nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 468:
Line 468: + + + + + + + +
Debate:Is religion morally wrong? (view source)
Revision as of 13:00, April 28, 2007
, 13:00, April 28, 2007→Is Atheism Ridiculous?: Hitler, contradictions that aren't, and trustworthiness of anti-biblical sources.
[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:35, 28 April 2007
[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:35, 28 April 2007
:You say that the main point is that many of Hitler's program were started before he stopped being a Christian around 1940, but I'm not sure of the relevance of that as a "main point" when "around 1040" is not known for certain anyway. Secondly, the ''main'' point is not whether or not he was or thought himself a Christian, but whether or not he was acting according to Christian principles. He clearly was not.
:It's rubbish to claim that the record of the resurrection was not written until over 200 years after his death.
:Most bibliosceptic claims of contradictions in the Bible are nothing of the sort, and the one about Jesus' birthplace is a good example. John does ''not'' say that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem. What he says is that some ''people'' (note: not necessarily "followers") were puzzled by the fact that the Messiah was supposed to come from Bethlehem, whereas Jesus came from the area of Galilee. Both are correct. Jesus was ''born in'' Bethlehem, but ''grew up'' in Galilee. No contradiction; your accusation was not supported by the evidence you provided.
:The issue of the census is not a ''contradiction'', even if Luke got is wrong. But there being a census in 6 AD doesn't preclude there being another census earlier, and in any case, Luke is recognised as being a very accurate historian.
:The "gospels" that you claim that the church "left out" were never "in" to begin with. They were never considered to be part of the Scriptures by the early church.
:Based on the above, your conclusions about the trustworthiness is based on "facts" that are not facts at all. I suggest that you question the trustworthiness of your sources that promulgate such nonsense as "contradictions" such as this.
:The historical facts are ''not'' wrong. Some people have a view that things happened differently, but have no documented evidence to support it, and your argument amounts to saying, "my view is right, so your view is wrong". That's not an argument.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:00, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
==Questions and Answers==
==Questions and Answers==