NationStates Jolt Archive

Waiting for you.You throw down the challange and then balk... and still accuse me of running away? :rolleyes:

And you're of the utterly idiotic and completely non-biblical opinion that the serpent is the devil? You do know that nowhere is the serpent actually said to be the devil, right?please point out anywhere in any of my posts that I equated the Serpent to be the Devil.

And you do realize that the serpent was correct when it said that eating the fruit would allow Adam and Eve to know good from evil? One must wonder why god would prevent Adam and Eve from knowing good from evil.and what does this argument have to do with your claim of no prophecies? I detect a deversion so someone can run away... if you want to... you can go.

considering that you haven't presented much.
I've presented much.


oh, and if you claim that Isaiah 9:1-2 were tampered with,
I didn't. Whatever would give you the idiotic idea that I made the claim that the original text was tampered with such that what we have now for Is 9:1-2 isn't what it should be? Especially since I didn't say anything remotely like that.


and you "ripped" two verses out and put them together while I compared them side by side.
I did no such thing, liar. I showed what is supposed to be a prophecy, where it comes from, and that the supposed prophecy comes from ripping apart two verses and stitching them together.

Are you really this stupid in reality?

He's talking about and to the jews who don't believe what he's saying.

I'm still really not seeing where you're getting this from.

To the first, yeah I know what he was talking about, but he still mentions Satan as being a murderer from the beginning. Cain and Abel is about as far back as you can go.

What do you mean "Where are you getting this from?"

You throw down the challange and then balk
Liar.


please point out anywhere in any of my posts that I equated the Serpent to be the Devil.
I asked a question.


and what does this argument have to do with your claim of no prophecies?
Just stating something. Nothing more.

I detect that you're trying to divert the conversation so that you can run away.

To the first, yeah I know what he was talking about, but he still mentions Satan as being a murderer from the beginning.
But satan wasn't. Look at Numbers 22:20-24.

Oops...I didn't know you were here...

*flees*
Well a conundrum now ... given the post that inspired that was about god being "dead" .... :confused:

Perhaps you left behind ... a sandal?

:

Ladamesansmerci: I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honest!

Girl: Only the true Messiah denies Her divinity!

Ladamesansmerci: What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right, I AM
the Messiah!

Followers: She is! She is the Messiah!

Ladamesansmerci: Now, f*ck off!

JuNii: Er, how shall we f*ck off, O Lord?

But satan wasn't. Look at Numbers 22:20-24.

I'm looking at it. The story with Jalaam, the angel, and the donkey. Nothing about murder, killing, or Satan that I can see.

I've presented much.you accused and you insulted, but presented very little except two verses claiming they were altered with no backup.

but I will stand corrected. You presented alot. but nothing substantical.


I didn't. Whatever would give you the idiotic idea that I made the claim that the original text was tampered with such that what we have now for Is 9:1-2 isn't what it should be? Especially since I didn't say anything remotely like that.you didn't... a direct quote from you.
Oh really? Then why do most xers quote them as prophecies about jesus?

If you feel they aren't, please feel free to talk to your fellow xers and disabuse them of their erroneous notions.

So kiddo--what are the supposed prophecies? We covered the virgin birth already. How about this one:

The bolded part is supposed to be the prophecy. It's from Isaiah 9. Let's see what Isaiah 9 actually reads:

The bolded parts are the ones that were left out. Quite dishonest of the AoMatthew.Left out... that means tampered.

I did no such thing, liar. I showed what is supposed to be a prophecy, where it comes from, and that the supposed prophecy comes from ripping apart two verses and stitching them together.you didn't show anything about ripping apart verses.
Mathew 4 12-17 referrs to Isaiah. Mathew 4:12-14 is the statement of the fullfilling of the prophesy, and Mathew 4: 15-16 is a quote from Isaiah. but as a Biblical Master that YOU claimed to be, you know that already
Are you really this stupid in reality?
gee... another brilliant move of the BIBLICAL MASTER... Attacking the poster and not the post. :rolleyes:

Well a conundrum now ... given the post that inspired that was about god being "dead" .... :confused:

Perhaps you left behind ... a sandal?wern't you paying attention... she left all her clothes behind. Dibs on the sacred undergarments *Snatches and pockets*

:

Ladamesansmerci: I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honest!

Girl: Only the true Messiah denies Her divinity!

Ladamesansmerci: What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right, I AM
the Messiah!

Followers: She is! She is the Messiah!

Ladamesansmerci: Now, f*ck off!

JuNii: Er, how shall we f*ck off, O Lord?ahem... My proper response would be. Well, as she commands! :D ;)

Well a conundrum now ... given the post that inspired that was about god being "dead" .... :confused:

Perhaps you left behind ... a sandal?

:

Ladamesansmerci: I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honest!

Girl: Only the true Messiah denies Her divinity!

Ladamesansmerci: What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right, I AM
the Messiah!

Followers: She is! She is the Messiah!

Ladamesansmerci: Now, f*ck off!

JuNii: Er, how shall we f*ck off, O Lord?
That is false! I would never deny that I am the Messiah. In fact, all of you should stop arguing over that pathetic piece of work called the bible and worship ME. Yes, I'm God, Buddha, Allah, Gaia, and the Great Goddess all rolled into one. So abandon your fake gods, kiddies, and worship the real god: moi. :p

I'm looking at it. The story with Jalaam, the angel, and the donkey. Nothing about murder, killing, or Satan that I can see.
Balaam.

And yes, satan is in there.

Watch:

And God came to Balaam at night and said to him, "If the men have come to call you, rise, go with them; but only what I bid you, that shall you do." So Balaam rose in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. But God's anger was kindled because he went; and the angel of the LORD took his stand in the way as his adversary. Now he was riding on the ass, and his two servants were with him. And the ass saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road, with a drawn sword in his hand; and the ass turned aside out of the road, and went into the field; and Balaam struck the ass, to turn her into the road. Then the angel of the LORD stood in a narrow path between the vineyards, with a wall on either side.

What is this angel of the lord that is an adversary, hmmm? Let's find out.

Strong's Number: 07854 at#

Satan pronounced: saw-tawn'

Wow--looks like the angel doing god's work is a satan! IOW: satan isn't a name--it's a job title. There is no one satan.

But very few xers know that.

That is false! I would never deny that I am the Messiah. In fact, all of you should stop arguing over that pathetic piece of work called the bible and worship ME. Yes, I'm God, Buddha, Allah, Gaia, and the Great Goddess all rolled into one. So abandon your fake gods, kiddies, and worship the real god: moi. :p
can I rub you tummy then? ;)

you accused and you insulted, but presented very little except two verses claiming they were altered with no backup.
I didn't claim any alterations, moron. I claimed that AoMatthew left out parts of Is 9:1-2 to make a prophecy, not that Is 9:1-2 itself was altered in Isaiah.

Do learn how to read. And do learn that I presented a lot.


you didn't... a direct quote from you.
Left out... that means tampered.
WRONG!


you didn't show anything about ripping apart verses.
Except that I did.


Mathew 4 12-17 referrs to Isaiah.
Is 9:1-2, to be exact. And, as I showed, AoMatthew left out parts of Is 9:1-2 in order to invent a prophecy. Is 9:1-2 wasn't tampered with; AoMatthew was just being dishonest.

Now if you'd learn how to read, you wouldn't have made such a stupid mistake as you did.


Mathew 4:12-14 is the statement of the fullfilling of the prophesy,
THERE IS NO SUCH PROPHECY!



gee... another brilliant move of the BIBLICAL MASTER... Attacking the poster and not the post.
I already attacked the post. Gee--you must be completely illiterate or just blindingly stupid to not know that.

well, after reading the past few pages breifly, I can honestly say that I've learned one thing...
BK is arrogant.
*shrug*

good to know that the bible has very little to do with the thread at large...

SJS, sorry for not TGing you. I'm writing one now. You should have it in a few.

can I rub you tummy then? ;)
Coincidence. I actually have a shirt that says "for good luck, rub my tummy" with a picture of Buddha on it. :eek:

well, after reading the past few pages breifly, I can honestly say that I've learned one thing...
BK is arrogant.
Yes, I am. Mainly because I know what I'm talking about. And I back it up. I can't say the same for the people who are whining about me.

SJS, sorry for not TGing you. I'm writing one now. You should have it in a few.
Righto! Tis okay!
BTW, i've given a few thread idears since i'm in absentia for the wknd.
But we've got buzz about the next anecdote thread. THAT's probably best tg'd. ;)

That is false! I would never deny that I am the Messiah.
You've got to admit ... like any sacred text, there was at least SOME scant accuracy in that post. :)

You mean Satan= adversary. I've heard something along those lines. The more correct term I should have used is devil, in keeping with the verse I gave. I'm not sure what I was supposed to look up in Strongs (heh, yeah, dusted of my parents), Satan or adversary. I went with Satan. I really should get to bed. Maybe I can stay a little longer, but i might have to flee.

*Satan = adversary ?????? sorry, didn't make it clear that it was a question.

You've got to admit ... like any sacred text, there was at least SOME scant accuracy in that post. :)
Teehee. Now I get your heretical comment earlier. :D

You mean Satan= adversary.
That's what it means in Hebrew. And Numbers was written in Hebrew. So the conclusion to draw is....?

wern't you paying attention... she left all her clothes behind. Dibs on the sacred undergarments *Snatches and pockets*
Ah - she left the sandal in another thread. You've been given a kernal of truthiness and now you need to pursue it!
...and funny how there's only one set of footprints in this sand :p

ahem... My proper response would be. Well, as she commands! :D ;)
Wow, Deuteronomy 5:7 (catholic) / Exodus 20:3 (protestant) sure didn't last long 'round here did they? :p

Teehee. Now I get your heretical comment earlier. :D
Tat tvam asi. *bows*
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/aliens/hae52.gif

Wow, Deuteronomy 5:7 (catholic) / Exodus 20:3 (protestant) sure didn't last long 'round here did they? :p[/QUOTE]
you know...with all the bibles I've read, I don't think I've ever read a catholic one...how sad

*TG*

ahem... My proper response would be. Well, as she commands! :D ;)
excellent. Farm boy, clean my dagger for me. (a cookie for anyone who comes up with the movie reference. :D)

excellent. Farm boy, clean my dagger for me. (a cookie for anyone who comes up with the movie reference. :D)
How many people who post to these places haven't seen Princess Bride?

Ah - she left the sandal in another thread. You've been given a kernal of truthiness and now you need to pursue it!
...and funny how there's only one set of footprints in this sand :p
Pfft. Who needs sandals? I refuse to wear these pathetic apparels you call shoes.

Wow, Deuteronomy 5:7 (catholic) / Exodus 20:3 (protestant) sure didn't last long 'round here did they? :p
Not with me around, they don't. :p

I didn't claim any alterations, moron. I claimed that AoMatthew left out parts of Is 9:1-2 to make a prophecy, not that Is 9:1-2 itself was altered in Isaiah.

Do learn how to read. And do learn that I presented a lot.then let's look at Isaiah 9:1-2

1 Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan-
2 The people walking in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death [a]
a light has dawned.

Red is the prophecy talked about in Mathew 4. Black is what you said was Left out. Underlined is left out prophecy according to you.


and the corrisponding Mathew 4

12When Jesus heard that John had been put in prison, he returned to Galilee. 13Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali— 14to fulfill what was said through the prophet Isaiah:
15"Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,
the way to the sea, along the Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles—
16the people living in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death
a light has dawned."[e]

Red = Prophecy Fulfilled.
Italic = Reference to Isaiah. note, mathew did not do direct quote, but reference to the passage.


Is 9:1-2, to be exact. And, as I showed, AoMatthew left out parts of Is 9:1-2 in order to invent a prophecy. Is 9:1-2 wasn't tampered with; AoMatthew was just being dishonest.
Nope, you took Mathew 4 and said "Here is the prophesy"
without even looking at Isaiah 9. if you read Isaiah 9:1-2 the prophecy is there. all you have to do is Read it.
Now if you'd learn how to read, you wouldn't have made such a stupid mistake as you did. :rolleyes:

I guess you also think CLIFF NOTES alters and tampers with the novels since they also leave out alot.

I already attacked the post. Gee--you must be completely illiterate or just blindingly stupid to not know that.gee
Are you really this stupid in reality?is your idea of attacking the post... and you call me stupid?

excellent. Farm boy, clean my dagger for me. (a cookie for anyone who comes up with the movie reference. :D)
but first I must F*ck Off... and seeing that you're still nakked... ;)

Yes.

None of your criticisms of god really hold true for me, because they are based upon a given value of God.


Most Atheists create a god and then deny he exists....always seemed puzzling to me.

Yes.

None of your criticisms of god really hold true for me, because they are based upon a given value of God.


Most Atheists create a god and then deny he exists....always seemed puzzling to me.
oddly, so are the supports for God...

You've been given a kernal of truthiness and now you need to pursue it!
Plant it in the ground and watch it grow into a beanstalk?

geez ruff, death sucks. it sucks big time. its not like you wont mourn every time someone you love dies no matter how or when.

some people go early, some live a long long time. in the end, everyone dies. my father in law told me that when his mother died at age 90 he was as sad as when his daughter died at age 6.

my point is that "god" wasnt being particularily cruel to your friend. she had a beautiful life for as long as she lived. she overcame adversity, she had a good family, she maintained her good spirits even as she was dying. she still inspires people even after she is gone. as the song on the radio says "thats a life you can hang your hat on".

god doesnt promise a life without pain. he doesnt say that if you believe in him and follow his commandments he'll make all your troubles go away.

he promises that if you ask, he'll help you get through it and that someday you will be brought to a more perfect existance where, in THAT life, there is no trouble and you will be reunited with those you have lost.

isnt that what your friend wanted for you?

I cannot agree more, and I could not have said it any better than you did!

Most Atheists create a god and then deny he exists....always seemed puzzling to me.I think most atheists rely on the Bible for their definition of your god. I do.

but first I must F*ck Off... and seeing that you're still nakked... ;)
I am? Grr. Wanna give me my clothes back?

then let's look at Isaiah 9:1-2

1 Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan-
2 The people walking in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death [a]
a light has dawned.

Red is the prophecy talked about in Mathew 4. Black is what you said was Left out. Underlined is left out prophecy according to you.
Something like that. You need the whole of the verses in order for it to make proper sense. But when you rip out the parts that AoMatthew did, the context is lost.

Let's see how it reads as I posted it before, using the RSV:

But there will be no gloom for her that was in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zeb'ulun and the land of Naph'tali, but in the latter time he will make glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations. The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined.

So AoMatthew wants that to be a prophecy about jesus. But it doesn't really work as one. So, AoMatthew first leaves out the first part of Is 9:1 all the way up to "the land". That destroys the context! He then wants jesus' travels to be the prophecy, but clearly Is 9:1-2 has nothing to do with someone just visiting those places. It's an invented prophecy. As I showed. Numerous times before. And yet you deny it.

So there is no prophecy as AoMatthew wants it. It's purely invented in AoMatthew's mind.

Let me ask you this: is your idea of debate to not be able to read the other person's posts, but rather just make up shit as you go along?

lol


must just be humans in general.

Never saw much point debating god. My faith is based on personal experience - I can't give that to Atheists, and Atheists can't disprove my personal beliefs.


Stalemate.

Threads like this seem more about someone being angry with god, and so they decide to try and get at his followers as payback.

I sometimes think that religions biggest critics are closet theists...how can anyone be that upset with something they don't believe in?

