Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: MoralMan on March 07, 2016, 10:31:17 AM
-
Like in the sky or on tv or anything? Like to say do this and don't do that, im happy with this, im not happy with that.
He doesn't.
Because hes not real.
Now grow up.
-
If god exists, he/she/it can choke on my shaft.
-
So why doesnt God appear every now and again?
He does, and has.
Ron doesn't post that often though.
-
He does, and has.
Ron doesn't post that often though.
he def has spotted me a few times for some forced reps along the way.
-
Like in the sky or on tv or anything? Like to say do this and don't do that, im happy with this, im not happy with that.
He doesn't.
Because hes not real.
Now grow up.
It's so funny. Was watching that history channel special on the bible and for every other story, there's no getting around the fact that these people were just having psychotic episodes. The second episode focused on The story of Abraham and Isaac and it seemed like the narrator was doing his best not to just say "Can you believe this shit?"
-
Bible thumpers will tell you that God is omnipresent. He's everywhere but nowhere. he's inside everyone of us. Proof that he exists is seen daily with the sun rising, humans replicating etc.... Just bullshit.
-
Like in the sky or on tv or anything? Like to say do this and don't do that, im happy with this, im not happy with that.
He doesn't.
Because hes not real.
Now grow up.
He's everywhere but nowhere.
He's inside everyone of us.
Proof that he exists is seen daily with the sun rising, pics that still are nuts, humans replicating, Tbombz in a bunnysuit and those bicep peaks etc.
-
He shows up on Family Guy once in a while...
-
He's everywhere but nowhere.
He's inside everyone of us.
Proof that he exists is seen daily with the sun rising, pics that still are nuts, humans replicating, Tbombz in a bunnysuit and those bicep peaks etc.
and apparently both villians from die hard are dead...
-
If god exists, he/she/it can choke on my shaft.
You will remember that very sentence on your death bed (and start to get a lil nervous) :)
-
He's everywhere but nowhere.
He's inside everyone of us.
Proof that he exists is seen daily with the sun rising, pics that still are nuts, humans replicating, Tbombz in a bunnysuit and those bicep peaks etc.
you think too much
-
He shows up every time I fuck your mother and girlfriend.
-
Donny boxing
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/844be58eaeb49ed7468cfb4d6d4a873d/tumblr_mrv6mtYdiH1qdlh1io1_400.gif)
-
I God exists, ask him where he was when thousands were murdered in Auschwitz...
-
Donny boxing
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/844be58eaeb49ed7468cfb4d6d4a873d/tumblr_mrv6mtYdiH1qdlh1io1_400.gif)
yes i have a great right hand.
-
Atheists argue something they don`t believe in and try to convince others that their belief is primitive and against the intellect of a man.
They are bitter and angry since peace of mind can not be found within their limited knowledge and self awareness. A child lost in space...
Pax vobiscum ;D:
-
I God exists, ask him where he was when thousands were murdered in Auschwitz...
(http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/wwjtd/files/2013/09/Forgiveness.jpg)
-
Like in the sky or on tv or anything? Like to say do this and don't do that, im happy with this, im not happy with that.
He doesn't.
Because hes not real.
Now grow up.
Well, I guess when people are so fucked up, but so comfortable at the same time, god is just waiting for us to call for him. Why would god intervene in people's lives when they don't really want to change?
It's the whole deal or no deal. go into path to search god or... be fucked :D That's pretty much it.
I think that's the philosophy behind "why doesn't god help us now?"
-
I God exists, ask him where he was when thousands were murdered in Auschwitz...
Get your facts correct. It was the few hundred killed. The rest were secretly sent to America, NY City specifically.
-
(http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/wwjtd/files/2013/09/Forgiveness.jpg)
If any of you have visited a real Concentration camp you would not post this. I have visited a couple and Belsen is grim. I have met Jews on route to Belsen and some were survivors. It is not a joke and should not be on here.
-
(http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/wwjtd/files/2013/09/Forgiveness.jpg)
Why has man failed to stop this? It was not God`s work, but it was death delivered by the hand of people because of an ideology which has built it`s foundation on idea of godlesness. You deny God and then ask Him why have you failed to stop this evil - it is perverse.
