Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: FitnessFrenzy on May 17, 2015, 12:59:56 PM
-
(http://s24.postimg.org/i7jqq.jpg)
-
(http://s24.postimg.org//qqq.jpg)
I am not certain, but he must have OCD. The addictions, the obsessions, quick shifts in life etc. Mix in his scruplosity and his lust for teh prick and it's almost certain.
-
(http://i44.tinypic.com/2wfjv9j.gif)
-
I find it amazing how the gift he received via one of those internal deep tissue massages has brought him closer to god...
-
If Taylor can put the same kind inexhaustible, overwhelming determination that he put into the weight room into his new online ministry, he is going to be able to move mountains.
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof. Matthew 13:31-32
-
Geez some ego there, going from getting aids from GAY sex with men before marriage, using drugs and stealing etc. to telling others he has the answers to life.
-
Geez some ego there, going from getting aids from GAY sex with men before marriage, using drugs and stealing etc. to telling others he has the answers to life.
x2. Everyone kept telling him all the things he was doing would lead to a bad outcome. Look what happened. Yet, he still has the audacity to try and tell people how to live life, after making mistake after mistake. We are all headed down the wrong path because we do not believe as he does.
-
Geez some ego there, going from getting aids from GAY sex with men before marriage, using drugs and stealing etc. to telling others he has the answers to life.
Yes, he is a highly fucked up repugnant mentally deranged disgusting piece of sub-human ignorant filth.
-
Just cracked me one off
-
Just cracked me one off
Did you repent? if not, this is where youre going. Have fun burning in hell
(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/spongebobandfriendsadventures/images/4/44/1400x696_13415_Hell_2d_horror_hell_fantasy_architecture_lava_picture_image_digital_art.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140721201806)
(http://thesaltcollective.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/welcome_to_hell_by_tyger_graphics-d6009k0.jpg)
-
Geez some ego there, going from getting aids from GAY prostitution before marriage, using drugs and stealing etc. to telling others he has the answers to life.
Fixed.
Tbombz always had himself in high regard, believing he was smarter than anyone else at getbig. Except everyone else didn't got AIDS at 22yo and he did.
-
x2. Everyone kept telling him all the things he was doing would lead to a bad outcome. Look what happened. Yet, he still has the audacity to try and tell people how to live life, after making mistake after mistake. We are all headed down the wrong path because we do not believe as he does.
Maybe the gist of all this is that he is using himself as an example, of what not to do?
-
Fixed.
Tbombz always had himself in high regard, believing he was smarter than anyone else at getbig. Except everyone else didn't got AIDS at 22yo and he did.
He got aids? Lol no wonder he suddenly throws him self out there preaching about god, he sounds like a convict doing life in prison. Suddenly god exists. I wonder would he be all righteous and holy if he suddenly was aids free with 200mil in his bank account and 50 million buried in his backyard.
-
He got aids? Lol no wonder he suddenly throws him self out there preaching about god, he sounds like a convict doing life in prison. Suddenly god exists. I wonder would he be all righteous and holy if he suddenly was aids free with 200mil in his bank account and 50 million buried in his backyard.
yes, he has AIDS.
-
yes, he has AIDS.
I believe he acquired AIDS from being a homosexual prostitute.
-
I believe he acquired AIDS from being a homosexual prostitute.
that is true too.
-
Maybe the gist of all this is that he is using himself as an example, of what not to do?
But most of us already know what not to do. How many of us are dressing up in bunny suits, and having anal sex with no condoms?
We've already told him all this shit was bad. He didn't listen. He doesnt have anything to teach anyone, except his annoying preaching.
Anything else is stuff we already know. There is absolutely nothing tbombz can teach me about life.
-
I had 2 OBE (outer body experience) yesterday that scared the shit out of me. The site of me looking at my body sleeping makes you really think about death.
-
One time a Hardcore Bunny with a hole in the rear of his bunnysuit, now Hardcore Religious! :D
-
(http://s24.postimg.org/qqq.jpg)
Having a bloodied up figure of jesus as your avatar... THAT is a sin!
-
for tbombz
and yes I would tap that ass, whatever age she was in 2009
-
It's always fear that leads people to cling to this superstitious nonsense. Fear or brainwashing from a young age. Like you said, if he hadn't shafted a man's ass and got himself the big one, then he wouldn't be panicking like fuck over his own mortality.
people that subscribe to organised religions are the stupidest people on earth, either that or they're mentally ill.
This is all true. And coming from a believer too :D
-
Hey Donny!
Well, I rarely ever come on here.
Except recently, when I realized my Brother MOS was faithfully witnessing on this here religious board, and i felt a desire to accompany him out of love.
I will probably keep the name Tbombz. It's a powerful reminder of how Jesus can take a filthy sinner and turn him into a child of God.
As far as exercise goes... I do 10 sets of pushups with my feet elevated every week or two. and I do some various shoulder/arm/back/leg work here and there, every week or two. I eat once a day. And I golf once or twice a week. Thats about it. :)
-
But most of us already know what not to do. How many of us are dressing up in bunny suits, and having anal sex with no condoms?
I AM.....................I AM................ LOL ;D
-
eating once a day? Thats actually very unhealthy. I wonder if God told him to do this via prayer. :-\
-
I AM.....................I AM................ LOL ;D
Tbombz quote about bunny suit:
thats a several thousand dollar bunny suit, bitches. custom made by a famous l.a. designer. the photo was the last in a photo shoot i was the subject of, a photo shoot shot by a porn STAR who is well paid, well known, and who is also an astrophysicist that helped buiild the playstation, playstation 2, and a new smart t.v. yet to come out on the market that he built with an internal harddrrive, voice recognition and hand-motion controlled features.this guy, with his beloved and treasured donny darko inspired bunny suit, begged mne to pose for this.. and so voila
-
Tbombz quote about bunny suit:
thats a several thousand dollar bunny suit, bitches. custom made by a famous l.a. designer. the photo was the last in a photo shoot i was the subject of, a photo shoot shot by a porn STAR who is well paid, well known, and who is also an astrophysicist that helped buiild the playstation, playstation 2, and a new smart t.v. yet to come out on the market that he built with an internal harddrrive, voice recognition and hand-motion controlled features.this guy, with his beloved and treasured donny darko inspired bunny suit, begged mne to pose for this.. and so voila
Not quite as good of a quote as to when he was describing being fucked in his asshole, but still a classic.
-
Tbombz quote about analsex:
For me, it always hurts right when it goes in. Does not feel pleasant at all. Sort of a deep stinging sensation.
However, leave the cock in your ass, very shortly the pain goes away entirely. Once the pain leaves, then your partner can start to pump your ass. It feels like a great deep tissue massage, only its inside your ass. :D for me it feels real good when it goes real deep.. like there is some kind of pleasure sensor at the bottom of my ass that emits the tingles when ever a cock comes close to hitting it.
IT feels about the same whether your on your back or on your stomach, however there are some differences. on your back you can see your partner, which could be good or bad (attractive or unattractive?).
On your stomach its more relaxing and you can just bite a pillow and let the good times roll. ;)
Any other questions just shoot
-
Tbombz quote about analsex:
For me, it always hurts right when it goes in. Does not feel pleasant at all. Sort of a deep stinging sensation.
However, leave the cock in your ass, very shortly the pain goes away entirely. Once the pain leaves, then your partner can start to pump your ass. It feels like a great deep tissue massage, only its inside your ass. :D for me it feels real good when it goes real deep.. like there is some kind of pleasure sensor at the bottom of my ass that emits the tingles when ever a cock comes close to hitting it.
IT feels about the same whether your on your back or on your stomach, however there are some differences. on your back you can see your partner, which could be good or bad (attractive or unattractive?).
On your stomach its more relaxing and you can just bite a pillow and let the good times roll. ;)
Any other questions just shoot
Tbombz is bi right?
-
(http://media.giphy.com/media/okQz72DKrYtjy/giphy.gif)
-
Tbombz is bi right?
perhaps buy leaning towards homosexual.
-
Tbombz is bi right?
Yes. Though, he claims to be 100% straight now, which I think is total bullshit. You just cant shut off your sexuality like that. Many bi or gay men who have claimed to be straight have confessed to watching gay porn or masturbating to thoughts of men in private. I suspect that tbombz still has feelings for men, though he tries to suppress it.
-
I had 2 OBE (outer body experience) yesterday that scared the shit out of me. The site of me looking at my body sleeping makes you really think about death.
Bend over, I'm about to have an in yo body experience.
-
tbombz will die for our sins.
-
I am not certain, but he must have OCD. The addictions, the obsessions, quick shifts in life etc. Mix in his scruplosity and his lust for teh prick and it's almost certain.
He's just disturbed/stupid/lost...
-
He's just disturbed/stupid/lost...
The scary thing is this:
MOS has tbombz back and thinks he is perfectly fine, and the rest of us are lost because we havent found god.
Let me repeat that: MOS most likely thinks we are all lost because we havent found God, yet he thinks tbombz is just fine.
Think about that for a moment :/
-
Another great Tbombz quote:
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=456612.0;attach=503208;image)
-
Erbarme dich, mein Gott. Getbiggers will recall Camus' Le Peste (The Plague), wherein we find the character of the Holy Paneloux, a self-righteous preacher who thought that the plague was sent by God as a punishment for the sinful ways of man. Briefly, Paneloux believed (at least intitially) that earthly torment was proportional to man's propinquity to God: the closer to God, the less pain and suffering; the farther away from His will, the more pain and suffering. And here we have the Holey Pantaloon, basically preaching the same. My, how novel. I wish I could be that clever.
Great book! Also loved, "The Stranger" and "The Fall."
-
The scary thing is this:
MOS has tbombz back and thinks he is perfectly fine, and the rest of us are lost because we havent found god.
Let me repeat that: MOS most likely thinks we are all lost because we havent found God, yet he thinks tbombz is just fine.
Think about that for a moment :/
He's probably just as lost/weak as tBombz and god is only thing that's left to use to cope with it somewhat. Some people are smarter/stronger and deal with life easier, some....search for "god" and hope that it at least won't get worse with the help of "his".
-
tbombz will die for our sins.
Tbombz will die for our entertainment.
-
Did you repent? if not, this is where youre going. Have fun burning in hell
(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/spongebobandfriendsadventures/images/4/44/1400x696_13415_Hell_2d_horror_hell_fantasy_architecture_lava_picture_image_digital_art.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140721201806)
(http://thesaltcollective.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/welcome_to_hell_by_tyger_graphics-d6009k0.jpg)
Pretty inaccurate rendition, those people wouldn't have clothes on as they'd be consumed by the flames.
-
If Taylor can put the same kind inexhaustible, overwhelming determination that he put into the weight room into his new online ministry, he is going to be able to move mountains.
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof. Matthew 13:31-32
This ^^^ Mentally he's leading a better life than most of the religious haters and the people who hate on him because of it. Where he was and where he seems to be now is night and day.
-
He's probably just as lost/weak as tBombz and god is only thing that's left to use to cope with it somewhat. Some people are smarter/stronger and deal with life easier, some....search for "god" and hope that it at least won't get worse with the help of "his".
Poor tbombz. :-\ :-\
-
Bend over, I'm about to have an in yo body experience.
no homo right?
-
Sets a better example to quietly do good deeds than yap at people about what they shouldn't do.
-
If Taylor can put the same kind inexhaustible, overwhelming determination that he put into the weight room into his new online ministry, he is going to be able to move mountains.
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof. Matthew 13:31-32
Just a small sidebar: the mustard seed is not the "least of all seeds" and the mustard plant does not grow to be a tree.
-
Cuckoo. Religious nutter. Only religious people try to make you feel guilty about having a physical body and sexual temptations and desires. Part of human life, yet you're immoral and sinful if you do these things. Who the hell would want to live a life like that? Always feeling like "God" is watching you over. Ooopps, I masturbated, looks like I am going to "hell." ::) ::)
You sound like a tormented person :'(
-
You sound like a tormented person :'(
Yes, I am so tormented. I am in the throes of Satan's grip. Each day I fight the torment. When will it ever end? Maybe I need to dress up in a bunny suit then get saved for all the torment to end. :'( :'(
-
Yes, I am so tormented. I am in the throes of Satan's grip. Each day I fight the torment. When will it ever end? Maybe I need to dress up in a bunny suit then get saved for all the torment to end. :'( :'(
Not just any bunny suit will do - you need one commissioned by a billionaire with a doctorate who worked for NASA who found that their insistence that he not do porn restrictive, so he moved on to SONY to help make the PS3.
-
Not just any bunny suit will do - you need one commissioned by a billionaire with a doctorate who worked for NASA who found that their insistence that he not do porn restrictive, so he moved on to SONY to help make the PS3.
LMAO!!
Tbombz:
thats a several thousand dollar bunny suit, bitches. custom made by a famous l.a. designer. the photo was the last in a photo shoot i was the subject of, a photo shoot shot by a porn STAR who is well paid, well known, and who is also an astrophysicist that helped buiild the playstation, playstation 2, and a new smart t.v. yet to come out on the market that he built with an internal harddrrive, voice recognition and hand-motion controlled features.this guy, with his beloved and treasured donny darko inspired bunny suit, begged mne to pose for this.. and so voila
-
From know-it-all blowhard to Bible thumper. Not exactly an Augustinian conversion.
-
(http://s23.postimg.org/pfv0zm5e3/Image12_FF.jpg)
-
LMAO!!
Tbombz:
thats a several thousand dollar bunny suit, bitches. custom made by a famous l.a. designer. the photo was the last in a photo shoot i was the subject of, a photo shoot shot by a porn STAR who is well paid, well known, and who is also an astrophysicist that helped buiild the playstation, playstation 2, and a new smart t.v. yet to come out on the market that he built with an internal harddrrive, voice recognition and hand-motion controlled features.this guy, with his beloved and treasured donny darko inspired bunny suit, begged mne to pose for this.. and so voila
He sounds like a gay(er) Genova.
-
Yes, I am so tormented. I am in the throes of Satan's grip. Each day I fight the torment. When will it ever end? Maybe I need to dress up in a bunny suit then get saved for all the torment to end. :'( :'(
Like I said, you sound tormented...
-
Like I said, you sound tormented...
So tormented. A tormented soul. The devil has me doing things I can't stop doing.
-
Like I said, you sound tormented...
Tormentor!
-
So tormented. A tormented soul. The devil has me doing things I can't stop doing.
Like lusting for men's bottoms?
-
Like lusting for men's bottoms?
Lusting for you.
-
(http://i1212.photobucket.com/albums/cc445/stan_stan/tbombz.gif)
-
Like lusting for men's bottoms?
Who doesn't ???
-
Just a small sidebar: the mustard seed is not the "least of all seeds" and the mustard plant does not grow to be a tree.
https://carm.org/is-mustard-seed-smallest-of-all-seeds (https://carm.org/is-mustard-seed-smallest-of-all-seeds)
Mustard Tree
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_Tree (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_Tree)
-
Loving the insecure atheist trolls that pile on the first chance they get. Miserable would be an understatement because they don't know any other way. Lmao
-
(http://s24.postimg.org/i7jqq.jpg)
Wasn't he the same guy who posted about how it felt to have a dick up your ass?!
It amazes me how so many people go to such extremes when it deals with sexual issues.
Do they really think GOD gives a rats ass if they jerk off? ::)
-
Wasn't he the same guy who posted about how it felt to have a dick up your ass?!
It amazes me how so many people go to such extremes when it deals with sexual issues.
Do they really think GOD gives a rats ass if they jerk off? ::)
yes, taylor is quite fond of bareback gay anal sex.
-
Loving the insecure atheist trolls that pile on the first chance they get. Miserable would be an understatement because they don't know any other way. Lmao
He has a SEXUALLY transmitted disease, yet he is preaching about sins and premarital sex etc. People are judged on their actions not thoughts/talk, which appears to be to difficult for him. Past behaviour predicts future behaviour best, this is just his latest obsession.
Why would anyone trust anything he says? who in their right mind would think this kids got it all figured out.
-
Geez some ego there, going from getting aids from GAY sex with men before marriage, using drugs and stealing etc. to telling others he has the answers to life.
x2. Everyone kept telling him all the things he was doing would lead to a bad outcome. Look what happened. Yet, he still has the audacity to try and tell people how to live life, after making mistake after mistake. We are all headed down the wrong path because we do not believe as he does.
He didn't tell anyone he had the answers to life.....he indicated that the things he noted would distance a person from God.
The notion of "audacity" and "how dare you" was read into what he posted and sourced from within yourselves.
Further, his comments weren't posted on GB.....they were sought out and brought to GB for the purpose of ridicule.
A man has dramatically changed his life through the power of the Holy Spirit and the same players emerge in each and every thread to ridicule and mock. For me, this same crew repeatedly brings scripture to life, but that's another topic. :)
Some even take time to jab at me here and there.....LOL.......ok.
No one has stopped to ask him what changed him or why he changed.....not a shred of interest in that.
Most just cling to the former man in the bunny suit because that's what is preferred, that's the comic relief and that's the man that makes others feel better about their own lives.
"Typical, pathetic situation for people to find God when they're at the lowest. ::) Look at my life....I'm doin great! I don't need God to live my life!"
No, you don't and that ain't the point.
"Oh, but we told him he was going down a wrong a path and he didn't take our advice!! He got all messed up and followed Jesus after the fact instead.....pathetic. ::)"
Yes he did....yes he did. :)
I'm thrilled y'all are fascinated and entertained by Taylor.....keep bringing the gospel to GB!
-
No one has stopped to ask him what changed him or why he changed.....not a shred of interest in that.
serious question: Do you now believe that God has helped tbombz to be free of homosexual desire towards men?
-
serious question: Do you now believe that God has helped tbombz to be free of homosexual desire towards men?
From what I've read, I believe God has changed him completely and delivered him from engaging in homosexual behavior (and other things he once indulged in).
Will he never have another homosexual thought again? I couldn't say.
My past was filled with bitterness and lust. I can tell you that I've been fully delivered from the bitterness. I struggle with lustful thoughts from time to time, but I never act them. Still, looking upon another with lust is still committing adultery within your heart. I pray I'm delivered from that as well. Why I haven't yet been I couldn't say....simply beyond me. Most likely I need more spiritual maturity, but that's another topic.
Some sins grip people differently. If a person desires to rid themselves of their sin they seek Christ. Before Christ saved me and changed me I believe I had less struggles in my life. Today I see more hardship and obstacles, but how I perceive those challenges and work through them is completely different....it's so much better. In fact, I get to the point where I perceive obstacles as opportunities to draw closer to God.
-
https://carm.org/is-mustard-seed-smallest-of-all-seeds (https://carm.org/is-mustard-seed-smallest-of-all-seeds)
Mustard Tree
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_Tree (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_Tree)
Exactly, Christ was speaking in a way that would be relatable to the inhabitants of the region that time.....many, many of whom worked in agriculture.
He wasn't giving a botany lesson. Further, as historians have indicated, during that period in Israel the mustard seed was the smallest seed used in agricultural practices. Is it the smallest seed ever identified? No, but you must consider the audience being spoken to, the period of time, the common practices.....the context of the passage.
Much like the criticism of bats being classified with birds in scripture:
Modern classifications of animals are not found in the bible. Typically animals were grouped or referred to according to their own "kind" in scripture. That said, it would not be incorrect for the ancient hebraic culture to classify a winged animal (such as a bat) that has movements and hunting abilities similar to a bird within that type of animal kind. It's not a biblical error, but it certainly is a difference in classification methods of the ancient hebraic culture and today's modern biological animal taxonomy.
In actuality the crux of the verse is about the "cleanliness" of the animals as it refers to the Israelites and their alignment with Jehovah.
-
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. - 1 John:17
-
"piling it on" would be more applicable to the sanctimonious religious nuts who proselytise every chance they get, in an attempt to cope with their own insecurities and fears. It must be more miserable realising you've got a potentially fatal disease from making poor life choices, and then have to invent an imaginary friend who's going to bail you out of it if you just turn yourself into a brainless moron lol.
Asinine statement. Atheists usually sue the first chance they get. All you need to do look at this thread and endless posts from the haters on here that yes, pile on.
-
Luke 6:22
22 Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man.
-
He has a SEXUALLY transmitted disease, yet he is preaching about sins and premarital sex etc. People are judged on their actions not thoughts/talk, which appears to be to difficult for him. Past behaviour predicts future behaviour best, this is just his latest obsession.
Why would anyone trust anything he says? who in their right mind would think this kids got it all figured out.
That's irrelevant. If this is what it took to turn his life then so be it. Obviously you're of the belief that no one can change behavior.
-
"piling it on" would be more applicable to the sanctimonious religious nuts who proselytise every chance they get, in an attempt to cope with their own insecurities and fears. It must be more miserable realising you've got a potentially fatal disease from making poor life choices, and then have to invent an imaginary friend who's going to bail you out of it if you just turn yourself into a brainless moron lol.
haha, beautiful and so true. ;D ;D
Theists are some of the meanest and vicious people I have ever met. Not MOS, but many others are.
-
So do you believe in every single god that's ever been written about? or are you an atheist to them all except to your own one? As for an "asinine statement"...."atheists usually sue the first chance they get" has got to be the best example of one lol. Have you any proof of this? I'd like to see how you came to this conclusion.
If we wanted to pile it on we could spend all day listing the endless hypocritical and ridiculous, contradictory bullshit in both the old and new testament, but the fact is, those deluded enough to cling to such nonsense are clearly not fully functioning, rational individuals. They will twist and interpret everything to suit their own agenda.
You have to love when the idea of Tbombz gets discussed, all the theists melting down and taking his back like he is some sort of savior. ;D I could picture them slamming their keyboards as they type and say to themselves, "God is real." haha lol
-
He didn't tell anyone he had the answers to life.....he indicated that the things he noted would distance a person from God.
The notion of "audacity" and "how dare you" was read into what he posted and sourced from within yourselves.
Further, his comments weren't posted on GB.....they were sought out and brought to GB for the purpose of ridicule.
A man has dramatically changed his life through the power of the Holy Spirit and the same players emerge in each and every thread to ridicule and mock. For me, this same crew repeatedly brings scripture to life, but that's another topic. :)
Some even take time to jab at me here and there.....LOL.......ok.
No one has stopped to ask him what changed him or why he changed.....not a shred of interest in that.
Most just cling to the former man in the bunny suit because that's what is preferred, that's the comic relief and that's the man that makes others feel better about their own lives.
"Typical, pathetic situation for people to find God when they're at the lowest. ::) Look at my life....I'm doin great! I don't need God to live my life!"
No, you don't and that ain't the point.
"Oh, but we told him he was going down a wrong a path and he didn't take our advice!! He got all messed up and followed Jesus after the fact instead.....pathetic. ::)"
Yes he did....yes he did. :)
I'm thrilled y'all are fascinated and entertained by Taylor.....keep bringing the gospel to GB!
He didn't DIRECTLY state he had the answers to life, but its indirectly implied. As we all know, Tbombz has always been this way--preaching that he has it all figured and worked out. Nothing new. Now its just being manifested via religion.
Most just cling to the former man in the bunny suit because that's what is preferred, that's the comic relief and that's the man that makes others feel better about their own lives.
Um, no. You realize that Tbombz posted that bunny suit about 1-2 years ago. Do you think before that I was sitting in my room, crying and bewailing because I felt bad about myself. Then, tbombz posts a bunny picture and all of a sudden I feel better about my own life. Whatever you need to tell yourself. Whether or not tbombz posted the bunny suit picture has absolutely no impact on my life--good or bad. If he didn't, I assure you I'd still be the same exact person, no better or worse off. He posted it, and quite frankly, its a funny picture. Ironmeister had done a ton of photoshops, which also makes it very funny.
No one has stopped to ask him what changed him or why he changed.....not a shred of interest in that.
I think its obvious what changed him--Religion. I mean, go on his FB page and you can see why and what changed him. How much more should we discuss it on an internet bodybuilding forum? :-\
I'm thrilled y'all are fascinated and entertained by Taylor.....keep bringing the gospel to GB!
You mean the endless religious debates that go nowhere. Bringing the gospel to getbig is probably not the best place to bring it to. Sure, you will say something like, "It gives me the chance to praise God" or whatever reason you will bring. I am not sure bringing the gospel to GB really does anything productive. I mean, I guess it gives you another chance to type the word "God" and get a little movement in your pants over the excitement. ;D ;D
-
lol ;D i just can't believe they're trying to claim that jesus came to Tbombz when he was at his lowest, and not the fact that Tbombz clearly turned to religious scripture as a coping mechanism when he realized he had HIV. I wish the guy well, it would be an awful thing for any one to deal with, but it doesn't give him the right to try and twist reality and take some sort of moral high ground now due to the fact that he's given himself a death sentence by acting stupid. He is using religion to cope with fear and remorse, that's all there is to it.
the same can be said about all other religious people. All thinking men are atheists.
-
lol ;D i just can't believe they're trying to claim that jesus came to Tbombz when he was at his lowest, and not the fact that Tbombz clearly turned to religious scripture as a coping mechanism when he realized he had HIV. I wish the guy well, it would be an awful thing for any one to deal with, but it doesn't give him the right to try and twist reality and take some sort of moral high ground now due to the fact that he's given himself a death sentence by acting stupid. He is using religion to cope with fear and remorse, that's all there is to it.
Yeah, I never made fun of him for getting HIV. That must suck. I don't think he caught it while wearing the bunny suit. Sure, I think the bunny suit is hilarious, independent of his HIV status. But its obvious that tbombz sought out God to cope with his fears and not vice versa. MOS is acting like this is a bad thing. Don't many people turn to religion during times of sadness, etc? I think its pretty standard practice.
-
It's unfortunate that intelligence isn't sexually transmitted :-*
-
All you need to do look at this thread and endless posts from the haters on here that yes, pile on.
You spread the hate as well, you don't miss any opportunity to hate on Obama. I'm guessing that most are just trolling Tbombz, but you seem to be harboring some serious real hate.
-
You spread the hate as well, you don't miss any opportunity to hate on Obama. I'm guessing that most are just trolling Tbombz, but you seem to be harboring some serious real hate.
x2. I don't hate tbombz. This is getbig, so this is what we do. I suspect if anyone met tbombz in real life, they would have a beer with him. I would, as long as he didn't preach to me at every moment. But some people that profess religion are some of the most hateful people out there. They really don't accept the tenet that Jesus Christ put forward of complete love and acceptance. There are quite a few here that are not like that!!
-
x2. I don't hate tbombz. This is getbig, so this is what we do. I suspect if anyone met tbombz in real life, they would have a beer with him. I would, as long as he didn't preach to me at every moment. But some people that profess religion are some of the most hateful people out there. They really don't accept the tenet that Jesus Christ put forward of complete love and acceptance. There are quite a few here that are not like that!!
He would try to get you to wear that bunny costume (in the word of Jesus).
-
He would try to get you to wear that bunny costume (in the word of Jesus).
You do realize how exclusive that suit is, right? I can't imagine anyone would pass on an opportunity to don that classic work of art.
-
He would try to get you to wear that bunny costume (in the word of Jesus).
Wearing it would be an honor. :D :D
-
Wearing it would be an honor. :D :D
-
That's irrelevant. If this is what it took to turn his life then so be it. Obviously you're of the belief that no one can change behavior.
ok so it took drugs, stealing, gay sex, unprotected pre-marital sex, prostituting, jail to turn his life around, yet you believe what he says?
People can turn their life around, but his history of decision making would indicate that he is in fact mentally ill.
I am not trolling, he is sick obviously and has been for some time.
-
this just adds to the legacy of tbombz, easily the most interesting non gimmick in getbig history
E
-
Luke 6:22
22 Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man.
Good verse.
But I prefer, For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps - 1 Peter 2:21
-
lol ;D i just can't believe they're trying to claim that jesus came to Tbombz when he was at his lowest, and not the fact that Tbombz clearly turned to religious scripture as a coping mechanism when he realized he had HIV. I wish the guy well, it would be an awful thing for any one to deal with, but it doesn't give him the right to try and twist reality and take some sort of moral high ground now due to the fact that he's given himself a death sentence by acting stupid. He is using religion to cope with fear and remorse, that's all there is to it.
Please, tell me how you know this.
-
He didn't DIRECTLY state he had the answers to life, but its indirectly implied. As we all know, Tbombz has always been this way--preaching that he has it all figured and worked out. Nothing new. Now its just being manifested via religion.
How did he imply he had answers to life?
Yes, before he was cocky and self-assured and then he did something out of character....he surrendered of himself and took up the humble mantle of Christ which is 180% opposite of his former self-assurance. If he boasts now he does so only in Christ.
Galatians 6:14
14 As for me, may I never boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because of that cross,[a] my interest in this world has been crucified, and the world’s interest in me has also died.
Um, no. You realize that Tbombz posted that bunny suit about 1-2 years ago. Do you think before that I was sitting in my room, crying and bewailing because I felt bad about myself. Then, tbombz posts a bunny picture and all of a sudden I feel better about my own life. Whatever you need to tell yourself. Whether or not tbombz posted the bunny suit picture has absolutely no impact on my life--good or bad. If he didn't, I assure you I'd still be the same exact person, no better or worse off. He posted it, and quite frankly, its a funny picture. Ironmeister had done a ton of photoshops, which also makes it very funny.
Well, I did begin my statement with the word "most" not "all", but yet you do tend to consistently present a very "oh no you didn't", "how dare you" set of responses to such posts. Seemingly out of character response for someone that isn't at all affected. People genuinely unaffected tend not to bother posting.
I think its obvious what changed him--Religion. I mean, go on his FB page and you can see why and what changed him. How much more should we discuss it on an internet bodybuilding forum? :-\
It's obvious that religion changed him? How so? Which religion? Why not ask the source directly what changed him? See if "religion" changed him.
You mean the endless religious debates that go nowhere. Bringing the gospel to getbig is probably not the best place to bring it to. Sure, you will say something like, "It gives me the chance to praise God" or whatever reason you will bring. I am not sure bringing the gospel to GB really does anything productive. I mean, I guess it gives you another chance to type the word "God" and get a little movement in your pants over the excitement. ;D ;D
As I've said dozens and dozens and dozens of times (and will repeat again and again in the future), the debate between decided theists and decided atheists is not the reason I press on.....it's for those reading that haven't yet made a decision. Threads like this get the attention of the lurkers and other non-replying board members. I try and represent the theist side as best I'm able, correct errors presented, answer questions, provide the needed contrast in position, etc....
-
How did he imply he had answers to life?
Yes, before he was cocky and self-assured and then he did something out of character....he surrendered of himself and took up the humble mantle of Christ which is 180% opposite of his former self-assurance. If he boasts now he does so only in Christ.
Galatians 6:14
14 As for me, may I never boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because of that cross,[a] my interest in this world has been crucified, and the world’s interest in me has also died.
You realize he still presents in that same exact manner. Everyone else sees it but you. So, everyone else is wrong, and youre right, or vice versa. His boasting about Christ is presented as he has the ultimate truth and we are all wrong. We are just lost, unlike him. You can't see it because youre entrenched in the same beliefs as him. It reminds me of the goldfish joke. One goldfish says to the other goldfish, "How is the water?" The other goldfish replies, "What water?" The goldfish is so entrenched in the water that he does not even realize he is in water. Both you and tbombz are so entrenched in your theology, that you can't see how he comes off.
Well, I did begin my statement with the word "most" not "all", but yet you do tend to consistently present a very "oh no you didn't", "how dare you" set of responses to such posts. Seemingly out of character response for someone that isn't at all affected.
Well, of course, because theists like to present the image that they are more moral, happy, and more of right mind, compared to others (maybe it does not apply to you, but many theists believe this way). So, I feel a need to counteract that position. Tbombz bunny suit does not affect me in any way, other than I think the picture is funny.
It's obvious that religion changed him? How so? Which religion? Why not ask the source directly what changed him? See if "religion" changed him.
Getbig is not a place to discuss this, since every thread gets derailed. There is no point in discussing it here,
As I've said dozens and dozens and dozens of times (and will repeat again and again the future), the debate between decided theists and decided atheists is not the reason I press on.....it's those reading that haven't yet made a decision. Threads like this get the attention of the lurkers and other non-replying board members. I try and represent the theist side as best I'm able, correct errors presented, provide the needed contrast, etc....
I don't think there are many many member on getbig who are going to have a life altering perception of belief based on the debates here. Maybe a few, but if thats good enough for you, then so be it.
-
You realize he still presents in that same exact manner. Everyone else sees it but you. So, everyone else is wrong, and youre right, or vice versa. His boasting about Christ is presented as he has the ultimate truth and we are all wrong. We are just lost, unlike him. You can't see it because youre entrenched in the same beliefs as him. It reminds me of the goldfish joke. One goldfish says to the other goldfish, "How is the water?" The other goldfish replies, "What water?" The goldfish is so entrenched in the water that he does not even realize he is in water. Both you and tbombz are so entrenched in your theology, that you can't see how he comes off.
1 Corinthians 2:14
14 But people who aren’t spiritual can’t receive these truths from God’s Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can’t understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means.
Well, of course, because theists like to present the image that they are more moral, happy, and more of right mind, compared to others (maybe it does not apply to you, but many theists believe this way). So, I feel a need to counteract that position. Tbombz bunny suit does not affect me in any way, other than I think the picture is funny.
Couple of previous responses about myself:
Words do have meaning and therefore I'll clarify mine....I absolutely know the reality of the Lord and the truth of his word and the security of my salvation.
I possess an understanding you simply do not. It comes with surrendering to will of the Lord and accepting who he is and what he did.
I am sorry if that offends anyone....not my intent. I do understand that some folks find a believer's confidence to be very arrogant.
I assure you I boast only in Christ because on my own I'm meaningless.
I enjoy being cool with everyone whether they agree with me or not. I wish you could be cool with me, but you haven't been able to be.
I tried hard to be respectful despite your remarks, but you had none of it. You were simply unable to post without insulting me.
Who wants to continue speaking to someone like that? And I'm certainly not going to lash out either....won't give folks the satisfaction.
I have good relationships with many folks on this board that don't agree with one word of what I have to say about my faith and that's ok.
As I've stated before I am meaningless, but that doesn't mean I have to repeatedly take a bunch of insults.
Only through Jesus Christ can we be cleansed of our sins and aligned with him. All we must do is believe.
If you have no comprehension of God then you would have no comprehension of sin (an offense against God) and you would find my comments asinine, but that doesn't in anyway whatsoever prevent me from wanting to share Christ with you.
As a believer I'm going to be insulted and beaten down and ridiculed, but that's ok with me because my hope rests firmly in Jesus Christ. I desire to spread that hope to others, but if that is spit back in my face that's ok....that will happen today, tomorrow and for the rest of my life. But when those that don't know Christ come to him and desire to know his reality then it's all worth it.
My call from Jesus Christ is to spread his gospel and live out my faith....I simply plant seeds for his kingdom. Maybe tomorrow, maybe in 2 years or maybe in 25 years you'll feel differently and seek his will for your life (or maybe you won't...that's your choice), but it's never about MOS (I am meaningless).....it's about bringing glory to Christ Jesus.
Getbig is not a place to discuss this, since every thread gets derailed. There is no point in discussing it here
Oh c’mon LOL! I ask questions and it’s not the time or place.
I don't think there are many many member on getbig who are going to have a life altering perception of belief based on the debates here. Maybe a few, but if thats good enough for you, then so be it.
I would prefer a huge group of folks giving their lives to Christ, but it won’t happen….I agree.
Matthew 7:13-14
13 “You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way. 14 But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it.
-
1 Corinthians 2:14
14 But people who aren’t spiritual can’t receive these truths from God’s Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can’t understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means.
Exactly. Your entrenched in your own sub-culture that you also cant fully understand what WE mean. You can't see my side because of your beliefs, ideas, and values. Same with tbombz. My inability to know what the spirit means is also similar to your inability to see what we mean. We are both entrenched in our own "cultures."
Couple of previous responses about myself:
I did state that it does not apply to you, however, it does apply to MANY religious people. I mean, I won't mention names on here, but it applies to a few so-called theists here.
Oh c’mon LOL! I ask questions and it’s not the time or place.
Yes, but you have also acknowledged that getbig is the not the best place for these debates. Heck, you even stated that you have taken off from posting about this stuff. So, even you admit that getbig is not the best platform for serious debates. Plus, tbombz rarely comes on here. If I have serious questions for him, rest assured I will PM him.
I would prefer a huge group of folks giving their lives to Christ, but it won’t happen….I agree.
Matthew 7:13-14
13 “You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way. 14 But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it.
Thanks, but Ill choose Hell (although a Hell does not actually exist). :)
-
1 Corinthians 2:14
14 But people who aren’t spiritual can’t receive these truths from God’s Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can’t understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means.
Exactly. Your entrenched in your own sub-culture that you also cant fully understand what WE mean. You can't see my side because of your beliefs, ideas, and values. Same with tbombz. My inability to know what the spirit means is also similar to your inability to see what we mean. We are both entrenched in our own "cultures."
Couple of previous responses about myself:
I did state that it does not apply to you, however, it does apply to MANY religious people. I mean, I won't mention names on here, but it applies to a few so-called theists here.
Oh c’mon LOL! I ask questions and it’s not the time or place.
Yes, but you have also acknowledged that getbig is the not the best place for these debates. Heck, you even stated that you have taken off from posting about this stuff. So, even you admit that getbig is not the best platform for serious debates. Plus, tbombz rarely comes on here. If I have serious questions for him, rest assured I will PM him.
I would prefer a huge group of folks giving their lives to Christ, but it won’t happen….I agree.
Matthew 7:13-14
13 “You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way. 14 But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it.
Thanks, but Ill choose Hell (although a Hell does not actually exist). :)
I've stood on both sides so I know what you mean. Although, you interpret the spiritual change in Taylor in the same manner you interpret the condition of his previous self.....both interpretations are based upon the same worldview. Believers have exited your worldview and entered the Christian worldview....a change has occurred.
Fair enough.
No, Getbig is not the most suitable place for this discussion, but it is what it is.
I get weary from time to time when I'm in day in , day out doing 4,5 or 8 on 1 discussions. Answering the same questions and objections repeatedly. That's when I take off time, but it's in small amounts of time....couple of weeks here and there. It goes unnoticed.
I plead with you not to make that choice because I do care about you and the members of this board. Unfortunately I fear it's a done deal.
-
I've stood on both sides so I know what you mean. Although, you interpret the spiritual change in Taylor in the same manner you interpret the condition of his previous self.....both interpretations are based upon the same worldview. Believers have exited your worldview and entered the Christian worldview....a change has occurred.
Fair enough.
No, Getbig is not the most suitable place for this discussion, but it is what it is.
I get weary from time to time when I'm in day in , day out doing 4,5 or 8 on 1 discussions. Answering the same questions and objections repeatedly. That's when I take off time, but it's in small amounts of time....couple of weeks here and there. It goes unnoticed.
I plead with you not to make that choice because I do care about you and the members of this board. Unfortunately I fear it's a done deal.
Standing on one side or the other has nothing to do with being entrenched in one's culture. Tbombz is now entrenched in the religious culture and cannot see beyond that. I don't care if he was part of 50 other cultures beforehand and is now "changed." That doesn't give him more credibility, nor does it mean hes now in a better position to be free of his own values, ideas, and beliefs. He is now a "slave" to the culture he is a part of. It doesn't give him a preferred worldview over others because he has stood on both "sides of the fence."
I plead with you to let go of your religion and to see the truth. Works both ways. ;) "Begging" and pleading serve no purposes in debates.
-
new update. He is still not writing about meth, bareback sex or bunny suits? ???
(http://i60.tinye.jpg)
-
The irony... ::)
-
haha well i guess i can give you credit for being the first theist ever to ask for a statement to be backed up with fact. As i'm sure you're aware though, the burden of proof is on you guys as "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence". You're seriously saying that Jesus has came in to Tbombz life, as well as yours?
Can you ask Jesus then, why he would choose to ignore the prayers of millions, why he'd allow things like the holocaust to happen or mass genocide in Rwanda for instance, and instead choose to show himself to a mentally ill guy with HIV?
If he's a part of your life, and he's helping Tbombs, then he's a personal god who cares about you individually, and created the world with you in mind, so not only does he intentionally ignore the pain and suffering of millions, but he also invented the HIV that has infected Tbombz. You also said:
"Only through Jesus Christ can we be cleansed of our sins and aligned with him. All we must do is believe.
If you have no comprehension of God then you would have no comprehension of sin (an offense against God) and you would find my comments asinine, but that doesn't in anyway whatsoever prevent me from wanting to share Christ with you. "
Seeing as you're on good terms with him, please also ask him why if he wanted us all to be free from sin, then why not just take more care to have designed us better in the first place? why condemn everyone to be born into "original sin", create us sick and then order us to be well or face the punishment of eternal torture? where's the morality in that? lol. Seems a bit extreme to have himself sent down to earth in the form of his son, to have himself tortured...whilst knowing full well that he'll be resurrected anyway, and all to show us that he cares for us and all we have to do is shed the sin that he created us in to begin with!
The bible is quite clearly an antiquated and contradictory piece of fantasy, written by fools, which at best is used to give the illiterate, brainwashed and desperate a poor understanding of the universe, which has since been answered much more thoroughly by science, and at it's worst (and most common) is a divisive and oppressive ideology that's used as a form of power by controlling the minds of the stupid.
All of your questions can be answered with two words: Free Will. Theists love this argument. Why did the holocaust happen? Free Will of man. Why did the adult rape the child? Free Will of man. When something bad happens, its mans Free Will. When something good happens, its God.
The issue with Free Will is the victims of the Holocaust had no Free Will to separate himself from his situation. He/she was captive and a "slave" to the era in which he was born. Furthermore, Free Will rarely ever applies to children, as an 8 year old does not have the Free Will to escape Nazism. Yet, the 8 year olds prayers for himself and his family to stay alive are never answered, and they are all executed. God never showed himself to them. Yet, Tbombz prays after wearing a bunny suit and God shows himself to him. Way for God to have his priorities all screwed up.
-
new update. He is still not writing about meth, bareback sex or bunny suits? ???
(http://i60.tinyp1e.jpg)
That's funny, considering many theists here lust after pictures of women posted here, often replying in the WYHI threads.
Its funny, because as much as tbombz is "saved" he rarely ever talks about HIS OWN wrongdoings. Never in any of his posts on facebook does he openly discuss wearing a bunny suit and having sex or his drug addiction. Its always something lame like adultery or masturbation.
-
That's funny, considering many theists here lust after pictures of women posted here, often replying in the WYHI threads.
Its funny, because as much as tbombz is "saved" he rarely ever talks about HIS OWN wrongdoings. Never in any of his posts on facebook does he openly discuss wearing a bunny suit and having sex or his drug addiction. Its always something lame like adultery or masturbation.
well, we know that he had bareback sex, got fucked raw by many men, did meth ... but maybe he never masturbated!! :D ;D
-
well, we know that he had bareback sex, got fucked raw by many men, did meth ... but maybe he never masturbated!! :D ;D
Yet, he doesn't write about that stuff on his own facebook, instead he points out how bad masturbation and adultery is and will point fingers toward others who do it. Why doesn't he write a "mini-autobiography" about his experience and post it on facebook? :D :D I guess its easier to point out other peoples transgressions (adultery and masturbation) then one's own.
-
Yet, he doesn't write about that stuff on his own facebook, instead he points out how bad masturbation and adultery is and will point fingers toward others who do it. Why doesn't he write a "mini-autobiography" about his experience and post it on facebook? :D :D I guess its easier to point out other peoples transgressions (adultery and masturbation) then one's own.
Josh or Joon could create a few gimmick accounts and send his old pictures to all of his 588 facebook friends. Taylor can not seriously think that he can just leave his old life behind. Just think of the police officer that he bit while being fucked up on crystal meth. Maybe tbombz infected him. It was because of this violent arrest that the police forced him to take a HIV test. And to use tbombz' own phrase... "and so voila"
AND this is still online:
http://www.facebook.com/tbombzgoingraw
-
haha well i guess i can give you credit for being the first theist ever to ask for a statement to be backed up with fact. As i'm sure you're aware though, the burden of proof is on you guys as "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence". You're seriously saying that Jesus has came in to Tbombz life, as well as yours?
Can you ask Jesus then, why he would choose to ignore the prayers of millions, why he'd allow things like the holocaust to happen or mass genocide in Rwanda for instance, and instead choose to show himself to a mentally ill guy with HIV?
If he's a part of your life, and he's helping Tbombs, then he's a personal god who cares about you individually, and created the world with you in mind, so not only does he intentionally ignore the pain and suffering of millions, but he also invented the HIV that has infected Tbombz. You also said:
"Only through Jesus Christ can we be cleansed of our sins and aligned with him. All we must do is believe.
If you have no comprehension of God then you would have no comprehension of sin (an offense against God) and you would find my comments asinine, but that doesn't in anyway whatsoever prevent me from wanting to share Christ with you. "
Seeing as you're on good terms with him, please also ask him why if he wanted us all to be free from sin, then why not just take more care to have designed us better in the first place? why condemn everyone to be born into "original sin", create us sick and then order us to be well or face the punishment of eternal torture? where's the morality in that? lol. Seems a bit extreme to have himself sent down to earth in the form of his son, to have himself tortured...whilst knowing full well that he'll be resurrected anyway, and all to show us that he cares for us and all we have to do is shed the sin that he created us in to begin with!
The bible is quite clearly an antiquated and contradictory piece of fantasy, written by fools, which at best is used to give the illiterate, brainwashed and desperate a poor understanding of the universe, which has since been answered much more thoroughly by science, and at it's worst (and most common) is a divisive and oppressive ideology that's used as a form of power by controlling the minds of the stupid.
I appreciate your question and I know you're addressing MOS but I'll chime in. You're obviously a smart dude and have a good understanding of right and wrong and equity. Your bigger question, and correct me if I'm wrong, is why is God so unjust with so much evil going on and at the same time we have sports stars saying God helped them win an athletic contest, while maintaining that the Bible is a book of fables.....
The truth is if you read the Bible you will see an equal amount of horrific crimes and acts happening while God "remains silent and does nothing". Ultimately life is unfair and there are many questions we don't have the answer to; the Christian perspective is that God is ultimately in control no matter the circumstances, whether good/bad/evil/horrible.
This life is for but a moment, with many ups, downs, joys and disappointments. The Christian idea is to live with an eternal perspective, we are passing through trying to encourage others and further establish Gods kingdom along the way.
*All that said you guys are 100% correct to doubt Tbombs.
SF1900 nailed his actions perfectly, he's no different than many who convert to Christianity, once they discover the love and acceptance of Jesus they become "sin fixated" and like a recovering alcoholic talking to others drinking, they become overbearing and critical.
BTW I'm not trying to convince or persuade you just offering a perspective.
-
Yet, he doesn't write about that stuff on his own facebook, instead he points out how bad masturbation and adultery is and will point fingers toward others who do it. Why doesn't he write a "mini-autobiography" about his experience and post it on facebook? :D :D I guess its easier to point out other peoples transgressions (adultery and masturbation) then one's own.
because chances are he won't get hired for a job---it shows his recklessness. And he doesn't want focus on his very shameful and seedy past. Sometimes it works for people.
-
fuuck is that what happened? the fed that he bit must have been shitting himself when he found out that Tbombz had the big one lol. He'd have sweated off those doughnuts that day. My brother got his ear bitten off years ago by some weirdo who had HIV. He was absolutely bricking it waiting to find out if he caught it. (he didn't).
yes, that is what happened.
-
haha well i guess i can give you credit for being the first theist ever to ask for a statement to be backed up with fact.
Yes, I realized long ago that atheists haven’t cornered the market on asking questions and that the theist brain can formulate questions.
As i'm sure you're aware though, the burden of proof is on you guys as "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence".
Understanding of course that the term “exceptional” is completely subjective and easily rejected at the whim of the reviewer.
You're seriously saying that Jesus has came in to Tbombz life, as well as yours?
Absolutely that’s what I’m saying. And because of that change in me I care about you and desire for you to know Christ in your life.
Can you ask Jesus then, why he would choose to ignore the prayers of millions, why he'd allow things like the holocaust to happen or mass genocide in Rwanda for instance, and instead choose to show himself to a mentally ill guy with HIV?
How is it you know he didn’t reveal himself to victims of the Holocaust or in Rwanda? The God of this world is divine and infinite and transcends it and the universe that contains it. To enter into infinity with God means to exit this life in death. Sin has brought about death and decay upon the world and the free will given to men to engage in whatever acts of evil they choose gives way to an incalculable list of potential threats.
I’d assume he’d tell you that he entrusted the whole of creation to humanity and he wonders why humanity has made such a mess of things. God deemed his creation good and created man without sin. Man chose to defy that relationship with God and thereby corrupt the goodness God established and incur his wrath. Begs the question: given we know the potential for evil and outright engagement of evil within ourselves why we continue to allow it? We have every God given resource at our fingertips to prevent all sorts of atrocities, but we don’t eradicate such horrible things. We hide behind politics and rhetoric and do nothing…..or we casually blame God…..shameful.
If he's a part of your life, and he's helping Tbombs, then he's a personal god who cares about you individually, and created the world with you in mind, so not only does he intentionally ignore the pain and suffering of millions, but he also invented the HIV that has infected Tbombz.
How is it you know he ignores the pain and suffering of millions? He abhors it. The problem of evil is resolved through Jesus Christ.
The reality is, it’s God’s good creation which is the platform for resolving the problem of evil. Jesus left eternity and entered his finite creation as the incarnate Son of God who came to collect his church – those folks that reject sin and accept his standards and desire to be with him. He didn’t preprogram our choices into us, but yet he still knows the outcome….omniscience can’t be helped….it just is. “But God’s also all powerful. Couldn’t he have created a better world? Living in this existence while facing the problem of evil now isn’t just.” How so? Would you rather he create us as automatons with a fully scripted existence that negates our choices? God wants folks to come unto him that truly want to be with him. It’s our choice to accept or reject him that provides the purest pathway to eliminating evil. Notice also that this creation we exist in today was deemed “good” not “perfect”. The new creation is coming once the church - that has willfully chosen Christ - has been collected. Jesus Christ overcame our sin on Calvary’s cross and it’s up to us to make a choice to align ourselves with him or not based on what he did for us.
Our autonomy ends when we enter eternity. You’re a finite creation with finite choices to freely make in this finite existence, but those choices are still subject to infinite ramifications based upon his infinite terms (because God is infinite in nature). The finite existence we live in is merely staging for what is yet to come and what we choose to do now determines the outcome of our eternal existence. The realm of eternity – the infinite – is the final setting in which justice will be dealt out based upon our free choices in the finite. Again, we are autonomous in the finite (our realm), but not in the infinite (God’s realm). Yet, when each of us exits this life the problem of evil is one step closer to achieving full resolution because the problem of evil is reconciled individually (despite the fact we typically only acknowledge it collectively). It’s individuals that freely choose to assemble together to form the body of Christ and it’s individuals that freely choose to reject Christ. In this life we’re meant to go through the fire, but that fire is cleansing if you’re aligned with Christ.
please also ask him why if he wanted us all to be free from sin, then why not just take more care to have designed us better in the first place?
As I stated above, he created man free from sin, but with the ability to choose to engage in sin. Man chose to defy God and in doing so incurred his judgment.
why condemn everyone to be born into "original sin", create us sick and then order us to be well or face the punishment of eternal torture? where's the morality in that? lol.
Everyone is born with the proclivity to sin, but not born with sin or immediate condemnation to hell. How do we know this? Children.
When I read about King David’s child with Bathsheba passing away and David suggesting that as a believer he would he see his child again in God’s kingdom it affirmed for me the innocence of children and others with disabilities that prevent them from making an honest choice about sin and Christ in their lives. They don’t need salvation because being saved by grace through faith in Christ means we are saved from the wrath/judgment of God. The innocents need not fear God’s wrath for they are without blame or need for judgment.
“Jesus called a little child to him and put the child among them. Then he said, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you turn from your sins and become like little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven. So anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.’”
Christ also indicated how severely those that cause the children (the little ones) to fall into sin would be judged. The children are lead into sin and out of innocence.
As believers in Christ we are saved by grace through faith and thereby justified and deemed righteous….like the innocents who are inherently righteous we become like the them through Christ.
Seems a bit extreme to have himself sent down to earth in the form of his son, to have himself tortured...whilst knowing full well that he'll be resurrected anyway, and all to show us that he cares for us and all we have to do is shed the sin that he created us in to begin with!
Christ’s act of salvation on the cross was very extreme, but in essence what he did was simply sweeten the deal for us…..not for him, for us…..everything is about us. Again, as believers we acknowledge and accept blame for our sins. Jesus Christ left the divine and came as a man on earth as the perfect sacrifice for us. The act on Calvary’s cross is about love….love for us. He took upon himself all the pain that we deserve and in one mighty act forever bridged the gap between the finite and infinite if only we make the choice to accept him. Life is in the blood and because of the perfect, blameless, sinless shed blood on the cross that sin debt was extinguished permanently. It’s then up to us to again choose to accept or reject this act of love.
Sin has a powerful impact upon our lives. It’s an infection of sorts that spread from first man to current man. God’s law is based upon his righteous, divine nature; yet, he allows his creation to exist in a state where the potential for sin is there. As we choose to engage in sin it creates a divide between us and God. Yet, we aren’t forced to sin….we make the choice. Still he already knows that man in his state of finite autonomy will opt for sin…that we have a “sinful nature”. He also knows that man is capable of choosing righteousness instead. If we exist in that state of potential sin yet choose God’s righteousness and allow him to work in us to overcome our sin the gulf between our unrighteousness and his righteousness is bridged. Giving folks the option for both ends of the spectrum and everything in between makes our decision for God pure because we seek righteousness. That’s why Jesus Christ came.
The bible is quite clearly an antiquated and contradictory piece of fantasy, written by fools, which at best is used to give the illiterate, brainwashed and desperate a poor understanding of the universe, which has since been answered much more thoroughly by science, and at it's worst (and most common) is a divisive and oppressive ideology that's used as a form of power by controlling the minds of the stupid.
Yes, “a bronze age book written by sheepherders in an age of blood and ignorance to control the weak-willed and stupid”…..yes, yes I’ve heard it repeatedly. And yet it still holds today despite the rampant attempts at ridicule and mockery. That behavior is expected, outlined in scripture and I’m unphased by it. So hit me with your best shot……I’m still gonna share Christ with you and tell you that I do care about you.
There are definite things to glean from scripture about our universe, but the bible from beginning to end is about Jesus Christ.
Now, that wasn’t too hard to answer.
-
Captain Freedom, I told you MOSs answer would be stepped in "Free Will." ;D ;D
-
Well, MOS has to get a star on his jacket for effort, whether we agree with him or not. :)
-
I just can't see a guy like Taylor holding back for very long. I think he will be all about sending an extremely powerful message going forward through his online ministry.
(http://i60.tinye.jpg)
-
I just can't see a guy like Taylor holding back for very long. I think he will be all about sending an extremely powerful message going forward through his online ministry.
(http://i60.tinysf51e.jpg)
can you rephrase? I don't understand what you are trying to say.
and also, since nobody likes his facebook posts, his online ministry is quite simply non-existant.
-
;D ;D i can't even begin to argue with all that haha. It will go on to be a 100 page thread of endless, crazy assertions that don't even tie in with what the bible says. MOS i appreciate the fact that you wrote such a detailed response and are a clearly passionate guy. If you're getting something positive from it all then i'm glad. Just don't use your faith to fear monger or corrupt the minds of "jesus's little ones" into thinking they're going to hell for acting on perfectly natural, human instincts.
Primarily copied and pasted from my previous posts.....I have a ton at my fingertips today. ;)
-
I’d assume he’d tell you that he entrusted the whole of creation to humanity and he wonders why humanity has made such a mess of things. God deemed his creation good and created man without sin. Man chose to defy that relationship with God and thereby corrupt the goodness God established and incur his wrath. Begs the question: given we know the potential for evil and outright engagement of evil within ourselves why we continue to allow it? We have every God given resource at our fingertips to prevent all sorts of atrocities, but we don’t eradicate such horrible things. We hide behind politics and rhetoric and do nothing…..or we casually blame God…..shameful.
Ahh dinosaurs were here long before us and were wiped out by a fucking asteroid, how perfect is that? You can't on one hand say god's creation was perfect only later adulterated while at the same time ignoring every shred of evidence that dictates it in not perfect, but chaotic.
On one hand you claim god is logical, then when his "creation", reasoning or otherwise is scrutinized revert back to your magical talk, he is infinite (a mathematical concept that is purely abstract) and eternal (without time, outside of temporality).
God can change things with a flick of a wrist and you question why humans haven't fixed it? where was god when people were dying by the boatloads of 1000's of years before christ, oh wait, you are young earth creationist are you not?
When reality doesn't jive with your book you stick with the book, makes sense, books have never contained fiction.
-
Captain Freedom, I told you MOSs answer would be stepped in "Free Will." ;D ;D
LOL....I could write all your posts for you today.
-
Ahh dinosaurs were here long before us and were wiped out by a fucking asteroid, how perfect is that? You can't on one hand say god's creation was perfect only later adulterated while at the same time ignoring every shred of evidence that dictates it in not perfect, but chaotic.
On one hand you claim god is logical, then when his "creation", reasoning or otherwise is scrutinized revert back to your magical talk, he is infinite (a mathematical concept that is purely abstract) and eternal (without time, outside of temporality).
God can change things with a flick of a wrist and you question why humans haven't fixed it? where was god when people were dying by the boatloads of 1000's of years before christ, oh wait, you are young earth creationist are you not?
When reality doesn't jive with your book you stick with the book, makes sense, books have never contained fiction.
I said God deemed his creation good, not perfect.
Genesis 1:31
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
The new, perfect creation unencumbered by sin is yet to come after his church is collected.
-
LOL....I could write all your posts for you today.
And I surely can write all of yours. That is what happens when you spend the last 7-10 years talking to the same people on the same forum. ;D ;D
-
And I surely can write all of yours. That is what happens when you spend the last 7-10 years talking to the same people on the same forum. ;D ;D
Well now I can stop rewriting or copying and pasting!! ;)
-
AHAHAHAAHAH!!! "& free religious sermon by MOS!"
You are all very, very welcome!!
-
Well now I can stop rewriting or copying and pasting!! ;)
I am sure most of us know what another forum member is going to say by now. ;D ;D Its actually quite impressive that many people have been here for so long that we "know" what the other person will write. Either, impressive or pathetic. ;D ;D
-
I am sure most of us know what another forum member is going to say by now. ;D ;D Its actually quite impressive that many people have been here for so long that we "know" what the other person will write. Either, impressive or pathetic. ;D ;D
Honestly, a little of both LOL!
-
Honestly, a little of both LOL!
I spend too much time here. :-\ :'( :D ;D
-
Ahh dinosaurs were here long before us and were wiped out by a fucking asteroid, how perfect is that? You can't on one hand say god's creation was perfect only later adulterated while at the same time ignoring every shred of evidence that dictates it in not perfect, but chaotic.
On one hand you claim god is logical, then when his "creation", reasoning or otherwise is scrutinized revert back to your magical talk, he is infinite (a mathematical concept that is purely abstract) and eternal (without time, outside of temporality).
God can change things with a flick of a wrist and you question why humans haven't fixed it? where was god when people were dying by the boatloads of 1000's of years before christ, oh wait, you are young earth creationist are you not?
When reality doesn't jive with your book you stick with the book, makes sense, books have never contained fiction.
Job 41 - The Destruction of Leviathan
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Destruction_of_Leviathan.png)
Job 41:19-2 19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth. In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.
-
Why is it that people who feel they've been saved so often turn into religious fanatics? If you believe you've sinned, why should you feel you can dump this on God or Jesus and be completely absolved of it? Own your sins. Make every effort to not sin again and you should be good to go where ever it is you believe we go when we die.
Looks like once a fanatic, always one in cases like Tbombz. But hey, what ever floats his boat this week.
-
Why is it that people who feel they've been saved so often turn into religious fanatics? If you believe you've sinned, why should you feel you can dump this on God or Jesus and be completely absolved of it? Own your sins. Make every effort to not sin again and you should be good to go where ever it is you believe we go when we die.
Looks like once a fanatic, always one in cases like Tbombz. But hey, what ever floats his boat this week.
A way to avoid hell. You dont repent and give yourself over to JC, youre on a one-way trip to hang out with Satan for all eternity. Thats a pretty strong motivator to dump your sins on God.
-
This guy's chugging along quickly. Bulldozed through repentance/forgiveness/love/salvation and seems likely to exchange preaching/judging for judging/judging any time now. Just ahead, relapse and gloryholes.
But I certainly wish him well.
-
Why is it that people who feel they've been saved so often turn into religious fanatics? If you believe you've sinned, why should you feel you can dump this on God or Jesus and be completely absolved of it? Own your sins. Make every effort to not sin again and you should be good to go where ever it is you believe we go when we die.
Looks like once a fanatic, always one in cases like Tbombz. But hey, what ever floats his boat this week.
Huh?
Saved means dumping it on God. Otherwise, what was the whole cross thing about?
-
A way to avoid hell. You dont repent and give yourself over to JC, youre on a one-way trip to hang out with Satan for all eternity. Thats a pretty strong motivator to dump your sins on God.
This probably works well for people who believe in those places. I'm somewhat spiritual, but heaven and hell are not part of my religious beliefs. I am more of a ashes to ashes and dust to dust person. Why wouldn't God in all his benevolence forgive your sins based on how you conduct yourself over time. Contrition is fine. It is okay to feel bad that you've sinned. God is "all knowing" and that being the case, knows that you regret your sins or that you don't.
Sinning is a human condition. Pretty much everyone has sinned at some point in their lives.
-
Huh?
Saved means dumping it on God. Otherwise, what was the whole cross thing about?
Okay, so dumping is probably not the best way to put it. But when you ask for forgiveness and believe you've been forgiven just for the asking, there's some transfer of responsibility going on. Most people know people who sin, ask for forgiveness and then go right back and sin all over again. Could that be because they believe their sins have been completely absolved, perhaps because they preformed and act of contrition?
Sometimes living with the knowledge of your past sins helps you to not repeat them. There are many different concepts of what folks believe is a sin. What's a sin to me may not be one to you and vice versa.
In my opinion, "the whole cross thing" was about the politics going on at that time.
-
All Tbombz aside, some really nice discussions in this thread..
"1"
-
Thanks, yes the question i asked about god being selective in his interventions, was just one of the many possible rhetorical questions i could ask in order to highlight the contradictory and stupid reasoning used by the religious. I don't mean to sound like a prick or personally attack anyone though, i should add. It's just that the thinking behind organised religious belief is so clearly flawed.
Like you said, the Christian idea of this all is to try and make sense of something that is beyond our full comprehension just now, and people have the right to believe any nonsense they like, but they do not have the right to try and pass this nonsense off as fact, or assert that their delusions are a truth that will result in our eternal torture if we choose to reject it, as Tbombz is doing online.
I hear you dude and I respect your beliefs.
As far as Tbombz goes I hope he has had a life changing encounter with Jesus Christ, but his current personality, as SF1900 pointed out, is very much the same as he has always been; in the sense that he's extremely opinionated and passionate about his beliefs. His "passion" as a Christian is the same as it was as a know it all community college student and as a NASA developed bunny suit wearing blatant homosexual.
I'm assuming he has many insecurities and that's why he always comes across as so matter of fact. Ultimately, for most here, this is just another "gimmick/phase" for him and we're just waiting for him to fail, and he will because failure is also a part of the Christian walk, as he always has. The proof of his conversion will come with time.
But as of now he is still a blowhard, even though his intentions are probably good.
-
(http://i60.tinypic.e.jpg)
One wonders who is he trying to convince, himself or others?
-
new update. He is still not writing about meth, bareback sex or bunny suits? ???
(http://i60.tinyp1e.jpg)
Because the magical sky daddy's primary concerns are human sexual thoughts and copulation...
-
Because the magical sky daddy's primary concerns are human sexual thoughts and copulation...
This was from the movie "Jesus Camp." The adults in this movie were absolutely batshit crazy.
Indoctrinating little children to the point of making them cry.
(http://cdn.wegotthiscovered.com/wp-content/uploads/Jesus-Camp.jpg)
(http://religiousfreaks.com/UserFiles/Media/Thumbnail/jesus.camp.trailer.jpg)
(http://www.teenadvocatesusa.org/jesuscamp.JPG)
(http://www.zuguide.com/image/Jesus-Camp.jpg)
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l8in5cjvGa1qc3zef.jpg)
(https://media1.nfb.ca/medias/nfb_tube/thumbs_large/2014/Jesus_Camp_LG.jpg)
-
Felt bad for the bottom kid. He couldn't reconcile his doubts, and you could see the guilt and whatnot just ripping him apart. That, on top of the fear of eternal torture he's promised.
Many years ahead of confusion, therapy, and all the other bullshit simply because God made him an atheist.
-
This was from the movie "Jesus Camp." The adults in this movie were absolutely batshit crazy.
Indoctrinating little children to the point of making them cry.
I couldn't make it through this movie, there was definitely some odd behavior and people in this. It really brought out the religious fanatic stereotype.
-
I couldn't make it through this movie, there was definitely some odd behavior and people in this. It really brought out the religious fanatic stereotype.
Didn't they actually pray to, or for, G.W., or am I making this up?
-
Felt bad for the bottom kid. He couldn't reconcile his doubts, and you could see the guilt and whatnot just ripping him apart. That, on top of the fear of eternal torture he's promised.
Many years ahead of confusion, therapy, and all the other bullshit simply because God made him an atheist.
Yup, its absolutely disgusting what they did to that kid. He was asking good questions for his age, and was railroaded and made to cry and feel guilty. Disgusting behavior by the adults on that show. Religious nutters.
-
Didn't they actually pray to, or for, G.W., or am I making this up?
Yes, they prayed for GW.
-
I couldn't make it through this movie, there was definitely some odd behavior and people in this. It really brought out the religious fanatic stereotype.
It was painful to watch. :-\
-
Yup, its absolutely disgusting what they did to that kid. He was asking good questions for his age, and was railroaded and made to cry and feel guilty. Disgusting behavior by the adults on that show. Religious nutters.
To a certain degree, I can relate.
-
My normal answer would be to save the apologetics for someone whose IQ is below that of dinosaur fossils. But let's have some fun, shall we?
https://carm.org/is-mustard-seed-smallest-of-all-seeds (https://carm.org/is-mustard-seed-smallest-of-all-seeds)
Right, right... Jesus was speaking proverbially. ::) It's funny how the Bible is the inerrant word of the Lord when the text suits your purposes, but full of allegory and veiled meaning when the text doesn't suit your purposes.
Mustard Tree
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_Tree (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_Tree)
In other news: "Hamburgers contain no ham. Getbig patron Parker surprised!"
-
One thing I have always noticed. The more someone post about God on their FB page, the more fucked up their life is.
-
My normal answer would be to save the apologetics for someone whose IQ is below that of dinosaur fossils. But let's have some fun, shall we?
Right, right... Jesus was speaking proverbially. ::) It's funny how the Bible is the inerrant word of the Lord when the text suits your purposes, but full of allegory and veiled meaning when the text doesn't suit your purposes.
In other news: "Hamburgers contain no ham. Getbig patron Parker surprised!"
Hahahahahaa ;D ;D ;D ;D
Here is the KJV of Mark 4:30-32
Mark 4:30-32King James Version (KJV)
30 And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?
31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:
32 But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.
And here is except of an article:
https://diogenesii.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/what-is-the-smallest-seed-in-the-world/ (https://diogenesii.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/what-is-the-smallest-seed-in-the-world/)
Some have argued, despite the clear language of the quote, that Jesus was only referring to the seeds known to his audience. Well then, was the mustard seed the smallest seed known in Palestine? No, not even in Jesus’ time. There would be numerous plants familiar to his audience with smaller seeds, of which the best example would be the seed of the black orchid. And just for the record, the mustard seed doesn’t grow to be the greatest of all the shrubs on Earth, either.
The point of this observation is not to attack Jesus of Nazareth; the point is to attack those who would put words in his mouth. Jesus was not a scientist. Keeping in mind the fact that the Bible has been copied and translated so many times that it is likely we will never know for sure what he actually said, I think we can agree that Jesus spoke allegorically and not literally when he said that the mustard plant has the smallest seed on Earth, and that it is the largest shrub on Earth. Nor did Jesus ever claim that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago with species unchanging and in their modern forms – he did not declare evolution to be false.
-
1 Corinthians 2:14
14 But people who aren’t spiritual can’t receive these truths from God’s Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can’t understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means.
Well, isn't that too according to God's plan? Don't forget, he capricioulsy hardens the hearts of those whom he doesn't feel merciful towards, so that they will not listen to God's word (Romans 9:18) and will them punish them for their "failure" to listen.
-
Well, isn't that too according to God's plan? Don't forget, he capricioulsy hardens the hearts of those whom he doesn't feel merciful towards, so that they will not listen to God's word (Romans 9:18) and will them punish them for their "failure" to listen.
Exodus 9:12
And he also hardened Pharoahs heart so that His name would be known.
-
Exodus 9:12
And he also hardened Pharoahs heart so that His name would be known.
Oh, that makes it all better... couldn't he just hire Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce?
-
Oh, that makes it all better... couldn't he just hire Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce?
Lol.
Good point, He could have done it any other way, He could have stopped Eve from eating the fruit, Cain from killing Able, any of the wars that Israel had, the children that were slaughtered by Herrod when Jesus was born, the martyrdom of the apostles, the persecution and imprisonment of Paul, the tyranny of the Catholic church, the establishment of radical Islam, Dorians last Olympia win and Nicolas Cage's movie career. But He didn't.
You're making good points and asking some tough questions.
Thanks because that kind of stuff needs to be done.
-
The bible is quite clearly an antiquated and contradictory piece of fantasy, written by fools, which at best is used to give the illiterate, brainwashed and desperate a poor understanding of the universe, which has since been answered much more thoroughly by science, and at it's worst (and most common) is a divisive and oppressive ideology that's used as a form of power by controlling the minds of the stupid.
Jesus Christ, are you 12 years old?
Debate 101, you don't attack your opponent based on your "rad" opinion.
Step 2, don't throw out pseudo science power vocab like "The bible is quite clearly an antiquated and contradictory piece of fantasy, written by fools, which at best is used to give the illiterate, brainwashed and desperate a poor understanding of the universe"
-
Lol.
Good point, He could have done it any other way, He could have stopped Eve from eating the fruit, Cain from killing Able, any of the wars that Israel had, the children that were slaughtered by Herrod when Jesus was born, the martyrdom of the apostles, the persecution and imprisonment of Paul, the tyranny of the Catholic church, the establishment of radical Islam, Dorians last Olympia win and Nicolas Cage's movie career. But He didn't.
I think we can all agree that out of all those things he could have stopped by didn't, this is the most serious one!
You're making good points and asking some tough questions.
Thanks because that kind of stuff needs to be done.
If the conversation gets more heated, I think I'll move over to the Religious board. Don't want to detract from questions about blasting quads and getting shredded intercostals.
-
(http://s24.postim1/qqq.jpg)
Fairly sure, we as Christians are not supposed to jump in and start judging and condemning other people, that's up to God. Something about cleaning out the spec in one's eye beforehand.
-
The bible is quite clearly an antiquated and contradictory piece of fantasy
What the fuck does that even mean? And how is fantasy antiquated, if it's not, you know, real? ::)
-
"These antiques are clearly antiquated!"
:o
-
Someone has been masturbating to Richard Dawkins.
Jesus, get over yourself... ::)
-
I think we can all agree that out of all those things he could have stopped by didn't, this is the most serious one!
