"The bible has no proof to back up its own stories while claiming to be fact that is a claim."
Why do some people insists on showing their ignorance? There is plenty of evidence to back up what the Bible says. We have archaeological evidence for many old testament stories. We've found the ruins of Jericho. Guess what. It's walls fell outward, just like the Bible says. People used to think that King Davis was a fictional character. Guess what? We've discovered an ancient obelisk that mentions him by name and title. There is a ton of evidence that supports the Bible. Anyone who claims otherwise is just plain ignorant, or in denial. Is there any evidence to support the stories of miracles? Sadly, no. But with the reliability of other parts of Scripture, is it such a leap of logic to believe most, if not all of it happened just as written?
Preston accounts about Jesus were written decades after he supposedly existed that and saying that people way back saw miracles is unreliable because lots of messiahs were around then jesus just happened to become more popular and last longer. Ever hear of Apollonius of Tyana or horus.
There is no scientific proof Jesus existed...We accept it, because there is enough circumstantial evidence to come to a conclusion, but there is literally no first person accounting of him and no actual proof of his existence.
There is more hard evidence of Climate Change than Jesus. And so many seem to have trouble with that.
Immortal, there are recordings that Christ existed in almost every major religion, recordings in Rome, the middle east and all over the are he existed in. We know Paul, peter, ect. Existed and we know Christ existed. Did he heal people, idk cant be proven, did he walk on water? I have no evidence but I believe it.
"Dr, you cant support the miracles it describes with evidence, that's why faith exists."
I never claimed otherwise. There is enough evidence, from other parts of the Bible, that allow me to believe in these miracles.
"The bible is the same book that said bats are birds so I don't really think that you can trust it with the creations of the universe."
When that book was written, they did not have the classification system we have today. It had wings. It flew through the air. It was a bird.
"Immortal, there are recordings that Christ existed in almost every major religion, recordings in Rome, the middle east and all over the are he existed in. "
1. No, the first accounting of the Christus was written 110 years after the start of the Augustinian calendar. There are NO first person accounts of him.
2. Paul never met Jesus. He became an apostle after Jesus was killed. He is responsible for the perversion of Christianity in Rome.
@@Dr_Obvious the hole bible is contradictory http://accordingtoreason.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/contra-bible.jpg
All of those so-called contradictions have been refuted. The majority of them are taken out of context. Others require a knowledge of history and culture of the times. The Bible does not contradict itself.
@leonitus2464 The Bible is perfectly clear. You just have to know how to read it. It's not a novel, that you can just read straight through. Almost every misconception about what the Bible says is because of reading things out of context, or reading a modern translation that failed to capture the original meaning. This is why a good Bible dictionary is important.
The Message of the Bible is so simple, a child can understand it. What is this message? Man was a perfect creation of God. Man sinned and suffered separation from God. If effect he died. God loved us so much that He sent His only son to take our place. His sacrifice made everyone who believes in Him acceptable to God. That's it. The rest of the Bible is really irrelevant, as far as salvation goes. But we need to study it, in order to know Gods will in our lives.
Debate_power: Even if the world did unite, the planet would almost certainly still be divided into countries/states/provinces. One government could not legislate for everyone. There would have to be devolved/state/local governments for different areas around the hypothetical united world.
Preston: Well I wouldn't say that. What I mean is that there would be the global government and then the local governments. Just like in the US, you have state governments, and then you have the central Federal government. In this hypothetical world, some laws would be global, and then some could be administered/devolved to each country/State. It is true though, that countries would never vanish.
Theres a difference between the US govt, and a global Govt, biggest thing is what unites them, we are united because we were founded by the smaller 13 colonies US, that was united due to English oppression. Globally there is no reason, and wars have caused hate between countries. Pakistan and india will never unite
Preston: Oh I agree, but I do not dismiss it as an impossibility, who is to say that (if in the unlikely scenario humanity lasts that long that) in a thousand years the Earth's nations may not be united? My point is, if this ever did happen it would probably be a US style system, and my point here is that the likes of countries will never vanish. Even if the world was united.