Pfft. Who needs sandals? I refuse to wear these pathetic apparels you call shoes. Sorry, my bad - a mistranslation. It reads :"thong".
:eek:

Not with me around, they don't. :pHeh, you teach those words a thing or two! :gundge:

I think most atheists rely on the Bible for their definition of your god. I do.

Given that i'm not a christian, they would be doing something very silly indeed if they did

Yes.

None of your criticisms of god really hold true for me, because they are based upon a given value of God.


Most Atheists create a god and then deny he exists....always seemed puzzling to me.

Interesting point. I agree.

Oh, and JuNii, congratulations on destroying their argument about that prophecy.

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?

Did your friend believe in God? Maybe that was why she was so happy, so upbeat, she knew that there was something better for her. She knew that in the end everything would be ok.

In the Bible, God does not promise an easy road for believers, actually He says the oposite. The Bible states that being a follower will not be easy.

I guess I would rather believe and in the end be wrong than not believe and in the end be wrong. Maybe that is not my total reason why I believe in God, but it sure helps when questions like this come up.

Plant it in the ground and watch it grow into a beanstalk?
You know, the brochure SAYS that ... but i'm about six years BEHIND on my skeleton orchard. :(

Something like that. You need the whole of the verses in order for it to make proper sense. But when you rip out the parts that AoMatthew did, the context is lost.

Let's see how it reads as I posted it before, using the RSV:



So AoMatthew wants that to be a prophecy about jesus. But it doesn't really work as one. So, AoMatthew first leaves out the first part of Is 9:1 all the way up to "the land". That destroys the context! He then wants jesus' travels to be the prophecy, but clearly Is 9:1-2 has nothing to do with someone just visiting those places. It's an invented prophecy. As I showed. Numerous times before. And yet you deny it.

So there is no prophecy as AoMatthew wants it. It's purely invented in AoMatthew's mind.

Let me ask you this: is your idea of debate to not be able to read the other person's posts, but rather just make up shit as you go along?

Sorry dude, I read it as Junii put it, talking about making way for the Galiliean

Oh, and JuNii, congratulations on destroying their argument about that prophecy.
You must be reading a very different thread than I am. Either that or so wrapped in your myth that you can't see reality. Either way, I'd love to see you demonstrate how dropping the context can create a prophecy. Think you're up to it?

Sorry dude, I read it as Junii put it, talking about making way for the Galiliean
That's not what it says in Is 9:1-2, which is where the supposed prophecy comes from. Ergo, there is no such prophecy.

Looks like you too think that dropping the context can make a prophecy. Care to demonstrate that?

So AoMatthew wants that to be a prophecy about jesus. But it doesn't really work as one. So, AoMatthew first leaves out the first part of Is 9:1 all the way up to "the land". That destroys the context! He then wants jesus' travels to be the prophecy, but clearly Is 9:1-2 has nothing to do with someone just visiting those places. It's an invented prophecy. As I showed. Numerous times before. And yet you deny it.
It wasn't just about Jesus' travels... He was referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth", which is in Galilee.

Something like that. You need the whole of the verses in order for it to make proper sense. But when you rip out the parts that AoMatthew did, the context is lost.

Let's see how it reads as I posted it before, using the RSV:

So AoMatthew wants that to be a prophecy about jesus. But it doesn't really work as one. So, AoMatthew first leaves out the first part of Is 9:1 all the way up to "the land". That destroys the context! He then wants jesus' travels to be the prophecy, but clearly Is 9:1-2 has nothing to do with someone just visiting those places. It's an invented prophecy. As I showed. Numerous times before. And yet you deny it.

So there is no prophecy as AoMatthew wants it. It's purely invented in AoMatthew's mind.

Let me ask you this: is your idea of debate to not be able to read the other person's posts, but rather just make up shit as you go along?actually what matthew was trying to emphasise was Jesus going to place that imprisioned John the baptise to preach God's word. thus
Mathew 4:15-17
15"Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, (where Capernaum is located)
the way to the sea, along the Jordan, (the Path Jesus travelled)
Galilee of the Gentiles— (His destination)
16the people living in darkness (those that imprisoned John)
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death (The Christians Persecuted there)
a light has dawned."[e] (Jesus's arrival.)
and let's not forget verse 17
17From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."

and you said mathew re wrote the verses, he just emphasised them.

My Mistake, I did concentrate on the minute detail but not the entire prophesy. but the essence of the prophesy is still fullfilled even if you look at Isaiah 9:1-2
1 Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan-
2 The people walking in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death [a]
a light has dawned.

the prophesy is still there. just brought out by Mathew.

That's not what it says in Is 9:1-2, which is where the supposed prophecy comes from. Ergo, there is no such prophecy.

Looks like you too think that dropping the context can make a prophecy. Care to demonstrate that?

I just busted out my Bible and that was what I read. I can totally see that this is Isaiah telling about Jesus' coming.

I also do not believe that you will be persuaded by what I believe as obviously I will not be persuaded by what you believe.

"So we are at a crossroads" (The
Princess Bride) One of the greatest movies on this earth!

Never saw much point debating god. My faith is based on personal experience - I can't give that to Atheists, and Atheists can't disprove my personal beliefs.True.Threads like this seem more about someone being angry with god, and so they decide to try and get at his followers as payback.

I sometimes think that religions biggest critics are closet theists...how can anyone be that upset with something they don't believe in?That's a misunderstanding on your part. Christianity in particular & religion in general, is becomming more & more of a factor in politics today, local & global.

For those of us who don't share your faiths, this presents a fairly monumental & rather unnerving problem. As you just pointed out, it's impossible to have a rational argument about it, because your end of it, is entirely irrational. Thus many of the policies based on religion, seems about as constructive as doing a little rain dance. The problem with the analogy, of course, is that a rain dance is fairly inconsequential, whereas religious initiatives generally aren't.

institutionalised prayer in schools? Religious doctrine instead of biology? No equal rights for sinners? Divine inspiration as an excuse for war?

To an atheist, things like that seems completely & utterly insane - and dangerously so. Much of this thread have revolved around atheists trying to poke holes in the "morals" of the religious & the "benevolence" of their deities.
It seems the only way to actually debate the sort of mindset that allows people to force their beliefs on others, and condemn billions of people.Given that i'm not a christian, they would be doing something very silly indeed if they didHehe, my mistake. 99.9% seems to be, so I hope you can appreciate why I assumed you were.

I should've said atheists presumably get their concept of the relevant deity or deities, from the followers & scripture of whatever religion we're talking about. Better?

I am? Grr. Wanna give me my clothes back?
sure... just let me bask in your glory... :D

That's not what it says in Is 9:1-2, which is where the supposed prophecy comes from. Ergo, there is no such prophecy.

Looks like you too think that dropping the context can make a prophecy. Care to demonstrate that?

Ok, show me where the difference is. Matthew quotes almost the same exact scripture as your Isaiah translation (granted, one uses "anguish" and one uses "distress", but I don't think that's important).

So Matthew didn't incorporate the entire section of Isaiah? So what? If you read the Isaiah, it refers to God honoring Galilee. Matthew says that Jesus fulfills that scripture. It's really very simple. Also, he was writing to a largely Jewish audience, and they would be familiar with Isaiah.

The essence of the prophecy itself is that "in the future he will honor Galilee".

That's not what it says in Is 9:1-2, which is where the supposed prophecy comes from. Ergo, there is no such prophecy.

Looks like you too think that dropping the context can make a prophecy. Care to demonstrate that?
yes it does.
1 Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan-
2 The people walking in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death [a]
a light has dawned.

Right there. Isaiah 9: 1-2 the fortelling of Jesus arriving to Galilee.

[Snip]
Hey Similzation... can I call you Sim?

did you read my theory behind our discussion... the possible misunderstanding for the use of 'Accept?'

Institutionalised prayer in schools? Religious doctrine instead of biology? No equal rights for sinners? Divine inspiration as an excuse for war?

To an atheist, things like that seems completely & utterly insane
To me, a Christian, those things seem completely & utterly insane as well. I don't support them.

It wasn't just about Jesus' travels...
Yes, it was.

[Quote=BAAWAKnights]No, I'm not. You can quote what you think is a claim, but it's actually just part of reality. Knowledge implies that you have some means to demonstrate it. That's what knowledge means.[/quote
[b]No, it doesn't. You made that up.[b] I showed you something I KNOW and can't demonstrate. You ignored it. See you made a claim. I gave you a positive and repeatable example of something counter to that claim. That makes it falsified.

Here's another example -
I'm thinking of a number. I tell you what that number is. I know a couple of things I cannot prove. I know what number I was thinking of. I know whether it was the same as the number that I told you. I can't evidence either one of those things I know without doubt.


Oh, hey, your toilet paper ran out of fallacies so you have to start repeating.

Amusing. So are you actually NOT claiming that anything that we know can be proven? You don't believe that to be true? Then why did you say it?



Let me teach you something about debate. It takes more than simply claiming that everything everyone says who doesn't agree with you is false. If they give evidence and you don't. You lose. I evidenced my claims. I evidenced your claims were false. You simply declared everything I said to be false with no evidence. That's called losing a debate.

No, I did not. You also gave me exactly nothing.

Now please kill your strawman. It makes me laugh to think that you actually believe your strawman is valid.

Let me teach you something about debate: fallacies kill arguments. And you've used one fallacy after another. So go back, learn what not to do, and get back to me.

Look, ma, dropped arguments. Hey, don't bother debating. Just keep making things up. It's fun. I'm thoroughly enjoying it.
Yeah--that's precisely what you're doing. You're just dropping arguments and making things up. I wonder why you enjoy doing it.

The italics are the part you left out when you quoted my post. Included in that post are arguments you dropped - namely -

1. I showed you something I KNOW and can't demonstrate. You ignored it. See you made a claim [that knowledge implies you have some way to demonstrate it]. I gave you a positive and repeatable example of something counter to that claim. That makes it falsified.

You drop this completely out. I guess that's what pass for debate at your round table.

1a. I'm thinking of a number. I tell you what that number is. I know a couple of things I cannot prove. I know what number I was thinking of. I know whether it was the same as the number that I told you. I can't evidence either one of those things I know without doubt.

Here is another example, a true life, actual example, that shows that one can have knowledge that is NOT demonstrable.

2. Are you claiming that anything can be known can be proven? Because when I made that claim you called it a strawman and ignored it (which would mean it is not an argument you made).

Reason I asked the question -

I made no claim.


Yes, you are. I'll quote the claim.


And if you know god is real you can prove god is real. If you cannot, don't make the claim. It's that simple.


In other words you claim if God is real he must emperically proven. The obvious conclusion of such claim is that since is he isn't emperically proven he is not real. And you were asked to prove such a claim. See there are four possible outcomes here, but you try to pretend like there are only two -

God is real, we can prove it.
God is real, we can't prove it.
God is not real, we can prove it.
God is not real, we can't prove it.

You seem to forget that absent of emperical proof God can still exist. Beings are very rarely defined by our knowledge of them. Or did the platypus not exist until it could be proven to exist?

Your reply look like this.
Yes, you are.

No, I'm not. You can quote what you think is a claim, but it's actually just part of reality. Knowledge implies that you have some means to demonstrate it. That's what knowledge means.

Oh well-looks like you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

And you seem to be operating under your strawman view of what I've been saying. Here's a torch so you can set fire to it and stop using it.

Notice you dropped most of my argument there too. And you accused me of a strawman when I simply addressed that you said one cannot know something without proof.

3. One can have knowledge without emperical proof.

A counter to your claim which I abundantly proved to be true. You ignored it and claimed the fact I even made the argument was a strawman. Interesting when I quoted when you actually said knowledge must have proof.

Amusingly, you pretend as if you can't fathom why someone would drop arguments. I have now proved you dropped several. I suppose now I'll get another reply that is essentially, "I know you are, but what am I."

actually what matthew was trying to emphasise was Jesus going to place that imprisioned John the baptise to preach God's word.
Nope. AoMatthew was inventing a prophecy where none existed, especially with the context of the verses and the preceeding ones in Is 8.

There is no prophecy; there is only something invented by AoMatthew.

institutionalised prayer in schools? Religious doctrine instead of biology? No equal rights for sinners? Divine inspiration as an excuse for war?


I truly do not think that Christians are trying to get any of these things that you talk about back into politics or back into the school systems. On the flip side, as a Christian, I believe that biology is a great subject. Biology was one of my favorite subjects in school, until the teacher started "preaching" about evolution. I am not talking about micro evolution, I am talking about macro evolution. The evolution of monkeys into men, the evolution of giraffs into birds or any other macro evolutionary ideology. These evolutions have never been proven yet students everywhere are forced to know this, and be taught it.

Nope. AoMatthew was inventing a prophecy where none existed, especially with the context of the verses and the preceeding ones in Is 8.

There is no prophecy; there is only something invented by AoMatthew.
so you're saying Mathew wrote Isaiah... Right :rolleyes:

I just busted out my Bible and that was what I read. I can totally see that this is Isaiah telling about Jesus' coming.
Then you clearly didn't read Is 8, did you? Is 9 is a continuation of the speech from the end of Is 8, which is concerning the child born in Is 8:3.

Context.

I don't really care if you'll be persuaded or not; I just enjoy watching you xers squirm and try to evade the fact that there are no prophecies for jesus.

Ok, show me where the difference is.
I have shown it many times in this thread. Please look them up.


So Matthew didn't incorporate the entire section of Isaiah? So what? If you read the Isaiah, it refers to God honoring Galilee.
No, it doesn't.


Matthew says that Jesus fulfills that scripture.
Jesus is not the child born in Is 8:3, is he?

Context.

Hey Similzation... can I call you Sim?Of course you can :)

did you read my theory behind our discussion... the possible misunderstanding for the use of 'Accept?'Nope. Real life's been getting in the way somewhat. Do you have an url, or do I go fish?

so you're saying Mathew wrote Isaiah...
Nah. That would be the idiot strawman version. You certainly wouldn't want to do that, would you?

yes it does.
No, it does not.


1 Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan-
2 The people walking in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death [a]
a light has dawned.

Right there. Isaiah 9: 1-2 the fortelling of Jesus arriving to Galilee.
WRONG!

Remember Is 8:3? Or are you, like AoMatthew, forgetting that and forgetting all of the words in Is 9:1-2?

Nope. AoMatthew was inventing a prophecy where none existed, especially with the context of the verses and the preceeding ones in Is 8.

There is no prophecy; there is only something invented by AoMatthew.

THE SCRIPTURE IN ISAIAH CONSTITUTES A PROPHECY. IT IS PREDICTING THE FUTURE BY WAY OF DIVINE REVELATION, THEREFORE IT IS A PROPHECY.
Matthew never invented Isaiah. Please demonstrate how his removal of the preceding and following passages means that the prophecy wasn't a prophecy in the first place and was only made prophecy when Matthew removed the context.

The italics are the part you left out when you quoted my post.
I dropped nothing that didn't need to be dropped, as what was dropped was just embarrassing to you.


1. I showed you something I KNOW and can't demonstrate.
No, you showed nothing of the sort. Y'see, god is claimed to be EXTERNAL TO US. Therefore, we can demonstrate it.

Unless, of course, you want to just believe that a faulty analogy works. Do you want to believe that?

But, I guess that's what passes for debate for you. tsk-tsk.


3. One can have knowledge without emperical proof.
Not of something external to us. Which god is claimed to be.

You. Lose. Mr. Strawman. Creator.