If the conversation gets more heated, I think I'll move over to the Religious board. Don't want to detract from questions about blasting quads and getting shredded intercostals.
:)
You're obviously another smart individual, surprisingly among many in this thread, asking hard hitting questions and making valid points.
That said, besides genetics why wasn't Lee Priest 4 inches taller, he could have won at least 2 Olympias!
-
Jesus Christ, are you 12 years old?
Debate 101, you don't attack your opponent based on your "rad" opinion.
Step 2, don't throw out pseudo science power vocab like "The bible is quite clearly an antiquated and contradictory piece of fantasy, written by fools, which at best is used to give the illiterate, brainwashed and desperate a poor understanding of the universe"
Captain Freedom makes a legit point, although he does it aggressively here, in that many times people have used religion and "Biblical doctrine" to enslave or coerce other's into a submission.
Jesus specifically warned His followers to watch out for false prophets, those who prey on widows and to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.
Religion, under the guise of Christianity (or Islam as well) has been an effective tool over the years to push non Christ centered agendas.
-
This proves my theory that religious folk have an IQ less than 80.
Hope this helps.
-
My normal answer would be to save the apologetics for someone whose IQ is below that of dinosaur fossils. But let's have some fun, shall we?
"Let's have some fun, shall we?" ::) Seriously? Give me a break with the "superior intellect" nonsense.
You only pretend at times to be pleasant and cordial. You also claim to want "real discussion", but you care nothing about discussion or responses....you just love your objections.
Well sir, you can keep them and feel free to take the cliche "haughty atheist" shtick with you also.
I've taken time in the past to write out thorough responses for you, but notice today I keep my responses to you (in particular) as brief as possible.
-
"Let's have some fun, shall we?" ::) Seriously? Give me a break with the "superior intellect" nonsense.
You only pretend at times to be pleasant and cordial. You also claim to want "real discussion", but you care nothing about discussion or responses....you just love your objections.
Well sir, you can keep them and feel free to take the cliche "haughty atheist" shtick with you also.
I've taken time in the past to write out thorough responses for you, but notice today I keep my responses to you (in particular) as brief as possible.
tl;dr
-
Hey MOS, do you sing in the choir?
-
tl;dr
I'm heartbroken LOL.
-
Hey MOS, do you sing in the choir?
No, terrible singing voice....no joyful noise there LOL.
-
Fairly sure, we as Christians are not supposed to jump in and start judging and condemning other people, that's up to God. Something about cleaning out the spec in one's eye beforehand.
That is what Tbombz does now. He has found God, so he has it all figured out. He can tell us that, according to the bible, we are sinning if we do certain actions. That we need to change.
-
"Let's have some fun, shall we?" ::) Seriously? Give me a break with the "superior intellect" nonsense.
You only pretend at times to be pleasant and cordial. You also claim to want "real discussion", but you care nothing about discussion or responses....you just love your objections.
Well sir, you can keep them and feel free to take the cliche "haughty atheist" shtick with you also.
I've taken time in the past to write out thorough responses for you, but notice today I keep my responses to you (in particular) as brief as possible.
Hate to burst your bubble, but that haughty attitude also exists among theists, just as much as it does among atheists. Hope this helps
-
Okay, so dumping is probably not the best way to put it. But when you ask for forgiveness and believe you've been forgiven just for the asking, there's some transfer of responsibility going on. Most people know people who sin, ask for forgiveness and then go right back and sin all over again. Could that be because they believe their sins have been completely absolved, perhaps because they preformed and act of contrition?
Sometimes living with the knowledge of your past sins helps you to not repeat them. There are many different concepts of what folks believe is a sin. What's a sin to me may not be one to you and vice versa.
In my opinion, "the whole cross thing" was about the politics going on at that time.
They are aptly called mistakes, no such thing as sin.
-
"Let's have some fun, shall we?" ::) Seriously? Give me a break with the "superior intellect" nonsense.
You only pretend at times to be pleasant and cordial. You also claim to want "real discussion", but you care nothing about discussion or responses....you just love your objections.
Well sir, you can keep them and feel free to take the cliche "haughty atheist" shtick with you also.
I've taken time in the past to write out thorough responses for you, but notice today I keep my responses to you (in particular) as brief as possible.
Let's be very clear: you don't keep your answers brief because you're sick of debating me or have a problem with the "haughty atheist" or the "superior intellect" "schticks."
You keep them brief because you've seen, time and time again, that I carefully respond to your posts, dissecting your "arguments" and showing just how weak and flawed they are. Keeping them brief is your attempt to hide behind your finger.
You can believe whatever you want - for any reasons you want. But your belief is little different than the belief of someone else who believes in a slightly different version of the Christian God, or even to someone who believes in Allah, the Olympians or fairies. It boils down to: "believing this makes me feel better, so I will."
-
I have always noted the difference in whether one's faith is "child-like" or "childish".
-
"Let's have some fun, shall we?" ::) Seriously? Give me a break with the "superior intellect" nonsense.
You only pretend at times to be pleasant and cordial. You also claim to want "real discussion", but you care nothing about discussion or responses....you just love your objections.
Well sir, you can keep them and feel free to take the cliche "haughty atheist" shtick with you also.
I've taken time in the past to write out thorough responses for you, but notice today I keep my responses to you (in particular) as brief as possible.
(http://www.emilytimbol.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Ned.gif)
Calm down, Neddly diddily diddily diddily, doodily.
-
They are aptly called mistakes, no such thing as sin.
This is possible. Is it still just a mistake if you knowingly do something wrong? A lot of folks use the term mistake as an excuse to not take responsibility for their actions.
-
Luke 6:22
22 Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man.
" He shall don the suit of the bunny and be humble as bottom." Gospel of TBombz 69:69
-
" He shall don the suit of the bunny and be humble as bottom." Gospel of TBombz 69:69
LMAO!!! ;D ;D ;D
The picture of Tbombz in the bunny costume is by far the best picture ever posted on getbig. Nothing beats it. Not even the picture of pumpster on the bed with the cat or squadfather being outted. The bunny costume exceeds everything!
-
LMAO!!! ;D ;D ;D
The picture of Tbombz in the bunny costume is by far the best picture ever posted on getbig. Nothing beats it. Not even the picture of pumpster on the bed with the cat or squadfather being outted. The bunny costume exceeds everything!
" He shall not hop away from the large carrot of lust." Gospel of Tbombz 69:14
-
This is possible. Is it still just a mistake if you knowingly do something wrong? A lot of folks use the term mistake as an excuse to not take responsibility for their actions.
I was using mistake in the context of doing something wrong, intention is certainly important, however, I disagree with many "sins" as they are biologically based not cognitive.
the word sin gets me.
-
Let's be very clear: you don't keep your answers brief because you're sick of debating me or have a problem with the "haughty atheist" or the "superior intellect" "schticks."
You keep them brief because you've seen, time and time again, that I carefully respond to your posts, dissecting your "arguments" and showing just how weak and flawed they are. Keeping them brief is your attempt to hide behind your finger.
You can believe whatever you want - for any reasons you want. But your belief is little different than the belief of someone else who believes in a slightly different version of the Christian God, or even to someone who believes in Allah, the Olympians or fairies. It boils down to: "believing this makes me feel better, so I will."
Oh PLEASE....that is absolute nonsense. I take time to craft answers as best I'm able...I've done it for years now....for you and many, many others.
With some folks it gets to the point in which I've answered their objections repeatedly yet they keep spewing them out again and again in slightly different variations. Fine, you don't agree with me....I get it.
How many times do I need to repeat things? So for some I just start one lining things or keep answers to a couple of words. For most it's real simple....respond with a few words (which is preferred) it's ALWAYS deemed an insufficient reply. Respond with a thorough reply and it goes unread or gets a "meltdown" or "TL;DR".
What I realized is that you and a few others are not after "an answer" because you've already figured it all out. You think you're just toying with lesser minds now.
Even if I answer you thoroughly and correctly you'll just go to the ole "I'm still waiting for a cogent reply" crutch or you'll respond with a five word jab about "lesser intellects" (whatever it is).
It's a silly game....took me a bit to learn it though. I blame only myself for giving so many the benefit of the doubt for so long.
Still for a time there I thought that there was a decent line of communication, but I was wrong...I admit that.
It's not that you don't ask good questions or questions that require thoughtful consideration. You do. But you're not always correct in your theological assumptions....I've corrected you repeatedly and I've also told you that sometimes you give me things to think about (and I do). Yet I fully admit I don't have all the answers.....never will.
Regardless, it's the haughty atheists job to never admit to a theist that the atheist position was wrong (there's no such thing LOL) or that the theist was correct (there's REALLY no such thing). That notion doesn't comport with your worldview and it never will.....that's why it's a suckers game.....I was the sucker and I admit that. Still, it wasn't all for naught, but that's only for me.
It's fine if a person prefers to "line by line" things. Hate to burst your bubble, but you're not the only one that does that. And I'm not suggesting I respond to or even see every post....I'm sure I miss stuff. That's doesn't mean I can't respond to those things though or that I'm running away. I've repeatedly don't 8 versus 1 in threads and held my own. Then there are times when I'm just tired and need a break from the back and forth....I'm sure things get missed then.
Yet, I still admit that I won't always have a sufficient answer, but that doesn't negate my faith or God or "religion"....yada yada. Problem is with this game any answer is automatically "insufficient" because in this game "answers" aren't the point....making the theist look foolish is the object.
That's why I don't respond to you at length anymore. Still if you feel good thinking you've taken me down....I'm a-ok with that....it was just a silly game.
-
Oh PLEASE....that is absolute nonsense. I take time to craft answers as best I'm able...I've done it for years now....for you and many, many others.
With some folks it gets to the point in which I've answered their objections repeatedly yet they keep spewing them out again and again in slightly different variations. Fine, you don't agree with me....I get it.
How many times do I need to repeat things? So for some I just start one lining things or keep answers to a couple of words. For most it's real simple....respond with a few words (which is preferred) it's ALWAYS deemed an insufficient reply. Respond with a thorough reply and it goes unread or gets a "meltdown" or "TL;DR".
What I realized is that you and a few others are not after "an answer" because you've already figured it all out. You think you're just toying with lesser minds now.
Even if I answer you thoroughly and correctly you'll just go to the ole "I'm still waiting for a cogent reply" crutch or you'll respond with a five word jab about "lesser intellects" (whatever it is).
It's a silly game....took me a bit to learn it though. I blame only myself for giving so many the benefit of the doubt for so long.
Still for a time there I thought that there was a decent line of communication, but I was wrong...I admit that.
It's not that you don't ask good questions or questions that require thoughtful consideration. You do. But you're not always correct in your theological assumptions....I've corrected you repeatedly and I've also told you that sometimes you give me things to think about (and I do). Yet I fully admit I don't have all the answers.....never will.
Regardless, it's the haughty atheists job to never admit to a theist that the atheist position was wrong (there's no such thing LOL) or that the theist was correct (there's REALLY no such thing). That notion doesn't comport with your worldview and it never will.....that's why it's a suckers game.....I was the sucker and I admit that. Still, it wasn't all for naught, but that's only for me.
It's fine if a person prefers to "line by line" things. Hate to burst your bubble, but you're not the only one that does that. And I'm not suggesting I respond to or even see every post....I'm sure I miss stuff. That's doesn't mean I can't respond to those things though or that I'm running away. I've repeatedly don't 8 versus 1 in threads and held my own. Then there are times when I'm just tired and need a break from the back and forth....I'm sure things get missed then.
Yet, I still admit that I won't always have a sufficient answer, but that doesn't negate my faith or God or "religion"....yada yada. Problem is with this game any answer is automatically "insufficient" because in this game "answers" aren't the point....making the theist look foolish is the object.
That's why I don't respond to you at length anymore. Still if you feel good thinking you've taken me down....I'm a-ok with that.
As a bystander in some of these threads I would say that what MOS says here is correct and he has more patience then I do in responding to a lot of the obvious attacks. His answers are well thought out and isn't afraid to say he doesn't have all the answers (no one does). MOS=good guy in my book.
-
Oh PLEASE....that is absolute nonsense. I take time to craft answers as best I'm able...I've done it for years now....for you and many, many others.
With some folks it gets to the point in which I've answered their objections repeatedly yet they keep spewing them out again and again in slightly different variations. Fine, you don't agree with me....I get it.
How many times do I need to repeat things? So for some I just start one lining things or keep answers to a couple of words. For most it's real simple....respond with a few words (which is preferred) it's ALWAYS deemed an insufficient reply. Respond with a thorough reply and it goes unread or gets a "meltdown" or "TL;DR".
What I realized is that you and a few others are not after "an answer" because you've already figured it all out. You think you're just toying with lesser minds now.
Even if I answer you thoroughly and correctly you'll just go to the ole "I'm still waiting for a cogent reply" crutch or you'll respond with a five word jab about "lesser intellects" (whatever it is).
It's a silly game....took me a bit to learn it though. I blame only myself for giving so many the benefit of the doubt for so long.
Still for a time there I thought that there was a decent line of communication, but I was wrong...I admit that.
It's not that you don't ask good questions or questions that require thoughtful consideration. You do. But you're not always correct in your theological assumptions....I've corrected you repeatedly and I've also told you that sometimes you give me things to think about (and I do). Yet I fully admit I don't have all the answers.....never will.
Regardless, it's the haughty atheists job to never admit to a theist that the atheist position was wrong (there's no such thing LOL) or that the theist was correct (there's REALLY no such thing). That notion doesn't comport with your worldview and it never will.....that's why it's a suckers game.....I was the sucker and I admit that. Still, it wasn't all for naught, but that's only for me.
It's fine if a person prefers to "line by line" things. Hate to burst your bubble, but you're not the only one that does that. And I'm not suggesting I respond to or even see every post....I'm sure I miss stuff. That's doesn't mean I can't respond to those things though or that I'm running away. I've repeatedly don't 8 versus 1 in threads and held my own. Then there are times when I'm just tired and need a break from the back and forth....I'm sure things get missed then.
Yet, I still admit that I won't always have a sufficient answer, but that doesn't negate my faith or God or "religion"....yada yada. Problem is with this game any answer is automatically "insufficient" because in this game "answers" aren't the point....making the theist look foolish is the object.
That's why I don't respond to you at length anymore. Still if you feel good thinking you've taken me down....I'm a-ok with that....it was just a silly game.
Regardless, it's the haughty atheists job to never admit to a theist that the atheist position was wrong (there's no such thing LOL) or that the theist was correct (there's REALLY no such thing). That notion doesn't comport with your worldview and it never will.....that's why it's a suckers game.....I was the sucker and I admit that. Still, it wasn't all for naught, but that's only for me.
You mean the haughty theist that says, "I dont care what evidence you show me, I know a God exists." That one? Or were you referring to the other theists that always honestly examine the evidence? Oh wait, those are few and far between.
I have never ever met a hardcore theist who will actually says, "A God may not exist." They are absolutely certain that a God does exist, no matter what evidence you show them. And who is "haughty?" Tbombz believes the earth is 6000 years old, despite the fact that there is a HUGE general consensus that its billions of years older. Its pretty much not even debatable. The earth is demonstrably older than 6000 years old. Yet, tbombz thinks this is false, like so many other theists. This is haughty!
No answer is sufficient because most of your answers are just verses from the bible. Even when you watch debates between atheists vs. theists, the theist hardly every cites scripture verbatim. Its just not a good way to debate. Why should we think that to be a sufficient answer?
-
As a bystander in some of these threads I would say that what MOS says here is correct and he has more patience then I do in responding to a lot of the obvious attacks. His answers are well thought out and isn't afraid to say he doesn't have all the answers (no one does). MOS=good guy in my book.
I agree that he has patience and takes time to answer. I don't think I've attacked him (although I think I may have once gotten frustrated and used a pejorative or two) and I try to make my posts thoughtful and to answer the points he does make. I also don't doubt that his beliefs are sincerely held and that he's genuine and honest. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to challenge those beliefs in the context of a discussion in which he voluntarily partcipates.
-
I agree that he has patience and takes time to answer. I don't think I've attacked him (although I think I may have once gotten frustrated and used a pejorative or two) and I try to make my posts thoughtful and to answer the points he does make. I also don't doubt that his beliefs are sincerely held and that he's genuine and honest. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to challenge those beliefs in the context of a discussion in which he voluntarily partcipates.
All religious people in America have this false idea that they are "under attack." Just watch Fox News. They consistently state that Christians are being "attacked" and "persecuted." It sounds like MOS holds this similar view. I think it has to do with the fact that this is not the year 1500 any more, and people are seriously starting to challenge religion. Religion no longer holds the sacred place it used to. 500 years ago you would be burned alive or hung for challenging religion. Times have changed. I suspect that people like MOS feel persecuted, and are overly sensitive.
-
As a bystander in some of these threads I would say that what MOS says here is correct and he has more patience then I do in responding to a lot of the obvious attacks. His answers are well thought out and isn't afraid to say he doesn't have all the answers (no one does). MOS=good guy in my book.
He is a good guy, but his book is no more true then any other and there is no way to verify them. I find it odd god would show himself so obviously to those stone aged people, yet he has been absent for centuries now. Which seems more rational? that those people without proper knowledge of the world created a god or god thought it best to only reveal himself to a small sect of apes in a particular part of the world, when bacteria was unknown for example. If he is in the business of actually revealing himself in physical form etc way not just do it again? when cameras exist? something isn't adding up here. When something doesn't make sense we refer to it as wrong.
Scientology is as valid as christianity, the recent nature of it makes it more laughable. However, the bible is equally as laughable, perhaps even more so, yet it's age creates this concept of "wisdom" and "magical thinking". I think it's most likely these poorly educated and ill-informed people got it wrong, after all, we know how hard it is to get something right. The bible says nothing about quantum mechanics, germ theory, gravity or anything actually useful.
There are trillions of stars, a vast universe and god is concerned with one type of great ape that has been on this planet for a small blip. In order to believe in god you have to believe he sat and watched for millions of years as species after species went extinct, seemingly disinterested, meanwhile we are his goal and concern.
-
Regardless, it's the haughty atheists job to never admit to a theist that the atheist position was wrong (there's no such thing LOL) or that the theist was correct (there's REALLY no such thing). That notion doesn't comport with your worldview and it never will.....that's why it's a suckers game.....I was the sucker and I admit that. Still, it wasn't all for naught, but that's only for me.
You mean the haughty theist that says, "I dont care what evidence you show me, I know a God exists." That one? Or were you referring to the other theists that always honestly examine the evidence? Oh wait, those are few and far between.
I have never ever met a hardcore theist who will actually says, "A God may not exist." They are absolutely certain that a God does exist, no matter what evidence you show them. And who is "haughty?" Tbombz believes the earth is 6000 years old, despite the fact that there is a HUGE general consensus that its billions of years older. Its pretty much not even debatable. The earth is demonstrably older than 6000 years old. Yet, tbombz thinks this is false, like so many other theists. This is haughty!
No answer is sufficient because most of your answers are just verses from the bible. Even when you watch debates between atheists vs. theists, the theist hardly every cites scripture verbatim. Its just not a good way to debate. Why should we think that to be a sufficient answer?
It's a fact that the earth is millions of years old, it can be proven beyond a doubt, yet theists dismiss these facts. The universe is roughly 4.5 billion years old, things like star formation require a particular amount of time, black holes, redshift, radiometric dating, physics, all of biology etc etc etc corroborate the age of the earth and universe.
-
It's a fact that the earth is millions of years old, it can be proven beyond a doubt, yet theists dismiss these facts. The universe earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old, things like star formation require a particular amount of time, black holes, redshift, radiometric dating, physics, all of biology etc etc etc corroborate the age of the earth and universe.
-
Yes, the earth is roughly 4 billion years old. The universe is roughly 14 billion years.
Quite a difference than 6000 years old. Those silly theists.
-
Oh PLEASE....that is absolute nonsense. I take time to craft answers as best I'm able...I've done it for years now....for you and many, many others.
Do note, I never suggested that you didn't take time to craft answers; in fact, if you look back through some of my posts, you'll note how I've thanked you for continuing to engage and trying to focus on the merits instead of proselytizing. It was you that said that you started keeping your answers to me brief. I merely suggested a reason. Maybe you disagree with my reason, but it's what I believe. Am I not entitled to my beliefs?
With some folks it gets to the point in which I've answered their objections repeatedly yet they keep spewing them out again and again in slightly different variations. Fine, you don't agree with me....I get it.
Sorry, but thinking you've answered their objections is not the same as actually answering. If I ask "why is the sky blue?" then no matter how many times you scream: "God makes it blue!" you aren't giving an answer.
How many times do I need to repeat things? So for some I just start one lining things or keep answers to a couple of words. For most it's real simple....respond with a few words (which is preferred) it's ALWAYS deemed an insufficient reply. Respond with a thorough reply and it goes unread or gets a "meltdown" or "TL;DR".
Except I don't think I've even answered with "meltdown" or "TL;DR". In fact, my answers to you are elaborate and carefully crafted because I actually spend time thinking about the issues you raise and how to address them.
What I realized is that you and a few others are not after "an answer" because you've already figured it all out. You think you're just toying with lesser minds now.
I don't think I've figured it all out, although I certainly think that I've figured out that there's no God. Forgive me for not being an agnostic... you're welcome to try to use logic to convince me I'm wrong. Unlike you, I'm open to the possibility.
Even if I answer you thoroughly and correctly you'll just go to the ole "I'm still waiting for a cogent reply" crutch or you'll respond with a five word jab about "lesser intellects" (whatever it is).
There are plenty of people who have the IQ of tepid bathwater, and a lot are very opinionated and loud. If I come across such people I call them out, not to make myself feel better but because I don't think that one should engage with idiots.
Still for a time there I thought that there was a decent line of communication, but I was wrong...I admit that.
I thought we did pretty well.
It's not that you don't ask good questions or questions that require thoughtful consideration. You do. But you're not always correct in your theological assumptions....I've corrected you repeatedly and I've also told you that sometimes you give me things to think about (and I do). Yet I fully admit I don't have all the answers.....never will.
The problem is that your corrections usually require me to accept huge tenets of your faith and a particular interpretation. More than once you've suggested that in order for me to know God I must first accept that he exists, that the Bible is his inerrant word and that through that, I can get to know him and learn about Jesus, through whom I can then know and commune with the Father.
Sorry... that's not how it works. I'm asking you to provide me evidence of your God, and your response is to say: "well, believe first and then I'll give you evidence." But that's nonsense. If I believe, what's the point of evidence? In fact, if I believe, anything is evidence, so that term becomes meaningless.
Regardless, it's the haughty atheists job to never admit to a theist that the atheist position was wrong (there's no such thing LOL) or that the theist was correct (there's REALLY no such thing). That notion doesn't comport with your worldview and it never will.....that's why it's a suckers game.....I was the sucker and I admit that. Still, it wasn't all for naught, but that's only for me.
I don't think being an atheist makes someone infallible. I openly admit that my atheism and the positions I take are based on my evaluation of observable facts and logical deductions. Is it possible I'm wrong? Of course. I never claim to be infallible. Now, let's flip the table because I'm curious about something: is it possible that you are wrong, that God doesn't exist and your beliefs are unjustified?
It's fine if a person prefers to "line by line" things. Hate to burst your bubble, but you're not the only one that does that. And I'm not suggesting I respond to or even see every post....I'm sure I miss stuff. That's doesn't mean I can't respond to those things though or that I'm running away. I've repeatedly don't 8 versus 1 in threads and held my own. Then there are times when I'm just tired and need a break from the back and forth....I'm sure things get missed then.
We all get tired and need breaks. I don't think I suggested you need to answer every post on every thread. I never even suggested that you should answer most posts or most thread. I don't care how many you answer or not. I know you can respond and I was under the impression that you enjoyed the debate and the process of having your faith challenged and trying to challenge the positions and beliefs of others.
Yet, I still admit that I won't always have a sufficient answer, but that doesn't negate my faith or God or "religion"....yada yada. Problem is with this game any answer is automatically "insufficient" because in this game "answers" aren't the point....making the theist look foolish is the object.
I have no interest in making theists - or anyone else for that matter - look foolish, especially over the Internet. I have much better things to do with my time. I never suggested that you needed to have all the answers. All I tried to get you (and others) to do is to stop trying to pass off your beliefs as fact. I never suggested you stop believing and I never tried to convert you. In fact, if you remember I openly told you that once you bring in personal, divine revelation the debate is over, because nobody can argue against that, but that you can't use that to convince others, since others have no way of knowing if what you experienced was personal, divine revelation or undiagnosed mental disorders - and that wans't meant as an insult.
That's why I don't respond to you at length anymore. Still if you feel good thinking you've taken me down....I'm a-ok with that....it was just a silly game.
Taking you down is of no interest to me.
-
It's a fact that the earth is millions of years old, it can be proven beyond a doubt, yet theists dismiss these facts. The universe is roughly 4.5 billion years old, things like star formation require a particular amount of time, black holes, redshift, radiometric dating, physics, all of biology etc etc etc corroborate the age of the earth and universe.
Just saw this now lol
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32804177
The world's oldest stone tools have been discovered, scientists report.
They were unearthed from the shores of Lake Turkana in Kenya, and date to 3.3 million years ago.
They are 700,000 years older than any tools found before, even pre-dating the earliest humans in the Homo genus.
The find, reported in Nature, suggests that more ancient species, such as Australopithecus afarensis or Kenyanthropus platyops, may have been more sophisticated than was thought.
"They are significantly earlier than anything that has been found previously," said Dr Nick Taylor, from the National Centre of Scientific Research (CNRS) in France and the University of Leiden in the Netherlands.
"It's really quite astonishing to think what separates the previous oldest site and this site is 700,000 years of time. It's monumental."
-
Do note, I never suggested that you didn't take time to craft answers; in fact, if you look back through some of my posts, you'll note how I've thanked you for continuing to engage and trying to focus on the merits instead of proselytizing. It was you that said that you started keeping your answers to me brief. I merely suggested a reason. Maybe you disagree with my reason, but it's what I believe. Am I not entitled to my beliefs?
Sorry, but thinking you've answered their objections is not the same as actually answering. If I ask "why is the sky blue?" then no matter how many times you scream: "God makes it blue!" you aren't giving an answer.
Except I don't think I've even answered with "meltdown" or "TL;DR". In fact, my answers to you are elaborate and carefully crafted because I actually spend time thinking about the issues you raise and how to address them.
I don't think I've figured it all out, although I certainly think that I've figured out that there's no God. Forgive me for not being an agnostic... you're welcome to try to use logic to convince me I'm wrong. Unlike you, I'm open to the possibility.
There are plenty of people who have the IQ of tepid bathwater, and a lot are very opinionated and loud. If I come across such people I call them out, not to make myself feel better but because I don't think that one should engage with idiots.
I thought we did pretty well.
The problem is that your corrections usually require me to accept huge tenets of your faith and a particular interpretation. More than once you've suggested that in order for me to know God I must first accept that he exists, that the Bible is his inerrant word and that through that, I can get to know him and learn about Jesus, through whom I can then know and commune with the Father.
Sorry... that's not how it works. I'm asking you to provide me evidence of your God, and your response is to say: "well, believe first and then I'll give you evidence." But that's nonsense. If I believe, what's the point of evidence? In fact, if I believe, anything is evidence, so that term becomes meaningless.
I don't think being an atheist makes someone infallible. I openly admit that my atheism and the positions I take are based on my evaluation of observable facts and logical deductions. Is it possible I'm wrong? Of course. I never claim to be infallible. Now, let's flip the table because I'm curious about something: is it possible that you are wrong, that God doesn't exist and your beliefs are unjustified?
We all get tired and need breaks. I don't think I suggested you need to answer every post on every thread. I never even suggested that you should answer most posts or most thread. I don't care how many you answer or not. I know you can respond and I was under the impression that you enjoyed the debate and the process of having your faith challenged and trying to challenge the positions and beliefs of others.
I have no interest in making theists - or anyone else for that matter - look foolish, especially over the Internet. I have much better things to do with my time. I never suggested that you needed to have all the answers. All I tried to get you (and others) to do is to stop trying to pass off your beliefs as fact. I never suggested you stop believing and I never tried to convert you. In fact, if you remember I openly told you that once you bring in personal, divine revelation the debate is over, because nobody can argue against that, but that you can't use that to convince others, since others have no way of knowing if what you experienced was personal, divine revelation or undiagnosed mental disorders - and that wans't meant as an insult.
Taking you down is of no interest to me.
Since you've take the time to reply, I will do the same when I free up.
-
800$ custom bunny suit
enough said...
-
Since you've take the time to reply, I will do the same when I free up.
Don't worry about it - not every post needs an answer and this isn't the right thread for this anyways.
-
All religious people in America have this false idea that they are "under attack." Just watch Fox News. They consistently state that Christians are being "attacked" and "persecuted." It sounds like MOS holds this similar view. I think it has to do with the fact that this is not the year 1500 any more, and people are seriously starting to challenge religion. Religion no longer holds the sacred place it used to. 500 years ago you would be burned alive or hung for challenging religion. Times have changed. I suspect that people like MOS feel persecuted, and are overly sensitive.
Why wouldn't he? Exactly what happens every time he posts. Doesn't need Fox to tell him that.
Also don't get why you lump him in with "haughty theists." He certainly hasn't behaved as such here, and he's not obligated to answer for those who have.
He addressed specific attacks against himself, and the board has a shitload of posts to support his characterization. Dude's been nothing but fair, honest, and decent since day one.
-
It's a fact that the earth is millions of years old, it can be proven beyond a doubt, yet theists dismiss these facts. The universe is roughly *13.5 billion years old, things like star formation require a particular amount of time, black holes, redshift, radiometric dating, physics, all of biology etc etc etc corroborate the age of the earth and universe.
* our solar system is roughly 4.5 billion yrs old and the Universe is around 13-14 billion
-
* our solar system is roughly 4.5 billion yrs old and the Universe is around 13-14 billion
If that's the case where did Wes live before the birth of our solar system?
-
800$ custom bunny suit
enough said...
" On the 8th day , the Lord created the bunny bottom man." Gospel of Getbig Ch 2 vs 69
-
If that's the case where did Wes live before the birth of our solar system?
He's from Uranus actually ... ;)
-
He's from Uranus actually ... ;)
He certainly cums there a lot.
-
He certainly cums there a lot.
ba dum tss
-
Why wouldn't he? Exactly what happens every time he posts. Doesn't need Fox to tell him that.
Also don't get why you lump him in with "haughty theists." He certainly hasn't behaved as such here, and he's not obligated to answer for those who have.
He addressed specific attacks against himself, and the board has a shitload of posts to support his characterization. Dude's been nothing but fair, honest, and decent since day one.
Why wouldn't he? Exactly what happens every time he posts. Doesn't need Fox to tell him that.
I wasn't specifically referring to getbig. Who cares about what is said on getbig. I was speaking more in a global manner, i.e., he, like other theists, feel like there is a specific agenda against them, especially in America. That there is a cultural shift that is trying to "shut down" theists. I am sure what is said to him on getbig rarely ever matters. Its the overall feeling of a society that is shifting away from religion (obviously, its still has its stronghold, but nowhere near to the extent that it once did).
Also don't get why you lump him in with "haughty theists." He certainly hasn't behaved as such here, and he's not obligated to answer for those who have.
Who said I lumped him in with "haughty" theists? If you go back and re-read my posts, you will see that I use tbombz as an example. Not MOS. I've referred to theists in general. Please do not puts words into my mouth. Thank you.
He addressed specific attacks against himself, and the board has a shitload of posts to support his characterization. Dude's been nothing but fair, honest, and decent since day one.
Well, I wouldn't say since day one, since he was a pretty big troll back in the day. His character shifted drastically when he found God.
Also, this is the G and O section of getbig. Rarely any conversations stay on task. And most involve jokes or short-handed comments toward another. And that goes for any topics. Its even happened to me during the times Ive tried to have serious debates with people. Its just the nature of the board. MOS is quite aware the nature of this board, and has stated that its almost impossible to have a debate on here.
-
Why wouldn't he? Exactly what happens every time he posts. Doesn't need Fox to tell him that.
I wasn't specifically referring to getbig. Who cares about what is said on getbig. I was speaking more in a global manner, i.e., he, like other theists, feel like there is a specific agenda against them, especially in America. That there is a cultural shift that is trying to "shut down" theists. I am sure what is said to him on getbig rarely ever matters. Its the overall feeling of a society that is shifting away from religion (obviously, its still has its stronghold, but nowhere near to the extent that it once did).
Also don't get why you lump him in with "haughty theists." He certainly hasn't behaved as such here, and he's not obligated to answer for those who have.
Who said I lumped him in with "haughty" theists? If you go back and re-read my posts, you will see that I use tbombz as an example. Not MOS. I've referred to theists in general. Please do not puts words into my mouth. Thank you.
He addressed specific attacks against himself, and the board has a shitload of posts to support his characterization. Dude's been nothing but fair, honest, and decent since day one.
Well, I wouldn't say since day one, since he was a pretty big troll back in the day. His character shifted drastically when he found God.
Also, this is the G and O section of getbig. Rarely any conversations stay on task. And most involve jokes or short-handed comments toward another. And that goes for any topics. Its even happened to me during the times Ive tried to have serious debates with people. Its just the nature of the board. MOS is quite aware the nature of this board, and has stated that its almost impossible to have a debate on here.
I re-read them. Got it right the first time.
-
I re-read them. Got it right the first time.
No, you didn't.
-
(http://fakeposters.com.s3.amazonaws.com/results/2015/03/19/mzaj4d09ui.gif)
-
I was using mistake in the context of doing something wrong, intention is certainly important, however, I disagree with many "sins" as they are biologically based not cognitive.
the word sin gets me.
I'm okay with whatever folks want to call it when they screw up. A sin as defined by religious beliefs, gets me a little too.
-
From Tbombz Facebook:
DRUNKENNESS
"Are you a Christian? Do you believe in Jesus? Are you a drunkard, too? Sure, Jesus did turn water into wine. The Bible often speaks of alcoholic beverages in a positive light. However, only in moderation and on rare occasion. Wherever the bible speaks about drunkenness it condemns such behavior! Now, it may be ok to get a little bit "buzzed" once or twice a year on a very special occasion, but if your belting em' back on a weekly basis then your not obeying the Lord who commands you to "Be sober and vigilant". Now, with confidence I say to you:vWake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame."
"Your a grown man, or your a grown woman. You pay your own bills, and live your own life. You have life experience, and you might even have some kids of your own. And your dating somebody, and it's pretty serious. Your both grown ups, maybe you've both been married before and neither of you want to rush into another one. But your having sex with each other anyways. Do you know what God thinks about that? He thinks you deserve to burn in hell for eternity because you love your sexual sins more than you love Him. And if it wasn't for the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, you would in fact suffer that eternal torment as a just penalty for your sin. Now, ask yourself, do you believe in God? Do you love God? Now, why don't you obey Him? I'm not only speaking to you old folks, but to you young people as well. Yes, "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, then you will be saved" but "faith without works is dead"
""Pornography
porne (greek): prostitute
graphy (greek): written
Do you watch pornography? Do you know that pornography is any visual, verbal, or written display or discussion concerning sexual immorality? Any written word, and spoken speech, any sexual thing that you intentionally watch, look at, listen to, talk about, or think about... it is pornography, it is adultery, and it is treason and betrayal against Jesus Christ.
God has given us sex as a beautiful relationship between one man and one woman to engage in when they are married."
-
This Facebook post inspired all manner of responses which I won't make because I don't want to be cruel.
Ultimately, what I want to say is get back to me on this in a couple of decades. If you still believe this nonsense. then we can have an intelligent theological discussion where I will have more respect for you having been reborn. Frankly, at this point it simply seems like you are just going through another phase in your life. This one may be better for you in the long run, but it is also much more irritating than some of your previous incarnations.
-
This Facebook post inspired all manner of responses which I won't make because I don't want to be cruel.
Ultimately, what I want to say is get back to me on this in a couple of decades. If you still believe this nonsense. then we can have an intelligent theological discussion where I will have more respect for you having been reborn. Frankly, at this point it simply seems like you are just going through another phase in your life. This one may be better for you in the long run, but it is also much more irritating than some of your previous incarnations.
Decades? People like this don't even last months, especially at his pace.
-
This Facebook post inspired all manner of responses which I won't make because I don't want to be cruel.
Ultimately, what I want to say is get back to me on this in a couple of decades. If you still believe this nonsense. then we can have an intelligent theological discussion where I will have more respect for you having been reborn. Frankly, at this point it simply seems like you are just going through another phase in your life. This one may be better for you in the long run, but it is also much more irritating than some of your previous incarnations.
Tbombz:
Adultery. That's what you commit every time you lust for someone your not married to. Every time you joke about how you would like to be "hooking up" with somebody, and every time you look at somebody and think to yourself "oh, how I would like to be getting with that".. in the eyes of Jesus you are commiting adultery.
Sexual sins are extremely serious in the eyes of God. Now, you prove your faith by your obedience or, on judgement day, you might just hear "Away from me you who practices sin, I never knew you!"
-
Sex is so sinful, Tombs should go to hell just for having tricked (it's a sin to do that) people to read his post by using such a provocative word (also a sin) so he now has no choice but to go to hell.
However, since he sacrificed himself (like jesus...) maybe he gets a pass?
-
Sex is so sinful, Tombs should go to hell just for having tricked (it's a sin to do that) people to read his post by using such a provocative word (also a sin) so he now has no choice but to go to hell.
However, since he sacrificed himself (like jesus...) maybe he gets a pass?
Interesting question. I suspect this is what he is hoping will happen.
-
MOS doesn`t deserve getting shit for his beliefs...........real good guy.
-
MOS doesn`t deserve getting shit for his beliefs...........real good guy.
Correct. MOS is off limits. Too nice a guy. May not agree with him about his beliefs but he doesn't deserve a shitstorm for it.
-
Correct. MOS is off limits. Too nice a guy. May not agree with him about his beliefs but he doesn't deserve a shitstorm for it.
Exactly,who`s to say what he should believe in or not?
Just a buncha` ball busters trying to get a rise out of him............as usual here on GB!!
-
Exactly,who`s to say what he should believe in or not?
Just a buncha` ball busters trying to get a rise out of him............as usual here on GB!!
He is still no Wes though
-
(http://s28.postimg.org/rvtzzzebx/f_X1_EYdn.jpg)
-
Jesus, he believes in noah's ark and even goes as far to defend it.
I love the idea of being born into slavery and abject servitude.
This shit is vile.
-
The Necessities for God-Glorifying Sex
In a sex-saturated world, broken by sin, the Bible’s ideal is difficult to attain. There is no room for self-righteousness here. We are all sinners. Each one of us is sexually broken to one extent or another. We all need Christ to sanctify our hearts, minds, bodies, sexual behaviors and inclinations so that our sexuality increasingly conforms to God’s intent for it.
Though we may never fully attain it, though we fail (aren’t you glad for grace?), though some may painfully struggle with questions of sexual identity for their entire lives, and though some have not experienced the marital union to be the blessing it was intended to be, it is nonetheless important that believers understand, faithfully communicate, and aim for God’s ideal for sex as outlined in Scripture.
The Lord wants Christians to experience great sex. He doesn’t want us to settle for impure—dirty, common, ordinary—sex. He wants our sexual conduct to become more and more pure, that is: clean, uncommon, and extraordinary, set apart (1 Thess. 4:1-8). Scripture tells us that we do with our bodies is important. Sex exists for the purpose of glorifying God. “So glorify God in your body.” (1 Cor. 6:13-20).
The big picture about sex informs us that there are five things that are necessary for sex to tell the story in the way that Scripture upholds as the ideal: 1) a marriage covenant, 2) complementarity, 3) mutuality, 4) congruence, and 5) Godwardness.
-
Must admit it's wild how much Taylor has changed over the years.
I swear reading all this witch craft nonsense makes me cringe.
Surprised people still believe this shit.
8)
-
The Necessities for God-Glorifying Sex
In a sex-saturated world, broken by sin, the Bible’s ideal is difficult to attain. There is no room for self-righteousness here. We are all sinners. Each one of us is sexually broken to one extent or another. We all need Christ to sanctify our hearts, minds, bodies, sexual behaviors and inclinations so that our sexuality increasingly conforms to God’s intent for it.
Though we may never fully attain it, though we fail (aren’t you glad for grace?), though some may painfully struggle with questions of sexual identity for their entire lives, and though some have not experienced the marital union to be the blessing it was intended to be, it is nonetheless important that believers understand, faithfully communicate, and aim for God’s ideal for sex as outlined in Scripture.
The Lord wants Christians to experience great sex. He doesn’t want us to settle for impure—dirty, common, ordinary—sex. He wants our sexual conduct to become more and more pure, that is: clean, uncommon, and extraordinary, set apart (1 Thess. 4:1-8). Scripture tells us that we do with our bodies is important. Sex exists for the purpose of glorifying God. “So glorify God in your body.” (1 Cor. 6:13-20).
The big picture about sex informs us that there are five things that are necessary for sex to tell the story in the way that Scripture upholds as the ideal: 1) a marriage covenant, 2) complementarity, 3) mutuality, 4) congruence, and 5) Godwardness.
How to bed the churchy girl. It'll be a threesome with Jesus!
-
I've noticed some people who did a lot of bad (sinful) shit when they were younger, become super religious as they get older. Seems like tbombz is going through that stage now.
And damn, these religious threads are tedious. Just the same stuff being said again and again. Read one and you've read them all.
-
There is no need for an explanation for things to exist.
They simply exist.
But men are animals who thru evolution developed the need to create a meaning to what has intrinsically, none.
Simply put, we re just animals killing each others until there are no more ressources anymore then maybe we ll go do the same somewhere else if we re not destroyed by a rando cataclysm or destroy ourselves first.
The meaning every single human and life form gives to life is as follow; i must kill instead of being killed. Life is about learning how to kill, and kill as much as possible until you can reproduce. Then you teach your offspring to kill, ally with those who look, think alike, and then die.
We wil evolve to become roswell like entities. Im pretty sure female humans who lead everything and keep the species going will at some point entirely get rid of males so only one genera subsists. We wont need to reproduce anymore at this point.
-
There is no need for an explanation for things to exist.
They simply exist.
But men are animals who thru evolution developed the need to create a meaning to what has intrinsically, none.
Simply put, we re just animals killing each others until there are no more ressources anymore then maybe we ll go do the same somewhere else if we re not destroyed by a rando cataclysm or destroy ourselves.
The meaning every single human and life form gives to life is as follow; i must kill instead of being killed.
survival bro......resources....fi ghting to exist.....killing each other.....survival bro......resources.....s urvival bro.......fighting to survive........survive to fight.....to fight is to survive......resources.. ....killing........power bro....struggle bro....survival.....
-
Do note, I never suggested that you didn't take time to craft answers; in fact, if you look back through some of my posts, you'll note how I've thanked you for continuing to engage and trying to focus on the merits instead of proselytizing. It was you that said that you started keeping your answers to me brief. I merely suggested a reason. Maybe you disagree with my reason, but it's what I believe. Am I not entitled to my beliefs?
Sorry, but thinking you've answered their objections is not the same as actually answering. If I ask "why is the sky blue?" then no matter how many times you scream: "God makes it blue!" you aren't giving an answer.
Except I don't think I've even answered with "meltdown" or "TL;DR". In fact, my answers to you are elaborate and carefully crafted because I actually spend time thinking about the issues you raise and how to address them.
I don't think I've figured it all out, although I certainly think that I've figured out that there's no God. Forgive me for not being an agnostic... you're welcome to try to use logic to convince me I'm wrong. Unlike you, I'm open to the possibility.
There are plenty of people who have the IQ of tepid bathwater, and a lot are very opinionated and loud. If I come across such people I call them out, not to make myself feel better but because I don't think that one should engage with idiots.
I thought we did pretty well.
The problem is that your corrections usually require me to accept huge tenets of your faith and a particular interpretation. More than once you've suggested that in order for me to know God I must first accept that he exists, that the Bible is his inerrant word and that through that, I can get to know him and learn about Jesus, through whom I can then know and commune with the Father.
Sorry... that's not how it works. I'm asking you to provide me evidence of your God, and your response is to say: "well, believe first and then I'll give you evidence." But that's nonsense. If I believe, what's the point of evidence? In fact, if I believe, anything is evidence, so that term becomes meaningless.
I don't think being an atheist makes someone infallible. I openly admit that my atheism and the positions I take are based on my evaluation of observable facts and logical deductions. Is it possible I'm wrong? Of course. I never claim to be infallible. Now, let's flip the table because I'm curious about something: is it possible that you are wrong, that God doesn't exist and your beliefs are unjustified?
We all get tired and need breaks. I don't think I suggested you need to answer every post on every thread. I never even suggested that you should answer most posts or most thread. I don't care how many you answer or not. I know you can respond and I was under the impression that you enjoyed the debate and the process of having your faith challenged and trying to challenge the positions and beliefs of others.
I have no interest in making theists - or anyone else for that matter - look foolish, especially over the Internet. I have much better things to do with my time. I never suggested that you needed to have all the answers. All I tried to get you (and others) to do is to stop trying to pass off your beliefs as fact. I never suggested you stop believing and I never tried to convert you. In fact, if you remember I openly told you that once you bring in personal, divine revelation the debate is over, because nobody can argue against that, but that you can't use that to convince others, since others have no way of knowing if what you experienced was personal, divine revelation or undiagnosed mental disorders - and that wans't meant as an insult.
Taking you down is of no interest to me.
I think I was being a little too harsh in my previous judgment of you.....my apologies. We have had good back and forth no doubt about that.
It's been a challenging week this week and I am quite spent at the moment.
You have every right to your opinions and to disagree with my responses regardless of how thorough they are or aren't.
I normally have a ton of patience, but I'll be honest that one simple "ok, let's have some fun" comment flat out pissed me off LOL....I won't even try to deny it.
Why that? Why then? Not sure actually. Far worse has been said and you've never actually said any of that stuff. In fact that comment wasn't even directed at me.
Hey, I'm human....good moments and bad moments....that was a bad one.
You're still wrong about God though LOL. ;)
Hey, I'd still depants and hit some ab/thigh shots with you. Or maybe some buddy towel curls in a hot, sweaty gym....all good, all day.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/t266ZZu.jpg)
-
I think I was being a little too harsh in my previous judgment of you.....my apologies. We have had good back and forth no doubt about that.
It's been a challenging week this week and I am quite spent at the moment.
You have every right to your opinions and to disagree with my responses regardless of how thorough they are or aren't.
I normally have a ton of patience, but I'll be honest that one simple "ok, let's have some fun" comment flat out pissed me off LOL....I won't even try to deny it.
Why that? Why then? Not sure actually. Far worse has been said and you've never actually said any of that stuff. In fact that comment wasn't even directed at me.
Hey, I'm human....good moments and bad moments....that was a bad one.
You're still wrong about God though LOL. ;)
Hey, I'd still depants and hit some ab/thigh shots with you. Or maybe some buddy towel curls in a hot, sweaty gym....all good, all day.
You sinned. :-\ :-\
Leviticus 19:18 - Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.
It seems like you did not love avxo, as you love yourself. What would God say about this? When you get to the pearly gates of "Heaven," will God bring up this incident? How will you respond?
-
I normally have a ton of patience, but I'll be honest that one simple "ok, let's have some fun" comment flat out pissed me off LOL....I won't even try to deny it.
In hindsight, it was a bit abrasive. In my defense, I genuinely enjoy debating, and find it fun. My intentions were pure!
I think I was being a little too harsh in my previous judgment of you.....my apologies. We have had good back and forth no doubt about that.
It's been a challenging week this week and I am quite spent at the moment.
You have every right to your opinions and to disagree with my responses regardless of how thorough they are or aren't.
I normally have a ton of patience, but I'll be honest that one simple "ok, let's have some fun" comment flat out pissed me off LOL....I won't even try to deny it.
Why that? Why then? Not sure actually. Far worse has been said and you've never actually said any of that stuff. In fact that comment wasn't even directed at me.
Hey, I'm human....good moments and bad moments....that was a bad one.
You're still wrong about God though LOL. ;)
No worries, we're cool!
Hey, I'd still depants and hit some ab/thigh shots with you. Or maybe some buddy towel curls in a hot, sweaty gym....all good, all day.
;D
What would God say about this? When you get to the pearly gates of "Heaven," will God bring up this incident? How will you respond?
Nothing needs to be said - hit a back double-bi, transition to an ab-and-thigh, flow into most muscular and, then he'll hit his favorite most muscular. BOOM! ;D
-
Tbombz FB post from yesterday. The delusion is strong in Tdongz.
Hey, I am talking to you. I am talking to you who thinks that you know God. I am taking to YOU, You who claims to be a Christian, and to you who says "thank God" and who 'likes' Facebook posts about Jesus. Here is what I want you to know: You don't know God. Now, there are a very few select people reading this who do know in fact know God, and they know who they are. They are those who are aware of God's presence every second of every minute of every hour of every day, and their entire life is consumed with thoughts of God, prayer to God, and devotion to God. They avoid sin at all costs, and are clearly a true Christian.. everyone around them knows it. I am not talking to them, but to the vast majority of everyone else reading this. All you who are having sex even though you are not married, all you who are getting drunk frequently, all you who are dressing immodest, all you who are listening to the top 20 hits on secular radio and watching the box office best sellers, all you who watch pornography, all you who joke around about sex and sin, all you who promote the latest pop culture trends and pop science theories, all you who use The Lord's name as an exclamation mark and as a swear word.... all you who think you know God. You do not know God. You have been lied to, and told that your "faith" is all you need to escape death and enter life. But the truth is that you must love God, and if you love God then you will obey God.
-
Tbombz wrote:
On Memorial day, let us remember that God Himself was the martyr who died for our freedom. Freedom from death and sin, God won for us through His death on the cross. Praise His Holy name
-
Dude is Genova level retard. Steroids, seamen and deep tissue massages have killed his mind. Let's give him a break :-\
-
Dude is Genova level retard. Steroids, seamen and deep tissue massages have killed his mind. Let's give him a break :-\
So, you're saying that youre a sinner?
-
So, you're saying that youre a sinner?
PM from TBOMBZ couple years ago ;D
yea ive been thinking lately bout focusing on powerlifting and getting shredded, putting "bodybuilding" on the back burner for a while, at least till i have my education done and/or have enough money to pursue it to the fullest.
no tips on how to get bitches on the dick? im bi and i should be so good at talking to girls because of my effeminate side, but ive been a pothead for so long that i dont have any idea how to talk to people anymore. btw i wouldnt be cheating, me and the wifey have an open relationship.
-
Must be a blast at parties.
-
PM from TBOMBZ couple years ago ;D
Wow!! ;D Did you give him advice?
-
One thing is for sure, God surely does take up a lot of space in the mind and the forums of atheists and theists.
This thread has grown from the proverbial mustard seed into quite the bush.
And axvo gave me somewhat of a compliment, I think. :-\ . My IQ is nowhere near that of a dinosaur fossil, although I have been called "bone headed".
-
avxo
Nothing needs to be said - hit a back double-bi, transition to an ab-and-thigh, flow into most muscular and, then he'll hit his favorite most muscular. BOOM! ;D
God will be most impressed by a nice most muscular.
-
One thing is for sure, God surely does take up a lot of space in the mind and the forums of atheists and theists.
This thread has grown from the proverbial mustard seed into quite the bush.
And axvo gave me somewhat of a compliment, I think. :-\ . My IQ is nowhere near that of a dinosaur fossil, although I have been called "bone headed".
Not really. Its more the amusing character of tdongz.
-
Exact same obsession and dogma you get from newly recovered addicts.
-
And now telling off the Christians because they're not sufficiently Christian. He's way more Christian than the other Christians. Right on schedule.
Dude, these extremes you go to. You're not going to lose anything by talking to a mental health professional, so maybe go and run your history past one and see what comes of it.
-
And now telling off the Christians because they're not sufficiently Christian. He's way more Christian than the other Christians. Right on schedule.
Dude, these extremes you go to. You're not going to lose anything by talking to a mental health professional, so maybe go and run your history past one and see what comes of it.
You know tbombz has totally lost it when he is telling other Christians that they are not Christian enough haha lol.
-
And now telling off the Christians because they're not sufficiently Christian. He's way more Christian than the other Christians. Right on schedule.
Dude, these extremes you go to. You're not going to lose anything by talking to a mental health professional, so maybe go and run your history past one and see what comes of it.
At this point, he probably views psychology as "pop science" or some forbidden endeavor of the occult.
-
Dude is Genova level retard. Steroids, seamen and deep tissue massages have killed his mind. Let's give him a break :-\
Giving him a break is very hard for me to do. He has become completely offensive and annoying.
-
PM from TBOMBZ couple years ago ;D
It's a case of the obnoxious becoming even more obnoxious as time goes by.
-
It's a case of the obnoxious becoming even more obnoxious as time goes by.
Yeah I remember tbombz doing the cuckold thing a few years ago.
Fucking wives in front of their husbands in seedy hotels and things of that nature.
-
At this point, he probably views psychology as "pop science" or some forbidden endeavor of the occult.
I bet he'd agree that he has a history of taking whatever he's into as far as he can take it. I imagine those in his life have made similar observations.
Idk how but he needs to find some way to live where he's not redlining all the time, holding his beliefs between clenched teeth. Believe whatever he wants and be relaxed at the same time.
-
Tbombz wrote:
On Memorial day, let us remember that God Himself was the martyr who died for our freedom. Freedom from death and sin, God won for us through His death on the cross. Praise His Holy name
Translation to TBombz speak " he died for us bitches"
-
I bet he'd agree that he has a history of taking whatever he's into as far as he can take it. I imagine those in his life have made similar observations.
Idk how but he needs to find some way to live where he's not redlining all the time, holding his beliefs between clenched teeth. Believe whatever he wants and be relaxed at the same time.
Oh, no doubt at all. An obvious extremist, just bounces between various obsessions. This particular one won't end well, I'm afraid. I've seen it many times.
-
In hindsight, it was a bit abrasive. In my defense, I genuinely enjoy the sight of TBOMBZ hind end.
fixed- hind sight and TBombz always go well together.
-
You sinned. :-\ :-\
Leviticus 19:18 - Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.
It seems like you did not love avxo, as you love yourself. What would God say about this? When you get to the pearly gates of "Heaven," will God bring up this incident? How will you respond?
" Thou shalt love the feel of a stretched anus" Gospel of TBOMBz , ch 3 vs 69
-
fixed- hind sight and TBombz always go well together.
DAMN. I walked right into that one didn't I? Well, at least he had the bunny suit on so I only saw 10% of the Eye of Sauron.
-
Yeah I remember tbombz doing the cuckold thing a few years ago.
Fucking wives in front of their husbands in seedy hotels and things of that nature.
i thought it was the other way around?
-
You can tell that tbombz obsessive devotion to God is in direct correlation to all that shit he has done. The greater the supposed sin, the greater the obsession. Tbombz must believe that his "sins" are so bad, that he has to be obsessive, or else he will wind up in hell.
Tbombz: bunny suits, random sex with strangers in hotels, drug use, theft, steroids, lust, etc.
-
You can tell that tbombz obsessive devotion to God is in direct correlation to all that shit he has done. The greater the supposed sin, the greater the obsession. Tbombz must believe that his "sins" are so bad, that he has to be obsessive, or else he will wind up in hell.
Tbombz: bunny suits, random sex with strangers in hotels, drug use, theft, steroids, lust, etc.
Lust is a sin? I'm in trouble! I'm good on the bunny suit though....never had one of those.
-
DAMN. I walked right into that one didn't I? Well, at least he had the bunny suit on so I only saw 10% of the Eye of Sauron.
" Thou shall NOT look into the brown eye of the demon bunny " Gospel of TBombz, Book of the Holy Hare vs 69
-
Lust is a sin? I'm in trouble! I'm good on the bunny suit though....never had one of those.
And the LORD bellowed down to He ; " Place ye firm carrot in thy bunny tale"
-
You can tell that tbombz obsessive devotion to God is in direct correlation to all that shit he has done. The greater the supposed sin, the greater the obsession. Tbombz must believe that his "sins" are so bad, that he has to be obsessive, or else he will wind up in hell.
Tbombz: bunny suits, random sex with strangers in hotels, drug use, theft, steroids, lust, etc.
try to interpret this one: HIV? Meth withdrawal symptoms? No problem: God will give you a long life: ::)
(http://s15.postimg.org/bywvn1j63/image.jpg)
-
Lust is a sin? I'm in trouble! I'm good on the bunny suit though....never had one of those.
it is quite popular in the gay community:
http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/gay-man-in-bunny-suit-stabs-love-rival/
-
it is quite popular in the gay community:
http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/gay-man-in-bunny-suit-stabs-love-rival/
Now I know why the ol' Easter bunny made me nervous as a young boy.
-
try to interpret this one: HIV? Meth withdrawal symptoms? No problem: God will give you a long life: ::)
(http://s15.postimg.org/bywvn1j63/image.jpg)
Watch your Ps and Qs saith the Lord or I will shorten your life.
-
it is quite popular in the gay community:
http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/gay-man-in-bunny-suit-stabs-love-rival/
Interesting that you would know this....are there things?
-
Interesting that you would know this....are there things?
nope, just googled it.
-
nope, just googled it.
I figured you'd say this. It seems that you have a problem admitting that you are a weird and obsessed gay dude. You jump on my posts like a bunny in heat. It's laughable.
It is good to know I have you as my fanboy. Carry on.
-
I figured you'd say this. It seems that you have a problem admitting that you are a weird and obsessed gay dude. You jump on my posts like a bunny in heat. It's laughable.
It is good to know I have you as my fanboy. Carry on.
weird? yes
gay? no
carry on
-
weird? yes
gay? no
carry on
Oh okay. Whatever you say. It's just that the straight men I know don't expend so much time and energy on gay stuff. Are you sure you're right in your self assessment? Maybe gay is synonymous with weird.
Why do I have the feeling we both will carry on?
-
Posted 11 hours ago by Tbombz.
According to Tdongz, if you are drinking regularly, you are committing a sin and will be damned to Hell for all eternity.
What you, getbig?
(http://s4.postimg.org/j90nqx7kd/Screen_Shot_2015_05_28_at_3_13_07_PM.png)
-
Posted 11 hours ago by Tbombz.
According to Tdongz, if you are drinking regularly, you are committing a sin and will be damned to Hell for all eternity.
What you, getbig?
(http://s4.postimg.org/j90nqx7kd/Screen_Shot_2015_05_28_at_3_13_07_PM.png)
In the eyes of Tbombz, I will definitely go to hell for all eternity then. I'll take my chances for the privilege of having a couple of fingers of scotch in the evening.
-
Tbombz:
Even the telephone poles declare that Jesus is King.
(http://s30.postimg.org/cro7pksvl/Screen_Shot_2015_05_31_at_12_22_32_AM.png)
-
Tbombz:
“Those who live to make much of Christ will want to turn away from marijuana and other destructive, mood-altering drugs; and move toward clear-eyed seeing, and lucid thinking for the glory of God.”
(http://s23.postimg.org/4ukar124r/Screen_Shot_2015_05_31_at_12_25_51_AM.png)
I am sure this also applies to you so-called Christians (or whatever you are) that inject STEROIDS into your bodies. You're going to burn in Hell for all eternity.
-
Wow, people think Tbombz is self-righteous. What a shocker. ::) ::)
Jesus is really The Son of God who gave up His life as a sacrifice for you. I am not saying this out of wishful thinking or blind faith or self-delusion, I am saying this because He has graced me with supernatural divine experiences on a daily basis for a year and a half now. I am just an average man, worst than most, and completely unworthy; but He chose me to work for His glory and all I can do is tell you what He has done for me. I wouldn't tell you this if it wasn't true. I have nothing to gain by telling you this except animosity from friends and family who will think I'm crazy and self-righteous.
Love,
-Taylor
(http://s22.postimg.org/4qqzhrxtd/Screen_Shot_2015_05_31_at_12_34_15_AM.png)
-
Tbombz:
“Those who live to make much of Christ will want to turn away from marijuana and other destructive, mood-altering drugs; and move toward clear-eyed seeing, and lucid thinking for the glory of God.”
(http://s23.postimg.org/4ukar124r/Screen_Shot_2015_05_31_at_12_25_51_AM.png)
I am sure this also applies to you so-called Christians (or whatever you are) that inject STEROIDS into your bodies. You're going to burn in Hell for all eternity.
Why would god even make the shit then? fucked up
-
Why would god even make the shit then? fucked up
Cannabis has much value beyond recreational use as a mood altering drug. Be careful that you aren't blaming God for man's misuse of this plant. What is fucked up is man's uncanny ability to discover all manner of mood altering drugs in nature that might not otherwise be found in the worlds fauna.
Personally, I doubt God cares whether you occasionally get high on pot. I cannot imagine why it would be a sin.
-
Tbombz:
“Those who live to make much of Christ will want to turn away from marijuana and other destructive, mood-altering drugs; and move toward clear-eyed seeing, and lucid thinking for the glory of God.”
(http://s23.postimg.org/4ukar124r/Screen_Shot_2015_05_31_at_12_25_51_AM.png)
I am sure this also applies to you so-called Christians (or whatever you are) that inject STEROIDS into your bodies. You're going to burn in Hell for all eternity.
You know the argument: "no where in the bible does it state you cannot use tren, primo or dat dere cell tech".
-
You know the argument: "no where in the bible does it state you cannot use tren, primo or dat dere cell tech".
Romans 13:45
"At the foot of the lord, thou shall inject copious amount of steroids into one's body. One glorifies God through huge biceps."
-
Ironic and sad that his beliefs turned 180 after a horrible event.
-
Tbombz 22 hours ago:
(http://s27.postimg.org/wjvcb9gpf/Screen_Shot_2015_06_01_at_4_59_19_PM.png)
-
Tbombz 22 hours ago:
(http://s27.postimg.org/wjvcb9gpf/Screen_Shot_2015_06_01_at_4_59_19_PM.png)
All you need is a bunny suit and some lube to complete that pic ;)
-
I hope Arik uses a condom when he ass fucks Tbombz.
-
I hope Arik uses a condom when he ass fucks Tbombz.
He's be sure draft TBombz as a 1st round tight end in his bunny boy league.
-
(http://s9.postimg.org/uq7mfznj3/index.png)
-
Tbombz, gave up lifting for Jesus Christ:
(http://s18.postimg.org/wp8qvp46x/Screen_Shot_2015_06_01_at_10_56_50_PM.png)
Does "God" really care if you have 18" arms or 13" arms? Actually, it would make sense that "God" would want his followers to be strong and muscular. Bodybuilders will probably do a better job of fighting off Satan and his followers. You hit a few front double bicep poses, and you see how quickly Satan flees.
-
Tbombz, gave up lifting for Jesus Christ:
(http://s18.postimg.org/wp8qvp46x/Screen_Shot_2015_06_01_at_10_56_50_PM.png)
Does "God" really care if you have 18" arms or 13" arms? Actually, it would make sense that "God" would want his followers to be strong and muscular. Bodybuilders will probably do a better job of fighting off Satan and his followers. You hit a few front double bicep poses, and you see how quickly Satan flees.
I like how he admits to being OBSESSED with being muscular, he's over it, but not enough that when he stands next to a monster he needs to remind everyone he isn't as big as he used to be, or as big as people remember, so the picture isn't really in context.
Lol....
You nailed his personality.
-
I like how he admits to being OBSESSED with being muscular, he's over it, but not enough that when he stands next to a monster he needs to remind everyone he isn't as big as he used to be, or as big as people remember, so the picture isn't really in context.
Lol....
You nailed his personality.
Yes, if he was truly humbled by Jesus Christ, he would not even have to justify the fact that he is much smaller than the man he is standing next to. Yet, as you poignantly pointed out, he still needed to say how big the other guy is, to prove he is not as small as people think he is. Tbombz, with his hyper-religiosity, is not fooling anyone. You can still see his past personality creeping in. Day-in and day-out, he fights those "demons" he once had.
Tbombz needs to stop worrying less about sin and doing what he enjoys. Obviously, there are things he definitely needed to continue to avoid doing, such as the promiscuous unprotected sex, stealing from people, prostitution, drug use, etc. However, he needs to "get in touch" with who he really is, which is a man who is bisexual and is a bodybuilder (so to speak). Nothing wrong with that, as long as its done in a health way. Personally, I have no problem with anyone who is either. I believe Tbombz yearns for both these things, as they were once a huge part of his life. Tbombz did a total 180. There are many people who are bisexual and/or very muscular, who are still responsible. Tbombz has difficulty controlling his behavior and addictions, so instead of being mature about his lifestyle (bisexuality and bodybuilding) and controlling it, he just decides to give both up under the guise of religion. It just shows its "All-or-nothing" for him. He can't engage in both behaviors in a modest, productive and healthy way. Its either, "Balls to the wall unsafe" or "Not at all."
-
Yes, if he was truly humbled by Jesus Christ, he would not even have to justify the fact that he is much smaller than the man he is standing next to. Yet, as you poignantly pointed out, he still needed to say how big the other guy is, to prove he is not as small as people think he is. Tbombz, with his hyper-religiosity, is not fooling anyone. You can still see his past personality creeping in. Day-in and day-out, he fights those "demons" he once had.
Tbombz needs to stop worrying less about sin and doing what he enjoys. Obviously, there are things he definitely needed to continue to avoid doing, such as the promiscuous unprotected sex, stealing from people, prostitution, drug use, etc. However, he needs to "get in touch" with who he really is, which is a man who is bisexual and is a bodybuilder (so to speak). Nothing wrong with that, as long as its done in a health way. Personally, I have no problem with anyone who is either. I believe Tbombz yearns for both these things, as they were once a huge part of his life. Tbombz did a total 180. There are many people who are bisexual and/or very muscular, who are still responsible. Tbombz has difficulty controlling his behavior and addictions, so instead of being mature about his lifestyle (bisexuality and bodybuilding) and controlling it, he just decides to give both up under the guise of religion. It just shows its "All-or-nothing" for him. He can't engage in both behaviors in a modest, productive and healthy way. Its either, "Balls to the wall unsafe" or "Not at all."
If anything I can respect him for his all or nothing lifestyle, in a sense he stays to true to who he is. I sincerely hope his relationship with Jesus brings him the peace and direction he seeks.
Dude is interesting. It's odd because he projects transparency, which can be viewed as a strength, but at the same time he doesn't see his personality traits that are also his biggest weakness. Watching others live their life and broadcast via social media is almost bizarre.
-
Yes, if he was truly humbled by Jesus Christ, he would not even have to justify the fact that he is much smaller than the man he is standing next to. Yet, as you poignantly pointed out, he still needed to say how big the other guy is, to prove he is not as small as people think he is. Tbombz, with his hyper-religiosity, is not fooling anyone. You can still see his past personality creeping in. Day-in and day-out, he fights those "demons" he once had.
Tbombz needs to stop worrying less about sin and doing what he enjoys. Obviously, there are things he definitely needed to continue to avoid doing, such as the promiscuous unprotected sex, stealing from people, prostitution, drug use, etc. However, he needs to "get in touch" with who he really is, which is a man who is bisexual and is a bodybuilder (so to speak). Nothing wrong with that, as long as its done in a health way. Personally, I have no problem with anyone who is either. I believe Tbombz yearns for both these things, as they were once a huge part of his life. Tbombz did a total 180. There are many people who are bisexual and/or very muscular, who are still responsible. Tbombz has difficulty controlling his behavior and addictions, so instead of being mature about his lifestyle (bisexuality and bodybuilding) and controlling it, he just decides to give both up under the guise of religion. It just shows its "All-or-nothing" for him. He can't engage in both behaviors in a modest, productive and healthy way. Its either, "Balls to the wall unsafe" or "Not at all."
You have a very pathetic compulsion with the tbomb dude. Why do you care so much about what another man does? Its fuking strange. The guy seems to be pretty weird - but that only makes your obsession with him weirder.
-
You have a very pathetic compulsion with the tbomb dude. Why do you care so much about what another man does? Its fuking strange. The guy seems to be pretty weird - but that only makes your obsession with him weirder.
(http://crossfitgreenpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Computer-Smash.gif)
-
You have a very pathetic compulsion with the tbomb dude. Why do you care so much about what another man does? Its fuking strange. The guy seems to be pretty weird - but that only makes your obsession with him weirder.
I know SF1900 will speak for himself but I think Tbombz is a lot like Goodrum was 10 years ago, in that no one could understand if he was for real. In the end we realized Vince doesn't care what anyone thinks, any attention he gets is good for his bottom line.
Tbombz is a lot like this, except he's been here since he was a teenager and he's never really grown up, he's only grown more obnoxious. I think the fact he publicly makes he feelings on everything known, and his passion about those feelings, and the fact that he goes to such extremes makes it easy to look at/examine him.
-
I know SF1900 will speak for himself but I think Tbombz is a lot like Goodrum was 10 years ago, in that no one could understand if he was for real. In the end we realized Vince doesn't care what anyone thinks, any attention he gets is good for his bottom line.
Tbombz is a lot like this, except he's been here since he was a teenager and he's never really grown up, he's only grown more obnoxious. I think the fact he publicly makes he feelings on everything known, and his passion about those feelings, and the fact that he goes to such extremes makes it easy to look at/examine him.
x2. Tbombz is like Goodrum, Basile, Booty, they all love the attention. Tbombz loved the attention back in the day, and most likely still loves it. Getbig will always find characters like this amusing.
Tbombz even posted a 24 minute on getbig where he praised Jesus Christ and God. He knew the attention it would draw.
-
x2. Tbombz is like Goodrum, Basile, Booty, they all love the attention. Tbombz loved the attention back in the day, and most likely still loves it. Getbig will always find characters like this amusing.
Tbombz even posted a 24 minute on getbig where he praised Jesus Christ and God. He knew the attention it would draw.
Get some rest man... Its way late and business starts early. You can get a real job buddy. You have to believe in yourself and your value to a company. I can try to help you if you contact me buddy... I need a good 6 hours so its time for me to hit the rack but you hang in there man. Tbob is no better than you. Do not be intimidated by him
-
Get some rest man... Its way late and business starts early. You can get a real job buddy. You have to believe in yourself and your value to a company. I can try to help you if you contact me buddy... I need a good 6 hours so its time for me to hit the rack but you hang in there man. Tbob is no better than you. Do not be intimidated by him
(http://crossfitgreenpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Computer-Smash.gif)
-
If anything I can respect him for his all or nothing lifestyle, in a sense he stays to true to who he is. I sincerely hope his relationship with Jesus brings him the peace and direction he seeks.
Dude is interesting. It's odd because he projects transparency, which can be viewed as a strength, but at the same time he doesn't see his personality traits that are also his biggest weakness. Watching others live their life and broadcast via social media is almost bizarre.
No doubt you've heard the saying, "The bigger they are, the harder they fall."
I think this is the difficulty some of us have with Taylor's declarations. He might stay true to who he is, but who that is at any given time, changes, not just a little, but 180 degrees. I suspect those of us who have more life experience know that it is very rare that someone can go from doing what he did, not that long ago, to doing what he says he's doing today. Someone is fooling someone and it is probably themself.
-
If anything I can respect him for his all or nothing lifestyle, in a sense he stays to true to who he is. I sincerely hope his relationship with Jesus brings him the peace and direction he seeks.
Dude is interesting. It's odd because he projects transparency, which can be viewed as a strength, but at the same time he doesn't see his personality traits that are also his biggest weakness. Watching others live their life and broadcast via social media is almost bizarre.
Yes, but most life is not "All or nothing." In my opinion, its an unrealistic way to live. It just proves that he can't live a lifestyle in moderation due to his addictive nature.
