Christians judge peoples behavior based on its conformity to Gods laws. We are commanded by God to take a stand against sin and to expose it, where ever it may be. We are not to judge the person, for only God knows the heart, but we are commanded to tell that person about sin, and judgement, and about the salvation of Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 5:11

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

Matthew 28:19

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

I'll try to break down this video for you, because I think you are ascribing arrogance and judgement to Ray when he is merely following the gospel and trying to save this woman..

First he asks her what happens to someone when they die. She gives an answer about "soul recycling" which establishes that she doesn't know or believe that she will face Gods judgement.

Hebrews 9:27

And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

Next he asks her if she thinks she is a good person. She states she thinks she is. God says there is no one good:

Romans 3:10

As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one

Romans 3:12

All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one

The reason there is no one good is because of sin. So to show her she is not in fact a good person Ray asks her about sins she may have committed. She admits to lying, stealing, lusting and blasphemy. Ray then informs her that she isn't a good person in light of those sins. She attempts to turn it back around on Ray but never gives an answer as to how she could be good yet guilty of those sins.

Romans 3:23

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Next, Ray asks her if she will be innocent or guilty on judgement day. She affirms innocent. Ray then reminds her of the sins she just admitted to. Again, she tries to turn it around back on Ray but never gives an answer to how she will be declared innocent even though she is admittidely guilty of many sins.

The whole point of what Ray was trying to do was..

A. Establish to her that she is a sinner
B. Let her know she was going to be judged for those sins when she died
C. Let her know the verdict would be guilty without Christ

He wasn't trying to judge her, and said that flat out, that he was incapable of judging her. He also admitted that he was a sinner like her and was not perfect, that Christ was his only way out. I think people are getting offended by Ray when he suggests that this woman isn't a good person, because its the most popular lie that people like to believe. The truth is, no one is good, and everyone is a hypocrite who has never lived up to their own standard let alone the standard they judge other people by. People are not generally good, they are generally sinful. Everything Ray did here was by the book so I can't support your criticism here. I don't know what else Ray has done really..I haven't followed him too closely, but I don't see anything wrong with this.

>> ^enoch:
@shinyblurry.
judgement and discernment are not the same thing in the context you are trying to convey.
and you posted a most excellent verse to make your claim.please reread that verse...nothing about judging but EVERYTHING about patience and careful instruction.
to preach the word you have to understand the word.
ray comfort is clueless as a child when it comes to the word and he should be ashamed of his ignorance.
ambushing this young lady and then hiding behind scripture to defend his vitriol.
it is cowardly and vicious.
and one of the myriad reasons i find ray comfort to be a stellar douchebag of a human being.
at least YOU ask the questions shiny.
you seek to know and i have all the faith that you shall,but i plead with you to not give ray comfort any authority.he is a charlatan who dresses himself up as the faithful.
and yes..i AM judging him.

Perhaps I can be more clear. Christ existing is obviously a necessary condition for Christianity to be true - but it's not sufficient. I suppose some people might say "Oh, Christ never existed so Christianity isn't true", but I don't think anyone's doing that here - and that's why I thought it was an odd thing to bring up. I think most non-Christian people here would say something more like "Jesus probably existed, and probably said more or less the same stuff that's in the Bible - but he didn't do miracles, isn't the Son of God, and didn't come back from the dead".

The belief that Jesus is a myth seems to be more prevelent, actually, and many of the people I have debated here have claimed this. I think only a very unthoughtful and intellectually incurious person could actually believe it, as you'd be hard pressed to even find a secular historian who does. He is by far the most influential person in history, which continues to this day. That in itself speaks to His claims. Our great land was founded on judeo-christian values, and the freedom that we enjoy today was predcated upon those values of personal liberty.. Even the pursuit of science was founded upon Christian understaniding; It was thought we could determine the operation of the cosmos because the Universe is orderly and has regularity due to Gods oversight. Yet, even with all this some people close their eyes to the simple truth that Jesus Christ even existed. Yet, these are the same people who champion their own rationality as being superior.

This martyr argument is another one you come back to, but surely with any reflection you understand why it isn't convincing. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on martyrs - there's been plenty of, for example, Muslims who've chosen to die for their beliefs in a great variety of circumstances, sometimes very pro-active ones. But even if Christianity has the most (or most spectacular martyrs), certainly there are many people who've died for all sorts of causes: religious, secular, or personal.

