NationStates Jolt Archive

God knows what... :D


Maybe why Jesus was a preacher instead of a priest...


ROFL I can imagine God now as a transsexual... maybe you mean hermaphrodite? :D


:O Imagine kicking god in the crotch....
That would hurt two-fold.
xD

Well said.
Though one could argue that you only find this nirvana in heaven... seems as if this god only blesses us with death rather than reward us in life.


Then wouldnt that make life rather pointless?

There is no god/gods,angels,demons,heaven or hell.:p

So its satan that makes a man want to nail someone eles wife?

It was Satan who ordered the death of millions in Auschwitz?

Or, is that a weak exscuse to shift the spiritual blame away from themselves, unto an entity that doesnt exist?

"It was me...I didnt want to rape that woman...it must have been SATAN!"

Nonsense.

Unless in a blind rage where someone truly isnt aware of what theyre doing, people know full well when they sin, and will likely repeat it often.
How on earth is that not "wanting to sin"?Oh I forgot to add:Satan dosen't exist either.

So its satan that makes a man want to nail someone eles wife?

It was Satan who ordered the death of millions in Auschwitz?

Or, is that a weak exscuse to shift the spiritual blame away from themselves, unto an entity that doesnt exist?

"It was me...I didnt want to rape that woman...it must have been SATAN!"

Nonsense.

Unless in a blind rage where someone truly isnt aware of what theyre doing, people know full well when they sin, and will likely repeat it often.
How on earth is that not "wanting to sin"?




Satan must be pretty busy, eh?
Funny how he can manage to do so much catastrophe in one day... and yet who ever hears of god's miracles?
Looks like Satan does a better job at what he does, too.

If that were true, then why has no one ever achieved this blissful state?
What makes you so certain that no one has ever achieved this blissful state? Look at Tibetan monks. How long have they been oppressed by the Chinese, persecuted and even slaughtered, without ever picking up a gun to claim revenge, which is almost always the most natural result (or craving)?

Since no one is completely innocent, and every single person has at least ONE thing they have done, or even thought of doing that is immoral, it would readily appear that the religion thing really, really isnt working.

With a zero success rate, I would say its a failure.
But the point of Jesus was precisely that, because every single person has at least ONE thing they have done, no one is fit to judge. Could you say this doesn't happen without religion? No. Could you say that an atheist is always more morally correct than a theist (or vice-versa)? No. The failure is not in the religion (or lack of), but always in the individual.

Satan must be pretty busy, eh?
Funny how he can manage to do so much catastrophe in one day... and yet who ever hears of god's miracles?
Looks like Satan does a better job at what he does, too.


"Evil will always triumph over good, becuase good, is dumb."
-Dark Helmet.

What makes you so certain that no one has ever achieved this blissful state? Look at tibetean monks. How long have they been oppressed by the chinese, persecuted and even slaughtered, without ever picking up a gun to claim revenge, which is almost always the most natural result (or craving)?

Actions alone do not a person make for good, nor evil.
How can you know whats in anyones heart?
Hating someone is just as impure as killing them.


t the point of Jesus was precisely that, because every single person has at least ONE thing they have done, no one is fit to judge. Could you say this doesn't happen without religion? No. Could you say that an atheist is always more morally correct than a theist (or vice-versa)? No. The failure is not in the religion (or lack of), but always in the individual.

The religious follower is always an example of his/her teachings.
You act how you were taught to act.
Thus every christian is a represenative of thier chosen faith.
Thus far, its safe to assume, every single christian has sinned, or will sin, at some point.

The one example you have of a "pure being" may not even have existed friend, let alone been divine in anyway whatsoever.
To use him as an example is almost as bad as if you would have picked a nursery rhyme character.

They arent living examples of human behaviour.

So its satan that makes a man want to nail someone eles wife?
It was Satan who ordered the death of millions in Auschwitz?
Or, is that a weak exscuse to shift the spiritual blame away from themselves, unto an entity that doesnt exist?
"It was me...I didnt want to rape that woman...it must have been SATAN!"

Nonsense.
That depends on how you personally interpret the word "Satan". If you interpret Satan as a horned devil, I agree it's nonsense (even if I accept the infinitesimal possibility that we may be both wrong). if you interpret "Satan" as the worse within each one of us, it doesn't look so nonsense anymore. We all have a "Satan", it's just a matter of how much we control our own "Satan"...

When some punks scratched my 6 months old car and broke the radio antenna (they took it away), my insurance company decided to split the damages between "vandalism" and "theft". When they divided the damage, neither reached the minimum which would mean they had to pay. I really felt like setting fire to the car so that I could claim the total insurance and just buy a new one (or keep the money and buy an old car, so that I don't have to worry about scratches). Well, if I had done it, I would end up being as much as a crook as they had been...

Why should you care for Jesus? I haven't sinned, nor will I follow a book telling me what genitals to like and dislike. If something is telling me to act a certain way, or stress me about getting into "heaven".. I'll tell em to screw off.

You should follow your morals and live your own life.

Oh, and it's a waste of money :p

We are all sinners. Each and everyone of us.

As if he really knows the Truth.

I know what the Truth is CH. Same as you do.

And by the way, "false" is not really a correct way to describe it. Parts, such as the Garden of Eden and the forbidden fruit, never have happened in a factual or historical sense, but that story, for example, exemplifies the relationship between God and Man. It is symbolic, not historical-- indeed it has much more value as a metaphor than as a simple fact.

Care to prove this assertion?

The Bible can't be inerrantly true-- there are multiple Creation stories which contradict each other, if only slightly.

:rolleyes: There is only 1, repeat 1, creation story.

We are all sinners. Each and everyone of us.

Only according to your book, which, funnily enough, the majority of people don't believe in.

I'm just saying, you're not going to win over Bible literalists with logic.

And God laughs when people try to use logic to try and explain his ways.

:rolleyes: There is only 1, repeat 1, creation story.

Never read Genesis huh? It's at the front of the Bible, you can't miss it.

And God laughs when people try to use logic to try and explain his ways.

And we laugh when you mutilate logic and the rules of debate in an attempt to prove yourself right.

Actions alone do not a person make for good, nor evil.
Well, let's not talk about action without intent, since that is a very difficult subject as it is...
How can you know whats in anyones heart?
Only when their actions are always consistent with their spoken words.
Hating someone is just as impure as killing them.
How do you know Tibetean monks hate the Chinese (or anyone at all)? As far as we know, they have generally shown no hate or practical sign of hate. Therefore, it is wrong to assume they hate the Chinese. Which of course does not exclude the possibility that an individual may have felt hate, while others managed to control that hate and not let it grow to hanger and violence.

The religious follower is always an example of his/her teachings.
You act how you were taught to act.
Thus every christian is a represenative of thier chosen faith.
Thus far, its safe to assume, every single christian has sinned, or will sin, at some point.
It's pretty safe to assume that every human being has done some amount of psychological and/or physical damage to someone else, so whether they are Christian or not is irrelevant.

The one example you have of a "pure being" may not even have existed friend, let alone been divine in anyway whatsoever.
"may not even have existed"... "may" is the word...

To use him as an example is almost as bad as if you would have picked a nursery rhyme character.
So it's bad to use Pinnochio to teach children that they shouldn't lie?

They arent living examples of human behaviour.
Neither you nor I can know that for a fact. There are plenty of accounts on Jesus, other than those acknowledged by the Church. It is up to you to believe or not in them, but you cannot prove them absolutely right or absolutely wrong...

Truth, by definition, is a consequence of logic. You have Premise 1, Presmise 2, perform logical steps to get consequence 1, IF Premise 1 and 2 are correct THEN consequence 1 is TRUTH. No other way to find to truth.

But when you are dealing with History, sometimes you have to go outside normal research perimeters to get at the truth.

But when you are dealing with History, sometimes you have to go outside normal research perimeters to get at the truth.

Again, we're dealing with fact here. not truth.

We are all sinners. Each and everyone of us.


What about Job? Was he a sinner? What about the virgin mary? Was she a sinner?

The God of the Bible, (JHWH or JHVH, usually translated to Jehovah or Jahveh) is not the ruler of this world. The bible points out that the ruler of this world is Satan, for now. Satan is ruling the world to answer to the questions arisen in eden: "Can humans live without god?", "Can we rule ourselves?", "Can we ourselves say what is wrong and what is right?", "Is Satan's ruling better than that of god?"

Even god's son Jesus (or Jesua/Jehosua) said that satan is the ruler of this world to his followers.

It is wrong to blame god for the problems humans or satan's world has created. God let us rule ourselves to give a clear answer to the questions arisen in eden.
After Harmageddon Satan is to be taken away (John 12:31). Jahveh is the only person in the universum that has the power to resurrect those that please him or those that had no chance of hearing the word, and humans can live in a paradise.

My english is really bad so it is good to read these proofs from your bible.

Who is responsible:
Proverbs 29:2; 28:28
2Corinthians 4:4; 1John 5:19; John 12:31
Revelation 12:9, 12
Revelation 20:1-3; 21:3, 4

Why is it allowed:
Job 1:11, 12
Romans 9:17; Proverbs 27:11
John 12:31
Romans 2:6, 7; Revelation 21:3-5

Why it takes so long?
Matthew 24:24, 37-39
2Peter 3:9 Isaiah 30:18
Luke 21:36; 1Thessalonians 5:4
Isaiah 2:2-4; Zephaniah 2:3

Well said and welcome to the boards.

Argument still holds. If two people who have faith have been revealed two different truths the contrdiction is still reached.

And if 2 people who have faith received the same truth, there is no contradiction. Logic is failing C.C.

Which means that matters of faith cannt be claimed by anyone to be truth.

Tell that to the Early Christins who believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. Especially those that where his disciples.

Except, of course, when he deluges the entire planet because they were so inferior IN HIS OWN CREATION that they weren't worth mercy.
Love, diluvian style.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/love/637.gif

Oh brother. I know you are referring to Noah's Ark and yet, 8 people were saved from that devestating Flood.

The world will not be destroyed by water again.

And if 2 people who have faith received the same truth, there is no contradiction. Logic is failing C.C.


:rolleyes: In order for it to be truth every single person in the entire world must be revealed the same truth. For the truth to be made void, only 1 person must be revealed a different truth. Tell me again how many different religions there are?

*snip*

Problem.

The verses you quoted do not contradict one another.

If you believe truly with all your heart in our Lord, Jesus Christ you're not going to want to sin.

Now that's a true statement.

And we necessarily have to accept Christ why? There ARE other people out there we can accept (see my previous post)

Most assuredly there are but it is only through the Christ Savior that we will truly be saved and enter the the Kingdom of Heaven.

For your own sake of argument, I implore you to back that up with evidence that isn't written in some ancient, mangled, opinionated text.
If science at all exists in your community, that is.

I love these types of arguments.

Well said.
Though one could argue that you only find this nirvana in heaven... seems as if this god only blesses us with death rather than reward us in life.

That's because you must believe in His Son Jesus Christ in order to be with Him in Heaven.

For it is written "Except a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven.

"Evil will always triumph over good, becuase good, is dumb."
-Dark Helmet.

And it has already been decided that Good will always win and when the final battle occurs, Satan's army will be defeated by the Lord's Army, of which, I am apart of.

No.

And we laugh when you mutilate logic and the rules of debate in an attempt to prove yourself right.

I have mutilated no rules of debate.

Again, we're dealing with fact here. not truth.

In the realm of history fact does equal truth :rolleyes:

What about Job? Was he a sinner? What about the virgin mary? Was she a sinner?

We are all sinners. What part of that didn't seek in?

I have mutilated no rules of debate.

You have consistently avoided questions.

You have consistently changed tack whenever you seem to be losing.

You have made no points beyond mere assertions based on the Bible.

:rolleyes: In order for it to be truth every single person in the entire world must be revealed the same truth. For the truth to be made void, only 1 person must be revealed a different truth. Tell me again how many different religions there are?

The truth has been revealed to us. It is only man that decided to try and interpret the truth. The Truth requires no interpretation.

In the realm of history fact does equal truth :rolleyes:


No it doesn't. Truth is absolute fact. Fact that is not open to change. The only thing we know about history is what historical evidence tells us. Which is prone to change due to new archiological discoveries, and hence is not even close to truth.:rolleyes:

You have consistently avoided questions.

You have consistently changed tack whenever you seem to be losing.

You have made no points beyond mere assertions based on the Bible.

That's because the people's ears have been closed to the truth. They cannot see the Truth of God's love. They cannot hear God's truth or accept it for their hearts have been harden.

No it doesn't. Truth is absolute fact. Fact that is not open to change. The only thing we know about history is what historical evidence tells us. Which is prone to change due to new archiological discoveries, and hence is not even close to truth.:rolleyes:

ah more illogical statements. The Battle of Midway occured in June. Truth and Fact. Four Japanese Carriers were sunk at Midway, Fact and truth. One american Carrier and Destroyer were sunk at midway. Fact and truth.

That's because the people's ears have been closed to the truth. They cannot see the Truth of God's love. They cannot hear God's truth or accept it for their hearts have been harden.