-
If anything I can respect him for his all or nothing lifestyle, in a sense he stays to true to who he is. I sincerely hope his relationship with Jesus brings him the peace and direction he seeks.
Dude is interesting. It's odd because he projects transparency, which can be viewed as a strength, but at the same time he doesn't see his personality traits that are also his biggest weakness. Watching others live their life and broadcast via social media is almost bizarre.
His all or nothing is coming from his mental disorder, OCD.
you are either obsessed or not.
-
-
-
-
From purely a musical perspective, there is absolutely no talent in that song. Sounds like the same instrument being played over and over again. But I know youre listening to it more for the message, than the actual musical talent.
-
From purely a musical perspective, there is absolutely no talent in that song. Sounds like the same instrument being played over and over again. But I know youre listening to it more for the message, than the actual musical talent.
Hey, super duper!!
-
Hey, super duper!!
Don't worry, broskie, I assure you that you will not be sent to Hell for admitting there is no musical talent in that song. I got you on this one.
-
;D
-
Don't worry, broskie, I assure you that you will not be sent to Hell for admitting there is no musical talent in that song. I got you on this one.
Boy you got me alright. Hey, here's an opinion for you now, "lemon poppy seed muffins are awesome!" Got you on that one!!
-
Boy you got me alright. Hey, here's an opinion for you now, "lemon poppy seed muffins are awesome!" Got you on that one!!
I hate poppy seeds.
Chocolate chip muffins are where its at.
-
(http://s14.postimg.org/v0mhlndkx/tayfrisco3.jpg)
-
(http://s7.postimg.org/5cfi0nisb/216497_5813348945_7128_n.jpg)
-
Hey everybody,
just wanted to let you all know that i have not been ignoring you; but rather i just have not seen this thread. i rarely ever log on to getbig anymore, and when i do i just check the religious forum and thats it.
i love you all.. and i hope everyone is doing well.
serious question: Do you now believe that God has helped tbombz to be free of homosexual desire towards men?
I will answer that question for you
He has helped me.
He is helping me.
and He will help me.
:)
Regards,
-Taylor
-
Hey everybody,
just wanted to let you all know that i have not been ignoring you; but rather i just have not seen this thread. i rarely ever log on to getbig anymore, and when i do i just check the religious forum and thats it.
i love you all.. and i hope everyone is doing well.
I will answer that question for you
He has helped me.
He is helping me.
and He will help me.
:)
Regards,
-Taylor
I hope you are doing well, tbombz. :)
-
Why are you so busy you rarely log in to getbig Tay tay? Surely you didn't find a job did you? :o
-
(http://i49.tinypic.com/34hw4t5.jpg)(http://oi39.tinypic.com/2s7z95u.jpg)
-
Hey everybody,
just wanted to let you all know that i have not been ignoring you; but rather i just have not seen this thread. i rarely ever log on to getbig anymore, and when i do i just check the religious forum and thats it.
i love you all.. and i hope everyone is doing well.
I will answer that question for you
He has helped me.
He is helping me.
and He will help me.
:)
Regards,
-Taylor
TBOMBZ! Good to see you posting bro.
Glad to see you found some moral /spiritual teachings.
Just don't go too overboard and keep things in balance.
In other words, you don't need to be a 100% bible thumper or a rabbit suit humper.
Extremes don't lead to a happy life.
-
Hey everybody,
just wanted to let you all know that i have not been ignoring you; but rather i just have not seen this thread. i rarely ever log on to getbig anymore, and when i do i just check the religious forum and thats it.
i love you all.. and i hope everyone is doing well.
I will answer that question for you
He has helped me.
He is helping me.
and He will help me.
:)
Regards,
-Taylor
Hey Tbombz you fucking fagg , why don't you start posting again ? we need some positive people here.
-
I hate poppy seeds.
Chocolate chip muffins are where its at.
You get your sleepy time lil buddy?
Seriously man - you are odd but I dont mean any harm. You get so worked up every time I reply and then post that photo of you smashing your cube ?? Are you seriously THAT upset over this nonsense? I dont know you lil fella - you could be ok in real life. You are very intimidated by people with faith and you do post some things that make you appear a little feminine and weak but I dont mean to make you so angry. Relax buddy
-
Why are you so busy you rarely log in to getbig Tay tay? Surely you didn't find a job did you? :o
he's too busy listening to this preacher :D
-
You get your sleepy time lil buddy?
Seriously man - you are odd but I dont mean any harm. You get so worked up every time I reply and then post that photo of you smashing your cube ?? Are you seriously THAT upset over this nonsense? I dont know you lil fella - you could be ok in real life. You are very intimidated by people with faith and you do post some things that make you appear a little feminine and weak but I dont mean to make you so angry. Relax buddy
(http://crossfitgreenpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Computer-Smash.gif)
-
he's too busy listening to this preacher :D
That guy reminds me of you, Howard. :-\ :-\
-
Tay-Tay. I have a message for you...Fast and pray. Google all scriptures regarding this and apply. Hope all is well. ;)
-
That guy reminds me of you, Howard. :-\ :-\
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
Fair enough, ok, who does THIS remind you of?
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
Fair enough, ok, who does THIS remind you of?
Wiggs? :D ???
-
In other words, you don't need to be a 100% bible thumper or a rabbit suit humper.
Legit lol!
-
Wiggs? :D ???
No. Don't compare me to this clown.
-
No. Don't compare me to this clown.
What's the hebronic view of homosexuality wiggy?
-
(http://crossfitgreenpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Computer-Smash.gif)
I seriously dont mean to make you so angry. Do you really look like that cat in the pic you keep posting??
Its that time again buddy - log off and hit the rack. Wake early - hit some PT - thank God for another awesome day and the opportunities that are everywhere - and have a great day. I will pray for you man. You may not believe - but you can't stop God from loving you..
-
Tay-Tay. I have a message for you...Fast and pray. Google all scriptures regarding this and apply. Hope all is well. ;)
Wiggs I thought you were against mutated (lack of pigment) homosexuals?
-
I seriously dont mean to make you so angry. Do you really look like that cat in the pic you keep posting??
Its that time again buddy - log off and hit the rack. Wake early - hit some PT - thank God for another awesome day and the opportunities that are everywhere - and have a great day. I will pray for you man. You may not believe - but you can't stop God from loving you..
(http://crossfitgreenpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Computer-Smash.gif)
-
(http://crossfitgreenpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Computer-Smash.gif)
(http://crossfitgreenpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Computer-Smash.gif)
-
(http://crossfitgreenpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Computer-Smash.gif)
Juruth in the next cubicle just got hard at that display of masculinity.
-
I hope you are doing well, tbombz. :)
Thanks, Fit! I am doing well, indeed.
Why are you so busy you rarely log in to getbig Tay tay? Surely you didn't find a job did you? :o
I just don't have much interest in bodybuilding or pornography anymore..
As far as the job hunt goes.. I graduated from undergrad a couple weeks ago, and I start graduate school (seminary) at the end of the month.
TBOMBZ! Good to see you posting bro.
Glad to see you found some moral /spiritual teachings.
Just don't go too overboard and keep things in balance.
In other words, you don't need to be a 100% bible thumper or a rabbit suit humper.
Extremes don't lead to a happy life.
Hey Howard
Some people take their bible and thump people over the head with it
I have learned that only God can convert someone into a Christian
So I dont get all worked up about it
I just love on people and casually share the good news about Jesus
I am pretty "extreme" about my faith.. but not in a bad way.
In a good way :)
Thanks for the tip
Hope all is well
-Taylor
Hey Tbombz you fucking fagg , why don't you start posting again ? we need some positive people here.
Che! How ya doing? I generally dont post here because most of the discussion is about bodybuilding and pornography and racism and stuff like that, and I try to spend my time focusing on Jesus (and occasionally sports :)
Tay-Tay. I have a message for you...Fast and pray. Google all scriptures regarding this and apply. Hope all is well. ;)
Yo, whats up Wiggs?
That's a good word, broseph!
I definitely would benefit from more fasting and praying.
Every time I do, I always get a good revelation from The Lord.
:)
-
hey tbomz
what are your thoughts on the nature of time?
-
hey tbomz
what are your thoughts on the nature of time?
Sup Masta Blasta
My own human thoughts: time is both temporal and eternal, both finite and infinite.
-
Sup Masta Blasta
My own human thoughts: time is both temporal and eternal, both finite and infinite.
that is deep, bro.
-
(http://crossfitgreenpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Computer-Smash.gif)
(http://crossfitgreenpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Computer-Smash.gif)
(http://crossfitgreenpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Computer-Smash.gif)
-
(http://crossfitgreenpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Computer-Smash.gif)
-
AHAHHAAAH!! Awesome....never seen the whole clip!!
-
"Sadly, this was John's last day at work. HR mandated anger management classes just were not working for him."
-
Wiggs I thought you were against mutated (lack of pigment) homosexuals?
First off, I'm not against white people in the manner most think. This is something put on me. I told the truth about us being Hebrews and some take it as a superiority thing. No, not superior. CHOSEN as the Bible states. Next, I hate the sin, not the sinner. T-Bombz is making an effort to change and follow in the ways The Most High wants him to. He's been through alot and sometimes, that's what it takes for some to awaken. I applaud him and will help him in his walk with Christ in any way I can. That goes for any of you. :)
-
Hey TBombz, did I read that you are going to seminary soon?
I respect that and wish you well in your life's new direction?
Which Christian faith will you study? ( Baptist, Methodist?)
I think you'll have a much more meaningful life NOW compared to your former lifestyle.
-
Hey TBombz, did I read that you are going to seminary soon?
I respect that and wish you well in your life's new direction?
Which Christian faith will you study? ( Baptist, Methodist?)
I think you'll have a much more meaningful life NOW compared to your former lifestyle.
But we will never get the bunny suit again. :-\ :-\ :'( :'(
-
First off, I'm not against white people in the manner most think. This is something put on me. I told the truth about us being Hebrews and some take it as a superiority thing. No, not superior. CHOSEN as the Bible states. Next, I hate the sin, not the sinner. T-Bombz is making an effort to change and follow in the ways The Most High wants him to. He's been through alot and sometimes, that's what it takes for some to awaken. I applaud him and will help him in his walk with Christ in any way I can. That goes for any of you. :)
pretty hard to think your chosen without feeling superior and special.
-
But we will never get the bunny suit again. :-\ :-\ :'( :'(
if a Getbigger is in trouble, tbombz will put on the bunny suit and jump to rescue like Superman.
We count on you, tay-tay.
-
pretty hard to think your chosen without feeling superior and special.
No, look at the condition of my people. Pretty hard to feel superior and special when you see our condition.
-
if a Getbigger is in trouble, tbombz will put on the bunny suit and jump to rescue like Superman.
We count on you, tay-tay.
lol ;D ;D
I believe that the bunny suit is still a part of tbombz, and will always be! Some people say you can't separate the sin from the sinner. You can't separate Tbombz from the bunny suit. I agree, that tbombz would put on the bunny suit if a getbigger is in trouble!
-
No, look at the condition of my people. Pretty hard to feel superior and special when you see our condition.
most coloured folks dont 'know' they are the chosen sons and daughters of ancient Israel ;)
-
But we will never get the bunny suit again. :-\ :-\ :'( :'(
I hope he laughs off the bunny suit and former crazy sex antics and leaves it at that.
It annoys me when anyone acts like it was a sinful mistake and they act all ashamed.
He got caught up in some wild sex stuff and now wants to move on to a more meaningful life.
In my opinion, his former behavior had NOTHING to do with Satan or temptation , etc.
It's no better/no worse then taking a lot of rec drugs and being a party animal .
T completed his undergrad degree and appears o have his shit together now.
I wish him well.
-
I hope he laughs off the bunny suit and former crazy sex antics and leaves it at that.
It annoys me when anyone acts like it was a sinful mistake and they act all ashamed.
He got caught up in some wild sex stuff and now wants to move on to a more meaningful life.
In my opinion, his former behavior had NOTHING to do with Satan or temptation , etc.
It's no better/no worse then taking a lot of rec drugs and being a party animal .
T completed his undergrad degree and appears o have his shit together now.
I wish him well.
Getbig will always remember the bunny suit.
-
most coloured folks dont 'know' they are the chosen sons and daughters of ancient Israel ;)
I don't have any opinion on that ,one way or the other .
I think way too many people get their panties in bunch over their "heritage".
I'm an arm chair student of history, but I don't give a rats ass who my great, great grand dad was.
All that matters is the kind of person you are, while living here on the earth.
'nuff said.
-
Getbig will always remember the bunny suit.
No question about that! TBombz in the bunny suit is the funniest pic in the history of getbig.
I still laugh my ass off when it gets posted for the 9999th time.
TBombz should use that in a funny, self denigrating way and enjoy having a laugh with us.
If the guy ever does finish seminary and becomes a real pastor with a congregation, I'd go listen to him and NOT say a word about the bunny suit either. 100% serious.
-
most coloured folks dont 'know' they are the chosen sons and daughters of ancient Israel ;)
I know. There's been an awakening. ;)
-
First off, I'm not against white people in the manner most think. This is something put on me. I told the truth about us being Hebrews and some take it as a superiority thing. No, not superior. CHOSEN as the Bible states. Next, I hate the sin, not the sinner. T-Bombz is making an effort to change and follow in the ways The Most High wants him to. He's been through alot and sometimes, that's what it takes for some to awaken. I applaud him and will help him in his walk with Christ in any way I can. That goes for any of you. :)
Wiggs I'm all about ethnic pride but Bible is pretty clear that under Christ there is no Jew, Gentile, or Greek. You can only come to God if He calls you anyhow, Christianity is built on the idea that we are God's children, whether by birth or being grafted in via adoption.
Keep pressing forward bro.
-
I don't have any opinion on that ,one way or the other .
I think way too many people get their panties in bunch over their "heritage".
I'm an arm chair student of history, but I don't give a rats ass who my great, great grand dad was.
All that matters is the kind of person you are, while living here on the earth.
'nuff said.
I doubt you'd feel the same way if your culture, language and history was stripped from you.
-
I doubt you'd feel the same way if your culture, language and history was stripped from you.
Wiggs, the white man is the devil, correct?
-
I don't have any opinion on that ,one way or the other .
I think way too many people get their panties in bunch over their "heritage".
I'm an arm chair student of history, but I don't give a rats ass who my great, great grand dad was.
All that matters is the kind of person you are, while living here on the earth.
'nuff said.
But you'll go into a frothing at the mouth lunatic when it comes to physics.
-
Wiggs, the white man is the devil, correct?
No. But they can be of the devil but then, so can a Hebrew.
-
I doubt you'd feel the same way if your culture, language and history was stripped from you.
Maybe?
I don't really care who my ancestors were or what they did/didn't do .
All that matters to me is what I do with what the good Lord blessed me with.
I can't control or change what some drunk Irishman did back in 1850 , but, I'm glad his offspring kept screwing until I was born many years later.
-
Hey TBombz, did I read that you are going to seminary soon?
I respect that and wish you well in your life's new direction?
Which Christian faith will you study? ( Baptist, Methodist?)
I think you'll have a much more meaningful life NOW compared to your former lifestyle.
That's a new twist. Usually, the seminary goes into him.
-
Maybe?
I don't really care who my ancestors were or what they did/didn't do .
All that matters to me is what I do with what the good Lord blessed me with.
I can't control or change what some drunk Irishman did back in 1850 , but, I'm glad his offspring kept screwing until I was born many years later.
At least you knew you were Irish. Most of my people don't know they're Hebrew. It's a twisted world...purposely.
-
Sup Masta Blasta
My own human thoughts: time is both temporal and eternal, both finite and infinite.
You never considered changing your handle from tbombz to something that glorifies God in a greater manner?
-
Hey TBombz, did I read that you are going to seminary soon?
I respect that and wish you well in your life's new direction?
Which Christian faith will you study? ( Baptist, Methodist?)
I think you'll have a much more meaningful life NOW compared to your former lifestyle.
The seminary is Baptist, but I am not a Baptist. I am more of a reformed/orthodox kind of guy.
But, I dont like getting to caught up in denominational strife.. Christian is Christian is Christian. :)
You never considered changing your handle from tbombz to something that glorifies God in a greater manner?
No.. I am open to suggestions tho
-
The seminary is Baptist, but I am not a Baptist. I am more of a reformed/orthodox kind of guy.
But, I dont like getting to caught up in denominational strife.. Christian is Christian is Christian. :)
No.. I am open to suggestions tho
Sometimes the simplest verses sum it up the best, as the Apostle Peter discusses below concerning Christian Fellowship.
Use hospitality one to another without grudging. - 1 Peter 4:9
-
At least you knew you were Irish. Most of my people don't know they're Hebrew. It's a twisted world...purposely.
Historical fact- they named the early drunk tanks after the Irish, aka "paddy wagons".
100% serious. So many Irish got drunk and disorderly they named it after my "ancestors" LOL.
I only know about the Irish because my maternal grandpa was Fitzgerald.
For all I know, we could both have Hebrews somewhere in our genetic tree.
Does it really matter? ;)
-
But you'll go into a frothing at the mouth lunatic when it comes to physics.
That only occurs when the topic of Tesla and electricity is brought up by some douche on get big ;D
-
No.. I am open to suggestions tho
I would prefer one that was scripturally based.
Using a handle that is a reference to gear certainly does not glorify God.
-
i didnt even remember that "tbombz" was a reference to gear..
i'll pray about it..
-
i didnt even remember that "tbombz" was a reference to gear..
i'll pray about it..
TBombz , this is GOD, change your getbig ID to BBombz, in honor of the sacred bunny . ;)
*Sorry T, but I couldn't resist. :D
-
The seminary is Baptist, but I am not a Baptist. I am more of a reformed/orthodox kind of guy.
But, I dont like getting to caught up in denominational strife.. Christian is Christian is Christian. :)
No.. I am open to suggestions tho
Bunny Suit Avenger of God! ;D ;D
-
i didnt even remember that "tbombz" was a reference to gear..
i'll pray about it..
How about something like "mathetes"? English word/transliteration for the greek term for disciple.
Or the hebrew tetragrammaton "YHWH" for Jehovah or Yahweh.
Or perhaps something like "Uriam"....U R I AM.....you are, I am
-
How about something like "mathetes"? English word/transliteration for the greek term for disciple.
Or the hebrew tetragrammaton "YHWH" for Jehovah or Yahweh.
Or perhaps something like "Uriam"....U R I AM.....you are, I am
I think my name was much better!! >:( >:(
-
No.. I am open to suggestions tho
Logging in into Getbig is a SIN , I hope this helps.
-
i didnt even remember that "tbombz" was a reference to gear..
i'll pray about it..
By pumping yourself full of muscle enhancing drugs in the pursuit of vanity you were in direct opposition to what the Lord wanted for your life.
Solomon explains this very clearly in The Book of Ecclesiastes.
Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun.. - Ecclesiastes 2:11
-
I think my name was much better!! >:( >:(
Sf1900 is the Richard Dawkins of getbig.
-
Sf1900 is the Richard Dawkins of getbig.
I am not a big Richard Dawkins fan. I prefer to read or listen to Sam Harris speak.
-
i didnt even remember that "tbombz" was a reference to gear..
i'll pray about it..
I will pray for you, Tay-Tay.
-
How about something like "mathetes"? English word/transliteration for the greek term for disciple.
Or the hebrew tetragrammaton "YHWH" for Jehovah or Yahweh.
Or perhaps something like "Uriam"....U R I AM.....you are, I am
How about: AidsBunny?
-
How deep tbombz' bunny hole goes:
-
No.. I am open to suggestions tho
DeepJesusMassage
-
First off, I'm not against white people in the manner most think. This is something put on me. I told the truth about us being Hebrews and some take it as a superiority thing. No, not superior. CHOSEN as the Bible states. Next, I hate the sin, not the sinner. T-Bombz is making an effort to change and follow in the ways The Most High wants him to. He's been through alot and sometimes, that's what it takes for some to awaken. I applaud him and will help him in his walk with Christ in any way I can. That goes for any of you. :)
The bible is a work of fiction, like other books with talking snakes, zombies etc.
-
The bible is a work of fiction, like other books with talking snakes, zombies etc.
Seriously, don't waste your time. People like Wiggs have been infected with a virus of the mind. They are so dumb, they will believe pretty much anything. e.g. Wiggs believed that a huge planet was heading our way to annihilate us. It didn't happen, so now he is revising its trajectory.
-
Seriously, don't waste your time. People like Wiggs have been infected with a virus of the mind. They are so dumb, they will believe pretty much anything. e.g. Wiggs believed that a huge planet was heading our way to annihilate us. It didn't happen, so now he is revising its trajectory.
It's frustrating because everything we have ever accomplished or "know" as a species is via logic and things making sense. These people come along and want to discard sense and reason, meanwhile they operate in daily life in a logical manner.
The concepts and ideas in the book can never be falsified, why would god go through the trouble only to leave such an incomplete (more knowledge is contained in a phonebook) record, to a specific group of people, millions of years after watching in heaven with his arms folded in indifference. Actually goes through the trouble of sending himself to earth, performing miraculous acts like walking on water etc and this book is what we are left with?
meanwhile, god is omnipotent and omniscient yet needed a mulligan twice on earth, failed to convince people with miracles etc, even though he knew it wouldn't (he knows the future), so he sacrifices himself? This self sacrifice serves as a loop hole for terrible shit? He knew what would happen, sends himself to be killed to redeem his creation, makes lots of sense. It's not even a fucking sacrifice, the guy knew he would be going to heaven. What a fucking guy huh.
He sounded like a moron in the first book, then less so in the second but still a raging moron.
-
It's frustrating because everything we have ever accomplished or "know" as a species is via logic and things making sense. These people come along and want to discard sense and reason, meanwhile they operate in daily life in a logical manner.
The concepts and ideas in the book can never be falsified, why would god go through the trouble only to leave such an incomplete (more knowledge is contained in a phonebook) record, to a specific group of people, millions of years after watching in heaven with his arms folded in indifference. Actually goes through the trouble of sending himself to earth, performing miraculous acts like walking on water etc and this book is what we are left with?
meanwhile, god is omnipotent and omniscient yet needed a mulligan twice on earth, failed to convince people with miracles etc, even though he knew it wouldn't (he knows the future), so he sacrifices himself? This self sacrifice serves as a loop hole for terrible shit? He knew what would happen, sends himself to be killed to redeem his creation, makes lots of sense. It's not even a fucking sacrifice, the guy knew he would be going to heaven. What a fucking guy huh.
He sounded like a moron in the first book, then less so in the second but still a raging moron.
Someone hasn't been reading his bible.
-
It's frustrating because everything we have ever accomplished or "know" as a species is via logic and things making sense. These people come along and want to discard sense and reason, meanwhile they operate in daily life in a logical manner.
The concepts and ideas in the book can never be falsified, why would god go through the trouble only to leave such an incomplete (more knowledge is contained in a phonebook) record, to a specific group of people, millions of years after watching in heaven with his arms folded in indifference. Actually goes through the trouble of sending himself to earth, performing miraculous acts like walking on water etc and this book is what we are left with?
meanwhile, god is omnipotent and omniscient yet needed a mulligan twice on earth, failed to convince people with miracles etc, even though he knew it wouldn't (he knows the future), so he sacrifices himself? This self sacrifice serves as a loop hole for terrible shit? He knew what would happen, sends himself to be killed to redeem his creation, makes lots of sense. It's not even a fucking sacrifice, the guy knew he would be going to heaven. What a fucking guy huh.
He sounded like a moron in the first book, then less so in the second but still a raging moron.
Because just as you have shown, human beings are a very hard to convince lot.
Finding reasons "Why to do things"---justifications for their actions, and many times not finding reasons "why not to do things".
We are a very stubborn lot, wouldn't you say? A flood can't even fix it. I say, God is going to really have to do something to get our attention "next time".
-
It's frustrating because everything we have ever accomplished or "know" as a species is via logic and things making sense. These people come along and want to discard sense and reason, meanwhile they operate in daily life in a logical manner.
Logic itself is transcendent and grounded in the nature of God. Whether or not our minds exist logical absolutes hold true. Logical absolutes are not contingent upon naturalism, humanity, space or time. Logic is a process of our brains, but the logical absolutes that ground it are not.
The concepts and ideas in the book can never be falsified, why would god go through the trouble only to leave such an incomplete (more knowledge is contained in a phonebook) record, to a specific group of people, millions of years after watching in heaven with his arms folded in indifference.
To preserve the record written across approx 1500 years by many authors in 66 different books that work together cohesively. The bible was written in Hebrew which is a derivative of ancient chaldean, Aramaic which is a sister language of Arabic and Koine Greek. All are dead languages and are unchanged to this day. With our technology today and constantly evolving language we can distort, fabricate and manipulate virtually every common media known to man today. That’s why the ancient greek manuscripts of the NT and the ancient manuscripts for the OT (ex: Septuagint) are so important. We have the fields of linguistics and textual criticism devoted to understanding and preserving the words in the their purest, correct forms today.
The fact that this “bronze age sheepherder” book is difficult to falsify is telling to me. Although, the term “falsification” is typically aligned with the scientific methods of naturalism. And we’re talking about a book of historical and theological materials that discusses the supernatural God……a mix of different worldviews there. Can’t bottle God in a test tube or beaker. He wouldn’t be God if we could.
Actually goes through the trouble of sending himself to earth, performing miraculous acts like walking on water etc and this book is what we are left with?
Today we are left with something more precious than every person in the OT and most in the NT never had. That’s the actual indwelling of God’s Holy Spirit within believers today. This personal revelation of God is something OT Israelites, Pharisees and Sadducces of the Sanhedrin and most NT figures (aside from Christ’s apostles) never experienced. Even with Christ on earth as the incarnate son of God people still refused to believe his miracles and teachings. They occurred before throngs and many simply denied them. Why would today be any different? Especially with all of the technology we have today that can manipulate and replicate so many genuine things into something seemingly dishonest.
Christ was crucified and rose and only after he appeared to his apostle Thomas did Thomas belief despite the word from his constituents. Although, when the Holy Spirit filled these men and women at Pentecost did they go forward preaching the gospel at a fevered pace and willing gave up their lives in the process.
meanwhile, god is omnipotent and omniscient yet needed a mulligan twice on earth
As soon as you put the word “needed” with God the statement was incorrect. God needs for nothing. The “mulligan” (as you put it) was because of the error of people, not God. God brought a reprobate world into judgment. Not a happy world of charity workers and Pinterest loving soccer moms….a reprobate world. A world full of vile, evil, depraved people committing the worst acts imaginable to each other.
I've never understood why people today are so sympathetic to the reprobate folks in scripture When we see examples of depraved people today most folks want them dealt with swiftly and permanently. Most want them immediately hospitalized, jailed, executed or all of the above.....and this is only a tiny fraction of people.....not the entire world.
, failed to convince people with miracles etc,
People have very hard hearts. Shows you that the even the best possible proof is rejected even when it’s provided right in front of people repeatedly. Why is it people would respond differently today?
even though he knew it wouldn't (he knows the future), so he sacrifices himself?
Ok, so he has foreknowledge of events. Doesn’t mean his will for our lives is pre-executed thereby negating our choices….only Calvinists belief that way.
He didn’t sacrifice himself for himself…..he did so for you and me. The OT Israelites couldn’t meet God’s standards despite their best efforts and God’s provision. Everything in the bible points to people’s need for Jesus Christ. A perfect, divine sacrifice was required on our behalf so that we could be made righteous and come into fellowship with God.
This self sacrifice serves as a loop hole for terrible shit?
This only appears the case for those that remain steeped in their sin. For those redeemed by God this “loophole” notion simply isn’t there. Believers in Christ have turned completely from their sin and desire to live without it in our lives….that’s the goal.
He knew what would happen, sends himself to be killed to redeem his creation, makes lots of sense.
See above. Makes perfect sense if you allow for the God’s divine, righteous, holy nature to be exactly what it is. We could traverse the entire universe and that distance still wouldn’t close the gap between us and God…..only Jesus Christ can bridge that for us. That’s why he came.
It's not even a fucking sacrifice, the guy knew he would be going to heaven. What a fucking guy huh.
One of the worst acts of torture conceived of and known by man at that time was undertaken by a man who was fully without blame and unworthy of such a penalty, but did so willingly on our behalf and that is not a sacrifice? In fact, the modern word "excruciating" is rooted in the Latin word "excruciare" that sources from the Latin "cruciare" which means "to crucify". The Romans were highly proficient in torture and death and adopted and perfected the ancient practice of crucifixion from Persia (if I remember correctly). Jesus Christ rose in death to show that once and for all he is God. He did all of this so that we could be aligned with the infinite, holy, righteous God.
He sounded like a moron in the first book, then less so in the second but still a raging moron.
The first book is Genesis, the second is Exodus. There are 66 inspired books in the bible written over 1500 years. Was that what you meant? Or did you mean testaments…as in the new and old? Where did God sound like a moron?
-
Like I said, they will believe anything. Seriously, leave the loons to their idiotic beliefs, it is a waste of time.
-
Like I said, they will believe anything. Seriously, leave the loons to their idiotic beliefs, it is a waste of time.
Agreed. No matter what you tell theists, they will continue to believe. It does not matter what evidence you show them. They have their "faith."
Hell, many of them actually believe the earth is 6000 years old. There is a ton of evidence that says the earth is MUCH older. I believe close to 4 billion years old lol.
Yet, the bible says 6000 years old, therefore ALL of the science is wrong. Crazy. How can you be so brainwashed that you ignore the overwhelming evidence that the earth is much older than 6000 years old. Ive even met some die hard religious people who think its ridiculous that the earth is only 6000 years old.
I guess let them have their "toy."
MOS is still a cool guy and all.
-
Agreed. No matter what you tell theists, they will continue to believe. It does not matter what evidence you show them. They have their "faith."
Hell, many of them actually believe the earth is 6000 years old. There is a ton of evidence that says the earth is MUCH older. I believe close to 4 billion years old lol.
Yet, the bible says 6000 years old, therefore ALL of the science is wrong. Crazy. How can you be so brainwashed that you ignore the overwhelming evidence that the earth is much older than 6000 years old. Ive even met some die hard religious people who think its ridiculous that the earth is only 6000 years old.
I guess let them have their "toy."
MOS is still a cool guy and all.
I'm curious. Where in the bible does it say the earth is 6000 years old?
-
As soon as you put the word “needed” with God the statement was incorrect. God needs for nothing. The “mulligan” (as you put it) was because of the error of people, not God. God brought a reprobate world into judgment. Not a happy world of charity workers and Pinterest loving soccer moms….a reprobate world. A world full of vile, evil, depraved people committing the worst acts imaginable to each other.
Remember, these "vile, evil, depraved people committing the worst acts imaginable to each other" are the ones that, if you are to believe in the Christian myth, your own God created despite knowing fully that they were "vile, evil [and] depraved" and would commit "the worst acts imaginable." You can't provide a single, coherent answer as to why he would do this. You stammer out some nonsense about he has a plan and he wants everyone to be all lovey-dovey and in communion with him.
So having created "vile, evil [and] depraved" people according to plan he goes on to set a standard of perfection that by his own admission noone can meet, and punishes thoses who fail to achieve that impossible perfection. You can't provide a single coherent answer as to why he would do this either. Instead you stammer out some nonsense about how he loves so much that he's willing to pay the price for our shortfall on our behalf.
But who is demanding and collecting that price? The answer is your God. He decrees that "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23) and pays that price, by sacrificing himself (via his "son") to himself, to appease a penalty that he himself demands. You can't provide a single coherent answer as to why this insane loop is required and why he won't just forgive people outright without the need for all this other stuff. Instead of you stammer out some nonsense that God is sovereign and can't be judged by us.
BULLSHIT.
The God of the Bible is irrational, irritable and insecure. He is deeply flawed and very human, behaving like a thug and a bully. That God deserves neither fealty nor worship.
-
(http://s16.postimg.org/8jlm5g2gl/party_boys_by_fitness_frenzy.jpg)
-
Agreed. No matter what you tell theists, they will continue to believe. It does not matter what evidence you show them. They have their "faith."
Hell, many of them actually believe the earth is 6000 years old. There is a ton of evidence that says the earth is MUCH older. I believe close to 4 billion years old lol.
Yet, the bible says 6000 years old, therefore ALL of the science is wrong. Crazy. How can you be so brainwashed that you ignore the overwhelming evidence that the earth is much older than 6000 years old. Ive even met some die hard religious people who think its ridiculous that the earth is only 6000 years old.
I guess let them have their "toy."
MOS is still a cool guy and all.
There is no where in the bible where it dates the earth at 6000 years old. There are those who believe this based on several different scriptural interpretations/diagnosis. But it's not a biblical doctrine by any means.
Carbon dating, which I assume you use to judge the earth's age, isn't 100% accurate either.
I also know people (non Christian educated at prestigious academic universities) who don't believe that dinosaurs were real. Mankind tends to be very superstitious regardless of faith, race or culture. We think we can explain everything, until we can't then we find new information that makes the old obsolete. This happens in church and in science.
-
There is no where in the bible where it dates the earth at 6000 years old. There are those who believe this based on several different scriptural interpretations/diagnosis. But it's not a biblical doctrine by any means.
Carbon dating, which I assume you use to judge the earth's age, isn't 100% accurate either.
I also know people (non Christian educated at prestigious academic universities) who don't believe that dinosaurs were real. Mankind tends to be very superstitious regardless of faith, race or culture. We think we can explain everything, until we can't then we find new information that makes the old obsolete. This happens in church and in science.
Well, you have to be dumb to think dinosaurs are not real. Some theists think that God placed the dinosaurs in the ground to test our faith. lol Religious nutters.
Well, the fact remains is that people still believe the earth is 6000 years old. Carbon dating is not 100% accurate, but the dating tools we do use offer a close enough answer that the earth is WAY older than 6000 years old.
-
Logic itself is transcendent and grounded in the nature of God. Whether or not our minds exist logical absolutes hold true. Logical absolutes are not contingent upon naturalism, humanity, space or time. Logic is a process of our brains, but the logical absolutes that ground it are not.
Are you absolutely sure these absolutes hold true? what evidence is their that logic is transcendent? Our minds exist and are simply a process of the brain not a thing as you are framing. The mind is a process of a thing.. ie the brain insofar as migration is a process of a thing birds, you can't dissect the birds to find migration or measure in in a tangible way. The brain also creates logic, reality is not logical, in fact it's very counterintuitive at it's base (quantum mechanics, string theory), you are a fish admiring the way the water fits perfectly into the pond.
To preserve the record written across approx 1500 years by many authors in 66 different books that work together cohesively. The bible was written in Hebrew which is a derivative of ancient chaldean, Aramaic which is a sister language of Arabic and Koine Greek. All are dead languages and are unchanged to this day. With our technology today and constantly evolving language we can distort, fabricate and manipulate virtually every common media known to man today. That’s why the ancient greek manuscripts of the NT and the ancient manuscripts for the OT (ex: Septuagint) are so important. We have the fields of linguistics and textual criticism devoted to understanding and preserving the words in the their purest, correct forms today.
Ok so preserve the book and language no need to treat it more special then an artifact. The languages are dead for a reason, everything evolves man, we don't know the answers but I can assure you we are closer to it then the men who wrote that book.
The fact that this “bronze age sheepherder” book is difficult to falsify is telling to me. Although, the term “falsification” is typically aligned with the scientific methods of naturalism. And we’re talking about a book of historical and theological materials that discusses the supernatural God……a mix of different worldviews there. Can’t bottle God in a test tube or beaker. He wouldn’t be God if we could.
The book is not difficult to falsify if you are referring to contradictions, I was talking about the ideas, the actual god part.
Today we are left with something more precious than every person in the OT and most in the NT never had. That’s the actual indwelling of God’s Holy Spirit within believers today. This personal revelation of God is something OT Israelites, Pharisees and Sadducces of the Sanhedrin and most NT figures (aside from Christ’s apostles) never experienced. Even with Christ on earth as the incarnate son of God people still refused to believe his miracles and teachings. They occurred before throngs and many simply denied them. Why would today be any different? Especially with all of the technology we have today that can manipulate and replicate so many genuine things into something seemingly dishonest.
Christ was crucified and rose and only after he appeared to his apostle Thomas did Thomas belief despite the word from his constituents. Although, when the Holy Spirit filled these men and women at Pentecost did they go forward preaching the gospel at a fevered pace and willing gave up their lives in the process.
As soon as you put the word “needed” with God the statement was incorrect. God needs for nothing. The “mulligan” (as you put it) was because of the error of people, not God. God brought a reprobate world into judgment. Not a happy world of charity workers and Pinterest loving soccer moms….a reprobate world. A world full of vile, evil, depraved people committing the worst acts imaginable to each other.
I've never understood why people today are so sympathetic to the reprobate folks in scripture When we see examples of depraved people today most folks want them dealt with swiftly and permanently. Most want them immediately hospitalized, jailed, executed or all of the above.....and this is only a tiny fraction of people.....not the entire world.
People have very hard hearts. Shows you that the even the best possible proof is rejected even when it’s provided right in front of people repeatedly. Why is it people would respond differently today?
Ok, so he has foreknowledge of events. Doesn’t mean his will for our lives is pre-executed thereby negating our choices….only Calvinists belief that way.
He didn’t sacrifice himself for himself…..he did so for you and me. The OT Israelites couldn’t meet God’s standards despite their best efforts and God’s provision. Everything in the bible points to people’s need for Jesus Christ. A perfect, divine sacrifice was required on our behalf so that we could be made righteous and come into fellowship with God.
This only appears the case for those that remain steeped in their sin. For those redeemed by God this “loophole” notion simply isn’t there. Believers in Christ have turned completely from their sin and desire to live without it in our lives….that’s the goal.
See above. Makes perfect sense if you allow for the God’s divine, righteous, holy nature to be exactly what it is. We could traverse the entire universe and that distance still wouldn’t close the gap between us and God…..only Jesus Christ can bridge that for us. That’s why he came.
One of the worst acts of torture conceived of and known by man at that time was undertaken by a man who was fully without blame and unworthy of such a penalty, but did so willingly on our behalf and that is not a sacrifice? In fact, the modern word "excruciating" is rooted in the Latin word "excruciare" that sources from the Latin "cruciare" which means "to crucify". The Romans were highly proficient in torture and death and adopted and perfected the ancient practice of crucifixion from Persia (if I remember correctly). Jesus Christ rose in death to show that once and for all he is God. He did all of this so that we could be aligned with the infinite, holy, righteous God.
The first book is Genesis, the second is Exodus. There are 66 inspired books in the bible written over 1500 years. Was that what you meant? Or did you mean testaments…as in the new and old? Where did God sound like a moron?
-
Total fail, will fully respond when my penor is flaccid.
-
Well, you have to be dumb to think dinosaurs are not real. Some theists think that God placed the dinosaurs in the ground to test our faith. lol Religious nutters.
Well, the fact remains is that people still believe the earth is 6000 years old. Carbon dating is not 100% accurate, but the dating tools we do use offer a close enough answer that the earth is WAY older than 6000 years old.
I'm not disputing you that people do believe ridiculous dumb things, hence the people who dont believe in dinosaurs.
The vast majority of the population consists of very simple minded people. It was only a generation ago that an Orson Wells story on the radio caused a panic. 16 years ago we were bombarded with Y2K.
Since the beginning of mankind's history we've tried to explain things we don't understand, whether we hide behind God or science. Hawkins has an interesting theory on black holes, some agree some don't, but until it's proven one way or another we really don't know much more then what we've theorized. Hawkins eventually could be proven completely wrong (or right) but it wouldn't diminish his intelligence.
We try to rationalize everything we don't understand, until we can find an answer that can satisfy our question.
-
I'm not disputing you that people do believe ridiculous dumb things, hence the people who dont believe in dinosaurs.
The vast majority of the population consists of very simple minded people. It was only a generation ago that an Orson Wells story on the radio caused a panic. 16 years ago we were bombarded with Y2K.
Since the beginning of mankind's history we've tried to explain things we don't understand, whether we hide behind God or science. Hawkins has an interesting theory on black holes, some agree some don't, but until it's proven one way or another we really don't know much more then what we've theorized. Hawkins eventually could be proven completely wrong (or right) but it wouldn't diminish his intelligence.
We try to rationalize everything we don't understand, until we can find an answer that can satisfy our question.
The world is going to end Dec 21, 2012, according those who study the Mayan Calendar.
Bank on it! ::)
FYI, most of Hawkin's theories on black holes have been proven along with the existence of the Higgs- Bosen aka " God particle".
-
I'm not disputing you that people do believe ridiculous dumb things, hence the people who dont believe in dinosaurs.
The vast majority of the population consists of very simple minded people. It was only a generation ago that an Orson Wells story on the radio caused a panic. 16 years ago we were bombarded with Y2K.
Since the beginning of mankind's history we've tried to explain things we don't understand, whether we hide behind God or science. Hawkins has an interesting theory on black holes, some agree some don't, but until it's proven one way or another we really don't know much more then what we've theorized. Hawkins eventually could be proven completely wrong (or right) but it wouldn't diminish his intelligence.
We try to rationalize everything we don't understand, until we can find an answer that can satisfy our question.
The difference is that Hawking is very open about the fact that what he's proposing is a theory based on observed evidence and previous theories. That theory allows us to make testable predictions, which will either increase or decrease our confidence in the theory. He knows full that the theory is only good as long as it fits observed facts and if it doesn't, he's open to amending or modifying it in an effort to explain those new observations.
And this - one would hope - applies not just to Hawking, but more generally to scientists and people in general.
Contrast this people who view the Bible as inerrant truth - regardless of whether they claim it should be interpreted literally or not. They don't have a theory. What they have a belief which they refuse to critically examine. While they're mostly insulated from facts since their beliefs deal with the supernatural, even when they venture into the natural ("it's a miracle!"), they stick by their belief and refuse to reconsider or reevaluate their faith.
It's offensive to suggest that explaining the world around us via science is equivalent to explaining the word around us via God. It's offensive because one operates on the premise that we exist in a rational universe and that we are capable of understanding and explaining the things we observe, whereas the other operates on the premise that we live in a magical universe, ruled by supernatural forces that are totally outside understanding.
-
The difference is that Hawking is very open about the fact that what he's proposing is a theory based on observed evidence and previous theories. That theory allows us to make testable predictions, which will either increase or decrease our confidence in the theory. He knows full that the theory is only good as long as it fits observed facts and if it doesn't, he's open to amending or modifying it in an effort to explain those new observations.
And this - one would hope - applies not just to Hawking, but more generally to scientists and people in general.
Contrast this people who view the Bible as inerrant truth - regardless of whether they claim it should be interpreted literally or not. They don't have a theory. What they have a belief which they refuse to critically examine. While they're mostly insulated from facts since their beliefs deal with the supernatural, even when they venture into the natural ("it's a miracle!"), they stick by their belief and refuse to reconsider or reevaluate their faith.
It's offensive to suggest that explaining the world around us via science is equivalent to explaining the word around us via God. It's offensive because one operates on the premise that we exist in a rational universe and that we are capable of understanding and explaining the things we observe, whereas the other operates on the premise that we live in a magical universe, ruled by supernatural forces that are totally outside understanding.
So you're saying that everyone who believes in God is opposed to science? I know this isn't what you're saying but when you use blanket statements about "bible believers" you sound just as ignorant as those who fight science. If you read my other posts I agreed that thoughts and ideas are evolving.
I think, and I could be wrong, your biggest issue is with those simple minded who refuse to be open? I think we agree on alot.
My point was we are always trying to understand things (ideas, concepts, theories) better and those things we don't understand we develop ideas until we do.
If you don't believe in God that's fine, you're an intelligent person and that's your right, I don't have a problem with it. There are many people that do believe in God but they've become superstitious with Him and His ways. I don't think God and science are mutually exclusive, I believe they coexist peacefully.
All that aside I can also understand why people have a problem with the religious lunatics, hate mongers, etc.... I personally wish for those who believe in a biblical doctrine of morals, self control, temperance, loving others, all in the name of service to God.
Regardless there are events in life that can't be explained satisfactorily (muggings, rape, kidnapping, murders, accidents). Life happens and random chance occurs.
-
The world is going to end Dec 21, 2012, according those who study the Mayan Calendar.
Bank on it! ::)
FYI, most of Hawkin's theories on black holes have been proven along with the existence of the Higgs- Bosen aka " God particle".
Howard I'm sure black holes are more your field of expertise then mine. :)
Actually I'm serious with that, I thought "Hawkins Radiation" was still an unproven theory as is "string theory" which is more probable . I know there was a noble peace prize handed out for Higgs Bosen but I thought there were still theories in regards to it unproven. Nonetheless most of it is above my head.
My point was despite being a genius Hawkins went against the grain with some of his black hole theories, and has been proven right many times.
The Bible is a book that has been torn apart for centuries yet it has been proven factually/historically correct. There ideas and concepts that are hard to comprehend and accept, and that's fine. I think it's important for people to challenge their faith and beliefs, rather then blindly accept someone else's faith and ideas, this should be applied in all walks of life.
I asked Croatch why he didn't believe in (a) God in a thread his answer was a good one, there were events in the bible that were hard for him to believe as a 30 year old adult. I understand his point.
I also asked SF1900 the same question and his (and if I'm wrong you can correct me) response was you'd have to be gullible to believe in something you don't have complete understanding of. And again I understand his point.
Life has many shades of grey.
-
Howard I'm sure black holes are more your field of expertise then mine. :)
Actually I'm serious with that, I thought "Hawkins Radiation" was still an unproven theory as is "string theory" which is more probable . I know there was a noble peace prize handed out for Higgs Bosen but I thought there were still theories in regards to it unproven. Nonetheless most of it is above my head.
My point was despite being a genius Hawkins went against the grain with some of his black hole theories, and has been proven right many times.
The Bible is a book that has been torn apart for centuries yet it has been proven factually/historically correct. There ideas and concepts that are hard to comprehend and accept, and that's fine. I think it's important for people to challenge their faith and beliefs, rather then blindly accept someone else's faith and ideas, this should be applied in all walks of life.
I asked Croatch why he didn't believe in (a) God in a thread his answer was a good one, there were events in the bible that were hard for him to believe as a 30 year old adult. I understand his point.
I also asked SF1900 the same question and his (and if I'm wrong you can correct me) response was you'd have to be gullible to believe in something you don't have complete understanding of. And again I understand his point.
Life has many shades of grey.
String theory peaked with 11 different dimensions, but I think it's literal application is junk science.
The most dedicated string theorist try to force fit the mathematical equations with random observations.
The holy grail is to combine quantum theory with the universal effects of gravity.
Alas, a clear unified field theory remains light years away ( pun intended)
The Hawking radiation may be nothing more then the intense gravity near the event horizon ,inverting light waves?
I know I have bias with physics explaining the universe, but it does a better job then philosophy.
I'm convinced there is a GOD, but his laws are the ones that govern the forces of our universe.
It amazes me when some bible beater will say it's a miracle if they suddenly find their lost car keys.
BUT, then act like the force of gravity is no big deal. These small minded people want to make GOD a micro manager of trivial things only important in their life.
For me, looking at the infinite number of stars , trillions of miles from me on a clear night is sufficient for me to believe in GOD. It's both humbling and awe inspiring.
FYI, ol' Issac Newton was a devout man of faith. He was a protestant minister and prof at Cambridge.
He said, he wanted to learn about the laws that govern our universe , so he could understand GOD the father , without a filter.
Perhaps, the one thing that troubles me most with "the bible" is that nothing new can be added.
Hmmm, you mean to tell me, that in the past 2000 yrs nothing significant within humanity has occurred? wtf.
-
So you're saying that everyone who believes in God is opposed to science?
No. You wrote:
Since the beginning of mankind's history we've tried to explain things we don't understand, whether we hide behind God or science. Hawkins has an interesting theory on black holes, some agree some don't, but until it's proven one way or another we really don't know much more then what we've theorized. Hawkins eventually could be proven completely wrong (or right) but it wouldn't diminish his intelligence.
You equated faith-based beliefs to evidence-based hypotheses. That is a joke; science is concerned with the natural, whereas religion is concerned with the supernatural - the two aren't even dealing in the same subject matter. Supernatural explanations of natural events are worthless: seeing lightning in the sky and saying "Zeus is throwing thunders" may be an attempt to "explain" lightning, but how is that an explanation?
You also suggest that Hawkins theory can be proven, but that's not quite how scientific theories work. You can only grow more confident that a paricular theory accurately describes something; you can't prove it. That's because any new evidence that agrees with the theory's predictions strengthens it - even to the point that we consider it a law (e.g. the law of gravitation) - but future evidence that will invalidate it can't be completely ruled out.
If you don't believe in God that's fine, you're an intelligent person and that's your right, I don't have a problem with it. There are many people that do believe in God but they've become superstitious with Him and His ways. I don't think God and science are mutually exclusive, I believe they coexist peacefully.
I agree that they can peacefully co-exist. But only if believers realize that they have different domains: religion deals with the supernatural and not the natural.
Regardless there are events in life that can't be explained satisfactorily (muggings, rape, kidnapping, murders, accidents). Life happens and random chance occurs.
I'm not sure what you mean by "can't be explained satisfactorily" here.
-
No. You wrote:
You equated faith-based beliefs to evidence-based hypotheses. That is a joke; science is concerned with the natural, whereas religion is concerned with the supernatural - the two aren't even dealing in the same subject matter. Supernatural explanations of natural events are worthless: seeing lightning in the sky and saying "Zeus is throwing thunders" may be an attempt to "explain" lightning, but how is that an explanation?
You also suggest that Hawkins theory can be proven, but that's not quite how scientific theories work. You can only grow more confident that a paricular theory accurately describes something; you can't prove it. That's because any new evidence that agrees with the theory's predictions strengthens it - even to the point that we consider it a law (e.g. the law of gravitation) - but future evidence that will invalidate it can't be completely ruled out.
I agree that they can peacefully co-exist. But only if believers realize that they have different domains: religion deals with the supernatural and not the natural.
I'm not sure what you mean by "can't be explained satisfactorily" here.
(http://treasure.diylol.com/uploads/post/image/523659/resized_creepy-willy-wonka-meme-generator-you-read-richard-dawkins-tell-me-more-about-what-an-intellectual-you-are-3d9bfd.jpg)
-
The Bible is a book that has been torn apart for centuries yet it has been proven factually/historically correct.
Plenty of books are historically correct - many much more than the Bible. And as to being "proven factually correct" I guess that would very much depend on your definition of "factually." Forgive me for finding it hard to accept as fact that it rained for forty days and forty nights resulting in the highest mountain in the world being under water while a (multi-)centenarian and his troupe of animals floated blissfully on a home-built wooden boat before the waters receded and they all went back to doing their thing.
-
Plenty of books are historically correct - many much more than the Bible. And as to being "proven factually correct" I guess that would very much depend on your definition of "factually." Forgive me for finding it hard to accept as fact that it rained for forty days and forty nights resulting in the highest mountain in the world being under water while a (multi-)centenarian and his troupe of animals floated blissfully on a home-built wooden boat before the waters receded and they all went back to doing their thing.
Yes, perhaps DaveD can explain how he knows that Noahs Ark, Jesus curing the blind, and walking on water are factually correct?
-
Plenty of books are historically correct - many much more than the Bible. And as to being "proven factually correct" I guess that would very much depend on your definition of "factually." Forgive me for finding it hard to accept as fact that it rained for forty days and forty nights resulting in the highest mountain in the world being under water while a (multi-)centenarian and his troupe of animals floated blissfully on a home-built wooden boat before the waters receded and they all went back to doing their thing.
That's fine I understand the skepticism, this is an event I've had to decide if it's something I believe. I think you're putting a spin on a catastrophic event where all of mankind is eliminated as being blissful. It sounds like you're at least familiar with the story, Noah, 500 as you pointed out, built an ark, via specific instructions from God to prepare for a flood, that may have taken up to 75 hears to complete and upon completion animals walked on two by two.
There are many questions unanswered through, off the top of my head what happened to all the sea life? How did the fresh and salt water animals survive the influx of water? We can believe the polar ice caps can/are/will melt because of global warming and this will cause the earth to flood yet because the Bible account of a flood only talks about 40 nonstop days of rain than nothing else played a role in the flooding?
I can understand why someone wouldn't believe this, it's difficult to comprehend. I think with the "non believer" there is always the inferring of the stories of the bible being easy, happy ending fairytales, when the reality of the stories is that the are occurring with real people with real issues who had the same questions and issues with God we have now.
That said most believe an asteroid was what eliminated dinosaurs, but we don't know that with 100% accuracy either, it goes without saying that something happened to eliminate them though.
We're not certain if we could replicate the Great Pyramid of Gaza with today's construction methods; I know many debate this some say we could build it better others argue we couldn't build it until we know it's complete layout, regardless no one has done and why would they. It's kind of a silly argument anyhow, as both sides think they're right but neither will likely to be able to prove the other wrong.
As I said it is fine if you don't want to believe in God, I'm aware I'm not going to convince you He is real and that's OK, just as you aren't going to convince, nor could you concretely prove, He isn't real.
I wish you no ill will and hope I don't come across as insulting. I enjoy the facts you have and points you make, your critical thinking is refreshing.
-
...and on the 6th day, the Lord created Adam and Steve. Thus, the IFBB had sponsors to thrive and prosper . Fact. :-*
-
Just in case one of you ladies and gentlemen is interested in the scientific side of Creationism
There is a wonderful website that you can visit, it is created by bible believing Christians with Master's and PHd's in the relevant fields of science.
www.creation.com
Here is a sample video:
:)
-
Just in case one of you ladies and gentlemen is interested in the scientific side of Creationism
There is a wonderful website that you can visit, it is created by bible believing Christians with Master's and PHd's in the relevant fields of science.
www.creation.com
Here is a sample video:
:)
There is quantitative proof that the earth is aprox 4.5 billion yrs old via radiometric dating.
One can actually measure this in a lab via radiation levels and half life times in ordinary rocks.
This is as clear and basic as gravity or seeing light waves , etc.
-
Yes, perhaps DaveD can explain how he knows that Noahs Ark, Jesus curing the blind, and walking on water are factually correct?
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533
* that article mentions that Robert Ballard believe the world was covered in ice 12000 years ago, which isn't going to help your theory of a Bible that says the earth is 6000 years old. He also uses some new science method of carbon dating to validate his theories ;D
I'm working on getting copies of Jesus's footprints off the water, in the meantime I've talked with the blind guys parents to verify if the son was really blind, they said he can speak for himself. I'm trying to find the proper medical documents to verify this....
This band of miscreant fishermen, tax collectors and sheep herders really pulled together in a plot of epic proportions.
Again I get you don't believe in God, that fine I'm not going to convince you otherwise. Jesus is a documented historical figure, He was crucified, His disciples are also documented as are their deaths. They are as real as Genghis Kahn. If you think the bible is factually incorrect fairy tales then so be it. Nothing in it is valid to you.
You do have great questions though.
-
There is quantitative proof that the earth is aprox 4.5 billion yrs old via radiometric dating.
One can actually measure this in a lab via radiation levels and half life times in ordinary rocks.
This is as clear and basic as gravity or seeing light waves , etc.
Can you use 3 week old concrete as well?
-
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533
* that article mentions that Robert Ballard believe the world was covered in ice 12000 years ago, which isn't going to help your theory of a Bible that says the earth is 6000 years old. He also uses some new science method of carbon dating to validate his theories ;D
I'm working on getting copies of Jesus's footprints off the water, in the meantime I've talked with the blind guys parents to verify if the son was really blind, they said he can speak for himself. I'm trying to find the proper medical documents to verify this....
This band of miscreant fishermen, tax collectors and sheep herders really pulled together in a plot of epic proportions.
Again I get you don't believe in God, that fine I'm not going to convince you otherwise. Jessica is a documented historical figure, He was crucified, His disciples are also documented as are their deaths. They are as real as Genghis Kahn. If you think the bible is factually incorrect fairy tales then so be it. Nothing in it is valid to you.
You do have great questions though.
Great, there is still no real reason for me to believe anything in the bible is fact. You just dont get to point to ONE book and say, "Hey, the bible said its true, therefore its factually correct." Sorry, doesn't work that way. Until you can prove above, and beyond a reasonable doubt that events in the bible are factual, I will come to the conclusion that its all myths. I shouldn't believe otherwise.
Listen, the earth is billions of years old, no matter how much you and other theists want to believe its not. You're just wrong. The next thing youre going to tell me is that dinosaurs are fake, and God put fossils in the ground to test our faith. ::) ::)
This is the idiocy of religion. You just can't debate with cuckoo religious people.
-
Great, there is still no real reason for me to believe anything in the bible is fact. You just dont get to point to ONE book and say, "Hey, the bible said its true, therefore its factually correct." Sorry, doesn't work that way. Until you can prove above, and beyond a reasonable doubt that events in the bible are factual, I will come to the conclusion that its all myths. I shouldn't believe otherwise.
Listen, the earth is billions of years old, no matter how much you and other theists want to believe its not. You're just wrong. The next thing youre going to tell me is that dinosaurs are fake, and God put fossils in the ground to test our faith. ::) ::)
This is the idiocy of religion.
Bro I never said the earth isn't billions of years old, you said the bible states it's 6000 years old. You are correct if you want to believe it's a book of myths. As I said I'm not going to persuade you with ancient non biblical texts from 2000 years ago that record Jesus of Nazareth existences.
I agree religion is a joke, it's designed to enslave people.
I'm way behind in my discussion with axvo.....
-
No. You wrote:
You equated faith-based beliefs to evidence-based hypotheses. That is a joke; science is concerned with the natural, whereas religion is concerned with the supernatural - the two aren't even dealing in the same subject matter. Supernatural explanations of natural events are worthless: seeing lightning in the sky and saying "Zeus is throwing thunders" may be an attempt to "explain" lightning, but how is that an explanation?
You also suggest that Hawkins theory can be proven, but that's not quite how scientific theories work. You can only grow more confident that a paricular theory accurately describes something; you can't prove it. That's because any new evidence that agrees with the theory's predictions strengthens it - even to the point that we consider it a law (e.g. the law of gravitation) - but future evidence that will invalidate it can't be completely ruled out.
I agree that they can peacefully co-exist. But only if believers realize that they have different domains: religion deals with the supernatural and not the natural.
I'm not sure what you mean by "can't be explained satisfactorily" here.
Sorry, I understand your separation, and its an excellent point.
You said supernatural explanations of natural events are worthless.
I agree, however my premise was that people try to explain things they don't understand. If two people get hit by lightning and one lives they justify it by saying God has a plan for their life while the other dies they say it's his time.
I think I misunderstood your point about those who hold faith based beliefs as evidenced based hypothesis, again excellent point.
My simple point was people have always tried to explain events they can't understand. As you have documented science attempts to prove and explain natural events whereas religion will use God and the supernatural as well as superstition.
I used the examples of crime and accidents to point out that random chance occurs, people use God so they can have peace in "justifying" things they don't understand.
-
(http://treasure.diylol.com/uploads/post/image/523659/resized_creepy-willy-wonka-meme-generator-you-read-richard-dawkins-tell-me-more-about-what-an-intellectual-you-are-3d9bfd.jpg)
We got Hawkins and Dawkins up here, but I think we mean Hawking.
Yep, certain.
-
Just in case one of you ladies and gentlemen is interested in the scientific side of Creationism
There is a wonderful website that you can visit, it is created by bible believing Christians with Master's and PHd's in the relevant fields of science.
www.creation.com
Here is a sample video:
:)
Ok, it's fine to have an opinion, but to disprove the scientific evidence of radiometric dating requires:
1. 1st they need to show a flaw in the collection and/or analysis of the data collected in the current radiometric dating experiments.
2. Next, they need to do experiments proving that the earth's matter is much younger.
The creationists love to have philosophical debates but offer no empirical data and experiments to support their side of the argument.
-
Ok, it's fine to have an opinion, but to disprove the scientific evidence of radiometric dating requires:
1. 1st they need to show a flaw in the collection and/or analysis of the data collected in the current radiometric dating experiments.
2. Next, they need to do experiments proving that the earth's matter is much younger.
The creationists love to have philosophical debates but offer no empirical data and experiments to support their side of the argument.
"Howard, stop being so logical. That makes far too much sense. I would prefer to believe a sky god helped stop me from being a gay rent boy in a bunny suit."
-
"Howard, stop being so logical. That makes far too much sense. I would prefer to believe a sky god helped stop me from being a gay rent boy in a bunny suit."
It all fits together in a logical sequence.
Easter is a Christian holiday and the mascot of that day is the Easter bunny.
Thus, going from bunny suit to Christian pastor is a no brainer.
TBombz might get invited to the White House someday... on Easter ?
-
It all fits together in a logical sequence.
Easter is a Christian holiday and the mascot of that day is the Easter bunny.
Thus, going from bunny suit to Christian pastor is a no brainer.
TBombz might get invited to the White House someday... on Easter ?
WHOSE IN CHARGE OF THAT BUNNY?
I think he would say the same if tbombz walked into his store! :D ;D
-
WHOSE IN CHARGE OF THAT BUNNY?
I think he would say the same if tbombz walked into his store! :D ;D
Exactly, LOL ;D
I love the expressions and terms this guy uses when talking about men in bunny suits.
-
Hahahaha "a sky god helped me from being a gay rent boy in a bunny suit"
Let me get serious for a sec on this.
Much as we love to giggle at the infamous TBombz pics, I'm glad he's changed.
He'll have much better life as a Baptist preacher, then as a gay call bunny.
If it took religion for him to get it together, then it's a good thing for him as a man.
-
Remember, these "vile, evil, depraved people committing the worst acts imaginable to each other" are the ones that, if you are to believe in the Christian myth, your own God created despite knowing fully that they were "vile, evil [and] depraved" and would commit "the worst acts imaginable." You can't provide a single, coherent answer as to why he would do this. You stammer out some nonsense about he has a plan and he wants everyone to be all lovey-dovey and in communion with him.
So having created "vile, evil [and] depraved" people according to plan he goes on to set a standard of perfection that by his own admission noone can meet, and punishes thoses who fail to achieve that impossible perfection. You can't provide a single coherent answer as to why he would do this either. Instead you stammer out some nonsense about how he loves so much that he's willing to pay the price for our shortfall on our behalf.
But who is demanding and collecting that price? The answer is your God. He decrees that "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23) and pays that price, by sacrificing himself (via his "son") to himself, to appease a penalty that he himself demands. You can't provide a single coherent answer as to why this insane loop is required and why he won't just forgive people outright without the need for all this other stuff. Instead of you stammer out some nonsense that God is sovereign and can't be judged by us.
BULLSHIT.
The God of the Bible is irrational, irritable and insecure. He is deeply flawed and very human, behaving like a thug and a bully. That God deserves neither fealty nor worship.
Sorry, didn't have time to line-by-line my response (maybe I can amend it later).
I think one thing to consider is that God does have some limitations. God can’t be anything other than himself….he can’t not be divine in nature. God can’t not exist. God can’t create another being that is equal to or greater than himself. God is incapable of not knowing all things past, present and future. God also can’t create beings who are given free will and that will only choose him.
God’s Foreknowledge is exactly what it is…knowledge of all things to come….it can’t not be that. I’m curious how it could be? The reprobate had every opportunity to turn to God and they refused…..they made their choices….the choices weren’t made for them. Knowing every single thing that will happen is not the same thing as programming “choices” into folks that they are forced to make.
“So God loves me so much that he created me knowing I would choose to go to hell? What a guy!!”
In this discussion, God is marked as the only one “to blame”. Well, if God neither preprograms our choices nor forces us to abide by his will then we have to consider our lineage. Our parents, grandparents, great grandparents and so forth all made the decision to have sex and some did so for the specific purpose of making little avxo’s and little MOS’. Now, God certainly has both the right and ability to intervene in his creation, but he allows for the contingency of free will and yet remains sovereign. Our lives are completely wrapped in the choices made by our parents. God, in his providence, made it possible for his creation to “go forth and multiply”. Now given his foreknowledge of the future choices of these new folks should God have eliminated those that he knew wouldn’t choose him? Shouldn’t all people have the opportunity to choose God?
Further, the problem with your personal objections is that you fully realize and comprehend the implications of your choices. In this moment, you are in direct defiance of God and you continue to refuse him. The reprobate world realized the same. God knew you would defy him, but he didn’t preprogram that decision into you nor does he want you to make that choice. Is it better that you not be created in the first place or created without options or choice?
So knowing all you do about God’s will you prefer a Godless existence.
Keep in mind, that within your current, Godless existence that the expressions of goodness and beauty and love and compassion we experience in this life are directly attributed to the very nature of God. The very visage of humanity is an expression of his divine countenance. You already exist in his grace yet you defiantly lash out against him. God created us to come into fellowship with him, but provided for our free will (with the understanding of the limitation therein) so that we may make the purest choice possible to accept or reject him. Those that reject him will exit this life and enter into an eternity in which all the divine attributes of God will be removed. What remains in that existence will encompass hell and those that populate its ranks are those that chose “no God for me”.
There is no requirement on God’s part to satisfy our sin debt. Yes, it’s his creation and his law, but law without the enforcement of penalty is no law at all….it’s meaningless. The degree of holiness, righteousness and justice of God’s nature is beyond our ability to comprehend. It’s so inconceivably absolute that it cannot be aligned with unrighteousness in any form whatsoever. God’s justice and righteousness is so great that our sins (our offenses against God) require that divine justice be accomplished. If you were to approach me and slap me in the face the penalty for doing so may be that I slap back…not much. If you slap a police officer you’re going to spend some time in jail. If you slap the President you’re may spend your life in jail. Now, if you slap an infinite God in the face the penalty will align with the his nature and remain infinite.
This sin-filled existence will come to an end and from that end will be ushered in something new, something spotless, something without the mar of sin. And it will populated by those of his former creation that chose to align themselves in righteousness with God. God also designed his creation so that life is in the blood. He chose that the vehicle to pay for sin is found in blood. The Israelites of the OT atoned for sin via the sacrifice of the prime specimens of their flocks and herds. That was a temporary measure. Why did God choose blood as his vehicle and not something else I couldn’t say. In the end, because of his foreknowledge of our future free choices he entered into his creation as the incarnate Son in Jesus Christ. The spotless lamb who’s perfect, divine blood was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of his divine law. “God should just forgive everyone because it’s his own law that you admit we can’t live up to and yet are subject to.” Correct, we can’t, but God didn’t leave us without the ability to be permanently reconciled with his divine righteousness. That’s why he sent his Son Jesus Christ to pay that sin debt on our behalf.
I can’t explain every facet of God’s nature and that’s ok. It’s neither required of me nor is it necessary for any of us to fully grasp before we can make a pure choice about God. You simply place that burden upon the argument. You want the onus shifted squarely on God’s shoulders and you accept no responsibility for your sins against God. You understand the law, break it, but aren’t complicit. In your eyes God should just given everyone a free pass and you refuse to accept that Jesus Christ is that pass because you dislike the concept of faith. You don’t understand it so you don’t like it. I admit it’s not an easy topic to discuss or summarize and I don’t have all the answers, but I trust in the what he’s revealed to me via the Holy Spirit and that what he outlined in scripture he’s fulfilled in me. I’ve experienced nothing but fulfilled promise, goodness, grace and love. I simply try and share that with others in hopes that they may come to choose Christ for their lives.
-
Just in case one of you ladies and gentlemen is interested in the scientific side of Creationism
There is a wonderful website that you can visit, it is created by bible believing Christians with Master's and PHd's in the relevant fields of science.
www.creation.com
Here is a sample video:
:)
These guys are huge assholes, not only are they presenting false information (they are of low character) they couldn't be more wrong on every single point. The first point regarding helium is hilarious. They appear to be unable to see they inherent contradiction in their argument, helium leaks out, we can measure it there is only enough leakage to show the earth is 2 million years old ie the earth is NOT billions of years old! First, if they are using this as an argument they just proved the earth is not "young", they have no critical thinking skills, they are blinded by bias. Secondly, they are presenting the fact that helium leaks into the atmosphere and is measurable as a linear event, it is not, subsurface pressure, they composition of the strata all alter leakage rates, they are wrong. They use their bullshit degree's (i can't be bothered to see which shitty religious school they milled it from) as proof they are scientific, yet have contempt for science as a whole, show distrust for educational system, frame biologists as "evolutionists" etc.. They have other videos like "is atheism a religion, 7 ways to detect a religion", they are again framing religion negatively but seem to stupid to realize it. These people are deep into the bullshit, they have no sense of right, no care for fact or reality, they simply want it to be true. They have also blocked the comments, another sign of a person/group that wants to avoid critical appraisal, in case there house of lies collapses.
This is why I find religion disgusting, it's built on lies, perpetuates lies and distorts reality.
-
God is the only being who will exist long enough to read your entire post :D
Sorry, didn't have time to line-by-line my response (maybe I can amend it later).
I think one thing to consider is that God does have some limitations. God can’t be anything other than himself….he can’t not be divine in nature. God can’t not exist. God can’t create another being that is equal to or greater than himself. God is incapable of not knowing all things past, present and future. God also can’t create beings who are given free will and that will only choose him.
God’s Foreknowledge is exactly what it is…knowledge of all things to come….it can’t not be that. I’m curious how it could be? The reprobate had every opportunity to turn to God and they refused…..they made their choices….the choices weren’t made for them. Knowing every single thing that will happen is not the same thing as programming “choices” into folks that they are forced to make.
“So God loves me so much that he created me knowing I would choose to go to hell? What a guy!!”
In this discussion, God is marked as the only one “to blame”. Well, if God neither preprograms our choices nor forces us to abide by his will then we have to consider our lineage. Our parents, grandparents, great grandparents and so forth all made the decision to have sex and some did so for the specific purpose of making little avxo’s and little MOS’. Now, God certainly has both the right and ability to intervene in his creation, but he allows for the contingency of free will and yet remains sovereign. Our lives are completely wrapped in the choices made by our parents. God, in his providence, made it possible for his creation to “go forth and multiply”. Now given his foreknowledge of the future choices of these new folks should God have eliminated those that he knew wouldn’t choose him? Shouldn’t all people have the opportunity to choose God?
Further, the problem with your personal objections is that you fully realize and comprehend the implications of your choices. In this moment, you are in direct defiance of God and you continue to refuse him. The reprobate world realized the same. God knew you would defy him, but he didn’t preprogram that decision into you nor does he want you to make that choice. Is it better that you not be created in the first place or created without options or choice?
So knowing all you do about God’s will you prefer a Godless existence.
Keep in mind, that within your current, Godless existence that the expressions of goodness and beauty and love and compassion we experience in this life are directly attributed to the very nature of God. The very visage of humanity is an expression of his divine countenance. You already exist in his grace yet you defiantly lash out against him. God created us to come into fellowship with him, but provided for our free will (with the understanding of the limitation therein) so that we may make the purest choice possible to accept or reject him. Those that reject him will exit this life and enter into an eternity in which all the divine attributes of God will be removed. What remains in that existence will encompass hell and those that populate its ranks are those that chose “no God for me”.
There is no requirement on God’s part to satisfy our sin debt. Yes, it’s his creation and his law, but law without the enforcement of penalty is no law at all….it’s meaningless. The degree of holiness, righteousness and justice of God’s nature is beyond our ability to comprehend. It’s so inconceivably absolute that it cannot be aligned with unrighteousness in any form whatsoever. God’s justice and righteousness is so great that our sins (our offenses against God) require that divine justice be accomplished. If you were to approach me and slap me in the face the penalty for doing so may be that I slap back…not much. If you slap a police officer you’re going to spend some time in jail. If you slap the President you’re may spend your life in jail. Now, if you slap an infinite God in the face the penalty will align with the his nature and remain infinite.
