It almost seems like atheists don't want to believe in God. Do you just simply not want to believe in God because you don't want to give up your own free will?
ADMIN EDIT: Mercedes has left ThinkAtheist.com on her own accord. This discussion will remain, however do not expect a response from the author.
I've briefly scrolled through a few of these pages and it seems to me that the arguments are simply being repeated over and over. Mercedes, you don't seem to understand our arguments and are constantly pointing back to the bible when we are saying that the bible is a bunch of words on paper.
What makes you think YOUR words on paper are more correct that any other words on paper? I want to know why you don't follow the Qu'Ran? Its prophet undoubtedly did exist. Why do you follow the bible instead of another holy text? What about Zeus? You are probably thinking, "Please, Zeus doesn't exist. How can she compare my mighty god to a fake story?" What you don't understand is that there is JUST AS MUCH evidence that Zeus is a god than there is evidence for the god of the bible.
Men have been trying to prove the existence of god since the idea of god came into being. They haven't been able to. In modern times, we know a lot more than what we did centuries ago and what we know now contradicts what is said in your bible. A few simple facts such as the moon doesn't produce its own light but reflects the sun's light, the earth and humans are not the center of the universe but a small spec in a massive unending vastness, the earth wasn't created in 7 days 6000 years ago but is billions of years old, these all contradict the bible. This shows us that the bible was written by MEN and NOT GOD because if god wrote it there wouldn't be so many mistakes.
The Bible was written by man but that makes it authentic. It was their relationship with the living God the way they saw it. The reason it is true and not the Qu'Ran is because it points all to Jesus the Son of God. That is what I believe. I am reading through everyones comments but it is a lot of information. I do not understand all of it as English is hard for me sometime but I am reading it. I just can't understand all of it. I am here because I want to learn about other religions and views. But I understand if I am not welcome. I am thinking about going from here.
Whatever you do DON'T DRINK THE KOOLADE it has cyanide in it.
I am curious why you keep coming back to drink at the fountain of truth, is it because you know in the deepest parts of your mind that something is fundamentally flawed with what you think you believe?
Mercedes your beliefs are not just wrong they are a delusion, please wake up and walk into the light of reason and logic.........trust me, you will be glad you did.
Milos is right, you are most welcome here - estas bienvenidos --
No ay de que, Mija --
Mercedes, RE: "The reason it is true and not the Qu'Ran is because it points all to Jesus the Son of God."
Several writers of the Bible predicted a man would be born who would raise up the Jewish people and deliver them from the various conquerors, the Greeks, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, and finally, the Romans, who had devastated their country for centuries. They predicted this great leader would be born in Bethlehem. But Yeshua (his real name, not Jesus), if he ever actually existed, was born in Nazareth, so when people wrote about him, 40 or 50 years later, they had to find a way to make it look like he had been born in Bethlehem, so they made up the story of a Roman census that required all of the male Jews to travel to the city of their birth, to be counted. The Romans never had such a census, it was all made up by the writers of the Bible who wanted to make it look like Yeshua was the promised Messiah.
Let me give you an example - John Kennedy was killed about fifty years ago - most of the people who have memories of Kennedy have died since then. It would be much easier for me to write a story now about Kennedy having magical powers to heal and perform other miracles, than it would have been then, when those alive who knew him could say I was lying. This is how the New Testament was written - only four books actually tell of Jesus, and no one knows who wrote any of them - how can you believe stories written by people who weren't even there at the time?
This is what we mean when we say you haven't studied the Bible - sure, you may have read it, but you haven't looked into the history of who wrote it and why.
The Gabriel Stone makes the same prediction in Roman times included rising from the dead after three days. Old news.
they made up the story of a Roman census that required all of the male Jews to travel to the city of their birth, to be counted. The Romans never had such a census, it was all made up by the writers of the Bible who wanted to make it look like Yeshua was the promised Messiah.
What makes it worse even than you are portraying here, Archae, is that ONLY Luke mentions the Census. Matthew implicitly assumes Jesus' parents lived in Bethlehem in the first place and were forced to relocate due to Herod's slaying of the infants. When Herod kicked the bucket they contemplated returning to Bethlehem (why, if they were only there because of a census) but decided that his successor was just as bad, so they decided to give up on Bethlehem and go to Galilee.
In other words, Mercedes, the two nativity stories are very different, they contradict each other, and because of this fact it's evident they were made up completely to cover for an alleged Messiah, that rather awkwardly came from the wrong place (Galilee, not Bethlehem).
Now that's all evidence from the Bible itself --a source you assert to be reliable-- against it being true.
eso si es chistoso!