That's why I don't believe its possible, any lack of representation results in a civil war, or someone seceding from the overall representation. The south felt underrepresented, the 13 colonies were underrepresented, the people of France felt underrepresented, ect. Even in 10000 years its impossible to grantee that no one will feel another group is favored.
One of the biggest problems is the rest of the world is afraid and oppose the US being the leader of this world government. And me as an American will be damned if I live under someone else. Especially someplace like China or some middle eastern country. Nationalism is far from dead. There either has to be an external force threatening extinction. Or there is going to be the last world war that takes everything out and whoever survives bans together to live. But even then its unlikely
Preston: Yeah chances are it will never happen, but my point is that even if it did, countries would still remain. And who is to say that I may not be tried (with countries) and then it fails because of the reasons you give? As depressing as it sounds, I think humanity's division will be our downfall and the likes of a nuclear wasteland (as our future), are for more likely to occur than amazing sci-fi style cities that we see on TV.
" I do not dismiss it as an impossibility, who is to say that (if in the unlikely scenario humanity lasts that long that) in a thousand years the Earth's nations may not be united?" you are saying it could happen, now your saying "chances are it will never happen"
Who said people would willingly serve? Peace is not achieved through free will. Peace is reached by breaking your enemies, killing rebels and forcing people to live in harmony. I'd start by abolishing religious 'freedoms'. People would follow rules on how they could practice. Women would be allowed to dress as they please; while being taught that they are mans's EQUAL, not their better. Men would be taught the same lesson. Bigots who segregate based on race and religion would be killed in public, for their crimes. A lasting reminder of what their 'traditions' will cost them. And if any dared to stand against me, they would be tortured and impaled in front of their loved ones. If given a choice, man will always start wars. By eliminating their will to fight and their freedoms, you can achieve peace. Then, I'd move on to the children. Twerking, and their ridiculous trends would quickly become punishable. After breaking their society down, I'll then rebuild it on Green Power. Money would no longer hold any meaning. Food would be mass produced on artificial islands in the oceans, and Antarctica would be redeveloped into a livable environment. Between enforced breeding laws and this new area of land, there would be plenty of space to go around. No matter how many bodies it takes, I want peace.
Yama: I must admit the end result would actually be close to my ideal world, though I would never condone your methods in order to achieve it. And I wonder, you say in regards to children "Twerking, and their ridiculous trends would quickly become punishable". What "ridiculous trends" do you speak of?
A world government is a great future, but there is one condition: first all countries must be democratic. In those conditions humanity can enter into a true and lasting golden age, dissolve it's monetary system, make sure everybody has everything and develop wonderful technologies. But again, the problem is russia, china and the muslim world who had not undergone secularisation
Reece: The alternative is to globally end the causes of war and hate between countries, such as lack of resources, religious differences, past wrongs, racism, etc. You'd have to make all groups of people reasonably economically equal, make them understand that the past is the past, convert everyone to atheism, and teach people that all people are equal.
If countries hate each other, there is no way they will form a cohesive alliance, let alone a world government. There is no feasible way I know of to make that happen. Do you have any ideas?
@MasterDebater0 spending as much money as possible on education and allowing all people to come into your country and learn but within reason.Teaching everyone to be humanist is the way to go.It will happen in due time, it's even happening as we speak. Science is the engine of prosperity. America should focus on this problem.
Depends on the government form being proposed, the costs/benefits, the freedoms offered, the expectations, the amount of representation one would actually get, the fairness, the ability for it to pay its debts vs the gov one might be in currently, the loopholes created, the choices, the rights a citizen gets, what happens to non member states, and the amount of potential corruption.
Due to the many, many cultures, religions and ethnic groups, there's no way that you can put everyone into a single nation. Its like putting a cat and a dog in the same cage. They'll fight, just like the world. Unless we genetically erradicate race with all the mixed-culture couples and marriages.
@5Debater It's already been predicted that the color of all races mixing would be anjou pear. They also gave a time on when it will happen but i forgot. I think we will merge with machines far before that time comes though.