Amusingly, you insist that your strawman is valid. Again, I guess that's what passes for debate for you. tsk-tsk.

THE SCRIPTURE IN ISAIAH CONSTITUTES A PROPHECY.
NO IT DOES NOT.


Matthew never invented Isaiah.
Never said he did. Having a reading comprehension problem?


Please demonstrate how his removal of the preceding and following passages means that the prophecy wasn't a prophecy in the first place
You need to demonstrate that it is.

Then you clearly didn't read Is 8, did you? Is 9 is a continuation of the speech from the end of Is 8, which is concerning the child born in Is 8:3.

Context.

I don't really care if you'll be persuaded or not; I just enjoy watching you xers squirm and try to evade the fact that there are no prophecies for jesus.

Alright I read Is 8. Again, I totally see where Is 8 is talking about war, and dread and people being thrust into utter darkness. Then in Is 9 the chapter definately talks about a person coming from Galilee, and this person being a great light on those living in the land of the shadow of death. To me that is Jesus.

I truly do not think that Christians are trying to get any of these things that you talk about back into politics or back into the school systems.I dare you to read a serious newspaper once a week & hold on to that opinion.Biology was one of my favorite subjects in school, until the teacher started "preaching" about evolution. I am not talking about micro evolution, I am talking about macro evolution.Why do you object to one when you accept the other?
How do the theories of evolution contradict your faith?
What makes you equate education with preaching?

Alright I read Is 8. Again, I totally see where Is 8 is talking about war, and dread and people being thrust into utter darkness. Then in Is 9 the chapter definately talks about a person coming from Galilee,
Actually, it speaks of the child born in Is 8:3. The one referenced as the "prince of peace" in Is 9:6. Not jesus.

So Matthew didn't incorporate the entire section of Isaiah? So what? If you read the Isaiah, it refers to God honoring Galilee.
No, it doesn't.

Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan-
Yes it does. Isaiah 9:1 refers to God honoring Galilee. Just admit you're wrong.


Jesus is not the child born in Is 8:3, is he?

Context.
8:3 is not talking about Jesus. Chapter 9 is.


BAAWAKnights, prophecy is defined as:
-- knowledge of the future (usually said to be obtained from a divine source)
-- a prediction uttered under divine inspiration
(wordnet.princeton.edu)
Isaiah claimed that he was inspired by God. He predicted that God, in the future, would honor Galilee. This was a prediction uttered under [presumed] divine inspiration. Therefore it is a prophecy.

i Biology was one of my favorite subjects in school, until the teacher started "preaching" about evolution. I am not talking about micro evolution, I am talking about macro evolution. The evolution of monkeys into men, the evolution of giraffs into birds or any other macro evolutionary ideology. These evolutions have never been proven yet students everywhere are forced to know this, and be taught it.
Y'know, that discussion has happened many times on many boards. Always seems to start with people (like yourself) who are utterly ignorant of biology prattling on about evolution. As if somehow your ignorance means something.

Anyway, the Flat Earth Society states that it's never been proven that the Earth is spherical. Your take on evolution ranks up there with that, ok. There is no "preaching" of evolution any more than there is "preaching" that 1 + 1 = 2. Your ignorance means nothing.

I dare you to read a serious newspaper once a week & hold on to that opinion.Why do you object to one when you accept the other?

Seriously? You pick up a paper and tell me that you do not see the law suits about taking God out of every court room, out of the pledge, out of every aspect of this country, in which I will remind you was what the founding fathers founded this nation on, Faith in God. Read the other quote. I still do not believe that religion should be taught in schools.


How do the theories of evolution contradict your faith?
What makes you equate education with preaching?

That is my point exactly! Why was religion taken out of schools, however, evolution is not? I do not want to force my personal beliefs on the entire United States, so why is evolution forced upon me and my children?

Yes it does.
Nope.


Isaiah 9:1 refers to God honoring Galilee. Just admit you're wrong.
I can't, because I'm not.


8:3 is not talking about Jesus. Chapter 9 is.
Wrong. It's talking about the child born in Is 8:3. Just read the chapters. Then come back to me and admit that you're wrong. Because I know that you are--I've read the book. No amount of stomping your feet will help. You're about to get a serious lesson in what your book ACTUALLY states, rather than what you want it to state.

I dropped nothing that didn't need to be dropped, as what was dropped was just embarrassing to you.

Ha. Yes. Well, I'm willing to be embarrassed. Stop with the poor debate and address the dropped arguments. Before you imply that it was I who dropped arguments and that you don't understand why anyone would want to do so. Suddenly, you admit to dropping my arguments. If you have a way to address my arguments, do it. Please, I beg you, embarrass me. I can think of nothing I'd like more. So far, I suspect everyone else notices how much your style of debate resembles a Monty Python skit about how just being contrary is not the same as making an argument.

No, you showed nothing of the sort. Y'see, god is claimed to be EXTERNAL TO US. Therefore, we can demonstrate it.

Unless, of course, you want to just believe that a faulty analogy works. Do you want to believe that?

But, I guess that's what passes for debate for you. tsk-tsk.

Argument from ignorance fallacy. Not all things external to us can be demonstrated. I am talking to my girlfriend right now. If my girlfriend agrees does that prove it happened? Nope.

See, the rules of evidence objectively are much stricter than the rules of evidence subjectively and should be. Thus I can KNOW something without being able to meet the rules for objectively demonstrating it. It has nothing to do with external or internal.

Not of something external to us. Which god is claimed to be.

Keep saying it. Still false. Amusing that you accused others of the argument from ignorance fallacy. The fallacy itself is based on what you are claiming being false. Absense of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absense.

You. Lose. Mr. Strawman. Creator.

Amusingly, you insist that your strawman is valid. Again, I guess that's what passes for debate for you. tsk-tsk.
Ha. You continue to drop my arguments. You continue to fail to show in any way how what I QUOTED from you is a strawman. You just call names. And throw out whatever is on the current square of logical fallacy toilet paper. You even accused me at one point of using the dial-a-fallacy fallacy when I'd been using one fallacy repeatedly and only one and I'd proven you'd commmited that fallacy, a fallacy you brought up. In fact, you've never stopped using that fallacy.

Then you clearly didn't read Is 8, did you? Is 9 is a continuation of the speech from the end of Is 8, which is concerning the child born in Is 8:3.

Context.

I don't really care if you'll be persuaded or not; I just enjoy watching you xers squirm and try to evade the fact that there are no prophecies for jesus.no. Isaiah 8 does not continue to 9.
Isaiah 8:1-10 talks about The rise of the King of Assyria
Isaiah 8:11-22 talks about the Might of God and the casting of the lands into darkness
Isaiah 9:1-7 talks about the forcoming of Jesus who will raise the lands from Darkness
Isaiah 9: 8-21 Isaiah 10:1-4 is about the fall of Israel. after that the fall of the King of Assyria.

Now I get it. you read the bible and take the Literal meaning. :) The Bible as a History book.

Actually, it speaks of the child born in Is 8:3. The one referenced as the "prince of peace" in Is 9:6. Not jesus.

So who is the prince of peace?

Remember Is 8:3? Or are you, like AoMatthew, forgetting that and forgetting all of the words in Is 9:1-2?well, since I posted the complete verse of Is 9:1-2...

You know, with all this "proofing" going on (thus antithetical to faith) Ill Rufferto is rolling in his grave.
:(

So who is the prince of peace?
he's going to say the King of Assyria was suppose to be the Prince of Peace.

You know, with all this "proofing" going on (thus antithetical to faith) Ill Rufferto is rolling in his grave.
:(Actually, it's turned into bible study.
One who takes the bible as Literal History is trying to school the rest of us "heathens." :p

Y'know, that discussion has happened many times on many boards. Always seems to start with people (like yourself) who are utterly ignorant of biology prattling on about evolution. As if somehow your ignorance means something.

Anyway, the Flat Earth Society states that it's never been proven that the Earth is spherical. Your take on evolution ranks up there with that, ok. There is no "preaching" of evolution any more than there is "preaching" that 1 + 1 = 2. Your ignorance means nothing.

Are you truly stating that one cannot prove that 1+1 +2? Am I the ignorant one or are you?

Planes have been able to fly around the world, ships sail around the world.

I am not understanding what these two equations have to do with my feeling about teaching evolution in the classroom is rediculas.

he's going to say the King of Assyria was suppose to be the Prince of Peace.

Which obviously that is not what the scripture was talking about.

(Walk down the corridor)
M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.
Pause
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
A: Thank you.
short pause
M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.
M: I DID!
A: No you didn't.
M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
A: Well, you didn't pay.
M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven't.
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I've had enough of this.
A: No you haven't.
M: Oh Shut up.

Anyone else notice a similarity in style to BK?

You make some arguments, BK, but we have to wade through the morass of contradictions to strain it out.

Nope.



I can't, because I'm not.



Wrong. It's talking about the child born in Is 8:3. Just read the chapters. Then come back to me and admit that you're wrong. Because I know that you are--I've read the book. No amount of stomping your feet will help. You're about to get a serious lesson in what your book ACTUALLY states, rather than what you want it to state.
Chapter 9 is the one entitled "To Us a Child is Born." The whole of Isaiah is simply various predictions and prophecies regarding Jerusalem and Judah in the future.


BAAWAKnights, you have just claimed that Isaiah 9:1 ("Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan-")
does not refer to God honoring Galilee. What does it refer to then? Pray tell, for I am outwitted by your infantile denials.

Anyone else notice a similarity in style to BK?

You make some arguments, BK, but we have to wade through the morass of contradictions to strain it out.
Hey, i already did that TWICE here (when Saint Curie was still around :( )!
:D

Anyone else notice a similarity in style to BK?

You make some arguments, BK, but we have to wade through the morass of contradictions to strain it out.

I love it!

I'm going to give you xers Is 8 from verse 4 on, just so you can see what's going on. Is 8:3 is the birth of a child--the one mentioned in Is 7:14.

for before the child knows how to cry 'My father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Sama'ria will be carried away before the king of Assyria." The LORD spoke to me again: "Because this people have refused the waters of Shilo'ah that flow gently, and melt in fear before Rezin and the son of Remali'ah; therefore, behold, the Lord is bringing up against them the waters of the River, mighty and many, the king of Assyria and all his glory; and it will rise over all its channels and go over all its banks; and it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass on, reaching even to the neck; and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Imman'u-el."
Talking about the child as a sign to Ahaz that he will be victorious over Pekah and Rezin.


Be broken, you peoples, and be dismayed; give ear, all you far countries; gird yourselves and be dismayed; gird yourselves and be dismayed. Take counsel together, but it will come to nought; speak a word, but it will not stand, for God is with us. For the LORD spoke thus to me with his strong hand upon me, and warned me not to walk in the way of this people, saying: "Do not call conspiracy all that this people call conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread. But the LORD of hosts, him you shall regard as holy; let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he will become a sanctuary, and a stone of offense, and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many shall stumble thereon; they shall fall and be broken; they shall be snared and taken."
Some trash-talking to the enemy early on, and then exhorting the jews to look to god for strength, while the enemy will know only defeat.

Bind up the testimony, seal the teaching among my disciples. I will wait for the LORD, who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob, and I will hope in him. Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion. And when they say to you, "Consult the mediums and the wizards who chirp and mutter," should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? To the teaching and to the testimony! Surely for this word which they speak there is no dawn. They will pass through the land, greatly distressed and hungry; and when they are hungry, they will be enraged and will curse their king and their God, and turn their faces upward; and they will look to the earth, but behold, distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish; and they will be thrust into thick darkness.
Again, exhorting the jews to look to god for strength, for the enemy looks to "magic men" who cannot bring them anything but false information. The enemy will cry out in defeat and in anguish as they find this out.

And who is this enemy?

Again: Pekah and Rezin. Just as it was stated earlier in Is 8. Just as it was stated in Is 7.

Actually, it's turned into bible study.
One who takes the bible as Literal History is trying to school the rest of us "heathens." :pThis thread sure has taken a few strange turns ....
Well ... i know Ill Rufferto is rolling something over this whole ordeal ...

Ha. Yes. Well, I'm willing to be embarrassed.
Ok then.


Stop with the poor debate and address the dropped arguments.
Stop with the fallacies.


Argument from ignorance fallacy.
Wrong.


Not all things external to us can be demonstrated.
Yes they can be.


I am talking to my girlfriend right now. If my girlfriend agrees does that prove it happened? Nope.
Irrelevant. There are numerous other ways to prove it.

See, the rules of objectivity aren't what you think they are. You're just embarrassing yourself.

Now accuse me of the argument from ignorance fallacy again. I will laugh at you again.

Also: your "arguments" are dropped because they are juvenile and without merit. It's like talking to a creationist.

Of course you can :)

Nope. Real life's been getting in the way somewhat. Do you have an url, or do I go fish?
TG'd you, don't wanna derail this.

So who is the prince of peace?
The child born in Is 8:3.

Are you truly stating that one cannot prove that 1+1 +2? Am I the ignorant one or are you?

Planes have been able to fly around the world, ships sail around the world.

I am not understanding what these two equations have to do with my feeling about teaching evolution in the classroom is rediculas.
1+1=2 can be proven. The fact that genes mutate can be proven. Natural selection can be proven. The fossil record is a proven thing. That is all we require for evolution.

Evolution is a scientific theory; it is a very well-supported one. It is about a century and a half old.

When Copernicus's theory of heliocentrism was about a century and a half old, Galileo was being tortured by the Inquisition for advocating it. Nowadays, it is universally accepted (except by flat earthers).

Gravity is "just a theory." It has less proof than evolution, because we do not yet know of the mechanism by which it happens. We do, however, know how evolution happens.


BK, the child in Isaiah 8:3 is never referenced as being the Messiah or Jesus or Immanuel. I know that at the end of that bit, it says "O Immanuel", but it was referring to the child in third person previously and would not now switch to second person just to prove your bizarre little point.

no. Isaiah 8 does not continue to 9.
It most certainly does. Read it.

You can't make your savior-on-a-stick fit with the text. It's funny to watch you squirm as you try.

Seriously? You pick up a paper and tell me that you do not see the law suits about taking God out of every court room, out of the pledge, out of every aspect of this country, in which I will remind you was what the founding fathers founded this nation on, Faith in God. Read the other quote. I still do not believe that religion should be taught in schools.Funny, init? I'm not American, yet even I know you're hopelessly wrong. Your country wasn't founded on faith in any deity. If you're going to be conservative about the pledge, you should keep in mind that the god bit wasn't always in it. It's just propaganda.

The argument for removing the ten commandments from courtrooms, is that people may get the impression that they're convicted based on them, instead of the law of the land. Incidentially, it would seem that a number of Christians operate under the false impression that people should be convicted in that manner.That is my point exactly! Why was religion taken out of schools, however, evolution is not? I do not want to force my personal beliefs on the entire United States, so why is evolution forced upon me and my children?The theories of evolution are at least as solidly based on evidence, as the threory of gravity. Unless everything, and I do mean everything, is a religious belief to you, your argument isn't valid.

Perhaps you'd benefit from going back to school.

Regardless, I'm sure you'll find some degree of consolation in the fact that the large developing countries of the world, are mightily pleased with the American disinclination to educate their children. I'm not, as the European economy is very closely tied in with your own. When you shoot your brains out, we get splattered.

