid to speak the truth and not worry about the reactions. Sadly many people today are afraid to say anything for fear of what others may think or do to them. Keep up the good work and can't wait for updates. Take care and God bless. ~Jeannie-Redd
review 2007-10-22 ch 1,	abusewritten with great conviction. youve gotta know though, that nonbelievers usually arent dissauded by facts alone. pray for them. the wonder of prayer is astounding.
AuthorNinjaEarth 2007-10-01 ch 2,	abuseEveryone: Thank you for your reviews. All of them have proven helpful despite their critical context and opinions; again, all is appreciated. I wanted to assure the future reviewers, as well as those who have already reviewed, that again my defenses in both chapters are merely "Introduction" and I haven't provided the information to it's fullest in defending my postion. In the later chapters, more devised content and sources will follow which will help support my argument. The arguments listed are only in general details regarding my fundamental position in defending Christology. In the next chapter, which is currently being developed right now, I will be taking a step back to address the conscience evidence of the knowledge of God and His Moral Law, namely the ten commandments. While I"m being extremely humble in my review, I can assure you, many of you, that I am well capable of defending my position very well; and again, I thank you for great suggestions. But the main factor isn't my necessarily "proving" Christ, but rather to demonstrate the gospel of Jesus Christ. The real intention is to give thought to the gospel, while I do place some time in defending Bibliology and eschatology. I will also place a doctrinal statement in future text to let you know where I fall in theology when it comes to my beliefs in the scriptures, God, Jesus Christ, and the church. So, I do apologize for the essay not being master quality (as with most of your thoughts it was merely spontaneity and not critically preceptive. Starting with chapter four, it will be more professionally done and presented in a clearer fashion. So, just thought I'd point that out. Thanks everyone and enjoy your day. In Christ, Reginald Fredericks
melrose8585 2007-09-29 ch 2,	abuseAs a history major (and a frequent write of research papers, essays, etc.) I found many flaws in your work, but I do highly commend the fact that you actually did the work. Many won't write on their opinions, so anyone who does I do have a respect for. On the other hand, my knowledge in the subject is vast and I have to disagree with most of your essay. I myself am Christian; this does have a large influence over my opinions. But I have also found many ways to blend my religion with my education. So I am going to try and enlighten you just a little. 1. "... there is real scientific and prophetic evidence to prove that the Bible is not man-made." I would really like to see such evidence. From my religious history classes we have learned that EVERY book in the bible was written by man. The churches all claim this themselves, and I believe that most of the books are named after the men who wrote them. So how is the bible not man-made if man wrote it? Divine muse? If your argument is that the prose the men wrote came to them through divine means, then isn't all writing the same? 2. "...sex, but outside of marriage, God views it as sin because it’s not “created” for the purpose outside of marriage." Oh, my. Sex, or procreation, is a biological response and initiative for the purposes of reproduction. All animals, and we are animals, procreate. Marriage, though, is a man-made spiritual concept that was not around until after sex was invented. So, sex was created for babies, not marriage. Marriage was created to govern sex because people weere running around all disorganized, spreading STDs and getting way too many girls in the wrong kind of trouble. What better way to control the growing issue of illegitimate children than ban sex before marriage! 3. "... it’s enough to say that someone named Jesus did exist." Not even remotely near the truth. We know historically that yes, there was a Jew named Jesus. We also know that there was a man named Solomon. But, and I cringe to say it because I am Christian, it is not enough to say he existed. The claim of his existence is actually backed up by facts: primary sources, although very few of them. 4. "He’s coming again to judge the living and the dead for all that they’ve done." The idea of Revelations has always bothered me. I have a problem with the idea that the "benevolent, forgiving" God many Christians speak of will come to reign terror on us. Besides, last time I checked, historically, this book and the idea of Armageddon came to the writer after a dream. I don't place too much faith in that certain book. 5. "... evolution has been proven false." This angers me. All around me there are signs of evolution that Christians prefer to call adaptation to soother their own doubts. The human race if one large example; not only our progress into the forms we are in now but also the different races are proof of evolution. Each race evolved to better acclimate themselves to their environment. It is the same for many animals. If we do not evolve then how do you explain the growth of intelligence in human beings? Do you think somone just switched on a light bulb in their head? True, we have built upon those things our ancestors have learned, but the fact that we have planes, computers, vehicles is proof that our brains have evolved to be able to understand mor complex facts. 