While it certainly says Christianity is a powerful idea that so many have died for it, I don't think an idea has to be true to prompt this level of conviction.

I think the martyr argument is very powerful when you consider the original disciples. They were the ones who truly knew if Jesus was in fact risen. If Jesus was not raised from the dead, there isn't any plausible explanation as to why they would all willingly die for something they knew to be a lie, when all they had to do was recant their testimony. It is also powerful for the early church because it was formed in the times of the living witnesses of Christ, and it was under very heavy persecuation. It was to a persons great disadvantage to follow Christ, socially, economically, and was often putting your life on the line. Being a Christian then was like being a Christian in Iran today. There is no good reason why the church should have ever survived under those conditions, but it did more than; it thrived and expanded expodentially. Yes, people martyr themselves today..most notably members of Islam. Islam isn't under persecution though..people are indoctrinated from birth and told if they even think one bad thought about Allah they will face eternal torment. There is no atonement in Islam, so if you screw up once you're done for. Under these conditions, and considering that Islam advocates exterminating all other religions and people, it isn't surprising it creates conditions in which people willingly martyr themselves. These situations however are night and day in regards to motivation.

First off, I should say that I appreciate the effort you're putting into legitimate debate here. I do. While I disagree with your recent points, I also accept them as honest reasoning and I think we're discussing things on a better level than we have in the past. So thanks, and I'll try to rein in my own douchebag forum persona.

Anyways, I'll (hopefully) explain what I was trying to get at better. It is my belief that religions often effectively "poison the well" for detractors by saying that the detractors are doing so for alternative motives, or that those detractors cannot understand the truth because of some flaw. To illustrate this, I was saying that Scientologists are quick to call out detractors (who are, to be fair, usually former members with a grievance) for their character flaws or crimes. Facetiously (because I don't actually know Scientologist beliefs), I was suggesting that they might also blame detractors' disagreements on confusing Thetans.

I was attempting to illustrate how awkward this attack is to refute for the detractor. The detractor certainly does have "crimes" (because, as I think we all agree, people all do things they aren't proud of). And he certainly can't be convincing if he says he has no Thetans. How can he make the case for that, when he doesn't even believe in Thetans anymore, and is definitely no longer being cleared of them?
From a perspective of a non-believer, a Christian detractor is in a similar position. Many (or even most) will have personal grievances that make their arguments sound suspect. And all will have sins. Many will have sins associated with their departure. Given that it's common Christian thought that sin clouds thought (or bars revelation or conscience or similar), we're left with a tidy way to undermine almost all detractors.

The most common objection I hear from someone is not that they haven't done evil, or that they aren't guilty of crimes against God. It's not even that they would disagree that they deserve to be punished. It's that they just defacto reject Gods authority over them because they don't want to stop living the way they do. In a very real way, they reject God over their preference to sin as they wish. This is exactly what the bible means in John 3:19-21 when it says:

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil

Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.

Even Christopher Hitchens outright admits it. Skip to 6:26 for his confession.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AX1CswHCkA

A person who is railing against Christianity due to personal grievances is not only not rational, but is completely disingenuous. Such a person willfully avoids the truth, because their objection isn't based on rational grounds, but emotional ones. I have yet to meet a single person who has a legitimate gripe against Christianity as it is described in the bible. It is all due to the failings of men who didn't live up to Gods word. Yet, to the world you're a Christian if you say you are, and every evil thing man has done in the name of Christianity is ascribed to it, ignoring the fact Christ specifically taught against it.

I understand your argument..but you're basically saying it's unfair because the bible accurately describes the condition of man. That it's easy for a Christian to pigeonhole unbelievers because man is in fact habitually evil and hypocritical as the bible describes.. Man has a sin problem, but how is it any different when one might reference a scientific worldview. To blame the wickedness of human beings on animal instincts, or the "reptile brain" (serpent consciousness), or chemical reactions. Survival of the fittest. Science even says that people who believe in God have it in their DNA to do so, and even associate it to a certain area of the brain. There is no real empirical evidence for any of this, so how is it much different than saying man is corrupted by sin? It really isn't. They are competing worldviews. Science says it's a physical issue, but the bible says it is spiritual. Only one can be right.