I can fully respect if someone doesn`t believe in God, but denying him because of mans evil is childish.
-
If any of you have visited a real Concentration camp you would not post this. I have visited a couple and Belsen is grim. I have met Jews on route to Belsen and some were survivors. It is not a joke and should not be on here.
I don't think you understand the quote.
-
I don't think you understand the quote.
I do but not always your Humor.
-
(http://s18.postimg.org/gip5que15/IMu_JL8_D.jpg)
-
I do but not always your Humor.
You think I was trying to be funny?
-
You think I was trying to be funny?
you tell me. I don´t like the anti-jew Holocaust stuff on here i find it very distgusting and i mean it.
-
According to the bible god is allowing satan to cause havoc on earth for certain period of time until jesus comes back on earth once again to beat satan and claim his rightful thrown.
Ok so satan is behind the death of jews... why would god still allow satan to kill jews if god is all capable?
-
Why has man failed to stop this? It was not God`s work, but it was death delivered by the hand of people because of an ideology which has built it`s foundation on idea of godlesness. You deny God and then ask Him why have you failed to stop this evil - it is perverse.
I can fully respect if someone doesn`t believe in God, but denying him because of mans evil is childish.
Tell em mac!
-
You think I was trying to be funny?
Probably not, but you are using quotes which suit your ideas concerning God. There are survivors who think the opposite also, they praise God because evil was stopped.
The idea that because evil exists and flourishes all throughout history there is no God, is flawed from the start. No one who believes in God will tell you that God intervenes when people are cruel and evil towards another.
You can not be angry because of that since you do not believe in God and you have to find reasons for these actions within nature of humans, whatever that may be.
-
The Jews i met were were very humble. I remember a Family telling me they were so happy that the British Army were still there. We liberated Belsen. I felt Humble talking to them too.
-
you tell me. I don´t like the anti-jew Holocaust stuff on here i find it very distgusting and i mean it.
You are pretty fucking stupid if you missed my intent.
-
According to the bible god is allowing satan to cause havoc on earth for certain period of time until jesus comes back on earth once again to beat satan and claim his rightful thrown.
Ok so satan is behind the death of jews... why would god still allow satan to kill jews if god is all capable?
You don't think it's just a loophole written in the bible so they can point to it for reference anytime someone brings up the issue of why bad things happen? Like Kwon's birth?
-
You are pretty fucking stupid if you missed my intent.
Depends how you persieve it
-
According to the bible god is allowing satan to cause havoc on earth for certain period of time until jesus comes back on earth once again to beat satan and claim his rightful thrown.
Ok so satan is behind the death of jews... why would god still allow satan to kill jews if god is all capable?
Mans freedom can also be his doom and the Bible says that satan roams this world and corrupts through temptation and desire. The relation of Jews with God is full of ups and downs but they will always be his chosen people.
We are all tested and that which is hard can deter us from our faith, especially feeling of powerlessness against evil of this world.
-
The Jews i met were were very humble. I remember a Family telling me they were so happy that the British Army were still there. We liberated Belsen. I felt Humble talking to them too.
Must have been awesome. Can I ask were they god fearing people still, or have they ever been? Did you ask anything about their faith? Would they call adonis a smart honest man or a dellusional liar?
You don't think it's just a loophole written in the bible so they can point to it for reference anytime someone brings up the issue of why bad things happen? Like Kwon's birth?
Noone said is it real or not (god). We were talking about the logic behind god allowing all these apocalyptic events to happend and not doing anything about it even he easily could. So we must go to the sources.
Once upon a time (according to bible) people were connected to god. they were interacting with god all the time and "supernatural" events were not uncommon. But god gave people the freedom of choice and eventually people wanted to try to do things without god.
I think it was in the story of Noah when god last intervened in people's way of life and killed them with a flood. God said he won't intervene in our lives ever again, after Noah begged god not not to kill people ever again. But god also said that even if I won't kill them there will be a day that people will destroy each other.
I mean, after reading all that I'd say god has a solid reason not to do shit and it is because people threw god away from their life, god promised not to kill anyone ever again. So we can only blame ourselves at this point.
that's just the logic behind the real story, not about is it real or not. Philosophically I'm with god.