6. "Prophesies are perhaps the best evidence, next to the empty tomb, to display the accuracy of scripture." I can write a prophecy now. One day the sun will die. Now scientifically we have heard this claim, but we do not know for 100% certainty it will happen. We can't. But by saying it will happen I am making it a prophesy. I can do the same with many things and get them write by using basic common knowledge. 7. "The best way to eliminate Christianity is to show and prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, with solid definite evidence, that Jesus Christ body is still buried somewhere, either in [the tomb] or in a tomb." Cannot be done. Jesus was born before 0 A.C.E. so that makes his body somewhere around 2010-2040 years old. Depending upon the type of soil, vegetation, worms, wars, etc. that would have happened over such a place, his body would be so eroded it literally wouldn't exist anymore. Have you ever seen a corpse exhumed? It is not a pretty sight after 10-50 years, so I can only image 2,0. 8. NASB and KJV of the Bible Do not, and I repeat, DO NOT base any information on these versions of the Bible. The original Bible was in Hebrew, Latin, and Aramaic. Through translation you lose at least 10% of the meaning. Then Constantine got his grubby hands on it and had a team of monks pick and choose what should be included in the 4th century. That means another 15% was lost. Finally, many books were left out from that point on. That was at least another 20%. So the version of the Bible you read now has lost almost 50% of its original text and concept. Please, if you really wish to know what the Bible says, study the correct versions. You can find them relatively easy today. Latin isn't that hard to learn. I suggest you do so if you wish to know everything you can on your faith. The rest of my review will be used to explain to yu some truths that your pastor, preacher, reverend, etc. won't tell you. December 25 is not his birthday, it is the birthday of the pagan God Mithras. It was incorporated, just like the Easter Bunny, to bring pagans into the fold. The crucifix is actually a form of the Egyptian Ankh that Hebrews recreated. The idea of the Holy Trinity actually comes from anancient African (I believe Nubian, but I may be wrong) concept of religion that developed before the Jewish faith. The story of Adam, Eve, and the serrpent come from a Sumerian creation mythology including a snake God. These are just a few examples of ideas in the Christian religion that were stolen from earlier beliefs. I do not want you to take my critique the wrong way. I believe in Jesus and I believe in Christianity. But I found early on that the idea of just taking in what I was told in Church left me empty. At 17 I went looking for my own truths, and I found my own way to believe in Jesus and still understand what I had been factually taught. I encourage you to continue writing, but most of all to continue to look into your religion and its background. Find out for yourself what you believe. If you look hard enough you might be like me: someone who can challege their pastor on biblical knowledge and leave him perplexed.
Creative Colors 2007-09-29 ch 2,	abuseI have a lot of respect for you're belief in you're God but I don't think you have all of you're facts straight. I would go into more context with this comment but I think others have all ready said it for me.
L.K. Thompson 2007-09-29 ch 2,	abuseI was wracking my brain to think how someone could write such terrible, continuous, unadulterated, misinformed, drivel when you provided me with the answer in the footnote: "Ray Comfort." I thought your well-meaning but illogical nonsense was familiar, and clearly "The Atheist's Nightmare" himself has inspired (or, rather, infected) your cognitive faculties in some direct or indirect form. Before I was infuriated at how utterly stupid a person could be, but now I actually feel sorry for you. All the best and I hope you overcome this unfortunate setback.
Needa S 2007-09-28 ch 1,	abuseI'm a believer! I found Jesus 8 years ago. And I know where He is...He lives in Heaven but the only way to see Him is to accept Him. (NKJV) John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only beggotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. I will be looking forward to more on your Essay, Ninja. Keep up the awesome work and God Bless you!!
... 2007-09-27 ch 1, anon.	abuseAtheist don't hate christainity or any other religeon, they just simply don't belive in God. That dosen't make them anti-christain!
Rosa Vernal 2007-09-27 ch 2, anon.	abuseWhile I was interested in reading this, I found myself reading the same line about three times before finally just giving up due to the wall-of-text aspect of it. I'll be sure to come back and read it again, but next time, you might want a few more paragraphs and a bit less SOLIDBLOCKOFTEXT.
Ser Flames 2007-09-26 ch 2, anon.	abuseYou have provoked the Tiefling! May god have mercy on your poor soul!
