bernee51 wrote: It is called logic. If they were not there when the god/man myth was supposed to have been alive in can only be a recording of oral tradition.
This entire argument is pure speculation. The first writing discovered could have been a copy of the original, which dated back earlier. Or perhaps it was the first official catalog. Maybe the words were taken from Matthew's (for example) journal. Or maybe it was passed down. A story like this, over the time of 30-70 years, certainly would not have been poluted into a legend. Honestly-- how does the story of several rabbi or just an ordinary teacher excalate into the Son of God, the long-awaited Messiah, who performed miracles and rose from the dead? And, behind all this is the fact that the early Christians were following someOne. They would not have faced relentless persecution if there was no One that had proved Himself, undeniably, as the Messiah, Son of God. I have yet to see this point properly addressed.
bernee51 wrote: Biker wrote: 4) "ah - so they weren't 'true christians'"
Well, the first positive statement, mind providing proof of your conjecture?
It was not my conjecture.
Nor was it mine. I was not arguing their faith, I was arguing their morals. Do not assume that when I say a Christian does wrong I mean that he is not a "true Christian."
If there is a group of Christians that goes off the wall and ignores the Word of God, doing terrible things, then it is their mistake. They claimed to follow a set of morals but failed to do so. How is that statement a logical fallacy?
I think the way to tell the difference between the two (trying to follow the morals but failing to represent them, vs. truly demonstrating the morals and the fruits that they yield) is the motive. It depends on why whoever is demonstrating the morals is doing what he's doing. Motive is elevated above success in the Bible. The Pilgrims, for example, the backbone of America's morality, were there to save their children from the influences that they were being objected to in other lands. I do not, however, recall (if I ever learned) the happenings surrounding Constantine's rule. Please elaborate, so I can have a greater understanding.
I do, however, think that at some point we will have to simply scrutinize each set of teachings and make an honest choice between the two. And the Bible's morals have never failed me yet.
bernee51 wrote: Sin is in your mind Biker.
I couldn't disagree more. Sin is apparent. To deny sin is to deny self-awareness. If you do not believe in sin, then how will you ever have an understanding of morality?
Now I want to start an argument that is, in my opinion, a clincher between the Darwinist and Creationist world-views. It is the argument of the origin of life. Unfortunately for Darwinists, there is no theory that clarifies the origin of life other than that of a Creationist. Spontaneous generation, cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny.
Also a problem in Darwinism is the fossil record. Please explain the Cambrian explosion, or "biological big bang," in which all life suddenly came about suddenly, without the subtlety described originally by Darwin's "tree of life." There is far too much missing in the fossil record, far too many "missing links," to keep Darwinism on the board. There is simply too much lacking. So please do not make the point that some animals are not fossilized, because we have found all sorts of fossils. None are the "missing links" that are called for. Just one discovery could make the difference; and yet that one discovery is lacking. There is too much missing for you to mask it with the incompletion of the fossil record. Even the timeline that you use to date your discoveries is based around the assumption, unbacked, that man is evolved from ape-like creatures. Scientists back-tracked the molecular clock in order to come up with a timeline by which to date the fossils and the layers of the crust that contain them. Circular reasoning takes over from there.
If this is a misconception, then please do not just say it is. I implore you-- correct me.
-Michael
"When cordiality is lost, truth is obscured. And it is truth, especially when trying to answer a question such as the one set before us, that provides for us the very rationale and foundation for a civil existence."
-Ravi Zacharias
, In retaliation i said "what if you are wrong?, what if there is nothing and you wasted your whole life"? and he replyed "i would have done it out of love"
, but how are you going to waste your entiere life on something that may not exist 
. Then i relized, i am Atheists because i have had so many discustions on this that it is entierlly to confusing so Atheists is the way to go in my opinion. 
