Sorry, but writing down that prophecies were fulfilled decades or centuries after the fact does not make them fulfilled.  I mean the prophecies in Harry Potter were fulfilled too.  That a series of texts of one religion agree with each other is not remotely evidence.  And you misuse statistics.  The odds that your parents would have sex on the exact day they did to conceive you are probably more remote.  Therefore you don't exist, right?

Statistics are irrelevant, the logic behind them is what matters.  The logic behind your statistics is not very good.

Also the bible doesn't speak with "one unified voice", google "biblical contradictions" sometime.

to deny parts of the bible is to simply turn the truth into what you want it to look like.

This would have seemed like a stupid question to me not long ago, but I've seen the same thing.  People who argue that the context of how something was written negates the "sinfulness" of the sin being discussed.  There are certain passages- those dealing with sacrifice, festivals, and punishment for sin- in Leviticus that were fulfilled by Christ and no longer need to be adhered to, but even the final 10 chapters of that book are universal moral laws.  Beyond that, I see very little in scripture that can be disregarded by someone who considers him/herself a Christian.  I personally believe that the New testament would not hold the cloud it does if Jesus had not fulfilled Messianic prophecy dating all the way back to Genesis 3, but even those who make the mistake of trying to lump all of that into "the old covenant" cannot discred the New Testament and claim to be Christians.  The word means "little Christ."  If you're not trying to be like Christ, how can you take that name?

@leadworshipper82 - If you're referring to the gospels, they are not eyewitness accounts.  They aren't the gospels of matthew, mark, luke and john either, those names were tacked on decades or centuries later.  They are in fact anonymous non-eyewitness accounts.  If you read the gospels, this is extremely evident, as they give accounts of things the writers could not possibly have been privy to.  There are two accounts of the death of judas - do you suppose he had an entorage of friends following him taking notes while he hung himself, and they just wrote "and then he hung himself".  If the authors were eye witnesses it would be more like "then he got some rope and we asked what it was for, and he said he was going to kill himself, and we tried to take the rope away and..."

They are not eye witness accounts, they are the most popular versions of the story of the time.  There are many more versions out there.

The bible is God's law. If we do not obey it, or even read it, what is the point of calling ourselves Christians?

@agnophilo@xanga - Biblical contradictions only exist in a surface reading of Scripture.  I don't feel the need to refute every single claim of contradiction, so don't waste your time testing me in that, but try googling responses/refutation to any "Biblical contradiction" and you'll find just as many heremeneutical and theological dismissals of that contradiction as you did articles supporting it.

@m1kyo@xanga - Welc you. : D

@kimchikid@xanga - Go ahead and start killing gays and stoning adulterers then.

@m1kyo@xanga - Science can't prove or disprove God.  It is unrelated, as science can only observe laws and thing with recurring and therefore testable results.  God is outside of science.  History is much closer related to God than science, and even history can't prove or disprove because it is based upon interpreted evidence.

@m1kyo@xanga - But you see, it may be part of God's law to do that, but nevertheless, The bible also tells us to obey the laws from our governments. Murder is a serious crime and although justified by religion is it not the best course of action. Jesus himself made an example when he saved the adulteress woman.

@shedinator@xanga - I think you're mistaking me with someone else? I never said that the Bible was self contradicting, though there are many instances where it is.
So I'll go ahead and assume the position.
Science doesn't prove a book contradicts itself; logic does.
Your argument is confusing so I'm not sure what you're saying in response to what I said.

@m1kyo@xanga - you said "Your articles that support the Christian side of the argument are all based on theory while the articles refuting it are based on science. Faith doesn't require fact, hence why religion thrives."

The only thing I said about articles on here was in regard to agnophilo's statements that the Bible was self-contradicting.  I assumed you had followed the thread and were taking a similar position. my apologies if that was not the case.