Joan of Snark 2007-09-25 ch 2,	abuse"science was around for centuries" -It has been around for as long as humans have existed. And that the Bible contains some verifiable information is not even remotely surprising. What is surprising is that you seem to be under the impression that this is somehow significant. The Bible reflects the knowledge of the time, some of which is correct. There's nothing amazing about that. "Usually, how it goes, is that the one who claims there is no god focuses on proving that there isn’t one." -Not in my experience. "That’s exactly the scenario when we look at creation and the world as we know it, along with the universe." -In your unproven opinion, certainly. However, since you fail to provide any adequate evidence to support your claims, it is nothing more than your opinion. And thus easily ignored. "You have the right to sex, but outside of marriage, God views it as sin because it’s not “created” for the purpose outside of marriage." I really don't care what God views it as. "I’m sure they never meant this at all" -Fortunately your interpretation of their opinions is irrelevent. "They would agree with the account of scripture, as far as His life, death, but not His resurrection." -They certainly don't agree with the scripture as far as his life is concerned. Sure, someone called Jesus probably existed around that time. There have, after all, been countless people called Jesus. However, the lack of any real contemporary evidence for his activities (the miracles, for example) means that no historian with a shred of integrity would claim that he lived as documented in the Bible. "Still, it’s enough to say that someone named Jesus did exist." -What? No it isn't. I know someone named Jesus - is that enough to proclaim him the messiah? I sincerely hope not. "the Bible already confirmed how light traveled" -Prove it. Simply saying go read the book of Job really isn't enough. Give us the quotation that supports your claim. "Turns out that at the International Congress of Zoology a doctor there examined the skeleton and reported that it was from a man who had suffered arthritis" -What about all the other neanderthal skeletons/fossils? Arthritis has been found to be common among neanderthal remains, but that doesn't mean they aren't neanderthals, and science adequately supports their existence. "So, for those who said that evolution was proven true, I’d like you to give me evidence that supports it one hundred percent, not 99 percent." -If you knew anything about science you would know that one of the criteria is that nothing can be proven 100 percent. Science should always be open to new knowledge. "Search his site for “Dr Hovind’s 250,0 dollars offer and see for yourself." -I did and there were zero results. And Hovind's pathetic grandstanding isn't even slightly impressive. "Way back in the book of Isaiah (chapter 6 or 7) the prophet tells that a virgin will be child and shall call His name Immanuel “God with us”." -Since there is no proof that Jesus was born of a virgin, and the claim that he did so is in every logical sense absurd, this so-called prophecy hasn't been proven to be true. "(not in those exact words, but applied in meaning when you study the text)" -Hah, of course. "So, once again, there is real scientific and prophetic evidence to prove that the Bible is not man-made." -An empty tomb and a couple of crank prophecies? Yeah, you've got me convinced. And anyway, even the Bible claims to be man-made. God certainly didn't write it himself. "To ignore these evidences is purely foolish, irrational, and unreasonable!" -Give me some decent evidence and I won't ignore it. "The proof: the resurrection and ascension of Christ." -That's not proof. "Only Christ did that" -Prove it. "which proves that He could and did conquer sin…and death" -No it doesn't. "If a person could conquer sin and death by rising from the grave, of their own power, then that person is God." -That's not the definition of a god. "and establishing that all I said about Him is true" -But it hasn't been established. "If Allah or multiple gods are worthy of worship, then tell me what they did that Jesus didn’t do and did they do it better?" -Oh, so it's simply a matter of 'my God is better than yours'. Wow. Convincing stuff. "but I have provided proof" -You've provided nothing even approaching proof. "Research, do your homework to convince yourself that something is solid and consistent" -Take your own advice. "He’s coming again to judge the living and the dead for all that they’ve done." -Then I look forward to meeting him. "If you refuse, then God will have you pay for your sins." -Good. I prefer taking responsibility for my own actions. I wouldn't want someone to suffer in place of me. "But God demonstrates His own love toward us" -Amidst the mass-slaughter that the Old Testament describes, yes, I'm sure he does. "they speak arrogantly" -You're the ones who claim to know the truth. "repent and stop hardening your hearts! Repent and trust Christ today" -Thank you, but no.
Tiefling 2007-09-24 ch 2,	abuse"It’s strictly postage only online; so I’m not really going to deal with typos, unless they deal specifically with the meaning of the text; but I do appreciate those who were concerned for my typos. In the future, I may hire as you my editor (lol). " The idea is that you're supposed to proofread your own stuff before you post it. But your essay wasn't too bad typo-wise- not like some I've seen- so I'm guessing you did and just missed some stuff. However, you really ought to avoid the multiple exclamation marks if you want to be taken seriously. "The most interesting thing to note, though, is that science was around for centuries and the Bible already contained truths that are discovered or confirmed in today’s scientific world." Of course it does. It would be pretty difficult to write a book, divinely inspired or otherwise, that didn't contain some elements of scientific fact. If you're describing something that happens in the world we live in, a world that is governed by scientific laws, then naturally you're going to have to describe things obeying those laws at least some of the time or your story would make no sense whatsoever to its readers. However, the Bible also contains numerous things which have been disproven by science. Bats are described as 'birds', snakes 'eat dust', the Earth is suspended between the 'waters above' and the 'waters below' etc. These things could be metaphorical, or just plain wrong, but either way, with things like that in it you can't assume that the whole Bible is scientifically