I don't know you. I 've never met you. You could very well be a nice person. But in all honesty, if I ever had the chance to kill you, I'd do it.

1. You have consistently avoided questions.

2. You have consistently changed tack whenever you seem to be losing.

3. You have made no points beyond mere assertions based on the Bible.

That's because the people's ears have been closed to the truth. They cannot see the Truth of God's love. They cannot hear God's truth or accept it for their hearts have been harden.

You've just vindicated me on every point with just one post.

1. You avoided two of my allegations.

2. You diverted blame when you couldn't deny the truth of what I said.

3. You countered with an assertion based on the Bible.

Your style of 'debate' (and I use the word loosely) is both vacuous and extremely dishonest.

ah more illogical statements. The Battle of Midway occured in June. Truth and Fact. Four Japanese Carriers were sunk at Midway, Fact and truth. One american Carrier and Destroyer were sunk at midway. Fact and truth.


Fact.

Newtons law of gravity: Fact
My existence: Fact
Big Bang: Fact
Microevolution: Fact

conversely:

Pythagoras theorem: Truth
1 + 1 = 2: Truth
-1 * -1 = +1 : Truth
Fermats last theorem: Truth



See the pattern.

I don't know you. I 've never met you. You could very well be a nice person. But in all honesty, if I ever had the chance to kill you, I'd do it.

Go ahead. I will gladly die for my faith in Jesus Christ.

Fact.

Newtons law of gravity: Fact
My existence: truth
Big Bang: False
Microevolution: Fact

conversely:

Pythagoras theorem: Truth
1 + 1 = 2: Truth
-1 * -1 = +1 : Truth
Fermats last theorem: Truth



See the pattern.

Big Bang is false. Have a pleasant day.

Problem.

The verses you quoted do not contradict one another.
Corneliu, if I can offer you my honest and caring advice, I feel you need to learn a bit of humility, stop being a blind follower of the bible and listen more carefully to the words of Jesus, who you already have defined as your savior. You know the gospels were not written by Jesus and that the apostles could never be as "perfect" as Jesus... Don't fall in the mistake of following the followers, otherwise you're becoming little more than a blind sheep. Follow the leader, not the follower who is closest to your heart.

Now read the bits in red and tell me they are not contradictory:

Matthew 10:10:
Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purse, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves.

Luke 9:3:
And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.

Mark 6:8-9:
And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse: But be shod with sandals.

Big Bang is false. Have a pleasant day.


Why?

Go ahead. I will gladly die for my faith in Jesus Christ.


Oh it has nothing to do with your faith. It's just that you're entire mindset irritates me.

May I ask which parts of the bible you believe are false? (I happen to belive that all of the supernatural parts and most of the historical parts are unsupported and dubious).
Much like your arguments against God are "unsupported or dubious".

Again (and this is the sixth time or more, so please let it sink in), there is no proof that God is a monster other than the bible,
You may have to repeat yourself ad infintitum because your case against God is not totally clear, is based on circumstantial evidence, and most importantly, does not allow the "defendant" to give His testimony.

Earlier, you stated:

"I have great respect for anyone who diligently and genuinely pursues the ideas of mercy, forgiveness, charity, and love."

It appears that while you may have great respect for those individuals, you are unwilling to practice those ideas yourself?

as I believe the Bible to be largely false
Perhaps we should explore which parts of the Bible that you consider to be true?

Do you really just include those parts that support what you want to believe? That is to say, exclude evidence based on whether or not it supports your conclusion?
That is exactly what you have been doing throughout this debate?

As has been explained half a dozen times, the conclusion is that if the bible is true, God is a monster. I don't personally believe the bible is true, but if it were, God is vile. But again, you've finally admitted that you believe only parts are true, so as long as parts of the bible are not true (i.e. false), God need not be a monster. Get it?
I fully understand your conclusions. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with them. It would be very interesting to watch you prosecute this "case" against God in real life. In a way, you are, although God is not here to defend His actions.

And again, now that you've said the Bible isn't 100% true (you've said only parts are true), then we can examine how you decide which scripture to believe in and which to ignore.
I haven't stated that the Bible isn't 100% true, just as I haven't stated that the Bible is 100% false, yet you have based conclusions on mere assumptions. What I have learned is that you believe that there is some truth in the Bible.

Since you have trouble getting it, I will repeat for you that I don't believe the Bible to be true. I only pointed out that if it were true, God would be a monster.
I completely understand where you are going with all of this. For you to prosecute your case against God, the parts of the Bible, that you state vilifies him, would have to be 100% true. Perhaps if you could prosecute this case in front of Him, He may be able to provide some meaningful insight for His actions.

You have already judged God, found Him guilty and vilified Him right here in these forums. You have also vilified His followers as "dangerous". Your logic has failed you when you most needed it.

As for faith in God, many would say that it defies logic. Faith comes from the heart and there it shall stay, whereby it can grow and be shared with others.

You, on the other hand, have already charted your course:

But, I think just to hedge my bets, I'm going to start trying to live my life like its all I get, like I won't exist after it. I'm going to love and work and play like this time is it, and the only relevance it has is now.
Go ahead and enjoy your life and don't forget to pursue those "ideas of mercy, forgiveness, charity, and love."

But in all honesty, if I ever had the chance to kill you, I'd do it.
:rolleyes: I don't think that was necessary CC...

Big Bang is false. Have a pleasant day.

We have red shifting and background radiation to prove it happened.

Do you have any proof at all for your viewpoint or are you going to continue your habit of giving mindless assertions?

:rolleyes: I don't think that was necessary CC...

Given Corneliu's unimaginably rude behaviour I don't really blame him to be honest.

Given Corneliu's unimaginably rude behaviour I don't really blame him to be honest.

I havne't been rude to anyone.

We have red shifting and background radiation to prove it happened.

Do you have any proof at all for your viewpoint or are you going to continue your habit of giving mindless assertions?

We have general relativity, the expanding universe, the exact right amount of cosmic background radiation. The evidence is so overwhelming that it is now considered a fact. But certain fundamentalists choose to accept the contradictory word of Genesis over common sense. I can't do anything but pity the poor fools that deliberately ignore science because they think it is somehow incompatible with religion.

I don't know you. I 've never met you. You could very well be a nice person. But in all honesty, if I ever had the chance to kill you, I'd do it.
Ummm death threats are not exactly well received in these forums.

I suggest a retraction would be in order?

:rolleyes: I don't think that was necessary CC...


If we only lived for necessity life wouldn't be worth living.

Ummm death threats are not exactly well received in these forums.

I suggest a retraction would be in order?

Nah its ok CH. I have already forgiven him fr his comments towards me.

I havne't been rude to anyone.

Do I have to post it again?

You have consistently avoided questions.

You have consistently changed tack whenever you seem to be losing.

You have made no points beyond mere assertions based on the Bible

While everyone else has made reasoned argument you have offered us nothing but assertion, sometimes your assertions actually contradict the Bible.

Ummm death threats are not exactly well received in these forums.

I suggest a retraction would be in order?


I'm not threatening anyone. I'm just making my feelings clear.

Sorry you seem to be dodging the Big Bang question. Why is Big Bang false. And I won't take 'because I believe so' to be an answer. I'm after facts here, no speculation.

Do I have to post it again?

You have consistently avoided questions.

I always avoid questions no matter if I can answer them or not. You do not like it will that's to bad. I do not have to answer all the questions on an internat chat forum. It is my right just as it is your right to not answer mine or to ask questions.

You have consistently changed tack whenever you seem to be losing.

Nope. I don't. You may think I do but I do not.

You have made no points beyond mere assertions based on the Bible

For the Bible is the Word of the Lord.

While everyone else has made reasoned argument you have offered us nothing but assertion, sometimes your assertions actually contradict the Bible.

:rolleyes:

I always avoid questions no matter if I can answer them or not. You do not like it will that's to bad. I do not have to answer all the questions on an internat chat forum. It is my right just as it is your right to not answer mine or to ask questions.



Rules of Forum debate. If you can't provide a comeback, you lose.

Rules of Forum debate. If you can't provide a comeback, you lose.

Not to mention you use cuss words, insult people (which has been done numerous times) and a whole host of debating rules that are violated on this forum.

Not to mention you use cuss words, insult people (which has been done numerous times) and a whole host of debating rules that are violated on this forum.


Some people tend to get frustrated when banging theit head against a wall. But the nuber one inviolatable rule is that you lose if you don't provide a valid comeback.

Rules of Forum debate. If you can't provide a comeback, you lose.

That may be the issue. If it's not firmly established what game is being played, one does not know what set of rules to use. While you may be playing the debate game, if someone else is playing the "let's annoy CC" game, there can be no definitive winner.

My suggestion before proceeding further is to establish what rules are in place by mutual agreement. If two people can't even agree on the rules, how can there be any meaningful exchange?

Ah Big Bang? This would be the third time I've asked you now.

That may be the issue. If it's not firmly established what game is being played, one does not know what set of rules to use. While you may be playing the debate game, if someone else is playing the "let's annoy CC" game, there can be no definitive winner.

My suggestion before proceeding further is to establish what rules are in place by mutual agreement. If two people can't even agree on the rules, how can there be any meaningful exchange?


Perhaps starting a new thread would be a good idea?

Perhaps starting a new thread would be a good idea?
I think we could continue on with this one. Considering the length of this one, it is turning into the thread of life: you can't really start over with life, but you can make the resolve to move forward and from this moment on, create something of value.

I always avoid questions no matter if I can answer them or not. You do not like it will that's to bad. I do not have to answer all the questions on an internat chat forum. It is my right just as it is your right to not answer mine or to ask questions.

I'll be happy to answer any questions you wish to ask of me my friend, I merely ask for a little common courtesy in return.

Nope. I don't. You may think I do but I do not.

You certainly have. I think the best example was when Grave pointed out that according to the Bible Jesus couldn't be the Messiah as he wasn't the heir of David.

For the Bible is the Word of the Lord.

And there you go again...

:rolleyes:

Do you want me to prove it? Grave gave me the references not long ago.

You asserted that Jesus was the heir of David.

Matthew 1

The Genealogy of Jesus

1A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
Abiud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Eliud,
15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

17Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.

Note Jeconiah.

Luke 3

23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David, 32the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon,
33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[e]
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.

Note that in this genealogy Jesus was descended from David via Nathan, not Solomon.

If the first genealogy is accurate then Jesus can't be David's heir because of he was also a descendant of Jeconiah.

Jeremiah 22:24-9

"As I live, says the LORD, if you, Coniah (Jeconiah), son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, are a signet ring on my right hand, I will snatch you from it. I will deliver you into the hands of those who seek your life; the hands of those whom you fear; the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and the Chaldeans. I will cast you out, you and the mother who bore you, into a different land from the one you were born in; and there you shall die. Neither of them shall come back to the land for which they yearn. Is this man Coniah (Jeconiah) a vessel despised, to be broken up, an instrument that no one wants? Why are he and his descendants cast out? why thrown into a land they know not? O land, land, land, hear the word of the LORD-- Thus says the LORD: Write this man down as one childless, who will never thrive in his lifetime! No descendant of his shall achieve a seat on the throne of David as ruler again over Judah. "

But if the second genealogy is accurate then Jesus couldn't have been the heir of David because he was related to David via Nathan, not Solomon.

Second Samuel 7:12-3
And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

Note that David's seed is singlular. Which seed is it?

First Kings 1:30
Even as I sware unto thee by the LORD God of Israel, saying, Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne in my stead; even so will I certainly do this day

First Kings 1:34-5
And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel: and blow ye with the trumpet, and say, God save king Solomon. Then ye shall come up after him, that he may come and sit upon my throne; for he shall be king in my stead: and I have appointed him to be ruler over Israel and over Judah".

Ergo, Jesus wasn't the heir of David according to the Bible and thus your assertions contradicted the Bible.

Ok. So can we agree on some debating rules:

1) If you can't provide a valid comeback you lose the debate. This includes dodging questions and answering with things that are completely irrelevant.

2) Restating your position is not a valid comeback. A comeback must consist of a logical argument.

3) People who use childish name calling and gun smileys are to be ignored.

4) Replying to a point using a smilie alone does NOT constitute a valid comeback.

Everyone agree? Any ammendments?

<snip>


*claps*

*claps*

If you're refering to my last post I should make it clear that none of the prophecy stuff is mine; I got it from Grave N Idle and saved the references on my computer.

Ok. So can we agree on some debating rules:

1) If you can't provide a valid comeback you lose the debate. This includes dodging questions and answering with things that are completely irrelevant.

2) Restating your position is not a valid comeback. A comeback must consist of a logical argument.

3) People who use childish name calling and gun smileys are to be ignored.

Everyone agree? Any ammendments?

Sounds good to me, just one addition:

4) Replying to a point using a smilie alone does NOT constitute a valid comeback.

Sounds good to me, just one addition:

4) Replying to a point using a smilie alone does NOT constitute a valid comeback.

Fair enough.