So my overall point is an analogy. Both the Scientologist and the Christian believer have similar reasons to doubt the detractor. However, I think we'd both agree that the Scientologist detractor is right despite those reasons. So while I understand that you still would not accept the Christian detractor, my point would be that we can't completely refute him on these grounds because he could (in principle) be the same as the Scientologist detractor. The differences between the Christian and the Scientologist detractor (with regards to these ideas) are generally only differences from the perspective of someone who already believes Christianity and not Scientology (and certainly I think we'd agree that believing Christianity is more rational than believing Scientology - I'm just using it as a convenient analogy).

My point was that instead of looking at him (the detractor) in terms of his grievances, or in terms of factors (like sin or Thetans) that could cloud his judgement - it's safer to just consider his arguments, which will stand or fall on their own qualities regardless of the speaker.

Yes, I do understand your analogy. Yes, a scientologist might reject a detractor because they think he has thetans, but we know those are made up. There is a similarity in that basic approach, but since Scientology is easily disproven, there aren't any arguments to consider. In that case, people are rejecting his truth because its clearly not true, not because it isn't possible that people reject truth because they are corrupted by evil. It's still a strawman any way you look at it. The point here is, what is the best explanation for reality and the human condition. If it is true that everyone sins, and that people are hypocrites, then that is something you as an unbeliever have to come to terms with. If I can accurately portray the human condition better than you can, and give reasonable explanations for human behavior according to biblical truth, those are obviously points in favor of the bible and not some cheap tact. It's perfectly legimate to point out that the objective stance people claim to take (and the claim they lay to reason itself) is mostly just smoke and mirrors for their personal prejudices and very real rebellion against Gods authority.

Except, you know, Hell and eternal damnation.
>> ^bareboards2:
And no, I don't think Christians consider God and Jesus the same. Jesus is strictly New Testament and brought a message of love. I think that is why no one laughed at that joke -- it doesn't match his message.
>> ^hpqp:
Don't most christians consider God and Jeebs to be one and the same?
That being said, while the Bible's misogyny (some examples) is for the most part not directly attributable to Jeebs himself, doesn't his actions count for something? Out of 12 disciples, not a single worthy woman? I guess there's always the possibility of him being gay

I don't identify as Christian, but I have been steeped in its images my whole life. Plus Sunday Bible School when I was seven. Perfect attendance. Jesus was my buddy when I was little.

And no, I don't think Christians consider God and Jesus the same. Jesus is strictly New Testament and brought a message of love. I think that is why no one laughed at that joke -- it doesn't match his message.

I'm not a biblical scholar, but I do know that Mary of Magdelene was a prostitute who he consorted with and defended. "God" would never have done that. The Nag Hammadi Gospels were discovered and one of them was purportedly written by Mary. The bible being so male-centric is in part due to a historical power struggle -- decisions were made about what was to be kept and what was tossed aside -- and the men won.

The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels is fascinating reading.

I haven't read it but I am leaning towards making the effort -- Thomas Jefferson's “The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth" which is just Jesus's words only.


>> ^hpqp:

Don't most christians consider God and Jeebs to be one and the same?
That being said, while the Bible's misogyny (some examples) is for the most part not directly attributable to Jeebs himself, doesn't his actions count for something? Out of 12 disciples, not a single worthy woman? I guess there's always the possibility of him being gay

Don't most christians consider God and Jeebs to be one and the same?

That being said, while the Bible's misogyny (some examples) is for the most part not directly attributable to Jeebs himself, doesn't his actions count for something? Out of 12 disciples, not a single worthy woman? I guess there's always the possibility of him being gay

>> ^bareboards2:

Have you ever heard such a complete lack of response to a joke?
I think it was because it wasn't accurate -- the big JC isn't responsible for sexism.
What is interesting is that Maher fixed it later by saying well, actually, it was Jesus's dad -- and that got a response.

I'm not sure where you're getting that John was a rebel or disagreed with Jesus, or that the book of John contridicts a single thing Jesus said.. on the contrary John was the beloved disciple and perhaps more than the others was privy to the deeper meaning of what Jesus said. The book of John goes right to the heart of His teachings.

I'm also not sure where you're drawing this imaginary contention between Revelation and the apocryphal vision of paul from..they are completely different animals..Revelation is pure prophecy, whereas the supposed pauline doctrine is very similiar to the gnostic mystery texts, which describes the various artifices of heavenly processions, but fails to expand on or add any meaningful truths. It has the words but not the content. Revelation is about the future, and it makes several predictions which are happening today, such as the formation of a one world government, economy and religion. This is what seperates the word of God from everything else.