Are you truly stating that one cannot prove that 1+1 +2?
No, I'm stating that there is as much a posteriori proof for evolution as a priori for 1 + 1 = 2.


I am not understanding what these two equations have to do with my feeling about teaching evolution in the classroom is rediculas.
That your feeling is wholly irrelevant. You are ignorant of reality.

Chapter 9 is the one entitled "To Us a Child is Born."
I wasn't aware the chapters have titles. Perhaps you could point me to the titles in the Great Isaiah Scroll of Qumran? Or the titles in the Masoretic text?


BAAWAKnights, you have just claimed that Isaiah 9:1 ("Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan-")
does not refer to God honoring Galilee. What does it refer to then? Pray tell, for I am outwitted by your infantile denials.
*laughs*

You are outwitted by someone who knows your book better than you do. And you'd do well to kill your attitude. Is 9 has nothing to do with jesus, despite what you've been brainwashed to believe.

What does the part in question refer to? It refers to Ahaz' coming victory. Which didn't happen, according to 2 Chronicles.

Anyone else notice a similarity in style to BK?
No.

BK, the child in Isaiah 8:3 is never referenced as being the Messiah or Jesus or Immanuel. I know that at the end of that bit, it says "O Immanuel", but it was referring to the child in third person previously and would not now switch to second person just to prove your bizarre little point.
And since you admitted that it does refer to the child as Immanuel, you have refuted yourself.

I'm watching. Keep it civil or there will be consequences.

Ok then.



Stop with the fallacies.



Wrong.



Yes they can be.



Irrelevant. There are numerous other ways to prove it.

See, the rules of objectivity aren't what you think they are. You're just embarrassing yourself.

Now accuse me of the argument from ignorance fallacy again. I will laugh at you again.

Also: your "arguments" are dropped because they are juvenile and without merit. It's like talking to a creationist.

Not a single addressed argument in that whole post. My arguments are dropped because I've proved to you and everyone here that while you have a excellent knowledge of the Bible, your debate skills are severely lacking. Your response to whenever your debate skills are overmatched is typing wrong in all caps or calling people names or improper using of a logical fallacy claim.

Finally someone had the patience to call you on it and demonstrate the flaws in your debate and since you couldn't just post passages from the Bible you went on the attack. You've still not addressed how you can claim knowledge requires proof when it contradicts the text of the logical fallacy you introduced to the thread. You've not addressed why I can actually all different types of knowledge I can have that cannot be proven. You've not addressed the fact how me claiming that you say knowledge requires proof is a strawman. And so instead you cut up my posts, call me names and sprinkle the names of a few logical fallacies in there.

Find one person. Any person in from anywhere that would argue that's not what you're doing.

I wasn't aware the chapters have titles. Perhaps you could point me to the titles in the Great Isaiah Scroll of Qumran? Or the titles in the Masoretic text?



*laughs*

You are outwitted by someone who knows your book better than you do. And you'd do well to kill your attitude. Is 9 has nothing to do with jesus, despite what you've been brainwashed to believe.

What does the part in question refer to? It refers to Ahaz' coming victory. Which didn't happen, according to 2 Chronicles.
The original texts do not have titles for the chapters; rather, the titles are a reference to what is considered the most important part of the chapter.

Isaiah 9:6 says, "For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, [or Wonderful, Counselor,]) Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

Jesus is not the one referred to as the Prince of Peace? And incidentally, Isaiah 9 never mentions Ahaz once.

No.

Priceless.

Funny, init? I'm not American, yet even I know you're hopelessly wrong. Your country wasn't founded on faith in any deity. If you're going to be conservative about the pledge, you should keep in mind that the god bit wasn't always in it. It's just propaganda.

The argument for removing the ten commandments from courtrooms, is that people may get the impression that they're convicted based on them, instead of the law of the land. Incidentially, it would seem that a number of Christians operate under the false impression that people should be convicted in that manner.The theories of evolution are at least as solidly based on evidence, as the threory of gravity. Unless everything, and I do mean everything, is a religious belief to you, your argument isn't valid.

Perhaps you'd benefit from going back to school.

Regardless, I'm sure you'll find some degree of consolation in the fact that the large developing countries of the world, are mightily pleased with the American disinclination to educate their children. I'm not, as the European economy is very closely tied in with your own. When you shoot your brains out, we get splattered.Let me know if you want any of my happy founding fathers material, Sim. :)

BK, the child in Isaiah 8:3 is never referenced as being the Messiah or Jesus or Immanuel. I know that at the end of that bit, it says "O Immanuel", but it was referring to the child in third person previously and would not now switch to second person just to prove your bizarre little point.And since you admitted that it does refer to the child as Immanuel, you have refuted yourself.
No, I never said that the child was referred to as Immanuel. You are intentionally misinterpreting my words. What I said was that while that portion of Isaiah makes reference to both the child and to Immanuel, they are not connected and in fact are set apart by the fact that one is in second person and the other in third.

It most certainly does. Read it.

You can't make your savior-on-a-stick fit with the text. It's funny to watch you squirm as you try. Isaiah 8:vers 11-22 talks about the might of God and that God's word should be heeded.
then Isaiah 9:1-7 talks about the birth of the child. you can mean that to be anyone but look at the qualifiers.

6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

also look at the deeds this child would do. as you said, the one you thought was the subject of this chapter failed! Thus he wasn't the one God spoke of.

If you're going to be conservative about the pledge, you should keep in mind that the god bit wasn't always in it. It's just propaganda.
He's pretty much right about the Under God bit-- it was added during the Cold War as a way to further distance ourselves from the "godless Communists."

He's pretty much right about the God bit-- it was added during the Cold War as a way to further distance ourselves from the "godless Communists."
And the currency ....
:mad:

Let me know if you want any of my happy founding fathers material, Sim. :)Hehe, I don't think I'm the one who needs it, but thanks none the less :p

JuNii thanks for the TG. I just sent you a reply.

The world needs religion that is what seperates us from animals look the first humans had religion if the cavemen actually existed.
Religion gives hope a second chance no matter what you do JESUS LOVES YOU.

Priceless.

I prefer this (http://www.sonic.net/~wooly/), personally.

Warning: I can smell an athiest about to tear you to pieces for stating something other than empirical evidence.

The world needs religion that is what seperates us from animals look the first humans had religion if the cavemen actually existed.
Religion gives hope a second chance no matter what you do JESUS LOVES YOU. ....?
This is wrong on so many levels i'm forced to conclude that you must be having us on.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/mad/1435.gif

I prefer this (http://www.sonic.net/~wooly/), personally.

Hehe. The FAQ misuses the term 'vitriol'. How utterly appropriate. But you still have to love the irony of a poster replying to a claim that he is just being contrary with, simply, "no".

Warning: I can smell an athiest about to tear you to pieces for stating something other than empirical evidence.
me?

Hehe, I don't think I'm the one who needs it, but thanks none the less :p

JuNii thanks for the TG. I just sent you a reply.
thanks, Understood and 'Accepted' ;) :cool:

me?
Are you an atheist? o_O

me?

More like this guy (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11076047&postcount=6361).

More like this guy (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11076047&postcount=6361).
Nah ... that one's airtight. Missed a bullet there.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/018.gif

Are you an atheist? o_O
was asking about the reciving of said tearing.

was asking about the reciving of said tearing.
Hmmm ...
*sniffs JuNii*
...inconclusive. *shrugs*

Hmmm ...
*sniffs JuNii*
...inconclusive. *shrugs*
I am sheilded by the Glory of The Lady.


still have her knickers tho... :D

Hmmm ...
*sniffs JuNii*
...inconclusive. *shrugs*
*Sniffs self*
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/1169.gif

Ah, no, the predicted recipient was Western Mackinton.



Well, I'm off to bed. Seems like we're down to clarifying pronouns and linking to smilies. And I've got finals in the near future. And it's 12:30. *head hits keyboardalkdfmasdkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk...

I am sheilded by the Glory of The Lady.


still have her knickers tho... :DThat's just about the LAST thing you could say as an incentive to make me *STOP* sniffing you!

Ah, no, the predicted recipient was Western Mackinton.



Well, I'm off to bed. Seems like we're down to clarifying pronouns and linking to smilies. And I've got finals in the near future. And it's 12:30. *head hits keyboardalkdfmasdkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk...
Gee, and only ... 426 pages/ 6377 posts in. What's this world coming to? :D

Ah, no, the predicted recipient was Western Mackinton.



Well, I'm off to bed. Seems like we're down to clarifying pronouns and linking to smilies. And I've got finals in the near future. And it's 12:30. *head hits keyboardalkdfmasdkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk...
Night. I'm calling it a day also.

Good luck on those finals. :D

That's just about the LAST thing you could say as an incentive to make me *STOP* sniffing you!
:eek:

err... bye!.
*runs from straughn*

Night. I'm calling it a day also.

Good luck on those finals. :D
*nabs knickers*
Gets the kewpie doll out ....
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/593.gif

:eek:

err... bye!.
*runs from straughn*
*incorporates all leftover olfactory evidence*
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/105.gif

*nabs knickers*
Gets the kewpie doll out ....
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/593.gif
*while running... notices that HIS knickers are missing*

*Clutches The Lady's Knickers ever tighter.*

*while running... notices that HIS knickers are missing*

*Clutches The Lady's Knickers ever tighter.*
:eek:

*slaps nose repeatedly for lack of discernment*
*snorts Fire Water and rubbing alcohol*
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/544.gif

I love that you use a flawed analogy as proof.

Ince again, this is only flawed to you.
You seem to instantly label any concept that you dont understand, as flawed.

Let me rephrase it:

To date, the pink Unicorn has not been discovered whatsoever.
Millions and Billions have searched, and all of them have come up empty.
The only consolation they have is whatever they have convinced themselves to believe.





As to the rest, you admit you're unwilling to consider what I say and instead must include what other people think and treat it like it's included in what I'm talking to you about.

My dear, it isnt that Im refusing to consider anything you are suggesting, its that you are suggesting something that I have already done, a million times, always with the same results.

Please do not consider me spiritually inept, or bereft of peace of mind, becuase of my views towards the existance of God.





and if you're simply going to talk past me, then I guess we'll choose to stop here. You can continue aggressive assaulting Christians verbally unabated and I will continue to enjoy the fruits of my labors. I hope that you are quite happy in your pursuits.

Funny, I see it as you who refuse to listen to me, but the more likelier scenario, is we dont understand each other.

If you wish to not continue our conversation, so be it.
However, I would consider that a shame.

One final thought for you:

Im sure you can agree, that deciding to worship something, isnt something anyone should do lightly, or without deadly serious contemplation.
Im sure you would also agree that there isnt any proof of God's existance.

So, why would anyone make such an important choice, if there isnt anything to give any kind of indication that such devotion isnt wasted on nothing?

Not a single addressed argument in that whole post.
Liar.

Do you have any arguments at all that I didn't kill already? Please provide me with ONE at least. I'm bored with your repetition of arguments I've already killed.

The original texts do not have titles for the chapters; rather, the titles are a reference to what is considered the most important part of the chapter.

Isaiah 9:6 says, "For to us a child is born,
...the child in Is 8:3.


Jesus is not the one referred to as the Prince of Peace?
Jesus was born 700 years before he was born?


And incidentally, Isaiah 9 never mentions Ahaz once.
And incidentally, Ahaz was mentioned in Is 7, which is beginning of a set of chapters concerning Ahaz and how he is at war with Pekah and Rezin. You're taking a chapter out of context. Brilliant! You're doing something many xers accuse atheists of doing! I love it!

No, I never said that the child was referred to as Immanuel.
But you did. The child is referred to as Immanuel, regardless of 2nd or 3rd person.

You are intentionally being dishonest in order to attempt to save your silly religion from crumbling around you.

Isaiah 8:vers 11-22 talks about the might of God and that God's word should be heeded.
then Isaiah 9:1-7 talks about the birth of the child.
....the child born in Is 8:3.


you can mean that to be anyone
No, it can only mean the child born in Is 8:3. You want it to be jesus. But clearly the context is that it is the child born in Is 8:3.

Hehe. The FAQ misuses the term 'vitriol'. How utterly appropriate. But you still have to love the irony of a poster replying to a claim that he is just being contrary with, simply, "no".
What irony is that?

Oh--you mean the irony of an unsupported statement being simply responded to with "no", as is proper? Wow--you really don't know what irony is, do you?

There is no mere human who walked this earth, is walking this earth, or will walk this earth who is good. Every mere human is evil. All our thoughts, actions, desires, motives, words, etc. are influenced and are tainted by sin. That influence brings us under the Curse of the Fall, or spiritual death.

We deserve to be blotted out of physical existence the moment we our concieved because of that nature. But God is merciful. He allows us to remain living. God was merciful to your friend by not giving her the eternal torment she deserves from the moment she was concieved. He was also just in giving her some torment. This was to the glory of God and His attributes, which is the whole reason the world and everything in it was created.

This sounds horrible, I know, and many Christians will argue against this. But I have investigated the issue and I can come to no other conclusion from reading the Scriptures.

There is no mere human who walked this earth, is walking this earth, or will walk this earth who is good. Every mere human is evil. All our thoughts, actions, desires, motives, words, etc. are influenced and are tainted by sin. That influence brings us under the Curse of the Fall, or spiritual death.

We deserve to be blotted out of physical existence the moment we our concieved because of that nature. But God is merciful. He allows us to remain living. God was merciful to your friend by not giving her the eternal torment she deserves from the moment she was concieved. He was also just in giving her some torment. This was to the glory of God and His attributes, which is the whole reason the world and everything in it was created.

This sounds horrible, I know, and many Christians will argue against this. But I have investigated the issue and I can come to no other conclusion from reading the Scriptures.
I truely hope you're not a parent. If you are, then Dog have mercy on your offspring.

I am aganostic. I believe in a higher power I just don;t know how. I was raised Catholic with a mother who was kind of pushy about her religion. As I grew up and started seeing things with a different eye (ex:Gay rights. I have many friends that are gay and I support them fully) and heard the Priests say some things I didn't agree with and could be taken as prejudice remarks, I realized I could not beleive in someone that people made to be so judgemental at times. The war against "terroism" was another reason. This is being turned into another crusade in my eyes and God or Allah is being used as an excuse to fight. These people believe in the same god in the end and need to realize that. I take what Madeline Zimmer Bradley said in The Mists of Avalon seriously.

"'For all Gods are one God," she said to me then, as she had said many times before, and as I have said to my own novices many times, and as every priestess who comes after me will say again, "and all Goddesses are one Goddess, and there is only one Initiator. And to everyman his own truth, and the God within.'" -- Morgaine quoting Vivan the Lady of the Lake. Pg X prologue.

This is what I beleive and take it very seriosly.

There is no mere human who walked this earth, is walking this earth, or will walk this earth who is good. Every mere human is evil.
Speak for yourself, please. Don't dare to presume that your infantile death-cult has the truth.

Speak for yourself, please. Don't dare to presume that your infantile death-cult has the truth.

Well, since my "death-cult" has been around since Saint Augustine (Paul if you include the early Church) and has included Luther, Calvin, Edwards and all of today's Presbyterians and Reformed Chrisitians, I think that I might have a little more insight than you think I do. I could be wrong (theoretically) so you don't need to agree with me. But consider it, just the same.

There is no mere human who walked this earth, is walking this earth, or will walk this earth who is good. Every mere human is evil. All our thoughts, actions, desires, motives, words, etc. are influenced and are tainted by sin. That influence brings us under the Curse of the Fall, or spiritual death.