1) If you can't provide a valid comeback you lose the debate. This includes dodging questions and answering with things that are completely irrelevant.?

I'm listening to Charlie Feathers.

2) Restating your position is not a valid comeback. A comeback must consist of a logical argument.

I'm listening to Charlie Feathers.


3) People who use childish name calling and gun smileys are to be ignored.

:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

4) Replying to a point using a smilie alone does NOT constitute a valid comeback. ?

:(


Everyone agree? Any ammendments?

Amendments

I'm listening to Charlie Feathers.



I'm listening to Charlie Feathers.




:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:



:(




Amendments

:p

I'm listening to Charlie Feathers.



I'm listening to Charlie Feathers.




:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:



:(




Amendments

I suppose that was inevitable. :)

I thought he was an anti-Capitalist, anti-establishment, anti-wealth... How is that exemplar for you?...
No. He was a champion for individual freedom and he encouraged that humans treat one another with respect. That much I admire in him.

To establish if he was anti-capitalist, I'd have to study the Bible better. He was pro-charity, that much I know. And no, he was not anti-establishment. He was against the Temple, but he supported a major establishment; the Kingdom of Heaven.

I saddens me that there "exists" such a pathetic deity that needs to be complimented and praised by humans to feel meaningful. But then again, your words only exist for you; the only person your words help is you by abetting the delusion you've set up for yourself.


Again, a misunderstanding made by a great many people. God wants us to love him in the way a father wants love from his child. And the kind of love isnt the yesman "your great, brilliant, wonderful" etc love that so many think it is. It is a relationship between a father and a child, yes the father diciplines the child, but he also loves it and only disciplines out of love.

Again, a misunderstanding made by a great many people. God wants us to love him in the way a father wants love from his child. And the kind of love isnt the yesman "your great, brilliant, wonderful" etc love that so many think it is. It is a relationship between a father and a child, yes the father diciplines the child, but he also loves it and only disciplines out of love.

Well said Adriatica. Well said indeed.

I'm working from a New International Version Bible, so if we have different translations it's entirely possible the words won't match.

In my version: 2 Samuel 21:8 "But the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Aiah's daughter Rizpah, whom she had borne to Saul, together with the five sons of Merab, whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite."

So I see borne here. Unfortunately, unless one of us can claim direct translation from the original Hebrew, it'll be difficult to decide who's version is closer.

The Mechon-Mamre Hebrew bible gives:

"But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bore unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite";

as the translation.

It is worth noting that the same Hebrew word, 'yalad', is used for Rizpah bearing children for Saul, and for Michal bearing children to Adriel.

Noteworthy also - the Hebrew version gives 'miykal' (Michal) as the person bearing Adriel's children. The identity of the (biological) mother is beyond question.

there r some funny things about this forum...

mainly that the people who are all about logic don't follow it well...

because pretend there is no god...what do u win when we die...

you won't even be able to mock those who believe...so you win nothing...

but if there is a God...(which there is) what do u win...

pain and suffering...but it doesn't matter because u maintain that God isn't

good enough to recognize or worship in anyway, shape, or form...

so by not believing in God, you will win nothing after you die...

so why would you even choose to be agnostic/atheist in any situation...

doesn't logic suggest then that you would believe in God??

You don't 'choose' to be a non-believer... it's just what you are when you don't believe.

Also - what if there IS a god, but you pick the wrong one?

Again, a misunderstanding made by a great many people. God wants us to love him in the way a father wants love from his child. And the kind of love isnt the yesman "your great, brilliant, wonderful" etc love that so many think it is. It is a relationship between a father and a child, yes the father diciplines the child, but he also loves it and only disciplines out of love.

If you regard eternal fire as a reasonable punishment for a disobedient child then I hope you never have children. The motive behind punshing a wayward child is to chastise them so they behave better in future. Following this line of reasoning a parent would be justified to admonish their child with a smack but to hurl them into an oven and burn them to a crisp would be pointless, not to mention grossly excessive, as it gives them no chance to learn from their mistakes.

The same logic applies a a 'father' god and hell, a punishment in the afterlife could only be justifed if it led to eventual redemption.

First of all, most people on this board who claim that there is a God have no evidence, other than that in the Bible; there is no way to tell for sure if the Bible, or any other religious book, is right or wrong, simply because there is no legitimate evidence. Secondly, either you're wrong, or all other religions are wrong, or you're both wrong. That's why I find it hilarious to see people posting with "definite" evidence that their God exists.

1. The Bible is a form of evidence. Unlike many of the other religious texts it is a historical account. The predicitions of Jesus's life in the old testement and his actions and displays of power in the new show him to be who he said he was, the son of God. To say that the Bible is inadiquate evidence of who Jesus was is equally to say that Samuel Pypess diary is inadiquate evidence of the fire of London. While you can choose not to accept the evidence, to say there is no evidence is false.

More likely than not, there is no superior being, as there is no real evidence.

2. As has already been discussed, there is evidence. You just refuse to accept it

3. Absecnce of evidence is not evidence of abscence

4. Can you please explain how exactly you applied a probability matrix to God's existance


The Bible also says many things that are false, such as that the Earth is "a few thousand years old," which is obviously FALSE, according to carbon dating and other scientific techniques.

5. Carbon dating has been shown consistantly to be flawed, giving the ages of living animals and ones known to only have been dead for a matter of days in the 4000-5000 year old radius

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/carbondating.htm

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.htm

6. The Bible no where specificly states the age of the Earth


Stop claiming that "prayer will save you" or that non-believers should "see the light"; why don't you take a glance at the light of reason, science, and open-mindedness?

7. To insult another view point and call yourself open minded is an oxymoron. Prayer has been shown to help situations, such as the revival in Cali, Columbia. Where groups of people got together to pray and then in one weekend there were no homicides. Then the drug barons fell one by one and the city is now a centre of revival

Actually..it is stated all throughout the Word of God that marriage is between one man and one woman.

No - it really isn't.

I was thinking about a friend I lost to breast cancer awhile back and how she didn't deserve to die. She had an asshole husband for many years. He was abusive, and when they got divorced, he would go to their sons wrestling meet.. with his bimbo girlfriend.

She was always kind and a good listener to anyone who talked to her. Since she was a teacher, when she died, everyone lost a good friend. We all were affected by her.

Her son is graduating soon, her daughter is getting married this summer. She was happy and upbeat, even with cancer and going through chemo.

Well.. I started thinking why would God let her die? She was a good person. She shouldn't have been taken, it wasn't her time.

I wasn't relisios to begin with.. but I thought there was some sort of higher being (God). But I don't feel that way anymore. What God would do that to someone?

You know a lot of ppl go through that kind of situation, my family did when my baby brother died, but if you think about it the Father has been through the same pain, when he allowed his son to die on the cross, so when you think how could he do this, well the same way he did it for Christ.

Actually you are incorrect. Unless you are born again, you cannot see the kingdom of heaven. You are not saved unless you accept the Lord Savior Jesus as your Personal Lord and Savior.

According to your interpretation of the scripture. Opinions are divided over faith versus works.

Also - what about people like me? A 'saved' Atheist?

If you regard eternal fire as a reasonable punishment for a disobedient child then I hope you never have children. The motive behind punshing a wayward child is to chastise them so they behave better in future. Following this line of reasoning a parent would be justified to admonish their child with a smack but to hurl them into an oven and burn them to a crisp would be pointless, not to mention grossly excessive, as it gives them no chance to learn from their mistakes.

The same logic applies a a 'father' god and hell, a punishment in the afterlife could only be justifed if it led to eventual redemption.

You assume that hell is the discipline I am refering to. Its not. God will punish us in this life by negative consequences from our sin. For example what happened to David in the Bible. He was the leader of Israel and had ammased great power and wealth. Then when the leaders of other nations came to visit he boasted of his own power and wisdom in aquiring these wealths, instead of giving the glory to God, who was the one who had given David the wisdom and strength in the first place. As a result of this God allowed the other nations to plunder Israel. Your misunderstaning comes from a simplicistc theology

No - it really isn't.

Yes it is.

Your misunderstaning comes from a simplicistc theology

I find that the simplest theologies are often the best.

According to your interpretation of the scripture. Opinions are divided over faith versus works.

Also - what about people like me? A 'saved' Atheist?

There is no such thing as a saved atheist. Those who turn their backs on God and His Son, will not get into the Kingdom of Heaven unless they repent for their sins and affirm Chris as their Lord and Savior.

1. The Bible is a form of evidence. Unlike many of the other religious texts it is a historical account.

It is evidence, just not very good evidence. It's riddled with innaccuracy, contradiction and absurdity. Also, the fact that we don't know where it was written, when it was written or even who wrote it makes is extremely weak evidence.

The predicitions of Jesus's life in the old testement and his actions and displays of power in the new show him to be who he said he was, the son of God. To say that the Bible is inadiquate evidence of who Jesus was is equally to say that Samuel Pypess diary is inadiquate evidence of the fire of London. While you can choose not to accept the evidence, to say there is no evidence is false.

Go back two pages and you'll see Biblical evidence that shows that Jesus couldn't have been the Messiah according to the Bible. What's more we only have the testimony of the Bible that Jesus actually existed.

2. As has already been discussed, there is evidence. You just refuse to accept it

Rubbish. That's like saying a child's drawing is evidence for the existence of aliens.

3. Absecnce of evidence is not evidence of abscence

But it is often a good indication of absense, no? If I look for butter in my fridge and find no evidence to suggest that the fridge contains butter then it would be reasonable to conclude that my fridge is devoid of butter.

5. Carbon dating has been shown consistantly to be flawed, giving the ages of living animals and ones known to only have been dead for a matter of days in the 4000-5000 year old radius

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/carbondating.htm

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.htm

Tell me, do you get all of your information from self styled apologetics?

We don't use carbon dating to date the Earth because it's half life is too short. We use other isotopes such as Uranium 138 (I think) which has a half life of approximately 4.5 billion years.

7. To insult another view point and call yourself open minded is an oxymoron. Prayer has been shown to help situations, such as the revival in Cali, Columbia. Where groups of people got together to pray and then in one weekend there were no homicides. Then the drug barons fell one by one and the city is now a centre of revival

The largest scientific study to date concluded that prayer actually had an adverse effect on patients.

You assume that hell is the discipline I am refering to. Its not. God will punish us in this life by negative consequences from our sin. For example what happened to David in the Bible. He was the leader of Israel and had ammased great power and wealth. Then when the leaders of other nations came to visit he boasted of his own power and wisdom in aquiring these wealths, instead of giving the glory to God, who was the one who had given David the wisdom and strength in the first place. As a result of this God allowed the other nations to plunder Israel. Your misunderstaning comes from a simplicistc theology

Nevertheless my reasoning proves that if God is truly a father figure to us then Hell cannot exist, no? Earthly punishments are irrelevant.

No - it really isn't.

Leviticus 20:13: If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Yep tremalkier! you rather belittle a man's faith. God lets things happen for a reason.

Or he doesn't, and shit just happens.

It's a matter of opinion, don't you think

Or he doesn't, and shit just happens.

It's a matter of opinion, don't you think

God's plans will be fullfilled and His will shall be done.

Leviticus 20:13: If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Leviticus is worthless. It only resonates with the fanatics, because it makes the reasonable believers queasy. I always prefer dealing with the fanatics though, because they do themselves more harm than I ever could.

Leviticus is worthless. It only resonates with the fanatics, because it makes the reasonable believers queasy. I always prefer dealing with the fanatics though, because they do themselves more harm than I ever could.
Out of curiosity, are there theological reasons that it is worthless?

Leviticus 20:13: If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Have you ever looked at the context of that passage?

10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

11 " 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

12 " 'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.

13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

14 " 'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.

15 " 'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.

16 " 'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

17 " 'If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.

18 " 'If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.

19 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.

20 " 'If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless.

21 " 'If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.

The homosexual verse is the only one to add 'as one lies with a woman'.

For example, 15 doesn't say ''If a man has sexual relations with an animal as one has sexual relations with a woman'

16 doesn't say 'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it as one has sexual relations with a man.'

Number 13 is alone in this respect. That could easily be interpretted to mean 'don't have sex with a man in the same bed one has sex with a woman in', this would work quite well given the other commanded separations in the OT such as not mixing crops, fibres in clothing or cooking utensils.

Out of curiosity, are there theological reasons that it is worthless?

Oh, probably. My contention is that if you're going to say the Bible is the unerring word of God, you had better be prepared to tackle the messy bits too. If you don't think that you would kill a man who slept with another man, then something isn't holding up in this wonderful book of yours.

Not exactly, I'm afraid. :D You can pick on the parts which you "feel" to be true and leave other parts, without labelling them as "false".

That's what I do. I only read Jesus sayings for "truths" and even then I give some room for inconsistencies due to translations and editing. Those parts I find "strange" and don't sound plausible (the Apocalypse is a great example) I don't necessarily read as "false", but as the metaphors they probably are.