As far as predictions about the end go, no one is ever supposed to make them..and anyone who does is automatically wrong. >> ^enoch:
book of john.
the man who disagreed with jesus most of all and was a true zealot.
i prefer the book of revelation according to paul.the writing is better and not as much hallucinagenic influences.
the book of john was a last minute addition to the bible to be canonized by the council of nicea.the revelation according to paul was rejected because johns was allegedly more emotionally and imagery provoking than pauls.
because of the addition of the prophecy of john there have been so many christians who read the book literally.when we consider the times that these books were written and the punishment if exposed,we need to take in to account that much of what is written is metaphorical.representing much of the cosmology and symbology of the time by way of inferrence rather than literal translations.wish some devout christians understood that.
see millerites:http://historicaldigression.com/2011/05/20/the-rapture-millerites-and-the-great-disappointment/
they are still around today.seventh day adventists

@Sketch

There are quite a few reasons that the resurrection should be taken to be valid, or in your case, much more carefully considered..now, the problem with your view is that you give the bible absolutely no credit at all for having any truth in it, because you're caught up on things like the miracles. That is your primary objection, yet you have to realize that the evidence for the gospels is much greater than a great deal of ancient history. We have more evidence for the life of Jesus Christ than we do for Julius Caesar.

However, there is plenty that has been confirmed as true, some of which I've already mentioned..such as the fact that 50 people in the NT alone are confirmed to be historical, including two of the most major figures in the resurrection narative, Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas the high priest. Or the fact that the bible has been proven to be 100 percent reliable archaelogically. So your utter dismissal of the bible as having any fact to it puts you at odds with pretty much every practicing historian and bible scholar today.

I'll give you a few reasons..First of all, you have the empty tomb, a fact acknowledged as accurate today and undisputed even by the Jewish authorities at the time of his death. You have the fact that women were the first witnesses. In those days, a womens testimony was not considered valid. In fact you had pagans agruing for centuries that the resurrection wasnt true simply on the fact that women had seen it first. If the disciples invented the story, they never would have used women as witnesses, because it severally undermined their case in the eyes of jew and gentile alike. The fact it was left in greatly enhances its credibility.

You have all of the eye witnesses who saw Jesus, over 500 in number. Eye witnesses who were still alive at the time the gospels were written. You have the fact that the disciples were brutally tortured and ultimately martyred for preaching the gospel of the resurrected Jesus. They were direct eye witnesses of the fact and so they would never go to their deaths refusing to recant for something they knew was a lie. You have external sources confirming the resurrection. These are just a few reasons to at least investigate further.

As far as the discrepencies go, they were eye witness accounts. If this was all made up, don't you suppose the accounts would be harmonized? That fact that they're not harmonized makes them more reliable for testimony. Here is a good website to answer some of your objections:

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm




>> ^Sketch:
Good evidence that He rose from the dead!? Oh, this ought to be good. Please, do tell exactly how there is any evidence at all for the truth of the resurrection myth, when the various gospels of the infallible bible don't even agree on the specific details of what even happened during the resurrection. But PLEASE don't once again use biblical passages to tell me that the resurrection happened anyway!>> ^shinyblurry:
It is possible to prove it. It all comes down the resurrection of Christ..If He rose from the dead, if it is indeed a historical event, then God does exist and everything the bible says is true. Anyone can claim to be the Son of God, but no one but the Son of God could prove it by rising from the dead. There is plenty of good evidence to suggest He did rise from the dead. It is reasonable to conclude from this evidence that what Christ said is true..and therefore, if you honesty seek Him, you will find Him..and He will show you He is real. >> ^Sketch:
You've got to be kidding me! Of course it's impossible to prove it either way! That's the entire damned point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! You can't prove it except to assert that because people wrote a book to worship, it must be true!
You expect me to accept that there is some all-powerful, perfect, magical, interdimentional being that created everything at a whim, yet somehow never had to be created Himself, is eternal, demands that I live my life a certain way, is supposedly all-loving despite all of the suffering that He causes, and the only reasons that you can give me to believe such a cockamamie story are that a lot of people really believe that it's true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum), and that there is a book that says that it's true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning)! Forgive my crass interjection, but that is complete and utter horse shit!
Moot my ass, it's exactly the point! If you want to stick with Santa, then let's! It's the same thing! You don't expect me to believe that there is a Santa as the mythical, magical figure that we know him now just because there are a lot of kids that believe in him and he's an important cultural figure, do you? And he was at least based on a real person!