We deserve to be blotted out of physical existence the moment we our concieved because of that nature. But God is merciful. He allows us to remain living. God was merciful to your friend by not giving her the eternal torment she deserves from the moment she was concieved. He was also just in giving her some torment. This was to the glory of God and His attributes, which is the whole reason the world and everything in it was created.

This sounds horrible, I know, and many Christians will argue against this. But I have investigated the issue and I can come to no other conclusion from reading the Scriptures.

Yes, yes, we get it, you're very Emo. Good for you.

I truely hope you're not a parent. If you are, then Dog have mercy on your offspring.
Why would there be anything to worry about? Plenty of kids go through a nihilistic "goth" phase, and they come out just fine in the end. I'm sure the kids would very enthusiastically support his humanity-hating beliefs during their angst-ridden adolescence, but eventually they would get bored in the same way that one gets bored after listening to Smashing Pumpkins on loop for 4 years.

Well, since my "death-cult" has been around since Saint Augustine (Paul if you include the early Church) and has included Luther, Calvin, Edwards and all of today's Presbyterians and Reformed Chrisitians, I think that I might have a little more insight than you think I do. I could be wrong (theoretically) so you don't need to agree with me. But consider it, just the same.Let's see.. X famous wankers were evil Christians (according to you), thus all of humanity is evil.

Yes, that makes... Absolutely no sense at all. And what the hell gives you the right to judge everyone? You may well be an evil sinner, but I most definitly am not. There is no such thing as sin & I don't purposefully harm people - not even nutters like yourself.

I truely hope you're not a parent. If you are, then Dog have mercy on your offspring.

I hope He does have mercy on them (if I ever have any):

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on a human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

Romans 9:14-16 (English Standard Version)

Why would there be anything to worry about? Plenty of kids go through a nihilistic "goth" phase, and they come out just fine in the end. I'm sure the kids would very enthusiastically support his humanity-hating beliefs during their angst-ridden adolescence, but eventually they would get bored in the same way that one gets bored after listening to Smashing Pumpkins on loop for 4 years.Yea.. Or they take it that one step further, and go around mauling homosexuals, a-religious people, the "wrong" religious people & whomever else they feel like.

Let's see.. X famous wankers were evil Christians (according to you), thus all of humanity is evil.

Yes, that makes... Absolutely no sense at all. And what the hell gives you the right to judge everyone? You may well be an evil sinner, but I most definitly am not. There is no such thing as sin & I don't purposefully harm people - not even nutters like yourself.

...as it is written: "None is righteous, no not one; no one understands; no one seeks God. All have truned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."

Romans 3:10-12 (English Standard Version)

-among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Ephesians 2:3 (English Standard Version)

...as it is written: "None is righteous, no not one; no one understands; no one seeks God. All have truned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."

Romans 3:10-12 (English Standard Version)

-among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Ephesians 2:3 (English Standard Version)...as it is written: "Not one Biblical quote, rant or source is true. All who seek God are deluded & need mental help. Together they are worthless; no one does good, not even one."

Similization 1:01-1 (English Standard VErsion)

-Blither gibber blabber twiddle etc, AKA Orthodox Christians are insane.

Similization 1:01-2

Raping the land and pillaging the women? :eek:
Those ARE evil men. *nods solemnly*

Well, obviously. Raping women would be mean and unpleasant, whereas some people seem to like a little bit of getting pillaged. :)

SNIP...

This sounds horrible, I know, and many Christians will argue against this. But I have investigated the issue and I can come to no other conclusion from reading the Scriptures.

There is actually another rather obvious conclusion to be drawn from reading the scriptures... maybe one day you'd figure it out on your own but i'll try to save you some time:

They were written by bloodthirsty patriarchal tribesmen a very long time ago, and are simply a rather cruel fable. the fable contains many potentially important moral messages about how people can live together in a functioning society. However the fable also contains an awful lot of drivel, including the great condensing of "everything we don't understand and can't explain" into a single word: "God".
This God has been imbued with various anthropomorphic traits including among others: wrath, jealousy, and the ability to communicate directly with people. Odd how traits regarded as deadly sins in humans are merely evidence of how awesome "God" is when applied to "Him", and that perhaps the most important tool for convincing people of his existance has not been used outside his own fable.

Even religious people are atheist regarding most of the gods ever worshipped by humanity, regarding the belief in deities such as the norse gods or shamanistic practices as foolish, flawed and superstitious. Why can't they make the logical step and apply the same logic to their own beliefs? There really is no difference.

Yes, I believe in God! After all, if I didn't, then the voices I'm hearing that're telling me to kill everyone would mean that I was crazy!
Seriously though, yes, I am a Believer.

Yet I do. So you're just evading doing what you need to do, which is providing the evidence for your claim.

Oh--I'm not assuming that something is disproven simply because it can't be proven. That's what we who know what fallacies are call a "strawman". However, I know that you can't even coherently define for me "god" without delving into logical fallacies or inconsistencies (which, of course, makes your claim null and void a priori).

So thanks for being a coward and not providing the evidence for your claim.

No - he's got you on this one.

I'm an Agnostic Atheist, so I have no vested interest either way - but the 'definition' of the fallacy agree with Jocabia, here.

There is actually another rather obvious conclusion to be drawn from reading the scriptures... maybe one day you'd figure it out on your own but i'll try to save you some time:

They were written by bloodthirsty patriarchal tribesmen a very long time ago, and are simply a rather cruel fable. the fable contains many potentially important moral messages about how people can live together in a functioning society. However the fable also contains an awful lot of drivel, including the great condensing of "everything we don't understand and can't explain" into a single word: "God".
This God has been imbued with various anthropomorphic traits including among others: wrath, jealousy, and the ability to communicate directly with people. Odd how traits regarded as deadly sins in humans are merely evidence of how awesome "God" is when applied to "Him", and that perhaps the most important tool for convincing people of his existance has not been used outside his own fable.

Even religious people are atheist regarding most of the gods ever worshipped by humanity, regarding the belief in deities such as the norse gods or shamanistic practices as foolish, flawed and superstitious. Why can't they make the logical step and apply the same logic to their own beliefs? There really is no difference.

Faith is the answer when it comes to this part of the argument. I can't tell you why I beleive it. I just do. All my arguments for believeing can be thrown to the wind by you and all that would be left is my faith. That is either very satisfying to you because you have made me look like an uneducated fool or it is very unsatisfying because you cannot break me (yet :p ).

Sorry to cut the argument short, but that's what it comes down to: what do you have faith in? It appears you have faith in yourself. I have faith in God. Whose faith is better placed?

:eek: I can't believe this is still going.

I thought threads generally had a 3,000 post limit? Or did I make that up?

'There is no mere human who walked this earth, is walking this earth, or will walk this earth who is good. Every mere human is evil. All our thoughts, actions, desires, motives, words, etc. are influenced and are tainted by sin. That influence brings us under the Curse of the Fall, or spiritual death.

We deserve to be blotted out of physical existence the moment we our concieved because of that nature. But God is merciful. He allows us to remain living. God was merciful to your friend by not giving her the eternal torment she deserves from the moment she was concieved. He was also just in giving her some torment. This was to the glory of God and His attributes, which is the whole reason the world and everything in it was created.

This sounds horrible, I know, and many Christians will argue against this. But I have investigated the issue and I can come to no other conclusion from reading the Scriptures.'

Then the obvious conclusion that I drew is, this scripture is plainly wrong.

I'm just waiting for the rest to show up. this might be a first. both sides joining together to beat what appears to be a Troll.

Unity at last! :D

It certainly looks like a troll - but it wouldn't be the first time we've joined forces to read the sacred book of Malleus Trollificarium...

'There is no mere human who walked this earth, is walking this earth, or will walk this earth who is good. Every mere human is evil. All our thoughts, actions, desires, motives, words, etc. are influenced and are tainted by sin. That influence brings us under the Curse of the Fall, or spiritual death.

We deserve to be blotted out of physical existence the moment we our concieved because of that nature. But God is merciful. He allows us to remain living. God was merciful to your friend by not giving her the eternal torment she deserves from the moment she was concieved. He was also just in giving her some torment. This was to the glory of God and His attributes, which is the whole reason the world and everything in it was created.

This sounds horrible, I know, and many Christians will argue against this. But I have investigated the issue and I can come to no other conclusion from reading the Scriptures.'

Then the obvious conclusion that I drew is, this scripture is plainly wrong.
My conclusion was that the chappies who wrote the Scripture were having a bad weekend.

I mean, think about how you would feel after Jezebel turned you down for like the 10th time, and then turned around and went out with Maziekiel? Or after Jesus totally didn't even mention your name during his dinner speech, even though you were the one who held his hair for him after he turned a little too much water into wine? Or after Yahweh sent another fucking swarm of locusts, and you had just gotten finished planting the kitchen garden?

I think some of these authors were feeling unapprieciated and unloved. Grunge rock had yet to be invented, and there was no My Space for them to post poems about how dark and painful life is, so what other outlet did they have?

:eek: I can't believe this is still going.

I thought threads generally had a 3,000 post limit? Or did I make that up?

I remember an abortion thread that reached 500 pages once.

Those were the days. :cool:

Then the obvious conclusion that I drew is, this scripture is plainly wrong.

Well, since Scripture is the divinely inspired word of God, it is infallible and therefore does not have the capacity to be wrong.

SNIP...
Sorry to cut the argument short, but that's what it comes down to: what do you have faith in? It appears you have faith in yourself. I have faith in God. Whose faith is better placed?

I would say I have faith in Humanity, all that we are capable of that is good and valuable, but I have a misanthropic streak which tends to assume that people will not always work for what is good and noble unless they see reward in it for themselves.

I find sufficient wonder in how fantastically, mind bogglingly unlikely my own existence is, and that of all the people and animals around me. The unbroken chain of ancestors back to the beginning of life on earth, the chance meetings of those ancestors at the right time, the fact that not one of them fell victim to accident, disease or predation before reproducing in all that massive, awe-inspiring depth of time.
That is what puzzles me about religious types, not people who have some faith in there being something more to existance than lucky coincidence, (I can understand it being difficult to accept that everything is just down to chance and the innate properties of the universe.) people who honestly, deeply believe that there are real, meaningful answers in books, containing so much that is obviously pure fantasy, written by men long turned to dust, about societies that are no longer in existance, that can explain anything about the nature of the universe, or how we should live our lives.

To quote Richard Dawkins: I find quite enough beauty and wonder in the garden without having to believe there are faries at the bottom of it as well.

Well, since Scripture is the divinely inspired word of God, it is infallible and therefore does not have the capacity to be wrong.
I just hope you were being sarcastic, because if you are serious, you just promulgate the belief that everyone who believes in God has "blind faith." Like the new NOFX song: "...You're wrong|Fighting jihad| Your blind faith in God| Your religions are all flawed|..." If you don't have a reason for believing something, you're an idiot and you'll never question it, so you'll never know one way or the other. Even the bible tells you to test everything. There is a way to know whether God exists or not. If God exists (and He does) and wanted us to follow his instructions, don't you think that he would provide a way to turn faith into knowledge, just like any scientific theory? As for the original poster, why is death bad? Do you know anyone over the age of 120?

Well, since Scripture is the divinely inspired word of God, it is infallible and therefore does not have the capacity to be wrong.

And you call yourself a christian? God gave these books as prophecy to man. Most of the Bible is written directly from Moses's "visions" of god, but that's just the old testament. God says man is fallible. He gives prophecy to man, who needless to say is fallible. They have to remember it with their fallible mind, and write it with their fallible hands which also made the fallible papyrus. THE WHOLE FRICKIN BIBLE IS FALLIBLE!!!

I would say I have faith in Humanity, all that we are capable of that is good and valuable, but I have a misanthropic streak which tends to assume that people will not always work for what is good and noble unless they see reward in it for themselves.

I find sufficient wonder in how fantastically, mind bogglingly unlikely my own existence is, and that of all the people and animals around me. The unbroken chain of ancestors back to the beginning of life on earth, the chance meetings of those ancestors at the right time, the fact that not one of them fell victim to accident, disease or predation before reproducing in all that massive, awe-inspiring depth of time.
That is what puzzles me about religious types, not people who have some faith in there being something more to existance than lucky coincidence, (I can understand it being difficult to accept that everything is just down to chance and the innate properties of the universe.) people who honestly, deeply believe that there are real, meaningful answers in books, containing so much that is obviously pure fantasy, written by men long turned to dust, about societies that are no longer in existance, that can explain anything about the nature of the universe, or how we should live our lives.

To quote Richard Dawkins: I find quite enough beauty and wonder in the garden without having to believe there are faries at the bottom of it as well.

I understand your views, though I disagree.

I just hope you were being sarcastic, because if you are serious, you just promulgate the belief that everyone who believes in God has "blind faith." Like the new NOFX song: "...You're wrong|Fighting jihad| Your blind faith in God| Your religions are all flawed|..." If you don't have a reason for believing something, you're an idiot and you'll never question it, so you'll never know one way or the other. Even the bible tells you to test everything. There is a way to know whether God exists or not. If God exists (and He does) and wanted us to follow his instructions, don't you think that he would provide a way to turn faith into knowledge, just like any scientific theory? As for the original poster, why is death bad? Do you know anyone over the age of 120?

I'm not sure I understand your point.

Not all persons who believe in a god believe in God. And there are many scientific theories which go along with the Bible quite well. Could you pease clarify?

And you call yourself a christian? God gave these books as prophecy to man. Most of the Bible is written directly from Moses's "visions" of god, but that's just the old testament. God says man is fallible. He gives prophecy to man, who needless to say is fallible. They have to remember it with their fallible mind, and write it with their fallible hands which also made the fallible papyrus. THE WHOLE FRICKIN BIBLE IS FALLIBLE!!!

If God cared enough to give these prophecies, wouldn't He care enough to make sure they remained untainted?

yes it does.
1 Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan-
2 The people walking in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death [a]
a light has dawned.

Right there. Isaiah 9: 1-2 the fortelling of Jesus arriving to Galilee.

I think the point is supposed to be that, just 'being there' is a hell of a stretch to equate to 'honouring' Galilee.

The problem with Christian claims to 'prophecy fulfilled', is that it is retrospective - thus, you can shape the earlier prophecy to fit the events.... or in some cases, you can shape something that isn't EVEN prophecy, to suit the events.

Example - the virgin birth, which is based on something that isn't a prophecy of Messiah, at all... and a poor Greek translation, at that.

So - the Isaiah 9 argument is that Jesus going to Galilee, doesn't fulfill the prophecy for 'honour'... unless you seriously stretch what the prophet MIGHT have meant, to include 'just being there'.

'There is no mere human who walked this earth, is walking this earth, or will walk this earth who is good. Every mere human is evil. All our thoughts, actions, desires, motives, words, etc. are influenced and are tainted by sin. That influence brings us under the Curse of the Fall, or spiritual death.

We deserve to be blotted out of physical existence the moment we our concieved because of that nature. But God is merciful. He allows us to remain living. God was merciful to your friend by not giving her the eternal torment she deserves from the moment she was concieved. He was also just in giving her some torment. This was to the glory of God and His attributes, which is the whole reason the world and everything in it was created.

This sounds horrible, I know, and many Christians will argue against this. But I have investigated the issue and I can come to no other conclusion from reading the Scriptures.'

Then the obvious conclusion that I drew is, this scripture is plainly wrong.
:eek:

What is your conclusion apart from reading the Scriptures (i.e. before you did)?