Of course, I believe there may be stuff in the bible that is "false", but what the heck, it's a 1800 years book which was created by an angry bishop. After all, the guy chose four gospels because it was one for each direction of the wind and corner of the earth. This is a guy that sent people to burn at the stake...

Indeed. (Godless Heathen that I am, you may not agree with my premise)... Parts of the Bible may be 'true'... and other parts may be 'spiritually true', while not being 'literally true'.

Nevertheless my reasoning proves that if God is truly a father figure to us then Hell cannot exist, no? Earthly punishments are irrelevant.

No it doesn't. Hell gives people exactly what people want, a world without God. The father analogy isn't perfect in this regard but its essentially that if people are continally disobediant and do not want God in their lives at all and ignore him at every turn then ultimately God gives them what they want. A world without him. Which is what hell is.

Oh, probably. My contention is that if you're going to say the Bible is the unerring word of God, you had better be prepared to tackle the messy bits too. If you don't think that you would kill a man who slept with another man, then something isn't holding up in this wonderful book of yours.
Absolutely. I am just wondering if there are weaknesses in some of the more ...undesirable documents that exist within the Bible.

Wasn't that Saddam Hussein's pleasure appendage in "South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut"?

Ooooh, Straughn (and Satan, I guess) ftw.

No it doesn't. Hell gives people exactly what people want, a world without God. The father analogy isn't perfect in this regard but its essentially that if people are continally disobediant and do not want God in their lives at all and ignore him at every turn then ultimately God gives them what they want. A world without him. Which is what hell is.

If you want to portray God as a loving father then there must always be a chance for repentance my friend; a loving father might let his child choose their own path but that wouldn't stop him from running to them when they called.

If you want to drop the analogy then feel free.

If you want to portray God as a loving father then there must always be a chance for repentance my friend; a loving father might let his child choose their own path but that wouldn't stop him from running to them when they called.

If you want to drop the analogy then feel free.

There is a chance of repentence and that is through his Son Jesus Christ who died for our sins that if we believe in Him, we will have everlasting life.

There is a chance of repentence and that is through his Son Jesus Christ who died for our sins that if we believe in Him, we will have everlasting life.

I meant a chance of repentance at any time. No loving father would ever abandon their offspring for good, he would always welcome them back if they wished to come.

I meant a chance of repentance at any time. No loving father would ever abandon their offspring for good, he would always welcome them back if they wished to come.

You are indeed correct. When you accept the Lord Savior Jesus Christ, you will enter the Kingdom of heaven. YOu can accept him at anytime by admitting that you are a sinner.

:rolleyes: There is only 1, repeat 1, creation story.

I guess you never got further than Genesis 1, then...

You are indeed correct. When you accept the Lord Savior Jesus Christ, you will enter the Kingdom of heaven. YOu can accept him at anytime by admitting that you are a sinner.

By any time I mean any time including after death, was that what you meant?

Either the Bible was written, as some believe,by God himself or it had to be written (and re-written) through people (the most logical option), though perhaps "divinely inspired" as some insist.

When the second and more logical option is considered to be fact, than also the fact remains that because of being written by people, the book is in itself fallible, i.e. not to be taken literally all the way, as the definitive word of God.

When the Bible is not the defitinitive and all-encompassing word of the christian God, then it loses its value as a justifiable book of set rules and morality.

As a faithful person goes through his bible, he is bound to encounter certain passages that appeal to him, his morality and his own vision upon the cosmos and the beings in it. But if the second option of the first statement is true, than he or she is merely finding that (a) certain person(s) in a far away past wrote something down that corresponds with they think.

You either take everything in the bible as fact and truth, or it is nothing more than a book that has (although given the immense amount of christian influence upon our society) meaning, stories, advice, but is in no way the absolute code by which to live. And therefore not a valible option for founding any claims or history upon it without the use of other sources as well.

The earth did not come into being 12000 years ago, geological evidence supports the idea of an earth millions of years old, now the bible states otherwise, and believers who support the traditional Creationism have to turn to other sources than the bible itself, to avoid circle-reasoning.

By any time I mean any time including after death, was that what you meant?

By then it will be too late for we have the chance at it in this life but if it is rejected, we will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Do not wait for time is short.

It is evidence, just not very good evidence. It's riddled with innaccuracy, contradiction and absurdity. Also, the fact that we don't know where it was written, when it was written or even who wrote it makes is extremely weak evidence.

You will have to show specific examples before I listen to those arguments. And we do know when the gospels were written, who wrote it and where it was written. Its just you who doesnt.

http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm


Go back two pages and you'll see Biblical evidence that shows that Jesus couldn't have been the Messiah according to the Bible. What's more we only have the testimony of the Bible that Jesus actually existed.


We also have the testemony of Roman, Greek and Jewish historians as well as the evidence in the form of the early church.


But it is often a good indication of absense, no? If I look for butter in my fridge and find no evidence to suggest that the fridge contains butter then it would be reasonable to conclude that my fridge is devoid of butter.

In that case, but it is an exceptionally simplitic analysis. For instance, for hundruds of years there was no evidence that spontanious generation was wrong with regards to the apperance of microbes.


Tell me, do you get all of your information from self styled apologetics?

We don't use carbon dating to date the Earth because it's half life is too short. We use other isotopes such as Uranium 138 (I think) which has a half life of approximately 4.5 billion years.

While two of those sources were apologitcally based, the third was not

http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?image=radiometrictable11ie.jpg


The largest scientific study to date concluded that prayer actually had an adverse effect on patients.

Wrong. A common mistake. I actually know the study you are speeking of. You are speeking of the Mantra study. This study found no benefit either way. What it did find was that another type of alternative therapy being tested at the same time found adverse effects (I believe it was called relaxive light therapy, but am uncertian). And other studies done on a smaller scale have found benefits.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3193902.stm

By then it will be too late for we have the chance at it in this life but if it is rejected, we will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Do not wait for time is short.

Well it looks like the loving father figure's gone out of the window...

You assume that hell is the discipline I am refering to. Its not. God will punish us in this life by negative consequences from our sin. For example what happened to David in the Bible. He was the leader of Israel and had ammased great power and wealth. Then when the leaders of other nations came to visit he boasted of his own power and wisdom in aquiring these wealths, instead of giving the glory to God, who was the one who had given David the wisdom and strength in the first place. As a result of this God allowed the other nations to plunder Israel. Your misunderstaning comes from a simplicistc theology

He punished the whole tribe because of the sins of one person? That's a bit harsh don't you think?

ah more illogical statements. The Battle of Midway occured in June. Truth and Fact. Four Japanese Carriers were sunk at Midway, Fact and truth. One american Carrier and Destroyer were sunk at midway. Fact and truth.

417 people died when the Titanic sank.

Fact... but not truth... there IS a difference.

If you want to portray God as a loving father then there must always be a chance for repentance my friend; a loving father might let his child choose their own path but that wouldn't stop him from running to them when they called.

If you want to drop the analogy then feel free.

I said the analogy was not perfect. God gives us a chance. He gives us a lifetime of chances. But God isnt just a loving father. He is also a fair judge. If you chose to repent after entering hell, it wouldnt be because you loved God, it would be because you hated hell. And it would'nt be out of faith or a choice.

Big Bang is false. Have a pleasant day.

Even if you were right (for which, I'd want better evidence than 'well, that's what I believe...')... that has nothing to do with the point you are responding to.

Well it looks like the loving father figure's gone out of the window...

He gives us alot of opportunities in this life to come to him. He shows us his life while we are alive here but if we reject it, we will be forever punished to eternal damnation. He does not want that for us. That is why he has sent his Son Jesus to die for our sins.

If you're refering to my last post I should make it clear that none of the prophecy stuff is mine; I got it from Grave N Idle and saved the references on my computer.

I'm glad you saved it, my friend... I thought I was going to have derive the whole thing from first principles again...

1. The Bible is a form of evidence. Unlike many of the other religious texts it is a historical account. The predicitions of Jesus's life in the old testement and his actions and displays of power in the new show him to be who he said he was, the son of God. To say that the Bible is inadiquate evidence of who Jesus was is equally to say that Samuel Pypess diary is inadiquate evidence of the fire of London. While you can choose not to accept the evidence, to say there is no evidence is false.


The Bible is only valuable as a source, in as much as it can be CORROBORATED.

Which, is about zero... since there are no independent, CONTEMPORARY sources that confirm ANY of it.

As to Pepys' testimony about the Great Fire of London, one of the reasons it is accepted as a fairly reliable source, is that it describes an event which is HEAVILY supported by archeology.

If we had Pepys' diaries, but there was no evidence of a 'great fire', Pepys would not be considered as reliable a source.

Yes it is.

That's not a debate- that's just contradiction.

You've made an assertion, I've called 'bullshit'... the burden of proof is now on you.

To establish if he was anti-capitalist, I'd have to study the Bible better.
I think you should...

He was pro-charity, that much I know.
Do you?

Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits. When you go into any region and walk about in the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them. After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it's what comes out of your mouth that will defile you."

Maybe Jesus doesn't favour the kind of charity that is done through direct debit from your bank account... Ask yourself why.

And no, he was not anti-establishment. He was against the Temple, but he supported a major establishment; the Kingdom of Heaven.
So leave the kingdom and the king in HEAVEN, where they belong...

"Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock"
[Zechariah 11:15-17]
"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
[1 Tim. 2:5]
II. [3] Let no one deceive you in any way. For it will not be, unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of destruction, [4] he who opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God or that is worshiped; so that he sits as God in the temple of God, setting himself up as God.

And this is what is spoken while the Pope receives his crown...
"Receive this Tiara, adorned with three crowns, and know that Thou art Father of Kings and Princes, Ruler of the World and Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth."
Ruler of this world? If not God himself, and according to the bible, we all know who that's supposed to be...

After being arrested, three times did Peter deny Jesus. After Jesus ressuscitated he asked Peter three times if he loved him more than the others:
Jesus said to Simon Peter, [I]"Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me more than these?"
He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I have affection for you."
He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me?"
He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I have affection for you."
He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you have affection for me?"
Peter was grieved because he asked him the third time, "Do you have affection for me?"
He said to him, "Lord, you know everything. You know that I have affection for you."
Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep. Most assuredly I tell you, when you were young, you dressed yourself, and walked where you wanted to. But when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you, and carry you where you don't want to go."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ee/GestatorialChair1.jpg

Again, a misunderstanding made by a great many people. God wants us to love him in the way a father wants love from his child. And the kind of love isnt the yesman "your great, brilliant, wonderful" etc love that so many think it is. It is a relationship between a father and a child, yes the father diciplines the child, but he also loves it and only disciplines out of love.

If I could be permitted to examine this idea from another perspective, I believe we may be talking about the same thing. One thing I have been doing a great deal of thinking about recently is repaying debts of gratitude and I think that may tie into this.

I think it can be safe to assume that we all understand what a debt is, so let's look at the difference between debts of gratitude and debts of obligation:

debts of gratitude are repaid gladly
debts of obligation are repaid begrudgingly

debts of gratitude are repaid above and beyond what is expected
debts of obligation are repaid no more than what is expected, sometimes less

debts of gratitude add value to one's life and the lives of others
debts of obligation take value from one's life and add little or no value to the lives of others

debts of gratitude are desirable to have in one's life
debts of obligation are to be avoided at all costs

Wether one loves God or not is going to have no effect on God's life. However, repaying debts of gratitude to God will have a tremendous impact on one's life, making it richer and more fufilling.

What it comes down to is being able to realize the debts of gratitude in one's life and making payments on them with unceasing effort.

There is no such thing as a saved atheist. Those who turn their backs on God and His Son, will not get into the Kingdom of Heaven unless they repent for their sins and affirm Chris as their Lord and Savior.

Again - according to you.

When I was a Christian, I was 'saved'.

John 6:51 "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever":

John 6:37 "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out".

John 11:26 "And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"

Pretty straight forward, I should have thought... it is entirely possible to become a 'saved' Atheist.

Well it looks like the loving father figure's gone out of the window...

Well, the main purpose of the eternal punishment is simply because time after death is non-existant. If they're in hell for, say, a thousand years, a thousand years compared to eternity is less than a blink of an eye, considering eternity is timeless. The punishment would be worthless. That is why it's eternity.

*snip*
Hmm...does sort of come in direct conflict with my own ideals of individual power and capitalism. I need time to think it over I suppose.

Again - according to you.

When I was a Christian, I was 'saved'.

John 6:51 "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever":

John 6:37 "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out".

John 11:26 "And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"

Pretty straight forward, I should have thought... it is entirely possible to become a 'saved' Atheist.

Do you recognize that Jesus is the Son of God?

Leviticus 20:13: If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Leviticus 20:13 is not about homosexuality, it is about sharing a bed with a menstruating woman (this is the problem with people BLINDLY accepting English translations).

But - even if it WERE about sexual acts between men... that has nothing to do with marriage.

Pretty straight forward, I should have thought... it is entirely possible to become a 'saved' Atheist.

But if you later rejected God, then you were never truely saved in the first place.

At least, that's what us Calvinists believe. And of course I think I'm right about it. After all, what's the point in believing in something you're not sure is true or not?