Ok you're doing it again. You're leaping from one thing to another with no real connection. So maybe a figure called Jesus existed. All that statement means is, a man lived at a period and had a name Jesus. It doesn't mean everything in a book written by a load of people who conspired to create a religious following about him is fact. You think everything in the Bible is fact, I don't. The bible has no evidence for its miracles and supposed preaching about God. It might have details about towns, people, nations, gatherings, that are also reported by other sources. But that doesn't in anyway confirm that supernatural beliefs held in the Bible. Like I said earlier, it would be a strange for them to write a book that tried to both introduce supernatural answers for the world in a made-up setting. They obviously set the Bible's story in a realistic background. You can not just then verify everything in the Bible because of that.

Do you know why? Because a) anything like those miracle situations hasn't had any evidence found since then to collude with the Bible's miracles, if it did all the scientists of the world would be in agreement that the miracles of the Bible were possible b) the story setting of the Bible is extremely similar to many stories that have been found and verified as being created before the Bible, ergo the Bible is a copy-work of those other stories, which diminishes its validity. c) It's obvious to anyone not brainwashed and not weak minded, what religions aim is; to prey on fear of death and to masquerade as a good force when in fact it's wasting your life and causing a massive amount of problems in the world whilst making a few people in the religion some of the richest people in the world.

Religion is a perfect example of the weakness of mankind, Religion and Greed are two of the worst things in the world, and until they are solved in our society we're stuck being fucked over in a cycle of retarded behaviour.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Okay, so Jesus did exist..that wasn't made up, which means the bible is an eyewitness account of his life....and now, his disciples weren't brainwashed, we just don't know what they did..well, we do, not only from the bible but from many external sources External sources verify at least 50 people from the NT were historical figures..engravings and statues even tell us what 18 of them looked like. There are 39 sources outside the bible which verify 100 facts about Jesus' life, teachings crucifixion and ressurection..some good examples are Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus and Gaius Suetonius.
Flavius Josephus, a roman historian wrote:
“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (He) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned Him to be crucified to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that He was alive."
As far as what I pasted is concerned, yes some of them could be interperted either way..but not all of them. Many of them are quite precise in making statements about the nature of the Universe..which certainly critics would use to try to prove the bible isn't true if they weren't. Such as that the stars are innumerable to man, yet finite..that there are as many as there are grains of sand. At the time there were no telescopes so they could only see around 5000..no one suspected the trillions and trillions of stars we know about today. Or the fact that God hangs the earth on nothing, when at the time everyone thought it was supported by something..or that there are springs in the sea, mountains in the sea, that the Universe had a beginning..etc. Pretty good for made up, I think..

Okay, so Jesus did exist..that wasn't made up, which means the bible is an eyewitness account of his life....and now, his disciples weren't brainwashed, we just don't know what they did..well, we do, not only from the bible but from many external sources External sources verify at least 50 people from the NT were historical figures..engravings and statues even tell us what 18 of them looked like. There are 39 sources outside the bible which verify 100 facts about Jesus' life, teachings crucifixion and ressurection..some good examples are Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus and Gaius Suetonius.

Flavius Josephus, a roman historian wrote:

“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (He) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned Him to be crucified to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that He was alive."

As far as what I pasted is concerned, yes some of them could be interperted either way..but not all of them. Many of them are quite precise in making statements about the nature of the Universe..which certainly critics would use to try to prove the bible isn't true if they weren't. Such as that the stars are innumerable to man, yet finite..that there are as many as there are grains of sand. At the time there were no telescopes so they could only see around 5000..no one suspected the trillions and trillions of stars we know about today. Or the fact that God hangs the earth on nothing, when at the time everyone thought it was supported by something..or that there are springs in the sea, mountains in the sea, that the Universe had a beginning..etc. Pretty good for made up, I think..