THE SCRIPTURE IN ISAIAH CONSTITUTES A PROPHECY. IT IS PREDICTING THE FUTURE BY WAY OF DIVINE REVELATION, THEREFORE IT IS A PROPHECY.
Matthew never invented Isaiah. Please demonstrate how his removal of the preceding and following passages means that the prophecy wasn't a prophecy in the first place and was only made prophecy when Matthew removed the context.

Is it a prophecy of MESSIAH, judging by the context?

If God cared enough to give these prophecies, wouldn't He care enough to make sure they remained untainted?

Probably, but what would he do? Embody them? Manipulate them? I do believe you said in Harry Potter that that's WRONG, to use miracles or magic to do something for their own wellbeing?

BK, the child in Isaiah 8:3 is never referenced as being the Messiah or Jesus or Immanuel. I know that at the end of that bit, it says "O Immanuel", but it was referring to the child in third person previously and would not now switch to second person just to prove your bizarre little point.

That's actually the point....

Well, since Scripture is the divinely inspired word of God, it is infallible and therefore does not have the capacity to be wrong.

this is the work of either a troll or a tragically ill informed person.

Assuming that you are simply ill informed, or unschooled in the ways of rudimentary reasoning here goes:

On what do you base the assertion that the scriptures are divinely inspired?
I assume some passage within the scriptures themselves.

How does this differ from me writing down on any random piece of paper that god spoke to me from a burning... ummm... stolen car, that'll do. And told me that I was the one true messiah. Then persuading some friends to write corroborating statements on that piece of paper (other gospels) and declaring my work divinely inspired?

Just because a lot of other people have been wrong in the same way, and for a long time, and you happen to be deeply attached to the untruth, does not magically transform it into truth.

You cannot honestly or logically use the bible to verify itself.

Well, since Scripture is the divinely inspired word of God, it is infallible and therefore does not have the capacity to be wrong.

But, how do we KNOW it is the word of God?

Because it says so.

And how do we KNOW it is telling the truth when it says so?

Because it is the word of God.

And, how do we KNOW it is the word of God?


The problem is - you have to plead special exception... you have to claim that the Bible is not subject to all the usual rule for examining a text, and you have to claim that 'special exception' based on content WITHIN the text.

It's circular logic.

Probably, but what would he do? Embody them? Manipulate them? I do believe you said in Harry Potter that that's WRONG, to use miracles or magic to do something for their own wellbeing?

First, I was talking about magic in literature. Rather than using magic for service of God (as the Elves do in LotR) Potter and his friends use it for themselves.

Second, any magic in this world is wrong, yes.

Third, God's power is not the same as magic.

So, since (from my Calvinist perspective) the whole earth was made to glorify God and promote His well being (in the absolute loosest sense of that word), He can do what He wants to insure that well being. And that doesn't mean God manipulated them, so much as He kept the writers from error or fallacy.

this is the work of either a troll or a tragically ill informed person.

Assuming that you are simply ill informed, or unschooled in the ways of rudimentary reasoning here goes:

On what do you base the assertion that the scriptures are divinely inspired?
I assume some passage within the scriptures themselves.

How does this differ from me writing down on any random piece of paper that god spoke to me from a burning... ummm... stolen car, that'll do. And told me that I was the one true messiah. Then persuading some friends to write corroborating statements on that piece of paper (other gospels) and declaring my work divinely inspired?

Just because a lot of other people have been wrong in the same way, and for a long time, and you happen to be deeply attached to the untruth, does not magically transform it into truth.

You cannot honestly or logically use the bible to verify itself.

Again, it comes to faith. I'm sorry you probably don't like that, but...

First, I was talking about magic in literature. Rather than using magic for service of God (as the Elves do in LotR) Potter and his friends use it for themselves.

Second, any magic in this world is wrong, yes.

Third, God's power is not the same as magic.

So, since (from my Calvinist perspective) the whole earth was made to glorify God and promote His well being (in the absolute loosest sense of that word), He can do what He wants to insure that well being. And that doesn't mean God manipulated them, so much as He kept the writers from error or fallacy.

Which is plainly untrue, as you'd know, if you'd ever taken the time to read the scripture in the native tongues, in comparison to the English 'versions'...

Again, it comes to faith. I'm sorry you probably don't like that, but...

It isn't a matter of 'not liking it'... you wouldn't allow the same argument for the Koran, now would you?

But, how do we KNOW it is the word of God?

Because it says so.

And how do we KNOW it is telling the truth when it says so?

Because it is the word of God.

And, how do we KNOW it is the word of God?


The problem is - you have to plead special exception... you have to claim that the Bible is not subject to all the usual rule for examining a text, and you have to claim that 'special exception' based on content WITHIN the text.

It's circular logic.

Okay! From the beginning!

God changes my heart.
I believe Jesus is my Lord and Savior.
How can I know this is true? I know it through faith, but there is confirmation from another source: the Bible.
How can I know that this is true? How can it confirm what I believe? It can only if it is true.
How do I know it is true? The only way it is totally true is if God (the only perfect Being) were to be the Source of this confirmation.
And if He is the Source, then the whole of the Bible must be true.
And if He cared enough to give us Scripture in the first place, surely He would care enough to make sure that it remained untainted by human hands, though human hands wrote it.

I would say I have faith in Humanity, all that we are capable of that is good and valuable, but I have a misanthropic streak which tends to assume that people will not always work for what is good and noble unless they see reward in it for themselves.

I find sufficient wonder in how fantastically, mind bogglingly unlikely my own existence is, and that of all the people and animals around me. The unbroken chain of ancestors back to the beginning of life on earth, the chance meetings of those ancestors at the right time, the fact that not one of them fell victim to accident, disease or predation before reproducing in all that massive, awe-inspiring depth of time.
That is what puzzles me about religious types, not people who have some faith in there being something more to existance than lucky coincidence, (I can understand it being difficult to accept that everything is just down to chance and the innate properties of the universe.) people who honestly, deeply believe that there are real, meaningful answers in books, containing so much that is obviously pure fantasy, written by men long turned to dust, about societies that are no longer in existance, that can explain anything about the nature of the universe, or how we should live our lives.

To quote Richard Dawkins: I find quite enough beauty and wonder in the garden without having to believe there are faries at the bottom of it as well.
to deal with the bolded part...

thats because you dont understand probability and biology.

once life got started, the existance of multicelled organisms developing over the course of 3 billion years wasnt particularily unlikely

once any form of intelligence got going, the development of enough intelligence to invent computers and the internet isnt mindbogglingly unlikely.

that it turned out to be human or indeed YOU (not that you invented the internet) is irrelevant. one big fight between your parents and you would never have existed.

for example, its extremely unlikely that YOU will win big lottery jackpot and yet SOMEONE does. it is, in fact, quite likely that over the course of a few years that SOMEONE will win the lottery TWICE. and it has indeed happened several times since this big wave of lotteries started in the US. its unlikely to happen to you but certain to happen to SOMEONE.

you should never confuse the probability that something will happen to YOU with the probability that it will happen to SOMEONE. if intelligence had evolved in parrots rather than primates, THEY would be marvelling at how unlikely it was.

Which is plainly untrue, as you'd know, if you'd ever taken the time to read the scripture in the native tongues, in comparison to the English 'versions'...

Have you? Or are you just trusting some Bible-basher?

That's why there are so many versions, because each one translates differently, which is why there are scholars, who we must trust, to tell us which translation is best. However, if at all possible, we ought to learn the original languages and read the originals ourselves.

It isn't a matter of 'not liking it'... you wouldn't allow the same argument for the Koran, now would you?

Of course I would allow it! I believe their faith is misplaced, but they have faith in it.

And if He cared enough to give us Scripture in the first place, surely He would care enough to make sure that it remained untainted by human hands, though human hands wrote it.
too bad he doesnt care enough to give us some clarifications. especially on those things that really trip christians up.

things like

do jews go to heaven?

is infant baptism the way to go or should we wait until they are adults? and what if they die before they get the chance to be baptised?

what about islam, did he send mohammed or not?

are we really saved by grace alone or is there a "good deeds" requirement and what mix is necessary if any?

2000 years is a long time to wait. it would be so simple of him to send us the answers instead of relying on works that were written in greek based on things said in aramaic. stuff gets lost in translation, he knows that.

too bad he doesnt care enough to give us some clarifications. especially on those things that really trip christians up.

things like

do jews go to heaven?

is infant baptism the way to go or should we wait until they are adults? and what if they die before they get the chance to be baptised?

what about islam, did he send mohammed or not?

are we really saved by grace alone or is there a "good deeds" requirement and what mix is necessary if any?

2000 years is a long time to wait. it would be so simple of him to send us the answers instead of relying on works that were written in greek based on things said in aramaic. stuff gets lost in translation, he knows that.

The only issue that you metioned that is truly an issue in the Christian community is whether to allow infant baptism or not.

Jews who reject Christ as the Messiah will not go to heaven.
Death before baptism does not prevent one from going to heaven.
God did not send Mohammed (in the conventional use of the word "send")
And good deeds are the result of being saved.

And God left out what he wanted to leave out. For what reason, I do not know. But I will know in heaven.

The only issue that you metioned that is truly an issue in the Christian community is whether to allow infant baptism or not.

Jews who reject Christ as the Messiah will not go to heaven.
Death before baptism does not prevent one from going to heaven.
God did not send Mohammed (in the conventional use of the word "send")
And good deeds are the result of being saved.

And God left out what he wanted to leave out. For what reason, I do not know. But I will know in heaven.
i think they are ALL issues that it would be nice of god to clarify

you have your answers, thats nice. maybe they are right; maybe they are wrong. if it were clear what god meant in the scriptures there would be no heresy nor religious wars.

the scriptures are so imperfect that they lead even great scholars to different conclusions. if god gave them to us as a guide, its pretty lacking in usefulness once you get past "love god, love everyone else".

Ince again, this is only flawed to you.
You seem to instantly label any concept that you dont understand, as flawed.

Let me rephrase it:

To date, the pink Unicorn has not been discovered whatsoever.
Millions and Billions have searched, and all of them have come up empty.
The only consolation they have is whatever they have convinced themselves to believe.






My dear, it isnt that Im refusing to consider anything you are suggesting, its that you are suggesting something that I have already done, a million times, always with the same results.

Please do not consider me spiritually inept, or bereft of peace of mind, becuase of my views towards the existance of God.







Funny, I see it as you who refuse to listen to me, but the more likelier scenario, is we dont understand each other.

If you wish to not continue our conversation, so be it.
However, I would consider that a shame.

One final thought for you:

Im sure you can agree, that deciding to worship something, isnt something anyone should do lightly, or without deadly serious contemplation.
Im sure you would also agree that there isnt any proof of God's existance.

So, why would anyone make such an important choice, if there isnt anything to give any kind of indication that such devotion isnt wasted on nothing?

The problem isn't about worship. That's just it. You aren't reacting to what I'm saying. You're not even talking to me. What matters to you is what Christianity MUST be in your eyes. Until you're willing to talk about what I believe instead of what you want to argue against, we're not going to get anywhere. When an Atheist tells me what I MUST believe as a Christian, well, let's just say it's not very productive.

Okay! From the beginning!

God changes my heart.
I believe Jesus is my Lord and Savior.
How can I know this is true? I know it through faith, but there is confirmation from another source: the Bible.
How can I know that this is true? How can it confirm what I believe? It can only if it is true.
How do I know it is true? The only way it is totally true is if God (the only perfect Being) were to be the Source of this confirmation.
And if He is the Source, then the whole of the Bible must be true.
And if He cared enough to give us Scripture in the first place, surely He would care enough to make sure that it remained untainted by human hands, though human hands wrote it.

Your argument is not true.

1) God changes my heart: The TRUTH is that you feel different in some fashion... some spiritual fashion, perhaps. You ATTRIBUTE this change to God. I wonder WHY you would make that attribution? Would you make that attribution of you had never heard of God?

2) I believe Jesus is my Lord and Savior: The TRUTH is that you are willing to ACCEPT JEsus as Lord and Saviour... but that wasn't a decision you came to without first being given 'information' from an outside source.

3) How can I know this is true? I know it through faith, but there is confirmation from another source: the Bible.

The TRUTH is - the Bible is the root of your faith. If no one had ever mentioned Jesus to you, or told you about the good word - you would not have spontaneously decided that Jesus existed. Thus - you are not talking TWO sources... just one.

4) How can I know that this is true? How can it confirm what I believe? It can only if it is true. The TRUTH is - if it confirms what you already believe, you would accept it anyway... whether or not it is true. If people keep telling me the sky is blue, and I see a blue sky - I won't question their assertions. The assertions I would question, would be those who claimed a red sky...

5) How do I know it is true? The only way it is totally true is if God (the only perfect Being) were to be the Source of this confirmation. The TRUTH is - you know that things can be 'true' without the need for direct interaction from God - so that argument is bull.

But - here we arrive at the crux of the matter - you BELIEVE it is totally true, and you BELIEVE it can ONLY be totally true IF God dictated it. Your claims are belief, nothing more - and they certainly are not logical. See the above post for WHY.

6) And if He is the Source, then the whole of the Bible must be true.

The TRUTH is: The whole of the Bible MIGHT have been true in the Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. But, you are reading a translation made by men.

Also - if God dictated the Bible, he still dictated it to men - who are flawed creatures. Even if the MESSAGE was true... that doesn't mean the written VERSION is true.

7) And if He cared enough to give us Scripture in the first place, surely He would care enough to make sure that it remained untainted by human hands, though human hands wrote it...

Because you wish it to be so? It isn't a matter of 'care'... as you said yourself, it is a matter of FAITH. God might WISH it to become to corrupted, so that those who 'see past all the corruption, will believe without seeing', no?

And, as I've said - the human hands HAVE tainted it. It's evident easily, if you compare the native langauges to the mass-market versions of today.

to deal with the bolded part...

thats because you dont understand probability and biology.

once life got started, the existance of multicelled organisms developing over the course of 3 billion years wasnt particularily unlikely

once any form of intelligence got going, the development of enough intelligence to invent computers and the internet isnt mindbogglingly unlikely.

that it turned out to be human or indeed YOU (not that you invented the internet) is irrelevant. one big fight between your parents and you would never have existed.

for example, its extremely unlikely that YOU will win big lottery jackpot and yet SOMEONE does. it is, in fact, quite likely that over the course of a few years that SOMEONE will win the lottery TWICE. and it has indeed happened several times since this big wave of lotteries started in the US. its unlikely to happen to you but certain to happen to SOMEONE.

you should never confuse the probability that something will happen to YOU with the probability that it will happen to SOMEONE. if intelligence had evolved in parrots rather than primates, THEY would be marvelling at how unlikely it was.

Sorry to give that impression. I was indeed referring to specific individuals rather than populations of organisims. I have a reasonable background in biology (undergraduate level) and have some appreciation of the mechanisims by which complexity can arise through evolution.
My sense of awe arises from an awareness of how unlikely THIS particular set of events is, and how fortunate I am that some "big fight" never occurred at the wrong moment between my parents, or indeed whoever my ancestors out on the savannah a million years ago were, or any of the multitudinous sets of ancestors in between.

My reference to other animals was merely an acknowledgement that the same can be said for any individual who has ever lived, of any species.

Liar.

Do you have any arguments at all that I didn't kill already? Please provide me with ONE at least. I'm bored with your repetition of arguments I've already killed.

