[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by randilover

Unless you believe that Cubism is rooted in the nature and reality of the universe. Get that? For example, the idea that a virgin birth shows up in other religions does not mean that Christianity borrowed from them. It could very well be that culture from the beginning has realized in order for a redemptive process to take place, an epiphany would be needed. Is this getting clearer? Just because a perfect (or near perfect) person is put to death in other religions might mean Christianity borrowed from it, but it could also mean other religions realized a redemption was needed to come close to God. Am I getting the point across?.

So your point is that humanity had this natural inclination to subconsciously know the requirements that were to become their own salvation? And that drove their spiritual beliefs up until it actually happened? Interesting idea.

Originally Posted by randilover

(P.S- You'd also have a hard time showing how morals have metomorphasized over time.)

So morals don't change over time? Slavery wasn't at one time accepted practice by American Protestants, and later not? I'm not saying I am an expert in the field of study, but it is quite apparent that civilized morals have changed over time, both religious morals as well as non-religous morals.

Originally Posted by randilover

Islam and Christianity contradict each other, as a science man you know this means they cannot both be true. If the Koran says Christ was not executed, but the Bible and other non-biblical sources say he was, one is wrong, the others are right.

Obviously they have some differences, but they do have a portion of shared history.

Also, if you do nothing else to reply to this post, please provide me with a non-biblical or other religous source that confirms Christ's execution.

Originally Posted by randilover

Christianity is quite authoratatively rooted in history. The Bible itself is dated by Christian and non-Christian scholars as being within the scope of historical accuracy. It's locations and dates line up with what archeology finds with it's spade.

No, it's not. Now, the debate between OT and NT and the historical accuracies of each are two separate conversations.

Originally Posted by randilover

Missing the point here, I think. Ingersoll seemed to be saying that the cross was a symbol of peace and life, that's why Christians use it. To Christ it was a symbol of pain and suffering and humiliation. Like I noted, according to Ingersoll, it would be like me wearing a tiny electic chair or miniature hangman's noose around my neck as a symbol of peace and life. That doesn't make sense. I think he misunderstood the cross based on what we think of it as now-a-days.

I'll concede this point because I am really not an expert on Christianities views of the cross, and what is is viewed as a symbol for and when if ever that view changed. It's also not central to any of my points.