Mans freedom can also be his doom and the Bible says that satan roams this world and corrupts through temptation and desire. The relation of Jews with God is full of ups and downs but they will always be his chosen people.
We are all tested and that which is hard can deter us from our faith, especially feeling of powerlessness against evil of this world.
I agree with you. I merely want to challenge the blasphemers the search from the source instead of buying into the anti god propaganda, not asking them to believe.
-
For what? Disgusting genetic waste, everywhere you look. I'd incinerate everyone.
-
Depends how you persieve it
perceive
-
Mans freedom can also be his doom and the Bible says that satan roams this world and corrupts through temptation and desire. The relation of Jews with God is full of ups and downs but they will always be his chosen people.
We are all tested and that which is hard can deter us from our faith, especially feeling of powerlessness against evil of this world.
Preach!
-
perceive
Thank you.
-
You will remember that very sentence on your death bed (and start to get a lil nervous) :)
He'll get to remember it a lot longer than that.....it's not too late to change that though.
-
Preach!
I'm not here to question believers, but bring those to light who ask "why would god allow all the bad shit to happen?", just to make it clear ;D
-
Like in the sky or on tv or anything? Like to say do this and don't do that, im happy with this, im not happy with that.
He doesn't.
Because hes not real.
Now grow up.
Haha no its just because he's pretty hands off.
And Allah is waiting for his followers to wipe off the face of the earth non believers before he makes his appearance.
-
God was with every single Jew in the concentration camps. Just as he was with every single nazi. Every person will be dealt with according to their actions in a manner far beyond our current understanding.
Also, close your eyes, relax for a few. God is with you. Speak to him, he'll speak back. I guarentee! :)
-
Like in the sky or on tv or anything? Like to say do this and don't do that, im happy with this, im not happy with that.
He doesn't.
Because hes not real.
Now grow up.
Simple, it's because people assume that just because God created everything, that he must also interact with man. Not so. God created everything, then split. That explains everything.
-
Because such a being does not exist.
It never existed.
-
Because such a being does not exist.
It never existed.
It sounds like you are trying to convince yourself to think this way when you negate it twice ;D
One who doesn`t doubt even the slightest in his belief is blind I could say.
Pride is the downfall of good, the idea of good as an ultimate virtue of man.
-
Simple, it's because people assume that just because God created everything, that he must also interact with man. Not so. God created everything, then split. That explains everything.
Kinda like that time I created a massive thriving megalopolis in Sim City in 1993 only to never return one day because I had better things to do.
Maybe I am god.
-
you tell me. I don´t like the anti-jew Holocaust stuff on here i find it very distgusting and i mean it.
You clearly don't understand the quote, what is anti-jew about it? it's written by a jewish person you twit. The quote is highlighting the fact that God allowed the suffering of the jewish people, hence, he will have to ask for forgiveness if he does exist.
-
If god masturbates what comes out of his pen-gina?
-
You clearly don't understand the quote, what is anti-jew about it? it's written by a jewish person you twit. The quote is highlighting the fact that God allowed the suffering of the jewish people, hence, he will have to ask for forgiveness if he does exist.
From what I understand of the Jewish concept of God, he is such an unpleasant character that it is not improbable he would allow the Holocaust to happen.
He once flooded the Earth killing everyone apart from a guy called Noah, his family and a zoo he put together in a big boat the size of the Titanic.
-
From what I understand of the Jewish concept of God, he is such an unpleasant character that it is not improbable he would allow the Holocaust to happen.
He once flooded the Earth killing everyone apart from a guy called Noah and his family.
And in letting Noah live He might have been to kind, because that life spawned into today's Kaitlyn Jenner....
-
you tell me. I don´t like the anti-jew Holocaust stuff on here i find it very distgusting and i mean it.
U aren't very bright, are you?
On a contrary - why would there be a god? These who believe it, what if you stop believing? Will your life fall apart (again)? I'm sorry to tell you this, but its not a fault of any god then, it simply means that you are weak losers and you parents porobably were weak losers, your genome is not good enough, but not because you would stop believing in god. While you do tho', you can enjoy the comfort, provided by that idea, that you are still worth something, that god still loves you and you may have a better experience in an "afterlife". If that's how you roll - more power to you. Afterall... islam is taking over, we actually need to bring back religion to western world (impossible) so we could have a small chance to fight them back.