God's plans will be fullfilled and His will shall be done.

Again - more hollow rhetoric.

If you are not going to debate, I've READ the bible, and I don't need your regurgitated version...

Have you ever looked at the context of that passage?

10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

11 " 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

12 " 'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.

13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

14 " 'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.

15 " 'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.

16 " 'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

17 " 'If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.

18 " 'If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.

19 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.

20 " 'If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless.

21 " 'If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.

The homosexual verse is the only one to add 'as one lies with a woman'.

For example, 15 doesn't say ''If a man has sexual relations with an animal as one has sexual relations with a woman'

16 doesn't say 'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it as one has sexual relations with a man.'

Number 13 is alone in this respect. That could easily be interpretted to mean 'don't have sex with a man in the same bed one has sex with a woman in', this would work quite well given the other commanded separations in the OT such as not mixing crops, fibres in clothing or cooking utensils.

I don't suppose you kept my dissection of Leviticus 20:13...?

Leviticus 20:13 is not about homosexuality, it is about sharing a bed with a menstruating woman (this is the problem with people BLINDLY accepting English translations).

But - even if it WERE about sexual acts between men... that has nothing to do with marriage.

Leviticus 18:22 Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. it is a detestable sin.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. they must both beput to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

Where are you getting this stuff about menstruating woman with leviticus 20 verse 13?

Again - according to you.

When I was a Christian, I was 'saved'.

John 6:51 "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever":

John 6:37 "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out".

John 11:26 "And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"

Pretty straight forward, I should have thought... it is entirely possible to become a 'saved' Atheist.


There is truth in what you say, but the extent to which it is true is not excluding non-believers. Suppose one were to already have eternal life, wether they wanted it or not. Would any of those statements be false?

The feeling that one's life is brief and fleeting is not the problem as much as it is the fear and dread associated with life and death. The solution isn't to be able to live forever as much as it is to conquer the fear and dread associated with life and death.

We also have the testemony of Roman, Greek and Jewish historians as well as the evidence in the form of the early church.


No - we don't. We have nothing for more than half a century, except for some texts allegedly (but, not provably) written by people intimately connected with this particular Messiah cult.

Do you recognize that Jesus is the Son of God?

Irrelevent.

Irrelevent.

It is more relevent than you think.

But if you later rejected God, then you were never truely saved in the first place.

At least, that's what us Calvinists believe. And of course I think I'm right about it. After all, what's the point in believing in something you're not sure is true or not?

What do you mean, I was never truly saved?

Surely, if I was never truly saved, then NO ONE is ever truly saved...

To argue otherwise, is to argue special exception based on a possible future event, which (obviously) is not predicted at the time of my salvation.

I 'felt' it when I was 'saved'. If you say my 'experience' is not a valid enough evidence... then surely, neither is your own.

I don't suppose you kept my dissection of Leviticus 20:13...?

Are you going to break out the Hebrew text, old boy? Please say you will! Pleeeeaaassee! :D

Leviticus 18:22 Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. it is a detestable sin.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. they must both beput to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

Where are you getting this stuff about menstruating woman with leviticus 20 verse 13?

From actually having read the text in Hebrew.... I wonder if you can claim the same?

There is truth in what you say, but the extent to which it is true is not excluding non-believers. Suppose one were to already have eternal life, wether they wanted it or not. Would any of those statements be false?

The feeling that one's life is brief and fleeting is not the problem as much as it is the fear and dread associated with life and death. The solution isn't to be able to live forever as much as it is to conquer the fear and dread associated with life and death.

I have no fear or dread associated with death - I just want to get as much life into my life, as I can.

I'm just responding to the assertion that being an Atheist automatically equates to going to hell... scripturally, I believe it is ENTIRELY supportable for salvation that occured when one WAS a Christian, to be irrevocable.

From actually having read the text in Hebrew.... I wonder if you can claim the same?

Leviticus 20:18 was the verse you were trying to talk about for it says :If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her mentrual period, both of them must be cut off rom the cummunity, for together they have exposed a source of her blood flow.

It is more relevent than you think.

This is getting pretty pathetic.

If you have a point, amke it - quit the one line banter.

I was 'saved'. At THAT point, I believed that Jesus was the Son of God, and I believed on him.

Thus - according to the verses I quoted, I cannot EVER be 'cast out', and I am guaranteed eternal life.

Argue with it, or don't - but quit wasting my time with the spam.

I have no fear or dread associated with death - I just want to get as much life into my life, as I can.

I'm just responding to the assertion that being an Atheist automatically equates to going to hell... scripturally, I believe it is ENTIRELY supportable for salvation that occured when one WAS a Christian, to be irrevocable.

Do not be proven wrong on the day of Judgement Grave_n_idle.

*snip*

I am just worried about your soul Grave_n_idle. I do not want you to be proven wrong when you die.

I am just worried about your soul Grave_n_idle. I do not want you to be proven wrong when you die.


Dont worry Corneliu....GNI doesnt have a soul. He has super human personality instead.


:fluffle: @GNI

I have no fear or dread associated with death - I just want to get as much life into my life, as I can.

I'm just responding to the assertion that being an Atheist automatically equates to going to hell... scripturally, I believe it is ENTIRELY supportable for salvation that occured when one WAS a Christian, to be irrevocable.


So how's this for the difference between a Christian and an atheist:

A Christian appreciates their salvation and reaps the benefits of that appreciation.

An atheist does not appreciate their salvation and reaps no benefits from lack of appreciation.

Are you going to break out the Hebrew text, old boy? Please say you will! Pleeeeaaassee! :D

I do so hate to disappoint....

(Forgive my non-Hebrew character set transliteration)

Leviticus 20:13

'iysh shakab zakar mishkab 'ishshah shnayim asah tow'ebah...

Literally: (man) (lying) (him) (bed) (woman) (both) (become) (unclean)....

If a man lies himself on the bed of a woman, they are both made unclean.

What does that have to do with menstruation?

Leviticus 15:21-4 "Whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening... Whoever touches anything that she sits on shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening.... If it is on the bed, or on anything whereon she sits, when he touches it, he shall be unclean until the evening. If any man lies with her, and her monthly flow is on him, he shall be unclean seven days; and every bed whereon he lies shall be unclean."

Every time we have 'bed' in this context (Or, sometimes translated as couch) - we have 'mishkab'... this bed is the (woman's bed) or (woman's couch) - a specific 'bed' on which the menstruating woman would have to sleep - since she couldn't sleep in the marriage bed, because she was ritually unclean.

Leviticus 15 clearly says that a man lying on a 'woman's bed' becomes unclean...

Leviticus 20:18 was the verse you were trying to talk about for it says :If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her mentrual period, both of them must be cut off rom the cummunity, for together they have exposed a source of her blood flow.

There are a number of verses that relate to it. The same as there are about open wounds, etc.

The Hebrews were real big on 'cleanliness'.

There are a number of verses that relate to it. The same as there are about open wounds, etc.

The Hebrews were real big on 'cleanliness'.

For once..I'll agree with you.

Dont worry Corneliu....GNI doesnt have a soul. He has super human personality instead.


:fluffle: @GNI

Yay Peech! :fluffle:

(Of course - I could go off into the Hebrew and prove that ALL animals, including me, have souls....)

:) No? Missed you

I am just worried about your soul Grave_n_idle. I do not want you to be proven wrong when you die.

If I'm right as an Atheist - then I have nothing to worry about.

If Christianity was true, and the scripture is accurate, my ass is already covered, since I'm saved.

If Christianity is NOT true... you and I are i the same boat, old friend.

No. I don't. My parents want me to but I don't get why. By the way, has anyone seen The DaVinci Code? Good movie. I've read the book too. I wish the stuff was true.....Christianity would stop exsisting if it was......to belive females being dominate might ruin a whole religion.

So how's this for the difference between a Christian and an atheist:

A Christian appreciates their salvation and reaps the benefits of that appreciation.

An atheist does not appreciate their salvation and reaps no benefits from lack of appreciation.

I'm not quite sure where you are headed... my life has certainly benefitted from my Atheism... since I believe this is 'all I get' - so I make it count...

For once..I'll agree with you.

That's okay - it's allowed, so long as it's only occassional. :)

That's okay - it's allowed, so long as it's only occassional. :)

haha. Ok! I'll drink to that :)

I'm not quite sure where you are headed... my life has certainly benefitted from my Atheism... since I believe this is 'all I get' - so I make it count...


Where I'm headed in this case is it's the appreciation that's important. Salvation is just a way to develop that appreciation. If one has genuine appreciation of one's life and the lives of others, knowledge of salvation is not necessary.

May I begin by apologising for the time it took for me to reply, I had to go for dinner.

You will have to show specific examples before I listen to those arguments. And we do know when the gospels were written, who wrote it and where it was written. Its just you who doesnt.

http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm

If you think I'm going to waste my time answering your links Adriatica you've got another think coming. I've spent an inordinate amount of time in the past refuting them (especially the Jesus myth ones) only for you to vanish without even acknowledging my response.

The majority of modern scholarship is opposed to the idea of Apostolic authorship.

We also have the testemony of Roman, Greek and Jewish historians as well as the evidence in the form of the early church.

Really? Name one contemporary source please.

In that case, but it is an exceptionally simplitic analysis. For instance, for hundruds of years there was no evidence that spontanious generation was wrong with regards to the apperance of microbes.

And until that point it would have been illogical to doubt spontaneous generation as there was no evidence to contradict it. In the same way until there is evidence for the existence of God then it is logical to doubt his existence.

While two of those sources were apologitcally based, the third was not

http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?image=radiometrictable11ie.jpg

Don't make me laugh. Listen to some of the topics discussed on the main page of earthage.org:

-True Origin Archive of Creationist Papers
-Links to Creationist Web Sites
-Dragons and Dinosaurs: What the know-it-alls Don't Want you to know
-What the Founders believed about Separation of Church and State
-Will God Really Judge Us?
-Is Everyone A Child of God?

And besides you're missing the point: carbon dating isn't used for old specimens because the half-life is too short! We use different isotopes with much longer half lives because they're more accurate.

Wrong. A common mistake. I actually know the study you are speeking of. You are speeking of the Mantra study. This study found no benefit either way. What it did find was that another type of alternative therapy being tested at the same time found adverse effects (I believe it was called relaxive light therapy, but am uncertian). And other studies done on a smaller scale have found benefits.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3193902.stm

A common mistake, allow me to provide a more scholarly source (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19025463.200.html). I quote from New Scientist:

"The prayers made no detectable difference. In the first month after surgery, 52 per cent of prayed-for patients and 51 per cent of non-prayed-for patients suffered one or more complications, the researchers found (American Heart Journal, vol 151, p 934).

A third group of patients received the same prayers as the first group, but were told they were being prayed for. Of these, 59 per cent suffered complications - significantly more than the patients left unsure of whether they were receiving prayers."

I hope nobody prays for me, it's far too dangerous.

You seemed to missed the proof that Jesus didn't fulfil OT propheies so here's the link for you: Post 3570 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11040436&postcount=3570)

Big Bang is false. Have a pleasant day.

I too would love to see proof of this.

I'm glad you saved it, my friend... I thought I was going to have derive the whole thing from first principles again...

It's fun to have around to counter the prophecy claims. :)

Where I'm headed in this case is it's the appreciation that's important. Salvation is just a way to develop that appreciation. If one has genuine appreciation of one's life and the lives of others, knowledge of salvation is not necessary.

Ah. I think I got you... :)

I too would love to see proof of this.

The Big Bang can be proved by red shifting.

Satan is the master of lies.

Satan is a big red guy.

Therefore red things are lies.

Therefore red shifting is a lie.

Therefore Goddiddit.

QED.

This is getting pretty pathetic.

If you have a point, amke it - quit the one line banter.

I was 'saved'. At THAT point, I believed that Jesus was the Son of God, and I believed on him.

Thus - according to the verses I quoted, I cannot EVER be 'cast out', and I am guaranteed eternal life.

Argue with it, or don't - but quit wasting my time with the spam.

Romans 11:17-24 states..

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you - a wild olive - were grafted in among them and have become sharers in the rich root of the olive tree, then don't boast as if you were better off than the branches! However, if you do boast, remember that you are not supporting the root, the root is supporting you. So you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." True, but so what? They were broken off because of their lack of trust. However, you keep your place only because of your trust. So don't be arrogant; on the contrary, be terrified! For if God did not spare the natural branches, he certainly won't spare you! So take a good look at God's kindness and his severity: on the one hand, severity toward those who fell off; but, on the other hand, God's kindness toward you - provided you maintain yourself in that kindness! Otherwise, you too will be cut off! Moreover, the others, if they do not persist in their lack of trust, will be grafted in; because God is able to graft them back in. For if you were cut out of what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultavated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree!

Also, please explain what you 'felt' when you were 'saved'? I'm not doubting you have been saved in the past, but as an atheist you certainly can't be now.

The Big Bang can be proved by red shifting.

Satan is the master of lies.