This sin-filled existence will come to an end and from that end will be ushered in something new, something spotless, something without the mar of sin. And it will populated by those of his former creation that chose to align themselves in righteousness with God. God also designed his creation so that life is in the blood. He chose that the vehicle to pay for sin is found in blood. The Israelites of the OT atoned for sin via the sacrifice of the prime specimens of their flocks and herds. That was a temporary measure. Why did God choose blood as his vehicle and not something else I couldn’t say. In the end, because of his foreknowledge of our future free choices he entered into his creation as the incarnate Son in Jesus Christ. The spotless lamb who’s perfect, divine blood was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of his divine law. “God should just forgive everyone because it’s his own law that you admit we can’t live up to and yet are subject to.” Correct, we can’t, but God didn’t leave us without the ability to be permanently reconciled with his divine righteousness. That’s why he sent his Son Jesus Christ to pay that sin debt on our behalf.
I can’t explain every facet of God’s nature and that’s ok. It’s neither required of me nor is it necessary for any of us to fully grasp before we can make a pure choice about God. You simply place that burden upon the argument. You want the onus shifted squarely on God’s shoulders and you accept no responsibility for your sins against God. You understand the law, break it, but aren’t complicit. In your eyes God should just given everyone a free pass and you refuse to accept that Jesus Christ is that pass because you dislike the concept of faith. You don’t understand it so you don’t like it. I admit it’s not an easy topic to discuss or summarize and I don’t have all the answers, but I trust in the what he’s revealed to me via the Holy Spirit and that what he outlined in scripture he’s fulfilled in me. I’ve experienced nothing but fulfilled promise, goodness, grace and love. I simply try and share that with others in hopes that they may come to choose Christ for their lives.
-
God is the only being who will exist long enough to read your entire post :D
But unless he has the patience of Job he still won't be able to get through it.
-
(http://s2.postimg.org/aaa4ufdzd/2in8t0.jpg)
-
Sorry, didn't have time to line-by-line my response (maybe I can amend it later).
I think one thing to consider is that God does have some limitations. God can’t be anything other than himself….he can’t not be divine in nature. God can’t not exist. God can’t create another being that is equal to or greater than himself. God is incapable of not knowing all things past, present and future. God also can’t create beings who are given free will and that will only choose him.
God’s Foreknowledge is exactly what it is…knowledge of all things to come….it can’t not be that. I’m curious how it could be? The reprobate had every opportunity to turn to God and they refused…..they made their choices….the choices weren’t made for them. Knowing every single thing that will happen is not the same thing as programming “choices” into folks that they are forced to make.
“So God loves me so much that he created me knowing I would choose to go to hell? What a guy!!”
In this discussion, God is marked as the only one “to blame”. Well, if God neither preprograms our choices nor forces us to abide by his will then we have to consider our lineage. Our parents, grandparents, great grandparents and so forth all made the decision to have sex and some did so for the specific purpose of making little avxo’s and little MOS’. Now, God certainly has both the right and ability to intervene in his creation, but he allows for the contingency of free will and yet remains sovereign. Our lives are completely wrapped in the choices made by our parents. God, in his providence, made it possible for his creation to “go forth and multiply”. Now given his foreknowledge of the future choices of these new folks should God have eliminated those that he knew wouldn’t choose him? Shouldn’t all people have the opportunity to choose God?
Further, the problem with your personal objections is that you fully realize and comprehend the implications of your choices. In this moment, you are in direct defiance of God and you continue to refuse him. The reprobate world realized the same. God knew you would defy him, but he didn’t preprogram that decision into you nor does he want you to make that choice. Is it better that you not be created in the first place or created without options or choice?
So knowing all you do about God’s will you prefer a Godless existence.
Keep in mind, that within your current, Godless existence that the expressions of goodness and beauty and love and compassion we experience in this life are directly attributed to the very nature of God. The very visage of humanity is an expression of his divine countenance. You already exist in his grace yet you defiantly lash out against him. God created us to come into fellowship with him, but provided for our free will (with the understanding of the limitation therein) so that we may make the purest choice possible to accept or reject him. Those that reject him will exit this life and enter into an eternity in which all the divine attributes of God will be removed. What remains in that existence will encompass hell and those that populate its ranks are those that chose “no God for me”.
There is no requirement on God’s part to satisfy our sin debt. Yes, it’s his creation and his law, but law without the enforcement of penalty is no law at all….it’s meaningless. The degree of holiness, righteousness and justice of God’s nature is beyond our ability to comprehend. It’s so inconceivably absolute that it cannot be aligned with unrighteousness in any form whatsoever. God’s justice and righteousness is so great that our sins (our offenses against God) require that divine justice be accomplished. If you were to approach me and slap me in the face the penalty for doing so may be that I slap back…not much. If you slap a police officer you’re going to spend some time in jail. If you slap the President you’re may spend your life in jail. Now, if you slap an infinite God in the face the penalty will align with the his nature and remain infinite.
This sin-filled existence will come to an end and from that end will be ushered in something new, something spotless, something without the mar of sin. And it will populated by those of his former creation that chose to align themselves in righteousness with God. God also designed his creation so that life is in the blood. He chose that the vehicle to pay for sin is found in blood. The Israelites of the OT atoned for sin via the sacrifice of the prime specimens of their flocks and herds. That was a temporary measure. Why did God choose blood as his vehicle and not something else I couldn’t say. In the end, because of his foreknowledge of our future free choices he entered into his creation as the incarnate Son in Jesus Christ. The spotless lamb who’s perfect, divine blood was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of his divine law. “God should just forgive everyone because it’s his own law that you admit we can’t live up to and yet are subject to.” Correct, we can’t, but God didn’t leave us without the ability to be permanently reconciled with his divine righteousness. That’s why he sent his Son Jesus Christ to pay that sin debt on our behalf.
I can’t explain every facet of God’s nature and that’s ok. It’s neither required of me nor is it necessary for any of us to fully grasp before we can make a pure choice about God. You simply place that burden upon the argument. You want the onus shifted squarely on God’s shoulders and you accept no responsibility for your sins against God. You understand the law, break it, but aren’t complicit. In your eyes God should just given everyone a free pass and you refuse to accept that Jesus Christ is that pass because you dislike the concept of faith. You don’t understand it so you don’t like it. I admit it’s not an easy topic to discuss or summarize and I don’t have all the answers, but I trust in the what he’s revealed to me via the Holy Spirit and that what he outlined in scripture he’s fulfilled in me. I’ve experienced nothing but fulfilled promise, goodness, grace and love. I simply try and share that with others in hopes that they may come to choose Christ for their lives.
TL:DR: A waffling post of utter insanity...
-
TL:DR: A waffling post of utter insanity...
Awwwwww...thank you! :-*
-
TL:DR: A waffling post of utter insanity...
Most, if not all of it, is sophistry and cannot be proven. Its all faith-based.
-
no reason to be scared of dying of AIDS when you can look forward to the afterlife:
(http://s14.postimg.org/za7r176vl/Image2.jpg)
-
So Jesus condems to hell those who dont believe in him ::)
-
for sure ^^
-
I feel sorry for the millions of Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish and Hindu people that are unfortunate enough to be raised into a different culture and are now gonna die and get met with the full fury of Jesus lol. His dad's even worse...they are like the divinely appointed version of the Corleone family.
I believe I saw MOS post that, the only way to heaven in through jesus. All other religions will burn with the atheists.
-
I must admit, I've always had a problem with that.
I have always thought that if you did or did not believe specifically in God or Jesus or any deity, that it would be on the bottom of the list of things that a god would care about.
Do you care about if an ant believes in you?
I would think that any deity would care more about how you treat your fellow man on a day to day basis and not so much on whether you "believe".
Indeed. The ability to suspend disbelief trumping moral character is beyond baffling. Incredibly stupid and immoral, too.
-
I feel sorry for the millions of Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish and Hindu people that are unfortunate enough to be raised into a different culture and are now gonna die and get met with the full fury of Jesus lol. His dad's even worse...they are like the divinely appointed version of the Corleone family.
I thought the Jews were God's chosen people?
I guess the Almighty, pulled a fast one on 'em huh?
-
yeah he loves to trick people....always fucking with them lol. He apparently like's to hide fossils just to test folk, and plant apple trees that tempt you into eternal hell. He's quite the prankster, our lord.
He trolls harder than any Getbigger. Makes Josh look like a librarian.
-
There is quantitative proof that the earth is aprox 4.5 billion yrs old via radiometric dating.
One can actually measure this in a lab via radiation levels and half life times in ordinary rocks.
This is as clear and basic as gravity or seeing light waves , etc.
Ok, it's fine to have an opinion, but to disprove the scientific evidence of radiometric dating requires:
1. 1st they need to show a flaw in the collection and/or analysis of the data collected in the current radiometric dating experiments.
2. Next, they need to do experiments proving that the earth's matter is much younger.
The creationists love to have philosophical debates but offer no empirical data and experiments to support their side of the argument.
Hey Howard,
there are plenty of articles on their website that address these issues, and many more.
"The assumption of a great age will influence the interpretation of the data and is certainly likely to lead to colossal misconceptions, the most outstanding of which is the widely propagated view that radiometric dating has established the age of the Earth to be 4.5 b.y"
http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-age-of-earth
Hope all is well..
-Taylor
:)
These guys are huge assholes, not only are they presenting false information (they are of low character) they couldn't be more wrong on every single point. The first point regarding helium is hilarious. They appear to be unable to see they inherent contradiction in their argument, helium leaks out, we can measure it there is only enough leakage to show the earth is 2 million years old ie the earth is NOT billions of years old! First, if they are using this as an argument they just proved the earth is not "young", they have no critical thinking skills, they are blinded by bias. Secondly, they are presenting the fact that helium leaks into the atmosphere and is measurable as a linear event, it is not, subsurface pressure, they composition of the strata all alter leakage rates, they are wrong. They use their bullshit degree's (i can't be bothered to see which shitty religious school they milled it from) as proof they are scientific, yet have contempt for science as a whole, show distrust for educational system, frame biologists as "evolutionists" etc.. They have other videos like "is atheism a religion, 7 ways to detect a religion", they are again framing religion negatively but seem to stupid to realize it. These people are deep into the bullshit, they have no sense of right, no care for fact or reality, they simply want it to be true. They have also blocked the comments, another sign of a person/group that wants to avoid critical appraisal, in case there house of lies collapses.
This is why I find religion disgusting, it's built on lies, perpetuates lies and distorts reality.
We are all biased. We Creationists are biased towards our God, The Lord Jesus Christ, and what His Word tells us. We interpret the data accoridng to what our God has told us about the past. And, yes, we are very distrustful of the "scientific community" and of the education system.. because we believe that humans are evil, and humans hate God, and humans will do everything in their power to convince themselves, and others, that God does not exist. Just look at some of these quotes...
“I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that."
-Thomas Nagel
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen. "
-Richard Lewontin
"I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism"
-John J. Dunphy
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic"
-Dr. Scott Todd
So Jesus condems to hell those who dont believe in him ::)
No, Jesus saves those who believe in Him.
:)
-
No, Jesus saves those who believe in Him.
:)
Jesus loves ass kissers .
-
Jesus, Mohamed and all the gods can suck my wang.
;D
-
Hey Howard,
there are plenty of articles on their website that address these issues, and many more.
"The assumption of a great age will influence the interpretation of the data and is certainly likely to lead to colossal misconceptions, the most outstanding of which is the widely propagated view that radiometric dating has established the age of the Earth to be 4.5 b.y"
http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-age-of-earth
Hope all is well..
-Taylor
:)
We are all biased. We Creationists are biased towards our God, The Lord Jesus Christ, and what His Word tells us. We interpret the data accoridng to what our God has told us about the past. And, yes, we are very distrustful of the "scientific community" and of the education system.. because we believe that humans are evil, and humans hate God, and humans will do everything in their power to convince themselves, and others, that God does not exist. Just look at some of these quotes...
“I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that."
-Thomas Nagel
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen. "
-Richard Lewontin
"I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism"
-John J. Dunphy
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic"
-Dr. Scott Todd
No, Jesus saves those who believe in Him.
:)
That is 100% lunacy. That is what is wrong with religious people. Distrustful of science and education? Don't you take medicine for your disease? Don't you go to doctors? Don't you type on your computer? Don't you drive your car? I hate to break it to you, but all of this was achieve via education, which created scientists.
Anyway, your statement is why religious people are deemed crazy. Every single word in that paragraph is inspired by utter delusion.
Seriously, I feel sorry for you Tbombz. I really hope you leave behind these beliefs and come back to reality. You are so far gone. Its a real pity.
Those quotes are all spot on and applaud them for saying those things.
-
That is 100% lunacy. That is what is wrong with religious people. Distrustful of science and education? Don't you take medicine for your disease? Don't you go to doctors? Don't you type on your computer? Don't you drive your car? I hate to break it to you, but all of this was achieve via education, which created scientists.
Anyway, your statement is why religious people are deemed crazy. Every single word in that paragraph is inspired by utter delusion.
Seriously, I feel sorry for you Tbombz. I really hope you leave behind these beliefs and come back to reality. You are so far gone. Its a real pity.
Those quotes are all spot on and applaud them for saying those things.
Hey SF. :)
Just to clarify... I did not say that we are distrustful of 'science and education'
I said we are distrustful of the "scientific community" and of the education system.
There is a difference!
-
Hey SF. :)
Just to clarify... I did not say that we are distrustful of 'science and education'
I said we are distrustful of the "scientific community" and of the education system.
There is a difference!
Splitting hairs. The scientific community is made up of scientists who........science. Same with education. You really can't separate the two.
You just don't like the science the scientific community engages in because it does not fit with your God agenda. Thus, to a great extent, you're distrustful of science.
Basically, you want all scientists and educators to align with your God agenda. If they do not, which most don't, then you will distrust that community and system, which, in effect, is distrusting the science and education behind it.
-
"No, Jesus saves those who believe in Him."
Well who does the condemning to eternal damnation then? His Father? Didnt he say he and the father were one and the same?
Many words were attributed to Jesus by men bent on controlling the masses that no enlightened man would ever say.
-
That's fine I understand the skepticism, this is an event I've had to decide if it's something I believe. I think you're putting a spin on a catastrophic event where all of mankind is eliminated as being blissful. It sounds like you're at least familiar with the story, Noah, 500 as you pointed out, built an ark, via specific instructions from God to prepare for a flood, that may have taken up to 75 hears to complete and upon completion animals walked on two by two.
No. I'm not just "spinning." I'm presenting the story accurately and the fact that you see it as a tall tale speaks volumes.
There are many questions unanswered through, off the top of my head what happened to all the sea life? How did the fresh and salt water animals survive the influx of water? We can believe the polar ice caps can/are/will melt because of global warming and this will cause the earth to flood yet because the Bible account of a flood only talks about 40 nonstop days of rain than nothing else played a role in the flooding?
First of all, even if all the ice from the polar ice caps and even Greenland were to melt, the sea level would rise less than 70 meters. While that would certainly change the landscape (goodbye Holland!), it wouldn't flood the earth.
But what would take to flood the earth along the lines described in the Biblical story? Well, Mount Everest is a little over 8,800 meters tall but let's just round it off to 8 km. Let's also assume the earth is a perfect sphere, with a radius of 6,371 km. We can calculate the volume of water needed by using the formula for the volume of a spherical shell:
V=4π((6,371 km + 8 km)3 - (6,371 km)3)/3 = ... = 4.086×109 km3.
This number may be a little hard to comprehend, so how about we turn it to gallons? That's 1.079×1021 gallons. Or, expanded out, it's wolf gallons. That's almost 4 times the amount of water present in the earth's oceans - including polar ice. That works out to 1.873×1016 or 18,730,000,000,000,000 gallons per second coming down every second for 40 days and 40 nights. That means 95,000,000 gallons per second per square mile over the entire surface of the earth - or to use a more common measurement, 3.5 gallons per square foot per second. This may not seem like much so let's get some perspective. The average rainfall in the continental United States over the last 50 years in 32". This translates into almost 20 gallons of rainfall per square foot per year. The Biblical flood would see rainfall increase by a factor of approximately 31,540,000.
I can understand why someone wouldn't believe this, it's difficult to comprehend.
It's not just difficult to comprehend - it's mind-blowing. I don't think you understand what 3.5 gallons per square foot per second means. And where did all that water disappear off to after the 40 days?
I think with the "non believer" there is always the inferring of the stories of the bible being easy, happy ending fairytales, when the reality of the stories is that the are occurring with real people with real issues who had the same questions and issues with God we have now.
It is a fairy tale when a 500 year old man builds a wooden boat capable of carrying two of every animal, that the animals voluntarily get on that boat, and that the boat manages to float and survive being continuously pummeled by a massive amount of water over 40 y
That said most believe an asteroid was what eliminated dinosaurs, but we don't know that with 100% accuracy either, it goes without saying that something happened to eliminate them though.
We have a theory, for which the evidence is - pardon the pun - rock-solid. The K–T extinction event happened, and it was caused by an asteroid whose impact resulted in the Chicxulub crater.
We're not certain if we could replicate the Great Pyramid of Gaza with today's construction methods; I know many debate this some say we could build it better others argue we couldn't build it until we know it's complete layout, regardless no one has done and why would they. It's kind of a silly argument anyhow, as both sides think they're right but neither will likely to be able to prove the other wrong.
Huh? We could certainly replicate the Great Pyramid of Giza with today's construction and do it quite trivially with modern construction methods (arguments about layout aside - they're largely pointless) since even medium sized projects today are much more complex. How can you say, with a straight face, that we're not certain we could build the Great Pyramid of Giza when we've built the Panama Canal and the Three Gorges Dam, and we put up 1 World Trade Center over just eight years?
Let's be serious here...
-
I think one thing to consider is that God does have some limitations. God can’t be anything other than himself….he can’t not be divine in nature. God can’t not exist. God can’t create another being that is equal to or greater than himself. God is incapable of not knowing all things past, present and future. God also can’t create beings who are given free will and that will only choose him.
I've seen this line of reasoning before: define God by listing what attributes he doesn't have. It seems smart at first, but besides involving vigorous handwaving, this method has a bigger problem: how is a deity defined only in terms of negatives different from nothingness?
I have a piece a piece of toast. The piece of toast can't be anything other than a piece of toast. It can't be non-bread in nature. It can't not exist. It can't create another piece of toast that is equal to or greater than itself. It's incapable of not knowing all things past, present and future. The piece of toast also can't create beings who are giving free will that will only choose him.
And it's so good too!
God’s Foreknowledge is exactly what it is…knowledge of all things to come….it can’t not be that. I’m curious how it could be? The reprobate had every opportunity to turn to God and they refused…..they made their choices….the choices weren’t made for them. Knowing every single thing that will happen is not the same thing as programming “choices” into folks that they are forced to make.
No. You cannot have your cake and eat it too: either we have free will, in which case God is not omniscient because he can't know what we will choose before we choose it, or God is omniscient in which case we don't have free will.
In this discussion, God is marked as the only one “to blame”. Well, if God neither preprograms our choices nor forces us to abide by his will then we have to consider our lineage. Our parents, grandparents, great grandparents and so forth all made the decision to have sex and some did so for the specific purpose of making little avxo’s and little MOS’. Now, God certainly has both the right and ability to intervene in his creation, but he allows for the contingency of free will and yet remains sovereign. Our lives are completely wrapped in the choices made by our parents. God, in his providence, made it possible for his creation to “go forth and multiply”. Now given his foreknowledge of the future choices of these new folks should God have eliminated those that he knew wouldn’t choose him? Shouldn’t all people have the opportunity to choose God?
If they have a choice yes, but that choice is incompatible with one of the major, defining characteristics of God: omniscience. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Further, the problem with your personal objections is that you fully realize and comprehend the implications of your choices. In this moment, you are in direct defiance of God and you continue to refuse him. The reprobate world realized the same. God knew you would defy him, but he didn’t preprogram that decision into you nor does he want you to make that choice. Is it better that you not be created in the first place or created without options or choice?
If the inescapable result of me being created is that I will suffer for an eternity - and the Biblical hell is certainly described as eternal torment - and he knows that then yes, not being created would certainly be better.
Keep in mind, that within your current, Godless existence that the expressions of goodness and beauty and love and compassion we experience in this life are directly attributed to the very nature of God. The very visage of humanity is an expression of his divine countenance. You already exist in his grace yet you defiantly lash out against him. God created us to come into fellowship with him, but provided for our free will (with the understanding of the limitation therein) so that we may make the purest choice possible to accept or reject him. Those that reject him will exit this life and enter into an eternity in which all the divine attributes of God will be removed. What remains in that existence will encompass hell and those that populate its ranks are those that chose “no God for me”.
Boy, you sure know a lot about this God that you say you do not comprehend.
There is no requirement on God’s part to satisfy our sin debt. Yes, it’s his creation and his law, but law without the enforcement of penalty is no law at all….it’s meaningless.
The same applies if his law boils down to "I will punish you for your nature, which you cannot fundamentally alter." My birth was a matter outside of my choice, as is my nature. I am, in essence, forced to play a game with loaded dice and held accountable for the losses.
The degree of holiness, righteousness and justice of God’s nature is beyond our ability to comprehend. It’s so inconceivably absolute that it cannot be aligned with unrighteousness in any form whatsoever.
This is meanigless... but something does strike me. For something you describe as "beyond our ability to comprehend" you certainly seem to have no problem comprehending it.
If you were to approach me and slap me in the face the penalty for doing so may be that I slap back…not much.
Or, you know... assault charges.
If you slap a police officer you’re going to spend some time in jail. If you slap the President you’re may spend your life in jail. Now, if you slap an infinite God in the face the penalty will align with the his nature and remain infinite.
Interesting bit of reasoning. There's a few logical fallacies here, but I want to focus on one: you're making a deductive jump from the finite to the infinite and from an actual slap to a figurative slap.
This sin-filled existence will come to an end and from that end will be ushered in something new, something spotless, something without the mar of sin. And it will populated by those of his former creation that chose to align themselves in righteousness with God.
"If you pay me $5 today, I'll pay you $50 in 5 days!"
God also designed his creation so that life is in the blood. He chose that the vehicle to pay for sin is found in blood. The Israelites of the OT atoned for sin via the sacrifice of the prime specimens of their flocks and herds. That was a temporary measure. Why did God choose blood as his vehicle and not something else I couldn’t say. In the end, because of his foreknowledge of our future free choices he entered into his creation as the incarnate Son in Jesus Christ. The spotless lamb who’s perfect, divine blood was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of his divine law. “God should just forgive everyone because it’s his own law that you admit we can’t live up to and yet are subject to.” Correct, we can’t, but God didn’t leave us without the ability to be permanently reconciled with his divine righteousness. That’s why he sent his Son Jesus Christ to pay that sin debt on our behalf.
[First, one small sidenote about the "God also designed his creation so that life is in the blood" bit: you are aware that artificial blood products are now available and it's possible to survice with such products. Right?]
Again, you seem to find no issue with the fact that God instituted a "law" that he knew nobody could follow, then set a penalty for violating this "law." That's bad enough in itself, but there's something even bigger: you say that God can't change that law; it's set and we must all live with the consequences. But you're OK when God develops a workaound, whereby he sent himself-as-his-son, to die to satisfy the requirements of the "law" by proxy.
Do you not see the absurdity?!
I can’t explain every facet of God’s nature and that’s ok. It’s neither required of me nor is it necessary for any of us to fully grasp before we can make a pure choice about God.
You cannot an informed choice about something you do not comprehend.
You want the onus shifted squarely on God’s shoulders and you accept no responsibility for your sins against God.
If God expects worship, then I demand proof that God exists and this particular law is just and moral.
You understand the law, break it, but aren’t complicit.
I don't understand it - I can't understand how a law that punishes me for something that it outside of my control. I consider such a thing unjust and immoral.
In your eyes God should just given everyone a free pass
No. In my eyes, if your God is real, he should not punish people for having the nature he gave them. That he does speaks volumes.
and you refuse to accept that Jesus Christ is that pass because you dislike the concept of faith.
Yes, I refuse to accept something that cannot be proven logically or rationally and is based on nothing but ancient superstition and stories of burning bushes and talking snakes.
-
Cast that first stone with the Jesus Slingshot, do on to others before they can do on to you...
-
We are all biased. We Creationists are biased towards our God, The Lord Jesus Christ, and what His Word tells us. We interpret the data accoridng to what our God has told us about the past. And, yes, we are very distrustful of the "scientific community" and of the education system.. because we believe that humans are evil, and humans hate God, and humans will do everything in their power to convince themselves, and others, that God does not exist. Just look at some of these quotes...
ok, so you have your conclusion and you are looking for facts to support it, the opposite of science and a sure way not to find the truth.Why do you believe humans are evil? what kind of brain washing have they done to you? God is infinitely more evil, in fact he created it!!
“I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that."
-Thomas Nagel
So? who cares what he thinks?
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
No you can't measure the supernatural by definition so what type of instruments does he want? it produces an explanation, a supernatural one is not an explanation as it cannot be measure, it answers nothing
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen. "
-Richard Lewontin
Again, there has never ever been a miracle or suspension of natural order, our predictions, math and everything we know would make no sense.
"I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism"
-John J. Dunphy
The classroom will be filled with reality and facts. He is right though, christianity is rotting away, so it should.
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic"
-Dr. Scott Todd
How can anything natural point to a supernatural cause, we are not privy to them, we cannot measure or study them, they are SUPER natural. Our world is material, with no evidence of supernatural intervention, everything works just fine without one. This guy is an asshat, if all the data points to god, was reproducible and reliable then yes, if it's "shit I don't know, god?" then no they would not.
-
both sides of this divide are as stubborn and small minded as the other.
-
both sides of this divide are as stubborn and small minded as the other.
99 percent of the human race is
we use it to protect ourselves from the insanity that would come with infinite possibility
-
No. I'm not just "spinning." I'm presenting the story accurately and the fact that you see it as a tall tale speaks volumes.
First of all, even if all the ice from the polar ice caps and even Greenland were to melt, the sea level would rise less than 70 meters. While that would certainly change the landscape (goodbye Holland!), it wouldn't flood the earth.
But what would take to flood the earth along the lines described in the Biblical story? Well, Mount Everest is a little over 8,800 meters tall but let's just round it off to 8 km. Let's also assume the earth is a perfect sphere, with a radius of 6,371 km. We can calculate the volume of water needed by using the formula for the volume of a spherical shell:
V=4π((6,371 km + 8 km)3 - (6,371 km)3)/3 = ... = 4.086×109 km3.
This number may be a little hard to comprehend, so how about we turn it to gallons? That's 1.079×1021 gallons. Or, expanded out, it's wolf gallons. That's almost 4 times the amount of water present in the earth's oceans - including polar ice. That works out to 1.873×1016 or 18,730,000,000,000,000 gallons per second coming down every second for 40 days and 40 nights. That means 95,000,000 gallons per second per square mile over the entire surface of the earth - or to use a more common measurement, 3.5 gallons per square foot per second. This may not seem like much so let's get some perspective. The average rainfall in the continental United States over the last 50 years in 32". This translates into almost 20 gallons of rainfall per square foot per year. The Biblical flood would see rainfall increase by a factor of approximately 31,540,000.
It's not just difficult to comprehend - it's mind-blowing. I don't think you understand what 3.5 gallons per square foot per second means. And where did all that water disappear off to after the 40 days?
It is a fairy tale when a 500 year old man builds a wooden boat capable of carrying two of every animal, that the animals voluntarily get on that boat, and that the boat manages to float and survive being continuously pummeled by a massive amount of water over 40 y
We have a theory, for which the evidence is - pardon the pun - rock-solid. The K–T extinction event happened, and it was caused by an asteroid whose impact resulted in the Chicxulub crater.
Huh? We could certainly replicate the Great Pyramid of Giza with today's construction and do it quite trivially with modern construction methods (arguments about layout aside - they're largely pointless) since even medium sized projects today are much more complex. How can you say, with a straight face, that we're not certain we could build the Great Pyramid of Giza when we've built the Panama Canal and the Three Gorges Dam, and we put up 1 World Trade Center over just eight years?
Let's be serious here...
You used the word blissful I've never read the Bible encounters as blissful.
What are your feelings on continental plates, was the earth once Pangea or has it always been divided continents as it is now.
Sounds like you've singlehandedly debunked the Bible, and concretely established how dinosaurs were eliminated as well as confirmed that we easily can rebuild the Great Pyramid. You should offer to debate at mega churches and eliminate the Christian disease once and for all.
-
Avxo you may want to contact Walt Brown to debate with someone more challenging to you. He actually uses scientific theory to prove the occurrence of a biblical flood :o
http://mobile.wnd.com/2012/06/does-science-prove-noahs-flood/
-
You used the word blissful I've never read the Bible encounters as blissful.
Artistic license. Also, grow a sense of humor.
What are your feelings on continental plates, was the earth once Pangea or has it always been divided continents as it is now.
I have no "feelings" on continental plates other than to say that I am aware of their existence; plate tectonics is not my realm of expertise. I've read briefly about the Pangea theory. I recall finding it interesting when I first four out about it, but again, have no expertise on the subject.
Sounds like you've singlehandedly debunked the Bible, and concretely established how dinosaurs were eliminated as well as confirmed that we easily can rebuild the Great Pyramid.
I haven't concretely established anything about the dinosaurs: scientists doing extensive research have established a theory that explains how an impact caused the K-T extinction. That theory makes predictions that match observable facts such as fossils and, of course, the existence of the Chicxulub crater.
Yes, we could easily rebuild the Pyramid of Giza today: we undertake engineering projects that are much larger in scope and complexity! We are tunneling under the Alps (the almost 60km long Gotthard Base Tunnel), we connected two oceans (the Panama Canal) and built The Freedom Tower which easily dwarfs Khufu's Pyramid in size.
As to whether I debunked the Bible: I don't think the onus is on me or anyone to debunk the Bible; the onus is on those who believe it to prove that it's true and accurate. Given that the subject matter is a supernatural deity that cannot be defined, quantified or even really comprehended but which must be accepted solely on faith, I don't think that's happening any time soon.
You should offer to debate at mega churches and eliminate the Christian disease once and for all.
I don't care to eliminate anything - people's personal beliefs are their business, as long as those beliefs aren't forced on me or used as the foundation of a morality I have to live under.
As for debating at "mega churches" I should tell you that I have little respect for them to begin with, and see little point in debating this topic in front of an audience who believes on faith what I will be arguing doesn't exist.
Look at what happened in our discussion of the Flood. I use math to calculate the amount of water coming down and you dismiss that with a second thought. You could have said "well, maybe the earth was flatter then" or "perhaps landmasses weren't fully covered." But you didn't, because you're not interested in debate. You believe what you believe and no amount of evidence will convince you that you are wrong. You treat reality as something that can be easily dismissed when it conflicts with your beliefs.
And that is the different between you and me.
-
Artistic license. Also, grow a sense of humor.
I have no "feelings" on continental plates other than to say that I am aware of their existence; plate tectonics is not my realm of expertise. I've read briefly about the Pangea theory. I recall finding it interesting when I first four out about it, but again, have no expertise on the subject.
I haven't concretely established anything about the dinosaurs: scientists doing extensive research have established a theory that explains how an impact caused the K-T extinction. That theory makes predictions that match observable facts such as fossils and, of course, the existence of the Chicxulub crater.
Yes, we could easily rebuild the Pyramid of Giza today: we undertake engineering projects that are much larger in scope and complexity! We are tunneling under the Alps (the almost 60km long Gotthard Base Tunnel), we connected two oceans (the Panama Canal) and built The Freedom Tower which easily dwarfs Khufu's Pyramid in size.
As to whether I debunked the Bible: I don't think the onus is on me or anyone to debunk the Bible; the onus is on those who believe it to prove that it's true and accurate. Given that the subject matter is a supernatural deity that cannot be defined, quantified or even really comprehended but which must be accepted solely on faith, I don't think that's happening any time soon.
I don't care to eliminate anything - people's personal beliefs are their business, as long as those beliefs aren't forced on me or used as the foundation of a morality I have to live under.
As for debating at "mega churches" I should tell you that I have little respect for them to begin with, and see little point in debating this topic in front of an audience who believes on faith what I will be arguing doesn't exist.
Look at what happened in our discussion of the Flood. I use math to calculate the amount of water coming down and you dismiss that with a second thought. You could have said "well, maybe the earth was flatter then" or "perhaps landmasses weren't fully covered." But you didn't, because you're not interested in debate. You believe what you believe and no amount of evidence will convince you that you are wrong. You treat reality as something that can be easily dismissed when it conflicts with your beliefs.
And that is the different between you and me.
100% spot on.
-
Avxo you may want to contact Walt Brown to debate with someone more challenging to you. He actually uses scientific theory to prove the occurrence of a biblical flood :o
http://mobile.wnd.com/2012/06/does-science-prove-noahs-flood/
Will be interesting to read, but I should warn you, my expectations are low.
-
both sides of this divide are as stubborn and small minded as the other.
Absolutely not, one is using reason and rationale the other hopes and wishes. False equivalence is a tactic used by creationists, there is no two sides, there is only one, fact.
-
Artistic license. Also, grow a sense of humor.
I have no "feelings" on continental plates other than to say that I am aware of their existence; plate tectonics is not my realm of expertise. I've read briefly about the Pangea theory. I recall finding it interesting when I first four out about it, but again, have no expertise on the subject.
I haven't concretely established anything about the dinosaurs: scientists doing extensive research have established a theory that explains how an impact caused the K-T extinction. That theory makes predictions that match observable facts such as fossils and, of course, the existence of the Chicxulub crater.
Yes, we could easily rebuild the Pyramid of Giza today: we undertake engineering projects that are much larger in scope and complexity! We are tunneling under the Alps (the almost 60km long Gotthard Base Tunnel), we connected two oceans (the Panama Canal) and built The Freedom Tower which easily dwarfs Khufu's Pyramid in size.
As to whether I debunked the Bible: I don't think the onus is on me or anyone to debunk the Bible; the onus is on those who believe it to prove that it's true and accurate. Given that the subject matter is a supernatural deity that cannot be defined, quantified or even really comprehended but which must be accepted solely on faith, I don't think that's happening any time soon.
I don't care to eliminate anything - people's personal beliefs are their business, as long as those beliefs aren't forced on me or used as the foundation of a morality I have to live under.
As for debating at "mega churches" I should tell you that I have little respect for them to begin with, and see little point in debating this topic in front of an audience who believes on faith what I will be arguing doesn't exist.
Look at what happened in our discussion of the Flood. I use math to calculate the amount of water coming down and you dismiss that with a second thought. You could have said "well, maybe the earth was flatter then" or "perhaps landmasses weren't fully covered." But you didn't, because you're not interested in debate. You believe what you believe and no amount of evidence will convince you that you are wrong. You treat reality as something that can be easily dismissed when it conflicts with your beliefs.
And that is the different between you and me.
Brother I meant no disrespect. I'm well out of my field of expertise and I've conceded defeat. I brought up Pangeia, because some feel that the flood (see my references to Walt Brown) occurred during a different earth.
I'm also well aware of the Chicxulub crater above the Yucatan Peninsula, my point was many scientists debate if that asteroid alone was the sole cause, some of those who do contend it was a different earth (in terms of "topography"). As with the pyramid (I know we used more concrete in day to construct the Panama Canal than used in the pyramid) many debate if we could construct with the same efficiency especially since we don't the exact layouts.
Please forgive my snarkiness. I may have misunderstood you initially when you included "blissfully" as an adjective. I appreciate your intelligence and use of science to validate your points.
-
No. I'm not just "spinning." I'm presenting the story accurately and the fact that you see it as a tall tale speaks volumes.
First of all, even if all the ice from the polar ice caps and even Greenland were to melt, the sea level would rise less than 70 meters. While that would certainly change the landscape (goodbye Holland!), it wouldn't flood the earth.
But what would take to flood the earth along the lines described in the Biblical story? Well, Mount Everest is a little over 8,800 meters tall but let's just round it off to 8 km. Let's also assume the earth is a perfect sphere, with a radius of 6,371 km. We can calculate the volume of water needed by using the formula for the volume of a spherical shell:
V=4π((6,371 km + 8 km)3 - (6,371 km)3)/3 = ... = 4.086×109 km3.
This number may be a little hard to comprehend, so how about we turn it to gallons? That's 1.079×1021 gallons. Or, expanded out, it's wolf gallons. That's almost 4 times the amount of water present in the earth's oceans - including polar ice. That works out to 1.873×1016 or 18,730,000,000,000,000 gallons per second coming down every second for 40 days and 40 nights. That means 95,000,000 gallons per second per square mile over the entire surface of the earth - or to use a more common measurement, 3.5 gallons per square foot per second. This may not seem like much so let's get some perspective. The average rainfall in the continental United States over the last 50 years in 32". This translates into almost 20 gallons of rainfall per square foot per year. The Biblical flood would see rainfall increase by a factor of approximately 31,540,000.
It's not just difficult to comprehend - it's mind-blowing. I don't think you understand what 3.5 gallons per square foot per second means. And where did all that water disappear off to after the 40 days?
It is a fairy tale when a 500 year old man builds a wooden boat capable of carrying two of every animal, that the animals voluntarily get on that boat, and that the boat manages to float and survive being continuously pummeled by a massive amount of water over 40 y
We have a theory, for which the evidence is - pardon the pun - rock-solid. The K–T extinction event happened, and it was caused by an asteroid whose impact resulted in the Chicxulub crater.
Huh? We could certainly replicate the Great Pyramid of Giza with today's construction and do it quite trivially with modern construction methods (arguments about layout aside - they're largely pointless) since even medium sized projects today are much more complex. How can you say, with a straight face, that we're not certain we could build the Great Pyramid of Giza when we've built the Panama Canal and the Three Gorges Dam, and we put up 1 World Trade Center over just eight years?
Let's be serious here...
You may forgotten glacier ice (the ones from mountain ranges), ice from mountain tops, and fresh water lakes that were carved out by glaciers.
-
You may forgotten glacier ice (the ones from mountain ranges), ice from mountain tops, and fresh water lakes that were carved out by glaciers.
I did not: the water from lakes is irrelevant since it cannot possibly contribute to a rise of the sea level - think about it. As for glaciers: I accounted for most of the earths glaciers in my calculation. Sorry to disappoint.
The fact is not enough ice exists in the world to account for what the Biblical flood is supposed to be. The water would have to come down in the form of rain. Even if we assume a divine intervention that caused rain to condense magically - ignoring the water cycle - the amount of water needed is staggering.
As I said we'd go to 3.5 gallons per second per square foot, every day for forty days. The average amount of rainfall is 20 gallons per square foot per year. This kind of torrential downpour would leave incontrovertible evidence behind it. Yet no such evidence exists.
By the way, I wrote a quick little Python program to check the speed of a single raindrop assuming that raindrops were about the size of an average raindrop. Turns out with 3.5 gallons per second you'd be well into supersonic speeds.
-
Absolutely not, one is using reason and rationale the other hopes and wishes. False equivalence is a tactic used by creationists, there is no two sides, there is only one, fact.
your reason is a bit unreasonable. With a name like Necrosis I am not surprised you shun the spiritual dimension.
-
Atheists owning the schizophrenics in this thread.
-
your reason is a bit unreasonable. With a name like Necrosis I am not surprised you shun the spiritual dimension.
Who said I shun the spiritual dimension?
Things have to make sense.
-
"No, Jesus saves those who believe in Him."
Well who does the condemning to eternal damnation then? His Father? Didnt he say he and the father were one and the same?
Many words were attributed to Jesus by men bent on controlling the masses that no enlightened man would ever say.
People condemn themselves by their actions.
Every single human who ever lived would be condemned if it wasn't for the fact that Jesus sacrificed His own life on our behalf.
Some people like to focus on the fact that not everyone will be saved... and then blame God for that.
But none of us deserve to be saved. We all deserve to be destroyed.
God cannot accept a human into Heaven based on their own merits.
We are all filthy with lies, deceit, idolatry, and selfishness.
Even the good things we do are done for the wrong reasons.
So He came down from Heaven and took upon Himself the punishment that we all deserve.
And I praise Him for that.
:)
We are all biased. We Creationists are biased towards our God, The Lord Jesus Christ, and what His Word tells us. We interpret the data accoridng to what our God has told us about the past. And, yes, we are very distrustful of the "scientific community" and of the education system.. because we believe that humans are evil, and humans hate God, and humans will do everything in their power to convince themselves, and others, that God does not exist. Just look at some of these quotes...
ok, so you have your conclusion and you are looking for facts to support it, the opposite of science and a sure way not to find the truth.Why do you believe humans are evil? what kind of brain washing have they done to you? God is infinitely more evil, in fact he created it!!
“I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that."
-Thomas Nagel
So? who cares what he thinks?
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
No you can't measure the supernatural by definition so what type of instruments does he want? it produces an explanation, a supernatural one is not an explanation as it cannot be measure, it answers nothing
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen. "
-Richard Lewontin
Again, there has never ever been a miracle or suspension of natural order, our predictions, math and everything we know would make no sense.
"I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism"
-John J. Dunphy
The classroom will be filled with reality and facts. He is right though, christianity is rotting away, so it should.
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic"
-Dr. Scott Todd
How can anything natural point to a supernatural cause, we are not privy to them, we cannot measure or study them, they are SUPER natural. Our world is material, with no evidence of supernatural intervention, everything works just fine without one. This guy is an asshat, if all the data points to god, was reproducible and reliable then yes, if it's "shit I don't know, god?" then no they would not.
Hey Necrosis. :)
How are you doing?
You said that it was wrong for me to start my interpretation of the evidence with the assumption that God's word is true. Well, do you not start your interpretation with the metaphysical assumption that there is no God, and no supernatural activity?
Here is a quote which I think speaks to this notion =
"It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing)."
But, you might say, both sides are wrong, that we should not start with any assumptions of presuppositions whatsoever. But I would say that is naive thinking, and ignorant of history! Everyone starts with assumptions and presuppositions. Darwin started with the assumption that God was just a delusion in the minds of men, and set out to find evidence in support of his assumption. And since then all men who hate God latch onto Darwin and interpret evidence according to their anti-God bias.
But, Necrosis, You and I both well know that I am not a man of "science". I do not wish to sit here and go back and forth with you on these issues concerning "science". What I will do, however, is copy and paste scientific articles for you to read, if you so wish. I do not mind doing that at all. Yet, I do not think this discussion will actually produce any "fruit".. because, Necrosis, I think your mind is already made up. I am confident that if you personally witnessed a miracle your first response would be to try and explain it away using naturalistic means and then throw the experience away into your subconscious and forget all about it. :-\
But, anyways, since you seem to enjoy talking science.. here you go=
The important question is not, ‘Is it science?’ One can just define ‘science’ to exclude everything that one doesn’t like, as many evolutionists do today. Today, science is equated with naturalism: only materialistic notions can be entertained, no matter what the evidence. The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said (emphases in original):
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Now that’s open-minded isn’t it? Isn’t ‘science’ about following the evidence wherever it may lead? This is where the religion (in the broadest sense) of the scientist puts the blinkers on. Our individual worldviews bias our perceptions. The atheist paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, made the following candid observation:
“Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method’, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.”
So the fundamentally important question is, ‘which worldview (bias) is correct?’, because this will likely determine what conclusions are permitted to be drawn from the data. For example, if looking at the origin of life, a materialist will tend to do everything possible to avoid the conclusion that life must have been supernaturally created.
Of course the founders of modern science were not materialists (Sir Isaac Newton, widely considered the greatest scientist ever, is a prime example) and they did not see their science as somehow excluding a creator, or even making the Creator redundant (see The biblical roots of modern science: A Christian world view, and in particular a plain understanding of Scripture and Adam’s Fall, was essential for the rise of modern science.). This recent notion has been smuggled into science by materialists.
Michael Ruse, the Canadian philosopher of science also made the strong point that the issue is not whether evolution is science and creation is religion, because such a distinction is not really valid. The issue is one of ‘coherency of truth’. See The Religious Nature of Evolution.
In other words, there is no logically valid way that the materialist can define evolution as ‘science’ and creation as ‘religion’, so that he/she can ignore the issue of creation.
However, we can make a valid distinction between different types of science: the distinction between origins science and operational science. Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today’s world—repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton, Einstein and Planck, for example. However, origins science deals with the origin of things in the past—unique, unrepeatable, unobservable events. This is why it could also be called ‘historical science’. There is a fundamental difference between how the two work, even though both are called ‘science’, and operational science does have implications for origins (or historical) science. Operational science involves repeatable experimentation in the here and now. Origins science deals with how something came into existence in the past and so is not open to experimental verification / observation (unless someone invents a ‘time machine’ to travel back into the past to observe).
Of course it suits many materialists to confuse operational and origins science, although I’m sure with most the confusion arises out of ignorance. Tertiary (college / university) courses in science mostly don’t teach the philosophy of science and certainly make no distinction between experimental / operational and historical / origins sciences.
Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past.
Note that this distinction between operational science and evolution is not an invention of creationists. High-profile evolutionists such as Ernst Mayr and E.O. Wilson both acknowledged the distinction.
The inclusion of historical science, without distinction, as ‘science’, has undoubtedly contributed to the modern confusion over defining science. This also explains the statement by Gould (above), who, as a paleontologist, would have liked there to have been no distinction between his own historical science and experimental science. Gould rightly saw the paramount importance of presuppositions in his own science and assumed that it applied equally to all science. This is not so, although some presuppositions play an important role in operational science.
-
I had written a large post, addressing the points that I thought tbombz had made, but then I realized that all the stuff in his post is basically a straight copy-paste from the buffoons at creation.org.
I'm happy to debate and discuss anything with anybody, but I expect them to do so with their own voice, not by acting as electronic carbon paper. What you are doing - copy-pasting other people's thoughts and claiming them as yours - is dishonest and wrong. Not only because you are not giving people attribution for what they wrote but moreso because you tend to present their opinions poorly.
With that said, I'll make some brief comments and take the opportunity to highlight how much of your "post" isn't yours.
You said that it was wrong for me to start my interpretation of the evidence with the assumption that God's word is true. Well, do you not start your interpretation with the metaphysical assumption that there is no God, and no supernatural activity?
Except it's not the same thing. It's not the same to assume that a being that cannot be measured, quantified or even defined doesn't exist. On the other hand, it's absurd to assume that it exists.
You want proof of how absurd it is? There's a supernatural, magical pink unicorn in my back yard. Let's start our discussion based on on that assumption.
But, you might say, both sides are wrong, that we should not start with any assumptions of presuppositions whatsoever. But I would say that is naive thinking, and ignorant of history!
Oh well... if you say it!
Everyone starts with assumptions and presuppositions.
There's nothing wrong assumptions and presuppositions. We assume many things - that the sun won't suddenly go dark, that if we drink rat poison we will become sick, that planting a slice of cheese won't yield a cheese tree. The important this is to be aware of those things and to understand whether the assumptions and suppositions we make are grounded in logic and can be rationally justified.
Science is designed to take personal bias out of the equation. Whether one is a Christian or not has little bearing on whether Indium nitride is a superconductor at extremely low temperatures.
Darwin started with the assumption that God was just a delusion in the minds of men, and set out to find evidence in support of his assumption.
No he didn't. Darwin made an observation, and formulated a theory that would explain those observations within the context of nature.
And since then all men who hate God latch onto Darwin and interpret evidence according to their anti-God bias.
You're rambling...
But, Necrosis, You and I both well know that I am not a man of "science". I do not wish to sit here and go back and forth with you on these issues concerning "science". What I will do, however, is copy and paste scientific articles for you to read, if you so wish. I do not mind doing that at all. Yet, I do not think this discussion will actually produce any "fruit".. because, Necrosis, I think your mind is already made up. I am confident that if you personally witnessed a miracle your first response would be to try and explain it away using naturalistic means and then throw the experience away into your subconscious and forget all about it. :-\
I can't speak for Necrosis, but if I witnessed a "miracle" - that is something that not only I couldn't explain but would seem to contradict the natural laws as we understand them - of course my first reaction wouldn't be to just proclaim "MIRACLE! MIRACLE!" Why? Doing so explains nothing. Attributing it to Zeus shooting lightning bolts explains nothing.
If I encountered such a phenomenon I would try to explain it based on what I know, then I would ask others who might have expert knowledge, and if they couldn't either I would simply consider it as an open question which can't be answered because our understanding of the world around us is insufficient.
crap from http://creation.com/its-not-science (http://creation.com/its-not-science)
If you're going to copy-paste that much, can you at least pick some quality content that isn't chock full of logical fallacies? Logical fallacies make me sad.
-
Hey Necrosis. :)
Oh Hai
How are you doing?
going to hell
You said that it was wrong for me to start my interpretation of the evidence with the assumption that God's word is true. Well, do you not start your interpretation with the metaphysical assumption that there is no God, and no supernatural activity?
No, there very well could be a god, I see no reason to invoke one. I start with my senses and progress. I am not out to believe anything in particular but what exists
Here is a quote which I think speaks to this notion =
"It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing)."
This seems to be a play on words, a semantic game. Does gravity have a purpose? one could suggest it is to hold us to the earth, the mathematical equation that it represents says nothing of the sort, consciousness dictates purpose thus the material universe is purposeless. It does not strive for life, in fact it is mostly a death machine, where are the aliens tay tay? ever hear of the fermi paradox? was a star undergoing nuclear fusion in order to eventually create humans?
But, you might say, both sides are wrong, that we should not start with any assumptions of presuppositions whatsoever. But I would say that is naive thinking, and ignorant of history! Everyone starts with assumptions and presuppositions. Darwin started with the assumption that God was just a delusion in the minds of men, and set out to find evidence in support of his assumption. And since then all men who hate God latch onto Darwin and interpret evidence according to their anti-God bias.
This is just cherry picked stuff, Darwin went were the evidence lead, his presuppositions, beliefs and conjecture had no bearing on the outcome, that;s the point I am trying to make. Darwin wasn't even aware of genetics, the religious people have created this deity,Francis Collins who helped map the genome says evolution is undeniable, why are you so against science?
But, Necrosis, You and I both well know that I am not a man of "science". I do not wish to sit here and go back and forth with you on these issues concerning "science". What I will do, however, is copy and paste scientific articles for you to read, if you so wish. I do not mind doing that at all. Yet, I do not think this discussion will actually produce any "fruit".. because, Necrosis, I think your mind is already made up. I am confident that if you personally witnessed a miracle your first response would be to try and explain it away using naturalistic means and then throw the experience away into your subconscious and forget all about it. :-\
I would try to explain it in the simplest manner, one that allows me to repeat and predict it again, one that can be verified. If an amputee's leg would grow back I would believe, yet, tay tay, me and you both know, god works in "mysterious ways"
But, anyways, since you seem to enjoy talking science.. here you go=
is this you or a copy and paste? I honestly am suggesting you simply step back and take a real look at reality. As happy as you seem, that jesus has touched you, how can you reconcile that with torture, rape and murder in illiterate (ie going to hell) provinces and shitholes?I am not saying god does not exist, he just can't be like you god or any that man has conjured up, we wouldn't know, at all, as he is god.Does an ant worry about it's lifespan? could he balance a check book?
The important question is not, ‘Is it science?’ One can just define ‘science’ to exclude everything that one doesn’t like, as many evolutionists do today. Today, science is equated with naturalism: only materialistic notions can be entertained, no matter what the evidence. The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said (emphases in original):
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
You CANNOT MEASURE THE SUPERNATURAL. If we took the above approach we would be still wondering why flames hurt. Ever experiment ever conducted has done so using material means. Science is observation at it's core, the tools we use to observe and measure etc. What tools are there for the supernatural? john edwards the spirit medium? or slyvia brown. What you are charging science with here, or they, is ridiculous, it's impossible. Design an experiment to test for the supernatural. The very next paragraph talks about going where the evidence leads, "isn't that what science is about", yes, it is. That's why we no longer burn witches, or send as many kids to the rape factory as we once did, we discarded our beliefs and followed the evidence, the facts reality.
Now that’s open-minded isn’t it? Isn’t ‘science’ about following the evidence wherever it may lead? This is where the religion (in the broadest sense) of the scientist puts the blinkers on. Our individual worldviews bias our perceptions. The atheist paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, made the following candid observation:
“Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method’, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.”
Is this not exactly what he is doing? he is guessing that there is a supernatural cause, he doesn't know because I dont know, we are humans made of material. You snort cocaine you feel good, material and mechanistic. You pray you feel... maybe something?
So the fundamentally important question is, ‘which worldview (bias) is correct?’, because this will likely determine what conclusions are permitted to be drawn from the data. For example, if looking at the origin of life, a materialist will tend to do everything possible to avoid the conclusion that life must have been supernaturally created.
No they won't, who the fuck are these people they talk about? life may have been supernaturally created, we thought that about a lot of things, thunder is supernatural, albino's supernatural, now the origin of life is supernatural. God is an ever receding pocket of ignorance.
Of course the founders of modern science were not materialists (Sir Isaac Newton, widely considered the greatest scientist ever, is a prime example) and they did not see their science as somehow excluding a creator, or even making the Creator redundant (see The biblical roots of modern science: A Christian world view, and in particular a plain understanding of Scripture and Adam’s Fall, was essential for the rise of modern science.). This recent notion has been smuggled into science by materialists.
There is no conspiracy man, this is sounding like nutter stuff. Smuggled in? no one gives a fuck about god dude, let alone sneak around and rig the deck, this isn't a dan brown novel
Michael Ruse, the Canadian philosopher of science also made the strong point that the issue is not whether evolution is science and creation is religion, because such a distinction is not really valid. The issue is one of ‘coherency of truth’. See The Religious Nature of Evolution.
No it's which one explains shit and which one doesn't so god created everything, so how often does he create these things? do they pop into existence? do they come randomly? etc etc. it answers nothing, biology is built on facts, like species adapt, we can observe it. We can predict it, we can create new populations, different traits, we manipulate genetic material, breed dogs,it works.
In other words, there is no logically valid way that the materialist can define evolution as ‘science’ and creation as ‘religion’, so that he/she can ignore the
issue of creation.
Evolution doesn't talk about creation though, that's a different field in molecular biology called abiogenesis, these guys can't even get the concept right. Most likely they can but they are cons
However, we can make a valid distinction between different types of science: the distinction between origins science and operational science. Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today’s world—repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton, Einstein and Planck, for example. However, origins science deals with the origin of things in the past—unique, unrepeatable, unobservable events. This is why it could also be called ‘historical science’. There is a fundamental difference between how the two work, even though both are called ‘science’, and operational science does have implications for origins (or historical) science. Operational science involves repeatable experimentation in the here and now. Origins science deals with how something came into existence in the past and so is not open to experimental verification / observation (unless someone invents a ‘time machine’ to travel back into the past to observe).
They just made this shit up, they set up a completely false dichotomy and destroyed their self made straw man.
Of course it suits many materialists to confuse operational and origins science, although I’m sure with most the confusion arises out of ignorance. Tertiary (college / university) courses in science mostly don’t teach the philosophy of science and certainly make no distinction between experimental / operational and historical / origins sciences.
They are aware science is a huge field right? medicine etc.
Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past.
What the fuck! bullshit, so in a murder case with the evidence we can look at it and come to conclusions and neither one can do anything to make certain? if you find the knife in the guys coat with his finger prints on it and blood would you think it's him or a silverback leprechaun? They act like the past is some distant thing that was under the control of magic, the universe behaves the same way with or without us, this allows us to understand the past and often solve problems in the now.
Note that this distinction between operational science and evolution is not an invention of creationists. High-profile evolutionists such as Ernst Mayr and E.O. Wilson both acknowledged the distinction.
The inclusion of historical science, without distinction, as ‘science’, has undoubtedly contributed to the modern confusion over defining science. This also explains the statement by Gould (above), who, as a paleontologist, would have liked there to have been no distinction between his own historical science and experimental science. Gould rightly saw the paramount importance of presuppositions in his own science and assumed that it applied equally to all science. This is not so, although some presuppositions play an important role in operational science.
They sound so smart the way they use those non-sense words. What are predictions futurology science?
TL:DR
-
No, Jesus saves those who believe in Him.
:)
From Dad. Who's really him, too, we are told. Saving us from himself, then.
An odd one, that God.
-
You want proof of how absurd it is? There's a supernatural, magical pink unicorn in my back yard. Let's start our discussion based on on that assumption.
I can't speak for Necrosis, but if I witnessed a "miracle" - that is something that not only I couldn't explain but would seem to contradict the natural laws as we understand them - of course my first reaction wouldn't be to just proclaim "MIRACLE! MIRACLE!" Why? Doing so explains nothing. Attributing it to Zeus shooting lightning bolts explains nothing.
If I encountered such a phenomenon I would try to explain it based on what I know, then I would ask others who might have expert knowledge, and if they couldn't either I would simply consider it as an open question which can't be answered because our understanding of the world around us is insufficient.
Would agree
;D
-
I had written a large post, addressing the points that I thought tbombz had made, but then I realized that all the stuff in his post is basically a straight copy-paste from the buffoons at creation.org.
I'm happy to debate and discuss anything with anybody, but I expect them to do so with their own voice, not by acting as electronic carbon paper. What you are doing - copy-pasting other people's thoughts and claiming them as yours - is dishonest and wrong. Not only because you are not giving people attribution for what they wrote but moreso because you tend to present their opinions poorly.
With that said, I'll make some brief comments and take the opportunity to highlight how much of your "post" isn't yours.
Except it's not the same thing. It's not the same to assume that a being that cannot be measured, quantified or even defined doesn't exist. On the other hand, it's absurd to assume that it exists.
You want proof of how absurd it is? There's a supernatural, magical pink unicorn in my back yard. Let's start our discussion based on on that assumption.
Oh well... if you say it!
There's nothing wrong assumptions and presuppositions. We assume many things - that the sun won't suddenly go dark, that if we drink rat poison we will become sick, that planting a slice of cheese won't yield a cheese tree. The important this is to be aware of those things and to understand whether the assumptions and suppositions we make are grounded in logic and can be rationally justified.
Science is designed to take personal bias out of the equation. Whether one is a Christian or not has little bearing on whether Indium nitride is a superconductor at extremely low temperatures.
No he didn't. Darwin made an observation, and formulated a theory that would explain those observations within the context of nature.
You're rambling...
I can't speak for Necrosis, but if I witnessed a "miracle" - that is something that not only I couldn't explain but would seem to contradict the natural laws as we understand them - of course my first reaction wouldn't be to just proclaim "MIRACLE! MIRACLE!" Why? Doing so explains nothing. Attributing it to Zeus shooting lightning bolts explains nothing.
If I encountered such a phenomenon I would try to explain it based on what I know, then I would ask others who might have expert knowledge, and if they couldn't either I would simply consider it as an open question which can't be answered because our understanding of the world around us is insufficient.
If you're going to copy-paste that much, can you at least pick some quality content that isn't chock full of logical fallacies? Logical fallacies make me sad.
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SWtOWhaQSVk/hqdefault.jpg)
-
Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World
http://www.theonion.com/article/sumerians-look-on-in-confusion-as-god-creates-worl-2879
-
People condemn themselves by their actions.
Or thoughts. Like doubting a staggeringly improbable claim, which simply isn't possible for many.
Created a logical skeptic, then condemned for it. Punished for His mistake, really.
-
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SWtOWhaQSVk/hqdefault.jpg)
Militant... LOL. ::)
-
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SWtOWhaQSVk/hqdefault.jpg)
AVXO is far from militant. He is always very calm, cogent, and forthright when responding. Nothing militant about him.
Necrosis on the other hand. ;D ;D
-
"People condemn themselves by their actions.
Every single human who ever lived would be condemned if it wasn't for the fact that Jesus sacrificed His own life on our behalf.
Some people like to focus on the fact that not everyone will be saved... and then blame God for that.
But none of us deserve to be saved. We all deserve to be destroyed.
God cannot accept a human into Heaven based on their own merits.
We are all filthy with lies, deceit, idolatry, and selfishness.
Even the good things we do are done for the wrong reasons.
So He came down from Heaven and took upon Himself the punishment that we all deserve.
And I praise Him for that."
So God created us in his image but we deserve hell? If we dont accept Jesus died for our sins were going to hell? How nice of him to send his one and only son! Such horseshit man.
Jesus said the kingdom of god is within you. I suggest you stop all this nonsense and go deep within in silent prayer and let this realization manifest within you.
-
AVXO is far from militant. He is always very calm, cogent, and forthright when responding. Nothing militant about him.
Necrosis on the other hand. ;D ;D
:D
I am a little intense.
-
I did not: the water from lakes is irrelevant since it cannot possibly contribute to a rise of the sea level - think about it. As for glaciers: I accounted for most of the earths glaciers in my calculation. Sorry to disappoint.
The fact is not enough ice exists in the world to account for what the Biblical flood is supposed to be. The water would have to come down in the form of rain. Even if we assume a divine intervention that caused rain to condense magically - ignoring the water cycle - the amount of water needed is staggering.
As I said we'd go to 3.5 gallons per second per square foot, every day for forty days. The average amount of rainfall is 20 gallons per square foot per year. This kind of torrential downpour would leave incontrovertible evidence behind it. Yet no such evidence exists.
By the way, I wrote a quick little Python program to check the speed of a single raindrop assuming that raindrops were about the size of an average raindrop. Turns out with 3.5 gallons per second you'd be well into supersonic speeds.
Ha...You. Are. So. Intense!!! Real life Batman, even ran a quick Python program...
Interesting article on the Biblical Flood
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533 (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533)
But, we all are condemned!!!!
*I'm trying to add brevity to this thread, so take nothing I say as being truly serious.
-
Hey SF. :)
Just to clarify... I did not say that we are distrustful of 'science and education'
I said we are distrustful of the "scientific community" and of the education system.
There is a difference!
Hey T, I'll keep this brief ( as possible) to make the basic point.
If religious claims can't stand up to basic scientific inquiry and examination, then :
1. it's false or 2. is a realm OUTSIDE of science and worldly measurement.
Things like the dating the age of the earth and the composition of our atmosphere is the realm of science.
These phenomenon are measured and explained with observable, verified , empirical data .
This is where creationists break down and look silly.
BUT, things like love and faith are in a different , more spiritual realm.
It's silly to try to measure how much you love someone via scientific testing.
FAITH in GOD is more like LOVE.
For us , as human beings, we really do experience LOVE, but we can't prove it by empirical data.
Love and faith are based on what we EXPERIENCE and that's personal.
* I honestly believe YOU had a religious experience that changed you .
The old TBombz in the bunny suit is gone forever and a new man of faith was born.
For YOU, I believe this was a real experience, but you can't prove it via science.
But then again, I can't prove I love my MOM, via science. ;).
I trust you get my point here.
-
x 2 ^^
-
Ha...You. Are. So. Intense!!! Real life Batman, even ran a quick Python program...
Interesting article on the Biblical Flood
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533 (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533)
But, we all are condemned!!!!
*I'm trying to add brevity to this thread, so take nothing I say as being truly serious.
Great, and I can find a plethora of articles that disprove the flood.
I am sure there "evidence" will not stand up to scientific scrutiny. For all ideas to be accepted into scientific community and meet a general consensus, it must pass the burden of peer review. Until it does, it means absolutely jack shit.
-
Hey T, I'll keep this brief ( as possible) to make the basic point.
If religious claims can't stand up to basic scientific inquiry and examination, then :
1. it's false or 2. is a realm OUTSIDE of science and worldly measurement.
Things like the dating the age of the earth and the composition of our atmosphere is the realm of science.
These phenomenon are measured and explained with observable, verified , empirical data .
This is where creationists break down and look silly.
BUT, things like love and faith are in a different , more spiritual realm.
It's silly to try to measure how much you love someone via scientific testing.
FAITH in GOD is more like LOVE.
For us , as human beings, we really do experience LOVE, but we can't prove it by empirical data.
Love and faith are based on what we EXPERIENCE and that's personal.
* I honestly believe YOU had a religious experience that changed you .
The old TBombz in the bunny suit is gone forever and a new man of faith was born.
For YOU, I believe this was a real experience, but you can't prove it via science.
But then again, I can't prove I love my MOM, via science. ;).
I trust you get my point here.
Love can sort of be measured by empirical data. Chemical reactions in the brain during a love-state is much different than someone who is not love.
Scientists have observed the brains of people after a breakup. The longing, the desire to be reconnected with the loved one, showed up in specific areas of the brain, when compared to a control group.
Arthur Aron, a social psychologist at Stony Brook University in New York, has done brain scans on people newly in love and found that after that first magical meeting or perfect first date, a complex system in the brain is activated that is essentially "the same thing that happens when a person takes cocaine."
From a more observable and anecdotal perspective, we can observe love or mutual attraction in the animal kingdom (from the lower primates up until the most highest one). We can observe cuddling, holding hands, sex (bonobos have sex for pleasure), pleasurable words directed at another, a gentle caress, etc. While all these behaviors may be indicate something else (not love), we have pretty strong evidence that many of these behaviors are indicative of love.
Thus, when you take ALL of this into consideration, I think love can be measured via science. Obviously, the above data are brief answers to a very complicated topic; however, it does provide us a brief glimpse into the nature of love and attraction, etc.
It becomes more complicated when trying to determine what attracts one person to another. Some scientists have said pheromones, others have said its based on physical attraction, and others have stated that its more about similar ideals and values (religious values, etc.). I suspect its a matter of many factors.
-
Ha...You. Are. So. Intense!!! Real life Batman, even ran a quick Python program...
Interesting article on the Biblical Flood
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533 (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533)
But, we all are condemned!!!!
*I'm trying to add brevity to this thread, so take nothing I say as being truly serious.
Tell me... Do you bleed? ;D
I'll take a look at the link later today and post some comments.
-
"People condemn themselves by their actions.
Every single human who ever lived would be condemned if it wasn't for the fact that Jesus sacrificed His own life on our behalf.
Some people like to focus on the fact that not everyone will be saved... and then blame God for that.
But none of us deserve to be saved. We all deserve to be destroyed.
God cannot accept a human into Heaven based on their own merits.
We are all filthy with lies, deceit, idolatry, and selfishness.
Even the good things we do are done for the wrong reasons.
So He came down from Heaven and took upon Himself the punishment that we all deserve.
And I praise Him for that."
So God created us in his image but we deserve hell? If we dont accept Jesus died for our sins were going to hell? How nice of him to send his one and only son! Such horseshit man.
Jesus said the kingdom of god is within you. I suggest you stop all this nonsense and go deep within in silent prayer and let this realization manifest within you.
God created Adam and Eve in His image.
You and me? We are far from it.
:)
Hey T, I'll keep this brief ( as possible) to make the basic point.
If religious claims can't stand up to basic scientific inquiry and examination, then :
1. it's false or 2. is a realm OUTSIDE of science and worldly measurement.
Things like the dating the age of the earth and the composition of our atmosphere is the realm of science.
These phenomenon are measured and explained with observable, verified , empirical data .
This is where creationists break down and look silly.
BUT, things like love and faith are in a different , more spiritual realm.
It's silly to try to measure how much you love someone via scientific testing.
FAITH in GOD is more like LOVE.
For us , as human beings, we really do experience LOVE, but we can't prove it by empirical data.
Love and faith are based on what we EXPERIENCE and that's personal.
* I honestly believe YOU had a religious experience that changed you .
The old TBombz in the bunny suit is gone forever and a new man of faith was born.
For YOU, I believe this was a real experience, but you can't prove it via science.
But then again, I can't prove I love my MOM, via science. ;).
I trust you get my point here.
Hello again, Howard.
If you have any "scientific" questions regarding the bible...
I would point you in the direction of www.creation.com
That website is filled with scientists with Master's and PHd's
I am sure they can answer any of your questions.
-Taylor
-
::)
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=452721.0;attach=506412;image)
-
God created Adam and Eve in His image.
You and me? We are far from it.
:)
Hello again, Howard.
If you have any "scientific" questions regarding the bible...
I would point you in the direction of www.creation.com
That website is filled with scientists with Master's and PHd's
I am sure they can answer any of your questions.
-Taylor
Those scientists are usually charlatans. I would not trust any scientist who writes for creation.com. The fact that they have PhD's means absolutely nothing. All that matters is whether or not their ideas could hold up to peer-reviewed scrutiny. We already know that many theists assertions cannot stand the scrutiny of peer-review, which is why the develop their own journals, so they can publish their "ideas" there.
-
Everyday I skim through this thread and I`d like to bang all of your collective heads together.
Just my musings!
-
Those scientists are usually charlatans. I would not trust any scientist who writes for creation.com. The fact that they have PhD's means absolutely nothing. All that matters is whether or not their ideas could hold up to peer-reviewed scrutiny. We already know that many theists assertions cannot stand the scrutiny of peer-review, which is why the develop their own journals, so they can publish their "ideas" there.
The common perception of non-scientists is that reviewers of new scientific research are completely impartial, objective and independent. But the reality is that these reviewers are often competitors in the same field, which raises a number of conflict of interest questions. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, admits this can be a real problem:
‘The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of
a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.’
Or as Robert Higgs put it:
‘Peer review, on which lay people place great weight, varies from important, where the editors and the referees are competent and responsible, to
a complete farce, where they are not. As a rule, not surprisingly, the process operates somewhere in the middle, being more than a joke but less than the nearly flawless system of Olympian scrutiny that outsiders imagine it to be. Any journal editor who desires, for whatever reason, to knock down a submission can easily do so by choosing referees he knows full well will knock it down; likewise, he can easily obtain favorable referee reports. As I have always counseled young people whose work was rejected, seemingly on improper or insufficient grounds, the system is a crap shoot. Personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional jealousies, methodological disagreements, sheer self-promotion and a great deal of plain incompetence and irresponsibility are no strangers to the scientific world; indeed, that world is rife with these all-too-human attributes.’
Cyril Belshaw, editor of Current Anthropology, notes the problem of abusive ad hominem attacks and over-sensitiveness during the review process:
‘And the most difficult question to handle editorially is the matter of ad hominem attacks seeking publication, and the even more ad hominem (verging on libelous) replies of those who feel they have been attacked ... If one thing clearly emerges from the editorial experience, it is that our
colleagues are emotional, easily hurt, and identify very strongly indeed with what passes for objective, impersonal science ... [This includes] ‘big names,’ some of whom seem extremely sensitive when their authority is questioned ...’
There are a number of reasons for this lack of objectivity—the main one being the competition for research funds and the fact that one’s peers are often the same people who control the allocation of these research funds. As Professor Evelleen Richards from the University of New South Wales stated on ABC Radio:
‘Science ... is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as “truth”? is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time ... [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that
actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm—in this case neo-Darwinism—so it is very difficult for
people who are pushing claims that contradict the paradigm to get a hearing. They’ll find it difficult to [get] research grants; they’ll find it hard to get
their research published; they’ll, in fact, find it very hard.’
Read more... https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j22_1/j22_1_44-49.pdf
-
The common perception of non-scientists is that reviewers of new scientific research are completely impartial, objective and independent. But the reality is that these reviewers are often competitors in the same field, which raises a number of conflict of interest questions. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, admits this can be a real problem:
‘The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of
a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.’
Or as Robert Higgs put it:
‘Peer review, on which lay people place great weight, varies from important, where the editors and the referees are competent and responsible, to
a complete farce, where they are not. As a rule, not surprisingly, the process operates somewhere in the middle, being more than a joke but less than the nearly flawless system of Olympian scrutiny that outsiders imagine it to be. Any journal editor who desires, for whatever reason, to knock down a submission can easily do so by choosing referees he knows full well will knock it down; likewise, he can easily obtain favorable referee reports. As I have always counseled young people whose work was rejected, seemingly on improper or insufficient grounds, the system is a crap shoot. Personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional jealousies, methodological disagreements, sheer self-promotion and a great deal of plain incompetence and irresponsibility are no strangers to the scientific world; indeed, that world is rife with these all-too-human attributes.’