>> ^Mazex:
Lol don't just copy paste a load of convoluted statements that you got off some website and flout it as fact...
There might of been a guy called Jesus, but I don't for a second believe he was born from a virgin, managed to perform miracles and managed to be resurrected. All those things are part of the bible too, and they have nothing to do with the archaeological record, which is why you citing it, is pointless.
Its obvious that the problems people have with believing the Bible is that it cites a load of miracles and preaching about a God that has never been proven. And you expect everyone to believe it, and believe they are going to Hell if they commit sins and don't repent.
His resurrection being true or not has nothing to do with being brainwashed, it has to do with it being a lie, its a story, its made up, its not real. What his disciples did isn't fact either, you don't know what happened. Because all that's left is a book they all wrote. If you experienced it, and thousands of others experienced it and lived to this day, then I'd say there might be more people that could believe it. But just writing a story down, and then expecting everyone to hold it as truth forever, isn't necessarily truth.
With all these scientific facts that are supposedly revealed in the Bible, you are missing the real truth completely. None of them are scientific claims, they are all you interpreting scientific facts from words. You can pretty much interpret anything that's happened with any piece of literature. Especially with the Bible which has been translated and revised so many times over the years, the actual form of it, is nothing like what it was originally. So your little world of the Bible pre-determining scientific discoveries is a complete farce, please actually think constructively and again don't just copy paste a load of crap from the internet.

Lol don't just copy paste a load of convoluted statements that you got off some website and flout it as fact...

There might of been a guy called Jesus, but I don't for a second believe he was born from a virgin, managed to perform miracles and managed to be resurrected. All those things are part of the bible too, and they have nothing to do with the archaeological record, which is why you citing it, is pointless.

Its obvious that the problems people have with believing the Bible is that it cites a load of miracles and preaching about a God that has never been proven. And you expect everyone to believe it, and believe they are going to Hell if they commit sins and don't repent.

His resurrection being true or not has nothing to do with being brainwashed, it has to do with it being a lie, its a story, its made up, its not real. What his disciples did isn't fact either, you don't know what happened. Because all that's left is a book they all wrote. If you experienced it, and thousands of others experienced it and lived to this day, then I'd say there might be more people that could believe it. But just writing a story down, and then expecting everyone to hold it as truth forever, isn't necessarily truth.

With all these scientific facts that are supposedly revealed in the Bible, you are missing the real truth completely. None of them are scientific claims, they are all you interpreting scientific facts from words. You can pretty much interpret anything that's happened with any piece of literature. Especially with the Bible which has been translated and revised so many times over the years, the actual form of it, is nothing like what it was originally. So your little world of the Bible pre-determining scientific discoveries is a complete farce, please actually think constructively and again don't just copy paste a load of crap from the internet.

@Mazex

Well, where your claim about brainwashed people falls apart is that if Jesus was made up (which no reputed historian would claim), or His resurrection wasn't true, his disciples certainly wouldn't have martyred themselves for that lie. Being direct witnesses of the fact, you can't claim they were brainwashed. So yeah.

I posted the historical reliability of the bible because it shows its not just cooked up, as you tried to claim. It's highly intricate, and I dare say it would be actually be more miraculous for holding up so reliably if it wasnt true. 100 percent historical accuracy is pretty compelling, I think..it indicates that these are honest eye witness accounts we're dealing with.

Here are some interesting science facts that the bible fortold thousands of years before science knew anything about it..pretty good for made up isnt it?

The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true – “He hangs the earth on nothing.”

Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!

There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea

Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were “bled” and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” long before science understood its function.

Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest.

The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: “In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…Then God said, “Let there be light (energy).” No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.

The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.

Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be “parted” and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago – God declared this four millennia ago!

Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the “paths of the seas.” In the 19th century Matthew Maury – the father of oceanography – after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maury’s data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.

Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars – that’s a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.

The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along – “He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name” (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!

The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was God’s judgment on man’s wickedness.

The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent – just as the Bible said way back in Genesis.

Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.

God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)

Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.

Origin of the different “races” explained (Genesis 11). As Noah’s descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.

Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established “a weight for the wind.” In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.

Medical quarantine instituted (Leviticus 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4). Long before man understood the principles of quarantine, God commanded the Israelites to isolate those with a contagious disease until cured.

Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!

Our ancestors were not primitive (Genesis 4:20-22; Job 8:8-10; 12:12). Archeologists have discovered that our ancestors mined, had metallurgical factories, created air-conditioned buildings, designed musical instruments, studied the stars, and much more. This evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution, but agrees completely with God’s Word.