Satan is a big red guy.

Therefore red things are lies.

Therefore red shifting is a lie.

Therefore Goddiddit.

QED.

"Hello, it's me, the Red Guy. Walk this way!"
*buttwalks around*

"Hello, it's me, the Red Guy. Walk this way!"
*buttwalks around*

HALLELUJAH!!! :fluffle:

Romans 11:17-24 states..

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you - a wild olive - were grafted in among them and have become sharers in the rich root of the olive tree, then don't boast as if you were better off than the branches! However, if you do boast, remember that you are not supporting the root, the root is supporting you. So you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." True, but so what? They were broken off because of their lack of trust. However, you keep your place only because of your trust. So don't be arrogant; on the contrary, be terrified! For if God did not spare the natural branches, he certainly won't spare you! So take a good look at God's kindness and his severity: on the one hand, severity toward those who fell off; but, on the other hand, God's kindness toward you - provided you maintain yourself in that kindness! Otherwise, you too will be cut off! Moreover, the others, if they do not persist in their lack of trust, will be grafted in; because God is able to graft them back in. For if you were cut out of what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultavated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree!


I've seen the Romans 11 idea marketed before, but it is irrelevent. It is not addressed to Jesus, no is it? Neither is it addressed to Jeconiah, on whom the eternal curse was placed.


Also, please explain what you 'felt' when you were 'saved'? I'm not doubting you have been saved in the past, but as an atheist you certainly can't be now.

Don't argue with me about it - I think the scripture I posted clearly shows that once you are saved, you are ALWAYS saved... no?

What do you mean, I was never truly saved?

Surely, if I was never truly saved, then NO ONE is ever truly saved...

Incorrect. The others who have been saved have not rejected God. You have. THerefore, you were never truely saved. Remember, I believe in predetermination. God's grace is everbinding and irresistable, humans CAN'T reject God's call. If you say you did, then what you felt was not really God's Grace, as you could not have turned away from it. You were never saved in the first place, you just thought you were.

To argue otherwise, is to argue special exception based on a possible future event, which (obviously) is not predicted at the time of my salvation.

Obviously to you, yes. God knows all that has, is, and will happen, as He WROTE what would happen. (Some of my Christian bretheren will disagree, as they believe in genuine free will -- Calvinists do not -- but meh). Although technically you're right, God didn't predict it -- he KNEW it would happen, as He wrote it would happen. Just because you didn't know you were seemingly going to fall from Grace didn't mean God didn't.

I 'felt' it when I was 'saved'. If you say my 'experience' is not a valid enough evidence... then surely, neither is your own.

I believe I am elect, I believe that God chose me because I (believe I) feel His Grace through me, and Him acting through me. If, for some unimaginable reason, I would end up rejecting His existance, then I was never saved at all, and it was not really God's grace, but a satanic fascade.

The Big Bang can be proved by red shifting.

Satan is the master of lies.

Satan is a big red guy.

Therefore red things are lies.

Therefore red shifting is a lie.

Therefore Goddiddit.

QED.

Your deductive reasoning astounds me, my friend. I'm convinced.

Don't argue with me about it - I think the scripture I posted clearly shows that once you are saved, you are ALWAYS saved... no?

Assuming you were truely saved in the first place.

It's fun to have around to counter the prophecy claims. :)

At one point (before my life got WAY too busy), I was actually going to work up full versions of some of those arguments, and dedicate a website to them... :(

Assuming you were truely saved in the first place.

Surely - but that assumes also that: (a) salvation is 'real', and (b) that ANY of us can be 'saved'.

I don't see a rational way that someone can argue that I was NOT 'truly' saved, whilst simultaneously arguing that any other person MIGHT be.

Incorrect. The others who have been saved have not rejected God. You have. THerefore, you were never truely saved. Remember, I believe in predetermination. God's grace is everbinding and irresistable, humans CAN'T reject God's call. If you say you did, then what you felt was not really God's Grace, as you could not have turned away from it. You were never saved in the first place, you just thought you were.



Obviously to you, yes. God knows all that has, is, and will happen, as He WROTE what would happen. (Some of my Christian bretheren will disagree, as they believe in genuine free will -- Calvinists do not -- but meh). Although technically you're right, God didn't predict it -- he KNEW it would happen, as He wrote it would happen. Just because you didn't know you were seemingly going to fall from Grace didn't mean God didn't.



I believe I am elect, I believe that God chose me because I (believe I) feel His Grace through me, and Him acting through me. If, for some unimaginable reason, I would end up rejecting His existance, then I was never saved at all, and it was not really God's grace, but a satanic fascade.

Really? How... convenient.

Surely - but that assumes also that: (a) salvation is 'real', and (b) that ANY of us can be 'saved'.

I don't see a rational way that someone can argue that I was NOT 'truly' saved, whilst simultaneously arguing that any other person MIGHT be.

1. Salvation is real for I have felt it and it is still with me today.

2. All of us can be saved.

Incorrect. The others who have been saved have not rejected God. You have. THerefore, you were never truely saved. Remember, I believe in predetermination. God's grace is everbinding and irresistable, humans CAN'T reject God's call. If you say you did, then what you felt was not really God's Grace, as you could not have turned away from it. You were never saved in the first place, you just thought you were.


Others who have been saved have not rejected God...

a) ..yet

b) ...as far as you know.

God's grace is everlasting...

I agree, that is why I am still saved

Humans can't reject God's call...

I agree, which is why I was saved in the first place

I was not saved, I just thought I was...

Then, logically, the same must feasibly be true for you, and anyone else?


Obviously to you, yes. God knows all that has, is, and will happen, as He WROTE what would happen. (Some of my Christian bretheren will disagree, as they believe in genuine free will -- Calvinists do not -- but meh). Although technically you're right, God didn't predict it -- he KNEW it would happen, as He wrote it would happen. Just because you didn't know you were seemingly going to fall from Grace didn't mean God didn't.


I'm aware of the concept of Election. I have a number of problems with it - not least being the fact that Adam and Eve were incapable of sin, if they had no free will.


I believe I am elect, I believe that God chose me because I (believe I) feel His Grace through me, and Him acting through me. If, for some unimaginable reason, I would end up rejecting His existance, then I was never saved at all, and it was not really God's grace, but a satanic fascade.

Well, of COURSE you believe YOU are elect. No one comes up with, or buys into, a system which makes them the reject.

I am a little worried that you think you may have been seduced by Satan, though. Especially since scripture is quite clear that once we are saved, we are always saved.

If you actually read that piece of scripture I've posted in it's contexts you can look if up if you wish you'll see it's speaking about the Jews and Gentiles the wild olive branches being the Gentiles and the Jews being the natural branches. Whether you choose to accept it or not, if you rebel against God, you're not saved. It's your choice at the end of the day, and no-one elses. Like I say, I'm not doubting you were saved, I was merely asking you what you 'felt' when you were 'saved'? (I'm using ' because you initially did too.)

If you ask for evidence off others, surely when the shoe is on the other foot you should be able to provide your own evidence for an experience you claim to have had by describing it?

Also, by saying Romans 11 is irrelevent, is saying the rest of the Bible is because you can pick and choose scripture as you wish out of context to back up your own ideas/personal agenda. Doing that makes the rest of the Bible worthless, so I'm afraid you either accept it in it's entirety or you don't. It's as simple as that.

1. Salvation is real for I have felt it and it is still with me today.


I have also felt it.

How does your experience differ from mine?

And don't even try the 'if you WERE saved, you couldn't lose your faith' argument... unless you are already dead, you have no way to 'prove' that your alleged 'belief' is eteranl, any more than mine.


2. All of us can be saved.

Except those who have never heard the name, apparently. Oh - and those that do not believe. And those that cannot confess their sin. And those that died before they had the chance to learn the good news.

I have also felt it.

How does your experience differ from mine?

And don't even try the 'if you WERE saved, you couldn't lose your faith' argument... unless you are already dead, you have no way to 'prove' that your alleged 'belief' is eteranl, any more than mine.

I have not rejected God nor have I rejected His Word. You have rejected God and you have rejected his word.

If you actually read that piece of scripture I've posted in it's contexts you can look if up if you wish you'll see it's speaking about the Jews and Gentiles the wild olive branches being the Gentiles and the Jews being the natural branches. Whether you choose to accept it or not, if you rebel against God, you're not saved. It's your choice at the end of the day, and no-one elses. Like I say, I'm not doubting you were saved, I was merely asking you what you 'felt' when you were 'saved'? (I'm using ' because you initially did too.)

If you ask for evidence off others, surely when the shoe is on the other foot you should be able to provide your own evidence for an experience you claim to have had by describing it?

Also, by saying Romans 11 is irrelevent, is saying the rest of the Bible is because you can pick and choose scripture as you wish out of context to back up your own ideas/personal agenda. Doing that makes the rest of the Bible worthless, so I'm afraid you either accept it in it's entirety or you don't. It's as simple as that.

What is it that is confusing you about me being an Atheist? As far as I'm concerned, the rest of the Bible IS irrelevent, since I think it likely a complete work of fiction. It isn't what I believe about me, that is being discussed... it is what the scripture - if taken as true - says about my situation.

As for 'accepting it all, or rejecting it all'... I don't accept your dichotomy. I know a lot of Christians that consider the Hebrew scripture to be 'flawed', and effectively 'corrected' by the Greek scripture. I know a lot of Christians that accept a LITERAL resurrection of Christ, but find the Genesis myth 'symbolic'.

Regarding the Romans 11 passage - don't presume I've not read it, my friend... as the wise man once wrote: "assume = making an 'ass' of 'u' and 'me'..."

I am aware it is describing the Gentiles being grafted onto the Jewish stock (a completely anti-Jesus proposition, if one gives the Gospels a more-than-cursory examination)... however, as I said - it has no relevence to Jeconiah, or to Jesus... unless you are now arguing that they were Gentiles?

I have not rejected God nor have I rejected His Word. You have rejected God and you have rejected his word.

That's not what I asked you.

That came long after I was 'saved'... it could STILL happen to you, yes?

So - how was YOUR experience different to mine?

That's not what I asked you.

That came long after I was 'saved'... it could STILL happen to you, yes?

So - how was YOUR experience different to mine?

No it won't happen to me.

No it won't happen to me.

I could have said that, too...

I was thinking about a friend I lost to breast cancer awhile back and how she didn't deserve to die. She had an asshole husband for many years. He was abusive, and when they got divorced, he would go to their sons wrestling meet.. with his bimbo girlfriend.

She was always kind and a good listener to anyone who talked to her. Since she was a teacher, when she died, everyone lost a good friend. We all were affected by her.

Her son is graduating soon, her daughter is getting married this summer. She was happy and upbeat, even with cancer and going through chemo.

Well.. I started thinking why would God let her die? She was a good person. She shouldn't have been taken, it wasn't her time.

I wasn't relisios to begin with.. but I thought there was some sort of higher being (God). But I don't feel that way anymore. What God would do that to someone?

Do you think there is a God?

EDIT: And why do you feel that way?

Do I think there is a God?
Yes!

Why do I feel that way?
That's the big question. Simply, I could say that I'm conditioned to, but in truth there are far more reasons than that. Not least of those would be to say that there have been times and instances in my own life that I can only describe as feeling the presence of God - ie to be guided by 'him'.

The last statement naturally opens me to jeers and ridicule and is not a good grounding to state my case - for those who've perhaps not sought, or sought and not found, or for what ever reason have not experienced anything like that, it is an alien experience impossible to empathise with.

So perhaps I can address the above quote:

IL Ruffino, you state that it was not your friend's 'time to go'. That's a perfectly understandible and utterly human position to take. If you were God, you would reward the deserving with longevity and good fortune and punish the evil and dastardly with discomfort and premature cesation of life... perhaps. But when discussing God either in the form of the Judao-Christian God or in a more abstract form such as refering simply to 'a God', you must accept that no being as we know them on earth is a God and so we infact have no frame of reference as to what God's motivations and 'desires' are.

In this vein, whether you wish to acknowledge the existance of THE God or not, you must at least acknowledge that a limited mortal such as you or I simply cannot comprehend the nature of God, 'his' plan, or the way in which he works.

God as a concept works best when you view 'him' as our parent and us 'his' young children. He know's what's best for us and he will protect as best 'he' may. 'He' cannot promise that we wont get hurt, but 'he' can promise 'he' will always be there. 'He' cannot force us to get along with one another or even to love 'him' as we have been made with our own free will.

What I'm getting at is that God has given us a truely unique gift that, if we were Gods, we would most likely not give to our subjects: free will. We will often hurt ourselves as a consequence of using our free will, but as a parent would comfort their child but be unable to protect them from their decisions, so too God can be our councellor but not undo our mistakes.

In the case of your friend, IL Ruffino, you and many others will be quick to point out that her condition was not resultant of an act of her own will. This is true. But what is also true is that Life is hard and indiscriminative. While God in 'his' omnipotence could remove a cancer from an individual, we have no way to know, and indeed no reason to know, WHY or HOW god chooses to perform 'his' miricals. It is widely understood though that clear manifestations would act as a means to remove our free will by providing direct demonstration of God's presence. So there's one possible explanation as to why 'he' let's such things happen if an answer is truely needed.