Yes, yes I do. And this time, how about if you're claiming strawman, you say WHY it's you believe it's a strawman and how what I'm arguing against is different than what you're saying. Or if I'm a liar, how you demonstrate where I've lied. Or if I'm idiot, you address the actual argument anyway. Or if I'm embarrassing myself, you address the actual argument anyway.

Or keep trolling. It's your choice, but obviously the first would make you a far more impressive debator.

No, I'm not. You can quote what you think is a claim, but it's actually just part of reality. Knowledge implies that you have some means to demonstrate it. That's what knowledge means.[/quote
[b]No, it doesn't. You made that up.[b] I showed you something I KNOW and can't demonstrate. You ignored it. See you made a claim. I gave you a positive and repeatable example of something counter to that claim. That makes it falsified.

Here's another example -
I'm thinking of a number. I tell you what that number is. I know a couple of things I cannot prove. I know what number I was thinking of. I know whether it was the same as the number that I told you. I can't evidence either one of those things I know without doubt.


Oh, hey, your toilet paper ran out of fallacies so you have to start repeating.

Amusing. So are you actually NOT claiming that anything that we know can be proven? You don't believe that to be true? Then why did you say it?



Let me teach you something about debate. It takes more than simply claiming that everything everyone says who doesn't agree with you is false. If they give evidence and you don't. You lose. I evidenced my claims. I evidenced your claims were false. You simply declared everything I said to be false with no evidence. That's called losing a debate.

No, I did not. You also gave me exactly nothing.

Now please kill your strawman. It makes me laugh to think that you actually believe your strawman is valid.

Let me teach you something about debate: fallacies kill arguments. And you've used one fallacy after another. So go back, learn what not to do, and get back to me.

Look, ma, dropped arguments. Hey, don't bother debating. Just keep making things up. It's fun. I'm thoroughly enjoying it.
Yeah--that's precisely what you're doing. You're just dropping arguments and making things up. I wonder why you enjoy doing it.

The italics are the part you left out when you quoted my post. Included in that post are arguments you dropped - namely -

1. I showed you something I KNOW and can't demonstrate. You ignored it. See you made a claim [that knowledge implies you have some way to demonstrate it]. I gave you a positive and repeatable example of something counter to that claim. That makes it falsified.

You drop this completely out. I guess that's what pass for debate at your round table.

1a. I'm thinking of a number. I tell you what that number is. I know a couple of things I cannot prove. I know what number I was thinking of. I know whether it was the same as the number that I told you. I can't evidence either one of those things I know without doubt.

Here is another example, a true life, actual example, that shows that one can have knowledge that is NOT demonstrable.

2. Are you claiming that anything can be known can be proven? Because when I made that claim you called it a strawman and ignored it (which would mean it is not an argument you made).

Reason I asked the question -

I made no claim.


Yes, you are. I'll quote the claim.


And if you know god is real you can prove god is real. If you cannot, don't make the claim. It's that simple.


In other words you claim if God is real he must emperically proven. The obvious conclusion of such claim is that since is he isn't emperically proven he is not real. And you were asked to prove such a claim. See there are four possible outcomes here, but you try to pretend like there are only two -

God is real, we can prove it.
God is real, we can't prove it.
God is not real, we can prove it.
God is not real, we can't prove it.

You seem to forget that absent of emperical proof God can still exist. Beings are very rarely defined by our knowledge of them. Or did the platypus not exist until it could be proven to exist?

Your reply look like this.
Yes, you are.

No, I'm not. You can quote what you think is a claim, but it's actually just part of reality. Knowledge implies that you have some means to demonstrate it. That's what knowledge means.

Oh well-looks like you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

And you seem to be operating under your strawman view of what I've been saying. Here's a torch so you can set fire to it and stop using it.

Notice you dropped most of my argument there too. And you accused me of a strawman when I simply addressed that you said one cannot know something without proof.

3. One can have knowledge without emperical proof.

A counter to your claim which I abundantly proved to be true. You ignored it and claimed the fact I even made the argument was a strawman. Interesting when I quoted when you actually said knowledge must have proof.

Amusingly, you pretend as if you can't fathom why someone would drop arguments. I have now proved you dropped several. I suppose now I'll get another reply that is essentially, "I know you are, but what am I."

Have you? Or are you just trusting some Bible-basher?

That's why there are so many versions, because each one translates differently, which is why there are scholars, who we must trust, to tell us which translation is best. However, if at all possible, we ought to learn the original languages and read the originals ourselves.

Yes. I have read it in the native tongues because I don't believe the propagandists selling the bible version, and I don't trust the propagandists selling the bible-bashing version.

Must we trust scholars? I think not - and I think the New Testament carries a message that reinforces MY opinion.

Have YOU read the native versions?

Of course I would allow it! I believe their faith is misplaced, but they have faith in it.

So - the fact that the Koran is the literal inspired word of god, has no conflict for you?

What irony is that?

Oh--you mean the irony of an unsupported statement being simply responded to with "no", as is proper? Wow--you really don't know what irony is, do you?

The irony of a statement claiming your just being contrary being responded to in a contrary manner. I'm quite positive I know what irony is. There are better trolls, but I'll give you points for entertainment value.

You know you don't have to troll. You have much to say and you've proven that you've got some good information (not in reply to me, but I think even you recognize when you're outgunned). If you'd choose to leave out all the flawed accusations and contradiction, you'd actually quite a compelling poster. Why do you make such a strong effort to cover your own arguments in mud?

Jews who reject Christ as the Messiah will not go to heaven.


What about those 'saints' elected BEFORE the coming of Messiah?


Death before baptism does not prevent one from going to heaven.


But surely, the only way to heaven, is to believe on the Christ?


God did not send Mohammed (in the conventional use of the word "send")


Why? Because you say so?


And good deeds are the result of being saved.


So - it is impossible to do 'a good deed' unless you ARE saved?

Sorry to give that impression. I was indeed referring to specific individuals rather than populations of organisims. I have a reasonable background in biology (undergraduate level) and have some appreciation of the mechanisims by which complexity can arise through evolution.

My sense of awe arises from an awareness of how unlikely THIS particular set of events is, and how fortunate I am that some "big fight" never occurred at the wrong moment between my parents, or indeed whoever my ancestors out on the savannah a million years ago were, or any of the multitudinous sets of ancestors in between.

My reference to other animals was merely an acknowledgement that the same can be said for any individual who has ever lived, of any species.
Fortunate is right.

So - the fact that the Koran is the literal inspired word of god, has no conflict for you?

I have no problem with them using that argument, though I disagree.

I find sufficient wonder in how fantastically, mind bogglingly unlikely my own existence is, and that of all the people and animals around me. The unbroken chain of ancestors back to the beginning of life on earth, the chance meetings of those ancestors at the right time, the fact that not one of them fell victim to accident, disease or predation before reproducing in all that massive, awe-inspiring depth of time.
For it to happen "at the right time" implies that there is a set time for it to happen: this is a statement of fate. It is repeated in the idea that these people stayed alive long enough to make the next step in the plan happen.

Rather than your existence being unlikely, it is fate that is generally dismissed in the modern world as unlikely --the idea that things are laid out in advance in a plan for us to fulfill.

Yes. I have read it in the native tongues because I don't believe the propagandists selling the bible version, and I don't trust the propagandists selling the bible-bashing version.

Must we trust scholars? I think not - and I think the New Testament carries a message that reinforces MY opinion.

Have YOU read the native versions?

No I haven't which is why I am gathering resources on Ancient Greek, Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic. "Secular" resources.

I think the point is supposed to be that, just 'being there' is a hell of a stretch to equate to 'honouring' Galilee.except when you consider the times as well as the people there. for example, the animostiy towards the Gentiles at that time. Jesus was said to have started preaching when he got to Galilee.

The problem with Christian claims to 'prophecy fulfilled', is that it is retrospective - thus, you can shape the earlier prophecy to fit the events.... or in some cases, you can shape something that isn't EVEN prophecy, to suit the events.True, most Prophecy are not reconized as such because of how they are worded.

Example - the virgin birth, which is based on something that isn't a prophecy of Messiah, at all... and a poor Greek translation, at that.agreed, I haven't encountered anything in the OT that mentions a Virgin Birth.

So - the Isaiah 9 argument is that Jesus going to Galilee, doesn't fulfill the prophecy for 'honour'... unless you seriously stretch what the prophet MIGHT have meant, to include 'just being there'.I believe it's more of just being there, but the fact he started his teaching there.

What about those 'saints' elected BEFORE the coming of Messiah?



But surely, the only way to heaven, is to believe on the Christ?



Why? Because you say so?



So - it is impossible to do 'a good deed' unless you ARE saved?

Those elected before the coming of the Messiah are saved by their faith in God as He had reveled Himself up to that time.

Yes, the only way to heaven is to believe in Christ, but baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality. A Christian ought to be baptized, but s/he doens't need to be.

Because Mohammed denied the Trinity and other basic Christian beliefs. God does not send prophets who contridict what former ones have said. Therefore, God did not send Mohammed.

Good deeds are those that are done because God commands it. So even if you save a baby from a burning building, if you are not doing it because God would want you to, it is not a good deed. It's a better deed, but not good.

Those elected before the coming of the Messiah are saved by their faith in God as He had reveled Himself up to that time.

Yes, the only way to heaven is to believe in Christ, but baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality. A Christian ought to be baptized, but s/he doens't need to be.

Because Mohammed denied the Trinity and other basic Christian beliefs. God does not send prophets who contridict what former ones have said. Therefore, God did not send Mohammed.

Good deeds are those that are done because God commands it. So even if you save a baby from a burning building, if you are not doing it because God would want you to, it is not a good deed. It's a better deed, but not good.
Contradict? Like Paul? Paul called long hair an abomination. Something Jesus definitely had.

Jesus said not to Judge. Paul said otherwise.

Jesus said "I have come only to the lost sheep of Israel" and Paul expanded his message to Gentiles.

Contradict? Like Paul? Paul called long hair an abomination. Something Jesus definitely had.

Jesus said not to Judge. Paul said otherwise.

Jesus said "I have come only to the lost sheep of Israel" and Paul expanded his message to Gentiles.

What is considered to be long hair is relative to culture. So what would be long hair for Paul's culture may have been average for Jesus's culture. And Paul was with the Greeks, Jesus with the Jews.

Jesus was speaking to spirit of judgement, taking God's place as judge of souls and condemning people. Paul spoke to judging actions and words to prevent the corruption of the Church. The same is promoted in the Old Testament which Jesus said He came to fulfill not repeal.

Jesus did come to the Jews and they refused Him. And as in the parable of the King inviting his subjects, He sent emissaries to other lands to bring guests to the banquet. Jesus sent Paul out to the Gentiles and Peter also, though not so much.

Okay, I need to go. It's been fun.:)

Ack.

This is what happens when you go to sleep and then have errands to do in the morning. 23 pages? Ack.

I have no problem with them using that argument, though I disagree.

It's the same argument you use, though...

So - by your logic, the Koran IS the word of god, yes?

You don't get to CHOOSE whether you 'argee' or no... if the logic is good for one unverifiable entity, it should work for all.

For it to happen "at the right time" implies that there is a set time for it to happen: this is a statement of fate. It is repeated in the idea that these people stayed alive long enough to make the next step in the plan happen.

Rather than your existence being unlikely, it is fate that is generally dismissed in the modern world as unlikely --the idea that things are laid out in advance in a plan for us to fulfill.

i'm not sure what you are getting at. I use "at the right time" for anything from my animal ancestors encountering each other at the right time to mate, rather than fight, or ignore each other for example. In a more human perspective, met at the right time to both get along well and take an interest in what the other person had to say, or offer, and to form a relationship. rather than being perhaps busy, ill or involved with someone else at the time.

Saying they survived long enough to reproduce isn't intended to illustrate a belief in fate, or some preordained great chain of being. I'm just aware that if even one of my millions of ancestors had died in infancy, or lost the wrong fight, there wouldn't be a "me". This is not to say that I believe that everything happened in order to produce me or anyone else, or that the world would not function just as well if my great great grandfather had married someone else.

The original purpose of my posting was to say that it is quite possible and rational to believe that everything can happen as the result of random chance, and that that can be enough, without needing to invent a deity to explain the bits that are a bit difficult to deal with, or why things are the way they are. It's just happened that way, and i'm absolutely bloody ecstatic that it did, because almost all other possible ways to arrange the planet earth, never mind the universe, dont include me.

except when you consider the times as well as the people there. for example, the animostiy towards the Gentiles at that time. Jesus was said to have started preaching when he got to Galilee.


But, Jesus' EARTHLY ministry perpetuated the animaosity, rather than opposing it.

Jesus expressly told his minions NOT to preach to Gentiles.


True, most Prophecy are not reconized as such because of how they are worded.

Or- alternatively - most so-called prophecies are NOT prophecies at all, but are claimed as prophecies later, by people who want to make it look like their argument is foretold...


agreed, I haven't encountered anything in the OT that mentions a Virgin Birth.


It's not there... Matthew quotes scripture, but he quotes a Greek translation, which confuses 'young woman' for 'virgin'.

What is considered to be long hair is relative to culture. So what would be long hair for Paul's culture may have been average for Jesus's culture. And Paul was with the Greeks, Jesus with the Jews.

We're not talking about culture. He said it was an abomination. The same word he used for adultery and such things. In Jesus' culture you don't cut the hair on the sides of your head EVER. I would say there is no chance that Jesus had short hair by any standard and thus would have been an 'abomination' under Paul's standard.

Jesus was speaking to spirit of judgement, taking God's place as judge of souls and condemning people. Paul spoke to judging actions and words to prevent the corruption of the Church. The same is promoted in the Old Testament which Jesus said He came to fulfill not repeal.

Ha. As is often said, Montoya principle. It does not mean what you think it means.

On judgement -
Paul - 20Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.

Jesus - But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

Jesus - Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

These messages are completely contradicatory. One cannot claim to not judge while rebuking another for sin. It throws away the teachings of Jesus.

On being equals -
Jesus - 8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.[b] 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Let's see according to Jesus we are all equals. Let's get Paul's take on the matter.

Paul - 1Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, 2older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.

Paul - 17The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.

Hmmmm... again, Jesus says we're all equal, Paul sets up a hierarchy, a hierarchy that existed when Jesus was alive and was preached against.


[QUOTE=Xranate]Jesus did come to the Jews and they refused Him. And as in the parable of the King inviting his subjects, He sent emissaries to other lands to bring guests to the banquet. Jesus sent Paul out to the Gentiles and Peter also, though not so much.
They didn't refuse him. Certainly you're not claiming that there were no followers of Christ until Paul. The Jews WERE his followers. It just wasn't all Jews.

So was Jesus wrong when he said he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel? Lying? Isn't it more likely that you are?

Matthew 15:24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."


Now, I do hold that Gentiles can be saved as Matthew 15 shows, however it is dishonest to suggest that Jesus didn't repeatedly state that he was not sent to ANY but the Jews. So you want to claim he changed that message. Tell me was he wrong when he said that passage or lying?

But, Jesus' EARTHLY ministry perpetuated the animaosity, rather than opposing it.

Jesus expressly told his minions NOT to preach to Gentiles.



Or- alternatively - most so-called prophecies are NOT prophecies at all, but are claimed as prophecies later, by people who want to make it look like their argument is foretold...