A seed must die to produce new life (1 Corinthians 15:36-38). Jesus said, “unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.” (John 12:24). In this verse is remarkable confirmation of two of the fundamental concepts in biology: 1) Cells arise only from existing cells. 2) A grain must die to produce more grain. The fallen seed is surrounded by supporting cells from the old body. These supporting cells “give their lives” to provide nourishment to the inner kernel. Once planted, this inner kernel germinates resulting in much grain

Olive oil and wine useful on wounds (Luke 10:34). Jesus told of a Samaritan man, who when he came upon a wounded traveler, he bandaged him – pouring upon his wounds olive oil and wine. Today we know that wine contains ethyl alcohol and traces of methyl alcohol. Both are good disinfectants. Olive oil is also a good disinfectant, as well as a skin moisturizer, protector, and soothing lotion. This is common knowledge to us today. However, did you know that during the Middle Ages and right up till the early 20th century, millions died because they did not know to treat and protect open wounds?

The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.

Soil conservation (Leviticus 23:22). Not only was the land to lay fallow every seventh year, but God also instructed farmers to leave the gleanings when reaping their fields, and not to reap the corners (sides) of their fields. This served several purposes: 1) Vital soil minerals would be maintained. 2) The hedge row would limit wind erosion. 3) The poor could eat the gleanings. Today, approximately four billion metric tons of soil are lost from U.S. crop lands each year. Much of this soil depletion could be avoided if God’s commands were followed.

Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in God’s image.

Well as far as I know, Jesus didn't have a girlfriend and spent all his time hanging around with his male 'disciples'. Sounds pretty lavender to me.

>> ^kceaton1:I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you have no idea what "Mormon bible" really means. Since I don't believe in that one or the one with extra action with angels or the one with unicorns or the one with "x^n"... There are A LOT of bibles. Which church is the TRUE church; please enlighten me so I may rip that ONE to shreds. I'm sorry that my "Christianity"™ is not good enough for you.
As to the rest... Go ahead and link every direct observation about the Devil and Hell. It's different in each bible as well. Keep going I can't dig a grave any faster than you are already. BTW, the "Ten Commandments" are old school. So do you follow the New Testament or do you pick and choose what to like when it suites you.
I looked at my religion and others discretely and with observation and found the contradictory fallacies, logical arguments that fail, and the diversity of books, translations, and the number of religions to be enough to stop "divinity" in it's tracks for me.
You've yet to show me any logical reason to follow, somewhere I messed up, or otherwise. You are purely on the defensive. If I may say so, you need to take a hard look at religion is giving you. What would happen if you shut it down, for argument's sake? Would your life, your actions dramatically shift? All I have seen, for now, is by rote memorization quotes or otherwise I learned in seminary or Sunday school. Some of it is different of course, but I guarantee that the majority is the same.
Do you think all people that have chosen to forgo there faith and live a moral life without the fear of an afterlife reprisal all did so because they're Mormon? The only commonality we share is that we chose to question those in authority and piece things together ourselves; as we've been all lied to, which was the best reason to question in the first place.
This will be the last of my responses as I think it is on your shoulders now to logically come to your own conclusion; if you think faith/belief are the only key factors then why preach, as you will never be able to open any eyes with platitudes. If you try to defend again you will only repeat what you've already said.



Whoa there little fella. First of all, you've been asking elementry questions about the nature of God, which presupposes in our discussion that He does in fact exist. All I did was try to answer them. You gave the impression that perhaps you believed in *something*. Which Church is the true church? That would be the Body of Christ my friend. There is no institution which has exclusive rights on Christianity. This is the first fallacy of the Mormon church who has the believe they are the only true church, otherwise their "updates" would be exposed for the fraud they are.

Second, what is this that I don't understand what the Mormon bible means? Isn't that the book of Mormon? What am I not understanding? Jump to conclusions much? The true bible is the one the disciples of Christ wrote, which is the New Testament. There have been many different translations, but essentially they all say pretty much the same thing with the same quotes. The major ones which differ are funnily enough, the Mormon version and the Jehovah Witness version. These cults both started up within the last 200 years and pervert the teachings of Christ to their core. They both deny Christs divinity, with the JWs claiming Jesus was an angel, and the mormons claiming Jesus was the first creature, but not divine. As we know from the bible, anything which denies the divinity of Christ is in the spirit of the antichrist. Meaning, Mormonism by definition is a satanic religion. Worshipping the God of Mormonism is the same as worshipping Satan.