To try and round this off (sorry - I've gone on longer than I intended), God gives us life and from there we choose what to do with it. God asks us to do 'his' will and give our lives to 'him'. In return we may join 'him' in heaven in the afterlife and live in peace and enjoy our reward. We cannot say that any person is taken before their time as it is not our decision to make, and that is really just a reaction (again, understandible) of the berieved because we see it as being far more fair for all of us to enjoy or endure about 70-80 years of life on Earth. We cannot say when our end is to come and must treat each day as though it might be our last. That is to say: enjoy it, ask for guidance and follow it, and ask that God will show 'his' will that you might carry it out.

There are lots of other aspects to this debate and I suspect that evidence-vs-faith will be one that comes to haunt us, but that can wait for now.

IL Ruffino, I realise that what I have said when applied to your friend might, within these simple rules, plant her in Hell if she did not commit herself to God. I would like to point out that I do not intent that to be the message here. Briefly, I shall ty to explain my thinking:

I (and I'm not alone, I am aware) feel that the religious doctrine and the translated Bible holds only an interpretation of the truth (like the idea of 'lies-to-children - in order to aid the understanding of something complicated). That no human has the right to pass judgement and say which people are fit for heven and which are not, whatever 'rules' have been stipulated in holy writings. We limited mortals cannot make that judgement just as we cannot say that any individual was taken before their time. Your friend, whether devoutly religious, athiest, or somewhere inbetween, will have been judged by a compassisonate and fair God. You have outlined what a good person she was in her life. You have indicated the trials she had faced. What we don't know and only she and God DO know, is what opportunities she had to work on to build a faith in God and the state that her faith was in. We limited mortals also tend to think in the dimensions we occupy - why would God (who surely can only live in a place outside of time and space as we understand it) limit his judgement to the end of a person's life. PERHAPS we only need to give ourselves to God once in our lives for it to count - even if only for a nano-second - as long as it is truthful. I don't know if this is the case. I'm not a or the God and so can't really say. All I'm trying to do here is suggest some other possibilities and give you another position to look from. It might not be as bleak, or indeed as black and white as it appears.

Perhaps consider that you should not concern yourself so much with God's plan and judgement of others, but consider your relationship with 'him'. Follow 'his' will and ultimately you can't go far wrong... whatever is thrown at you.


Kin Wicked



PS
Where possible I have tried to refer to God as a neutral being but on the multitude of occasions I have had to say 'he' or 'him' I have attempted to place them in inverted commas. This is for those who for various good reasons cannot relate to God as a man. If I have missed punctuating any such referrences, I apologise and hope you get my gist anyhow!

Please explain about how you think it's anti-Jesus (antichrist)?

I'm not confused about you being an atheist either, I'm not sure why you think I am. I also know a lot of Christians don't agree with the hebrew scriptures, although I find it hard to understand why, when with some insight it's pretty straight forward. The religious side of things is a sad state of affairs. Replacement theology and so on..

No it won't happen to me.

Only God knows that, you do not.

Do I think there is a God?
Yes!

Why do I feel that way?
That's the big question. Simply, I could say that I'm conditioned to, but in truth there are far more reasons than that. Not least of those would be to say that there have been times and instances in my own life that I can only describe as feeling the presence of God - ie to be guided by 'him'.

The last statement naturally opens me to jeers and ridicule and is not a good grounding to state my case - for those who've perhaps not sought, or sought and not found, or for what ever reason have not experienced anything like that, it is an alien experience impossible to empathise with.

So perhaps I can address the above quote:

IL Ruffino, you state that it was not your friend's 'time to go'. That's a perfectly understandible and utterly human position to take. If you were God, you would reward the deserving with longevity and good fortune and punish the evil and dastardly with discomfort and premature cesation of life... perhaps. But when discussing God either in the form of the Judao-Christian God or in a more abstract form such as refering simply to 'a God', you must accept that no being as we know them on earth is a God and so we infact have no frame of reference as to what God's motivations and 'desires' are.

In this vein, whether you wish to acknowledge the existance of THE God or not, you must at least acknowledge that a limited mortal such as you or I simply cannot comprehend the nature of God, 'his' plan, or the way in which he works.

God as a concept works best when you view 'him' as our parent and us 'his' young children. He know's what's best for us and he will protect as best 'he' may. 'He' cannot promise that we wont get hurt, but 'he' can promise 'he' will always be there. 'He' cannot force us to get along with one another or even to love 'him' as we have been made with our own free will.

What I'm getting at is that God has given us a truely unique gift that, if we were Gods, we would most likely not give to our subjects: free will. We will often hurt ourselves as a consequence of using our free will, but as a parent would comfort their child but be unable to protect them from their decisions, so too God can be our councellor but not undo our mistakes.

In the case of your friend, IL Ruffino, you and many others will be quick to point out that her condition was not resultant of an act of her own will. This is true. But what is also true is that Life is hard and indiscriminative. While God in 'his' omnipotence could remove a cancer from an individual, we have no way to know, and indeed no reason to know, WHY or HOW god chooses to perform 'his' miricals. It is widely understood though that clear manifestations would act as a means to remove our free will by providing direct demonstration of God's presence. So there's one possible explanation as to why 'he' let's such things happen if an answer is truely needed.

To try and round this off (sorry - I've gone on longer than I intended), God gives us life and from there we choose what to do with it. God asks us to do 'his' will and give our lives to 'him'. In return we may join 'him' in heaven in the afterlife and live in peace and enjoy our reward. We cannot say that any person is taken before their time as it is not our decision to make, and that is really just a reaction (again, understandible) of the berieved because we see it as being far more fair for all of us to enjoy or endure about 70-80 years of life on Earth. We cannot say when our end is to come and must treat each day as though it might be our last. That is to say: enjoy it, ask for guidance and follow it, and ask that God will show 'his' will that you might carry it out.

There are lots of other aspects to this debate and I suspect that evidence-vs-faith will be one that comes to haunt us, but that can wait for now.

IL Ruffino, I realise that what I have said when applied to your friend might, within these simple rules, plant her in Hell if she did not commit herself to God. I would like to point out that I do not intent that to be the message here. Briefly, I shall ty to explain my thinking:

I (and I'm not alone, I am aware) feel that the religious doctrine and the translated Bible holds only an interpretation of the truth (like the idea of 'lies-to-children - in order to aid the understanding of something complicated). That no human has the right to pass judgement and say which people are fit for heven and which are not, whatever 'rules' have been stipulated in holy writings. We limited mortals cannot make that judgement just as we cannot say that any individual was taken before their time. Your friend, whether devoutly religious, athiest, or somewhere inbetween, will have been judged by a compassisonate and fair God. You have outlined what a good person she was in her life. You have indicated the trials she had faced. What we don't know and only she and God DO know, is what opportunities she had to work on to build a faith in God and the state that her faith was in. We limited mortals also tend to think in the dimensions we occupy - why would God (who surely can only live in a place outside of time and space as we understand it) limit his judgement to the end of a person's life. PERHAPS we only need to give ourselves to God once in our lives for it to count - even if only for a nano-second - as long as it is truthful. I don't know if this is the case. I'm not a or the God and so can't really say. All I'm trying to do here is suggest some other possibilities and give you another position to look from. It might not be as bleak, or indeed as black and white as it appears.

Perhaps consider that you should not concern yourself so much with God's plan and judgement of others, but consider your relationship with 'him'. Follow 'his' will and ultimately you can't go far wrong... whatever is thrown at you.


Kin Wicked



PS
Where possible I have tried to refer to God as a neutral being but on the multitude of occasions I have had to say 'he' or 'him' I have attempted to place them in inverted commas. This is for those who for various good reasons cannot relate to God as a man. If I have missed punctuating any such referrences, I apologise and hope you get my gist anyhow!

Thankyou.

I may not agree with your conclusion, but I very much liked your reasoning, philosophy, and general 'style'.

I hope we see more from you on the forum... this was an excellent start.

Only God knows that, you do not.

I dealt with a crisis of faith already in my life though I never rejected God.

I dealt with a crisis of faith already in my life though I never rejected God.

And how do you know you never will?

Please explain about how you think it's anti-Jesus (antichrist)?

I'm not confused about you being an atheist either, I'm not sure why you think I am. I also know a lot of Christians don't agree with the hebrew scriptures, although I find it hard to understand why, when with some insight it's pretty straight forward. The religious side of things is a sad state of affairs. Replacement theology and so on..

Sorry - I figured you must be confused, because your argument had elements of 'if THIS part isn't true... are you saying the whole Bible isn't true'... which, of course - is very LIKELY to be the perspective of an Atheist, no?

Why do I think it is anti-Jesus? If you read through the Gospels (especially if you can find 'early' scripture, rather than later century revisions) the general perspective is in isolation - Jesus came to minister to the Jews, and to preach to the Jews. Indeed - he specifically admonishes the apostles NOT TO minister to Gentiles.

I dealt with a crisis of faith already in my life though I never rejected God.

Unless you are already dead (which seems unlikely) the FUTURE part of your life is still a closed book, yes?

So now you are going to contradict what you stated to Europa Maxima?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11032629&postcount=2859

In no way does being opposed to arbitrarily picking and choosing which parts of the bible you call "true" and "false" contradict my premise that is good to practice love and charity, regardless of whether they are in the bible.

What I'm objecting to is your statement that you believe only those parts of the bible that "demonstrate Gods benevolence", and you ignore the parts that show God does terrible things.

You essentially reconcile the parts of the bible you don't like by ignoring them, but still want credibility for the parts you like. That's my point.

Well I know that to be absolute diatribe right there.

I believe that there are gods, but I don't believe in the Christian god

Yes there is a God, a great looving one to. I cant tell you why she died because that would make me God if i knew everything. but i can tell you that he did it for a reason, mabey to get you thinking about him. If she was a christian then she will be in a much better place.

As for how do i know that he is alive and real and loving. well..... he saved my life, i would be dead due to my depression but he would stop me once i even heard it, the other times i felt it. i pray to him and he answeres everytime mabey not right away but he always answers.

have to repeat yourself ad infintitum because your case against God is not totally clear, is based on circumstantial evidence, and most importantly, does not allow the "defendant" to give His testimony.


Does your bible not claim to be the testimony of God? Since you've backpedalled out of it, I ask you again, is the bible 100% true?


It appears that while you may have great respect for those individuals, you are unwilling to practice those ideas yourself?

Because I disagree with you, I have no mercy?


Perhaps we should explore which parts of the Bible that you consider to be true?

I don't consider any of it literally true. Now, please answer the question:

Do you, CanuckHeaven, believe the bible to be 100% true?
Is your faith serisously so weak, you can't even answer that question?



I fully understand your conclusions. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with them. It would be very interesting to watch you prosecute this "case" against God in real life. In a way, you are, although God is not here to defend His actions.

I haven't stated that the Bible isn't 100% true, just as I haven't stated that the Bible is 100% false, yet you have based conclusions on mere assumptions. What I have learned is that you believe that there is some truth in the Bible.

Let me put it to you this way: If the Koran, the Buddhist texts, and the Bible say its a good idea to be nice to people, I believe that to be "true" equally, and none of those religions would have to be correct. Understand?

But letting you continue to snake and weasel out of answering this question, because you're so terrified of where it leads, is not nice, its accomodating dishonesty.

Answer the question: CanuckHeaven, do you believe the bible contains any falsehoods?

I believe it contains several, if not all, but please give your belief.


I completely understand where you are going with all of this. For you to prosecute your case against God, the parts of the Bible, that you state vilifies him, would have to be 100% true. Perhaps if you could prosecute this case in front of Him, He may be able to provide some meaningful insight for His actions.

So, do you believe them to be true? As for not being in front of your God, if your religion were true, when would we not be in front of God? He can defend himself any time he'd like, but he seems to share your evasiveness (although he has the excuse of likely not being real).

Canuck, I live my life a certain way to get a certain benefit. That's completely different from believing a certain religion (and its unprovable aspects) to increase my odds of a benefit if the religion were true. Pascal's Wager has been explained as a fallacy many, many times, and you've been too afraid to answer.

By the way, this thread is so high volume, I think we should move our discussion to a new thread. Would you be willing?

We could even have a sort of quid pro quo. I'll answer direct questions that you have about the Bible (giving only my opinion, of course), but you would have to do the same.

I just want to know if you believe the actions attributed to your God in the Old Testament are true. If you don't believe they're true, say so.

If you do, I'd like you to explain why they were done. If you don't understand why God did them, that's fine, just say so.

If you are willing to obey a God who did those things without understanding why he did, just say so.

In return, I'll be happy to discuss any other portion of the bible you like.

EDIT: If you'll agree to move to a new thread (and if you'd like to suggest any other conditions for the discussion, so long as we can both continue to ask whatever we'd like), please let me know. I'll make the thread if you want, or if you'd like to make it, just TG me the thread title so I can find it.