accurate. "Essentially, everyone has the right to believe what they desire to be truth." That's a very telling sentence right there. I don't think it's a question of what you desire to be truth. Can a person believe something just because they want to? I don't think so. You either believe it, or you don't. "Usually, how it goes, is that the one who claims there is no god focuses on proving that there isn’t one. " I disagree. In my experience, most people who don't believe in a God live their lives without bothering about it. They don't need to prove or disprove anything. Sometimes they will, for fun, or to annoy people, or in response to a post like yours, but probably not 'usually'. "Those of us who live in this country know that our constitution has given us the right to religious freedom." It's interesting how you framed it this way, as though you can't conceive of the idea of moral rights as opposed to legal rights, or international law as opposed to the laws of your country. EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE had the right to worship as they choose. Ever looked at the Universal Declaration for Human Rights? "If there is a Creator, then He alone is supposed to be given credit for Creation." Well, if he created us with the ability to speculate and think otherwise, then he has no right to complain if we do so. It'd be like being angry with us for walking when he gave us legs that are idea for the purpose. There's no use complaining that he didn't want us to do that, because he could have prevented it, and yet he allowed it. He gave us the ability to reason, and the free will to worship him, or not. He has to accept responsibility for the consequences of his actions (ie. everything that has ever happened). "You have the right to sex, but outside of marriage, God views it as sin because it’s not “created” for the purpose outside of marriage. " I disagree with that, and so do a good many Christians, among them the former episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong (he's written quite a good book on the subject, about defacto couples 'growing in love'). And in case you were going to say I only hold that view to justify my own sins, I am married and faithful. Throwing in an example that the people you are arguing with are liable to disagree with might make you feel more self righteous but it doesn't help your argument. "You use the sexual expression God gave us and choose to use it in the way you desire, again taking the work He created and using it for your own pleasure. " I most certainly do. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that it's sinful for sex to be fun. "...and it doesn’t mean that we can do whatever we want. " The argument was not that we had the right to do whatever we want. It was merely that we have the right to worship, or not worship as we choose (and, since you threw it in, the right to have sex). "So, in a final note about religious freedom, if God exists and demands that all creation worship Him, then He has the right to be worshipped without anyone else claiming His title. " Your attempt to defend God's rights just comes across as silly. An omnipotent being doesn't need you in his corner. If he wants, he can get Johnny Cochran. "Also, the law of sanitation was in effect when people had leprosy in the ancient times." I'm not sure what you think that proves. People didn't separate lepers from healthy people because the Bible told them to. The Bible simply documents the fact that it occurred. "When the Black plagued happened, people stayed with one another and didn’t bother to separate the sick and the well, which resulted in many deaths. " Wrong. Many, many attempts were made to separate the sick and the well during the Black Plague. Sick people, and those suspected of being sick were boarded up in their homes, and ships with the infection aboard were not allowed to enter ports. You obviously haven't done much research on the subject. There have been other instances of failures to observe quarantine in human history that you could use as examples instead of the plague, but what are you trying to prove exactly? "Furthermore, the Bible claimed that the earth was a sphere long before science validated that the earth was round. As a matter of fact, science, at one point, rested on the fact that the earth was flat! The point of that is to say that the Bible had all scientific facts available, 100, long before science “got it right.” Science wasn’t always so reliable and couldn’t be trusted; still can’t be but it, alone, also have confirmed what the Bible has said and not against it. " Throughout that whole paragraph you are treating 'Science' and 'The Bible' as if they were people. The Bible doesn't 'claim' things. It is merely a record of what various different people have claimed at different points in time. The facts and the mistakes in the Bible are whatever the people writing them down happened to believe. The Bible didn't make scientific discoveries. It merely documented some, sometimes accurately, sometimes not. "One single tooth was used to makeup a whole model of something and said that it evolved! " Wrong again. The theory of evolution has never rested on 'one single tooth'. Read up on it a little more thoroughly. Try looking in more than one book, for starters! Try and get your head around natural selection, the many different discoveries that have been found and experiments that have been done. "If Allah or multiple gods are worthy of worship, then tell me what they did that Jesus didn’t do and did they do it better" Your question is pointless because someone who isn't Christian doesn't believe that Jesus did the things you say he did, and you won't believe that their God, or gods did what they say. It's an impasse. "Scientifically, to prove that that was the body of Christ they need DNA to verify that the body is Jesus Christ. And in order for them to get that they need a match or verify something in history that tells us that it’s His body. They need records to prove that He died and was buried and kept in a box (not tomb). And, they need to be able to trace His bloodline back to the point in which He was living (namely to the Virgin Mary, as He didn’t have a human father) and furthermore, the evidence has to match 100 percent and not 99 percent. " Yep, that's true. But as another reviewer already pointed out to you, you have the burden of proof. It's not up to anyone else to prove that Jesus wasn't the son of God. If you're making the claim, you're the one who has to try and prove it. "Research, do your homework " Physician, heal thyself.

Return to Top