-
Like in the sky or on tv or anything? Like to say do this and don't do that, im happy with this, im not happy with that.
He doesn't.
Because hes not real.
Now grow up.
Agreed...God is the "magical pretend friend" of adults
-
(http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/wwjtd/files/2013/09/Forgiveness.jpg)
we must always remember the 60000000000 jews that died that day :'(
#neverforget#hollycaust#600billion
-
-
we must always remember the 60000000000 jews that died that day :'(
#neverforget#hollycaust#600billion
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA HAHAHA :D
ur my faverut poster now! six hundred billion jews were killed in the holocaust, I read it in school LOLL :D !
-
Denial and ridicule without a trace of serious argumentation are signs of a weak mind.
Dear atheists ;D, never do this:
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/66401075.jpg)
-
Like in the sky or on tv or anything? Like to say do this and don't do that, im happy with this, im not happy with that.
He doesn't.
Because hes not real.
Now grow up.
To busy jerking off so he sends prophets, like Getbig's Man of Steel.
-
Well shit, Getbig really got lax on the membership vetting process.
-
To busy jerking off so he sends prophets, like Getbig's Man of Steel.
yeah...God is way too busy looking at naked women in bath rooms and shit
btw- I'm not even being facetious.........
you know how some people say that God is "just a lassiez faire voyeur"......we.. those people arent saying that figuratively
-
Like in the sky or on tv or anything? Like to say do this and don't do that, im happy with this, im not happy with that.
He doesn't.
Because hes not real.
Now grow up.
Well, there is this study, where they compare religiousness and intelligence. They find out that the intelligence and the religiousness are inversely proportional: If average IQ is high, there is lots of atheists and if average IQ is low, there is lots of religious people. If we look different nations and continents, what we will see? Think about it.. ;D
-
(http://nerdapproved.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/elvis-toast.jpg)
-
Well, there is this study, where they compare religiousness and intelligence. They find out that the intelligence and the religiousness are inversely proportional: If average IQ is high, there is lots of atheists and if average IQ is low, there is lots of religious people. If we look different nations and continents, what we will see? Think about it.. ;D
We’ve done this dance already:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=604746.0
There’s a “theist bad, atheist good” statistical “study” on all sorts of topics.
Or here you go.....bibliotards are also racists:
http://mic.com/articles/29397/religious-people-tend-to-be-more-racist-study-finds#.7wb9HbwkA (http://mic.com/articles/29397/religious-people-tend-to-be-more-racist-study-finds#.7wb9HbwkA)
Or religion and sexism:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4045317/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4045317/)
Or religion and obesity:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3358928/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3358928/)
Or religion and depression:
http://www.alternet.org/are-religious-people-more-depressed (http://www.alternet.org/are-religious-people-more-depressed)
Or religion and poverty:
http://thehumanist.com/news/national/why-are-the-poor-more-religious (http://thehumanist.com/news/national/why-are-the-poor-more-religious)
-
Well, I don't think God has ever hidden his existence. He literally traveled place to place with the early nation of Israel and made his power evident and manifest before them repeatedly both in the miraculous and the traveling temple.
God entered his creation as the incarnate son in Jesus Christ and dwelt among his creation as a human being for over 3 decades before ascending back to his heavenly thrown.
Apostle Paul made it plain that God reveals himself to all through his creation.
God is made tangible and manifest to his body of believers of today via the Holy Spirit....his presence can literally be felt.
God does show some signs via visions and dreams; in fact, many Muslims who leave Islam and come Christianity have professed visions and dreams of Jesus Christ.
My friend, I don't know why God has not yet revealed himself to you, but I would consider his perfect timing in these matters. Within my own life the Lord allowed me to broken down to the point that I was at death's door with literally a foot in the grave before I honestly surrendered myself to his will for my life. In that moment he revealed himself to me in powerful ways and continues to do so. Today I strive to represent Christ and share with others the good news of his gift of salvation and freedom from our sin.