Cyril Belshaw, editor of Current Anthropology, notes the problem of abusive ad hominem attacks and over-sensitiveness during the review process:
‘And the most difficult question to handle editorially is the matter of ad hominem attacks seeking publication, and the even more ad hominem (verging on libelous) replies of those who feel they have been attacked ... If one thing clearly emerges from the editorial experience, it is that our
colleagues are emotional, easily hurt, and identify very strongly indeed with what passes for objective, impersonal science ... [This includes] ‘big names,’ some of whom seem extremely sensitive when their authority is questioned ...’
There are a number of reasons for this lack of objectivity—the main one being the competition for research funds and the fact that one’s peers are often the same people who control the allocation of these research funds. As Professor Evelleen Richards from the University of New South Wales stated on ABC Radio:
‘Science ... is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as “truth”? is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time ... [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that
actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm—in this case neo-Darwinism—so it is very difficult for
people who are pushing claims that contradict the paradigm to get a hearing. They’ll find it difficult to [get] research grants; they’ll find it hard to get
their research published; they’ll, in fact, find it very hard.’
Read more... https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j22_1/j22_1_44-49.pdf
I stopped reading after that paragraph. Conspiracy theory garbage. Creation scientists just have bad science. Plain and simple. It can't stand the scrutiny of scientific peer review, so theists have to create their own journals to get "published."
-
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2YYmS7NL3Po/hqdefault.jpg)
-
I stopped reading after that paragraph. Conspiracy theory garbage. Creation scientists just have bad science. Plain and simple. It can't stand the scrutiny of scientific peer review, so theists have to create their own journals to get "published."
ok.. here is an article from a secular source (phys.org)
While peer review can prevent the publication of unimportant or poorly researched manuscripts, some scholars are concerned that it protects the status quo and suppresses innovation.
To evaluate this claim, Siler and his team studied a dataset of manuscripts submitted to Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal and The Lancet in 2003 and 2004. These journals rejected 946 of the 1,008 manuscripts in the dataset. 722 of the rejected journals never made it past the editor's desk and therefore, never even reached the peer review stage, at one or more of these three publications.
Other journals subsequently published 757 of the rejected manuscripts. The researchers looked at the number of citations these manuscripts went on to receive. They used the number of citations as a measure of quality, reasoning that when performing their own research, scientists usually choose to build on work they consider of good quality.
Siler's team found that, for the most part, editors and peer reviewers at the three elite journals did a good job of predicting the popularity of particular research papers among scientists. When the researchers assigned numerical scores to evaluations by peer reviewers, they found that, among both accepted and rejected papers, those with lower scores tended to receive fewer citations. Rejected manuscripts tended to receive fewer citations than accepted ones, and desk rejected manuscripts tended to receive fewer citations than those not rejected until the peer review stage.
However, the team discovered that some of the desk rejected manuscripts went on to receive many citations. The elite journals had rejected 14 of the most highly cited manuscripts and had desk rejected 12 of those.
The researchers acknowledge that the three journals may have rejected some of the manuscripts because they were more suited to specialist journals. Nevertheless, previous research suggests that peer review can incorporate bias, with reviewers basing decisions on the social characteristics of the authors or the intellectual content of the work. Gatekeepers tend to prefer work closer to their own and to favor the scientific status quo.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-12-peer-breakthrough-manuscripts.html#jCp
-
(http://i57.tinypic.com/2n6w1l4.jpg)
-
Wow, I have some catching up to do on this thread LOL!
-
ok.. here is an article from a secular source (phys.org)
While peer review can prevent the publication of unimportant or poorly researched manuscripts, some scholars are concerned that it protects the status quo and suppresses innovation.
To evaluate this claim, Siler and his team studied a dataset of manuscripts submitted to Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal and The Lancet in 2003 and 2004. These journals rejected 946 of the 1,008 manuscripts in the dataset. 722 of the rejected journals never made it past the editor's desk and therefore, never even reached the peer review stage, at one or more of these three publications.
Other journals subsequently published 757 of the rejected manuscripts. The researchers looked at the number of citations these manuscripts went on to receive. They used the number of citations as a measure of quality, reasoning that when performing their own research, scientists usually choose to build on work they consider of good quality.
Siler's team found that, for the most part, editors and peer reviewers at the three elite journals did a good job of predicting the popularity of particular research papers among scientists. When the researchers assigned numerical scores to evaluations by peer reviewers, they found that, among both accepted and rejected papers, those with lower scores tended to receive fewer citations. Rejected manuscripts tended to receive fewer citations than accepted ones, and desk rejected manuscripts tended to receive fewer citations than those not rejected until the peer review stage.
However, the team discovered that some of the desk rejected manuscripts went on to receive many citations. The elite journals had rejected 14 of the most highly cited manuscripts and had desk rejected 12 of those.
The researchers acknowledge that the three journals may have rejected some of the manuscripts because they were more suited to specialist journals. Nevertheless, previous research suggests that peer review can incorporate bias, with reviewers basing decisions on the social characteristics of the authors or the intellectual content of the work. Gatekeepers tend to prefer work closer to their own and to favor the scientific status quo.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-12-peer-breakthrough-manuscripts.html#jCp
you should stop taking your scientifically based HIV medicine. God will cure you!
-
you should stop taking your scientifically based HIV medicine. God will cure you!
(http://s7.postimg.org/5r3w8433f/The_Difference_Between_Science_and_Religion_athe.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
-
(http://s7.postimg.org/5r3w8433f/The_Difference_Between_Science_and_Religion_athe.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
not that simple, really.
-
not that simple, really.
Explain.
-
Evidently there is some void that longs to be filled in am atheists heart if he spends hour upon your defending his lack of faith... Why would anyone ever feel so compelled to explain the reason they do not believe in something. I dont believe in Islam and can't imagine ever wasting one second explaining why.. I dont believe in snowmen either but if someone else does then good for them. Never would I feel a need to defend my reason for not believing - unless I had something missing something in my soul that I refused to accept could be filled by that belief...
I am sure MOS or other of faith could do a much better job of illustrating the point I am attempting to make..
Atheists just speak of logic and it seems so illogical to even address an issue if you truly feel it is nonsensical. One thing is ABSOLUTE... if every soul on earth was as MOS - things would be pretty damn peaceful on earth.. Are there bad Christians ? Of course.. But a TRUE Christian is as good a human as there possibly can be. They are loving and kind and while they may hate sin they judge only sin never the sinner... There is NOTHING that anyone can say a TRUE Christian does that harms humanity.. And no - although I wish I were I am not in that category. I hope one day I am
-
(http://s7.postimg.org/5r3w8433f/The_Difference_Between_Science_and_Religion_athe.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
Lol
Evidently there is some void that longs to be filled in am atheists heart if he spends hour upon your defending his lack of faith... Why would anyone ever feel so compelled to explain the reason they do not believe in something. I dont believe in Islam and can't imagine ever wasting one second explaining why.. I dont believe in snowmen either but if someone else does then good for them. Never would I feel a need to defend my reason for not believing - unless I had something missing something in my soul that I refused to accept could be filled by that belief...
I am sure MOS or other of faith could do a much better job of illustrating the point I am attempting to make..
Atheists just speak of logic and it seems so illogical to even address an issue if you truly feel it is nonsensical. One thing is ABSOLUTE... if every soul on earth was as MOS - things would be pretty damn peaceful on earth.. Are there bad Christians ? Of course.. But a TRUE Christian is as good a human as there possibly can be. They are loving and kind and while they may hate sin they judge only sin never the sinner... There is NOTHING that anyone can say a TRUE Christian does that harms humanity.. And no - although I wish I were I am not in that category. I hope one day I am
Well said.
-
But a TRUE Christian is as good a human as there possibly can be. They are loving and kind and while they may hate sin they judge only sin never the sinner... There is NOTHING that anyone can say a TRUE Christian does that harms humanity.. And no - although I wish I were I am not in that category. I hope one day I am
Yes... stroke harder... faster... with both hands.... that's it.
(http://i.minus.com/iAgehnz5NztCc.gif)
-
Evidently there is some void that longs to be filled in am atheists heart if he spends hour upon your defending his lack of faith... Why would anyone ever feel so compelled to explain the reason they do not believe in something. I dont believe in Islam and can't imagine ever wasting one second explaining why.. I dont believe in snowmen either but if someone else does then good for them. Never would I feel a need to defend my reason for not believing - unless I had something missing something in my soul that I refused to accept could be filled by that belief...
I am sure MOS or other of faith could do a much better job of illustrating the point I am attempting to make..
Atheists just speak of logic and it seems so illogical to even address an issue if you truly feel it is nonsensical. One thing is ABSOLUTE... if every soul on earth was as MOS - things would be pretty damn peaceful on earth.. Are there bad Christians ? Of course.. But a TRUE Christian is as good a human as there possibly can be. They are loving and kind and while they may hate sin they judge only sin never the sinner... There is NOTHING that anyone can say a TRUE Christian does that harms humanity.. And no - although I wish I were I am not in that category. I hope one day I am
How about promoting the abdication of logical thought and the belief in ancient fairy stories?
-
I've seen this line of reasoning before: define God by listing what attributes he doesn't have. It seems smart at first, but besides involving vigorous handwaving,
If you would, show me the handwaving in those few statements. I’m truly interested in what you’re defining as handwaving.
this method has a bigger problem: how is a deity defined only in terms of negatives different from nothingness?
You already know this isn’t the case (at least from me). Very rarely are the limits of God even mentioned by me unless they are relevant to the topic. This is a red herring.
I have a piece a piece of toast. The piece of toast can't be anything other than a piece of toast. It can't be non-bread in nature. It can't not exist. It can't create another piece of toast that is equal to or greater than itself. It's incapable of not knowing all things past, present and future. The piece of toast also can't create beings who are giving free will that will only choose him.
And it's so good too!
I’m sorry, but the toast example is lost on me honestly. The nature of toast and the nature of God are not one and the same. Don’t see any correlation here.
No. You cannot have your cake and eat it too: either we have free will, in which case God is not omniscient because he can't know what we will choose before we choose it, or God is omniscient in which case we don't have free will.
If they have a choice yes, but that choice is incompatible with one of the major, defining characteristics of God: omniscience. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
“have your cake and eat it too”. That’s just not happening here.
God’s omniscience and foreknowledge at its core is just knowledge. It’s an awareness of events not the execution of his predetermined will via a display of his power. Our ability to freely choose does not invalidate God’s knowledge. God is still sovereign yet allows for our free will.
Your argument is that in order for us to have free will God can have no knowledge of our future choices because it’s incompatible with a state of total knowledge. Well, I have to ask. Where are you getting that from?
Total knowledge is total knowledge. It’s not total knowledge less knowledge of our free choices…..that isn’t total knowledge.
Further, free will is an act of volition while knowledge (from a perspective of humanity) could be a by product of the exercising of that free will. Yet it isn’t one and the same. God’s knowledge is part of his nature which is divine. His knowledge is already complete….he doesn’t learn new information based on our choices….that is incompatible with his nature.
Our free will would be incompatible (and completely false) if God exercised his power in a such a way that his will overrode our choices.
If the inescapable result of me being created is that I will suffer for an eternity - and the Biblical hell is certainly described as eternal torment - and he knows that then yes, not being created would certainly be better.
Yes, I know that people despise that God punished mankind by allowing the proclivity for sin to pass from first man to all mankind. Still mankind wasn’t created to suffer for an eternity. Mankind was created to come into fellowship with the creator; yet he allowed the creation to determine whether or not they want to remain in their sin or instead return to righteousness. How do we return to righteousness and escape that eternal suffering? Through Jesus Christ.
“Why didn’t God create a better ‘creation’? Why all this absurdity?”
He can and will, but first he’s collecting those that want to be rid of their sin….his body of believers….his church. God’s “good creation” can’t become a “perfect creation” because of free will that results in sinful behavior. How would God overcome man’s free will? Once a person willfully understands and makes a choice to defy God they’re responsible for their actions (even with a sinful desire in them it doesn’t force them to act as such). Children and those unable to make those distinctions remain in a state of innocence and inherent righteousness. Through Christ we can return to that state of innocence.
Boy, you sure know a lot about this God that you say you do not comprehend.
No I said I can’t comprehend his nature and abilities completely. Doesn’t mean a believer can’t comprehend some aspects of the nature of God at all.
The same applies if his law boils down to "I will punish you for your nature, which you cannot fundamentally alter." My birth was a matter outside of my choice, as is my nature. I am, in essence, forced to play a game with loaded dice and held accountable for the losses.
Yet as I’ve explained God didn’t create humanity so that he could punish it. He created it to come into fellowship with it. No we can’t change our nature, but we can come into righteousness through Jesus Christ and become new creatures that work to suppress that desire for sin.
God’s law isn’t a game…..it’s law. You make it a “game of loaded dice” when you take chances with your eternal soul. You grasp sin and you grasp the consequences of that sin, but you remain defiant before God. I’m here pleading with folks to reconsider their own lives as it pertains to God and heed my testimony and millions of other testimonies.
This is meanigless... but something does strike me. For something you describe as "beyond our ability to comprehend" you certainly seem to have no problem comprehending it.
As I said before, I can’t comprehend every facet of God’s nature or abilities completely, but a believer can certainly comprehend some qualities of God….and I do.
Interesting bit of reasoning. There's a few logical fallacies here,
What are the logical fallacies? Walk me through them.
but I want to focus on one: you're making a deductive jump from the finite to the infinite and from an actual slap to a figurative slap.
I did for the sake of the example, but the continuity is found in the offense committed. Although, you fully grasp this. You just need to present a some form of an objection because I’m a theist LOL.
Make the backdrop biblical Jerusalem and then have the final perpetrator slap the incarnate son in Jesus Christ who was a flesh and blood man (yet fully God) in the face. The example still holds, but it’s unnecessary to go to these lengths because the concept was already understood.
"If you pay me $5 today, I'll pay you $50 in 5 days!"
Sorry, don’t follow…..help me understand.
[First, one small sidenote about the "God also designed his creation so that life is in the blood" bit: you are aware that artificial blood products are now available and it's possible to survice with such products. Right?]
You’ve mentioned that before. It’s certainly cool what medical science has achieved, but it’s essentially irrelevant for this topic.
Today we are under a new covenant and it’s Jesus Christ’s blood that matters. Good on medical science though!
You cannot an informed choice about something you do not comprehend.
You’ve already criticized me twice for comprehending God pretty thoroughly LOL.
If God expects worship, then I demand proof that God exists and this particular law is just and moral.
Well, God is actually worthy of worship.
God created us in his divine image (a generous act on his part) and defined for us two important roles within his creation: one, a kingly role in which we govern over his creation; two, a priest type role in which we walk in faithful service with God and surrender to his will for our lives so that others may draw close to him as well. The goodness of God flows to his creation and thereby becomes an extension of his church…..we are equipped with his attributes.
To worship God means to be included in his existence and to acknowledge his position in the order of all things and to also understand our role within his creation. We are creatures that literally overflow with worship for things we love and admire and cherish most……worship and praise pours out of us. God doesn’t need our worship though….his existence is not contingent upon it, but he created us so that we may enter into fellowship with him and engage in praise in worship for which is absolutely worthy. As part of the created order we give praise for those things we value the most in life. Believers enjoy the very presence of God and he enjoys ours as well….it’s a relationship. Given his exalted status when we are given his approval it elicits our praise and worship….we almost can’t help it at times LOL.
As C.S. Lewis notes in reference to praise and worship:
“But the most obvious fact about praise – whether of God or anything – strangely escaped me. I thought of it in terms of compliment, approval, or the giving of honour. I had never noticed that all enjoyment spontaneously overflows into praise unless . . . shyness or the fear of boring others is deliberately brought in to check it. The world rings with praise – lovers praising their mistresses [Romeo praising Juliet and vice versa], readers their favourite poet, walkers praising the countryside, players praising their favourite game – praise of weather, wines, dishes, actors, motors, horses, colleges, countries, historical personages, children, flowers, mountains, rare stamps, rare beetles, even sometimes politicians or scholars. . . . Except where intolerably adverse circumstances interfere, praise almost seems to be inner health made audible. . . . I had not noticed either that just as men spontaneously praise whatever they value, so they spontaneously urge us to join them in praising it: 'Isn't she lovely? Wasn't it glorious? Don't you think that magnificent?' The Psalmists in telling everyone to praise God are doing what all men do when they speak of what they care about. My whole, more general, difficulty about the praise of God depended on my absurdly denying to us, as regards the supremely Valuable, what we delight to do, what indeed we can't help doing, about everything else we value.”
You demand proof, but the reality is you’re replying back and forth with proof of God’s existence. The problem I have with your demand is that I can lead you to God, but you refuse to follow. You will not engage in faith, you will not surrender to God on his terms…..it’s about your terms……what you demand. Again, I can lead a horse to a water, but I can’t make it drink.
Again, you seem to find no issue with the fact that God instituted a "law" that he knew nobody could follow, then set a penalty for violating this "law." That's bad enough in itself, but there's something even bigger: you say that God can't change that law; it's set and we must all live with the consequences. But you're OK when God develops a workaound, whereby he sent himself-as-his-son, to die to satisfy the requirements of the "law" by proxy.
Do you not see the absurdity?!
I don't understand it - I can't understand how a law that punishes me for something that it outside of my control. I consider such a thing unjust and immoral.
No. In my eyes, if your God is real, he should not punish people for having the nature he gave them. That he does speaks volumes.
Our sinful natures don’t prevent us from following God’s laws, but his standards are divine and righteous and we can’t meet them on our own. I’m sorry, but none of us can.
Our sinful natures create a proclivity in us for sin, but we aren’t forced to act upon that desire.
Although the law doesn’t act as a slave master, it functions as a light so that we can illuminate our shortcomings and need for Christ. What we can’t do individually is achieve righteousness so that we can enter into eternal communion and fellowship with God. Ultimately the most important choice we have to make is whether or not we accept or reject God. A lifetime of sin can be overcome if we affirm God and surrender to his will for our lives.
God doesn’t punish you for your sinful nature or your humanity. We certainly have a desire to sin, but yet we aren’t forced to act on that desire…..you freely choose to engage in it. I used to watch pornography and lust after women, but today I don’t watch pornography and really work to suppress all lustful desires with the help of Holy Spirit that is within me.
What I find interesting about God’s law is how dismissive some folks are of it. Most review the 10 commandments or Christ’s teaching in the NT and say, “there’s nothing of significance there…..just a bunch of common sense. You don’t need a God to tell you not to murder, not to steal, etc…..”
I’d expect if I left my wallet somewhere and you saw me do that you’d quickly return it to me. I’d also expect if you saw my child about to step into oncoming traffic and knew that I wasn’t paying attention you’d intervene and yank her out of harm’s way. I sincerely believe you would.
People downplay God’s law and emphasize our sinful desires, but clearly our sinful natures can be suppressed. We just can’t be deemed righteous by our own merits, but we are fallible and fall prey to our free will and engage in our sinful desires.
I might find it absurd, but my sticking point is that I’ve personally experienced a revelation of the Holy Spirit that changed me forever. In that moment I felt his goodness and grace overwhelm me. The Lord’s presence was so thick in that room I felt like I was moving through water. That revelation of his goodness and righteousness and grace and the fulfillment of scripture in my life thereafter left me no doubt of who God is…..and I just experienced a little taste LOL. I’m sorry man, but it just fills me up and makes me happy….want others to know the same in their lives.
Yes, I refuse to accept something that cannot be proven logically or rationally and is based on nothing but ancient superstition and stories of burning bushes and talking snakes.
Yep, you got “superstition”, “burning bushes” and “talking snakes”, but you left out a reference to “Noah’s ark”, “6000 years old”, “bronze age goatherder grimoire” and “flying spaghetti monster”. As always I here to help! ;D
-
Yep, you got “superstition”, “burning bushes” and “talking snakes”, but you left out a reference to “Noah’s ark”, “6000 years old”, “bronze age goatherder grimoire” and “flying spaghetti monster”. As always I here to help!
Is there not a talking snake in the book? is there not burning bushes? it's not a cop out to point out the absurd nature of what you believe.
it's just a book written by humans, that's all it is.
-
Is there not a talking snake in the book? is there not burning bushes? it's not a cop out to point out the absurd nature of what you believe.
it's just a book written by humans, that's all it is.
There's also a talking donkey.
-
God created us in his divine image (a generous act on his part)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=443649.0;attach=487594;image)
-
If you would, show me the handwaving in those few statements. I’m truly interested in what you’re defining as handwaving.
"I think one thing to consider is that God does have some limitations." We're told he has no limits. No problem - vigorous handwaving and tada... he has limits.
"God can’t be anything other than himself…." Proof? That's right, by vigorous handwaving.
"he can’t not be divine in nature." Even if had an inkling of what "divine in nature" meant, where's the proof? It's there - just behind the vigorous handwaving.
"God can’t not exist." Why not? Because vigorous handwaving.
"God can’t create another being that is equal to or greater than himself." How do you know this? By vigorous handwaving, of course. Also how are "equal to or greater than" to be interpreted when God is outside the realm of nature and quantification?
"God is incapable of not knowing all things past, present and future." Why? Because you say so while vigorously waving your hands around, that's why.
"God also can’t create beings who are given free will and that will only choose him." Why not, if he knows what those being will choose before they know it? Because that narrative fits with what you want to say in this sentence. No problem, just liberally sprinkle some handwaving.
You already know this isn’t the case (at least from me). Very rarely are the limits of God even mentioned by me unless they are relevant to the topic. This is a red herring.
You told us what God isn't: anything other than himself, not divine in nature, and non-existing. You told us what God can't not know: all things past, present and future. And you told us what he can't do: create another being that is equal to or greater than himself, or any beings who are given free will and that will only choose him. In other words, you've told us nothing.
I’m sorry, but the toast example is lost on me honestly. The nature of toast and the nature of God are not one and the same. Don’t see any correlation here.
You're right - the toast example, tasty as it might be is confusing. Allow me to elucidate by introducing a pink unicorn. Its name is Chuck and it lives in my back yard. It shares all the exact same characteristics you cited above. Specifically: "I think one thing to consider is that the Pink Unicorn does have some limitations. The Pink Unicorn can’t be anything other than itself….it can’t not be divine in nature. The Pink Unicorn can’t not exist. The Pink Unicorn can’t create another being that is equal to or greater than itself. The Pink Unicorn is incapable of not knowing all things past, present and future. The Pink Unicorn also can’t create beings who are given free will and that will only choose it."
Does that help?
“have your cake and eat it too”. That’s just not happening here.
Of course it is - you claim that it's possible for something to inerrantly know every decision that everyone will ever make, before those decisions are made - or before the people that will be making them are even born - while still allowing those people to freely choose. If a decision is freely made, then it's impossible to inerrantly know the outcome beforehand.
God’s omniscience and foreknowledge at its core is just knowledge. It’s an awareness of events not the execution of his predetermined will via a display of his power. Our ability to freely choose does not invalidate God’s knowledge. God is still sovereign yet allows for our free will.
Define God and specifically explain how his omniscience and knowledge aren't incompatible with free will. Back up all your claims rationally.
Your argument is that in order for us to have free will God can have no knowledge of our future choices because it’s incompatible with a state of total knowledge. Well, I have to ask. Where are you getting that from?
Because if God inerrantly knows what I will choose when faced with a choice, for every choice, the question is raised: do I really have a choice to begin with? Again, if God's knowledge is inerrant, then I can't choose anything other than what God knows I'll choose. At best I have the illusion of choice.
Total knowledge is total knowledge.
And red M&Ms are red. This is known as a tautology and adds nothing to the conversation.
It’s not total knowledge less knowledge of our free choices…..that isn’t total knowledge.
You haven't answered: what's total knowledge and how is total knowledge compatible with freedom of choice?
Further, free will is an act of volition while knowledge (from a perspective of humanity) could be a by product of the exercising of that free will. Yet it isn’t one and the same. God’s knowledge is part of his nature which is divine. His knowledge is already complete….he doesn’t learn new information based on our choices….that is incompatible with his nature.
So many words and you manage to say nothing. You add: "God’s knowledge is part of his nature which is divine. His knowledge is already complete." This is nonsense. Not only do we have no idea what it means for God's nature to be divine (or what God is), but we don't know what it means for his knowledge to be complete. If he doesn't learn any new information based on our choices that, inexorably, means that he'd knew what we'd choose before we chose it. If that knowledge is inerrant - which you suggest it is - then no choice was possible to us, except the one God knew we'd make. Which again means that free will is reduced to, at best, an illusion.
Our free will would be incompatible (and completely false) if God exercised his power in a such a way that his will overrode our choices.
But it's not incompatible if God knows what we'll choose and we only go through a game where we think we're actually freely choosing when we are, in fact, not. Right?
Yes, I know that people despise that God punished mankind by allowing the proclivity for sin to pass from first man to all mankind.
I don't despise God - I have no feelings towards your imaginary deity. All I'm saying is that you claim that he loves us all so very very much and wants to be in fellowship with us, but he won't come out and say it to us. It's almost like watching a teenager struggling to ask a girl on a date for the first time - except, you know, it's not as funny.
Still mankind wasn’t created to suffer for an eternity. Mankind was created to come into fellowship with the creator; yet he allowed the creation to determine whether or not they want to remain in their sin or instead return to righteousness. How do we return to righteousness and escape that eternal suffering? Through Jesus Christ.
No - he didn't allow the creation. He, if the Bible is to be believed - allowed Adam and Eve to decide that question for all their offspring and only much later offer this "escape" - which is still unfulfilled and which, for all you know, will remain unfulfilled.
“Why didn’t God create a better ‘creation’? Why all this absurdity?”
He can and will, but first he’s collecting those that want to be rid of their sin….his body of believers….his church. God’s “good creation” can’t become a “perfect creation” because of free will that results in sinful behavior. How would God overcome man’s free will? Once a person willfully understands and makes a choice to defy God they’re responsible for their actions (even with a sinful desire in them it doesn’t force them to act as such). Children and those unable to make those distinctions remain in a state of innocence and inherent righteousness. Through Christ we can return to that state of innocence.
If God knows, inerrantly, which humans will choose him and which won't, they why not only create those humans to begin with (surely that isn't beyond his amazing powers) and have a perfect creation to begin with, without any need for all this other nonsense? In the words of James T. Kirk, what does God need with a starship (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnxvKJAv5Ik&t=2m23s)?
The notion that we're responsible for our actions and only our actions is nonsense - if that was the case then the "Original Sin" wouldn't be a scarlet letter carved upon our flesh. Your statement that some remain in a state of innocence and inherent righteousness finds no support in the Bible.
No I said I can’t comprehend his nature and abilities completely. Doesn’t mean a believer can’t comprehend some aspects of the nature of God at all.
Except, conveninently, those aspects that you do understand are the aspects which don't explain what God is.
Yet as I’ve explained God didn’t create humanity so that he could punish it. He created it to come into fellowship with it.
Why did he do that? Why does God need fellowship? And why is fellowship defined as "worship"?
No we can’t change our nature, but we can come into righteousness through Jesus Christ and become new creatures that work to suppress that desire for sin.
If I am paralyzed from the waist down, then for a Judge to punish me for failing to stand up when he entered the Court is a mockery of justice. Does it change anything if he punishes someone else on my behalf?
God’s law isn’t a game…..it’s law.
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.
You make it a “game of loaded dice” when you take chances with your eternal soul.
I've objected! You can't keep going. Now you're assuming I have an eternal soul.
You grasp sin and you grasp the consequences of that sin, but you remain defiant before God.
If your God loves me enough to send his only son to die for me, why doesn't he love me enough to personally reveal himself to me right now?
I’m here pleading with folks to reconsider their own lives as it pertains to God and heed my testimony and millions of other testimonies.
Argumentum ad populum.
As I said before, I can’t comprehend every facet of God’s nature or abilities completely, but a believer can certainly comprehend some qualities of God….and I do.
Unfortunately, all those qualities are providing meaningless when you're faced with the simplest of questions: "what is God and can you prove he's real not a figment of your imagination?"
What are the logical fallacies? Walk me through them.
Sure.
Non sequitur (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non_sequitur): Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
Loaded question (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Loaded_language): You assume God exists.
Equivocation (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Equivocation) and extended analogy (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extended_analogy): Literally slapping the President isn't the same as figuratively slapping God.
Intuition pump (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intuition_pump): Slapping is bad and we punish people for it. Therefore God punishes people.
Reification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification): Textbook definition of reification.
I did for the sake of the example, but the continuity is found in the offense committed. Although, you fully grasp this. You just need to present a some form of an objection because I’m a theist LOL.
No, there's no continuity. You cannot extrapolate from the finite to the infinite and from the natural to the supernatural.
Make the backdrop biblical Jerusalem and then have the final perpetrator slap the incarnate son in Jesus Christ who was a flesh and blood man (yet fully God) in the face. The example still holds, but it’s unnecessary to go to these lengths because the concept was already understood.
No, there's no example. There's only an incoherent mess of logical fallacies.
Sorry, don’t follow…..help me understand.
Christianity promises you something great tomorrow, in exchange for something little today: believe now and achieve eternal salvation. Even if you don't see this as extortion ("believe in God or else you'll burn in hell") there's no proof that there's any gains to be had: there's no proof your God exists, there's no proof of an afterlife, there's no proof of heaven, there's no proof of hell. It's a scam.
You’ve mentioned that before. It’s certainly cool what medical science has achieved, but it’s essentially irrelevant for this topic.
Today we are under a new covenant and it’s Jesus Christ’s blood that matters. Good on medical science though!
But why should blood matter at all?
Well, God is actually worthy of worship.
Why?
The goodness of God flows to his creation and thereby becomes an extension of his church…..we are equipped with his attributes.
Which attributes of God are we equipped with specifically? Please enumerate them and explain how do you know this.
To worship God means to be included in his existence and to acknowledge his position in the order of all things and to also understand our role within his creation. We are creatures that literally overflow with worship for things we love and admire and cherish most……worship and praise pours out of us. God doesn’t need our worship though….his existence is not contingent upon it, but he created us so that we may enter into fellowship with him and engage in praise in worship for which is absolutely worthy. As part of the created order we give praise for those things we value the most in life. Believers enjoy the very presence of God and he enjoys ours as well….it’s a relationship. Given his exalted status when we are given his approval it elicits our praise and worship….we almost can’t help it at times LOL.
If he doesn't need worship, why did he create being for the sole purpose of having them worship him?
You demand proof, but the reality is you’re replying back and forth with proof of God’s existence. The problem I have with your demand is that I can lead you to God, but you refuse to follow. You will not engage in faith, you will not surrender to God on his terms…..it’s about your terms……what you demand. Again, I can lead a horse to a water, but I can’t make it drink.
Yes, I demand proof. You are claiming that after I believe, then you can prove it. But what good is proof after I already believe? No proof is required then!
Our sinful natures don’t prevent us from following God’s laws, but his standards are divine and righteous and we can’t meet them on our own. I’m sorry, but none of us can.
Of course our sinful natures prevent us from following God's laws - that's cornerstone upon which your religion is built.
Our sinful natures create a proclivity in us for sin, but we aren’t forced to act upon that desire.
I'll quote Ayn Rand: "Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a “tendency” to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free."
Although the law doesn’t act as a slave master, it functions as a light so that we can illuminate our shortcomings and need for Christ.
Yes, a light. A light shined upon you while a megaphone blares "OVER THERE! A SINNER! TO HELL WITH HIM!"
God doesn’t punish you for your sinful nature or your humanity. We certainly have a desire to sin, but yet we aren’t forced to act on that desire…..you freely choose to engage in it. I used to watch pornography and lust after women, but today I don’t watch pornography and really work to suppress all lustful desires with the help of Holy Spirit that is within me.
He doesn't? That's funny... He sets a standard that is impossible for us to follow
What I find interesting about God’s law is how dismissive some folks are of it. Most review the 10 commandments or Christ’s teaching in the NT and say, “there’s nothing of significance there…..just a bunch of common sense. You don’t need a God to tell you not to murder, not to steal, etc…..”
The big problem with the 10 Commandments is that it's presented as the arbitrary will of God - not a consistent theory of morality. Why is murdering someone bad? Because God says so. What if he said otherwise? Would that make murder ok then?
I’d expect if I left my wallet somewhere and you saw me do that you’d quickly return it to me. I’d also expect if you saw my child about to step into oncoming traffic and knew that I wasn’t paying attention you’d intervene and yank her out of harm’s way. I sincerely believe you would.
I would - but not because an ancient book told me to.
People downplay God’s law and emphasize our sinful desires, but clearly our sinful natures can be suppressed. We just can’t be deemed righteous by our own merits, but we are fallible and fall prey to our free will and engage in our sinful desires.
Again: we're held up to a standard that the Judge knows we can't meet. That's a travesty of justice.
Yep, you got “superstition”, “burning bushes” and “talking snakes”, but you left out a reference to “Noah’s ark”, “6000 years old”, “bronze age goatherder grimoire” and “flying spaghetti monster”. As always I here to help! ;D
I'll do better next time! ;D
-
Holy cow... that was a long post, even by my standards! :o
-
Good luck Taylor. I won't debate someone who's mind is made up.
I sincerely hope you make it thru seminary. 100% serious
God created Adam and Eve in His image.
You and me? We are far from it.
:)
Hello again, Howard.
If you have any "scientific" questions regarding the bible...
I would point you in the direction of www.creation.com
That website is filled with scientists with Master's and PHd's
I am sure they can answer any of your questions.
-Taylor
-
"I think one thing to consider is that God does have some limitations." We're told he has no limits. No problem - vigorous handwaving and tada... he has limits.
"God can’t be anything other than himself…." Proof? That's right, by vigorous handwaving.
"he can’t not be divine in nature." Even if had an inkling of what "divine in nature" meant, where's the proof? It's there - just behind the vigorous handwaving.
"God can’t not exist." Why not? Because vigorous handwaving.
"God can’t create another being that is equal to or greater than himself." How do you know this? By vigorous handwaving, of course. Also how are "equal to or greater than" to be interpreted when God is outside the realm of nature and quantification?
"God is incapable of not knowing all things past, present and future." Why? Because you say so while vigorously waving your hands around, that's why.
"God also can’t create beings who are given free will and that will only choose him." Why not, if he knows what those being will choose before they know it? Because that narrative fits with what you want to say in this sentence. No problem, just liberally sprinkle some handwaving.
You told us what God isn't: anything other than himself, not divine in nature, and non-existing. You told us what God can't not know: all things past, present and future. And you told us what he can't do: create another being that is equal to or greater than himself, or any beings who are given free will and that will only choose him. In other words, you've told us nothing.
You're right - the toast example, tasty as it might be is confusing. Allow me to elucidate by introducing a pink unicorn. Its name is Chuck and it lives in my back yard. It shares all the exact same characteristics you cited above. Specifically: "I think one thing to consider is that the Pink Unicorn does have some limitations. The Pink Unicorn can’t be anything other than itself….it can’t not be divine in nature. The Pink Unicorn can’t not exist. The Pink Unicorn can’t create another being that is equal to or greater than itself. The Pink Unicorn is incapable of not knowing all things past, present and future. The Pink Unicorn also can’t create beings who are given free will and that will only choose it."
Does that help?
Of course it is - you claim that it's possible for something to inerrantly know every decision that everyone will ever make, before those decisions are made - or before the people that will be making them are even born - while still allowing those people to freely choose. If a decision is freely made, then it's impossible to inerrantly know the outcome beforehand.
Define God and specifically explain how his omniscience and knowledge aren't incompatible with free will. Back up all your claims rationally.
Because if God inerrantly knows what I will choose when faced with a choice, for every choice, the question is raised: do I really have a choice to begin with? Again, if God's knowledge is inerrant, then I can't choose anything other than what God knows I'll choose. At best I have the illusion of choice.
And red M&Ms are red. This is known as a tautology and adds nothing to the conversation.
You haven't answered: what's total knowledge and how is total knowledge compatible with freedom of choice?
So many words and you manage to say nothing. You add: "God’s knowledge is part of his nature which is divine. His knowledge is already complete." This is nonsense. Not only do we have no idea what it means for God's nature to be divine (or what God is), but we don't know what it means for his knowledge to be complete. If he doesn't learn any new information based on our choices that, inexorably, means that he'd knew what we'd choose before we chose it. If that knowledge is inerrant - which you suggest it is - then no choice was possible to us, except the one God knew we'd make. Which again means that free will is reduced to, at best, an illusion.
But it's not incompatible if God knows what we'll choose and we only go through a game where we think we're actually freely choosing when we are, in fact, not. Right?
I don't despise God - I have no feelings towards your imaginary deity. All I'm saying is that you claim that he loves us all so very very much and wants to be in fellowship with us, but he won't come out and say it to us. It's almost like watching a teenager struggling to ask a girl on a date for the first time - except, you know, it's not as funny.
No - he didn't allow the creation. He, if the Bible is to be believed - allowed Adam and Eve to decide that question for all their offspring and only much later offer this "escape" - which is still unfulfilled and which, for all you know, will remain unfulfilled.
If God knows, inerrantly, which humans will choose him and which won't, they why not only create those humans to begin with (surely that isn't beyond his amazing powers) and have a perfect creation to begin with, without any need for all this other nonsense? In the words of James T. Kirk, what does God need with a starship (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnxvKJAv5Ik&t=2m23s)?
The notion that we're responsible for our actions and only our actions is nonsense - if that was the case then the "Original Sin" wouldn't be a scarlet letter carved upon our flesh. Your statement that some remain in a state of innocence and inherent righteousness finds no support in the Bible.
Except, conveninently, those aspects that you do understand are the aspects which don't explain what God is.
Why did he do that? Why does God need fellowship? And why is fellowship defined as "worship"?
If I am paralyzed from the waist down, then for a Judge to punish me for failing to stand up when he entered the Court is a mockery of justice. Does it change anything if he punishes someone else on my behalf?
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.
I've objected! You can't keep going. Now you're assuming I have an eternal soul.
If your God loves me enough to send his only son to die for me, why doesn't he love me enough to personally reveal himself to me right now?
Argumentum ad populum.
Unfortunately, all those qualities are providing meaningless when you're faced with the simplest of questions: "what is God and can you prove he's real not a figment of your imagination?"
Sure.
Non sequitur (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non_sequitur): Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
Loaded question (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Loaded_language): You assume God exists.
Equivocation (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Equivocation) and extended analogy (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extended_analogy): Literally slapping the President isn't the same as figuratively slapping God.
Intuition pump (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intuition_pump): Slapping is bad and we punish people for it. Therefore God punishes people.
Reification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification): Textbook definition of reification.
No, there's no continuity. You cannot extrapolate from the finite to the infinite and from the natural to the supernatural.
No, there's no example. There's only an incoherent mess of logical fallacies.
Christianity promises you something great tomorrow, in exchange for something little today: believe now and achieve eternal salvation. Even if you don't see this as extortion ("believe in God or else you'll burn in hell") there's no proof that there's any gains to be had: there's no proof your God exists, there's no proof of an afterlife, there's no proof of heaven, there's no proof of hell. It's a scam.
But why should blood matter at all?
Why?
Which attributes of God are we equipped with specifically? Please enumerate them and explain how do you know this.
If he doesn't need worship, why did he create being for the sole purpose of having them worship him?
Yes, I demand proof. You are claiming that after I believe, then you can prove it. But what good is proof after I already believe? No proof is required then!
Of course our sinful natures prevent us from following God's laws - that's cornerstone upon which your religion is built.
I'll quote Ayn Rand: "Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a “tendency” to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free."
Yes, a light. A light shined upon you while a megaphone blares "OVER THERE! A SINNER! TO HELL WITH HIM!"
He doesn't? That's funny... He sets a standard that is impossible for us to follow
The big problem with the 10 Commandments is that it's presented as the arbitrary will of God - not a consistent theory of morality. Why is murdering someone bad? Because God says so. What if he said otherwise? Would that make murder ok then?
I would - but not because an ancient book told me to.
Again: we're held up to a standard that the Judge knows we can't meet. That's a travesty of justice.
I'll do better next time! ;D
I’m here pleading with folks to reconsider their own lives as it pertains to God and heed my testimony and millions of other testimonies.
There is nothing more arrogant and condescending than this statement. As if MOS can tell us how to live our lives the proper way :-\ :-\ The arrogance of theists.
-
Tbombz wrote:
The message of the Bible mends lives broken by sin, which separates us from our holy Creator. In contrast, agnosticism and atheism, like all anti-God philosophies, destroy.
-
I’m here pleading with folks to reconsider their own lives as it pertains to God and heed my testimony and millions of other testimonies.
There is nothing more arrogant and condescending than this statement. As if MOS can tell us how to live our lives the proper way :-\ :-\ The arrogance of theists.
Lets say you work at a business.
The Boss, who no one has ever met, has put signs out that say=
"everyone who comes to my office, waits there till I arrive, and then agrees to my terms of employment, all those people will receive a promotion and a job forever...
...but anyone who does not seek me, or anyone who seeks me but gives up and leaves before they find me, or anyone who refuses my terms of employment; all such person will be fired at the end of the week"
Now, one day a man comes up to you and says: "hey, i sought out the boss, and eventually he showed up, and i met the guy, and hes great, and i agreed to his terms, and now im getting a promotion and a job forever! the signs he put up are true! you had better go look for him, or else youll get fired!"
But you say.... "BULL CRAP!!!!!!! no one has ever met the guy! theres no such thing as a Boss! this business was the result of random processes! and now you have the arrogance to tell me that if i dont agree to this imaginary persons terms, that im going to get fired! Get a life, MORON!
.......
:'(
but thats not even all of it.
not only does that happen... but several other people come up and testify to the same thing! the boss is real! the signs are true! they all agreed to the terms and are getting a promotion and a job forever!
and guess what else? nearly everyone who tells you this testimony, they all have a supernatural change of heart towards their job, towards their coworkers, towards their salary, all of it! its amazing! nothing else in the history of the company has ever effected people in this way!
but you still say..... BULL CRAP!!! It's all a big lie.
But why do you say that?
I think I know why.
It's because the Boss actually posted a list of his terms of employment on that letter.
And you hate his terms. He wants you to agree to surrender your entire life to Him.
He wants you to give up pornography, fornication, adultery, selfishness, self-righteousness, pride, ambition, and all of your hopes and dreams.
He wants you to die to yourself.
And thats something you absolutely refuse to do.
So you prefer to just tell yourself the guy doesnt exist.
The business is a product of random chance.
or maybe there is a Boss, and this guy is just a fraud and a phony.
either way, you aint accepting those terms of employment.
-
Lets say you work at a business.
The Boss, who no one has ever met, has put signs out that say=
"everyone who comes to my office, waits there till I arrive, and then agrees to my terms of employment, all those people will receive a promotion and a job forever...
...but anyone who does not seek me, or anyone who seeks me but gives up and leaves before they find me, or anyone who refuses my terms of employment; all such person will be fired at the end of the week"
Now, one day a man comes up to you and says: "hey, i sought out the boss, and eventually he showed up, and i met the guy, and hes great, and i agreed to his terms, and now im getting a promotion and a job forever! the signs he put up are true! you had better go look for him, or else youll get fired!"
But you say.... "BULL CRAP!!!!!!! no one has ever met the guy! theres no such thing as a Boss! this business was the result of random processes! and now you have the arrogance to tell me that if i dont agree to this imaginary persons terms, that im going to get fired! Get a life, MORON!
.......
:'(
So, you're basically using an outlandish, improbable scenario to try and prove your argument? Lol. Good job.
Your argument still demonstrates absolutely nothing.
-
God is a guy you can make a deal with?
In a million years will we all have to pleb before the one and only Jesus Christ to live a meaningful life? How stale to have God come only once in all of human history.
-
Lets say you work at a business.
The Boss, who no one has ever met, has put signs out that say=
"everyone who comes to my office, waits there till I arrive, and then agrees to my terms of employment, all those people will receive a promotion and a job forever...
...but anyone who does not seek me, or anyone who seeks me but gives up and leaves before they find me, or anyone who refuses my terms of employment; all such person will be fired at the end of the week"
Now, one day a man comes up to you and says: "hey, i sought out the boss, and eventually he showed up, and i met the guy, and hes great, and i agreed to his terms, and now im getting a promotion and a job forever! the signs he put up are true! you had better go look for him, or else youll get fired!"
But you say.... "BULL CRAP!!!!!!! no one has ever met the guy! theres no such thing as a Boss! this business was the result of random processes! and now you have the arrogance to tell me that if i dont agree to this imaginary persons terms, that im going to get fired! Get a life, MORON!
Your contrived example has a number of fatal flaws. But one important one is that the end of the week we'll all know whether the signs were put up by the boss by seeing whether those who don't go get fired or not. And this is where things break down when you try to apply this to your God. You see, we all die - the equivalent of getting fired in your retarded example, and there's no way for you to prove that the boss gave you any rewards.
not only does that happen... but several other people come up and testify to the same thing! the boss is real! the signs are true! they all agreed to the terms and are getting a promotion and a job forever!
Argumentum ad populum (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum). And since you started down that path, let's make your stupid example more realistic. You see, there's also some other signs up there that say: "The boss is Mr. A. L. Lah, and his office is on the third floor, in room 301." So some people do go three floors up and ask for a meeting and they too come back and they tell me that the person that you went to isn't really the boss, because they met the real boss. They also claim tto have gotten a promotion and a job forever, and on top of that, they also each got executive assistants and unlimited snacks.
and guess what else? nearly everyone who tells you this testimony, they all have a supernatural change of heart towards their job, towards their coworkers, towards their salary, all of it! its amazing! nothing else in the history of the company has ever effected people in this way!
Except, you know, all those who went to room 301 and come back muttering about the infidels that go and sit in the office of the false boss and wait for a promotion.
but you still say..... BULL CRAP!!! It's all a big lie.
But why do you say that?
Because the office is always empty. Because the people that have gone there have come back and they haven't gotten a promotion, while the people who haven't gone still aren't fired.
It's because the Boss actually posted a list of his terms of employment on that letter.
And you hate his terms. He wants you to agree to surrender your entire life to Him.
That's not employment. That's servitude or slavery.
He wants you to give up pornography, fornication, adultery, selfishness, self-righteousness, pride, ambition, and all of your hopes and dreams.
You're making it sound better by the second. Give up my prime, give my ambition, give up my hopes, give up my dreams. I mean, why would anyone ever decline such terms?!
He wants you to die to yourself. And thats something you absolutely refuse to do.
Yes, I absolute refuse to give up my hopes, my dreams, my ambition and my pride. I don't want to end up like you.
So you prefer to just tell yourself the guy doesnt exist.
Perhaps if he parked his Jaguar in the "RESERVED" parking spot up front, I'd be more inclined to think he exists and that he was great taste in cars to boot.
The business is a product of random chance.
Your analogy is breaking down again...
Now, with all that out of the way, I feel compelled to tell you a few things. And it's difficult because I'm not a mean person, and as much as I want to think that you deserved everything that happened to you, I can't bring myself to think that and genuinely feel sorry for you.
But don't come here, pretending to be all changed and in possession of a higher truth, because you aren't. The only thing you're in possession of that's higher is HIV virion counts. Yes we get it: you replaced one infatuation with another. You moved from cock to religion and replaced the Nobel-prize-winning-astronaut-computer-engineer-millionaire-playboy with Jesus, and the bunny suit with vestments. But hey, if you find some solace in that, that's great - because you'll need it.
But cut this pious bullshit out, because it's revolting. In fact, it's even more revolting than all of those pictures of your disease-riddled asshole that get posted on here.
-
Explain.
Well, to me that pic is showing that all they are doing is praying for the cure...Now, i believe that a person just praying for something and not exhausting all options, is not helping the situation. That is not "blind faith", that is just plain stupidity. Docotors could be considered modern day shaman/medicine men. The same people our ancestors took their sick to, when things wnet sour And utilizing a doctor, could be an answer to one's prayers. And yes, one can also pray for the doctor to their best.
"God, I am praying for you to help this sick child, and to cure him!!!"
God would be like: "There is a doctor, fool, take the child to the doctor!"
There was one radio show host/author who spoke on Domestic Violence, "Don't just pray for it to end, you can pray and pack at the same time."
-
Well, to me that pic is showing that all they are doing is praying for the cure...Now, i believe that a person just praying for something and not exhausting all options, is not helping the situation. That is not "blind faith", that is just plain stupidity. Docotors could be considered modern day shaman/medicine men. The same people our ancestors took their sick to, when things wnet sour And utilizing a doctor, could be an answer to one's prayers. And yes, one can also pray for the doctor to their best.
"God, I am praying for you to help this sick child, and to cure him!!!"
God would be like: "There is a doctor, fool, take the child to the doctor!"
There was one radio show host/author who spoke on Domestic Violence, "Don't just pray for it to end, you can pray and pack at the same time."
That's certainly reasonable and I would expect most believers would do the same. But, to me anyways, the picture isn't meant to signify what people do, but rather to highlight the difference between a mindset that says: "we live in a Universe that's rational and can be explained" and one that says: "we live in a Universe that's mystical and which we cannot comprehend."
-
When Jesus talked about the kindgom of god, the kingdom of heaven, he did not mean a post mortem realm but the essence of who you are in the present moment. He wanted people to wake up to the Divine in the here and now, to the transcendent and experience unity with the Father like he did. Church men bent on control over people changed things to a heaven after death of the body to which one can gain entry only if they accept Jesus the one and only saviour. Jesus and his teachings were hijacked by ignorant men.
-
Alot of the sayings attributed to him could only have come from an enlightened mind and the similarity between them and the sayings of Yoga and Buddhism are striking.
-
Alot of the sayings attributed to him could only have come from an enlightened mind and the similarity between them and the sayings of Yoga and Buddhism are striking.
Very wise are you. Forget not Master Yoda should you... Enlightened mind was his
-
Alot of the sayings attributed to him could only have come from an enlightened mind and the similarity between them and the sayings of Yoga and Buddhism are striking.
Any examples of this otherworldly insight Jesus had, was it love thy neighbour? or was it turn the other cheek?
Just to point out, he was a man, there is no such thing as divine inspiration or enlightenment etc. It may be a brain state but it's not transcendent, humans cannot do this, like we cannot read minds or move objects with it. Everything you think you know about the afterlife, existence is coming from ordinary plain old humans, all trying to figure out what the fuck is going on.
Like you kundalini shit, it's kindling, it's been figured out, it's not energy or chakra's or anything of that nature. We know what it is, just like I know human's will lie, deceive and make up shit, we are after all just apes.
-
Holy cow... that was a long post, even by my standards! :o
Wow! I see you responded, but admittedly I haven't read through it just yet.....I will, I will LOL!
And yes, you did write a bunch! It's like homework. ;)
Like I said, I'll read today and respond where I'm able to and/or it is appropriate.
-
Any examples of this otherworldly insight Jesus had, was it love thy neighbour? or was it turn the other cheek?
Just to point out, he was a man, there is no such thing as divine inspiration or enlightenment etc. It may be a brain state but it's not transcendent, humans cannot do this, like we cannot read minds or move objects with it. Everything you think you know about the afterlife, existence is coming from ordinary plain old humans, all trying to figure out what the fuck is going on.
Like you kundalini shit, it's kindling, it's been figured out, it's not energy or chakra's or anything of that nature. We know what it is, just like I know human's will lie, deceive and make up shit, we are after all just apes.
Glad I didnt spend time with those examples then. You are indeed a very stubborn ape.
-
Holy cow... that was a long post, even by my standards! :o
That was a work of art !! Bravo !! :o :o
-
Glad I didnt spend time with those examples then. You are indeed a very stubborn ape.
We are apes, great apes! nothing magical or different about us, we aren't special, just like an ant is not special.
So if kindling completely describes the kundalini non-sense, we have imaging of the brain during these "states" it's seizure like, some areas turn on, some off, one area called the OAA which basically informs us of our boundaries, ie internal from external, is deactivated strongly, when it does you will hear "Everything feels like one, we are all the same, no boundaries blah blah. Our bodies are material, they work materially like a robot, we can give drugs and cause certain reactions, like a robot.
-
Lets say you work at a business.
The Boss, who no one has ever met, has put signs out that say=
"everyone who comes to my office, waits there till I arrive, and then agrees to my terms of employment, all those people will receive a promotion and a job forever...
...but anyone who does not seek me, or anyone who seeks me but gives up and leaves before they find me, or anyone who refuses my terms of employment; all such person will be fired at the end of the week"
Now, one day a man comes up to you and says: "hey, i sought out the boss, and eventually he showed up, and i met the guy, and hes great, and i agreed to his terms, and now im getting a promotion and a job forever! the signs he put up are true! you had better go look for him, or else youll get fired!"
But you say.... "BULL CRAP!!!!!!! no one has ever met the guy! theres no such thing as a Boss! this business was the result of random processes! and now you have the arrogance to tell me that if i dont agree to this imaginary persons terms, that im going to get fired! Get a life, MORON!
.......
:'(
but thats not even all of it.
not only does that happen... but several other people come up and testify to the same thing! the boss is real! the signs are true! they all agreed to the terms and are getting a promotion and a job forever!
and guess what else? nearly everyone who tells you this testimony, they all have a supernatural change of heart towards their job, towards their coworkers, towards their salary, all of it! its amazing! nothing else in the history of the company has ever effected people in this way!
but you still say..... BULL CRAP!!! It's all a big lie.
But why do you say that?
I think I know why.
It's because the Boss actually posted a list of his terms of employment on that letter.
And you hate his terms. He wants you to agree to surrender your entire life to Him.
He wants you to give up pornography, fornication, adultery, selfishness, self-righteousness, pride, ambition, and all of your hopes and dreams.
He wants you to die to yourself.
And thats something you absolutely refuse to do.
So you prefer to just tell yourself the guy doesnt exist.
The business is a product of random chance.
or maybe there is a Boss, and this guy is just a fraud and a phony.
either way, you aint accepting those terms of employment.
Typical pyramid scheme: all promise, no paycheck.
-
We are apes, great apes! nothing magical or different about us, we aren't special, just like an ant is not special.
So if kindling completely describes the kundalini non-sense, we have imaging of the brain during these "states" it's seizure like, some areas turn on, some off, one area called the OAA which basically informs us of our boundaries, ie internal from external, is deactivated strongly, when it does you will hear "Everything feels like one, we are all the same, no boundaries blah blah. Our bodies are material, they work materially like a robot, we can give drugs and cause certain reactions, like a robot.
well then dose up with some magic mushrooms and enjoy the reactions.
-
From the outset, I wanted to note that I engage in this discussion with Christian faith and love. Although, I understand my responses might be frustrating I’m not trying to frustrate or be difficult or insulting.
"I think one thing to consider is that God does have some limitations." We're told he has no limits. No problem - vigorous handwaving and tada... he has limits.
His is limited by that which is inconsistent with his nature.
vigorous handwaving.
Handwaving implies a sense of dishonesty. That a person uses flowery or colorful language coupled with emotion appeals to make a point that actually can’t be made. Essentially that a position (or point) isn’t truly grounded in anything else.
Now, although that notion certainly can be true, it can also be a subjectively applied. A claim of handwaving can also be assigned capriciously in a discussion…..a debate tactic to throw someone off their game.
"God can’t be anything other than himself…." Proof? That's right, by vigorous handwaving.
Immutability - Malachi 3:6 “1 am the Lord, I change not."
"he can’t not be divine in nature." Even if had an inkling of what "divine in nature" meant, where's the proof? It's there - just behind the vigorous handwaving.
Now, I’m fairly certain you know what “divine” means, but just in case it means “to have the quality of God or to be God.” His nature is divine…..His nature is to be God.
Divinity - Exodus 3:14-15 God replied to Moses, “I am who I am. Say this to the people of Israel: I am has sent me to you.” God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel: Yahweh, the God of your ancestors—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you. This is my eternal name, my name to remember for all generations.
"God can’t not exist." Why not? Because vigorous handwaving.
Eternality - Psalm 102:24-27 "I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations. Of old thou hast laid the foundations of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure; yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed. But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end."
Isaiah 40:28 Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth Does not become weary or tired. His understanding is inscrutable.
“God can’t create another being that is equal to or greater than himself." How do you know this? By vigorous handwaving, of course. Also how are "equal to or greater than" to be interpreted when God is outside the realm of nature and quantification?
Unique - Isaiah 45:5 “ I am the Lord; there is no other God.”
Within scripture we have revealed to us the quantification of God and that quantity is one.
Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, “O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.”
If God could create another being equal to or greater than himself then there would either be multiple Gods or he would no longer be God as the greater creation would replace him. That’s neither possible or logical.
"God is incapable of not knowing all things past, present and future." Why? Because you say so while vigorously waving your hands around, that's why.
Omniscience - Job 37:1 “Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him which is perfect in knowledge?”
"God also can’t create beings who are given free will and that will only choose him." Why not, if he knows what those being will choose before they know it? Because that narrative fits with what you want to say in this sentence. No problem, just liberally sprinkle some handwaving.
Free Will for humanity - Joshua 24:15 “And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
Deuteronomy 30:19 “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live”
As I indicated before, the Lord is collecting his church (those whom have freely chosen him) and will then eliminate sin in his future creative efforts; although, first choices must be made.
You told us what God isn't: anything other than himself, not divine in nature, and non-existing. You told us what God can't not know: all things past, present and future. And you told us what he can't do: create another being that is equal to or greater than himself, or any beings who are given free will and that will only choose him. In other words, you've told us nothing.
I’ve defined who God is on several occasions in the past (matter of fact in replies to you)….please refer to that material.
Now I did state in my previous reply that I don’t often speak of God’s limits unless doing so is germane to the conversation. I don’t like to define things by what they aren’t.
You're right - the toast example, tasty as it might be is confusing. Allow me to elucidate by introducing a pink unicorn. Its name is Chuck and it lives in my back yard. It shares all the exact same characteristics you cited above. Specifically: "I think one thing to consider is that the Pink Unicorn does have some limitations. The Pink Unicorn can’t be anything other than itself….it can’t not be divine in nature. The Pink Unicorn can’t not exist. The Pink Unicorn can’t create another being that is equal to or greater than itself. The Pink Unicorn is incapable of not knowing all things past, present and future. The Pink Unicorn also can’t create beings who are given free will and that will only choose it."
Does that help?
Not really. Toast, pink unicorns…..sorry. No correlation with God there that I see, just a substitution of words. I suppose “chimichanga” would work as well?
Of course it is - you claim that it's possible for something to inerrantly know every decision that everyone will ever make, before those decisions are made - or before the people that will be making them are even born - while still allowing those people to freely choose. If a decision is freely made, then it's impossible to inerrantly know the outcome beforehand.
As I explained, knowledge or foreknowledge is simply knowledge….it’s benign. People tend to confuse the “fore” in foreknowledge with “force”…..it’s not “forceknowledge” in that we are forced to do something.
Define God and specifically explain how his omniscience and knowledge aren't incompatible with free will. Back up all your claims rationally.
Again, I’ve defined God for you repeatedly in the past, but my answers aren’t changing. Again, please refer to previous posts.
Rationality is subjective based upon our presuppositions and worldviews (which in this discussion are diametrically opposed). My faith and God doesn’t comport with your worldview so my explanation won’t be deemed rational by you…..it’s an act of futility. I know this because we’ve gone down this path repeatedly.
Because if God inerrantly knows what I will choose when faced with a choice, for every choice, the question is raised: do I really have a choice to begin with? Again, if God's knowledge is inerrant, then I can't choose anything other than what God knows I'll choose. At best I have the illusion of choice.
Here’s the crux: “then I can't choose anything other than what God knows”. That is correct, but that doesn’t change the fact that the knowledge is benign in regards to your choice. You’re inventing a notion of control within the idea of perfect, complete knowledge.
God’s will is that we choose him, enter into fellowship with him, accept Christ and turn from sin.
You firmly reject his will and you aren’t a Christian. Choice made and choice upheld.
And red M&Ms are red. This is known as a tautology and adds nothing to the conversation.
I understand tautology, but not exactly sure what you’re suggesting. If this is just about repetition of ideas then ok. We’re both doing that.
You haven't answered: what's total knowledge and how is total knowledge compatible with freedom of choice?
Again LOL? I have stated my answer. I think Prof. Einstein has a suggestion for this type of activity.
What we both know, is that from me, there is not a sufficient, cogent answer for you. No offense, but satisfying you in particular isn’t my purpose. My answers are directed at the readers not replying that haven’t made a choice about Christ.
I already understand your choices (and they’re firm). You’re just one of the few voices presenting objections and willing to engage in discussion (which I appreciate).
So many words and you manage to say nothing. You add: "God’s knowledge is part of his nature which is divine. His knowledge is already complete." This is nonsense.
I recognize that you keep repeating that (and you can continue to do so if you want), but it doesn’t make it true.
Not only do we have no idea what it means for God's nature to be divine (or what God is), but we don't know what it means for his knowledge to be complete. If he doesn't learn any new information based on our choices that, inexorably, means that he'd knew what we'd choose before we chose it. If that knowledge is inerrant - which you suggest it is - then no choice was possible to us, except the one God knew we'd make. Which again means that free will is reduced to, at best, an illusion.
Again you’re replacing “foreknowledge” with “forceknowledge”.
“It seems smart at first, but this method has a bigger problem:” it invents a forced control burdening a benign attribute.
But it's not incompatible if God knows what we'll choose and we only go through a game where we think we're actually freely choosing when we are, in fact, not. Right?
See previous answers
I don't despise God
I’m glad about that.
I have no feelings towards your imaginary deity.
You’re awfully passionate about something you have no feelings towards.
All I'm saying is that you claim that he loves us all so very very much and wants to be in fellowship with us, but he won't come out and say it to us. It's almost like watching a teenager struggling to ask a girl on a date for the first time - except, you know, it's not as funny.
Scripture attests to it.
Our Lord Jesus Christ attests to it.
The Holy Spirit that indwells believers attests to it.
No - he didn't allow the creation. He, if the Bible is to be believed - allowed Adam and Eve to decide that question for all their offspring and only much later offer this "escape" - which is still unfulfilled and which, for all you know, will remain unfulfilled.
Yes, he pronounced judgment upon them and through them the proclivity to sin is passed to humanity (we’ve already discussed that though).
The promises of scripture continue to be fulfilled in me through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the process of sanctification, the process of becoming a new creature in Christ, the complete change of perception, the joy of fellowship and worship experienced by believers. Man, I’ve experienced the love and goodness and God in my life. Because of these things I faith that his promises for the future will also be fulfilled.
If God knows, inerrantly, which humans will choose him and which won't, they why not only create those humans to begin with (surely that isn't beyond his amazing powers) and have a perfect creation to begin with, without any need for all this other nonsense? In the words of James T. Kirk, what does God need with a starship (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnxvKJAv5Ik&t=2m23s)?
I would say that for God to step in and only allow certain folks to be born because he knows they would choose him would violate the free choices of those folks that desired to have families even if some of those children would mature into adults that would reject God.
God entrusted the Earth to man and also encouraged his will by telling man to go forth and multiply. He made it possible for man to do so, but he didn’t force his will. He gave people the ability to choose whether or not to have make families.
We also note in scripture that having children is a gift from God. The adults they might decide to turn into…..not so much.
The notion that we're responsible for our actions and only our actions is nonsense - if that was the case then the "Original Sin" wouldn't be a scarlet letter carved upon our flesh. Your statement that some remain in a state of innocence and inherent righteousness finds no support in the Bible.
Yes it does.
I remember when I first read the OT I had so many questions. When I read about King David’s child with Bathsheba passing away and David suggesting that as a believer he would he see his child again in God’s kingdom it affirmed for me the innocence of children and others with disabilities that prevent them from making an honest choice about sin and Christ in their lives. They don’t need salvation because being saved by grace through Christ means we are saved from the wrath/judgment of God. The innocents need not fear God’s wrath for they are without blame or need for judgment.
“Jesus called a little child to him and put the child among them. Then he said, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you turn from your sins and become like little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven. So anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.’”
Christ also indicated how severely those that cause the children (the little ones) to fall into sin would be judged. The children are lead into sin and out of innocence. Further, the primary attributes of God (justice, love, grace and mercy) don’t jive together if the innocents are separated eternally from him after their death.
As believers in Christ we are saved by grace through faith and thereby justified and deemed righteous….like the innocents who are inherently righteous we become like the them through Christ.
Why did he do that? Why does God need fellowship? And why is fellowship defined as "worship"?
The moment we entertain the notion of what “God needs” we’re in error.
God doesn’t need us to appease him, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t taken great pleasure in his creation.
Fellowship isn’t worship. Talked about worship in my last reply.
If your God loves me enough to send his only son to die for me, why doesn't he love me enough to personally reveal himself to me right now?
That’s exactly why I share my faith so that I can help lead others to that revelation. I can’t force them to follow scripture or me.
Unfortunately, all those qualities are providing meaningless when you're faced with the simplest of questions: "what is God and can you prove he's real not a figment of your imagination?"
Yes, I can and it begins with a faithful journey to him as outlined in scripture. You come to God on his terms and not your own. Refuse to do so and you remain in ignorance of him.
Sure.
Non sequitur (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non_sequitur): Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
So essentially you’re generalizing my entire argument and labeling it a “non sequitor” because it doesn’t agree with your worldview and presuppositions. That isn’t a non sequitor……that’s what I call “fallacy shopping”. Don’t like a premise so you go shopping for a logical fallacy that can be forced upon it.
“We’re out of peanut butter because I wanted a sandwich today.” That’s a non sequitor.
Loaded question (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Loaded_language): You assume God exists.
Once again the “fallacy shopping” because my worldview and presuppositions don’t agree with yours you call “logical fallacy”. Not the case.
Equivocation (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Equivocation) and extended analogy (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extended_analogy): Literally slapping the President isn't the same as figuratively slapping God.
There is nothing unclear about what I presented because you fully grasp it. As I explained the “slap” is an example of an offense or a breaking of a law. Law breaking can occur by humanity in the finite and infinite.
Intuition pump (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intuition_pump): Slapping is bad and we punish people for it. Therefore God punishes people.
I had never heard of this fallacy before and then I found out it was an invention of Daniel Dennett. You and I both know that simplistic rationale you indicate to coincide with the “Dennett Fallacy” was not at all my point.
Reification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification): Textbook definition of reification.
Once again the “fallacy shopping” because my worldview and presuppositions don’t agree with yours you call “logical fallacy”. Not the case.
No, there's no continuity. You cannot extrapolate from the finite to the infinite and from the natural to the supernatural.
Scripture relates to God in anthropomorphic language whereby we humanize him. We can adjust our examples to include God as he relates to our situation in a similar manner.
Christianity promises you something great tomorrow, in exchange for something little today: believe now and achieve eternal salvation. Even if you don't see this as extortion ("believe in God or else you'll burn in hell") there's no proof that there's any gains to be had: there's no proof your God exists, there's no proof of an afterlife, there's no proof of heaven, there's no proof of hell. It's a scam.
That’s a lot of absolute statements about God from a man that has absolutely no personal experience or relationship with God.
But why should blood matter at all?
That was God’s chosen vehicle to cover sin. Sin leads to death and life is found in the blood. Life trumps death. Wondering about “why blood” is just a curiousity. I have no problem with that.
-
Which attributes of God are we equipped with specifically? Please enumerate them and explain how do you know this.
Image of God - 2 Corinthians 2:14 But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and manifests through us the sweet aroma of the knowledge of Him in every place.
Romans 1:18-24 - 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
1 John 3:2 - Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is.
Genesis 1:26 – “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
I'll quote Ayn Rand: "Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a “tendency” to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free."
I responded to this a couple years ago.
I understand why she doesn’t like that notion as it doesn’t help solidify her argument. It’s an annoyance that pokes a hole. Given that it is “a response” she at least acknowledges it, but she does so in manner that simply flicks it away meaninglessly as if it was never there….like swatting a fly. It’s akin to Dawkin’s typical, dismissive statements concerning religion when he makes a statement such as, “Science flew aircraft to the moon. Religion flew aircraft into buildings.” These “KO” statements are engineered to elicit an explosive audience uproar or swat away a theist response carelessly via distraction or uproar; still, it does nothing to address the topic at hand. These kinds of KO statements leave me thinking nothing but “OK”, but I digress. Ayn defining the notion as cowardly simply doesn’t make it so. Now, if sin existed as she stated she puts forth a great argument, but she dismisses the crux of the theist response completely and simply rests on her own conclusions.
Ayn’s work begins with the notions that man is born damned and that the divine standard of good imposed upon him is impossible to meet. These conclusions are also rooted in the presupposition that “God” or “the divine” is completely absurd. What troubles me from the get go is that her perspective is void of any form of prior belief or a proactive engagement in that which she stands firmly opposed. Her writing although scathing is still elegant and far superior to my own, but her position is rooted in ignorance because she has no genuine comparative. She just dives right into the side of the argument she feels comfortable defending or justifying; yet hasn’t walked even 10 steps in the pursuit of genuine belief (that I am aware of). She’s fully reasoned away a concept she doesn’t fully grasp.
The big problem with the 10 Commandments is that it's presented as the arbitrary will of God - not a consistent theory of morality. Why is murdering someone bad? Because God says so. What if he said otherwise? Would that make murder ok then?
Ok, you define it as arbitrary and I do not.
How do subjective individuals with varying opinions create a consistent theory of morality? What is that grounded upon?
His law was established for all of humanity. Seems pretty consistent.
We can “what if” all day about various curiousities.
-
Thanks for the reply; I'll go through it later today.
-
There's also a talking donkey.
So, there must be a donkey show?
LOL, someone please shop TBombz in the bunny suit on the rump of a holy donkey ;D
-
Thanks for the reply; I'll go through it later today.
No problem. And please know that my intention in my replies isn't to be insulting.
-
No problem. And please know that my intention in my replies isn't to be insulting.
I nominate TBombz's anus as the real holy of Holes.
Talk about going down the rabbit hole :o
-
Doesn't it ever make you think when you consider how massive our universe really is?
nearest star ( besides the sun) = 4.3 light years or aprox 25 trillion miles from earth.
nearest galaxy ( besides our Milky Way) = 2.5 million lights yrs from earth or 15 million-trillion miles from earth
Those are the NEAREST celestial objects ( besides comets) outside our solar system!
How do you deal with the proof from the Hubble deep space images that the Universe is at least 14 billion yrs old?
FYI, this data is based on the light images collected on the Hubble lens.
It's basically like measuring how bright a light source is. It really is that clear and simple.
Oh, I've never seen the "creationists" come up with any proof that the Hubble universe dating is wrong.
ok.. here is an article from a secular source (phys.org)
While peer review can prevent the publication of unimportant or poorly researched manuscripts, some scholars are concerned that it protects the status quo and suppresses innovation.
To evaluate this claim, Siler and his team studied a dataset of manuscripts submitted to Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal and The Lancet in 2003 and 2004. These journals rejected 946 of the 1,008 manuscripts in the dataset. 722 of the rejected journals never made it past the editor's desk and therefore, never even reached the peer review stage, at one or more of these three publications.
Other journals subsequently published 757 of the rejected manuscripts. The researchers looked at the number of citations these manuscripts went on to receive. They used the number of citations as a measure of quality, reasoning that when performing their own research, scientists usually choose to build on work they consider of good quality.