We are all sinners. Each and everyone of us.
No we are not. Just because some stupid litte book tells you are, doesn't mean you are.

I don't believe in sins. Therefore, I do not sin.

No we are not. Just because some stupid litte book tells you are, doesn't mean you are.

I don't believe in sins. Therefore, I do not sin.

We are all sinners and to deny that we are is not good. You have just sinned my friend by denying that you have sinned.

We are all sinners and to deny that we are is not good. You have just sinned my friend by denying that you have sinned.

Holy circular argument Batman!

Oh, and we're still waiting for proof to the falsehood of the Big Bang.

Holy circular argument Batman!

It is not circular reasoning when you must recognize that you are a sinner and admit that you are a sinner.

We are all sinners and to deny that we are is not good. You have just sinned my friend by denying that you have sinned.

Great gods, Ruffy. You're screwed now.

It is not circular reasoning when you must recognize that you are a sinner and admit that you are a sinner.

It's a sin because claiming it's not a sin is a sin? Sounds pretty circular to me, but I'll just be admiring some uncontested Big Bangs over here...

We are all sinners and to deny that we are is not good. You have just sinned my friend by denying that you have sinned.
I DO NOT SIN... neither do you.

I DO NOT SIN... neither do you.

I know I am a sinner just as you and everyone else here.

I know I am a sinner just as you and everyone else here.

Really? Care to tell me what my sins are then?

I know I am a sinner just as you and everyone else here.
ORLY?

Really? Care to tell me what my sins are then?

how about denying that you are a sinner for starters.

Oh really?

Yes really

Yes, I do believe that God exists. In fact I've seen things and been told of things from respcted sources that have happened that could not happen if not for God. (aka miracles) God sent his only son to heaven to die for our sins for, you see, in the old testament (AKA BC) a sacrafice of a lamb was required once per year for our sins. When Jesus was crucified he like unto that lamb. "It is Finished" he said. He atoned for our sins, and those who believe that will go to Heaven to join him. Those who don't believe he atoned for their sins and reject him go to Hell because God CAN NOT allow sin into Heaven for it is evil when he is pure. As soon as you have a knowledge of Good and Evil you are able to sin... so thus from then on any evil act you commit in a sin. And all it takes is ONE sin to keep you out of heaven. Have you lied once? Have you thought an evil thought (yes, thoughts count)? Then you have sinned and if you do not turn to Jesus you are "lost to me". I'm stand firm in the fact that Jesus has died for ME and YOU and EVERYBODY ELSE. We are all in the same boat. Either you believe on Him or you don't. Isn't that simple? Nothing says that you have to follow through all the commandments of the bible to get to heaven. Jesus paid for everything. Just believe. Have something called FAITH. And so I leave you with this from "Undying" by Demon Hunter:

We are the Ones who will still remain when all is laid to waste, we are the ones who when Angels cry will see them face to face.

how about denying that you are a sinner for starters.

How about showing us where I said that?

Yes really

NO WAI

how about denying that you are a sinner for starters.
Great one.

Whenever you get a grip on reality, I'll be here to listen.

Yes really
ZOMG NOES!!1111

Great one.

Whenever you get a grip on reality, I'll be here to listen.

I am in reality Il Ruffino. I have come to know the truth. It is my hope that you will soon come to know God's love and accept his Son as your personal Lord and Savior.

I think God is a valid explanation for everything. People would say "Big bang", but why was matter there to begin with? Did God create the matter and set the laws so that matter will eventually explode like that?

how about denying that you are a sinner for starters.

Wow...a court where its a felony to plead not guilty.

No wonder this religion's central tenet is that the only truly innocent guy had to be tortured and killed for it to work...

The Bible is only valuable as a source, in as much as it can be CORROBORATED.

Which, is about zero... since there are no independent, CONTEMPORARY sources that confirm ANY of it..

Firstly, there is a great deal of archeological evidence for the Old Testement

http://www.probe.org/content/view/31/77/

And secondly, you have to remember the Gospels are 4 accounts, not one. They corroberate each other. Not to metntion the fact they were written within the same generation as those whos saw Jesus so when the others who saw him heard about the gospels they knew it to be true as they had seen it. Hence the early church.

http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm

Wow...a court where its a felony to plead not guilty.


Its called purgeroy. To lie to court.

An offence, you say your not a sinner when you are.

I think God is a valid explanation for everything. People would say "Big bang", but why was matter there to begin with? Did God create the matter and set the laws so that matter will eventually explode like that?

There was no matter to begin with. At the beginning of the universe, it was too hot for even sub-atomic particles to remain stable.

I am in reality Il Ruffino. I have come to know the truth. It is my hope that you will soon come to know God's love and accept his Son as your personal Lord and Savior.
I'd rather look at porn..

There was no matter to begin with. At the beginning of the universe, it was too hot for even sub-atomic particles to remain stable.

Prove it :D

There was no matter to begin with. At the beginning of the universe, it was too hot for even sub-atomic particles to remain stable.

Nevertheless something was there, or was created [by God].

Its called purgeroy. To lie to court.

An offence, you say your not a sinner when you are.

I'm familiar with purgery.

And your plea is specifically relieved from such prosecution, under your right to avoid incriminating statements. If you don't have that in your country, my condolensces.

EDIT: Seriously, in your country, you can be charged with purgery for your plea? That would mean that it would be a crime to not forfeit your defense.

I'd rather look at porn..

And this is yet another sin.

Prove it :D
Prove Gods existance, beyond the bible.

Prove Gods existance, beyond the bible.

Prove that he doesn't.

And this is yet another sin.
It is not.

Prove it :D

Mind if I follow your example and ignore requests for proof for several pages?

After all, you were first to claim the Big Bang is false.

Nevertheless something was there, or was created [by God].

True, we're still working on that.

Prove that he doesn't.
That's it. Out. Out. Out.

You have no proof, you have nothing to fight for, you have nothing to say, get out.

It is not.

Yes it is.

Prove that he doesn't.

Prove that any other religion's God doesn't.

Yes it is.
You are really showing me comedy.

Yeah I can prove it! When Simon floated up in mid-air, a Christian person prayed and asked Jesus to cast down this sinner and he really did fall! Ha! Proven!

That's it. Out. Out. Out.

You have no proof, you have nothing to fight for, you have nothing to say, get out.

What's the matter? Don't have the proof? That's because there is no proof that he doesn't exist but proof that he does exist for none of what we have was created by chance but by the Supreme Creator.

What's the matter? Don't have the proof? That's because there is no proof that he doesn't exist but proof that he does exist for none of what we have was created by chance but by the Supreme Creator.

Exactly, so we have now proven the excistence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Thanks Corneliu, I couldn't have done it without you.

Whats with the flaming. You're a "not for" person and I'm a "for" person. Assertive debaters don't get hot over things like this.

Exactly, so we have now proven the excistence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Thanks Corneliu, I couldn't have done it without you.

Do not mock but come to the Lord.

What's the matter? Don't have the proof? That's because there is no proof that he doesn't exist but proof that he does exist for none of what we have was created by chance but by the Supreme Creator.

Okay, Corneliu, you've said in the past that you're a history major. I realize that your field of study necessitates a certain...license of interpretation, we'll say.

But have none of your professors explained to you that restating your premise is not proof? Stating a related premise is not proof?

Do not mock but come to the Lord.

Ahem, you mean Invisible Pink Unicorn. May Her hoofs bless you.

Okay, Corneliu, you've said in the past that you're a history major. I realize that your field of study necessitates a certain...license of interpretation, we'll say.

But have none of your professors explained to you that restating your premise is not proof? Stating a related premise is not proof?

The proof is in the Word of the Lord and I have the proof. You know the proof too but you must have your ears open to hear it.

The proof is in the Word of the Lord and I have the proof. You know the proof too but you must have your ears open to hear it.

Care to prove my ears are closed?
And no, saying 'you would have accepted the truth if they were open' is not proof.

The proof is in the Word of the Lord and I have the proof. You know the proof too but you must have your ears open to hear it.

My friend Nader says the same thing, but he has a different "Word of the Lord" that includes yours and more.

Do you understand that you have not demonstrated your "proof" to be any more valid than Nader's, or the Unicorn?

Care to prove my ears are closed?
And no, saying 'you would have accepted the truth if they were open' is not proof.

if your ears are open then why continue to reject the Word of the Lord and the path to Salvation through His Son, the Lord Savior Jesus?

Ahem, you mean Invisible Pink Unicorn. May Her hoofs bless you.
Amen.

if your ears are open then why continue to reject the Word of the Lord and the path to Salvation through His Son, the Lord Savior Jesus?
I'm confused.. are you here to recruit.. or make a point?

if your ears are open then why continue to reject the Word of the Lord and the path to Salvation through His Son, the Lord Savior Jesus?

Because I do not believe in God.
And again, this isn't because He didn't give me a pony when I asked Him, or because I stubbed my toe and I'm blaming Him now, those excuses are for silly people.

After my last enormous post I was hoping not to allow enthusiasm to pull me back in - especially after I said I'd leave evidence-vs-faith for another occasion. However, I've been enjoying this thread and want to throw in my two-penneth (or in the case of my Nation, my two credits-worth), on the whole Big-Bang thing since one of you (sorry - I forget your name as I write this) wants it to be contested.

I've tried giving some thought previously to those areas of science that claim to, in some way, disprove notions of religion. Of course the two biggies are the Big Bang and Evolution, but there are plenty out there, I'm certain.

In specific terms I've bashed around all sorts of crazy notions and lets face it, I'm coming from a position more Science Fiction than Science Fact, so I shan't be posting any of my nonsense here at this juncture.

In broarder terms, however, I'm drawn to think of the comedian Bill Bailey. He talks about attempting to read Steven Hawkings "Brief History of Time". Among his gags he makes the point that he is not a staunch impiricist, but merely a lax impiricist. He goes on to define his position as one who will believe something if someone a bit more clever than him says it's right. Specifically, in terms of readin Hawkings book, he says, "He's put the work in so.... who am I to argue?"

The point that I make here, is the same as that I hinted at in my last post: Lies-to-children. This was something I first read in "The Science of Discworld": A book that attempted to educate on some fairly heavy areas of science by useing narrative annalogy provided by Terry Pratchett. Here, they refferred to lies-to-children as being the way we are tought things. First we have to understand a lie before we can get our heads around the fact. Or to put it anotherway - we are given a kind of new paradigm to act as a stepping stone to the truth.

In my last lengthy post (yes it looks as though this is going the same way, sorry!) I refferred to the bible as possibly being a form of "Lies-To-Children". That We are so limited that the nature of the Universe and all things in and out of it are too great to begin trying to comprehend. So maybe we have been given some stories that we do undertand that gives us as much information as we need in order to do God's will.

Well, what about science? Certainly science 'exists' because it is merely the word we use to describe our study of the workings and nature of the existence we occupy. So I dont compare Science to God, but more Science to religion.

Religions are aukward, clumsy things full of people who will bend their doctrine to fit what they understand and the way they want to live and controll. Faith is not about controll and is infinitely more important that our contemporary understanding of religion (in my opinion).

Anyhow...I still intend on getting back to the subject of my current rant.... bare with me....

It is an easy cop out to say that perhaps the Big Bang is the mechanism God used to bring about the universe but the story of creation is the analogy we simple mortals have been given because it is as much as we ever needed to understand about the beginnings of our existance. It is over-used as an idea and somewhat unsatisfying, but it does represent half of my position.

The other half of my position is that us mere minor intellects not involved in the exploration into the nature of being are following a faith in human endeavour. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but that faith is no different to a faith in God in my opinion. Most of us have probably not stared at a real atom but we know it exists because our science teachers tell us so and our science books make lies-to-children-style graphic representations of what the atom looks like. We take it in good faith that it is true. And why not? Someone must have seen one before! And they were probably much more intelligent than me.

But equally, Someone must have seen and experienced God before and they were probably in a bettter position with him and more devout than me.

So what CAN we believe and what SHOULD we believe? What we're told, or what we personally experience?

I think it's probably fair to say we need to strike a balance, but I also think it's fair to say that we infact don't often manage to strike that balance.

This is just my experience now: I have reasons to believe in God and I have reasons to believe in the scientific community. I think Science Provides the mechanism to the fact....the fact which God made. I believe that science is arrogant and does not have all the answers or all the accurate insights into the true nature of the universe, and I beleive I am susseptible to being misguided by the devil.

Therefore, in my personal philosophy, science or religion - both are corruptable. But God is my focus as he is more important to me than the mechanisms that he used to bring us into being.


Phew!! all done!


Kin Wicked

Jesus was "spreading his beliefs" (recruiting) AND making a point about peace.

I'm confused.. are you here to recruit.. or make a point?

Yes.

Because I do not believe in God.
And again, this isn't because He didn't give me a pony when I asked Him, or because I stubbed my toe and I'm blaming Him now, those excuses are for silly people.

And that is why you do not hear the truth for you do not believe. He who have ears to hear, let him hear.