I agree that humanity is the worst part of the world because it chooses sin, but those that repent or change their mind about their choice to sin and accept what the incarnate son in Jesus Christ came to do on calvary's cross can be freed from the shackles of their sin and become the redeemed church of Jesus Christ called to be the salt and light of the world. We have an opportunity to become the best of the world, but we must freely choose Christ so that we may be deemed righteous.
-
Another previous post:
It's not an easy question to answer for nonbelievers, but I'll try.
In scripture we see instances of God appearing before men in the OT (in the form of the pre-incarnate Christ). We read of the journey of the Israelites and the mobile temple and the spirit of God that moved as a cloud along with them. We see God manifested in pillars of fire and represented by his heavenly host. Certainly our most significant example is the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ here on earth.
Still, what truly changed folks has occurred in God's current and third act that we're now living in and has extended from the events of the books of Acts. Since that time, the followers of Christ are literally indwelled by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit of God lives within believers....he's attached at our souls if you will.
It was the Holy Spirit that arrived at Pentecost that truly changed Christ's disciples. It's also an element of scripture I find extremely quaint. Jesus tells his disciples that when he has returned to the divine the Father would send "his helper". His "helper" or advocate is the Holy Spirit. The third person or expression of God's divine nature. The same Holy Spirit that raised Jesus Christ from the dead was referred to as "a helper" LOL....I love that. ;)
It was at the Festival of Pentecost that the Holy Spirit arrived and indwelled Christ's believers for the first time. Literally, the Holy Spirit of God began to live within the believer and began a glorious change in each individual...a work of sanctification that left each believer radically and irrevocably changed. It was here that the disciples went forth with boldness and courage and through the Holy Spirit's inspiration and guidance began to perform incredible works in Christ's name and began fulfilling the great commission leading folks to Christ so that they too could be indwelled and emboldened by the same Holy Spirit of God. Their perceptions of this life changed almost instantly and their hearts became desirous for the the Lord's will and not their own. The tangible presence of the Holy Spirit was made manifest for all believers and the reality of God's existence forever known.
It's within this sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit that our faith matures, solidifies and becomes something different. Not blind, but concrete and confident, but full of love and hope and peace and a desire for others to understand the same. I can help lead folks to Christ, but they must want to follow and seek him in humility with a heart desirous to know him. A desire to turn from those things that are considered sinful by the one and only soverign God.
Today some believers are still honored enough to receive divine manifestations of Christ. Some in dreams and visions and others whom he has appeared to suddenly per his will and good purposes. Divine appointments per his angelic host are also common today. It's so easy for so many to say, "Oh, God lives in you today so we don't see him because of that....that's convenient!" That notion of convenience is just based in simple ignorance, but it need not be so. I try and attest regularly of the Holy Spirit's divine influence and power in my life and proclaim to anyone that will listen that Jesus Christ is alive, the Holy Spirit is with believers today and the Father still sits on his throne.
Seeing God simply isn't enough to convince folks. We see demonstrations of this in scripture. All sorts of folks witnessed the miraculous before their eyes and yet were not convinced of anything....both old and new testaments show this. Even the disciples that followed Christ from place to place experiencing these impossible situations still remained in doubt and fear. Christ outright told his disciples he would be taken, killed and would rise in three days and despite all they had seen their reaction wasn't one of confidence....it was fear. They constantly questioned Christ, they demonstrated that their faith was weak, they quibbled over who was the greatest and after all they saw, experienced and learned directly from Christ they fled in fear when put to the test. Seemingly the greatest of the disciples in Peter outright denied Christ repeatedly. And even after Christ's resurrection and fulfillment of all he had promised, he appeared before his disciples and yet Thomas (who would arrive later) still rejected the words of his constituents and refused to believe unless he put his hand in Christ's wound and saw his wounds with his own eyes. As Christ would later tell Thomas, blessed are those that believe, but have not seen. The "blessed" that Christ refers to are his body of believers today.
God is very much active and prominent in my life and the lives of so many, many others. It's why I post the way I do because I desire for others to experience the same joy and blessings that I have. I'm not different from any of you....I've just surrendered of my myself and chosen his will instead of my own. The revelation of him in my life after that time has been astonishing! Feeling connected to the living God, the creator of all there is, is an awesome experience and having that connection is much grander than seeing him. Literally experiencing his presence and feeling his love and grace and mercy and power.....that's what it's all about and that's the same power that changed Christ's disciples!