Third, you should really do some real research and gain some understanding before you just go off the cuff. The Old Testament is the original bible, in which is the wisdom of the Lord, and the prophecies which predict the coming of Christ. Christ was a jew. The Old Tesament was His bible, and also the bible of the early disciples. It isn't a matter of picking and choosing. A true Christian believes in both. Christ told us that the ten commandments are still valid, and that he was not there to overthrow the law, but to fulfill it.

Look, I'm sorry you had to grow up Mormon, but I can tell you that your upbringing didn't prepare you for this conversation. You don't seem to know even elementry conceptions about who God is, and what the bible says. For you to just turn your vitriol on me, someone who tried to answer your questions, shows your profound lack of maturity. You're going way out of your way to be as callous and insulting about it as possible. And regards to your purile question, I know what it's like to live without faith. Unlike you, I wasn't indoctrinated; for most of my life I was agnostic. I came to God independently, without religion. From there I followed God to Christianity. If you want to talk about shredding something, I think it should be your bad attitude problem. Good luck and God Bless.

further more, i think this post is less about a post-humus kick in the pants for ayn rand and more a message for the disciples of objectivism.... nothing is absolute, absolutely. we all need a little help sometimes, even ayn rand.

having said that, i would not at all be surprised to find out that emma goldmann spent a portion of her time on the planet directly supporting capitalism and oppression. she's still a bad ass lady.

The song's lyrics (and title) are both a tribute to Ayn Rand's novella Anthem, who deeply influenced Neil Peart - Rush's lyricist - at the time:

Know your place in life is where you want to be
Don't let them tell you that you owe it all to me
Keep on looking forward, no use in looking 'round
Hold your head above the ground and they won't bring you down

Chorus:
Anthem of the heart and anthem of the mind
A funeral dirge for eyes gone blind
We marvel after those who sought
New wonders in the world, wonders in the world,
Wonders in the world they wrought

Live for yourself -- there's no one else
More worth living for
Begging hands and bleeding hearts will
Only cry out for more

[Chorus]

Well, i know they've always told you
Selfishness was wrong
Yet it was for me, not you, i
Came to write this song

[Chorus]

From a Q&A with fan questions in 1993:

Q. It's fairly well known that you've been influenced to a great extent by the writings of Ayn Rand. Knowing that her philosophy places a great deal of emphasis on individualism and creative integrity, particularly in the realm of art, how do you reconcile this with the fact that the music of Rush is written collectively? What happens if one of you has your heart set on a particular part, but the other two are dead-set against it?

Eric Simpson
Miami Springs, FL

A. Well, I saved this one until last, and you can see why! Eric and other people often send long lists of questions, and I hope they understand that I just can't justify spending half a page on a complex answer for each arcane question (for myself or for the general reader) so I have to be selective. Since I'm giving my time to this as a service to others, I go about it in my own way -- like the selfish bum I am.

Sometimes I choose questions which a few people have asked about, but which are unlikely to appear in an interview; sometimes I choose questions I think are interesting; sometimes I head off a growing myth and debunk it for you; other times I just say "what the heck" and answer any old one. So okay...

For a start. the extent of my influence by the writings of Ayn Rand should not be overestimated -- I am no one's disciple. Yes, I believe the individual is paramount in matters of justice and liberty, but in philosophy, as Aristotle said long ago, the paramount good is happiness. My self-determination as an individual is part of the pursuit of happiness, of course, but there's more to it than that.

In this particular example, working together with Alex and Geddy is a more important part of my pursuit of happiness than is my attachment to any line of lyric or phrase of music. Thus the conflict you describe would not arise -- if we disagree on such a detail, we work on it until it satisfies everybody, and if (very) occasionally one of us has to sacrifice a petty preference, they hey -- it's no big deal. Especially when you compare such an issue against the satisfaction we get from the big picture, the sum of our work together, it would be foolish to sacrifice long-term happiness for a small difference in taste.

I've said before that in regard to my own work, the lyrics, I am more often excited by the input from the other two than I am disappointed by it, and I certainly never feel compromised by it.

And there you can see how complicated it is to identify and pursue happiness, and how complicated it can be just to answer one question (out of twenty submitted by the curious Mr. Simpson, though others often rival him.)

You see what I'm up against...

Bye for now,

N. Peart

November 4, '93, Toronto