Siler's team found that, for the most part, editors and peer reviewers at the three elite journals did a good job of predicting the popularity of particular research papers among scientists. When the researchers assigned numerical scores to evaluations by peer reviewers, they found that, among both accepted and rejected papers, those with lower scores tended to receive fewer citations. Rejected manuscripts tended to receive fewer citations than accepted ones, and desk rejected manuscripts tended to receive fewer citations than those not rejected until the peer review stage.
However, the team discovered that some of the desk rejected manuscripts went on to receive many citations. The elite journals had rejected 14 of the most highly cited manuscripts and had desk rejected 12 of those.
The researchers acknowledge that the three journals may have rejected some of the manuscripts because they were more suited to specialist journals. Nevertheless, previous research suggests that peer review can incorporate bias, with reviewers basing decisions on the social characteristics of the authors or the intellectual content of the work. Gatekeepers tend to prefer work closer to their own and to favor the scientific status quo.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-12-peer-breakthrough-manuscripts.html#jCp
-
No problem. And please know that my intention in my replies isn't to be insulting.
That is not what you said in the PM to me. You stated that you were going to destroy AVXO in the debate and send his soul straight to hell.
-
That is not what you said in the PM to me. You stated that you were going to destroy AVXO in the debate and send his soul straight to hell.
Hell = the one and ONLY getbig reunion most will actually show up at. ;)
-
Hell = the one and ONLY getbig reunion most will actually show up at. ;)
I would not mind spending an eternity in hell with some getbiggers.
Imagine Johnny Falcon in hell. Falcon would be educating everyone on electricity. Falcon could invent a machine that keeps hell consistently hot via electricity.
-
That is not what you said in the PM to me. You stated that you were going to destroy AVXO in the debate and send his soul straight to hell.
That's right....that's exactly what I said in my PM!! ;D
I also said I'm gonna kick his nutsack.
-
That's right....that's exactly what I said in my PM!! ;D
I also said I'm gonna kick his nutsack.
SINNER.
-
That's right....that's exactly what I said in my PM!! ;D
I also said I'm gonna kick his nutsack.
Thank God I only have one nutsack so I don't have to turn and let you kick the other too! ;D
-
Thank God I only have one nutsack so I don't have to turn and let you kick the other too! ;D
AHAHAHHAHAAH!!! Nice!
-
Ok, you define it as arbitrary and I do not.
How do subjective individuals with varying opinions create a consistent theory of morality? What is that grounded upon?
If you receive a cogent and explanatory explanation to this will you dismiss it?
Morality is based on logic/reason. What you are implying is that without this book or commandments or god you would feel fine killing children, killing people, raping etc? is god the only thing stopping you? why are more humanist societies less violent (they are the most reasonable), why are deeplly religious states violent?
the commandments are sorely lacking as well, the first are about worshipping god etc, absurd. nothing about rape, incest.
We see morality in other species are well, concepts of fairness in monkey's, sharing, social exclusion of thiefs in bird communities it serves a rational purpose. If I work for something, you taking it doesn't make much sense, I would not like this, others would not like this, it's immoral.
There is no universal morality, it's based on reason, this is why we see wholely different standards across the world.
-
If you receive a cogent and explanatory explanation to this will you dismiss it?
Morality is based on logic/reason. What you are implying is that without this book or commandments or god you would feel fine killing children, killing people, raping etc? is god the only thing stopping you? why are more humanist societies less violent (they are the most reasonable), why are deeplly religious states violent?
the commandments are sorely lacking as well, the first are about worshipping god etc, absurd. nothing about rape, incest.
We see morality in other species are well, concepts of fairness in monkey's, sharing, social exclusion of thiefs in bird communities it serves a rational purpose. If I work for something, you taking it doesn't make much sense, I would not like this, others would not like this, it's immoral.
There is no universal morality, it's based on reason, this is why we see wholely different standards across the world.
Theists ALWAYS go back to the same old argument about morals, despite numerous arguments against it. Nothing will satisfy them. They need to hold onto this argument for some reason.
Human being create a consistent theory of morality via dialogue. Often, what will inform what is moral or not is what research and evidence. It is not a perfect system, but to a GREAT extent, we have come to design a pretty consistent moral system.
For example, from what I know of the bible, it says nothing about abstaining from child abuse. However, via research we have come to a conclusion that child abuse is psychologically and physically bad for the child. We realize that when you consistently beat or sexually abuse a child, there will be short and long-term consequences for the child, the family, the perpetrator (yes, even the perpetrator), the community, and society at large. We began to understand this via dialogue and important research in the field. Psychologists, social workers, neuroscientists, politicians, etc., all got together and decided that this was wrong. We did not need to look toward the bible for an objective standard of morality that it is NOT okay to abuse your child. In fact, the moral system regarding the abuse of children is fairly new. Hell, back in the 50's and 60's, no one really did much about it. Now, there are SO many ways that children are protected. We devised a moral system where if a parent is caught abusing their child, numerous things may occur: jail time for the parent, mandated therapy for parent, child is removed from home, etc. Will people still abuse children? Unfortunately, yes. However, we have devised a sophisticated, moral system where abuse will not be tolerated. To a great extent, we have met a general consensus that abuse will not be tolerated. Via logic and reason, we have been able to hold those accountable who abuse children. We did not need to appeal to the bible to "invent" all that we have done for abused children (social welfare programs, foster homes, care, etc.). There are so MANY moral dilemmas that the bible does not address that humans have worked out. A moral system is grounded upon empathy, justice, fairness, cooperation, and probably many other things. Will some people stray? Of course. But, overall, we have developed a pretty consistent theory of morality. As stated previously, its not perfect, but its pretty damn good.
-
Theists ALWAYS go back to the same old argument about morals, despite numerous arguments against it. Nothing will satisfy them. They need to hold onto this argument for some reason.
Human being create a consistent theory of morality via dialogue. Often, what will inform what is moral or not is what research and evidence. It is not a perfect system, but to a GREAT extent, we have come to design a pretty consistent moral system.
For example, from what I know of the bible, it says nothing about abstaining from child abuse. However, via research we have come to a conclusion that child abuse is psychologically and physically bad for the child. We realize that when you consistently beat or sexually abuse a child, there will be short and long-term consequences for the child, the family, the perpetrator (yes, even the perpetrator), the community, and society at large. We began to understand this via dialogue and important research in the field. Psychologists, social workers, neuroscientists, politicians, etc., all got together and decided that this was wrong. We did not need to look toward the bible for an objective standard of morality that it is NOT okay to abuse your child. In fact, the moral system regarding the abuse of children is fairly new. Hell, back in the 50's and 60's, no one really did much about it. Now, there are SO many ways that children are protected. We devised a moral system where if a parent is caught abusing their child, numerous things may occur: jail time for the parent, mandated therapy for parent, child is removed from home, etc. Will people still abuse children? Unfortunately, yes. However, we have devised a sophisticated, moral system where abuse will not be tolerated. To a great extent, we have met a general consensus that abuse will not be tolerated. Via logic and reason, we have been able to hold those accountable who abuse children. We did not need to appeal to the bible to "invent" all that we have done for abused children (social welfare programs, foster homes, care, etc.). There are so MANY moral dilemmas that the bible does not address that humans have worked out. A moral system is grounded upon empathy, justice, fairness, cooperation, and probably many other things. Will some people stray? Of course. But, overall, we have developed a pretty consistent theory of morality. As stated previously, its not perfect, but its pretty damn good.
Yes, reason :D
The bible is not reasonable, it is reasonable for the time, but why would a god make sure a stagnant source of information, one ripe with issues? a poor medium as well (no storage, can rip, age etc)... it is reasonable to assume these idiots didn't interact with god on earth but instead, did not.
-
If you receive a cogent and explanatory explanation to this will you dismiss it?
Who determines whether or not it’s cogent? Me? You? Someone else?
Morality is based on logic/reason.
According to your worldview.
Morals are derived from the character of God per my Christian worldview.
What you are implying is that without this book or commandments or god you would feel fine killing children, killing people, raping etc?
What brought you to that conclusion?
is god the only thing stopping you?
God is the objective standard for morality. Atheists can still exhibit goodness and morals…..do the right things.
why are more humanist societies less violent (they are the most reasonable)
Don’t know anything about that so I don’t have an opinion.
You’re welcome to share what you know about it with me.
why are deeplly religious states violent?
What are you referring to here? Specific “religions”? Religion in general? Christianity? Islam? Hinduism? Something else?
the commandments are sorely lacking as well, the first are about worshipping god etc, absurd. nothing about rape, incest.
To an atheist, worshipping God would be absurd.
nothing about rape, incest.
Exodus 20:14 - “You shall not commit adultery."
We see morality in other species are well, concepts of fairness in monkey's, sharing, social exclusion of thiefs in bird communities it serves a rational purpose.
God created some animals with soulish qualities of life…..in Hebrew they are referred to as “nephesh”. They can exhibit some moral qualities of humanity.
Despite that I wouldn’t design a system of morality for humanity based upon the code of monkeys or birds. I would appeal to a higher standard.
If I work for something, you taking it doesn't make much sense, I would not like this, others would not like this, it's immoral.
What if my family needs what you have in order to preserve our lives and the happiness we enjoy?
You say it’s immoral that I take your stuff. I say it’s moral that I take your stuff. Who’s right?
There is no universal morality, it's based on reason, this is why we see wholely different standards across the world.
Correct, morality via humanity is subjective. Varies from place to place, group to group and person to person.
What one group deems “good” another might deem “bad”.
-
Theists ALWAYS go back to the same old argument about morals, despite numerous arguments against it. Nothing will satisfy them. They need to hold onto this argument for some reason.
Human being create a consistent theory of morality via dialogue. Often, what will inform what is moral or not is what research and evidence. It is not a perfect system, but to a GREAT extent, we have come to design a pretty consistent moral system.
For example, from what I know of the bible, it says nothing about abstaining from child abuse. However, via research we have come to a conclusion that child abuse is psychologically and physically bad for the child. We realize that when you consistently beat or sexually abuse a child, there will be short and long-term consequences for the child, the family, the perpetrator (yes, even the perpetrator), the community, and society at large. We began to understand this via dialogue and important research in the field. Psychologists, social workers, neuroscientists, politicians, etc., all got together and decided that this was wrong. We did not need to look toward the bible for an objective standard of morality that it is NOT okay to abuse your child. In fact, the moral system regarding the abuse of children is fairly new. Hell, back in the 50's and 60's, no one really did much about it. Now, there are SO many ways that children are protected. We devised a moral system where if a parent is caught abusing their child, numerous things may occur: jail time for the parent, mandated therapy for parent, child is removed from home, etc. Will people still abuse children? Unfortunately, yes. However, we have devised a sophisticated, moral system where abuse will not be tolerated. To a great extent, we have met a general consensus that abuse will not be tolerated. Via logic and reason, we have been able to hold those accountable who abuse children. We did not need to appeal to the bible to "invent" all that we have done for abused children (social welfare programs, foster homes, care, etc.). There are so MANY moral dilemmas that the bible does not address that humans have worked out. A moral system is grounded upon empathy, justice, fairness, cooperation, and probably many other things. Will some people stray? Of course. But, overall, we have developed a pretty consistent theory of morality. As stated previously, its not perfect, but its pretty damn good.
The Bible does speak against child abuse specifically in a few places.
-
For example, from what I know of the bible, it says nothing about abstaining from child abuse.
The bible doesn't use the specific term "child abuse". It also doesn't say not to hit someone with a toaster. ;D
John 13:34
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
Ephesians 4:32
32 Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.
Psalm 127:3
3 Behold, children are a gift of the Lord,
The fruit of the womb is a reward.
Matthew 18:2-5
2 And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, 3 and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me
The gist is to love each other, recognize how precious the Lord regards children, don't abuse or hurt children and don't hit each other with toasters.
-
The bible doesn't use the specific term "child abuse". It also doesn't say not to hit someone with a toaster. ;D
John 13:34
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
Ephesians 4:32
32 Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.
Psalm 127:3
3 Behold, children are a gift of the Lord,
The fruit of the womb is a reward.
Matthew 18:2-5
2 And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, 3 and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me
The gist is to love each other, recognize how precious the Lord regards children, don't abuse or hurt children and don't hit each other with toasters.
I think those are rather vague statement and do not indicate to abstain from child abuse. But even if I grant you that those indirectly talk about child abuse, we still did not appeal to the bible for an authority regarding child abuse.
And even so, child abuse laws have only really been strengthened within the last 20-30 years. Where were all the theists before this who looked toward the bible for morality? Why did it take theists so long to talk against child abuse and put in stronger laws preventing such actions?
Most of the laws and policies against child abuse over the last 20-30 years have been due to much research involving PTSD and war, which shed further light on other forms of trauma. We started to then understand the effects of trauma on the developing brain.
No god or bible was necessary. In fact, if the bible and theists were so strongly against child abuse, then they failed miserably. Trauma is perhaps the number one social issue plaguing society. Yet, just merely 30 years ago, you could beat your children without any repercussions. Sorry to burst your bubble, but mental health workers did not look toward the bible to deem child abuse wrong. We looked toward the evidence.
-
From the outset, I wanted to note that I engage in this discussion with Christian faith and love. Although, I understand my responses might be frustrating I’m not trying to frustrate or be difficult or insulting.
Time for a little disclaimer: I am about to counter every single one of the Bible verses you quote with another Bible verse. This doesn't suggest that I accept the Bible - I do not. You, however, do. I am using these quotes to highlight that the book that you rely on is inconsistent and logically flawed.
His is limited by that which is inconsistent with his nature.
We do not know anything about his nature.
Handwaving implies a sense of dishonesty. That a person uses flowery or colorful language coupled with emotion appeals to make a point that actually can’t be made. Essentially that a position (or point) isn’t truly grounded in anything else.
Not necessarily and that's not the way I used it. I don't think you're dishonest; in fact, I know that your beliefs are genuine even if you cannot rationally justify them. That's all fine and dandy. The problem is that you try to justify your beliefs by assertion. That's what I'm challenging.
Immutability - Malachi 3:6 “1 am the Lord, I change not."
And yet, he does. See Exodus 32:14: "So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people." Even if you want the King James version, the change is still there - God repents. In the New King James version God relents. So clearly, God changes. And this is but one example.
Now, I’m fairly certain you know what “divine” means, but just in case it means “to have the quality of God or to be God.” His nature is divine…..His nature is to be God.
You are defining divine to mean to have the quality of God or to be God, but we don't know what God is, so we have no idea of what that quality is.
Divinity - Exodus 3:14-15 God replied to Moses, “I am who I am. Say this to the people of Israel: I am has sent me to you.” God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel: Yahweh, the God of your ancestors—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you. This is my eternal name, my name to remember for all generations.
The “I am who I am” bit is a tautology and it's meaningless. You are you who you are. A rock is what it is is. It tells us nothing. You cite this is as having to do with divinity, but it tells us nothing.
Eternality - Psalm 102:24-27 "I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations. Of old thou hast laid the foundations of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure; yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed. But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end."
Again, you are using circular reasoning: The Bible is true because it's the word of God, and it tells us that God's years shall have no end. But even if you ignore the circular reasoning, this tells us little.
Isaiah 40:28 Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth Does not become weary or tired. His understanding is inscrutable.
Really? He was weary enough that he had to take a day off (Ex. 31:17).
Unique - Isaiah 45:5 “ I am the Lord; there is no other God.”
Really? Exodus 15:11: "“Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods?" Also, Psalm 86:8: "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord."
Within scripture we have revealed to us the quantification of God and that quantity is one.
Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, “O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.”
Except when one is also three: 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." How is that possible? Who knows. But clearly there's more than one.
If God could create another being equal to or greater than himself then there would either be multiple Gods or he would no longer be God as the greater creation would replace him. That’s neither possible or logical.
No more or less logical than the Biblical God at any rate...
Omniscience - Job 37:1 “Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him which is perfect in knowledge?”
Clouds don't balance - that statement is meaningless. This entire thing tells us nothing about omniscience. What's "perfect knowledge"? What does that even mean? I've asked you this before. Clearly it can't mean omniscience: Otherwise, why would God need to come down to Sodom and Gomorrah himself to see and know what was going on. (Gen. 18:20-21)? Or not know what the Israelites were up to when they "made princes" (Hos. 8:4)?
Free Will for humanity - Joshua 24:15 “And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
Deuteronomy 30:19 “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live”
It's a pity you have things like Jude 4: "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation."
And let's not forget 2 Thes. 2:11-12: "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned."
So much for free will...
I’ve defined who God is on several occasions in the past (matter of fact in replies to you)….please refer to that material.
Your definitions were flawed or insufficient.
Not really. Toast, pink unicorns…..sorry. No correlation with God there that I see, just a substitution of words. I suppose “chimichanga” would work as well?
Sure - a substitution of words. But why is it irrational or impossible when the word is "pink unicorn" but somehow possible when the word is "god"? I'll tell you why: because you are allowing your belief to cloud your rational judgement.
As I explained, knowledge or foreknowledge is simply knowledge….it’s benign. People tend to confuse the “fore” in foreknowledge with “force”…..it’s not “forceknowledge” in that we are forced to do something.
Foreknowledge can be bening - there's nothing bad with foreknowledge. The problem - which you're failing to address - is how does inerrant foreknowledge co-exist with free will. The answer is that it does not. You can have one or the other. You CANNOT have both.
Rationality is subjective based upon our presuppositions and worldviews (which in this discussion are diametrically opposed). My faith and God doesn’t comport with your worldview so my explanation won’t be deemed rational by you…..it’s an act of futility. I know this because we’ve gone down this path repeatedly.
No, rationality is not subjective. If your presupposition is that God is real, that doesn't make God rational or real.
Here’s the crux: “then I can't choose anything other than what God knows”. That is correct, but that doesn’t change the fact that the knowledge is benign in regards to your choice. You’re inventing a notion of control within the idea of perfect, complete knowledge.
It's not benign to my choice. If God knows I'm going to choose to have pizza tonight and that knowledge is inerrant, I don't have any choice: it's pizza. I only have the illusion of choice.
God’s will is that we choose him, enter into fellowship with him, accept Christ and turn from sin.
And instead of providing clear and convincing evidence that he exists and that is, actually, his will, he requires a leap of faith long enough to qualify for the Ultra-Olympics!
You firmly reject his will and you aren’t a Christian. Choice made and choice upheld.
I'm open to his will, if I can be convinced that (a) he exists and (b) that his will is what you claim it is.
I understand tautology, but not exactly sure what you’re suggesting. If this is just about repetition of ideas then ok. We’re both doing that.
You understand tautologies? If that's true, why say: "Total knowledge is total knowledge." That's a meaningless and completely vacuous statement. And, with respect, it's not something we're both doing.
You’re awfully passionate about something you have no feelings towards.
I'm just allergic to bullshit.
Scripture attests to it.
If only scripture also didn't attest the opposite...
Our Lord Jesus Christ attests to it.
Through the scripture - so how's that different from the previous point.
The Holy Spirit that indwells believers attests to it.
When you can provide observable, quantifiable evidence that the Holy Spirit spirit exists and indwells believes me know.
Yes, he pronounced judgment upon them and through them the proclivity to sin is passed to humanity (we’ve already discussed that though).
If we have a proclivity to sin, to punish us for it is immoral and unjust.
The promises of scripture continue to be fulfilled in me through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the process of sanctification, the process of becoming a new creature in Christ, the complete change of perception, the joy of fellowship and worship experienced by believers. Man, I’ve experienced the love and goodness and God in my life. Because of these things I faith that his promises for the future will also be fulfilled.
Great - there's not argument there. You have had a direct, personal revelation. That's perfectly fine and, in fact, logically unassailable. But only when it comes to your belief; that direct personal revelation you had is meaningless to anyone other than you. For all we know, you're hearing voices.
I would say that for God to step in and only allow certain folks to be born because he knows they would choose him would violate the free choices of those folks that desired to have families even if some of those children would mature into adults that would reject God.
Wow... you're like a fucking politician! What an argument... God allows people who he knows will reject him to be born because otherwise, some people couldn't have families..
Yes it does.
Tell that to children slaughtered for the iniquity of their fathers (Isaiah 14:21). And to Eli's descendants (1 Samuel 3:12-13).
The innocents need not fear God’s wrath for they are without blame or need for judgment.
There are no innocents according to the Bible. Your warm and fuzzy feelings about reunions in heaven aside.
“Jesus called a little child to him and put the child among them. Then he said, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you turn from your sins and become like little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven. So anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.’”
Except the little children that are cursed in the name of God (2 Kings 2:23-24).
Christ also indicated how severely those that cause the children (the little ones) to fall into sin would be judged. The children are lead into sin and out of innocence. Further, the primary attributes of God (justice, love, grace and mercy) don’t jive together if the innocents are separated eternally from him after their death.
Let me remind Jesus of Psalm 137:9: "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!"
The moment we entertain the notion of what “God needs” we’re in error.
Yes, I can and it begins with a faithful journey to him as outlined in scripture. You come to God on his terms and not your own. Refuse to do so and you remain in ignorance of him.
Yes, yes... we get it. Believe first and then you can be given proof. How's that not putting the cart before the horse?
So essentially you’re generalizing my entire argument and labeling it a “non sequitor” because it doesn’t agree with your worldview and presuppositions. That isn’t a non sequitor……that’s what I call “fallacy shopping”. Don’t like a premise so you go shopping for a logical fallacy that can be forced upon it.
You asked me to highlight the logical fallacies in your argument. I did. Don't complain.
“We’re out of peanut butter because I wanted a sandwich today.” That’s a non sequitor.
That's a non-sequitur, yes. That slapping a police officer might mean jail, therefore "slapping" God means eternal punishment is also a non-sequitur.
Once again the “fallacy shopping” because my worldview and presuppositions don’t agree with yours you call “logical fallacy”. Not the case.
NO. This has nothing to do with worldviews and presuppositions. You assume the very thing that you are trying to prove. This is a logical fallacy. You may not like this, but it is.
There is nothing unclear about what I presented because you fully grasp it. As I explained the “slap” is an example of an offense or a breaking of a law. Law breaking can occur by humanity in the finite and infinite.
What does it mean to break the law in the infinite?
Scripture relates to God in anthropomorphic language whereby we humanize him. We can adjust our examples to include God as he relates to our situation in a similar manner.
In other words, we anthropomorphize God when it's convenient and we don't when it's not.
That’s a lot of absolute statements about God from a man that has absolutely no personal experience or relationship with God.
Well then, you, who do have a relationship with God, should be able to quickly and conclusively disprove every single one of those statements...
-
Could God write a post so long that He couldn't answer it?
-
Could God write a post so long that He couldn't answer it?
Haha! ;D
-
Book written during a coarse of 1500 years and was completed 1700 years ago people are going to be skeptical, the bible states in end times it will be very difficult if not impossible for people to believe. For all the agnostic getbiggers if you don't want to believe don't and leave it at that , but if you choose to criticize you had better read it first before you try to debunk it
-
Book written during a coarse of 1500 years and was completed 1700 years ago people are going to be skeptical, the bible states in end times it will be very difficult if not impossible for people to believe. For all the agnostic getbiggers if you don't want to believe don't and leave it at that , but if you choose to criticize you had better read it first before you try to debunk it
Reading the bible is exactly what changed me from a troubled doubter to a convinced atheist.
-
Really? What part specifically?
-
Really? What part specifically?
Most likely from the first page to the last page. :D :D
-
Really? What part specifically?
Generally speaking, the inconsistencies, contradictions, immorality, and overwhelming improbabilities for starters. Scientific inaccuracies, childish silliness ...
Specifically? Well, Genesis was a biggie, and that was just under the cover. Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus ... f'n JOB for God's sake. Then there's Revelations - where do you even start with that one?
-
Lets say you work at a business.
The Boss, who no one has ever met, has put signs out that say=
"everyone who comes to my office, waits there till I arrive, and then agrees to my terms of employment, all those people will receive a promotion and a job forever...
...but anyone who does not seek me, or anyone who seeks me but gives up and leaves before they find me, or anyone who refuses my terms of employment; all such person will be fired at the end of the week"
Now, one day a man comes up to you and says: "hey, i sought out the boss, and eventually he showed up, and i met the guy, and hes great, and i agreed to his terms, and now im getting a promotion and a job forever! the signs he put up are true! you had better go look for him, or else youll get fired!"
But you say.... "BULL CRAP!!!!!!! no one has ever met the guy! theres no such thing as a Boss! this business was the result of random processes! and now you have the arrogance to tell me that if i dont agree to this imaginary persons terms, that im going to get fired! Get a life, MORON!
.......
:'(
but thats not even all of it.
not only does that happen... but several other people come up and testify to the same thing! the boss is real! the signs are true! they all agreed to the terms and are getting a promotion and a job forever!
and guess what else? nearly everyone who tells you this testimony, they all have a supernatural change of heart towards their job, towards their coworkers, towards their salary, all of it! its amazing! nothing else in the history of the company has ever effected people in this way!
but you still say..... BULL CRAP!!! It's all a big lie.
But why do you say that?
I think I know why.
It's because the Boss actually posted a list of his terms of employment on that letter.
And you hate his terms. He wants you to agree to surrender your entire life to Him.
He wants you to give up pornography, fornication, adultery, selfishness, self-righteousness, pride, ambition, and all of your hopes and dreams.
He wants you to die to yourself.
And thats something you absolutely refuse to do.
So you prefer to just tell yourself the guy doesnt exist.
The business is a product of random chance.
or maybe there is a Boss, and this guy is just a fraud and a phony.
either way, you aint accepting those terms of employment.
What if I told you I have met the "boss" and the boss is nothing like what you describe. What if I told you the boss said to me he/she only wants what is best for us and rather than punishing us in the afterlife for our sins, the boss forgives us our sins unconditionally.
-
What if I told you I have met the "boss" and the boss is nothing like what you describe. What if I told you the boss said to me he/she only wants what is best for us and rather than punishing us in the afterlife for our sins, the boss forgives us our sins unconditionally.
That would be to kind and good, the only way to improve things is servitude and overt slavery to a god we have to worship. He sent back his son to be killed to somehow absolve us of our sins. To bad he didn't suffer more, like some children in nazi germany, seems he got off light considering he knew he would not actually die.
-
Generally speaking, the inconsistencies, contradictions, immorality, and overwhelming improbabilities, for starters. Scientific inaccuracies, childish silliness ...
Specifically? Well, Genesis was a biggie, and that was just under the cover. Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus ... f'n JOB for God's sake. Then there's Revelations - where do you even start with that one?
if you actually read Leviticus and exodus and stayed attentive enough to comprehend all of it I am impressed. These are the only books I could not study , I wish I could but my attention span is terrible.
-
It all really comes down to this, some people are ok believing that we are nothing more than a complex organisms that happened by chance over billions of years. To me that seems so illogical, every object has a designer and for some reason I can't get it out of my head that after this life it's not the end, I just feel it in my soul, I by no means grew up religious but it really started to hit me when my first child was born and I'll believe till the day I die and I'll never judge you because you don't.
-
It all really comes down to this, some people are ok believing that we are nothing more than a complex organisms that happened by chance over billions of years. To me that seems so illogical, every object has a designer and for some reason I can't get it out of my head that after this life it's not the end, I just feel it in my soul, I by no means grew up religious but it really started to hit me when my first child was born and I'll believe till the day I die and I'll never judge you because you don't.
But it seems, to you, perfectly logical that the entity that could design all this didn't itself need a designer. Right? Do you not see the contradiction there?
-
That would be to kind and good, the only way to improve things is servitude and overt slavery to a god we have to worship. He sent back his son to be killed to somehow absolve us of our sins. To bad he didn't suffer more, like some children in nazi germany, seems he got off light considering he knew he would not actually die.
Well, get off lightly? Death is death, torture is torture, and he still was mortal There was a special I believe on Nat Geo, that he had to carry his approx 200 pound cross. Also flogged by a Roman flagrum (which can contain pieces of glass and bone).
Then crucified. He lasted 9 days correct? Most people last longer. Among other things, it is a horrible way to die.
-
It all really comes down to this, some people are ok believing that we are nothing more than a complex organisms that happened by chance over billions of years. To me that seems so illogical, every object has a designer and for some reason I can't get it out of my head that after this life it's not the end, I just feel it in my soul, I by no means grew up religious but it really started to hit me when my first child was born and I'll believe till the day I die and I'll never judge you because you don't.
But a supernatural explanation is logical? And even if evolutionists are wrong, why settle on Abraham's God?
Be honest, if you grew up in, say, Albania, do you think the bible would resonate with you as much as it has? Remove popular consensus and societal pressure, does it still seem like a reasonable explanation?
Keep in mind, about 1.6 billion Muslims (23% of the world's pop.) are equally convinced you will burn eternally for accepting Jesus (Thanks, Pascal). Does this keep you up at night?
-
When Jesus talked about the kindgom of god, the kingdom of heaven, he did not mean a post mortem realm but the essence of who you are in the present moment. He wanted people to wake up to the Divine in the here and now, to the transcendent and experience unity with the Father like he did. Church men bent on control over people changed things to a heaven after death of the body to which one can gain entry only if they accept Jesus the one and only saviour. Jesus and his teachings were hijacked by ignorant men.
BigRo,
It is cool that you know a verse from the Bible! I highly recommend reading more!
Jesus did say that The Kingdom of God is inside you!
He also said:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."
and
"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them."
If you have any questions, please feel free to send me a message or ask me in whatever you wish. I will do my best to answer for you.
-
Any examples of this otherworldly insight Jesus had, was it love thy neighbour? or was it turn the other cheek?
Just to point out, he was a man, there is no such thing as divine inspiration or enlightenment etc. It may be a brain state but it's not transcendent, humans cannot do this, like we cannot read minds or move objects with it. Everything you think you know about the afterlife, existence is coming from ordinary plain old humans, all trying to figure out what the fuck is going on.
Like you kundalini shit, it's kindling, it's been figured out, it's not energy or chakra's or anything of that nature. We know what it is, just like I know human's will lie, deceive and make up shit, we are after all just apes.
How do you know all of this ?
Where did you get this knowledge ?
-
(http://924jeremiah.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/351.jpg?w=630)
(http://pomomusings.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/jesus_is_almighty.jpeg)
-
BigRo,
It is cool that you know a verse from the Bible! I highly recommend reading more!
Jesus did say that The Kingdom of God is inside you!
He also said:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."
and
"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them."
If you have any questions, please feel free to send me a message or ask me in whatever you wish. I will do my best to answer for you.
Yes I know a few, I have a book of the parables of Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount. My Dad used to be a catholic priest. I even played Jesus in a stations of the cross play at the church!
Those two you quoted are not from Jesus though! At least they are not the words of an enlightened man. Christ is within us all as the source of our being. We do not need a middle man. Hell has no power of conviction over me, nor do I need an everlasting heaven in the afterlife. To be one with the ground of my own being is to be one with God and what more can one need. That is my life's inner process.
-
Doesn't it ever make you think when you consider how massive our universe really is?
nearest star ( besides the sun) = 4.3 light years or aprox 25 trillion miles from earth.
nearest galaxy ( besides our Milky Way) = 2.5 million lights yrs from earth or 15 million-trillion miles from earth
Those are the NEAREST celestial objects ( besides comets) outside our solar system!
How do you deal with the proof from the Hubble deep space images that the Universe is at least 14 billion yrs old?
FYI, this data is based on the light images collected on the Hubble lens.
It's basically like measuring how bright a light source is. It really is that clear and simple.
Oh, I've never seen the "creationists" come up with any proof that the Hubble universe dating is wrong.
Hey Howard.
I am glad to try to help you understand the "Creationist" perspective.
As for your question about the data collected from the hubble telescope, and trying to use that data to determine the "age of the universe"..
Well, there are various ways of interpreting the data.
For example.. does light always move at the same speed everywhere in the universe?
Has light always moved at the same speed throughout all time?
Are red shifts really a reliable measure of distance (empirical data says otherwise)?
But, those questions aside, there are ways in which "the universe" can be both 6,000 years old and 14 billion years old at the same time.
You see, time is relative.
Here is a great video on the subject (you can fast forward to the 16:45 mark)
Here are some good articles on the subject
http://creation.com/new-time-dilation-helps-creation-cosmology
http://creation.com/distant-starlight-and-genesis-conventions-of-time-measurement
http://creation.com/our-galaxy-is-the-centre-of-the-universe-quantized-redshifts-show
-
Yes I know a few, I have a book of the parables of Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount. My Dad used to be a catholic priest. I even played Jesus in a stations of the cross play at the church!
Those two you quoted are not from Jesus though! At least they are not the words of an enlightened man. Christ is within us all as the source of our being. We do not need a middle man. Hell has no power of conviction over me, nor do a need an everlasting heaven in the afterlife. To be one with the ground of my own being is to be one with God and what more can one need. That is my life's inner process.
I detect some Deepakish gobbledygook here.
-
What if I told you I have met the "boss" and the boss is nothing like what you describe. What if I told you the boss said to me he/she only wants what is best for us and rather than punishing us in the afterlife for our sins, the boss forgives us our sins unconditionally.
Hey Primemuscle.
Because of the fact that I already met the boss, and the boss already proved to me that He is the boss, I would know that you were either deceived or lying.
-
But it seems, to you, perfectly logical that the entity that could design all this didn't itself need a designer. Right? Do you not see the contradiction there?
The definition of God is "Eternal, uncreated, infinite Creator"
So, no, God does not need a designer.
(effects need a cause, God is not an effect)
-
Yes I know a few, I have a book of the parables of Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount. My Dad used to be a catholic priest. I even played Jesus in a stations of the cross play at the church!
Those two you quoted are not from Jesus though! At least they are not the words of an enlightened man. Christ is within us all as the source of our being. We do not need a middle man. Hell has no power of conviction over me, nor do a need an everlasting heaven in the afterlife. To be one with the ground of my own being is to be one with God and what more can one need. That is my life's inner process.
Those are your thoughts..
But what does Jesus say on the matter?
If you accept that Jesus said "The Kingdom of God is within you" because the Bible says He did..
Then on what basis do you reject the other things that the Bible says He said?
Remember, the men who wrote the New Testament all gave their lives as martyrs, and endured terrible, terrible suffering and torture, and lives as poor and hated men... these men only did so because they saw Jesus perform miracles, raise the dead, and conquer death! These men who wrote the New Testament, who recorded the words of Jesus, they were willing to suffer and die, and they did suffer and die, in order to preach the words that Jesus spoke! And now you have the audacity to say... you know more about what Jesus said and didnt say that those men knew? On what basis?
The problem here, BigRo, is that you are not a believer. Your ideas are the ideas of a sinful human being who does not have direct access to God, even though you think you do. Your eyes are shut, your ears are closed, your nose cannot smell. You are completely unable to understand the mystery of God.... why? Because your sins have separated you from Him, and because you do not have The Holy Spirit of God living inside of you.
But, BigRo, I am praying for you.
-
Hey Primemuscle.
Because of the fact that I already met the boss, and the boss already proved to me that He is the boss, I would know that you were either deceived or lying.
Did you see him, hear him, or just feel him?
-
My Dad used to be a catholic priest. I even played Jesus in a stations of the cross play at the church!
I believe it is a good thing that in some Catholic diocese priests can now be married. This change started in 1980 with Pope John Paul II and has moved slowly along when in 2009, Pope Benedict XVI took it a step further. One of the priests in our parish, St. Agatha, was a married man with children.
-
I believe it is a good thing that in some Catholic diocese priests can now be married. This change started in 1980 with Pope John Paul II and has moved slowly along when in 2009, Pope Benedict XVI took it a step further. One of the priests in our parish, St. Agatha, was a married man with children.
All well and good, but where are the altar boys gonna get their blowjobs now?
-
Not very christian to take it up the butt for money.
-
Say, how exactly does one sell his soul to the devil? I'm interested. If I ask for something simple - say, a nice house by the ocean, a cool car, and cash ... shouldn't this prove if the devil is real or not?
Someone help me set this up. Tbombz, Wiggs, etc.: What's an amateur satanist gotta do to get his soul sold? Do I need a crossroads, guitar, and special shoes? Or can I just do it here alone?
Dead fucking serious, Christians. Help a brother out.
-
All well and good, but where are the altar boys gonna get their blowjobs now?
Your handle suits you.
I know you are just trying to be funny, but how do you know that it isn't the other way around?
-
Your handle suits you.
I know you are just trying to be funny, but how do you know that it isn't the other way around?
Other way how? The priests want the blowjobs? Whatever. But we both know closeted queers usually seek out dicks, not mouths.
-
Say, how exactly does one sell his soul to the devil? I'm interested. If I ask for something simple - say, a nice house by the ocean, a cool car, and cash ... shouldn't this prove if the devil is real or not?
Someone help me set this up. Tbombz, Wiggs, etc.: What's an amateur satanist gotta do to get his soul sold? Do I need a crossroads, guitar, and special shoes? Or can I just do it here alone?
Dead fucking serious, Christians. Help a brother out.
I suspect are not really serious here. I'm no expert, but my suspicion is that there is no devil. If you are an evil doer (which I am not saying you are), I'll bet your punishment happens in this life and not the afterlife, provided there is one (we are asked to take this on faith). I doubt wanting material things makes you a sinner, it is what your willing to do to get these things that determines whether you are a good person or not.
-
The definition of God is "Eternal, uncreated, infinite Creator"
So, no, God does not need a designer.
(effects need a cause, God is not an effect)
So the Universe needs a creator, but the creator doesn't because... why? Because your beliefs require it to be so?
I am glad to try to help you understand the "Creationist" perspective.
Something tells me I'm going to be regretting debating physics with an idiot...
As for your question about the data collected from the hubble telescope, and trying to use that data to determine the "age of the universe"..
Well, there are various ways of interpreting the data.
I'm regretting it already...
For example.. does light always move at the same speed everywhere in the universe?
Yes. Based on everything that we know, the speed of light is a fundamental property of the Universe and it is constant. If you have objective, observable evidence to the contrary, present them.
Has light always moved at the same speed throughout all time?
Yes. Based on everything that we know, the speed of light is a fundamental property of the Universe and it is constant. If you have objective, observable evidence to the contrary, present them.
Are red shifts really a reliable measure of distance (empirical data says otherwise)?
Yes. Based on everything that we know, Hubble's law is correct and redshift (which represents recession speed) can be used to measure distances.
But, those questions aside, there are ways in which "the universe" can be both 6,000 years old and 14 billion years old at the same time.
So... much... bullshit...
You see, time is relative.
Are you suggesting relativistic effects are in play? Do you have any objective, observable evidence?
-
The definition of God is "Eternal, uncreated, infinite Creator"
So, no, God does not need a designer.
(effects need a cause, God is not an effect)
Oh, how convenient. You just get to cross your arms, say this statement, and be done with it. No way to possibly debate such an asinine statement.
Failed logic.
-
Other way how? The priests want the blowjobs? Whatever. But we both know closeted queers usually seek out dicks, not mouths.
How many times does one have to explain that pedophiles are about having power over a child (usually because they lack the confidence to interact sexually with their peers). It has nothing to do with being gay. The gay folks I know find pedophilia just as despicable as most straight folks do. I say most because straight pedophilia is not at all uncommon.
Don't include me in your apparent lack on knowledge about these things. For your information many gays are "tops" exclusively, some "swing both ways" and some only bottom. Even some of the big muscular men you all so admire.
-
I suspect are not really serious here. I'm no expert, but my suspicion is that there is no devil. If you are an evil doer (which I am not saying you are), I'll bet your punishment happens in this life and not the afterlife, provided there is one (we are asked to take this on faith). I doubt wanting material things makes you a sinner, it is what your willing to do to get these things that determines whether you are a good person or not.
Thanks for all that; but, again, unrelated lecture. Doesn't help anyone with anything. If you can't help with the soul transaction, please move along.
-
How many times does one have to explain that pedophiles are about having power over a child (usually because they lack the confidence to interact sexually with their peers). It has nothing to do with being gay. The gay folks I know find pedophilia just as despicable as most straight folks do. I say most because straight pedophilia is not at all uncommon.
Don't include me in your apparent lack on knowledge about these things. For your information many gays are "tops" exclusively, some "swing both ways" and some only bottom. Even some of the big muscular men you all so admire.
Spare me the PC bullshit. How the fuck would you know it's about power? Why, then, not "power" over a prepubescent vagina instead, dummy? Always boys, huh, how f'n coincidental.
Like you could even judge it objectively. Queers always get so defensive with this shit.
-
Spare me the PC bullshit. How the fuck would you know it's about power? Why, then, not "power" over a prepubescent vagina instead, dummy? Always boys, huh, how f'n coincidental.
Like you could even judge it objectively. Queers always get so defensive with this shit.
1 in 3 girls and 1 in 5 boys will be sexually victiimized by the time they are 18 years of age.
Girls are sexually abused WAY more often than boys.
Ive seen WAY more girls sexually abused by men than I have seen boys sexually abused by men.
Finally, a meta-analysis of 22 American-based studies, those done with national samples as well as local or regional representative samples, suggested that 30-40% of girls and 13% of boys experience sexual abuse during childhood[12]. An international meta-analysis of 169 studies found that lifetime prevalence rates of sexual abuse for females is 25% and for males is 8%.
Gender. It is well known that many more girls than boys are the victims of sexual abuse. This statistic is confirmed regardless of the information that is used. Across different types of research—all reliable studies conclude that girls experience more sexual abuse than do boys. Studies have found that the percent of victims who are female range from 78% to 89%
-
1 in 3 girls and 1 in 5 boys will be sexually victiimized by the time they are 18 years of age.
Girls are sexually abused WAY more often than boys.
Ive seen WAY more girls sexually abused by men than I have seen boys sexually abused by men.
Finally, a meta-analysis of 22 American-based studies, those done with national samples as well as local or regional representative samples, suggested that 30-40% of girls and 13% of boys experience sexual abuse during childhood[12]. An international meta-analysis of 169 studies found that lifetime prevalence rates of sexual abuse for females is 25% and for males is 8%.
Gender. It is well known that many more girls than boys are the victims of sexual abuse. This statistic is confirmed regardless of the information that is used. Across different types of research—all reliable studies conclude that girls experience more sexual abuse than do boys. Studies have found that the percent of victims who are female range from 78% to 89%
Priests, bro.
-
Priests, bro.
Oh, sorry, I must have missed the priest part. Too focused on the basile thread lol ha
-
Jesus did say that The Kingdom of God is inside you!
Feels like a deep tissue massage only it's inside your ass!
-
Spare me the PC bullshit. How the fuck would you know it's about power? Why, then, not "power" over a prepubescent vagina instead, dummy? Always boys, huh, how f'n coincidental.
Like you could even judge it objectively. Queers always get so defensive with this shit.
Believe what you will. Statistics say otherwise. Often it is prepubescent vagina. You would know this if you did your homework before you posted.
"The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes."
"The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children."
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html)
-
Priests, bro.
Begs the question; Have you personally had bad experiences with Priests?
-
Those are your thoughts..
But what does Jesus say on the matter?
If you accept that Jesus said "The Kingdom of God is within you" because the Bible says He did..
Then on what basis do you reject the other things that the Bible says He said?
Remember, the men who wrote the New Testament all gave their lives as martyrs, and endured terrible, terrible suffering and torture, and lives as poor and hated men... these men only did so because they saw Jesus perform miracles, raise the dead, and conquer death! These men who wrote the New Testament, who recorded the words of Jesus, they were willing to suffer and die, and they did suffer and die, in order to preach the words that Jesus spoke! And now you have the audacity to say... you know more about what Jesus said and didnt say that those men knew? On what basis?
The problem here, BigRo, is that you are not a believer. Your ideas are the ideas of a sinful human being who does not have direct access to God, even though you think you do. Your eyes are shut, your ears are closed, your nose cannot smell. You are completely unable to understand the mystery of God.... why? Because your sins have separated you from Him, and because you do not have The Holy Spirit of God living inside of you.
But, BigRo, I am praying for you.
The praying for you part is almost condescending, kind of like how you imagine God to be towards someone who has no fear of hell.
My eyes ears and nose are working very well thank you. Your dogmatic mind is keeping you from communing with the holy spirit inside of you. "Open your heart Judas not your mind" you and your fellow born agains are stuck on believing in the right way rather than the opening of the spiritual heart which is full of faith and devotion to god and sees the divine as the living essence of manifest things not just those who believe the same script.
The gospels were not written by Jesus disciples. I don't accept some things from the bible because the bible says so, but because they ring true with me on a deeper level and have concordance with universal spiritual wisdom.
The realization of the kingdom of heaven and the "I am a sinner" mantra are not compatible. At some stage you will need to drop this mantra and know yourself to be a divine child of god, perfect and free.
-
Time for a little disclaimer: I am about to counter every single one of the Bible verses you quote with another Bible verse. This doesn't suggest that I accept the Bible - I do not. You, however, do. I am using these quotes to highlight that the book that you rely on is inconsistent and logically flawed.
We do not know anything about his nature.
Not necessarily and that's not the way I used it. I don't think you're dishonest; in fact, I know that your beliefs are genuine even if you cannot rationally justify them. That's all fine and dandy. The problem is that you try to justify your beliefs by assertion. That's what I'm challenging.
And yet, he does. See Exodus 32:14: "So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people." Even if you want the King James version, the change is still there - God repents. In the New King James version God relents. So clearly, God changes. And this is but one example.
You are defining divine to mean to have the quality of God or to be God, but we don't know what God is, so we have no idea of what that quality is.
The “I am who I am” bit is a tautology and it's meaningless. You are you who you are. A rock is what it is is. It tells us nothing. You cite this is as having to do with divinity, but it tells us nothing.
Again, you are using circular reasoning: The Bible is true because it's the word of God, and it tells us that God's years shall have no end. But even if you ignore the circular reasoning, this tells us little.
Really? He was weary enough that he had to take a day off (Ex. 31:17).
Really? Exodus 15:11: "“Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods?" Also, Psalm 86:8: "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord."
Except when one is also three: 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." How is that possible? Who knows. But clearly there's more than one.
No more or less logical than the Biblical God at any rate...
Clouds don't balance - that statement is meaningless. This entire thing tells us nothing about omniscience. What's "perfect knowledge"? What does that even mean? I've asked you this before. Clearly it can't mean omniscience: Otherwise, why would God need to come down to Sodom and Gomorrah himself to see and know what was going on. (Gen. 18:20-21)? Or not know what the Israelites were up to when they "made princes" (Hos. 8:4)?
It's a pity you have things like Jude 4: "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation."
And let's not forget 2 Thes. 2:11-12: "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned."
So much for free will...
Your definitions were flawed or insufficient.
Sure - a substitution of words. But why is it irrational or impossible when the word is "pink unicorn" but somehow possible when the word is "god"? I'll tell you why: because you are allowing your belief to cloud your rational judgement.
Foreknowledge can be bening - there's nothing bad with foreknowledge. The problem - which you're failing to address - is how does inerrant foreknowledge co-exist with free will. The answer is that it does not. You can have one or the other. You CANNOT have both.
No, rationality is not subjective. If your presupposition is that God is real, that doesn't make God rational or real.
It's not benign to my choice. If God knows I'm going to choose to have pizza tonight and that knowledge is inerrant, I don't have any choice: it's pizza. I only have the illusion of choice.
And instead of providing clear and convincing evidence that he exists and that is, actually, his will, he requires a leap of faith long enough to qualify for the Ultra-Olympics!
I'm open to his will, if I can be convinced that (a) he exists and (b) that his will is what you claim it is.
You understand tautologies? If that's true, why say: "Total knowledge is total knowledge." That's a meaningless and completely vacuous statement. And, with respect, it's not something we're both doing.
I'm just allergic to bullshit.
If only scripture also didn't attest the opposite...
Through the scripture - so how's that different from the previous point.
When you can provide observable, quantifiable evidence that the Holy Spirit spirit exists and indwells believes me know.
If we have a proclivity to sin, to punish us for it is immoral and unjust.
Great - there's not argument there. You have had a direct, personal revelation. That's perfectly fine and, in fact, logically unassailable. But only when it comes to your belief; that direct personal revelation you had is meaningless to anyone other than you. For all we know, you're hearing voices.
Wow... you're like a fucking politician! What an argument... God allows people who he knows will reject him to be born because otherwise, some people couldn't have families..
Tell that to children slaughtered for the iniquity of their fathers (Isaiah 14:21). And to Eli's descendants (1 Samuel 3:12-13).
There are no innocents according to the Bible. Your warm and fuzzy feelings about reunions in heaven aside.
Except the little children that are cursed in the name of God (2 Kings 2:23-24).
Let me remind Jesus of Psalm 137:9: "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!"
The moment we entertain the notion of what “God needs” we’re in error.
Yes, yes... we get it. Believe first and then you can be given proof. How's that not putting the cart before the horse?
You asked me to highlight the logical fallacies in your argument. I did. Don't complain.
That's a non-sequitur, yes. That slapping a police officer might mean jail, therefore "slapping" God means eternal punishment is also a non-sequitur.
NO. This has nothing to do with worldviews and presuppositions. You assume the very thing that you are trying to prove. This is a logical fallacy. You may not like this, but it is.
What does it mean to break the law in the infinite?
In other words, we anthropomorphize God when it's convenient and we don't when it's not.
Well then, you, who do have a relationship with God, should be able to quickly and conclusively disprove every single one of those statements...
Thanks for the reply and yes I will reply back. I don't post much (if at all) on the weekends so when I free up I'll dive in.
-
The praying for you part is almost condescending, kind of like how you imagine God to be towards someone who has no fear of hell.
My eyes ears and nose are working very well thank you. Your dogmatic mind is keeping you from communing with the holy spirit inside of you. "Open your heart Judas not your mind" you and your fellow born agains are stuck on believing in the right way rather than the opening of the spiritual heart which is full of faith and devotion to god and sees the divine as the living essence of manifest things not just those who believe the same script.
The gospels were not written by Jesus disciples. I don't accept some things from the bible because the bible says so, but because they ring true with me on a deeper level and have concordance with universal spiritual wisdom.
The realization of the kingdom of heaven and the "I am a sinner" mantra are not compatible. At some stage you will need to drop this mantra and know yourself to be a divine child of god, perfect and free.
Tbombz is so far gone, there is no bringing him back to reality. When talking to MOS, you can still sense a shred of common sense and willing to admit when he is wrong. Not Tbombz. He still carries the same exact arrogance as he did both pre and post-bunny suit shenanigans. He was arrogant about a lot of things, including unprotected, promiscuous sex, and look what happened to him. He continues to be arrogant, now its just related to religion. Tbombz has always had this way about him (thinking he is better than everyone). Unfortunately, now its mixed with crazy religious stuff.
-
Tbombz is so far gone, there is no bringing him back to reality. When talking to MOS, you can still sense a shred of common sense and willing to admit when he is wrong. Not Tbombz. He still carries the same exact arrogance as he did both pre and post-bunny suit shenanigans. He was arrogant about a lot of things, including unprotected, promiscuous sex, and look what happened to him. He continues to be arrogant, now its just related to religion. Tbombz has always had this way about him (thinking he is better than everyone). Unfortunately, now its mixed with crazy religious stuff.
X2. One extreme to the other with the exact same mind set. The boy hasn't learned a damn thing.
-
X2. One extreme to the other with the exact same mind set. The boy hasn't learned a damn thing.
Tbombz will never learn a middle ground with anything. Its "ALL-OR-NOTHING." He will be like this his entire life.
Unfortunately, people like MOS keep this type of behavior going with Tbombz. Instead of taking an objective view of the matter, he is supporting Tbombz continued arrogance. In my opinion, its not Tbombz spreading his "faith," its arrogance. It oozes out of very pore. That is why people react differently to MOS than they do to Tbombz. Tbombz has this sense about him, and while MOS and Tbombz both hold similar viewpoints, Tbombz comes off as condescending, as he always has. That is why he gets a continued reaction from just about everyone here. I hope MOS can talk to him about this. I surmise that arrogance and scripture do not go hand-in-hand.
-
Imho T should become either a Quaker or an Amish. I could see him raising a barn.
I always liked that scene. Makes me feel like raising a barn. And everybody'd be all "Dayum, look at dat English raise dat barn. Hey English, you sure this is is yur first barn raising?"
-
TBombz, let me first say I sincerely respect your new found faith and direction for your life.
No doubt we both agree your "past lifestyle" was headed no where. Granted, I may do some good natured clowning about some of your past antics , but I'm glad you're headed in a more meaningful direction.
But, with all due respect, your attempt to use some creationist mumbo jumbo to debate proven physics, is pointless. Our disagreements on the origins of the Universe or how to worship GOD, don't matter.
What does matter is, YOU , decided to move in a more meaningful and positive direction with your life.
God bless you Taylor. All the best to stay the course in your new vocation.
=tbombz link=topic=572405.msg8094421#msg8094421 date=1434325583]
Hey Howard.
I am glad to try to help you understand the "Creationist" perspective.
As for your question about the data collected from the hubble telescope, and trying to use that data to determine the "age of the universe"..
Well, there are various ways of interpreting the data.
For example.. does light always move at the same speed everywhere in the universe?
Has light always moved at the same speed throughout all time?
Are red shifts really a reliable measure of distance (empirical data says otherwise)?
But, those questions aside, there are ways in which "the universe" can be both 6,000 years old and 14 billion years old at the same time.
You see, time is relative.
Here is a great video on the subject (you can fast forward to the 16:45 mark)
Here are some good articles on the subject
http://creation.com/new-time-dilation-helps-creation-cosmology
http://creation.com/distant-starlight-and-genesis-conventions-of-time-measurement
http://creation.com/our-galaxy-is-the-centre-of-the-universe-quantized-redshifts-show
[/quote]
-
TBombz, let me first say I sincerely respect your new found faith and direction for your life.
No doubt we both agree your "past lifestyle" was headed no where. Granted, I may do some good natured clowning about some of your past antics , but I'm glad you're headed in a more meaningful direction.
But, with all due respect, your attempt to use some creationist mumbo jumbo to debate proven physics, is pointless. Our disagreements on the origins of the Universe or how to worship GOD, don't matter.
What does matter is, YOU , decided to move in a more meaningful and positive direction with your life.
God bless you Taylor. All the best to stay the course in your new vocation.
=tbombz link=topic=572405.msg8094421#msg8094421 date=1434325583]
Hey Howard.
I am glad to try to help you understand the "Creationist" perspective.
As for your question about the data collected from the hubble telescope, and trying to use that data to determine the "age of the universe"..
Well, there are various ways of interpreting the data.
For example.. does light always move at the same speed everywhere in the universe?
Has light always moved at the same speed throughout all time?
Are red shifts really a reliable measure of distance (empirical data says otherwise)?
But, those questions aside, there are ways in which "the universe" can be both 6,000 years old and 14 billion years old at the same time.
You see, time is relative.
Here is a great video on the subject (you can fast forward to the 16:45 mark)
Here are some good articles on the subject
http://creation.com/new-time-dilation-helps-creation-cosmology
http://creation.com/distant-starlight-and-genesis-conventions-of-time-measurement
http://creation.com/our-galaxy-is-the-centre-of-the-universe-quantized-redshifts-show
Youre just trying to get on his good side, in hopes that he will send you some unpublished pictures of him in a bunny costume.
-
Tbombz will never learn a middle ground with anything. Its "ALL-OR-NOTHING." He will be like this his entire life.
Unfortunately, people like MOS keep this type of behavior going with Tbombz. Instead of taking an objective view of the matter, he is supporting Tbombz continued arrogance. In my opinion, its not Tbombz spreading his "faith," its arrogance. It oozes out of very pore. That is why people react differently to MOS than they do to Tbombz. Tbombz has this sense about him, and while MOS and Tbombz both hold similar viewpoints, Tbombz comes off as condescending, as he always has. That is why he gets a continued reaction from just about everyone here. I hope MOS can talk to him about this. I surmise that arrogance and scripture do not go hand-in-hand.
TBOMBZ may not use the same moderate reasoning on life decisions that most here take for granted.
But, he's finished his under grad degree now and headed for the seminary with more meaningful life.
Much as we love the bunny pics and story, being a men's carrot receptacle was no kind of life ;D
-
Youre just trying to get on his good side, in hopes that he will send you some unpublished pictures of him in a bunny costume.
what? I'm the only getbigger with hopes of that happening? ;D
-
TBOMBZ may not use the same moderate reasoning on life decisions that most here take for granted.
But, he's finished his under grad degree now and headed for the seminary with more meaningful life.
Much as we love the bunny pics and story, being a men's carrot receptacle was no kind of life ;D
All good, but it still doesn't take away from his arrogance. This has not changed, nor will it ever change.
I mean, I think most people have a sense of arrogance when they debate. Always thinking they are right. But Tbombz takes it to a whole other level. I mean, look at him trying to justify his unprotected, promiscuous lifestyle. And, look at the result. A result of arrogance.
-
Tbombz will never learn a middle ground with anything. Its "ALL-OR-NOTHING." He will be like this his entire life.
Unfortunately, people like MOS keep this type of behavior going with Tbombz. Instead of taking an objective view of the matter, he is supporting Tbombz continued arrogance. In my opinion, its not Tbombz spreading his "faith," its arrogance. It oozes out of very pore. That is why people react differently to MOS than they do to Tbombz. Tbombz has this sense about him, and while MOS and Tbombz both hold similar viewpoints, Tbombz comes off as condescending, as he always has. That is why he gets a continued reaction from just about everyone here. I hope MOS can talk to him about this. I surmise that arrogance and scripture do not go hand-in-hand.
I get what you're saying and from your chair I can see how easily it could be perceived as such.
It's kinda like, "two years ago he was adamant about how it was fine to engage in this or that, but today he's found God and now's he's adamant that those same things are absolutely wrong to do. He preached to me as an unbeliever and now he's still preaching to me as a believer."
What I see is that some folks only focus on the fact that he's "still adamant", but very little on "why he's adamant yet changed today".
Most will just say, "duh, he found God." Ok fine, but what does that mean? What happened? What changed? Those questions aren't being asked.
What I find is that folks that desire to know more about God pursue those types of questions. Those that are atheist tend to dismiss those questions immediately because they find them rather meaningless. You might find an atheist who will entertain the answers, but it's pretty rare. Yet, the answers to those questions are the crux of the discussion.
-
I get what you're saying and from your chair I can see how easily it could be perceived as such.
It's kinda like, "two years ago he was adamant about how it was fine to engage in this or that, but today he's found God and now's he's adamant that those same things are absolutely wrong to do. He preached to me as an unbeliever and now he's still preaching to me as a believer."
What I see is that some folks only focus on the fact that he's "still adamant", but very little on "why he's adamant yet changed today".
Most will just say, "duh, he found God." Ok fine, but what does that mean? What happened? What changed? Those questions aren't being asked.
What I find is that folks that desire to know more about God pursue those types of questions. Those that are atheist tend to dismiss those questions immediately because they find them rather meaningless. You might find an atheist who will entertain the answers, but it's pretty rare. Yet, the answers to those questions are the crux of the discussion.
This has absolutely nothing to do with finding God. This is about Tbombz personality. Who he is, independent of religion.
As you know, you can be a theist and still be a condescending, pompous asshole. Trust me, there are many of them out there. Tbombz is one of them.
If I was going to entertain the idea of a God existing, I would NOT go to someone like Tbombz because of his personality. Id go to someone like you.
Again, this has nothing to do with his religion. Its more about Tbombz personality.
I am sorry that you cannot see the difference. One's religious faith does not always dictate one's personality. As I stated previously, you can be a theist and still be very condescending and arrogant. This is Tbombz.
-
Other way how? The priests want the blowjobs? Whatever. But we both know closeted queers usually seek out dicks, not mouths.
To blow or be blown...that is the question many getbiggers ponder. :D
-
All good, but it still doesn't take away from his arrogance. This has not changed, nor will it ever change.
I mean, I think most people have a sense of arrogance when they debate. Always thinking they are right. But Tbombz takes it to a whole other level. I mean, look at him trying to justify his unprotected, promiscuous lifestyle. And, look at the result. A result of arrogance.
Fair enough and I don't disagree with your main pt here.
I'm just looking at the practical , daily lifestyle when it comes to TBOMBZ.
I don't care WHAT drove him out of the bunny suit.
The ONLY thing that matters is his life is headed into a more positive direction.
-
pun intended? ^^
-
This has absolutely nothing to do with finding God. This is about Tbombz personality. Who he is, independent of religion.
As you know, you can be a theist and still be a condescending, pompous asshole. Trust me, there are many of them out there. Tbombz is one of them.
If I was going to entertain the idea of a God existing, I would NOT go to someone like Tbombz because of his personality. Id go to someone like you.
Again, this has nothing to do with his religion. Its more about Tbombz personality.
I am sorry that you cannot see the difference. One's religious faith does not always dictate one's personality. As I stated previously, you can be a theist and still be very condescending and arrogant. This is Tbombz.
I hear you....I do.
The thing is that before God performed a wondeful work in Taylor's life he admits that he denied Christ and he lived according to his own terms only. Today he boasts only in Christ and goes forth confidently from that place.
Problem is you don't make a distinction between his former selfish arrogance and his confidence in Christ today. He stands on a platform of sharing Christ today and uses his former self as an example of what not to do. Although the standard of "what not to do" isn't grounded in Taylor.....it's grounded in Christ.
I get that you're trying to link his past and present together while removing God via a claim of "this has absolutely nothing to do with finding God" and concentrating on he's still a "condescending, pompous asshole". He used to live in sin, but he now chooses to turn from that sin and live according to Christ's will for his life and thereby affirms the teachings of Christ. Because he speaks out against engaging in various sin just a Christ did and as Christ called his church to do Taylor is labeled as unchanged in personality. The "condescending, pompous asshole" label just doesn't fit anymore.
Now, will you agree with anything I just posted? No LOL.
-
on those grounds are all evangelicals exempt from curtailing their arrogance as it can now be justified as sharing from the platform of Christ? Its just spiritual passion now trying to save the heathens like myself.
-
I hear you....I do.
The thing is that before God performed a wondeful work in Taylor's life he admits that he denied Christ and he lived according to his own terms only. Today he boasts only in Christ and goes forth confidently from that place.
Problem is you don't make a distinction between his former selfish arrogance and his confidence in Christ today. He stands on a platform of sharing Christ today and uses his former self as an example of what not to do. Although the standard of "what not to do" isn't grounded in Taylor.....it's grounded in Christ.
I get that you're trying to link his past and present together while removing God via a claim of "this has absolutely nothing to do with finding God" and concentrating on he's still a "condescending, pompous asshole". He used to live in sin, but he now chooses to turn from that sin and live according to Christ's will for his life and thereby affirms the teachings of Christ. Because he speaks out against engaging in various sin just a Christ did and as Christ called his church to do Taylor is labeled as unchanged in personality. The "condescending, pompous asshole" label just doesn't fit anymore.
Now, will you agree with anything I just posted? No LOL.
I agree with this bit...
-
There are atheist who strive for perfection because they ve been raised to do so, they eliminated the competition and rose to the highest, most powerful places in society, they re highly valuable , contribute a lot , are role models, and ...they dont believe in any god.
And there are despicable, hypocritical , lying "believers" who only contribute to society by claiming constantly they re holier than everyone else.
Fact is, there is no need for religion and the belief in a god to become useful in society, for for your species. All depends of your education, and education can create strong individuals without including the reference to any god.
In fact all that matter is to be a better competitor than others to survive and dominate , have a better preparation and more luck than others. This is what actually decides of your place in the social ladder, also known as the food chain. No need for any god.
It s not the most religious families who produce the most important, rarest, ideolized individuals, its the toughest, most pernicious and willing to do it all to survive families who produce them. And more often than not, there is nothing godly in the way they rose to power in their society/species.
The biggest , smartest, fastest assholes get the most fun, while the weaker individuals have to submit to them hoping to one day rise to their level. Most only want their protection.
There is no need to believe in a god to become dominant, it all depends of your education. Any kind of efficient education, that molds a kid to become the biggest manipulative asshole, is all that is needed to get there. No need for any god to raise a superior offspring that will dominate. Just teach it how to kill instead of being killed.
-
I hear you....I do.
The thing is that before God performed a wondeful work in Taylor's life he admits that he denied Christ and he lived according to his own terms only. Today he boasts only in Christ and goes forth confidently from that place.
Problem is you don't make a distinction between his former selfish arrogance and his confidence in Christ today. He stands on a platform of sharing Christ today and uses his former self as an example of what not to do. Although the standard of "what not to do" isn't grounded in Taylor.....it's grounded in Christ.
I get that you're trying to link his past and present together while removing God via a claim of "this has absolutely nothing to do with finding God" and concentrating on he's still a "condescending, pompous asshole". He used to live in sin, but he now chooses to turn from that sin and live according to Christ's will for his life and thereby affirms the teachings of Christ. Because he speaks out against engaging in various sin just a Christ did and as Christ called his church to do Taylor is labeled as unchanged in personality. The "condescending, pompous asshole" label just doesn't fit anymore.
Now, will you agree with anything I just posted? No LOL.
Nope, I will not agree with anything you're saying because its simply not true (in my opinion).
Yes, the label still does fit. Again, one can "boast" about God without sounding condescending and pompous. There is something about Tbombz that just comes off this way. This behavior has been consistent in the past and present. Many people on here feel it. In fact, if you read Tbombz facebook, others have called him out also (friends and family). When you have this many people experiencing the same behavior, both past and present, its time to re-evaluate how you go about approaching people about ANY topic. There is always room for improvement regarding how we relate to others. If you're saying that Tbombz is 100% perfect in how he relates to others, then you're deluded. That does not apply to anyone, even those who find Christ. We can all improve the way we relate to others. For Tbombz, its not coming off as condescending and pompous. One can sound condescending and pompous, despite still engaging in good deeds. Tbombz has always had odd social skills about him, past and present.
MOS: "Hey, man, I sincerely desire that you find God in your life. I care about you."
Tbombz: "Youre going to burn in hell for all eternity. Even you so-called Christians are not Christians. I am right and you're wrong."
I think many people experience tbombz as this. I know I do.
Another example (vegan example):
Vegan 1: "Hey, I think eating a vegan diet is more healthy. Here is some of the research on it. Perhaps we can discuss it."
Vegan 2: "You're an asshole if you eat meat and youre going to die early. I hope you get cancer from eating all that meat. Plus, you hate animals."
If you can't tell the difference between the two examples I provided, then you're as misguided about Tbombz. Again, its how you go about any topic!!
-
Begs the question; Have you personally had bad experiences with Priests?
Fucking brilliant. Because only molested altar boys are aware of the front page priests scandal.
Once again, well done.
-
;D I could really do with an answer here too, i've been wanting an Omega Seamaster really badly now for a few weeks, after feeling humiliated, emasculated and ridiculed upon viewing the numerous watch threads here. I'm an animal lover so i'm not willing to sacrifice a goat, but I suppose i'd be willing to flick the devil horns at an OAP or set fire to a church or something. Christians...any tips?
Devil is involved in every earthly affair, tempting and tricking left and right, can't get away from the fucker. But come to him with a little business proposition, he's ass and elbows.
-
Devil is involved in every earthly affair, tempting and tricking left and right, can't get away from the fucker. But come to him with a little business proposition, he's ass and elbows.
I think explains it well...
-
I think explains it well...
:)
-
Tbombz once tried to traverse Meinong's jungle, but got distracted by a troop of bonobos atop of Porphyry's tree before finally mounting Buridan's ass.
Gentlemen, you're spinning your wheels. First, it is accepted that the Love of Christ should recognize no bounds. Even Judas, vilified for centuries, loved Christ so much that he alone among the disciples took on the burden of necessary betrayal. So, the issue at hand naturally leads us to an attempted resolution of the seemingly impossible and most unpleasant. I'm speaking, of course, of the Assbunny Paradox, which is formally presented as a Y/N interrogative. Quaestio: Will Tbombz assfuck for Christ? If the answer is 'No,' his love is not genuine because it recognizes limits (a violation of Matthew 22:37); if the answer is 'Yes,' his love for Christ is not genuine because it violates His laws (Romans 1:26). Neither Godel nor Tarski nor Von Neumann nor Ricky Martin could resolve this perplexing conundrum. Poor pAsstor Tbombz.
-
Tbombz once tried to traverse Meinong's jungle, but got distracted by a troop of bonobos atop of Porphyry's tree before finally mounting Buridan's ass.
Gentlemen, you're spinning your wheels. First, it is accepted that the Love of Christ should recognize no bounds. Even Judas, vilified for centuries, loved Christ so much that he alone among the disciples took on the burden of necessary betrayal. So, the issue at hand naturally leads us to an attempted resolution of the seemingly impossible and most unpleasant. I'm speaking, of course, of the Assbunny Paradox, which is formally presented as a Y/N interrogative. Quaestio: Will Tbombz assfuck for Christ? If the answer is 'No,' his love is not genuine because it recognizes limits (a violation of Matthew 22:37); if the answer is 'Yes,' his love for Christ is not genuine because it violates His laws (Romans 1:26). Neither Godel nor Tarski nor Von Neumann nor Ricky Martin could resolve this perplexing conundrum. Poor pAsstor Tbombz.
Interesting food for thought there.
TBombz is doomed, be he ass MASTER or ass BLASTER.
Such is the ying and yang of life on getbig.
-
The praying for you part is almost condescending, kind of like how you imagine God to be towards someone who has no fear of hell.
My eyes ears and nose are working very well thank you. Your dogmatic mind is keeping you from communing with the holy spirit inside of you. "Open your heart Judas not your mind" you and your fellow born agains are stuck on believing in the right way rather than the opening of the spiritual heart which is full of faith and devotion to god and sees the divine as the living essence of manifest things not just those who believe the same script.
The gospels were not written by Jesus disciples. I don't accept some things from the bible because the bible says so, but because they ring true with me on a deeper level and have concordance with universal spiritual wisdom.
The realization of the kingdom of heaven and the "I am a sinner" mantra are not compatible. At some stage you will need to drop this mantra and know yourself to be a divine child of god, perfect and free.
What you are saying to me is this:
"I accept as truth only those things which tickle the fancy of my sinful heart"
If your god never disagrees with you, then you are only worshiping an idealized version of yourself.
-
Did you see him, hear him, or just feel him?
I saw God, I heard God, I felt God.
Even more, I experienced God!
:)
-
I saw God, I heard God, I felt God.
Even more, I experienced God!
:)
Please describe His appearance.
-
I saw God, I heard God, I felt God.
Even more, I experienced God!
:)
And it felt SOOOOOO good!!!!
-
So the Universe needs a creator, but the creator doesn't because... why? Because your beliefs require it to be so?
The definition of God is "uncreated, eternal, Creator". If you do not understand why God does not need a creator, then you do not understand the definition of God.
Yes. Based on everything that we know, the speed of light is a fundamental property of the Universe and it is constant. If you have objective, observable evidence to the contrary, present them.
Here is what you are saying "because, in our limited, human, finite, fallible experience, we have only as of yet witnessed XYZ, then it is true to claim that XYZ is an eternal, universal, infinite, infallible constant.
but that's completely absurd.
Yes. Based on everything that we know, Hubble's law is correct and redshift (which represents recession speed) can be used to measure distances.
I do not care much for debates about science. they are rather fruitless. however,
http://creation.com/quasar-with-enormous-redshift-found-embedded-in-nearby-spiral-galaxy-with-far-lower-redshift
Are you suggesting relativistic effects are in play? Do you have any objective, observable evidence?
dude... i posted a video on this subject.
-
Please describe His appearance.
It is outside of my ability to describe.
Sorry.
-
how is it possible, to not be able to describe something you have seen and felt?
x2. Such a load of shit.
He says he experienced and felt something, yet can't describe what it is. Oh brotha.