-
ask yourself this
do you have any memories before you were born?
-
From what I understand of the Jewish concept of God, he is such an unpleasant character that it is not improbable he would allow the Holocaust to happen.
He once flooded the Earth killing everyone apart from a guy called Noah, his family and a zoo he put together in a big boat the size of the Titanic.
Doesn't the Ancient Alien theory put a more realistic view of the Flood and Noah?
-
Doesn't the Ancient Alien theory put a more realistic view of the Flood and Noah?
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
**Edit**
A slightly more elaborate answer. No. Because:
1) There is no evidence to support the theory.
2) Astronomers who take the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligent life seriously claim that it would be radically different than us (no star wars aliens, think more like "dragon's egg" where aliens are the size of lentils because they evolved on a planet with several thousand g) and it would take long term, concerted efforts toward communication.
3) The energy requirements for light speed travel are immense and it would probably take a Kardashev Type II civilization to pull it off.
4) No such civilizations appear to be in our vicinity, since we have been scanning the night sky for decades now and have not found obviously modified solar systems or obviously artificial mega-structures, etc.
-
I don't think you understand the quote.
he likely doesnt understand
-
I'm not here to question believers, but bring those to light who ask "why would god allow all the bad shit to happen?", just to make it clear ;D
Because God doesn't intervene with anything. You can't have a loving God and a hateful God at the same time. Why does God let innocent children and babies die? That's not a loving God. Why does God let mass murderers live? God is not a being, God is everywhere, the air, the wind, God is not a tangible being. Nor can God be contained within the words of the bible, it's impossible. God is not Catholic, or Hindu, etc. there is one God, but many different pathways to that God. Religious fanatics will claim their religion is the best religion, and if you don't believe like they do, then hell awaits. Total bullshit, and quite arrogant to believe that way.
-
Because God doesn't intervene with anything. You can't have a loving God and a hateful God at the same time. Why does God let innocent children and babies die? That's not a loving God. Why does God let mass murderers live? God is not a being, God is everywhere, the air, the wind, God is not a tangible being. Nor can God be contained within the words of the bible, it's impossible. God is not Catholic, or Hindu, etc. there is one God, but many different pathways to that God. Religious fanatics will claim their religion is the best religion, and if you don't believe like they do, then hell awaits. Total bullshit, and quite arrogant to believe that way.
*yawn* I already explained in this thread... I knew it's a waste of time, it's always a waste of time to discuss about this issue in getbig. Too much bias.
-
I saw him at the mall with Elvis!!
-
The masses are easiest to control using religion. I think Reagan said that at a party after doing 2 lines of coke lol.
-
We see men everywhere and yet rarely outside of the military and law enforcement and other forms of First Responders do we notice anyone do anything on behalf of others.
Evil occurs all around us and it is always perpetrated by mankind. As Aesop said, "The gods help those that help themselves".
And no, taxing the productive to fund the buying of votes from the lazy is not helping anyone except the corrupt politician. So quit whining about "God" not showing up and you show up. Yeah...You. Get a job. Get two jobs. Save the taxpayers from your lazy ass. Get off your buttocks and help someone be a better member of society.
Just don't tell anyone when you do so. Keep your good deeds to yourself.
That way, it actually means something.
-
The masses are easiest to control using religion. I think Reagan said that at a party after doing 2 lines of coke lol.
"Religion is the opium of the masses" thinking led to a brainwashed masses and evil manifested in all parts of human life - communism.
Godlessness is the basis of ideologies, that man determines what is good and wrong, what is righteous and his word is the ultimate law.
-
Lets not forgot one of the last recorded times God showed up on earth He was executed via crucifixion.
-
Like in the sky or on tv or anything? Like to say do this and don't do that, im happy with this, im not happy with that.
He doesn't.
Because hes not real.
Now grow up.
-
Lets not forgot one of the last recorded times God showed up on earth He was executed via crucifixion.
Let's also not forget that the execution via crucifixion was prophesied in great detail hundreds and hundreds of years before it occurred and was fulfilled completely.