It's not there... Matthew quotes scripture, but he quotes a Greek translation, which confuses 'young woman' for 'virgin'.
GnI, can you do me favor? I know you're being playful, but can we lay off the 'minions' term?

Those elected before the coming of the Messiah are saved by their faith in God as He had reveled Himself up to that time.


But, I thought Jews couldn't be received unless they accepted Jesus? What you are saying is - God can change his requirements? God can change?


Yes, the only way to heaven is to believe in Christ, but baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality. A Christian ought to be baptized, but s/he doens't need to be.


What about a baby that dies in childbirth? Condemned to hell?


Because Mohammed denied the Trinity and other basic Christian beliefs. God does not send prophets who contridict what former ones have said. Therefore, God did not send Mohammed.


Rubbish. Jesus 'revoked' the old covenant laws. That's about as contradict-y as it gets.

You'll notice, though - that ISlam FOLLOWS the old covenant laws.

Indeed - if one of the abrahamic religions 'doesn't fit' with a continued revelation, it IS Christianity.


Good deeds are those that are done because God commands it. So even if you save a baby from a burning building, if you are not doing it because God would want you to, it is not a good deed. It's a better deed, but not good.

I think your argument is weak. You redefine 'good deed' to suit your argument. Surely ANY selfless act of benevolence is 'a good deed', no matter who pulls your strings....

Actually - thinking about it - you say "if you are not doing it because God would want you to..." You are arguing that it is acceptable to have an ulterior motive.... so long as it is the ulterior motive YOU choose.

Ha. As is often said, Montoya principle. It does not mean what you think it means.


First to invoke the "Montoya Principle". Jocabia wins the thread. :)

But, Jesus' EARTHLY ministry perpetuated the animaosity, rather than opposing it.

Jesus expressly told his minions NOT to preach to Gentiles.at first, and then, during his ministry, he included the Gentiles. he was slowy eroding away the Diciples' prejudices to the point where they (the Diciples) were accepting of the Gentiles.
Or- alternatively - most so-called prophecies are NOT prophecies at all, but are claimed as prophecies later, by people who want to make it look like their argument is foretold...that is a valid viewpoint also. However the original thread's purpose is about Faith in God not about the validity of prophecies found in the bible. :D
thus I won't persue this line of argument since it was Baawaknights who brought it up in a trolling attempt.

It's not there... Matthew quotes scripture, but he quotes a Greek translation, which confuses 'young woman' for 'virgin'.and I agree with that, however, I follow Jesus not because of the... Hymenial state of his mother.

GnI, can you do me favor? I know you're being playful, but can we lay off the 'minions' term?
does this mean I can take of my face hiding mask? :D

at first, and then, during his ministry, he included the Gentiles. he was slowy eroding away the Diciples' prejudices to the point where they (the Diciples) were accepting of the Gentiles.

That is indeed correct. He even told the disciples before ascending into heaven to preach the Good News to all the nations.

GnI, can you do me favor? I know you're being playful, but can we lay off the 'minions' term?

Sure. Although - the playfulness is perhaps deeper than you know. :)

(By which I mean - we often take 'minion' to be a negative thing... similar to servant, toady, or henchman... but the archaic meaning would have been closer to 'most highly favoured follower'...)

at first, and then, during his ministry, he included the Gentiles. he was slowy eroding away the Diciples' prejudices to the point where they (the Diciples) were accepting of the Gentiles.

Come on. That's revisionist. He never included the Gentiles. He used slurs for them throughout his ministry. That's not how you erode prejudices. I'll tell you what, where are all these place he worked to 'erode their prejudices'?

oh, well then i would say, (if god exists), that god would be worthy of worship because god created us. without god, we would not exist...
it's called evolution

and No, i don't believe at all for the same reasons cept it was my grandparents

GnI, can you do me favor? I know you're being playful, but can we lay off the 'minions' term?
not to be rude, but wouldn't "minions" be the proper term? Minion is the number of adult males (10) needed to hold a Jewish service, therefore, wouldn't they literally have been his minions?

And good deeds are the result of being saved.

that seems so incredibly backwards.....

at first, and then, during his ministry, he included the Gentiles. he was slowy eroding away the Diciples' prejudices to the point where they (the Diciples) were accepting of the Gentiles.


I disagree. Jesus may have preached where Gentiles could hear him, and may have used a Gentile as a 'switch', but he preached TO the Jews.

During his earthly ministry, he consistently failed to push the agenda of inclusion of the Gentile.


that is a valid viewpoint also. However the original thread's purpose is about Faith in God not about the validity of prophecies found in the bible. :D
thus I won't persue this line of argument since it was Baawaknights who brought it up in a trolling attempt.


It's a shame... BK had some good points. Very good points. But, he buries them in so much aggression, argumentativeness, and conflict - that the points get swamped in the general negativity.


and I agree with that, however, I follow Jesus not because of the... Hymenial state of his mother.

:D

That is indeed correct. He even told the disciples before ascending into heaven to preach the Good News to all the nations.

But - not necessarily to all the peoples IN those nations...

not to be rude, but wouldn't "minions" be the proper term? Minion is the number of adult males (10) needed to hold a Jewish service, therefore, wouldn't they literally have been his minions?

Really? I didn't know that. Yeah, I was probably just being sensitive. It sounds negative. Carry on.

that seems so incredibly backwards.....

I have to agree. There's also an expression that says "no good deeds go unpunished."

Also...the Bible does state that "Good works alone does not get you access into the kingdom of heaven"

But - not necessarily to all the peoples IN those nations...

Now that you do not know :D

That is indeed correct. He even told the disciples before ascending into heaven to preach the Good News to all the nations.

So when he said he was sent to ONLY the lost sheep of Israel was He wrong? Was he Lying? Did he not know that he was actually sent for all mankind?

not to be rude, but wouldn't "minions" be the proper term? Minion is the number of adult males (10) needed to hold a Jewish service, therefore, wouldn't they literally have been his minions?

I think that's "minyan"... :)

Really? I didn't know that. Yeah, I was probably just being sensitive. It sounds negative. Carry on.
well, today it does have some negative meanings associated, but yeah...

*smiles and nods*

wow...I almost typed "smites" instead of "smiles"

Those elected before the coming of the Messiah are saved by their faith in God as He had reveled Himself up to that time.

How do you justify your colossal arrogance in believing that the version you choose to believe is the one that is valid, while dismissing the exact same arguments when used by Jews and Muslims, namely "My holy book says it is so, therefore it is"

Yes, the only way to heaven is to believe in Christ, but baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality. A Christian ought to be baptized, but s/he doens't need to be.

So anyone born for example, deep in the rainforests of South America, is just written off into eternal hellfire, because they have never had contact with anyone to tell them about Jesus? If not, why tell them, if they had the chance to attain paradise before?

Because Mohammed denied the Trinity and other basic Christian beliefs. God does not send prophets who contridict what former ones have said. Therefore, God did not send Mohammed.

See above comment, what makes you right when you say mohammed is a false prophet but jesus is the real deal? and what makes a muslim wrong in saying that Mohammed is the messenger of god and Jesus just some minor holy man beyond childish "It says so in MY book, and MY book is better than his!" rantings?

Good deeds are those that are done because God commands it. So even if you save a baby from a burning building, if you are not doing it because God would want you to, it is not a good deed. It's a better deed, but not good.

I've lost patience, where do you get this steaming, putrid drivel?
If someone who has no faith saves a child from death at risk of their own life that deed has less value than the exact same deed carried out in the exact same circumstances by someone with faith? Merely because they have faith?

The flipside of this would appear to be that it's not really evil if someone impales babies on spikes for fun if they've never heard of Jesus, its not an evil deed just a "worse deed" but not evil, but all of a sudden it becomes evil if you read the bible to them before they do it?
Bollocks.

Now that you do not know :D

But, then... we don't know that he DID mean all the peoples in all then nations... based on prior form, he meant Jews all over the world, perhaps...?

So when he said he was sent to ONLY the lost sheep of Israel was He wrong? Was he Lying? Did he not know that he was actually sent for all mankind?

No he wasn't wrong. However, his people rejected him but the gentiles did not. Which is funny really.

However, God will be giving Israel the opportunity to recognize that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was their long awaited for Messiah.

I think that's "minyan"... :)

So which is it?

You two gave me different definitions. I'm actually curious now. And if what you said in reply is true, then I hope you never stop using it because that's hilarious.

Kind of like how we forgot what fornication means, huh?

No he wasn't wrong. However, his people rejected him but the gentiles did not. Which is funny really.

However, God will be giving Israel the opportunity to recognize that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was their long awaited for Messiah.

You didn't answer. He said something that clearly did not match the reality of the situation. If he was sent ONLY to the people of Israel, by God mind you who knows whether it was ONLY or not, and ended up not being for ONLY those people, then he was either wrong when he said who he was sent for, he didn't know who he was sent for or he lied about who he was sent for. Those are the only options. Becuase clearly according to you he was NOT sent ONLY for the lost sheep of Israel.

Number two, STOP saying that his people rejected him. They didn't. The first Christians were Jews. Paul was a Jew. His people did not reject him. Some of his people rejected him.

i'm not sure what you are getting at. I use "at the right time" for anything from my animal ancestors encountering each other at the right time to mate, rather than fight, or ignore each other for example. In a more human perspective, met at the right time to both get along well and take an interest in what the other person had to say, or offer, and to form a relationship. rather than being perhaps busy, ill or involved with someone else at the time.

Saying they survived long enough to reproduce isn't intended to illustrate a belief in fate, or some preordained great chain of being. I'm just aware that if even one of my millions of ancestors had died in infancy, or lost the wrong fight, there wouldn't be a "me". This is not to say that I believe that everything happened in order to produce me or anyone else, or that the world would not function just as well if my great great grandfather had married someone else.
Two animals finding a "right time" to get together and mate means that the proper circumstances came together then to allow it to happen. There is nothing unlikely about that. In your first post, though, you specifically said that your amazement sprang from the unlikelyhood of an unbroken chain of circumstances back to the earliest ancestors that all got together just to result in you. That's a different context. That implies a planned outcome --you. And that does imply fate.

The original purpose of my posting was to say that it is quite possible and rational to believe that everything can happen as the result of random chance, and that that can be enough, without needing to invent a deity to explain the bits that are a bit difficult to deal with, or why things are the way they are. It's just happened that way, and i'm absolutely bloody ecstatic that it did, because almost all other possible ways to arrange the planet earth, never mind the universe, dont include me.
I don't believe that things happen as a result of random chance. On the contrary, I believe in cause and effect for circumstances. I think it irrational to believe that everything that happens is by chance.

As I said earlier, your atittude does reflect a belief in fortune.

But - not necessarily to all the peoples IN those nations...
he never excluded anyone when he said to ALL NATIONS.

So when he said he was sent to ONLY the lost sheep of Israel was He wrong? Was he Lying? Did he not know that he was actually sent for all mankind?
Obviously not since he was preaching to People and not Sheep. :p

he never excluded anyone when he said to ALL NATIONS.

But he did when he said ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel. Again, was he wrong, lying, or didn't know?

I'm just not seeing where you are getting the "planned" part from. The belief in fortune I see now in the sense that I used it in terms of my "extreme good fortune" that things happened the way they did, rather than any of the other possible ways which would not have resulted in me.

Are you suggesting that cause and effect makes my personal existence inevitable? or that there would inevitably be a human being in my place if it was not me? in which case how can I not think myself fortunate that it IS me?

I now see how I have misused the term "random chance" and how that would confuse the point I was trying to make

So which is it?

You two gave me different definitions. I'm actually curious now. And if what you said in reply is true, then I hope you never stop using it because that's hilarious.

Kind of like how we forgot what fornication means, huh?

I like the word "nice".... which people USE to mean.... something like the opposite of nasty. Whereas, of course... the historical meaning of 'nice' would be 'accomplished skillfully', or 'accurate'.

Minyan(im) is the Hebrew term.

Minion, according to etymology, should mean 'darling', or some such, because it is assumed to be derived from the french 'mignon'... which implies something small or 'sweet'.

he never excluded anyone when he said to ALL NATIONS.

And, what is a nation?

Obviously not since he was preaching to People and not Sheep. :p

You obviously havn't read the Gospel of Saint Dyfed....

I like the word "nice".... which people USE to mean.... something like the opposite of nasty. Whereas, of course... the historical meaning of 'nice' would be 'accomplished skillfully', or 'accurate'.

Minyan(im) is the Hebrew term.

Minion, according to etymology, should mean 'darling', or some such, because it is assumed to be derived from the french 'mignon'... which implies something small or 'sweet'.

I get the impression from the etymology that it originally mean a follower that was very dear to the leader.

And, what is a nation?

Yeah, why not all PEOPLE. That would be clearer, no? For example, couldn't I be a white supremecist interested in only perpetuating the white race and send my disciples out to all nations? Would that mean I was trying to perpetuate all people?

Snip


I don't believe that things happen as a result of random chance. On the contrary, I believe in cause and effect for circumstances. I think it irrational to believe that everything that happens is by chance.

As I said earlier, your atittude does reflect a belief in fortune.

as I said I have confused the point I was driving at, in a feeble attempt to clarify I could say that:

"I believe that my existence is the product of uncountable cause and effect interactions between my ancestors and their environment, I believe that at least some, if not enormous numbers of those interactions could have had other possible outcomes, which would not have resulted in the right circumstances for my existence to occur. Therefore I feel fortunate that none of them DID go another way".

I don't understand how you draw the conclusion that somehow I believe that my existence was "fated" to be, and yet feel that it was extremely, and humblingly unlikely.

Perhaps I am failing to understand your link between fortune and fate.

I get the impression from the etymology that it originally mean a follower that was very dear to the leader.

I've read 'archaic' sources that suggest that reading... especially in situations like 'courtly' narrative, where the lovers/playthings/followers of a lord (or other dominant character) are referred to as 'minions'... the meaning suggested as fond or appreciative of value.

Yeah, why not all PEOPLE. That would be clearer, no? For example, couldn't I be a white supremecist interested in only perpetuating the white race and send my disciples out to all nations? Would that mean I was trying to perpetuate all people?

Exactly... a nation is a boundary... geographic or political.

I've read 'archaic' sources that suggest that reading... especially in situations like 'courtly' narrative, where the lovers/playthings/followers of a lord (or other dominant character) are referred to as 'minions'... the meaning suggested as fond or appreciative of value.

Right. I see how it could also get the petty valuation as well (even though it's sort of opposite) since petty and small are so close in such an application.

Exactly... a nation is a boundary... geographic or political.Not really, is it? To my knowledge, a nation defines a country or governing entity made up of a common ethnicity.

Right. I see how it could also get the petty valuation as well (even though it's sort of opposite) since petty and small are so close in such an application.

(And, of course, 'petty' literally MEANS 'small' (French: Petite)).

The logic is perfect, it is entirely reasonable - it is just one of those examples of the word having a number of meanings, which are lost, except for one.

Not really, is it? To my knowledge, a nation defines a country or governing entity made up of a common ethnicity.

Hard to say - especially when you look at the time and place of the scripture. How does one apply concepts like nation or ethnicity to Egypt, Greece or Rome?

Hard to say - especially when you look at the time and place of the scripture. How does one apply concepts like nation or ethnicity to Egypt, Greece or Rome?

A hard line drive is hit to Grave in deep left field. He's really going to have to move to get that ball.

...

He snatches it out of the air like Oprah grabbing a cheeseburger. The Angels win the Series! The Angels win the Series!