-
x2. Such a load of shit.
He says he experienced and felt something, yet can't describe what it is. Oh brotha.
This pastor does a pretty good job answering that question ;)
-
This pastor does a pretty good job answering that question ;)
If there is such thing as an alien race, and they are reading this thread, the aliens will think MOS and Tbombz (more Tbombz) are a bunch of nuts lol.
Alien 1: "Maybe we should visit earth."
Alien 2: "I am rather curious about the human race."
Alien 3: "Did you see the religious thread on getbig?"
Alien 2: "No, why?
Alien 3: "Well, there are these two crazy religious people, MOS and Tbombz. Wow, they are really out there."
Alien 1: "I just read that thread. If everyone is crazy as those two, there is no point of visiting the humans."
-
It is outside of my ability to describe.
Sorry.
T, you had this experience it changed you.
I believe you felt something and are doing your best to describe it.
Fair or not most here will ridicule you regardless of how sincere you are.
My advice is to have fun on getbig and avoid serious debates, especially those of a personal nature.
-
If there is such thing as an alien race, and they are reading this thread, the aliens will think MOS and Tbombz (more Tbombz) are a bunch of nuts lol.
Alien 1: "Maybe we should visit earth."
Alien 2: "I am rather curious about the human race."
Alien 3: "Did you see the religious thread on getbig?"
Alien 2: "No, why?
Alien 3: "Well, there are these two crazy religious people, MOS and Tbombz. Wow, they are really out there."
Alien 1: "I just read that thread. If everyone is crazy as those two, there is no point of visiting the humans."
I tend to like a good joke and posted the farting pastor video and other goofy stuff.
BUT, I don't think it serves any sensible purpose to call someone of faith, crazy or stupid.
I enjoy the freedom to NOT belong to any religion.
BUT, I try to respect those that think differently as a condition of that freedom.
-
I tend to like a good joke and posted the farting pastor video and other goofy stuff.
BUT, I don't think it serves any sensible purpose to call someone of faith, crazy or stupid.
I enjoy the freedom to NOT belong to any religion.
BUT, I try to respect those that think differently as a condition of that freedom.
Why not? Religion is constantly making its way into classrooms, laws, policies, regulations, etc. It needs to be mocked and ridiculed. When they stop trying to imbue their religious doctrine in every facet of life, I will still ridiculing them. Plain and simple.
-
Why not? Religion is constantly making its way into classrooms, laws, policies, regulations, etc. It needs to be mocked and ridiculed. When they stop trying to imbue their religious doctrine in every facet of life, I will still ridiculing them. Plain and simple.
Well said Sir!
-
Well said Sir!
Thank you! :D :D
-
It is outside of my ability to describe.
Sorry.
Of course it is. Didn't see that coming at all.
-
Why not? Religion is constantly making its way into classrooms, laws, policies, regulations, etc. It needs to be mocked and ridiculed. When they stop trying to imbue their religious doctrine in every facet of life, I will still ridiculing them. Plain and simple.
Exactly.
I think everyone should be able to "worship", but keep that non-sense witchcraft bullshit out of my daily life.
Let people believe what they want.
Religion is the plague IMO. Oh well, whatever makes people feel better about their terrible past life and future death.
8)
-
Exactly.
I think everyone should be able to "worship", but keep that non-sense witchcraft bullshit out of my daily life.
Let people believe what they want.
Religion is the plague IMO. Oh well, whatever makes people feel better about their terrible past life and future death.
8)
I agree with you and don't want organized religion shoved down my throat either.
BUT...
Nobody will listen and receive, if you constantly tell them their stupid and crazy.
How effective are the bible thumpers when they declare that all us heathens are going straight to hell ;)
-
I agree with you and don't want organized religion shoved down my throat either.
BUT...
Nobody will listen and receive, if you constantly tell them their stupid and crazy.
How effective are the bible thumpers when they declare that all us heathens are going straight to hell ;)
Doesn't matter if they are effective or not. Fact of the matter is that there is a chance eventually they will be successful. They want to make America into a Theocracy.
-
Doesn't matter if they are effective or not. Fact of the matter is that there is a chance eventually they will be successful. They want to make America into a Theocracy.
Yes and there is a chance these men will be considered the world's greatest athletes someday?
30 sec to 1:30 is a clear and obvious demonstration of the IFBB pros as great athletes. ;)
-
Yes and there is a chance these men will be considered the world's greatest athletes someday?
30 sec to 1:30 is a clear and obvious demonstration of the IFBB pros as great athletes. ;)
Its a chance Id rather not take, and until they keep their religion to themselves, they will continue to receive backlash from people.
-
Exactly.
I think everyone should be able to "worship", but keep that non-sense witchcraft bullshit out of my daily life.
Let people believe what they want.
Religion is the plague IMO. Oh well, whatever makes people feel better about their terrible past life and future death.
8)
60 Minutes' expose "Recruiting For ISIS"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/recruiting-for-isis-60-minutes-2/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/recruiting-for-isis-60-minutes-2/)
-
The definition of God is "uncreated, eternal, Creator". If you do not understand why God does not need a creator, then you do not understand the definition of God.
So everything requires a creator except the creator who doesn't because... you define him thusly? You know there's a word for that kind of thing, right? The word is "BULLSHIT!"
Here is what you are saying "because, in our limited, human, finite, fallible experience, we have only as of yet witnessed XYZ, then it is true to claim that XYZ is an eternal, universal, infinite, infallible constant.
but that's completely absurd.
No, what I'm saying is that based on all the information available to us and our best understanding, the speed of light is a fixed, unchanging property of the Universe. I'm open to this knowledge and understanding being wrong - this is part of what being a scientist and, more generally, a rational person is all about.
I do not care much for debates about science. they are rather fruitless. however,
You may not care, but those of us who see the world around us and the Universe at large as something that operates based on natural rules instead of supernatural fiat do care.
http://creation.com/quasar-with-enormous-redshift-found-embedded-in-nearby-spiral-galaxy-with-far-lower-redshift
I need to read the referenced paper, since creation.org can't be trusted - they've misrepresented legitimate scientific research and discoveries in the past. But let's assume that indeed this quasar is close by and has a redshift that we cannot explain. So what? All that would show is that we have more to learn about the Universe. And what's the problem with that?
And lest you forget, you can't explain the redshift AT ALL. Your only answer - to this and any other question - is "GODDIDIT" and that isn't really an answer at all.
dude... i posted a video on this subject.
I'm not interested in videos. If you want to discuss science, explain your position and, if necessary, provide links to reputable scientific publications containing further information. I am not going to waste time watching a video about relativistic effects by someone who, for all I know, didn't graduate from highschool.
-
What you are saying to me is this:
"I accept as truth only those things which tickle the fancy of my sinful heart"
If your god never disagrees with you, then you are only worshiping an idealized version of yourself.
no, that is what your hearing.
Human nature needs discipline but at our core we are without "sin"
I suppose you will never be at peace, on the one hand having raging homosexual feelings in your body and on the other wanting to be accepted in to Gods good graces.
-
no, that is what your hearing.
Human nature needs discipline but at our core we are without "sin"
I suppose you will never be at peace, on the one hand having raging homosexual feelings in your body and on the other wanting to be accepted in to Gods good graces.
Must be tough for tbombz, as he is most likely still attracted to men. How does he reconcile that with his belief in God? Must be tough for him.
-
Must be tough for tbombz, as he is most likely still attracted to men. How does he reconcile that with his belief in God? Must be tough for him.
Don't you worry about tbombz... Jesus is inside him, waiting for that bunny suit he ordered to get delivered. :-X
-
I saw God, I heard God.
Any believers want to weigh in here?
Saints, popes, Kirk Cameron - they don't even have balls like this. But we're just gonna pretend this goofball isn't a liar or nutjob. And then will get defensive when non-Christians mock us.
How the fuck can you not call him out on this?
-
I too have found, felt, heard Jesus, and he is amazing. My yard has never looked better. :D
-
I too have found, felt, heard NAVY MIKE, and he is amazing. My yard has never looked better. :D
fixed
-
fixed
(https://40.media.tumblr.com/c276fe90f9ac329892d3513b3833187e/tumblr_nhjpk5VGiN1sbazapo1_500.jpg)
-
Time for a little disclaimer: I am about to counter every single one of the Bible verses you quote with another Bible verse. This doesn't suggest that I accept the Bible - I do not. You, however, do. I am using these quotes to highlight that the book that you rely on is inconsistent and logically flawed.
That’s fine….I figured as much LOL! Again I’m entering this discussion with Christian love so I’ll do my level best not to come across or be insulting because that isn’t my intention.
Not necessarily and that's not the way I used it. I don't think you're dishonest; in fact, I know that your beliefs are genuine even if you cannot rationally justify them. That's all fine and dandy. The problem is that you try to justify your beliefs by assertion. That's what I'm challenging.
I appreciate that you don’t consider me dishonest.
My beliefs are grounded in Jesus Christ and scripture.
If I speak confidently it’s because I boast only in Christ. That doesn’t mean that I don’t make mistakes or learn new things though.
And yet, he does. See Exodus 32:14: "So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people." Even if you want the King James version, the change is still there - God repents. In the New King James version God relents. So clearly, God changes. And this is but one example.
No worries, I am unconcerned about the translation.
There are several verses that note the idea of God changing his mind, but this doesn’t negate the immutability of his nature….he remains who he is.
Those that belief in God and live for him are also in a relationship with him. When the Lord “changes his mind” in scripture he does this for the sake of relationship with his body of believers. He demonstrates that he acknowledges their will and choices. God “changes his mind” within the scope of our finite existence so that we may grow in knowledge of him and increase in fellowship and relationship with him. Was he already aware of this situation from his position of infinity? Yes he was.
Jeremiah 18:8 – “ if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.”
God will do what is just and correct and merciful and gracious. Within scripture he has demonstrated that he will “change his mind” once we first come to him in repentance.
You are defining divine to mean to have the quality of God or to be God, but we don't know what God is, so we have no idea of what that quality is.
Merriam-Webster dictionary: Divine - 1
a : of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god <divine love>
b : being a deity <the divine Savior>
c : directed to a deity <divine worship>
2
a : supremely good : superb <the pie was divine>
b : heavenly, godlike
— di•vine•ly adverb
So the nature of God is divinity….deity….supreme being….to be God.
God expresses that divine nature in a trinity of coequal, coeternal persons in Father, Son and Holy Spirit that serve different purposes. God the Father and the Holy Spirit are divine in nature and are without flesh and bone (they are spirit), while God the Son in Jesus Christ has a dual nature of both divinity and humanity. Humanity is the highest in God's creation and created with the image or qualities of God in that we can exhibit his love, grace, mercy, peace and judgment to one another. Christ left the divine and entered into humanity and gave us the perfect example of God's image imprinted upon humanity.
So for me to understand how we're created in God's image we must look to Christ first and examine how he lived his life.
Hebrews 1:1-3
1 Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets. 2 And now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son. God promised everything to the Son as an inheritance, and through the Son he created the universe. 3 The Son radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God, and he sustains everything by the mighty power of his command.
How does God’s nature function in a trinity? I can’t comprehend it fully.
The “I am who I am” bit is a tautology and it's meaningless. You are you who you are. A rock is what it is is. It tells us nothing. You cite this is as having to do with divinity, but it tells us nothing.
So we’ve defined “divine” above….great….a god.
“I am” is not tautology…..it is God’s eternal name as given to Moses. God’s church has given many names to God.
So again, God’s nature is divine…..he’s a god. So picking up where you left off in Exodus 3:14-15, God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel: Yahweh, the God of your ancestors—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you. This is my eternal name, my name to remember for all generations.“
Again, you are using circular reasoning: The Bible is true because it's the word of God, and it tells us that God's years shall have no end. But even if you ignore the circular reasoning, this tells us little.
The bible is true because it demonstrates the fulfillment of prophecy written hundreds and hundreds of years prior to the occurring of the prophetic event.
The bible is true because the risen Christ was attested to by many people and the apostles of Christ went to their deaths for him and today the Holy Spirit of God indwells believers.
In seeking to know God in my own life I have followed through according to God’s terms as outlined in scripture and in doing so have experienced the reality of him in my life. As I stated previously (, the promises of scripture continue to be fulfilled in me through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the process of sanctification, the process of becoming a new creature in Christ, the complete change of perception, the joy of fellowship and worship experienced by believers. I’ve experienced the love and goodness and God in my life. Because of these things I have faith that his promises for the future will also be fulfilled.
Really? He was weary enough that he had to take a day off (Ex. 31:17).
What is the greater context of that passage?
God expresses his desire for how man should work and used his creative efforts as the platform to describe that……6 days work and 1 day for rest and worship.
Did God actually “rest” or “become weary”? No. He merely ceased his creative efforts. The notion of “rest” is applied so that man can understand and relate. The language ascribes this action to God for that purpose.
Really? Exodus 15:11: "“Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods?" Also, Psalm 86:8: "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord."
These verses are actually affirmations of his uniqueness. They don’t affirm the existence of other gods though. Now, did man create all sorts of other gods? Yes….Baal, Molech, Asherah are examples. We already know this though.
Except when one is also three: 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." How is that possible? Who knows. But clearly there's more than one.
So now we’re diving into how God expresses his divine nature. As noted above this expression is also quantified with a count of three or a trinity in Father, Son and Spirit. Three expressions of his nature forming one God.
Clouds don't balance - that statement is meaningless.
The descriptive language can often be poetic in form. Although calling it meaningless doesn’t make it so.
This entire thing tells us nothing about omniscience. What's "perfect knowledge"? What does that even mean? I've asked you this before.
It’s total knowledge….all knowledge….complete knowledge.
Clearly it can't mean omniscience: Otherwise, why would God need to come down to Sodom and Gomorrah himself to see and know what was going on. (Gen. 18:20-21)? Or not know what the Israelites were up to when they "made princes" (Hos. 8:4)?
God engages with us for our benefit. Again the moment we ask why “God needs” we are in error. God interacts with his creation for the sake of the creation.
God often acts like a parent does with his child and helps lead that child to a specific conclusion or to teach a life lesson.
As far as Hosea 8:4 goes I’ve read the passage before of course, but honestly I neither remember the verse nor do I remember the surrounding context. I belief the crux will be the word “know”. I’ve learned about the use of “know” from the Greek, but don’t know if that is appropriate here. Gotta study that out a bit.
As far as Genesis 18:20-21, this is an unusual literary device used by Moses to setup up the exchange between God and Abraham. I hesitate to call it anthropomorphic language though, but it does still humanize God. It establishes God’s purposes for making a face-to-face encounter with Abraham (via the pre-incarnate Christ). We understand that God already knew because of verse 20 in which he states “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.” It’s the actual exchange between Abraham and God that follows which is the heart of the passage. Man pleads with God to show mercy and God responds in kind.
It's a pity you have things like Jude 4: "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation."
And let's not forget 2 Thes. 2:11-12: "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned."
So much for free will...
These passages don’t speak of a denial of free will. They speak of condemnation and punishment of the wicked.
Ok, so Jude 1:4, this verse and surrounding scripture deals with false teachers of the gospel. It’s actually more of a fulfillment of prophetic scripture. Christ warned of this behavior during his ministry in Matthew 7 when he spoke of the coming of false prophets. Even further back we see mention of false teachers outlined in Isaiah 8 written hundreds and hundreds of years before the gospel came to fruition. So the passage “of old ordained to this condemnation” does not speak of God predetermining (or forcing) these folks to engage in such behavior before time began, but it does reference that God has already condemned such actions in much earlier scripture.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, deals with the coming of the anti-Christ and those whom will follow him in lawlessness and direct defiance of God. You quote the verses 11 and 12 with no context and a text without a context is a just a pretext. Verses 11 and 12 deal with the judgment and punishment for those who align themselves with this “deception of wickedness”. As punishment for ignoring the truth of God and aligning themselves with the demonic, God gives them over to their wicked desires permanently. We already know that the unpardonable sin is blaspheming the Holy Spirit and the example given in scripture was attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to the demonic. That said there can be no alignment between God’s goodness and the evil of the demonic. What we see repeated in scripture is that once people have willfully chosen to align themselves with evil and the demonic (thereby coming into the fullness of their sin) that God pronounces judgment upon them in scripture.
What I’ve repeatedly asked others critical of God’s judgments (and who never answer) is why they feel so much compassion for the reprobate, the twisted evil of pharaoh, the pagan nations who sacrificed live babies and those who willfully aligned themselves with the evil of the demonic? They engage in this evil behavior and God pronounces judgment upon them and suddenly these critics begin shaking their fists at God and seemingly forget the horrific acts of these people.
Why is that?
Your definitions were flawed or insufficient.
I already knew you were aware of them and they aren’t changing so I didn’t bother posting them.
In the end it’s just your opinion and you have every right to it. Although calling something “flawed or insufficient” doesn’t make it so.
Sure - a substitution of words. But why is it irrational or impossible when the word is "pink unicorn" but somehow possible when the word is "god"? I'll tell you why: because you are allowing your belief to cloud your rational judgement.
I can lead you to God, but you can’t lead me to the pink unicorn.
You speak so confidently and often in absolutes on matters of faith and God yet have no experience whatsoever.
What makes your opinions on such matters so valuable? Your tone of voice? Your handwaving?
Foreknowledge can be bening - there's nothing bad with foreknowledge. The problem - which you're failing to address - is how does inerrant foreknowledge co-exist with free will. The answer is that it does not. You can have one or the other. You CANNOT have both.
You’re inventing a concept that isn’t there. Foreknowledge is a facet of total knowledge (omniscience). I know you’re clinging valiantly to the notion that it’s impossible to for God to already know everything including our free choices because if our choices are truly free God can’t be allowed to know about them. You need this notion to be correct for the sake of the argument…I get that. Further, you want to be completely self-governed….to be completely autonomous with no influence from God whatsoever. Yet you are still subject to God’s law and his divine attributes and because of that you claim “incompatibility” between total knowledge and free will and claim that what humanity has is an “illusion of free will”. I get the argument.
I respectfully disagree. And as I’ve noted total knowledge is just total knowledge…it’s benign. Total knowledge is not total knowledge less knowledge of humanity’s choices…..that would be less than total knowledge. You insert “incompatibility” into the discussion so you can arrive at the “illusion of free will”. If you want to stick with that then by all means do so. I can’t counter it because it’s your opinion and you can adjust it as necessary for the sake of the argument.
No, rationality is not subjective. If your presupposition is that God is real, that doesn't make God rational or real.
So what is rationality? A state of reasonableness or ability to reason. It’s also defined as a rational opinion or belief.
How do we reason? Using the available data and our experiences is the typical method.
We like to pretend that rationality is completely objective, but it is only from within our individual worldviews that we rationalize.
What if worldviews conflict? Am I irrational and you’re rational?
It's not benign to my choice. If God knows I'm going to choose to have pizza tonight and that knowledge is inerrant, I don't have any choice: it's pizza. I only have the illusion of choice.
Again, God’s knowledge is complete although honestly I haven’t seen the term inerrant inconjunction with omniscience. I’m not saying it’s never been stated as such I just don’t recall seeing that.
Now, God knows all things past, present and future. His foreknowledge is not “force”knowledge….it doesn’t force your choices or his will upon you. If you want pizza ,then you eat pizza. His foreknowledge is inerrant only because he’s aware of the definite choices you will make. Above you said foreknowledge can be benign and now you’re saying it can’t be benign to your choice. It’s the notion of inerrancy that appears to force your choice. Problem is that inerrancy is a concept, not an action.
Explain to me how God knowing you’ll eat pizza and only pizza because he knows you made the choice to eat pizza is forcing you to eat pizza? Where did God exercise his power to control your choice?
I'm open to his will, if I can be convinced that (a) he exists and (b) that his will is what you claim it is.
Now you’ve made it clear you won’t engage in faith or according to his terms as outlined in scripture.
You reduce my testimony to delusion. You deny scripture. And an act of prayer would initially be an act of faith.
As much as I’d like for you to know God you refuse his requirements and demand your own instead. God don’t do demands.
God reveals himself to folks that humbly come unto him first.
You understand tautologies? If that's true, why say: "Total knowledge is total knowledge." That's a meaningless and completely vacuous statement. And, with respect, it's not something we're both doing.
If total knowledge is 100% knowledge can it still be total knowledge if it’s 99% knowledge? Can total knowledge be 110%? Don’t know how it could be greater than or less than the 100%.
Of course not, only the theist is ever in error LOL!!
Through the scripture - so how's that different from the previous point.
Not really different, just indicates that Christ attests to it specifically in scripture.
When you can provide observable, quantifiable evidence that the Holy Spirit spirit exists and indwells believes me know.
The Holy Spirit manifests himself to those who belief, not those who do not.
You have my testimony to consider. You have the testimony of others believers to consider as well.
Great - there's not argument there. You have had a direct, personal revelation. That's perfectly fine and, in fact, logically unassailable. But only when it comes to your belief; that direct personal revelation you had is meaningless to anyone other than you. For all we know, you're hearing voices.
Well, it’s meaningless to you, but not to other people who have been lead to Christ.
Tell that to children slaughtered for the iniquity of their fathers (Isaiah 14:21). And to Eli's descendants (1 Samuel 3:12-13).
So once again, as noted above, in Isaiah and Samuel we see God pronouncing judgment upon “evildoers” and “workers of iniquity” and critics of God shake their fists at him when he punishes evil.
We already have specific examples from the Amalakites, Canaanites and the pre-deluge world that indulged in horrific, reprobate behavior. Older generations corrupting the next generation and so forth…….slowly generation after generation becomes steeped in sin and falls away from God. In the fullness of sin God steps forth and says enough. “They must not arise and take possession of the earth and fill the face of the world with cities.”
He gave these pagan nations hundreds of years to engage in repentance, but instead they chose defiance and evil. They lead their children out of innocence and taught them evil. They removed God’s law and promises from their children and replaced it with evil. And yet, we complain about God.
There are no innocents according to the Bible. Your warm and fuzzy feelings about reunions in heaven aside.
Already proved this out in scripture……sorry, you are wrong.
Except the little children that are cursed in the name of God (2 Kings 2:23-24).
It’s been awhile since I’ve discussed this infamous verse. Elisha and the little children that were destroyed by bears for simply teasing Elisha. The “little children” of this passage are also translated as “youths”, “young men” and “young lads”.
This was a gang of 42 youths anywhere from ages 12-20 (based on previous readings I’ve done) that exclaimed “go up Baldy!” to Elisha. Elisha’s predecessor Elijah had just “gone up” via the flaming chariot and they wanted Elisha “gone up” too (which from my previous reading can indicate wanting him “cast out” or “to die”). This gang was organized with bad intentions and their exclamation although seemingly harmless in our culture today meant something more threatening then.
The KJV translation states “little children” to which readers today immediately associate with a “happy daycare class of 42 5-year olds playfully teasing Elisha calling him ‘baldy’ . Then wicked ole Elisha cursed the blessed little ones and they were destroyed by bears.” The bears were sent to protect God’s messenger from impending harm by a organized gang of youths set on bad intentions.
Let me remind Jesus of Psalm 137:9: "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!"
Oh yes, the infamous “dashing babies against the rocks” psalm. Sounds horrific and it is. So what’s the context of the psalm?
The context is captivity of God’s chosen people by Babylon. The Israelites were again enslaved and tortured…..the psalmist notes that they were “tormented”.
Within this psalm the psalmist is expressing tremendous anger towards Babylon and hopes for an equally horrific end to the Babylonian people.
Because these feelings are included in scripture does that mean the idea of dashing/smashing babies on rocks is approved by God? Not at all.
Is the psalmist angry? You bet. Is the psalmist justified in his anger? You bet. Are the desired acts of vengeance justified? Nope.
We already discussed scripture that outlines how cherished children are to Christ and their placement in his kingdom….they are deemed the greatest.
The moment we entertain the notion of what “God needs” we’re in error.
Huh?
-
You asked me to highlight the logical fallacies in your argument. I did. Don't complain.
I did and your application of said fallacies was inappropriate as they were based upon your atheistic worldview. You simply fallacy shopped when our worldviews conflicted.
That's a non-sequitur, yes. That slapping a police officer might mean jail, therefore "slapping" God means eternal punishment is also a non-sequitur.
That was not what I outlined. I used “slapping” as an example of an offense. It’s the individual getting slapped that’s the crux. There will be different degrees of punishment for slapping different individuals.
NO. This has nothing to do with worldviews and presuppositions. You assume the very thing that you are trying to prove. This is a logical fallacy. You may not like this, but it is.
From your atheistic worldview you deem my position about God an “assumption” and then apply the claim of logical fallacy.
What does it mean to break the law in the infinite?
My clumsy way of saying we break God’s law….God is infinite and so is his law.
In other words, we anthropomorphize God when it's convenient and we don't when it's not.
We use anthropomorphic language to align divine attributes alongside human attributes. We attempt to make God more relatable and understandable to humanity.
Well then, you, who do have a relationship with God, should be able to quickly and conclusively disprove every single one of those statements...
I can lead you right to God, but you won’t follow.
-
That’s fine….I figured as much LOL! Again I’m entering this discussion with Christian love so I’ll do my level best not to come across or be insulting because that isn’t my intention.
I appreciate that you don’t consider me dishonest.
My beliefs are grounded in Jesus Christ and scripture.
If I speak confidently it’s because I boast only in Christ. That doesn’t mean that I don’t make mistakes or learn new things though.
No worries, I am unconcerned about the translation.
There are several verses that note the idea of God changing his mind, but this doesn’t negate the immutability of his nature….he remains who he is.
Those that belief in God and live for him are also in a relationship with him. When the Lord “changes his mind” in scripture he does this for the sake of relationship with his body of believers. He demonstrates that he acknowledges their will and choices. God “changes his mind” within the scope of our finite existence so that we may grow in knowledge of him and increase in fellowship and relationship with him. Was he already aware of this situation from his position of infinity? Yes he was.
Jeremiah 18:8 – “ if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.”
God will do what is just and correct and merciful and gracious. Within scripture he has demonstrated that he will “change his mind” once we first come to him in repentance.
Merriam-Webster dictionary: Divine - 1
a : of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god <divine love>
b : being a deity <the divine Savior>
c : directed to a deity <divine worship>
2
a : supremely good : superb <the pie was divine>
b : heavenly, godlike
— di•vine•ly adverb
So the nature of God is divinity….deity….supreme being….to be God.
God expresses that divine nature in a trinity of coequal, coeternal persons in Father, Son and Holy Spirit that serve different purposes. God the Father and the Holy Spirit are divine in nature and are without flesh and bone (they are spirit), while God the Son in Jesus Christ has a dual nature of both divinity and humanity. Humanity is the highest in God's creation and created with the image or qualities of God in that we can exhibit his love, grace, mercy, peace and judgment to one another. Christ left the divine and entered into humanity and gave us the perfect example of God's image imprinted upon humanity.
So for me to understand how we're created in God's image we must look to Christ first and examine how he lived his life.
Hebrews 1:1-3
1 Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets. 2 And now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son. God promised everything to the Son as an inheritance, and through the Son he created the universe. 3 The Son radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God, and he sustains everything by the mighty power of his command.
How does God’s nature function in a trinity? I can’t comprehend it fully.
So we’ve defined “divine” above….great….a god.
“I am” is not tautology…..it is God’s eternal name as given to Moses. God’s church has given many names to God.
So again, God’s nature is divine…..he’s a god. So picking up where you left off in Exodus 3:14-15, God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel: Yahweh, the God of your ancestors—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you. This is my eternal name, my name to remember for all generations.“
The bible is true because it demonstrates the fulfillment of prophecy written hundreds and hundreds of years prior to the occurring of the prophetic event.
The bible is true because the risen Christ was attested to by many people and the apostles of Christ went to their deaths for him and today the Holy Spirit of God indwells believers.
In seeking to know God in my own life I have followed through according to God’s terms as outlined in scripture and in doing so have experienced the reality of him in my life. As I stated previously (, the promises of scripture continue to be fulfilled in me through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the process of sanctification, the process of becoming a new creature in Christ, the complete change of perception, the joy of fellowship and worship experienced by believers. I’ve experienced the love and goodness and God in my life. Because of these things I have faith that his promises for the future will also be fulfilled.
What is the greater context of that passage?
God expresses his desire for how man should work and used his creative efforts as the platform to describe that……6 days work and 1 day for rest and worship.
Did God actually “rest” or “become weary”? No. He merely ceased his creative efforts. The notion of “rest” is applied so that man can understand and relate. The language ascribes this action to God for that purpose.
These verses are actually affirmations of his uniqueness. They don’t affirm the existence of other gods though. Now, did man create all sorts of other gods? Yes….Baal, Molech, Asherah are examples. We already know this though.
So now we’re diving into how God expresses his divine nature. As noted above this expression is also quantified with a count of three or a trinity in Father, Son and Spirit. Three expressions of his nature forming one God.
The descriptive language can often be poetic in form. Although calling it meaningless doesn’t make it so.
It’s total knowledge….all knowledge….complete knowledge.
God engages with us for our benefit. Again the moment we ask why “God needs” we are in error. God interacts with his creation for the sake of the creation.
God often acts like a parent does with his child and helps lead that child to a specific conclusion or to teach a life lesson.
As far as Hosea 8:4 goes I’ve read the passage before of course, but honestly I neither remember the verse nor do I remember the surrounding context. I belief the crux will be the word “know”. I’ve learned about the use of “know” from the Greek, but don’t know if that is appropriate here. Gotta study that out a bit.
As far as Genesis 18:20-21, this is an unusual literary device used by Moses to setup up the exchange between God and Abraham. I hesitate to call it anthropomorphic language though, but it does still humanize God. It establishes God’s purposes for making a face-to-face encounter with Abraham (via the pre-incarnate Christ). We understand that God already knew because of verse 20 in which he states “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.” It’s the actual exchange between Abraham and God that follows which is the heart of the passage. Man pleads with God to show mercy and God responds in kind.
These passages don’t speak of a denial of free will. They speak of condemnation and punishment of the wicked.
Ok, so Jude 1:4, this verse and surrounding scripture deals with false teachers of the gospel. It’s actually more of a fulfillment of prophetic scripture. Christ warned of this behavior during his ministry in Matthew 7 when he spoke of the coming of false prophets. Even further back we see mention of false teachers outlined in Isaiah 8 written hundreds and hundreds of years before the gospel came to fruition. So the passage “of old ordained to this condemnation” does not speak of God predetermining (or forcing) these folks to engage in such behavior before time began, but it does reference that God has already condemned such actions in much earlier scripture.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, deals with the coming of the anti-Christ and those whom will follow him in lawlessness and direct defiance of God. You quote the verses 11 and 12 with no context and a text without a context is a just a pretext. Verses 11 and 12 deal with the judgment and punishment for those who align themselves with this “deception of wickedness”. As punishment for ignoring the truth of God and aligning themselves with the demonic, God gives them over to their wicked desires permanently. We already know that the unpardonable sin is blaspheming the Holy Spirit and the example given in scripture was attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to the demonic. That said there can be no alignment between God’s goodness and the evil of the demonic. What we see repeated in scripture is that once people have willfully chosen to align themselves with evil and the demonic (thereby coming into the fullness of their sin) that God pronounces judgment upon them in scripture.
What I’ve repeatedly asked others critical of God’s judgments (and who never answer) is why they feel so much compassion for the reprobate, the twisted evil of pharaoh, the pagan nations who sacrificed live babies and those who willfully aligned themselves with the evil of the demonic? They engage in this evil behavior and God pronounces judgment upon them and suddenly these critics begin shaking their fists at God and seemingly forget the horrific acts of these people.
Why is that?
I already knew you were aware of them and they aren’t changing so I didn’t bother posting them.
In the end it’s just your opinion and you have every right to it. Although calling something “flawed or insufficient” doesn’t make it so.
I can lead you to God, but you can’t lead me to the pink unicorn.
You speak so confidently and often in absolutes on matters of faith and God yet have no experience whatsoever.
What makes your opinions on such matters so valuable? Your tone of voice? Your handwaving?
You’re inventing a concept that isn’t there. Foreknowledge is a facet of total knowledge (omniscience). I know you’re clinging valiantly to the notion that it’s impossible to for God to already know everything including our free choices because if our choices are truly free God can’t be allowed to know about them. You need this notion to be correct for the sake of the argument…I get that. Further, you want to be completely self-governed….to be completely autonomous with no influence from God whatsoever. Yet you are still subject to God’s law and his divine attributes and because of that you claim “incompatibility” between total knowledge and free will and claim that what humanity has is an “illusion of free will”. I get the argument.
I respectfully disagree. And as I’ve noted total knowledge is just total knowledge…it’s benign. Total knowledge is not total knowledge less knowledge of humanity’s choices…..that would be less than total knowledge. You insert “incompatibility” into the discussion so you can arrive at the “illusion of free will”. If you want to stick with that then by all means do so. I can’t counter it because it’s your opinion and you can adjust it as necessary for the sake of the argument.
So what is rationality? A state of reasonableness or ability to reason. It’s also defined as a rational opinion or belief.
How do we reason? Using the available data and our experiences is the typical method.
We like to pretend that rationality is completely objective, but it is only from within our individual worldviews that we rationalize.
What if worldviews conflict? Am I irrational and you’re rational?
Again, God’s knowledge is complete although honestly I haven’t seen the term inerrant inconjunction with omniscience. I’m not saying it’s never been stated as such I just don’t recall seeing that.
Now, God knows all things past, present and future. His foreknowledge is not “force”knowledge….it doesn’t force your choices or his will upon you. If you want pizza ,then you eat pizza. His foreknowledge is inerrant only because he’s aware of the definite choices you will make. Above you said foreknowledge can be benign and now you’re saying it can’t be benign to your choice. It’s the notion of inerrancy that appears to force your choice. Problem is that inerrancy is a concept, not an action.
Explain to me how God knowing you’ll eat pizza and only pizza because he knows you made the choice to eat pizza is forcing you to eat pizza? Where did God exercise his power to control your choice?
Now you’ve made it clear you won’t engage in faith or according to his terms as outlined in scripture.
You reduce my testimony to delusion. You deny scripture. And an act of prayer would initially be an act of faith.
As much as I’d like for you to know God you refuse his requirements and demand your own instead. God don’t do demands.
God reveals himself to folks that humbly come unto him first.
If total knowledge is 100% knowledge can it still be total knowledge if it’s 99% knowledge? Can total knowledge be 110%? Don’t know how it could be greater than or less than the 100%.
Of course not, only the theist is ever in error LOL!!
Not really different, just indicates that Christ attests to it specifically in scripture.
The Holy Spirit manifests himself to those who belief, not those who do not.
You have my testimony to consider. You have the testimony of others believers to consider as well.
Well, it’s meaningless to you, but not to other people who have been lead to Christ.
So once again, as noted above, in Isaiah and Samuel we see God pronouncing judgment upon “evildoers” and “workers of iniquity” and critics of God shake their fists at him when he punishes evil.
We already have specific examples from the Amalakites, Canaanites and the pre-deluge world that indulged in horrific, reprobate behavior. Older generations corrupting the next generation and so forth…….slowly generation after generation becomes steeped in sin and falls away from God. In the fullness of sin God steps forth and says enough. “They must not arise and take possession of the earth and fill the face of the world with cities.”
He gave these pagan nations hundreds of years to engage in repentance, but instead they chose defiance and evil. They lead their children out of innocence and taught them evil. They removed God’s law and promises from their children and replaced it with evil. And yet, we complain about God.
Already proved this out in scripture……sorry, you are wrong.
It’s been awhile since I’ve discussed this infamous verse. Elisha and the little children that were destroyed by bears for simply teasing Elisha. The “little children” of this passage are also translated as “youths”, “young men” and “young lads”.
This was a gang of 42 youths anywhere from ages 12-20 (based on previous readings I’ve done) that exclaimed “go up Baldy!” to Elisha. Elisha’s predecessor Elijah had just “gone up” via the flaming chariot and they wanted Elisha “gone up” too (which from my previous reading can indicate wanting him “cast out” or “to die”). This gang was organized with bad intentions and their exclamation although seemingly harmless in our culture today meant something more threatening then.
The KJV translation states “little children” to which readers today immediately associate with a “happy daycare class of 42 5-year olds playfully teasing Elisha calling him ‘baldy’ . Then wicked ole Elisha cursed the blessed little ones and they were destroyed by bears.” The bears were sent to protect God’s messenger from impending harm by a organized gang of youths set on bad intentions.
Oh yes, the infamous “dashing babies against the rocks” psalm. Sounds horrific and it is. So what’s the context of the psalm?
The context is captivity of God’s chosen people by Babylon. The Israelites were again enslaved and tortured…..the psalmist notes that they were “tormented”.
Within this psalm the psalmist is expressing tremendous anger towards Babylon and hopes for an equally horrific end to the Babylonian people.
Because these feelings are included in scripture does that mean the idea of dashing/smashing babies on rocks is approved by God? Not at all.
Is the psalmist angry? You bet. Is the psalmist justified in his anger? You bet. Are the desired acts of vengeance justified? Nope.
We already discussed scripture that outlines how cherished children are to Christ and their placement in his kingdom….they are deemed the greatest.
Huh?
Zakara did what he had to do with the wingspan of limited effort.
The caesarian way and style of meddling and improving things surely seemed like the true and may be ONLY resort for such an advantage.
The first "rider" (or should we say proponent?) engaged, and then the second, in this vile concoction of wills.
Apocalyptic or not, the true manifest was made, and it was clear, black baggery was a real effort as a means of settling it in a non-provokative manner without a dispute nor a premonition of strife and struggle.
They both knew where everything was heading as soon as they stepped inside the cage, it was a hellbound ride to the sauna...
The "mistique" is here to stay, be it now or never...
It's the Afterlife alright.
And yes, we should always (vis-a-vis) stay in the same boat among those other sordid predicaments where it may or may not flutter.
The one that tries, will, of course gain what is needed in this time and age.
The religion is one thing though, make no mistake about that.
It gets thought of many many times, always trying to improve.
-
There are several verses that note the idea of God changing his mind, but this doesn’t negate the immutability of his nature….he remains who he is.
You say that God never changes, then when I show you a bit from the Bible where God changes, you now pretend that this change doesn't count and somehow God doesn't change...
Those that belief in God and live for him are also in a relationship with him. When the Lord “changes his mind” in scripture he does this for the sake of relationship with his body of believers. He demonstrates that he acknowledges their will and choices. God “changes his mind” within the scope of our finite existence so that we may grow in knowledge of him and increase in fellowship and relationship with him. Was he already aware of this situation from his position of infinity? Yes he was.
It's simple: you assert that your God is immutable; when evidence that he's not is provided you pretend that this is somehow not an issue and pretend that "immutable" means something other than "immutable."
So the nature of God is divinity….deity….supreme being….to be God.
Circular definition.
How does God’s nature function in a trinity? I can’t comprehend it fully.
If you can't comprehend and explain it, don't talk about it.
So we’ve defined “divine” above….great….a god.
The dictionary definition you provided doesn't help: how can I distinguish something divine from something not divine?
“I am” is not tautology…..it is God’s eternal name as given to Moses. God’s church has given many names to God.
"I am who I am" is a tautology. When you claim that "I am" is God's name, you're arguing semantics. But even if we accept that "I am" is the name, it's still meaningless. How is "I am" different from "Chuck"? It's not.
So again, God’s nature is divine…..he’s a god.
God is a god... got it ::)
So picking up where you left off in Exodus 3:14-15, God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel: Yahweh, the God of your ancestors—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you. This is my eternal name, my name to remember for all generations.“
All of which tells us nothing quantifiable about God.
The bible is true because it demonstrates the fulfillment of prophecy written hundreds and hundreds of years prior to the occurring of the prophetic event.
No it doesn't! Come on...
The bible is true because the risen Christ was attested to by many people and the apostles of Christ went to their deaths for him and today the Holy Spirit of God indwells believers.
"The Bible is true because a lot of people say it's true!" ::)
Did God actually “rest” or “become weary”? No. He merely ceased his creative efforts. The notion of “rest” is applied so that man can understand and relate. The language ascribes this action to God for that purpose.
How do you know he didn't become weary? He explicitly says he did... if this perfect, divine God wanted to say "I am ceasing my creative efforts" why would he not say that? Also "efforts"? Really? God needs to exert effort?
These verses are actually affirmations of his uniqueness. They don’t affirm the existence of other gods though. Now, did man create all sorts of other gods? Yes….Baal, Molech, Asherah are examples. We already know this though.
Right... all these "other" gods references are man made. Your God isn't. What a joke.
The descriptive language can often be poetic in form. Although calling it meaningless doesn’t make it so.
Right... "poetic in form." Next, stay tuned for God's new album "Interstellar Haiku Master" featuring MC JC...
It’s total knowledge….all knowledge….complete knowledge.
You cannot have complete knowledge and free will. It's one or the other.
God engages with us for our benefit. Again the moment we ask why “God needs” we are in error. God interacts with his creation for the sake of the creation.
Except when he creates those of us who won't choose salvation - those whose hearts he hardens. Right?
God often acts like a parent does with his child and helps lead that child to a specific conclusion or to teach a life lesson.
There you go, anthropomorphizing God again.
As far as Hosea 8:4 goes I’ve read the passage before of course, but honestly I neither remember the verse nor do I remember the surrounding context. I belief the crux will be the word “know”. I’ve learned about the use of “know” from the Greek, but don’t know if that is appropriate here. Gotta study that out a bit.
Looking forward to talking about it.
As far as Genesis 18:20-21, this is an unusual literary device used by Moses to setup up the exchange between God and Abraham. I hesitate to call it anthropomorphic language though, but it does still humanize God. It establishes God’s purposes for making a face-to-face encounter with Abraham (via the pre-incarnate Christ). We understand that God already knew because of verse 20 in which he states “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.” It’s the actual exchange between Abraham and God that follows which is the heart of the passage. Man pleads with God to show mercy and God responds in kind.
A literary device... I'm detecting a pattern here. Whenever something from the Bible doesn't fit your worldview, it's not meant to be literal - it's poetic form, or a literary device, or a parable, or any number of things. The Bible is the inerrant word of God and perfectly says what it means by divine inspiration, except when it doesn't and interpretation is required.
Come on...
These passages don’t speak of a denial of free will. They speak of condemnation and punishment of the wicked.
Transparent apologetics aside, the plain reading of the text is crystal clear: there are those "WHO WERE BEFORE OF OLD ORDAINED TO THIS CONDEMNATION". And this speak of a denial of free will? You do know what ordained means, right? Also, God sending people delusions causing them to believe a lie and to be damned is free will?
What I’ve repeatedly asked others critical of God’s judgments (and who never answer) is why they feel so much compassion for the reprobate, the twisted evil of pharaoh, the pagan nations who sacrificed live babies and those who willfully aligned themselves with the evil of the demonic? They engage in this evil behavior and God pronounces judgment upon them and suddenly these critics begin shaking their fists at God and seemingly forget the horrific acts of these people.
Why is that?
It has nothing to do with compassion, and everything to do with logic.
I can lead you to God, but you can’t lead me to the pink unicorn.
No, you can't lead me to God. All you can do is say: "if you believe what I say is true, then you'll know what I say is true." But if I believe it to be true, the question becomes moot. Your God is no more real than the pink unicorn in my example. I am challenging you outright: provide me with one shred of objective, quantifiable, incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Surely you can do that if you could lead me to him.
You speak so confidently and often in absolutes on matters of faith and God yet have no experience whatsoever.
My confidence comes from an intimate knowledge of the Bible and extensive thought on the topic of deities in general and the Christian deity in particular.
What makes your opinions on such matters so valuable? Your tone of voice? Your handwaving?
I don't think my opinions are valuable. They're merely grounded in logic.
You’re inventing a concept that isn’t there. Foreknowledge is a facet of total knowledge (omniscience). I know you’re clinging valiantly to the notion that it’s impossible to for God to already know everything including our free choices because if our choices are truly free God can’t be allowed to know about them. You need this notion to be correct for the sake of the argument…I get that. Further, you want to be completely self-governed….to be completely autonomous with no influence from God whatsoever. Yet you are still subject to God’s law and his divine attributes and because of that you claim “incompatibility” between total knowledge and free will and claim that what humanity has is an “illusion of free will”. I get the argument.
You have invented this "total knowledge" bit and try to claim that it's equal to omniscience and, at the same time, compatible with free will. If you claim your God inerrantly knows the choice I will make in every decision I will ever be faced with, then the question "is my choice really free" is perfectly legitimate. And yet you keep evading it.
I respectfully disagree. And as I’ve noted total knowledge is just total knowledge…it’s benign. Total knowledge is not total knowledge less knowledge of humanity’s choices…..that would be less than total knowledge. You insert “incompatibility” into the discussion so you can arrive at the “illusion of free will”. If you want to stick with that then by all means do so. I can’t counter it because it’s your opinion and you can adjust it as necessary for the sake of the argument.
Disagree all you want. Whether this "total knowledge" is "benign" or not - whatever that means - is irrelevant. Knowledge, by itself, is neither good nor bad; neither benign nor malignant. The question is if God knows the outcome of every choice, then, when the time comes for you to make a choice, is that choice freely made?
So what is rationality? A state of reasonableness or ability to reason. It’s also defined as a rational opinion or belief.
Wikipedia offers a great explanation: "Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason. Rationality implies the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, or of one's actions with one's reasons for action."
How do we reason? Using the available data and our experiences is the typical method.
Also, the basic rules of logic.
We like to pretend that rationality is completely objective, but it is only from within our individual worldviews that we rationalize.
What if worldviews conflict? Am I irrational and you’re rational?
Maybe, maybe not. We look at our worldviews and decide. You claim we should believe in an invisible, supernatural deity that one must come to know only in a limited fashion and only supernaturally and you can't even present a consistent definition, much less evidence. I claim that we should not believe in things which are not proven or defined.
Which one of us is rational? I'll remind you that when I mentioned a magic invisible pink unicorn that shared all the attributes of your God, you claimed that was irrational.
Again, God’s knowledge is complete although honestly I haven’t seen the term inerrant inconjunction with omniscience. I’m not saying it’s never been stated as such I just don’t recall seeing that.
Omniscience presupposes inerrancy. If God knows I'll choose to eat lasagna but I choose to eat pizza instead, then he's not omniscient.
Now, God knows all things past, present and future. His foreknowledge is not “force”knowledge….it doesn’t force your choices or his will upon you. If you want pizza ,then you eat pizza. His foreknowledge is inerrant only because he’s aware of the definite choices you will make. Above you said foreknowledge can be benign and now you’re saying it can’t be benign to your choice. It’s the notion of inerrancy that appears to force your choice. Problem is that inerrancy is a concept, not an action.
If God knows what I'll choose for dinner as soon as I hit post and God knows all things past, present and future, then he knows what I'll be having for dinner before I do. If he knows I'll choose pizza, does that mean I can't decide anything other than pizza?
Explain to me how God knowing you’ll eat pizza and only pizza because he knows you made the choice to eat pizza is forcing you to eat pizza? Where did God exercise his power to control your choice?
God knows I'll choose pizza for dinner. If I choose something else, then God was wrong and we know by your definition that that doesn't happen. So my only choice for tonight is pizza. Is that not exercising control over my choice? Remember, God knew my decision, say, a million years go, before I could have possibly made it.
Now you’ve made it clear you won’t engage in faith or according to his terms as outlined in scripture.
You are right - I refuse to accept something which is irrational on its face on faith.
You reduce my testimony to delusion. You deny scripture. And an act of prayer would initially be an act of faith.
No, I openly admit that your personal experience is meaningful to you. I openly admit that if you have received knowledge of God in a supernatural way then you can and should act on that knowledge. But your personal experiences and knowledge aren't sufficient for me.
As much as I’d like for you to know God you refuse his requirements and demand your own instead. God don’t do demands.
I'm only doing what he put me on this earth to do, right? There's a plan for everyone, right?
God reveals himself to folks that humbly come unto him first.
My pink unicorn does the same.
If total knowledge is 100% knowledge can it still be total knowledge if it’s 99% knowledge? Can total knowledge be 110%? Don’t know how it could be greater than or less than the 100%.
Of course not, only the theist is ever in error LOL!!
I openly admit the possibility that I can be wrong, about a great many things. I am curious about something: do you think that it's possible that you're wrong about God?
Well, it’s meaningless to you, but not to other people who have been lead to Christ.
No, the personal revelation you experienced is meaningless to anyone other than you. It can't be challenged or proven. Others, who choose to take the leap of faith, may also get a personal revelation, although one must wonder: what good is a personal revelation once faith is involved?
It’s been awhile since I’ve discussed this infamous verse. Elisha and the little children that were destroyed by bears for simply teasing Elisha. The “little children” of this passage are also translated as “youths”, “young men” and “young lads”.
Well, that makes a lot of difference!
This was a gang of 42 youths anywhere from ages 12-20 (based on previous readings I’ve done) that exclaimed “go up Baldy!” to Elisha. Elisha’s predecessor Elijah had just “gone up” via the flaming chariot and they wanted Elisha “gone up” too (which from my previous reading can indicate wanting him “cast out” or “to die”). This gang was organized with bad intentions and their exclamation although seemingly harmless in our culture today meant something more threatening then.
Let's assume you're 100% right in everything you say. What about the first-born of the Egyptians and their livestock? And while we're there, why did God - with his perfect knowledge - need a sign to know which houses to spare?
Oh yes, the infamous “dashing babies against the rocks” psalm. Sounds horrific and it is. So what’s the context of the psalm?
The context is captivity of God’s chosen people by Babylon. The Israelites were again enslaved and tortured…..the psalmist notes that they were “tormented”.
Within this psalm the psalmist is expressing tremendous anger towards Babylon and hopes for an equally horrific end to the Babylonian people.
Because these feelings are included in scripture does that mean the idea of dashing/smashing babies on rocks is approved by God? Not at all.
But isn't the Bible the inspired word of God? Surely if he didn't want this in, he'd have willed it out.
Is the psalmist angry? You bet.
I'll say!
Is the psalmist justified in his anger? You bet.
Maybe.
Are the desired acts of vengeance justified? Nope.
Agreed.
Huh?
That was a bit you wrote, that I accidentally included in my post. Oops!
-
I did and your application of said fallacies was inappropriate as they were based upon your atheistic worldview. You simply fallacy shopped when our worldviews conflicted.
This has nothing to do about worldviews. Either those are logical fallacies or they aren't.
There are several verses that note the idea of God changing his mind, but this doesn’t negate the immutability of his nature….he remains who he is.
You say that God never changes, then when I show you a bit from the Bible where God changes, you now pretend that this change doesn't count and somehow God doesn't change...
Those that belief in God and live for him are also in a relationship with him. When the Lord “changes his mind” in scripture he does this for the sake of relationship with his body of believers. He demonstrates that he acknowledges their will and choices. God “changes his mind” within the scope of our finite existence so that we may grow in knowledge of him and increase in fellowship and relationship with him. Was he already aware of this situation from his position of infinity? Yes he was.
It's simple: you assert that your God is immutable; when evidence that he's not is provided you pretend that this is somehow not an issue and pretend that "immutable" means something other than "immutable."
So the nature of God is divinity….deity….supreme being….to be God.
Circular definition.
How does God’s nature function in a trinity? I can’t comprehend it fully.
If you can't comprehend and explain it, don't talk about it.
So we’ve defined “divine” above….great….a god.
The dictionary definition you provided doesn't help: how can I distinguish something divine from something not divine?
“I am” is not tautology…..it is God’s eternal name as given to Moses. God’s church has given many names to God.
"I am who I am" is a tautology. When you claim that "I am" is God's name, you're arguing semantics. But even if we accept that "I am" is the name, it's still meaningless. How is "I am" different from "Chuck"? It's not.
So again, God’s nature is divine…..he’s a god.
God is a god... got it ::)
So picking up where you left off in Exodus 3:14-15, God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel: Yahweh, the God of your ancestors—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you. This is my eternal name, my name to remember for all generations.“
All of which tells us nothing quantifiable about God.
The bible is true because it demonstrates the fulfillment of prophecy written hundreds and hundreds of years prior to the occurring of the prophetic event.
No it doesn't! Come on...
The bible is true because the risen Christ was attested to by many people and the apostles of Christ went to their deaths for him and today the Holy Spirit of God indwells believers.
"The Bible is true because a lot of people say it's true!" ::)
Did God actually “rest” or “become weary”? No. He merely ceased his creative efforts. The notion of “rest” is applied so that man can understand and relate. The language ascribes this action to God for that purpose.
How do you know he didn't become weary? He explicitly says he did... if this perfect, divine God wanted to say "I am ceasing my creative efforts" why would he not say that? Also "efforts"? Really? God needs to exert effort?
These verses are actually affirmations of his uniqueness. They don’t affirm the existence of other gods though. Now, did man create all sorts of other gods? Yes….Baal, Molech, Asherah are examples. We already know this though.
Right... all these "other" gods references are man made. Your God isn't. What a joke.
The descriptive language can often be poetic in form. Although calling it meaningless doesn’t make it so.
Right... "poetic in form." Next, stay tuned for God's new album "Interstellar Haiku Master" featuring MC JC...
It’s total knowledge….all knowledge….complete knowledge.
You cannot have complete knowledge and free will. It's one or the other.
God engages with us for our benefit. Again the moment we ask why “God needs” we are in error. God interacts with his creation for the sake of the creation.
Except when he creates those of us who won't choose salvation - those whose hearts he hardens. Right?
God often acts like a parent does with his child and helps lead that child to a specific conclusion or to teach a life lesson.
There you go, anthropomorphizing God again.
As far as Hosea 8:4 goes I’ve read the passage before of course, but honestly I neither remember the verse nor do I remember the surrounding context. I belief the crux will be the word “know”. I’ve learned about the use of “know” from the Greek, but don’t know if that is appropriate here. Gotta study that out a bit.
Looking forward to talking about it.
As far as Genesis 18:20-21, this is an unusual literary device used by Moses to setup up the exchange between God and Abraham. I hesitate to call it anthropomorphic language though, but it does still humanize God. It establishes God’s purposes for making a face-to-face encounter with Abraham (via the pre-incarnate Christ). We understand that God already knew because of verse 20 in which he states “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.” It’s the actual exchange between Abraham and God that follows which is the heart of the passage. Man pleads with God to show mercy and God responds in kind.
A literary device... I'm detecting a pattern here. Whenever something from the Bible doesn't fit your worldview, it's not meant to be literal - it's poetic form, or a literary device, or a parable, or any number of things. The Bible is the inerrant word of God and perfectly says what it means by divine inspiration, except when it doesn't and interpretation is required.
Come on...
These passages don’t speak of a denial of free will. They speak of condemnation and punishment of the wicked.
Transparent apologetics aside, the plain reading of the text is crystal clear: there are those "WHO WERE BEFORE OF OLD ORDAINED TO THIS CONDEMNATION". And this speak of a denial of free will? You do know what ordained means, right? Also, God sending people delusions causing them to believe a lie and to be damned is free will?
What I’ve repeatedly asked others critical of God’s judgments (and who never answer) is why they feel so much compassion for the reprobate, the twisted evil of pharaoh, the pagan nations who sacrificed live babies and those who willfully aligned themselves with the evil of the demonic? They engage in this evil behavior and God pronounces judgment upon them and suddenly these critics begin shaking their fists at God and seemingly forget the horrific acts of these people.
Why is that?
It has nothing to do with compassion, and everything to do with logic.
I can lead you to God, but you can’t lead me to the pink unicorn.
No, you can't lead me to God. All you can do is say: "if you believe what I say is true, then you'll know what I say is true." But if I believe it to be true, the question becomes moot. Your God is no more real than the pink unicorn in my example. I am challenging you outright: provide me with one shred of objective, quantifiable, incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Surely you can do that if you could lead me to him.
You speak so confidently and often in absolutes on matters of faith and God yet have no experience whatsoever.
My confidence comes from an intimate knowledge of the Bible and extensive thought on the topic of deities in general and the Christian deity in particular.
What makes your opinions on such matters so valuable? Your tone of voice? Your handwaving?
I don't think my opinions are valuable. They're merely grounded in logic.
You’re inventing a concept that isn’t there. Foreknowledge is a facet of total knowledge (omniscience). I know you’re clinging valiantly to the notion that it’s impossible to for God to already know everything including our free choices because if our choices are truly free God can’t be allowed to know about them. You need this notion to be correct for the sake of the argument…I get that. Further, you want to be completely self-governed….to be completely autonomous with no influence from God whatsoever. Yet you are still subject to God’s law and his divine attributes and because of that you claim “incompatibility” between total knowledge and free will and claim that what humanity has is an “illusion of free will”. I get the argument.
You have invented this "total knowledge" bit and try to claim that it's equal to omniscience and, at the same time, compatible with free will. If you claim your God inerrantly knows the choice I will make in every decision I will ever be faced with, then the question "is my choice really free" is perfectly legitimate. And yet you keep evading it.
I respectfully disagree. And as I’ve noted total knowledge is just total knowledge…it’s benign. Total knowledge is not total knowledge less knowledge of humanity’s choices…..that would be less than total knowledge. You insert “incompatibility” into the discussion so you can arrive at the “illusion of free will”. If you want to stick with that then by all means do so. I can’t counter it because it’s your opinion and you can adjust it as necessary for the sake of the argument.
Disagree all you want. Whether this "total knowledge" is "benign" or not - whatever that means - is irrelevant. Knowledge, by itself, is neither good nor bad; neither benign nor malignant. The question is if God knows the outcome of every choice, then, when the time comes for you to make a choice, is that choice freely made?
So what is rationality? A state of reasonableness or ability to reason. It’s also defined as a rational opinion or belief.
Wikipedia offers a great explanation: "Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason. Rationality implies the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, or of one's actions with one's reasons for action."
How do we reason? Using the available data and our experiences is the typical method.
Also, the basic rules of logic.
We like to pretend that rationality is completely objective, but it is only from within our individual worldviews that we rationalize.
What if worldviews conflict? Am I irrational and you’re rational?
Maybe, maybe not. We look at our worldviews and decide. You claim we should believe in an invisible, supernatural deity that one must come to know only in a limited fashion and only supernaturally and you can't even present a consistent definition, much less evidence. I claim that we should not believe in things which are not proven or defined.
Which one of us is rational? I'll remind you that when I mentioned a magic invisible pink unicorn that shared all the attributes of your God, you claimed that was irrational.
Again, God’s knowledge is complete although honestly I haven’t seen the term inerrant inconjunction with omniscience. I’m not saying it’s never been stated as such I just don’t recall seeing that.
Omniscience presupposes inerrancy. If God knows I'll choose to eat lasagna but I choose to eat pizza instead, then he's not omniscient.
Now, God knows all things past, present and future. His foreknowledge is not “force”knowledge….it doesn’t force your choices or his will upon you. If you want pizza ,then you eat pizza. His foreknowledge is inerrant only because he’s aware of the definite choices you will make. Above you said foreknowledge can be benign and now you’re saying it can’t be benign to your choice. It’s the notion of inerrancy that appears to force your choice. Problem is that inerrancy is a concept, not an action.
If God knows what I'll choose for dinner as soon as I hit post and God knows all things past, present and future, then he knows what I'll be having for dinner before I do. If he knows I'll choose pizza, does that mean I can't decide anything other than pizza?
Explain to me how God knowing you’ll eat pizza and only pizza because he knows you made the choice to eat pizza is forcing you to eat pizza? Where did God exercise his power to control your choice?
God knows I'll choose pizza for dinner. If I choose something else, then God was wrong and we know by your definition that that doesn't happen. So my only choice for tonight is pizza. Is that not exercising control over my choice? Remember, God knew my decision, say, a million years go, before I could have possibly made it.
Now you’ve made it clear you won’t engage in faith or according to his terms as outlined in scripture.
You are right - I refuse to accept something which is irrational on its face on faith.
You reduce my testimony to delusion. You deny scripture. And an act of prayer would initially be an act of faith.
No, I openly admit that your personal experience is meaningful to you. I openly admit that if you have received knowledge of God in a supernatural way then you can and should act on that knowledge. But your personal experiences and knowledge aren't sufficient for me.
As much as I’d like for you to know God you refuse his requirements and demand your own instead. God don’t do demands.
I'm only doing what he put me on this earth to do, right? There's a plan for everyone, right?
God reveals himself to folks that humbly come unto him first.
My pink unicorn does the same.
If total knowledge is 100% knowledge can it still be total knowledge if it’s 99% knowledge? Can total knowledge be 110%? Don’t know how it could be greater than or less than the 100%.
Of course not, only the theist is ever in error LOL!!
I openly admit the possibility that I can be wrong, about a great many things. I am curious about something: do you think that it's possible that you're wrong about God?
Well, it’s meaningless to you, but not to other people who have been lead to Christ.
No, the personal revelation you experienced is meaningless to anyone other than you. It can't be challenged or proven. Others, who choose to take the leap of faith, may also get a personal revelation, although one must wonder: what good is a personal revelation once faith is involved?
It’s been awhile since I’ve discussed this infamous verse. Elisha and the little children that were destroyed by bears for simply teasing Elisha. The “little children” of this passage are also translated as “youths”, “young men” and “young lads”.
Well, that makes a lot of difference!
This was a gang of 42 youths anywhere from ages 12-20 (based on previous readings I’ve done) that exclaimed “go up Baldy!” to Elisha. Elisha’s predecessor Elijah had just “gone up” via the flaming chariot and they wanted Elisha “gone up” too (which from my previous reading can indicate wanting him “cast out” or “to die”). This gang was organized with bad intentions and their exclamation although seemingly harmless in our culture today meant something more threatening then.
Let's assume you're 100% right in everything you say. What about the first-born of the Egyptians and their livestock? And while we're there, why did God - with his perfect knowledge - need a sign to know which houses to spare?
Oh yes, the infamous “dashing babies against the rocks” psalm. Sounds horrific and it is. So what’s the context of the psalm?
The context is captivity of God’s chosen people by Babylon. The Israelites were again enslaved and tortured…..the psalmist notes that they were “tormented”.
Within this psalm the psalmist is expressing tremendous anger towards Babylon and hopes for an equally horrific end to the Babylonian people.
Because these feelings are included in scripture does that mean the idea of dashing/smashing babies on rocks is approved by God? Not at all.
But isn't the Bible the inspired word of God? Surely if he didn't want this in, he'd have willed it out.
Is the psalmist angry? You bet.
I'll say!
Is the psalmist justified in his anger? You bet.
Maybe.
Are the desired acts of vengeance justified? Nope.
Agreed.
From your atheistic worldview you deem my position about God an “assumption” and then apply the claim of logical fallacy.
I am sure that he is very real to you. But we are having a debate here and not everybody believes what you believe. Until you can prove your position, it has to remain an assumption.
I can lead you right to God, but you won’t follow.
You cannot. You can't even define what you'll be leading me to. You can only ask me to believe in something without offering any proof.
-
This has nothing to do about worldviews. Either those are logical fallacies or they aren't.
You say that God never changes, then when I show you a bit from the Bible where God changes, you now pretend that this change doesn't count and somehow God doesn't change...
It's simple: you assert that your God is immutable; when evidence that he's not is provided you pretend that this is somehow not an issue and pretend that "immutable" means something other than "immutable."
Circular definition.
If you can't comprehend and explain it, don't talk about it.
The dictionary definition you provided doesn't help: how can I distinguish something divine from something not divine?
"I am who I am" is a tautology. When you claim that "I am" is God's name, you're arguing semantics. But even if we accept that "I am" is the name, it's still meaningless. How is "I am" different from "Chuck"? It's not.
God is a god... got it ::)
All of which tells us nothing quantifiable about God.
No it doesn't! Come on...
"The Bible is true because a lot of people say it's true!" ::)
How do you know he didn't become weary? He explicitly says he did... if this perfect, divine God wanted to say "I am ceasing my creative efforts" why would he not say that? Also "efforts"? Really? God needs to exert effort?
Right... all these "other" gods references are man made. Your God isn't. What a joke.
Right... "poetic in form." Next, stay tuned for God's new album "Interstellar Haiku Master" featuring MC JC...
You cannot have complete knowledge and free will. It's one or the other.
Except when he creates those of us who won't choose salvation - those whose hearts he hardens. Right?
There you go, anthropomorphizing God again.
Looking forward to talking about it.
A literary device... I'm detecting a pattern here. Whenever something from the Bible doesn't fit your worldview, it's not meant to be literal - it's poetic form, or a literary device, or a parable, or any number of things. The Bible is the inerrant word of God and perfectly says what it means by divine inspiration, except when it doesn't and interpretation is required.
Come on...
Transparent apologetics aside, the plain reading of the text is crystal clear: there are those "WHO WERE BEFORE OF OLD ORDAINED TO THIS CONDEMNATION". And this speak of a denial of free will? You do know what ordained means, right? Also, God sending people delusions causing them to believe a lie and to be damned is free will?
It has nothing to do with compassion, and everything to do with logic.
No, you can't lead me to God. All you can do is say: "if you believe what I say is true, then you'll know what I say is true." But if I believe it to be true, the question becomes moot. Your God is no more real than the pink unicorn in my example. I am challenging you outright: provide me with one shred of objective, quantifiable, incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Surely you can do that if you could lead me to him.
My confidence comes from an intimate knowledge of the Bible and extensive thought on the topic of deities in general and the Christian deity in particular.
I don't think my opinions are valuable. They're merely grounded in logic.
You have invented this "total knowledge" bit and try to claim that it's equal to omniscience and, at the same time, compatible with free will. If you claim your God inerrantly knows the choice I will make in every decision I will ever be faced with, then the question "is my choice really free" is perfectly legitimate. And yet you keep evading it.
Disagree all you want. Whether this "total knowledge" is "benign" or not - whatever that means - is irrelevant. Knowledge, by itself, is neither good nor bad; neither benign nor malignant. The question is if God knows the outcome of every choice, then, when the time comes for you to make a choice, is that choice freely made?
Wikipedia offers a great explanation: "Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason. Rationality implies the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, or of one's actions with one's reasons for action."
Also, the basic rules of logic.
Maybe, maybe not. We look at our worldviews and decide. You claim we should believe in an invisible, supernatural deity that one must come to know only in a limited fashion and only supernaturally and you can't even present a consistent definition, much less evidence. I claim that we should not believe in things which are not proven or defined.
Which one of us is rational? I'll remind you that when I mentioned a magic invisible pink unicorn that shared all the attributes of your God, you claimed that was irrational.
Omniscience presupposes inerrancy. If God knows I'll choose to eat lasagna but I choose to eat pizza instead, then he's not omniscient.
If God knows what I'll choose for dinner as soon as I hit post and God knows all things past, present and future, then he knows what I'll be having for dinner before I do. If he knows I'll choose pizza, does that mean I can't decide anything other than pizza?
God knows I'll choose pizza for dinner. If I choose something else, then God was wrong and we know by your definition that that doesn't happen. So my only choice for tonight is pizza. Is that not exercising control over my choice? Remember, God knew my decision, say, a million years go, before I could have possibly made it.
You are right - I refuse to accept something which is irrational on its face on faith.
No, I openly admit that your personal experience is meaningful to you. I openly admit that if you have received knowledge of God in a supernatural way then you can and should act on that knowledge. But your personal experiences and knowledge aren't sufficient for me.
I'm only doing what he put me on this earth to do, right? There's a plan for everyone, right?
My pink unicorn does the same.
I openly admit the possibility that I can be wrong, about a great many things. I am curious about something: do you think that it's possible that you're wrong about God?
No, the personal revelation you experienced is meaningless to anyone other than you. It can't be challenged or proven. Others, who choose to take the leap of faith, may also get a personal revelation, although one must wonder: what good is a personal revelation once faith is involved?
Well, that makes a lot of difference!
Let's assume you're 100% right in everything you say. What about the first-born of the Egyptians and their livestock? And while we're there, why did God - with his perfect knowledge - need a sign to know which houses to spare?
But isn't the Bible the inspired word of God? Surely if he didn't want this in, he'd have willed it out.
I'll say!
Maybe.
Agreed.
I am sure that he is very real to you. But we are having a debate here and not everybody believes what you believe. Until you can prove your position, it has to remain an assumption.
You cannot. You can't even define what you'll be leading me to. You can only ask me to believe in something without offering any proof.
Well, that's a wrap for me. I quickly read your response and nothing more needs to be said by me.
You're welcome to have the final word....this is mine.
Have a good night.
-
Well, that's a wrap for me. I quickly read your response and nothing more needs to be said by me.
You're welcome to have the final word....this is mine.
Have a good night.
Sounds like AVXO was calm, rationale and poised in his discussion. Because you didn't like what he said, you stop debating? ??? ???
-
Sounds like AVXO was calm, rationale and poised in his discussion. Because you didn't like what he said, you stop debating? ??? ???
Fruitless debate, neither side will ever convince the other of their point.
-
Fruitless debate, neither side will ever convince the other of their point.
Of course not. But are you also saying debates between two scholars in a university setting is also fruitless? Id have to disagree. Most people who debate each other in a real setting do so for the audience. The atheist and theist are well aware they are not going to change each others minds during the debate. The debate is usually held for the public, so they can gain knowledge about a topic. And there have been many instances where audience members may be on the fence about their theism or atheism, and the debate helps them make a more informed opinion. Debates in those types of settings arent really for the atheist to convert the theist or vice versa. Its usually done for the audience. In this sense, they are worthwhile and important.
But the debates on getbig are pretty useless in changing minds.
-
belief is not a debate and no one believes stronger than one that dis-bilieves someones's spiritual belief...
-
I've been accused of submitting a "wall of posts" in the past. As far as I can remember, nothing I ever posted was so long and detailed as these. You go guys. But, don't expect others to follow them. It's just too much for our pea brains to handle. ;D
I am of the mind that when it comes to religion it is best to not argue which beliefs are the best. Just the fact that one can believe in something outside themselves is a major accomplishment.
-
Sounds like AVXO was calm, rationale and poised in his discussion. Because you didn't like what he said, you stop debating? ??? ???
Never said he wasn't.
I stopped because there wasn't anything else for me to say and I was in a cycle of repetition.
At some point the discussion had to end and it did for me.
That's basically it.
-
man of steel when Jesus would go in to solitude to 'pray' what do you think was going on inside of his body, what was his mind doing? Do you not consider it possible he was going in to a deep state of meditation?
-
there is no need for an explanation , meaning, to life. It just is.
Other animal species dont give a meaning to their existences, only humans do. And it s always a false, fake one. Basically humans constantly convince themselves they are not meaningless animals killing each others daily for resources and partners of reproduction on a rock floating in space until there are no more resources anymore. Still, it's the only rational, logical, cold truth. That's what we are. That's what is happening.
Being able to dominate weaker individuals makes one feel pleasure, and constant stable pleasure equals to hapiness.
Not being able to do so makes individuals feel bad. Their "hope" is to one day dominate too, or that their offspring will when they have one. If they have no hope to ever dominate, they either want to destroy everything or/and themselves. The only goal of all lifeforms is to dominate and reproduce. Being dominant gives you and your offspring better odds of survival thats why everyone wants to be dominant instead of being dominated.
We are animals who only see short term, our own survival, and we re all at war against each others daily. In "peace times" for jobs, land, and partners of reproduction, in war times, for resources and teritory.
All relationships between life forms are based on a dominant/dominated base.
The survival of the human species itself actually endangers the survival of life as a whole on earth. We keep animal lifeforms alive only to eat them.
The only path for life is to head for destruction or self destruction. Life leads to death.
Then somewhere, life starts again cause there s enough water, and sunlight,and the "right" conditions for it to develop. It s just hapening, it as no meaning, it just is. No god(human) creates life, it happens because of biological, physical chemical random processes.