-
The active participation in religious discussions/debates of MOS is a way to keep himself "believing", kind of like lifting weights, if you won't keep pumping the blood - muscles will deflate, the same with religion - you have to keep yourself in that semi-psychotic buzzed state, amp yourself up constantly to keep it going.
-
The active participation in religious discussions/debates of MOS is a way to keep himself "believing", kind of like lifting weights, if you won't keep pumping the blood - muscles will deflate, the same with religion - you have to keep yourself in that semi-psychotic buzzed state, amp yourself up constantly to keep it going.
You're so wise da_vinci! :o
-
Let's also not forget that the execution via crucifixion was prophesied in great detail hundreds and hundreds of years before it occurred and was fulfilled completely.
Where do you get your baseless facts? You do know that the Romans were killing people like this for a while.
-
we must always remember the 60000000000 jews that died that day :'(
#neverforget#hollycaust#600billion
Pretty close to true. It seems every year they increase the number. In about 10 years they'll be claiming 10 million and in 100 years claiming 100 million
-
Where do you get your baseless facts? You do know that the Romans were killing people like this for a while.
Bible. Validated via history. There was no Roman Empire when the prophecies were written.
-
Bible. Validated via history. There was no Roman Empire when the prophecies were written.
Lol, so the Bible AFTER the fact makes claims that it was predicted. Like me waiting until Feb 8th to Predict that Denver would be Carolina in the SuperBowl. I'll give you my prediction for the NBA champ sometime in July.
-
Lol, so the Bible AFTER the fact makes claims that it was predicted. Like me waiting until Feb 8th to Predict that Denver would be Carolina in the SuperBowl. I'll give you my prediction for the NBA champ sometime in July.
Not after the fact. Hundreds of years before Christ was on earth. Hundreds of years before Rome existed.
-
Not after the fact. Hundreds of years before Christ was on earth. Hundreds of years before Rome existed.
You said it was written in the bible which was written AFTER the fact.
-
there's so many planets to visit in person
-
they say ted cruz is the second cumming of jesus christ. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
i think he's more like this guy though... :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
-
You said it was written in the bible which was written AFTER the fact.
Old Testament prophecies written hundreds of years before New Testament events.
-
they say ted cruz is the second cumming of jesus christ. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
If Jesus was even 1/2 as annoying as fucking Cruz then I don't blame them for crucifying his ass.
-
Some qualified revisionist historians up in here!
Light one up for Getbig!
-
If Jesus was even 1/2 as annoying as fucking Cruz then I don't blame them for crucifying his ass.
;D
-
Let's also not forget that the execution via crucifixion was prophesied in great detail hundreds and hundreds of years before it occurred and was fulfilled completely.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
-
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Veloci raptor
-
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Mecca lecca hi, mecca hiney ho
-
For some, seeing is believing.
-
Because he is not a physical person but a belief system
-
conserve your precious bodily fluid for a few weeks while meditating every day for 3hrs then ingest 3gms of mushrooms after fasting for 6hrs.
-
Its far more likely we are in a computer simulation of a civ far more advanced than us in our sim.
-
It's much more logical to believe in a creator (or God) than it is to think the universe, man, the order of things, the depth of human emotion, etc., all simply came out of nothingness.
When you start analyzing the different "religions" that's what causes all the problems.
-
Let's also not forget that the execution via crucifixion was prophesied in great detail hundreds and hundreds of years before it occurred and was fulfilled completely.
Agreed.
I was just answering the thread question. God has appeared, it's been documented, and mankind was so receptive to His ideas they had Him killed.
In the light of eternity 2000 years wasn't that long ago.
-
Agreed.
I was just answering the thread question. God has appeared, it's been documented, and mankind was so receptive to His ideas they had Him killed.
In the light of eternity 2000 years wasn't that long ago.
My apologies, didn't mean to come across condescending...was just tacking on to your reply.....all good! ;)
-
Because he is not a physical person but a belief system
Correct!
-
Because he is not a physical person but a belief system
Yup.
Nothing but a concept or thought.
Might as well be rich if you can get thoughts to materialize though.
-
My apologies, didn't mean to come across condescending...was just tacking on to your reply.....all good! ;)
lol, kinda ambiguous. He could of went to china were they had documentation, civilization and education, but nope, so ignorant sheep headers in the east which is still stuck in those retarded times.
