The problem with religions like Christianity is they create God in their own image. Who says God has to look like Santa Claus, long flowing beard etc.

God could be something we can't even or are capable of imagining.

<optimal>, did you read morts argument? Is it time to become a pantheist like him now?

What will we do if God doesn't have a white beard?

Oh goodness gracious, pantheism is true!

I was just making the point that radical atheists and agnostics ordinarily seek out biblical fundamentalists as easy targets when debating religion to try and disparage Christianity by attacking beliefs in a literal Adam & Eve and Noah's Ark, etc.

However when these same atheists and agnostics come up against Christians who correctly interpret the Bible and accept modern science, then they "suddenly" have no answers and their cowardice is exposed as we saw with <Colonel Mortimer>!

These cowardly atheists and agnostics are easily defeated as long as you don't play their game of trying to "defend" a young-earth or world-wide flood.

<optimal>, did you read morts argument?>

It's like watching a car wreck!

How much longer will <Colonel Mortimer> continue to embarrass himself here?

His girlfriend <Clemens Scheitz> keeps trying to drag him away, but the Colonel repeatedly staggers back in babbling incoherently, swinging left and right wildly at the air, before stumbling over and falling flat on his face.

Okay, why can't God raise Jesus from the dead?

What are your arguments, evidence and reasons for making this truth claim?>

I'm not making the claim, you are. What is your truth claim for raising someone from the dead? Can you do it? Or do you know of a medical technique that makes this possible?

If he took it as a condescending shot, he's right.

<I was just making the point that radical atheists and agnostics ordinarily seek out biblical fundamentalists as easy targets when debating religion to try and disparage Christianity by attacking beliefs in a literal Adam & Eve and Noah's Ark, etc. >

Could you identify what points anyone has scored against me per a literal Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark?

<However when these same atheists and agnostics come up against Christians who correctly interpret the Bible and accept modern science, then they "suddenly" have no answers and their cowardice is exposed as we saw with <Colonel Mortimer>!>

Modern science would say a man can't rise from the dead after 3 days. Your habit of simply repeating your flawed arguments as if the repetition wins the day is puzzling.

<These cowardly atheists and agnostics are easily defeated as long as you don't play their game of trying to "defend" a young-earth or world-wide flood.>

And again, evidence please, where I've lost a battle on those grounds.

<I meant no offense to yourself or regular visitors to your forum.>

The atheists always hone in on The Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark and the fundamentalists happily fight the battle for God in the Book of Genesis!

And guess who inevitably ends up looking ridiculous?

I've repeatedly and patiently tried to explain both theology and science on <playground player>'s forum as well as my own, yet you stubbornly cling to your young-earth creationism as if that's what the Bible is all about!

Now when the atheists try that same tactic against mainstream Christians, we cut them off at the knees with a theological understanding of the Bible and focus on philosophical arguments.

When they try to turn it back onto the Bible as <Colonel Mortimer> did by peppering me with questions, we just calmly and patiently answer everything based on correct biblical interpretation.

After that, we then turn the tables on the atheists which, if you read this thread, you will have seen that myself and <Big Pawn> did just that with <Colonel Mortimer> leaving him reduced to blubbering out pathetic responses such as "that's my personal belief which I do not wish to share" and the like.

Now stop being a sitting duck for radical atheists and start doing some real study into both the Bible and modern science!

And guess who inevitably ends up looking ridiculous?>

You do! You're not consistent whereas <Ohio> is. I may not agree with his views, but he is consistent.

Where you fall down is when you appeal to science in one area of Biblical belief (Noah's Ark etc) but omit to apply it in another area (rising from the dead).

Regardless of the merits of your argument, they short circuit because the scientific test you apply to one area, you feel you don't need to apply in another.

Rather than read the Bible as it is - you appoint yourself editor in chief and declare, with much inconsistency, what parts of the Bible are true and which parts are false.

Medical technique?

Jesus Risen from the dead is neither a resuscitated corpse nor a disembodied ghost, but the Glorified Son of God.

Now Colonel, what are your arguments, evidence and reasons for refuting the belief that God raised Jesus from the dead?

What do you believe and why do you believe it?

Secondly, the Bible is not simply one whole book written by one author.

And third, it's time you started answering some questions!

What are your arguments, evidence and reasons for refuting the belief that God raised Jesus from the dead?

And Noah's Ark is the glorified miracle of God.

"What is your evidence for refuting the belief that the Flying Spaghetti Monster raised a Unicorn from the dead?"

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against what you believe. It's your selective method of rationalising what you believe that I find inconsistent.

Your inconsistency resides in not applying the same scientific enquiry to the miracle of the Resurrection that you do to Noah's Ark. The former is to be accepted without question, while the latter is to be subjected to all manner of scientific evaluation.

And yet both unquestionably require divine intervention.

His response?

<... Noah's Ark is the glorified miracle of God. You can't have your cake and eat it. If one is a miracle which you find scientific, then the other can't be unscientific because you find the miracle implausible.>

He says it's because of Noah's Ark!

So what else does the Colonel have to contribute towards this discussion?

<"What is your evidence for refuting the belief that the Flying Spaghetti Monster raised a Unicorn from the dead?">

That's the level of "intellect" I'm having to deal with here!

If those are your claims, as you seem to suggest, then you need to justify the inconsistency of how you rationalise this.

Both the miracles of Noah's Ark and the Resurrection require divine intervention.

When properly read, the bible is the most powerful argument against god ever conceived, and...

The god of the gaps. God, an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.

Those with half a brain have come to realize (after centuries of stubbornness ) that death didn't enter the world after humans came, that Adam and Eve were not real people, that the story of Noah and his huge boat is also not true and many many other silly things. But they still believe in Jesus the Zombie that is coming back. Those with better brains ( about 90% of respected scientists and philosophers by now, and rapidly growing...)realize, among other things, that the gospels were tampered by fanatics from writings of fanatics that heard things from other fanatics that in turn heard them from fanatics that were not even around at the time but took very seriously the dreams, hopes and delusions of a couple of other desperate fanatics,...and we all know what religious fanaticism is capable of doing, specially in the middle east, don't we ?

Jesus existed, according to most serious scholars ( Mr. Ehrman included), but as far as what he REALLY said or did, the good, solid evidence is nowhere to be found. You should follow where the evidence takes you, even if you don't want to go there.

I'm not making the claim, you are.>

No, I claim God can raise Jesus from the dead.

You are claiming that it is not rational or intelligent to think so.