Noone, nothing, creates it, makes it, it just happens without any reason. There is no need for an explanation for things to happen, they simply do.
Humans will probably destroy everything on this planet before they ever figure how to flee the planet or create life somewhere else. Because they are short sighted..animals.
Life is a constant struggle between lifeforms that dont choose to exist, but are spawned to fight , adapt, until they cant anymore.The luckiest, strongest, smartest, better prepared ones survive longer than the weaker ones. Strenght is adorated, copied, weakness disgusts every other life form, except if they can make a buck out of it. We only help those whose survival would maintain
or improve our own odds of survival.
-
I agree but there are levels of depth when experiencing life and most people live on the surface only.
edit: I agree with the first part before your Darwinism extrapolation which just went contrary to your initial words about not having to explain the meaning of life.
-
man of steel when Jesus would go in to solitude to 'pray' what do you think was going on inside of his body, what was his mind doing? Do you not consider it possible he was going in to a deep state of meditation?
Honestly, I think when Jesus went alone to pray he probably didn't do so in a meditative state. I believe he did so in a reverent state.
Prior to the incarnation Jesus's knowledge was complete and his abilities and existence equal to that of the remaining persons of the trinity in Father and Spirit.
Now as man in flesh he was emptied of his divine powers and existed as a man. As Paul states in Phillipians:
Philippians 2:5-7
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
He now existed as a man with a divine mission. I think given the limitations of his newly added humanity when he reverently prayed to the Father he was probably quite anxious and scared about fulfilling his mission....I would guess his stomach was probably upset. He probably sought council and peace and the will of the Father who sent him. I can't say with certainty how Christ did or didn't feel in both body and mind, but given his purpose, his human nature and his limitations therein I'd say he experienced a great deal of inner turmoil. His time of private prayer in which he entered in reverence and commune with the Father was his outlet for peace.....his period of inner replenishment and grounding if you will.
Perhaps after he calmed his mind via the peace and grace of the Father he received during prayer he would then become more meditative outside of prayer and reflect upon what learned or given to him by the Father. Again, I just don't know for sure.
-
I agree but there are levels of depth when experiencing life and most people live on the surface only.
I was smoking a nice joint in my garden last night, and just enjoying the sunset/thinking about some recent arguments i've had with the Mrs (nothing major tbh), and I had some kind of 'revelation' of exactly how she is feeling and what I can rectify to change it for the better. It was pretty surreal, as I had been thinking of solutions for days and not really understanding where she was coming from. 1 big joint of sensimilia later, and I had absolute clarity on what I needed to do.
-
Fact is if you really live and act like jesus, or gandhi etc you d tell many truths that would hurt many powerful and unscrupulous people's BUSINESSES who would send you to jail or a psych ward.
The biggest assholes survive, not the nice, caring ones. Most people are sinners who give themselves a good conscience by thinking "jesus died for their sins" then go back to sinning. Because to survive you are FORCED to sometimes be an asshole, to beat the competition. Which means it is impossible to be holy, pure etc. Everyone has to step on someone else s head to survive. There is no possibility to survive without doing so. We re actually wired by nature to take pleasure in seeing other suffer, except if they are important to our own survival. We all enjoy seeing ennemies, oponents, suffer, lose. And we all convince ourselves when we win that we "deserved it" because "God, karma, etc" "chose " us. But nobody, nothing, "chose" us, we were just stronger, luckier, smarter, better prepared, and as a result beat the competition.
Darwinism , eugenism, Evolutionary psychology explain it all. There is no good or evil, there are just strong, lucky and weak, unlucky individuals fighting each others constantly for limited resources and partners of reproduction.
-
I agree but there are levels of depth when experiencing life and most people live on the surface only.
MOS will never agree that he Jesus was in a meditative state. Why? Well, its simple...
Meditation is often associated with Buddhism.
Buddhism is not the one true religion (like MOS's religion).
You are not saved through Buddhism.
Therefore, if you associate oneself with any aspects of any other religion, you're going to burn in hell for all eternity.
-
Fact is if you really live and act like jesus, or gandhi etc you d tell many truths that would hurt many powerful and unscrupulous people's BUSINESSES who would send you to jail or a psych ward.
The biggest assholes survive, not the nice, caring ones. Most people are sinners who give themselves a good conscience by thinking "jesus died for their sins" then go back to sinning. Because to survive you are FORCED to sometimes be an asshole, to beat the competition. Which means it is impossible to be holy, pure etc. Everyone has to step on someone else s head to survive. There is no possibility to survive without doing so. We re actually wired by nature to take pleasure in seeing other suffer, except if they are important to our own survival. We all enjoy seeing ennemies, oponents, suffer, lose. And we all convince ourselves when we win that we "deserved it" because "God, karma, etc" "chose " us. But nobody, nothing, "chose" us, we were just stronger, luckier, smarter, better prepared, and as a result beat the competition.
Darwinism , eugenism, Evolutionary psychology explain it all. There is no good or evil, there are just strong, lucky and weak, unlucky individuals fighting each others constantly for limited resources and partners of reproduction.
Yes, we get it. How many times do you have to say the same stuff over and over again? Okay, WE GET IT!! We get what you're about. We know the type of ideas you hold. Its obvious by now.
-
MOS will never agree that he Jesus was in a meditative state. Why? Well, its simple...
Meditation is often associated with Buddhism.
Buddhism is not the one true religion (like MOS's religion).
You are not saved through Buddhism.
Therefore, if you associate oneself with any aspects of any other religion, you're going to burn in hell for all eternity.
Perhaps after he calmed his mind via the peace and grace of the Father he received during prayer he would then become more meditative outside of prayer and reflect upon what learned or given to him by the Father. Again, I just don't know for sure.
To meditate is to simply deeply reflect and consider one's thought.
Would Christ chant and/or moan in religious meditative state akin to a Buddhist? No.
-
To meditate is to simply deeply reflect and consider one's thought.
Would Christ chant and/or moan in religious meditative state akin to a Buddhist? No.
Yes, but meditation is often associated with Buddhism. You wouldn't want JC being associated in any way, shape or form with Buddhism. Even deep reflection may be associated with meditation, thus JC practicing Buddhism, and burning in HELL for all eternity!
-
I was smoking a nice joint in my garden last night, and just enjoying the sunset/thinking about some recent arguments i've had with the Mrs (nothing major tbh), and I had some kind of 'revelation' of exactly how she is feeling and what I can rectify to change it for the better. It was pretty surreal, as I had been thinking of solutions for days and not really understanding where she was coming from. 1 big joint of sensimilia later, and I had absolute clarity on what I needed to do.
enjoying the Colchester night sky?
-
enjoying the Colchester night sky?
Southend on Sea mate!
-
Exactly!
Here's my 2 cents on the issue:
1. There is some form of "God" in the universe, that our little human brains try to comprehend.
2. Every world religion got something wrong when it came to understanding GOD.
3. I'm pretty sure he isn't an angry dude with a white beard or wearing a bunny suit.
He ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism
-
Exactly!
Here's my 2 cents on the issue:
1. There is some form of "God" in the universe, that our little human brains try to comprehend.
2. Every world religion got something wrong when it came to understanding GOD.
3. I'm pretty sure he isn't an angry dude with a white beard or wearing a bunny suit.
Regarding point 1, there is no evidence to suggest that.
-
Fact is if you really live and act like jesus, or gandhi etc you d tell many truths that would hurt many powerful and unscrupulous people's BUSINESSES who would send you to jail or a psych ward.
The biggest assholes survive, not the nice, caring ones. Most people are sinners who give themselves a good conscience by thinking "jesus died for their sins" then go back to sinning. Because to survive you are FORCED to sometimes be an asshole, to beat the competition. Which means it is impossible to be holy, pure etc. Everyone has to step on someone else s head to survive. There is no possibility to survive without doing so. We re actually wired by nature to take pleasure in seeing other suffer, except if they are important to our own survival. We all enjoy seeing ennemies, oponents, suffer, lose. And we all convince ourselves when we win that we "deserved it" because "God, karma, etc" "chose " us. But nobody, nothing, "chose" us, we were just stronger, luckier, smarter, better prepared, and as a result beat the competition.
Darwinism , eugenism, Evolutionary psychology explain it all. There is no good or evil, there are just strong, lucky and weak, unlucky individuals fighting each others constantly for limited resources and partners of reproduction.
No question that the world's most powerful men had great egos and ambition.
BUT, after one achieves success in war or business, then what?
Many chose to donate or give away a % of their fortunes, aka, philanthropy .
Bill Gates is a modern example of this with the " Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation".
In the end , many of the richest and most powerful found meaning in life by giving back.
-
No question that the world's most powerful men had great egos and ambition.
BUT, after one achieves success in war or business, then what?
Many chose to donate or give away a % of their fortunes, aka, philanthropy .
Bill Gates is a modern example of this with the " Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation".
In the end , many of the richest and most powerful found meaning in life by giving back.
gates allow third worlders to breed even more then they move to europe and replace the old whiteys cause there s nothing to do in africa in the hands of a few hyper rich tyrants dilapidating the resources.
Not too sure if he has any clue of the real consequneces of what he s doing. Like most do gooders it s just to give himself a good publicity and conscience. When you look at the real consequences it s often way less roser than you initially thought.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00999/boat-immigrants_999207a.jpg)
-
I did and your application of said fallacies was inappropriate as they were based upon your atheistic worldview. You simply fallacy shopped when our worldviews conflicted.
That was not what I outlined. I used “slapping” as an example of an offense. It’s the individual getting slapped that’s the crux. There will be different degrees of punishment for slapping different individuals.
From your atheistic worldview you deem my position about God an “assumption” and then apply the claim of logical fallacy.
My clumsy way of saying we break God’s law….God is infinite and so is his law.
We use anthropomorphic language to align divine attributes alongside human attributes. We attempt to make God more relatable and understandable to humanity.
I can lead you right to God, but you won’t follow.
Falconé did what he had to do with the wingspan of limited effort.
The caesarian way and style of meddling and improving things surely seemed like the true and may be ONLY resort for such an advantage.
The first "rider" (or should we say proponent?) engaged, and then the second, in this vile concoction of wills.
Apocalyptic or not, the true manifest was made, and it was clear, black baggery was a real effort as a means of settling it in a non-provokative manner without a dispute nor a premonition of strife and struggle.
They both knew where everything was heading as soon as they stepped inside the cage, it was a hellbound ride to the sauna...
The "mistique" is here to stay, be it now or never...
It's the Afterlife alright.
And yes, we should always (vis-a-vis) stay in the same boat among those other sordid predicaments where it may or may not flutter.
The one that tries, will, of course gain what is needed in this time and age.
The religion is one thing though, make no mistake about that.
It gets thought of many many times, always trying to improve.
-
I'm being quite broad and general in my definition of GOD.
In all modesty, it's likely I have more knowledge about the big bang theory and the forces of physics that govern our universe, then most getbiggers.
Some force or energy, at some point, had to start what we know of as space/time.
That originating force is what I consider to be the essence of " God".
Argument from Ignorance. You just don't get to say "Some force HAD to," without being able to demonstrate it.
And if there was an originating force, you'd have to demonstrate how it qualifies to be a "God."
This is all conjecture.
-
I'm being quite broad and general in my definition of GOD.
In all modesty, it's likely I have more knowledge about the big bang theory and the forces of physics that govern our universe, then most getbiggers.
Some force or energy, at some point, had to start what we know of as space/time.
That originating force is what I consider to be the essence of " God".
maybe it s just a physical, chemical, phenomenon, that is started by noone, and just more likely by "something", ie... a PHYSICAL phenomenon?
-
Yes, but meditation is often associated with Buddhism. You wouldn't want JC being associated in any way, shape or form with Buddhism. Even deep reflection may be associated with meditation, thus JC practicing Buddhism, and burning in HELL for all eternity!
The first black Jesus was a buddhist, FACT!
-
Argument from Ignorance. You just don't get to say "Some force HAD to," without being able to demonstrate it.
Johnny Falcon demonstrates it daily.
-
The first black Jesus was a buddhist, FACT!
lol ;D ;D
-
Johnny Falcon demonstrates it daily.
Via electricity?
-
Via electricity?
Also via invisible Clouds of Kale Greens, Sea Salt and congregating grues.
-
I never limited my definition to the divine or spiritual realm . You assumed I did. My definition is open ended until we get some good empirical data. CERN experiments proving the Higgs- Bosen are a good start
For me , GOD is the simply the original force and/or energy that started space/time.
It may be some odd, strange ,spiritual energy? Nobody knows and that's my point.
To assume one can rule out what it may be, is the ultimate example of ignorance . ;)
I suspect the true nature of GOD is beyond human capabilities of comprehension. 100% serious.
Like Newton said, we get brief glimpses (at times) into how "HE" did it.
Humans trying to fully understand GOD, is like trying to teach my dog calculus.
Agreed, we cannot fully comprehend God.
-
I never limited my definition to the divine or spiritual realm . You assumed I did. My definition is open ended until we get some good empirical data. CERN experiments proving the Higgs- Bosen are a good start
For me , GOD is the simply the original force and/or energy that started space/time.
It may be some odd, strange ,spiritual energy? Nobody knows and that's my point.
To assume one can rule out what it may be, is the ultimate example of ignorance . ;)
I suspect the true nature of GOD is beyond human capabilities of comprehension. 100% serious.
Like Newton said, we get brief glimpses (at times) into how "HE" did it.
Humans trying to fully understand GOD, is like trying to teach my dog calculus.
But you don't get to put the cart before the horse.
Its ignorant to assume its a "God" without even knowing what the energy or force is that started it all (if its even energy or force).
Shit, Id hate for my kid to be in your classroom. Now I know why American education is going downhill. :-\ :-\
-
Agreed, we cannot fully comprehend God.
probably cause there s nothing to "comprehend" other than he/it doesnt exist and things are just random phenomenons happening without other explanation needed than "the strongest survives and the weakest disapear". Darwin pretty much nailed everything there is to "know". There s no good or evil; there s just what adapts and survives and what cant.
Life adapts until it cant anymore, then it disapears.
-
probably cause there s nothing to "comprehend" other than he/it doesnt exist and things are just random phenomenons happening without other explanation needed than "the strongest survives and the weakest disapear". Darwin pretty much nailed everything there is to "know". There s no good or evil; there s just what adapts and survives and what cant.
Life adapts until it cant anymore, then it disapears.
This post is gonna be my Christmas card this year.
-
FYI, the "kids" in my classroom have to first take an SAT, get admitted to the school and complete the prereq. math courses BEFORE they get to take my class.
I hope you don't teach them all this nonsense that youre spewing here.
-
Of course not. But are you also saying debates between two scholars in a university setting is also fruitless? Id have to disagree. Most people who debate each other in a real setting do so for the audience. The atheist and theist are well aware they are not going to change each others minds during the debate. The debate is usually held for the public, so they can gain knowledge about a topic. And there have been many instances where audience members may be on the fence about their theism or atheism, and the debate helps them make a more informed opinion. Debates in those types of settings arent really for the atheist to convert the theist or vice versa. Its usually done for the audience. In this sense, they are worthwhile and important.
But the debates on getbig are pretty useless in changing minds.
You deduced all that from my statement?
-
You deduced all that from my statement?
Well, I know how much you hate these sort of debates, thus I assumed you hated all types of debates that involved atheism vs. theism.
-
Well, I know how much you hate these sort of debates, thus I assumed you hated all types of debates that involved atheism vs. theism.
They're boring, repetitive and unconvincing on both sides. It all boils down to personal choice.
-
Well, I know how much you hate these sort of debates, thus I assumed you hated all types of debates that involved atheism vs. theism.
How did we "evolve" from a debate on bunny suits to this? Hmmmmmm ;)
-
They're boring, repetitive and unconvincing on both sides. It all boils down to personal choice.
Exactly. And some people are on the fence about their choice. Often, these debates will help inform someone of their choice.There are many people who convert from theism to atheism and vice versa.
Having a debate (not on getbig) on any topic is important. Every ideology (politics, religion, science, etc) all comes down to personal choice. It doesnt mean we should stop debating them.
But I agree that debates on getbig are pretty much pointless.
-
actually these debates arent useless, they change people s minds over time. If they were useless they wouldnt take place.
-
actually these debates arent useless, they change people s minds over time. If they were useless they wouldnt take place.
I agree that debates in appropriate settings are useful.
Debates on getbig are pretty much pointless.
-
I agree that debates in appropriate settings are useful.
Debates on getbig are pretty much pointless.
not so sure about that, these debates pop up everywhere everyday and religious beliefs are on the decline everywhere on this globalized planet because of it.
-
They're boring, repetitive and unconvincing on both sides. It all boils down to personal choice.
I agree that debates in appropriate settings are useful.
Debates on getbig are pretty much pointless.
Some folks have no interest in this stuff, but I think it's important because of the following:
-
Some folks have no interest in this stuff, but I think it's important because of the following:
Yes, but given the nature of getbig, the debates don't do much on here.
-
Yes, but given the nature of getbig, the debates don't do much on here.
Maybe not for the little group of GB members, but the thread has over 12,000 views so people are taking a look.....that's a good thing.
-
Maybe not for the little group of GB members, but the thread has over 12,000 views so people are taking a look.....that's a good thing.
That, or its the same members just viewing the thread over and over again. :D :D ;D ;D
-
In all modesty, I think many of my students are bright, curious and deserve my best.
I try to operate in an atmosphere of mutual respect and academic curiosity .
I'm always careful to point out when something is my opinion and do my best to encourage free and open debate on a variety of physics based topics.
FYI, due the requirement of covering key, core topics, we don't get into too many philosophical debates.
How to derive equations and the logic explaining physics concepts demands most of my time from most students...as it should.
Howard, if my kid was in your class, I would have him removed asap. You're too creepy!
-
Maybe not for the little group of GB members, but the thread has over 12,000 views so people are taking a look.....that's a good thing.
definitely not a good thing for your religion tho lol.
-
definitely not a good thing for your religion tho lol.
Why is that LOL?
-
because you guys have looked ridiculous in this thread.
Never expected that answer from an atheist! ::)
Fortunately for me, I'm unconcerned with the atheist's canned opinion of me.....makes it easy to interact.
I just answer the atheist's questions because typically they're the only ones asking them. Sometimes I have an answer, sometimes I don't.
Still, I already know for the atheist my answers are meaningless. It's the other readers that concern me.
I'm here to share my faith and God. If I have to wade through the pool of the Godless to do that then so be it.
-
Never expected that answer from an atheist! ::)
Fortunately for me, I'm unconcerned with the atheist's canned opinion of me.....makes it easy to interact.
I just answer the atheist's questions because typically they're the only ones asking them. Sometimes I have an answer, sometimes I don't.
Still, I already know for the atheist my answers are meaningless. It's the other readers that concern me.
Your meaningless answers are appreciated by all. Nothing like seeing a fully fledged, religious adherent, espousing how great god is. Keeps us all grounded about the human capacity for lunacy. Keep up the good work! (no atheist)
-
I agree that debates in appropriate settings are useful.
Debates on getbig are pretty much pointless.
Sounds like you're trying to start a debate on debating.
-
Sounds like you're trying to start a debate on debating.
I learned from Shizzo (posting about posting).
-
Your meaningless answers are appreciated by all. Nothing like seeing a fully fledged, religious adherent, espousing how great god is. Keeps us all grounded about the human capacity for lunacy. Keep up the good work! (no atheist)
::)
-
It doesn't surprise me that you're unconcerned with an atheist's opinion, You're clearly living in denial and point blank refuse to listen to common sense, but my point is that for the readers that you are attempting to influence, who have yet to make up their minds, it's amusing to see you and Tbombz represent your side of the argument so poorly.
Copying and pasting other people's work from religious websites as a response, and answering questions with sophistry and pseudo scientific ramblings, isn't going to do much to convince the undecided! ;D ;D ;D
If you think my argumentation is poor I'm a-ok with that.
-
If you think my argumentation is poor I'm a-ok with that.
What I find funny and interesting about you MOS, is that youre constantly saying how atheists laugh at you, make fun of you, "write" you off, etc.
Yet, you hardly ever acknowledge all that bad crap that theists spew toward atheists....we are immoral, we eat babies, we are sad and depressed, we have nothing worth living for, we can't love, etc. You seem to be a-okay with all that said about atheist, yet when an atheist calls you irrational, all of a sudden we are making fun of you, etc.
Just something to think about, broskie!
Your friend,
SF1900
-
What I find funny and interesting about you MOS, is that youre constantly saying how atheists laugh at you, make fun of you, "write" you off, etc.
Yet, you hardly ever acknowledge all that bad crap that theists spew toward atheists....we are immoral, we eat babies, we are sad and depressed, we have nothing worth living for, we can't love, etc. You seem to be a-okay with all that said about atheist, yet when an atheist calls you irrational, all of a sudden we are making fun of you, etc.
Just something to think about, broskie!
Your friend,
SF1900
I don't care how an atheist defines me. Irrational, delusional, retarded, weak, etc.....I'm "meh" to it. As long as the insults and mocking continue to revolve around the notion that "I represent Christ" then let the insults flow.
I've taken board theists to task before for using foul language, watching pornography, insulting nonbelievers....I've held believers accountable. I've also defended both atheists and muslims repeatedly. Spent a couple of years doing that actually.
Do theists care if MOS "reprimands them"? Do atheists or muslims care that MOS "defended them"? No LOL.
I have zero control over how atheists or theists are going to present themselves. I just try and live my life according to Christ.
I'm not upset with folks (believer or nonbeliever). I'm just doin my thing. :)
Hey, I still talk to you and you're a "morally bankrupt, Godless heathen"! ;D (j/k)
-
man of steel would you consider taking magic mushrooms in a biblical way?
-
it sounds like tbombz is going to hell (gay sex, meth, HIV, violence, jail, assault, lying, stealing, outstanding warrants):
No, not everything needs a cause, but only things that have a beginning. God is eternal. That is the definition of God. God does not need a cause because God did not have a beginning.
God will not send good people to hell. Hell is not for good people. Hell is for bad people.
Virtual Particles?
"...In this chapter, Krauss gives evidence for entities called virtual particles. They are called virtual because they have never been directly observed due to their fleeting lifetimes (less than Planck time). However, the existence of virtual particles is allowed by quantum mechanics, from the uncertainty principle. There is indirect evidence for their existence. The calculated energy levels associated with the orbitals of hydrogen differ slightly from experimental measurement. However, if a virtual particle pair is assumed to be located around the hydrogen nucleus, the calculated energy levels match experiment exactly. They are believed to convey the strong force between quarks in protons and neutrons. Virtual particles are usually invoked in strong fields (electromagnetic, gravitational). Hawking radiation, predicted to be a mechanism by which black holes could ‘evaporate’, depends on the existence of virtual particles, but has not been observed so far. Krauss says a universe where the total mass/energy is balanced by the potential gravitational energy has zero net energy and so could pop into existence from nothing without violation of the first law. Such a universe should, however, collapse and disappear in periods shorter than the Planck time unless inflation allows it to exist beyond the Planck time. Krauss also says that this proves you can get something from nothing given the energetics of empty space and the law of gravity. So he says you can get a universe from nothing if you can start with empty space with nonzero energy and the laws of gravity and quantum mechanics. He admits empty space with nonzero energy is something! A quantum theory of gravity would mean quantum mechanics applies to space, not just to objects in space. Then we could say that spacetimes pop in and out of nothing if the total energy is zero. But we don’t yet have a quantum theory of gravity. Krauss concedes that this speculation does not prove our universe arose from nothing, but says it makes such a scenario more plausible. And plausibility is apparently all he needs to justify rejection of God. So much for basing his worldview on hard, cold facts alone. The energy calculated for empty space assuming virtual particles is (10 to the 120th power) times greater than that observed. This is a longstanding unsolved problem."
Those thoughts are not deep. They are the thoughts of a self-willed person who lives for their own desires, who refuses to believe in a God who demands obedience. They are the thoughts of an infant child with a reprobate mind.
-
Honestly, I think when Jesus went alone to pray he probably didn't do so in a meditative state. I believe he did so in a reverent state.
Prior to the incarnation Jesus's knowledge was complete and his abilities and existence equal to that of the remaining persons of the trinity in Father and Spirit.
Now as man in flesh he was emptied of his divine powers and existed as a man. As Paul states in Phillipians:
Philippians 2:5-7
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
He now existed as a man with a divine mission. I think given the limitations of his newly added humanity when he reverently prayed to the Father he was probably quite anxious and scared about fulfilling his mission....I would guess his stomach was probably upset. He probably sought council and peace and the will of the Father who sent him. I can't say with certainty how Christ did or didn't feel in both body and mind, but given his purpose, his human nature and his limitations therein I'd say he experienced a great deal of inner turmoil. His time of private prayer in which he entered in reverence and commune with the Father was his outlet for peace.....his period of inner replenishment and grounding if you will.
Perhaps after he calmed his mind via the peace and grace of the Father he received during prayer he would then become more meditative outside of prayer and reflect upon what learned or given to him by the Father. Again, I just don't know for sure.
I'm a huge sci-fi fan who has probably read about 500 books and seen countless tv shows and movies in that genre. So far, I really like this "bible" book.
I tried reading The Qoran but couldn't get through it and then started watching this which I thought was far better.
The book can be well described as a mixture of The Prisoner, The Village and The Time Machine.
If you liked those (even if you didn't like the end of The Village) you will like the bible.
-
Sounds like you're trying to start a debate on debating.
I think it best if we agree to disagree provided we can agree on a future date to debate this disagreement. ???
I yield my time back to my esteemed fellow schomoes .
-
Its not openly stated in the bible that they are forbidden. I mean in a prayerful manner, taking the time to get closer to Christ, reflect on scripture, take a walk in nature etc.
-
man of steel would you consider taking magic mushrooms in a biblical way?
Its not openly stated in the bible that they are forbidden. I mean in a prayerful manner, taking the time to get closer to Christ, reflect on scripture, take a walk in nature etc.
How would using mushrooms bring a person closer to Christ? I'm not even getting into whether or not someone should either.
-
Try them and see big man :)
-
Try them and see big man :)
So essentially they are mind-altering? And you see you no evidence in scripture that this is frowned upon? Is that right?
-
Someone I know sent me the following email:
What does God think about transgender people?
Thoughts...
-
So essentially they are mind-altering? And you see you no evidence in scripture that this is frowned upon? Is that right?
they are mind altering yes. So is alcohol. So is a passionate sermon.
-
Well, interesting topic....are you aware that Manna (from heaven) is in fact psychedelic mushrooms?
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2008/09/jesus-christ-magic-mushroom-part-1.html
There are some serious schools of thought that discuss the idea that the bible is a trip report of shrooms.....
http://zazenlife.com/2012/09/10/the-bible-is-a-trip-report/
But this is not the really interesting thing. The really interesting question is why an omnipotent, caring god would heal cancer victims and the like through the documented power of prayer, yet is unable to restore limb functionality to amputees.........
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
-
What does God think about transgender people?
Hellbound.... even the hot trannies.
-
they are mind altering yes. So is alcohol. So is a passionate sermon.
And you see you no evidence in scripture that this is frowned upon?
-
Well it's a loaded question because its assuming God is real in the first place, but let's just ignore all the evidence on the contrary for a minute and entertain the idea that he exists. I Personally cannot see how he can not have anything but love for them, seeing as he's the guy that made them in the first place. If he's pissed off with them then it's because he's a shit artist with a capricious temperament...kinda like an omnipotent Van Gogh, and therefore not really worthy of much praise, seeing as he wants to condemn his own creations to hell.
I did some research scripturally and came up with a few thoughts:
1 Corinthians, it says that "In Christ there is neither male nor female, but all are one in Him"
In Genesis, it says that "He created them male, and female" But that was before sin entered, now we have things like babies born with both genetalia, both chromosomes etc - we can safely assume that God is not creating individual people this way - it would contradict himself right?
In Leviticus, it says that "Men who wear womens clothing, and women who wear mens clothing are detestable to the Lord"
But again in Proverbs, it says that there are things which the lord particularly hates/are abomination to him.....liars, pride filled people etc but no mention of dime piece trannies.
If it is faith alone in Christ, that makes a person 'saved' and part of God's family.....why would it matter if someone has gender identity crisis but still loves Jesus with all their heart?
-
And you see you no evidence in scripture that this is frowned upon?
Alcohol is not once frowned upon in scripture, however preaching with a false motive is scorned pretty harshly.
In the book of Leviticus, God commands his people to buy wine (hebrew word in this instance is fermented wine) and also strong drink (hebrew word is over-fermented/liquor) and to have a feast before Him and rejoice. They were actually to spend their tithes for this purpose lol, we can safely say the Lord is not concerned with alcohol, however, drunkeness (from alcohol, but also as a state of mind) is a sin.
-
And you see you no evidence in scripture that this is frowned upon?
yes, so better not have that glass of wine or make love to your wife, those demonic mind altering activities ::)
-
yes, so better not have that glass of wine or make love to your wife, those demonic mind altering activities ::)
As a christian taking my wife to Amsterdam in a couple of weeks time, which psylocybin truffles do you recommend we purchase before reading our night time devotions, BigRo?
-
yes, so better not have that glass of wine or make love to your wife, those demonic mind altering activities ::)
I know what scripture states about alcohol and preaching.
I'm just asking about whether or not you see any evidence in scripture about using or not using magic mushrooms?
Thought we could talk about it....it's not a trap or anything. ;D
-
I know what scripture states about alcohol and preaching.
I'm just asking about whether or not you see any evidence in scripture about using or not using magic mushrooms?
MOS, I believe that the bible says its okay to only do missionary position.
Since you found God, do you only do missionary position? No oral? Your wife must be bummed about this. :'( :'(
-
MOS, I believe that the bible says its okay to only do missionary position.
Since you found God, do you only do missionary position? No oral? Your wife must be bummed about this. :'( :'(
If God ever bans BJ'S im joining ISIS.
-
Alcohol is not once frowned upon in scripture, however preaching with a false motive is scorned pretty harshly.
In the book of Leviticus, God commands his people to buy wine (hebrew word in this instance is fermented wine) and also strong drink (hebrew word is over-fermented/liquor) and to have a feast before Him and rejoice. They were actually to spend their tithes for this purpose lol, we can safely say the Lord is not concerned with alcohol, however, drunkeness (from alcohol, but also as a state of mind) is a sin.
I'm dense, can you point me to the scripture in Levitcus? I do recall what you're mentioning, but can't find it in Leviticus.
Maybe Deuteronomy?
-
I'm dense, can you point me to the scripture in Levitcus? I do recall what you're mentioning, but can't find it in Leviticus.
Maybe Deuteronomy?
I'll check just now buddy.
-
I'm dense, can you point me to the scripture in Levitcus? I do recall what you're mentioning, but can't find it in Leviticus.
Maybe Deuteronomy?
Sorry, it's Deut. 14:26
-
Sorry, it's Deut. 14:26
gracias!
-
Gotta laugh at these asshats thinking some bollocks, written 2000 years ago, by a guy who got high as fuck, and hung out with whores, is straight from some sky god.
-
As a christian taking my wife to Amsterdam in a couple of weeks time, which psylocybin truffles do you recommend we purchase before reading our night time devotions, BigRo?
there is just one type of truffles available and maybe 2 or 3 different brands so to speak. I found truffles were hard on my stomach, maybe they were old.
-
there is just one type of truffles available and maybe 2 or 3 different brands so to speak. I found truffles were hard on my stomach, maybe they were old.
Cheers Ro.
Always wanted to try them, I guess Amsterdam would be the best place. I've hired out a real nice houseboat for a few days, so at least I will be in a comfortable environment.
-
Cheers Ro.
Always wanted to try them, I guess Amsterdam would be the best place. I've hired out a real nice houseboat for a few days, so at least I will be in a comfortable environment.
They're pretty amazing. Haven't had a bad experience.
-
They're pretty amazing. Haven't had a bad experience.
I'm sure I will have a blast lol. The houseboat has a very nice entertainment system, and i'm considering talking a film like Kung Fu Hustle to buzz out on :-[ :-X
-
I'm sure I will have a blast lol. The houseboat has a very nice entertainment system, and i'm considering talking a film like Kung Fu Hustle to buzz out on :-[ :-X
I've mostly just walked around and looked at stuff. Personally didn't want to be around people who were not tripping.
Found trees and shit more interesting to look at than tech.....all personal though.
-
The Dream of the Assbunny
One peaceful summer night, Schlong Tzu went to sleep and dreamed he was Tbombz in the form of a hopping, horny, devil-may-care Assbunny. Oh, what gay sex he had! Offering his furry bung to men with bad credit ratings, lapsed car inspections, and 50,000 miles of road on their faces; the smell of stale beer, cum, and puke wafting over him. "This is bliss," he reflected. Suddenly, however, he was startled awake: groggy, butt sore, and with a strong craving for the cock, "How strange?’' he thought to himself, not being able to distinguish whether Schlong Tzu had dreamt he was the Assbunny or if the Assbunny had dreamt he was Schlong Tzu.
-
77 things banned in Leviticus
Here’s chapter and verse on a more-or-less comprehensive list of things banned in the Leviticus book of the bible. A decent number of them are punishable by death.
Unless you’ve never done any of them (and 54 to 56 are particularly tricky), perhaps it’s time to lay off quoting 18:22 for a while?
1. Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11)
2. Failing to include salt in offerings to God (2:13)
3. Eating fat (3:17)
4. Eating blood (3:17)
5. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve witnessed (5:1)
6. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve been told about (5:1)
7. Touching an unclean animal (5:2)
8. Carelessly making an oath (5:4)
9. Deceiving a neighbour about something trusted to them (6:2)
10. Finding lost property and lying about it (6:3)
11. Bringing unauthorised fire before God (10:1)
12. Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6)
13. Tearing your clothes (10:6)
14. Drinking alcohol in holy places (bit of a problem for Catholics, this ‘un) (10:9)
15. Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof (cf: camel, rabbit, pig) (11:4-7)
16. Touching the carcass of any of the above (problems here for rugby) (11:8)
17. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12)
18. Eating – or touching the carcass of - eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (11:13-19)
19. Eating – or touching the carcass of – flying insects with four legs, unless those legs are jointed (11:20-22)
20. Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (good news for cats) (11:27)
21. Eating – or touching the carcass of – the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon (11:29)
22. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any creature which crawls on many legs, or its belly (11:41-42)
23. Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4)
24. Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5)
25. Having sex with your mother (18:7)
26. Having sex with your father’s wife (18:8)
27. Having sex with your sister (18:9)
28. Having sex with your granddaughter (18:10)
29. Having sex with your half-sister (18:11)
30. Having sex with your biological aunt (18:12-13)
31. Having sex with your uncle’s wife (18:14)
32. Having sex with your daughter-in-law (18:15)
33. Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16)
34. Having sex with a woman and also having sex with her daughter or granddaughter (bad news for Alan Clark) (18:17)
35. Marrying your wife’s sister while your wife still lives (18:18)
36. Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19)
37. Having sex with your neighbour’s wife (18:20)
38. Giving your children to be sacrificed to Molek (18:21)
39. Having sex with a man “as one does with a woman” (18:22)
40. Having sex with an animal (18:23)
41. Making idols or “metal gods” (19:4)
42. Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9)
43. Picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard (19:10)
44. Stealing (19:11)
45. Lying (19:11)
46. Swearing falsely on God’s name (19:12)
47. Defrauding your neighbour (19:13)
48. Holding back the wages of an employee overnight (not well observed these days) (19:13)
49. Cursing the deaf or abusing the blind (19:14)
50. Perverting justice, showing partiality to either the poor or the rich (19:15)
51. Spreading slander (19:16)
52. Doing anything to endanger a neighbour’s life (19:16)
53. Seeking revenge or bearing a grudge (19:18)
54. Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19)
55. Cross-breeding animals (19:19)
56. Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19)
57. Sleeping with another man’s slave (19:20)
58. Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23)
59. Practising divination or seeking omens (tut, tut astrology) (19:26)
60. Trimming your beard (19:27)
61. Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27)
62. Getting tattoos (19:28)
63. Making your daughter prostitute herself (19:29)
64. Turning to mediums or spiritualists (19:31)
65. Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32)
66. Mistreating foreigners – “the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born” (19:33-34)
67. Using dishonest weights and scales (19:35-36)
68. Cursing your father or mother (punishable by death) (20:9)
69. Marrying a prostitute, divorcee or widow if you are a priest (21:7,13)
70. Entering a place where there’s a dead body as a priest (21:11)
71. Slaughtering a cow/sheep and its young on the same day (22:28)
72. Working on the Sabbath (23:3)
73. Blasphemy (punishable by stoning to death) (24:14)
74. Inflicting an injury; killing someone else’s animal; killing a person must be punished in kind (24:17-22)
75. Selling land permanently (25:23)
76. Selling an Israelite as a slave (foreigners are fine) (25:42)
77. Dressing up like an "Ass Bunny". (18:22 B)
-
There was no person called 'Leviticus'. The book of Leviticus in the Bible comes from the Greek translation of the scriptures called the 'Septuagint' where this particular book was called 'Leuitikon' or 'matters of the Levites'. The Levites were one of the twelve tribes of Israel, and were named after Levi who was one of the 12 sons of Jacob, (who later had his name changed to Israel.)
-
(http://i44.tinypic.com/2wfjv9j.gif)
How the Assbunny led to the Deus Absconditus (or, the God who hides)
Taking a moment to survey His wondrous feats of creation, on the Sixth Day, God made the Assbunny, and, after taking notice of His creature, He decided to hide from this world, instead turning his omnipotence to actualizing other possible worlds, of which this one, because it includes the abominable Assbunny, is not the best. Hence, the all powerful Lord did not rest on the seventh day, he skipped out of town on what became known henceforth as The Ssabbass. And that is how the Assbunny led irrevocably to the Deus Absconditus (Apocrypha 2.i: Anagignoskomena: Versio Tbombzius)
-
How the Assbunny lead to the Deus Absconditus (or, the God who hides)
Taking a moment to survey his wondrous feats of creation, on the sixth day, God made the Assbunny, and, after taking notice of His creature, He decided to hide from this world, instead turning his omnipotence to actualizing other possible worlds, of which this one, because it includes the abominable Assbunny, is not the best. Hence, the Lord did not rest on the seventh day, he skipped out of town on what became known henceforth as The Ssabbass. And that is how the Assbunny lead irrevocably to the Deus Absconditus (Apocrypha:2.i:Versio Tbombzius).
lol. Legendary post!!
-
77 things banned in Leviticus
Here’s chapter and verse on a more-or-less comprehensive list of things banned in the Leviticus book of the bible. A decent number of them are punishable by death.
Unless you’ve never done any of them (and 54 to 56 are particularly tricky), perhaps it’s time to lay off quoting 18:22 for a while?
1. Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11)
2. Failing to include salt in offerings to God (2:13)
3. Eating fat (3:17)
4. Eating blood (3:17)
5. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve witnessed (5:1)
6. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve been told about (5:1)
7. Touching an unclean animal (5:2)
8. Carelessly making an oath (5:4)
9. Deceiving a neighbour about something trusted to them (6:2)
10. Finding lost property and lying about it (6:3)
11. Bringing unauthorised fire before God (10:1)
12. Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6)
13. Tearing your clothes (10:6)
14. Drinking alcohol in holy places (bit of a problem for Catholics, this ‘un) (10:9)
15. Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof (cf: camel, rabbit, pig) (11:4-7)
16. Touching the carcass of any of the above (problems here for rugby) (11:8)
17. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12)
18. Eating – or touching the carcass of - eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (11:13-19)
19. Eating – or touching the carcass of – flying insects with four legs, unless those legs are jointed (11:20-22)
20. Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (good news for cats) (11:27)
21. Eating – or touching the carcass of – the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon (11:29)
22. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any creature which crawls on many legs, or its belly (11:41-42)
23. Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4)
24. Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5)
25. Having sex with your mother (18:7)
26. Having sex with your father’s wife (18:8)
27. Having sex with your sister (18:9)
28. Having sex with your granddaughter (18:10)
29. Having sex with your half-sister (18:11)
30. Having sex with your biological aunt (18:12-13)
31. Having sex with your uncle’s wife (18:14)
32. Having sex with your daughter-in-law (18:15)
33. Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16)
34. Having sex with a woman and also having sex with her daughter or granddaughter (bad news for Alan Clark) (18:17)
35. Marrying your wife’s sister while your wife still lives (18:18)
36. Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19)
37. Having sex with your neighbour’s wife (18:20)
38. Giving your children to be sacrificed to Molek (18:21)
39. Having sex with a man “as one does with a woman” (18:22)
40. Having sex with an animal (18:23)
41. Making idols or “metal gods” (19:4)
42. Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9)
43. Picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard (19:10)
44. Stealing (19:11)
45. Lying (19:11)
46. Swearing falsely on God’s name (19:12)
47. Defrauding your neighbour (19:13)
48. Holding back the wages of an employee overnight (not well observed these days) (19:13)
49. Cursing the deaf or abusing the blind (19:14)
50. Perverting justice, showing partiality to either the poor or the rich (19:15)
51. Spreading slander (19:16)
52. Doing anything to endanger a neighbour’s life (19:16)
53. Seeking revenge or bearing a grudge (19:18)
54. Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19)
55. Cross-breeding animals (19:19)
56. Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19)
57. Sleeping with another man’s slave (19:20)
58. Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23)
59. Practising divination or seeking omens (tut, tut astrology) (19:26)
60. Trimming your beard (19:27)
61. Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27)
62. Getting tattoos (19:28)
63. Making your daughter prostitute herself (19:29)
64. Turning to mediums or spiritualists (19:31)
65. Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32)
66. Mistreating foreigners – “the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born” (19:33-34)
67. Using dishonest weights and scales (19:35-36)
68. Cursing your father or mother (punishable by death) (20:9)
69. Marrying a prostitute, divorcee or widow if you are a priest (21:7,13)
70. Entering a place where there’s a dead body as a priest (21:11)
71. Slaughtering a cow/sheep and its young on the same day (22:28)
72. Working on the Sabbath (23:3)
73. Blasphemy (punishable by stoning to death) (24:14)
74. Inflicting an injury; killing someone else’s animal; killing a person must be punished in kind (24:17-22)
75. Selling land permanently (25:23)
76. Selling an Israelite as a slave (foreigners are fine) (25:42)
77. Dressing up like an "Ass Bunny". (18:22 B)
LMAO, might as well put that in, the rest are equally funny.
This shit is to funny, the creator makes galaxies then writes a disjointed list of bullshit.
-
LMAO, might as well put that in, the rest are equally funny.
This shit is to funny, the creator makes galaxies then writes a disjointed list of bullshit.
Your addition is funny....probably to everyone but Tbombz. Who could have guessed Taylor would be immortalized as the dude who dressed up like an "Ass Bunny".
Just to clarify, Leviticus was not the Creator of anything but words of hate. No God that I believe in would write the things he did. This was very unchristian of Leviticus.
-
tbombz posted the "ass bunny" picture himself on Facebook. So he wanted the world to see it.
He was a crazy and confused kid; now he's a crazy adult. The only thing different is the subject of his craziness.
Many people post things on Facebook and other social media only to regret it later....Anthony Wiener for example. I've posted photos here that make me cringe when I see them....what was I thinking? We all do stupid things in our lives.
-
The Dream of the Assbunny
One peaceful summer night, Schlong Tzu went to sleep and dreamed he was Tbombz in the form of a hopping, horny, devil-may-care Assbunny. Oh, what gay sex he had! Offering his furry bung to men with bad credit ratings, lapsed car inspections, and 50,000 miles of road on their faces; the smell of stale beer, cum, and puke wafting over him. "This is bliss," he reflected. Suddenly, however, he was startled awake: groggy, butt sore, and with a strong craving for the cock, "How strange?’' he thought to himself, not being able to distinguish whether Schlong Tzu had dreamt he was the Assbunny or if the Assbunny had dreamt he was Schlong Tzu.
Lmfao
-
I've posted photos here that make me cringe when I see them....what was I thinking?
Prime, I'm no mind reader, but some of your posts augur the idea that maybe you were hoping to lasso an excitable bronco to buck around your old dirt road?
-
Prime, I'm no mind reader, but some of your posts augur the idea that maybe you were hoping to lasso an excitable bronco to buck around your old dirt road?
Cute, but no. Anyway, the road I live on is paved in gold. :)
The photo(s) to which I referred were photos that I posted of myself and later regretted. :-[
-
Prime, I'm no mind reader, but some of your posts augur the idea that maybe you were hoping to lasso an excitable bronco to buck around your old dirt road?
Kahn - you deserve a Pulitzer for some of the stuff you write on here- Pure Gold, lol
-
Cute, but no. Anyway, the road I live on is paved in gold. :)
The photo(s) to which I referred were photos that I posted of myself and later regretted. :-[
With all due respect, Prime, by your own admission, you do not know what you were thinking. So, your response, while appreciated, cannot be right, lest you contradict your initial assertion. My guess, while admittedly only a guess (hence the question mark) remains plausible, if not entirely correct. Although neither you nor I know for sure.
See, more than cute.
-
Kahn - you deserve a Pulitzer for some of the stuff you write on here- Pure Gold, lol
Thank you! I'm just messing around.
-
Tbombz quote about analsex:
For me, it always hurts right when it goes in. Does not feel pleasant at all. Sort of a deep stinging sensation.
However, leave the cock in your ass, very shortly the pain goes away entirely. Once the pain leaves, then your partner can start to pump your ass. It feels like a great deep tissue massage, only its inside your ass. :D for me it feels real good when it goes real deep.. like there is some kind of pleasure sensor at the bottom of my ass that emits the tingles when ever a cock comes close to hitting it.
IT feels about the same whether your on your back or on your stomach, however there are some differences. on your back you can see your partner, which could be good or bad (attractive or unattractive?).
On your stomach its more relaxing and you can just bite a pillow and let the good times roll. ;)
Any other questions just shoot
Hahaha my new quote
-
Kahn - you deserve a Pulitzer for some of the stuff you write on here- Pure Gold, lol
Exactly what I was thinking.
Wonderful use of "augur"!
Makes me wonder what this guy does for a living.
-
I'm happy for anyone who manages to turn their life around but the need to proselytize shows they just shows they're tying to find a different way to deal with being fucked-up.
-
I'm happy for anyone who manages to turn their life around but the need to proselytize shows they just shows they're tying to find a different way to deal with being fucked-up.
Thank God for those that love others enough to share Jesus! To tell others I was foul, I was a wretch, I was steeped in sin and Jesus changed me and wants to free you too! Glorious message of love and hope!
-
Thank God for those that love others enough to share Jesus! To tell others I was foul, I was a wretch, I was steeped in sin and Jesus changed me and wants to free you too! Glorious message of love and hope!
was it the vigorous masturbation to porn that makes you feel you were a foul wretch steeped in sin? Or is there more to it?
-
was it the vigorous masturbation to porn that makes you feel you were a foul wretch steeped in sin? Or is there more to it?
That was just a part...Christ changed me completely and forgave and forgot all my past sins!
-
thats the only part we know about.
-
thats the only part we know about.
I've listed all sorts of sins I committed, but praise God I'm changed....the old man is gone! I walk with a clear conscience and a heart for Christ. It's awesome!
-
Christians aren't allowed to rub one out ???
-
I've listed all sorts of sins I committed, but praise God I'm changed....the old man is gone! I walk with a clear conscience and a heart for Christ. It's awesome!
Hallelujah praise the Lord and the Glory! 8)
-
Christians aren't allowed to rub one out ???
Just some Christians, not all.
-
Hallelujah praise the Lord and the Glory! 8)
Hallelujah is a great song.
-
Hallelujah is a great song.
Indeed.
-
Here is Jeff Buckley performing Hallelujah....considered to be one of the best if not the very best renditions.
-
Hallelujah praise the Lord and the Glory! 8)
EXACTLY! Glory to God!
-
Thank God for those that love others enough to share Jesus! To tell others I was foul, I was a wretch, I was steeped in sin and Jesus changed me and wants to free you too! Glorious message of love and hope!
SF1900 would probably classify it as a Reaction Formation. :)
-
SF1900 would probably classify it as a Reaction Formation. :)
Cool! That is completely and totally incorrect, but cool! Atheists don't understand anything about God so it's of no concern to me.
-
You don't necessarily need to be a christian in the classical definition to realize that love of ones neighbor and your fellow man is the highest calling. ;)
-
SF1900 would probably classify it as a Reaction Formation. :)
Yup.
-
Cool! That is completely and totally incorrect, but cool! Atheists don't understand anything about God so it's of no concern to me.
You don't know anything about Allah, Yahweh, Thor, Zeus or the Juju up the Great Mountain... yet that doesn't stop you from calling them false gods.
-
You don't know anything about Allah, Yahweh, Thor, Zeus or the Juju up the Great Mountain... yet that doesn't stop you from calling them false gods.
Far too rational of a response.
-
You don't know anything about Allah, Yahweh, Thor, Zeus or the Juju up the Great Mountain... yet that doesn't stop you from calling them false gods.
Are atheists issued a stack of 3x5 cards filled with cliche responses for theists?
-
Are atheists issued a stack of 3x5 cards filled with cliche responses for theists?
Shouldn't be too hard for you to find a reply in those Word documents you copy from.
-
Geez some ego there, going from getting aids from GAY sex with men before marriage, using drugs and stealing etc. to telling others he has the answers to life.
tbombz will die for our sins.
-
Geez some ego there, going from getting aids from GAY sex with men before marriage, using drugs and stealing etc. to telling others he has the answers to life.
tbombz always had all the answers, back then he was high on drugs and posting incoherent rants on facebook, now he is high on religion and doing the same thing.
He replaced one affliction with another.
-
tbombz always had all the answers, back then he was high on drugs and posting incoherent rants on facebook, now he is high on religion and doing the same thing.
He replaced one affliction with another.
I agree completely. What he has been doing, and what he is doing now, is not mentally healthy.
-
I agree completely. What he has been doing, and what he is doing now, is not mentally healthy.
X3
-
Are atheists issued a stack of 3x5 cards filled with cliche responses for theists?
Roles reversed...aren't preachy Christians armed with a stack of cliched cards?
-
Roles reversed...aren't preachy Christians armed with a stack of cliched cards?
Isn't it called the "Bible?" This is no different than cliche responses from atheists.
-
Remember lads, if we don't sin, Jesus died for nothing.
-
Remember lads, if we don't sin, Jesus died for nothing.
That's a novel and amusing concept. My Christianity and Bible stuff may be rusty but... I believe Jesus died so people would guy be born with original sin. :)
-
how tbombz the christian fundamentalist really feels and thinks:
me and my ex gf made it official last week and decided to agree and put a label on "us" = we are now boyfriend and girlfriend, but in an open relationship. we can flirt with and fuck whoever we want, we just need to tell eachother about everything without them having to ask about it first.
i hooked up with a few people this week and i told her about all of them and she has been nothing but supportive and happy for me. She hasnt done anything yet but Im on the lookout for a guy with a monster cock to stretch her out real good. And at the same time trying to find a guy with a great personality and good looks to be our 3rd member of our polyamorous relationship. boyfriend-boyfriend-girlfriend. no strings attached to anybody though.
I basically "chose" to be bisexual.
Sure sometimes I think of sucking a cock or fucking some dude's ass
I second this motion. and in addition i vote galeniko just keep his mouth shut from this point on and instead only post various photographs of his ripped body and cock.
-
Shouldn't be too hard for you to find a reply in those Word documents you copy from.
Hey at least they are my written words and my Word docs! I don't claim that every idea is genuine, but like EVERYONE else (atheists included) I study and learn from the experts (in this case the biblical scholars and theologians).
I have never claimed otherwise.
-
how tbombz the christian fundamentalist really feels and thinks:
These are the words of the old man. That old man is gone and a new man is alive today that is reborn in Christ!!!
The God haters cling to the old man who was once steeped in sin because it acts as consolation (and entertainment) given their similar, current and regrettable state of sin.
For the God haters, the old man can't die because he was even worse off than the majority of them both then and now. It brings comfort to them knowing someone else is worse off.....makes them feel better by comparison about their own stain of sin. It acts as justification or a metaphorical bar of soap somehow cleansing their own wrongdoings.
Yet, the old man is gone so the God hater clings to whatever they can to bring him back. In this case the idea of "preachiness" is what is clung to.
"He was a preachy, know-it-all before and now he just preaches about God. It's the same guy ::) just a different story is preached!"
No, it really isn't....it isn't at all. :) Praise God!!
-
These are the words of the old man. That old man is gone and a new man is alive today that is reborn in Christ!!!
The God haters cling to the old man who was once steeped in sin because it acts as consolation (and entertainment) given their similar, current and regrettable state of sin.
For the God haters, the old man can't die because he was even worse off than the majority of them both then and now. It brings comfort to them knowing someone else is worse off.....makes them feel better by comparison about their own stain of sin. It acts as justification or a metaphorical bar of soap somehow cleansing their own wrongdoings.
Yet, the old man is gone so the God hater clings to whatever they can to bring him back. In this case the idea of "preachiness" is what is clung to.
"He was a preachy, know-it-all before and now he just preaches about God. It's the same guy ::) just a different story is preached!"
No, it really isn't....it isn't at all. :) Praise God!!
so if I go and do meth, fuck men, get AIDS, go to jail, steal from my parents and assault a police officer, I just have to find Jesus and all will be forgiven?
-
so if I go and do meth, fuck men, get AIDS, go to jail, steal from my parents and assault a police officer, I just have to find Jesus and all will be forgiven?
If you come to the Lord in repentance and humble yourself before him and belief on his salvific work on the cross then absolutely!!
Now, people aren't as gracious as our heavenly father so a rebuilding of trust and gaining of forgiveness with them will probably take some time (might never come), but a new man in Christ would still seek to make right the harm done to others.
What's wrong with that?
-
If you come to the Lord in repentance and humble yourself before him and belief on his salvific work on the cross then absolutely!!
Now, people aren't as gracious as our heavenly father so a rebuilding of trust and gaining of forgiveness with them will probably take some time (might never come), but a new man in Christ would still seek to make right the harm done to others.
What's wrong with that?
That jesus doens't exist and the real world has consequences. How great, he is changed overnight!!!
-
That jesus doens't exist and the real world has consequences. How great, he is changed overnight!!!
It isn't my problem if you refuse to acknowledge the radical change in Taylor because of Jesus Christ.
You demand proof of God and you witness it before your eyes and suppress, suppress, suppress.
-
It isn't my problem if you refuse to acknowledge the radical change in Taylor because of Jesus Christ.
You demand proof of God and you witness it before your eyes and suppress, suppress, suppress.
What makes you think it was God that changed that guy's ways and not the four months in 2013 in which he suffered drug induced meltdowns, committed violent offences, spent time in jail and got diagnosed with HIV?
Again, you prefer to imagine supernatural explanations where natural ones suffice.
-
What makes you think it was God that changed that guy's ways and not the three months in which he suffered drug induced meltdowns, committed violent offences, spent time in jail and got diagnosed with HIV?
Again, you prefer to imagine supernatural explanations over natural ones.
Because that isn't what Taylor stated and his life clearly demonstrates a righteous change because of Jesus Christ.
Why would Taylor live for Christ and serve Christ in all he does if he merely pulled himself up by the boot straps? Why give Christ glory if it was all Taylor?
I know and recognize the change because of my own encounter with Jesus Christ.
-
Because that isn't what Taylor stated and his life clearly demonstrates a righteous change because of Jesus Christ.
Why would Taylor live for Christ and serve Christ in all he does if he merely pulled himself up by the boot straps? Why give Christ glory if it was all Taylor?
I know and recognize the change because of my own encounter with Jesus Christ.
Exactly, this is called confirmation bias. Anything I say won't matter in the slightest. You see the hand of God everywhere because you want to, it's like an Israelite in the Bronze Age watching an eclipse thinking God is trying to tell him something.
You use the phrase "righteous change", if you trust Taylor to interpret his experience for you, why don't you ask him if he is still attracted to men?
-
Exactly, this is called confirmation bias. Anything I say won't matter in the slightest. You see the hand of God everywhere because you want to, it's like an Israelite in the Bronze Age watching an eclipse thinking God is trying to tell him something.
You use the phrase "righteous change", if you trust Taylor to interpret his experience for you, why don't you ask him if he is still attracted to men?
Confirmation bias is a logical fallacy based on a concept or ideas.
My experience is a definite event not a concept or idea.....neither is Taylor's.
Per you application of the confirmation bias fallacy the entirety of religion could be disqualified because of confirmation bias. Everything to the nonbeliever is merely a concept with no real life experience with which to ground them.
Taylor and I have talked many times and shared our testimonies with one another. He's a brother in Christ.
-
tbombz always had all the answers, back then he was high on drugs and posting incoherent rants on facebook, now he is high on religion and doing the same thing.
He replaced one affliction with another.
This is not uncommon. Many addicts replace one addiction with another. It is possible that "twelve step" programs put these folks on the religious path.
My sister found religion when she entered a recovery program some 20 years ago. For years she attended NA meetings everyday. She's currently down to about once a week now.
-
Confirmation bias is a logical fallacy based on a concept or ideas.
My experience is a definite event not a concept or idea.....neither is Taylor's.
Your subjective experience relates to a concept called god.
-
This is not uncommon. Many addicts replace one addiction with another. It is possible that "twelve step" programs put these folks on the religious path.
My sister found religion when she entered a recovery program some 20 years ago. For years she attended NA meetings everyday. She's currently down to about once a week now.
Praise God for that!!
So often when people carren towards rock bottom they do crash right into the rock and that rock is Jesus Christ. And upon that rock so many are transformed and begin to rebuild their lives.
And what does so much of the world say to sarcastically discredit them, "Typical! Losers hit rock bottom and find religion! ::) "
I say praise God that he was waiting patiently for them to crash into him so he could raise them up powerfully!!
-
Your subjective experience relates to a concept called god.
Say the atheists with zero knowledge of or experience with God.
It's like being taught to read by someone that is illiterate.
-
Confirmation bias is a logical fallacy based on a concept or ideas.
My experience is a definite event not a concept or idea.....neither is Taylor's.
Per you application of the confirmation bias fallacy the entirety of religion could be disqualified because of confirmation bias. Everything to the nonbeliever is merely a concept with no real life experience with which to ground them.
Taylor and I have talked many times and shared our testimonies with one another. He's a brother in Christ.
You got it slightly wrong... confirmation bias definitely applies to experience and particularly your interpretation of them. Even if your experience was real (it wasn't), you'd be inclined to apply the same interpretation to someone else's experience, independently of their opinion. This is the way to madness and yes, a lot of religion is confirmation bias, suggestion, cultural influences, submitting to long-standing traditions and social proof (if millions believe it, it can't be wrong right?)
Say the atheists with zero knowledge of or experience with God.
It's like being taught to read by someone that is illiterate.
Exactly what is your experience with other Gods that led you to reject them? Did you study other religions and concluded that fundamendalist Christianity was the best choice you could have made? Of course not, you just had a wake-up call in the form of a health emergency and returned to the faith of your family, which was always in the back of your mind to some degree, even while your were "sinning".
-
Say the atheists with zero knowledge of or experience with God.
It's like being taught to read by someone that is illiterate.
Firstly, I am not an atheist. Secondly, I am trying to teach you reason, not religion.
-
Firstly, I am not an atheist. Secondly, I am trying to teach you reason, not religion.
Wasting your time broseph
(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/400x/36953948.jpg)
-
You got it slightly wrong... confirmation bias definitely applies to experience and particularly your interpretation of them. Even if your experience was real (it wasn't), you'd be inclined to apply the same interpretation to someone else's experience, independently of their opinion. This is the way to madness and yes, a lot of religion is confirmation bias, suggestion, cultural influences, submitting to long-standing traditions and social proof (if millions believe it, it can't be wrong right?)
Exactly what is your experience with other Gods that led you to reject them? Did you study other religions and concluded that fundamendalist Christianity was the best choice you could have made? Of course not, you just had a wake-up call in the form of a health emergency and returned to the faith of your family, which was always in the back of your mind to some degree, even while your were "sinning".
Yet we aren't believers because we agree with someone's else similar experiences. We're believers because we each experienced the reality of God in personal, tangible, divine ways.
We confirm that we are brothers in Christ because we both adhere to scripture appropriately and know the reality of the Holy Spirit within each other.....nonbelievers have zero understanding of this.
God told us very clearly there are no other Gods and because we've experienced the tangible reality of God in our lives we know there are no other Gods. We don't have to go chasing Zeus, Allah, Mithra, Horus, etc......we can have absolute confidence they're false because of the truth of the one and only God.
Some believers have undertaken that pursuit, but I didn't need to....I went to the source and that was all I needed. I share that with others today.
-
Firstly, I am not an atheist. Secondly, I am trying to teach you reason, not religion.
Fine you're an agnostic.....a soft atheist.....or an anti-theist, or an epistivist.....whatever name you give yourself you're an unbeliever.
All reason and logic is grounded in the absolute, divine, objective nature of God.
-
Fine you're an agnostic.....a soft atheist.....or an anti-theist, or an epistivist.....whatever name you give yourself you're an unbeliever.
All reason and logic is grounded in the absolute, divine, objective nature of God.
Objective means something that exists outside of your mind, independently of the reality inside your head. Again, you twist the meaning of words to suit your worldview. You have read too much William Lane Craig, the pseudophilosopher genocide apologist, who constantly abuses and redefines terms. If your God was objective I would have had a way of perceiving him independently of whether I believed in him or not. That is very much not the case, as your God cannot be perceived unless you believe in him first; a condition as tautological and absurd as anything, as under these conditions anything you choose to believe in will be experienced because you believe in it.
God exists because God exists and round and round you go...
-
Objective means something that exists outside of your mind, independently of the reality inside your head. Again, you twist the meaning of words to suit your worldview. You have read too much William Lane Craig, the pseudophilosopher genocide apologist, who constantly abuses and redefines terms. If your God was objective I would have had a way of perceiving him independently of whether I believed in him or not. That is very much not the case, as your God cannot be perceived unless you believe in him first; a condition as tautological and absurd as anything, as under these conditions anything you choose to believe in will be experienced because you believe in it.
God exists because God exists and round and round you go...
That is what objective essentially means. God exists whether my mind exists or not.
Tell me how I twist words.
I have read William Lane Craig, but too much? Just some.
You do perceive of God because of his creation....everyone does. Not only that, but everyone has his law impressed upon their hearts....everyone perceives God that way as well.
What you don't have is a personal relationship with God because you refuse to abide by his terms for said relationship. You already know he exists, but you reject him and call him absurd and then complain that he doesn't make his presence tangible for you. Why should he? He doesn't need your or me....we need him.
Anything I choose to believe will be experienced because I believe in it? How does that work?
-
Objective means something that exists outside of your mind, independently of the reality inside your head. Again, you twist the meaning of words to suit your worldview. You have read too much William Lane Craig, the pseudophilosopher genocide apologist, who constantly abuses and redefines terms. If your God was objective I would have had a way of perceiving him independently of whether I believed in him or not. That is very much not the case, as your God cannot be perceived unless you believe in him first; a condition as tautological and absurd as anything, as under these conditions anything you choose to believe in will be experienced because you believe in it.
God exists because God exists and round and round you go...
x2
MOS simply doesn't understand basic terms.
Reason is anathema to him. Hence, his delegation of it, to an imaginary figure.
-
I already know God exists? How did you work that out?
-
I already know God exists? How did you work that out?
It's plainly written in scripture. I know you care nothing about scripture, but plain nonetheless.
-
x2
MOS simply doesn't understand basic terms.
Reason is anathema to him. Hence, his delegation of it, to an imaginary figure.
Yep you nailed it, I don't understand basic terms and reason.
-
33 pages. If nothing else, patience is shown, here, to be a virtue.
-
Yep you nailed it, I don't understand basic terms and reason.
There are numerous examples where you misconstrue terms like "facts", "evidence", "space", "time", "personal attack", "research". It was even pointed to you numerous times in the "rational case for creator" thread and you didn't say shit.
You are deep into indoctrination, your logic is internal and your vocabulary apocryphal.
-
Fixed.
Tbombz always had himself in high regard, believing he was smarter than anyone else at getbig. Except everyone else didn't got AIDS at 22yo and he did.
:'(
-
There are numerous examples where you misconstrue terms like "facts", "evidence", "space", "time", "personal attack", "research". It was even pointed to you numerous times in the "rational case for creator" thread and you didn't say shit.
You are deep into indoctrination, your logic is internal and your vocabulary apocryphal.
I've talked about all these concepts many times. Of course my opponents don't agree with me.
-
Exactly what is your experience with other Gods that led you to reject them? Did you study other religions and concluded that fundamendalist Christianity was the best choice you could have made? Of course not, you just had a wake-up call in the form of a health emergency and returned to the faith of your family, which was always in the back of your mind to some degree, even while your were "sinning".
As for myself, I did study other religions. I was intensely spiritual for years before I became a Christian. At one point I very strongly considered becoming a Muslim. I spent years obsessively, passionately worshipping God before I became a Christian. I meditated for hours everyday. My mind was open to every conceivable possibility, and I thoroughly considered them all - I prided myself on it. And along the way God did answer some of my prayers. But my relationship with Him was very distant. I knew He existed and I searched for Him with all of my being. But I absolutely rejected Jesus Christ as the Son of God and I was disgusted by the biblical ethic. If you go back into my post history before I was a Christian you can find me arguing with Man of Steel about this subject. He was talking about his experiences with God and I was trying to reason with him just like you are now. Sadly my arguments were much better than the ones you are now using against him. I did not want to be Christian. I am one now only because God dragged me kicking and screaming. Even to this day I confess that my human heart lusts against God. But I cannot deny what I have seen with my own eyes, heard with my own ears, and tasted with my own lips. Asking Man of Steel and I to consider the idea that we are wrong about Jesus is like asking yourself if you could be wrong about the very fact of your own existence. It is undeniable.
One day you will know. It might be too late to save you, but you will know one day.
-
But I cannot deny what I have seen with my own eyes, heard with my own ears, and tasted with my own lips.
Uhm... you're trolling, right?
-
As for myself, I did study other religions. I was intensely spiritual for years before I became a Christian. At one point I very strongly considered becoming a Muslim. I spent years obsessively, passionately worshipping God before I became a Christian. I meditated for hours everyday. My mind was open to every conceivable possibility, and I thoroughly considered them all - I prided myself on it. And along the way God did answer some of my prayers. But my relationship with Him was very distant. I knew He existed and I searched for Him with all of my being. But I absolutely rejected Jesus Christ as the Son of God and I was disgusted by the biblical ethic. If you go back into my post history before I was a Christian you can find me arguing with Man of Steel about this subject. He was talking about his experiences with God and I was trying to reason with him just like you are now. Sadly my arguments were much better than the ones you are now using against him. I did not want to be Christian. I am one now only because God dragged me kicking and screaming. Even to this day I confess that my human heart lusts against God. But I cannot deny what I have seen with my own eyes, heard with my own ears, and tasted with my own lips. Asking Man of Steel and I to consider the idea that we are wrong about Jesus is like asking yourself if you could be wrong about the very fact of your own existence. It is undeniable.
One day you will know. It might be too late to save you, but you will know one day.
Was it after you took a load of dirty AIDS semen up your asshole you knew?
-
Yep you nailed it, I don't understand basic terms and reason.
Glad we can agree on this point.
-
Glad we can agree on this point.
You understand this type of back and forth is meaningless.....it's essentially I say "no" and you say "yes" stuff.
-
(http://s32.postimg.org/9o69g2tfp/314516_10150398304391165_933324901_n.jpg)
-
You understand this type of back and forth is meaningless.....it's essentially I say "no" and you say "yes" stuff.
And thus, the dialectic continues....
-
As for myself, I did study other religions. I was intensely spiritual for years before I became a Christian. At one point I very strongly considered becoming a Muslim. I spent years obsessively, passionately worshipping God before I became a Christian. I meditated for hours everyday. My mind was open to every conceivable possibility, and I thoroughly considered them all - I prided myself on it. And along the way God did answer some of my prayers. But my relationship with Him was very distant. I knew He existed and I searched for Him with all of my being. But I absolutely rejected Jesus Christ as the Son of God and I was disgusted by the biblical ethic. If you go back into my post history before I was a Christian you can find me arguing with Man of Steel about this subject. He was talking about his experiences with God and I was trying to reason with him just like you are now. Sadly my arguments were much better than the ones you are now using against him. I did not want to be Christian. I am one now only because God dragged me kicking and screaming. Even to this day I confess that my human heart lusts against God. But I cannot deny what I have seen with my own eyes, heard with my own ears, and tasted with my own lips. Asking Man of Steel and I to consider the idea that we are wrong about Jesus is like asking yourself if you could be wrong about the very fact of your own existence. It is undeniable.
Again, why did you reject the religions you "studied"? Saying you were "spiritual" is as vague as saying you believed in a "higher being", with the amount of woo-woo that exists in California and especially the recreational drugs you were taking from a young age, I shudder to think what qualified as "intensely spiritual" for you.
Back to my question though, which you didn't really answer to the point, why did you choose Christianity over other religions, like Islam which you say you studied, or Buddhism which is especially popular in California? On what criteria did you decide that Christianity is the one true faith, and why are all other religions false?
Sadly my arguments were much better than the ones you are now using against him.
Show me. As I remember you were not very intelligent, just a bit of a smart-arse.
One day you will know. It might be too late to save you, but you will know one day.
This is the tbombz I remember, the smug punk who was always telling people what they were doing wrong. Not only has that part of your personality remained intact (God hasn't helped much here), there is now the added element of sanctimonious self-righteousness.
Rest assured, I do not need to be saved from anything. God does not exist, the world is rudderless but also full of meaning. A certain kind of freedom comes with this realisation and it is up to each person to use it as they can. You abused yours and so it had to be taken away from you in order to survive. For the rest of us who make the most out of our freedom, we are able to see and understand the world dispassionately. There are no illusions as to what is.
-
Exactly.
Happy Nutday (esp. @5:20+)
Jesus christ, look at his face, he is so unstable it's not funny.
-
Jesus christ, look at his face, he is so unstable it's not funny.
Gotta love this "God gave his only son" nonsense the freak's so excited about. Like He didn't get him back the second he was "given."
Fucking dummy.
-
Gotta love this "God gave his only son" nonsense the freak's so excited about. Like He didn't get him back the second he was "given."
Fucking dummy.
What kind of sacrifice was it? Jesus knew he was going to heaven, he wasn't actually going to die, it's empty.
Fuck, if you told me for sure I am going to heaven, you can sacrifice me in any way you want for eternal bliss.
The real kicker is that this act of sacrifice, giving his only son is suppose to be the ultimate sign of love? sacrificing your son in human form? It almost sounds like a story written by medievil people.
-
Jesus christ, look at his face, he is so unstable it's not funny.
tbombz said himself that he found God when he was in jail, probably in isolation, and he was having a detox from meth and other drugs. He wrote about it somewhere, but I didn't save that post or wherever I read it from. It must have been quite painful to go cold turkey on so many drugs that he was taking before he went to prison, and somehow this new faith in God maybe got him through it.
But his new fundamentalist / extremist version of christianity is not healthy for him.
-
One time a Hardcore Bunny with a hole in the rear of his bunnysuit, now Hardcore Religious! :D
Now back to bunny`?
-
"God ist tot, the lord is fort..."
Quote by..?
-
"God ist tot, the lord is fort..."
Quote by..?
(http://imgit.org/i/2016/10/15/15f63d69a4332d40f7da48a0fd7a0427.gif)
-
(http://imgit.org/i/2016/10/15/15f63d69a4332d40f7da48a0fd7a0427.gif)
haha no....