God never showed himself, if he did, what a retarded way of doing it.
-
Why has man failed to stop this?
Man WAS trying. Not sure if you were aware but the forces of good were battling to overcome Nazism whilst they were exterminating the Jews. God allowed the holocaust to happen, the rest of mankind fought to defeat it the best they could.Millions of soldiers died fighting the nazi's. Either God doesn't exist or he watched the holocaust happen and didn't lift a finger
-
Because he is not a physical person but a belief system
Jesus Christ is God. Is a human being. Lived on earth. Died, buried and rose from dead. There were witnesses. His life and death were prophesied.
-
lol, kinda ambiguous. He could of went to china were they had documentation, civilization and education, but nope, so ignorant sheep headers in the east which is still stuck in those retarded times.
God never showed himself, if he did, what a retarded way of doing it.
If he had appeared in a manner you think he should've someone else that hates God would say "what a retarded way of doing it". Many people reject God no matter what.
-
Man WAS trying. Not sure if you were aware but the forces of good were battling to overcome Nazism whilst they were exterminating the Jews. God allowed the holocaust to happen, the rest of mankind fought to defeat it the best they could.Millions of soldiers died fighting the nazi's. Either God doesn't exist or he watched the holocaust happen and didn't lift a finger
But not because they were killing Jews. And then the goodest of the good guys nuked civilians and policed the world to make sure there were rainbow cupcakes for everyone for breakfast every day. The end.
-
Correct!
Incorrect!
-
Man WAS trying. Not sure if you were aware but the forces of good were battling to overcome Nazism whilst they were exterminating the Jews. God allowed the holocaust to happen, the rest of mankind fought to defeat it the best they could.Millions of soldiers died fighting the nazi's. Either God doesn't exist or he watched the holocaust happen and didn't lift a finger
Mankind is given dominion over the earth:
Genesis 1:26
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
When you're given dominion you act as governor over that with which you've been given authority, but from the perspective of the giver you are acting as a steward on his behalf.
A steward is one given authority by a greater power to manage a situation. A king would often have governors or stewards over territories within his kingdom.
God is the creator and king and empowers mankind as stewards in that they are given dominion over creation to govern it and all its resources.
The problem of evil is not of God, but of man. As believers in Christ we're commanded to spread the gospel message and help others understand the reasons for the hope within us.
God entrusted humanity to govern the world. The suffering within the world is a result of our actions. Some see suffering in the world and blame God, but God already established a means to help mitigate that suffering......you and me. Further, the problem of suffering (evil) is further resolved one soul at a time as folks turn and give their lives to Christ in humble surrender.
Yet the world loves it sin and replaces good with evil and evil with good. It's backward and opposed to God and yet we blame God when he doesn't stop "the other guy's sin".
If God were to intervene in man's evil choices then that would mean he would defy your will and force you into his. That would mean you can't continue to enjoy pornography, adultery, alcohol abuse, recreational drug use, murder, rape, torture, idolatry, child abuse, etc....pick your favorite poison and that would be gone.
-
According to the bible, God intervened all the time, and committed many evil acts. Stop cherry picking.
You clearly missed my point. Read again.
-
No, you conveniently missed my point. Jesus must have distracted you or something. What is it that you think i misinterpreted?
I never stated God doesn't intervene. What we repeatedly see in scripture is God pronouncing judgment upon the reprobate that have come into the fullness of their sin after a long period with which to repent.
If God intervenes he has a specific, righteous purpose that both transcends us and that we may not fully comprehend.
What I stated is that people always want the other guy's sin to stop and not their own. People want God to defy the other's guy will, but certainly never their own. God doesn't just want the Nazis sin to stop, but your sin and my sin. We see murder and think "that's gotta stop and God's doing nothing" yet most don't flinch when people worldwide are steeped in adultery and pornography and alcohol.....cause that stuff feels good!!
Tell me about all this evil of God.
-
And I've already already told you about the evil of your God before...remember when you took the giant meltdown, refused to address any of the points i made and instead claimed that God kills kids because we keep on sinning? It was like You turned into the "seven minute abs" guy from there's something about mary when he flips out lol.
Sounds interesting, do you have a link to the thread?
-
LOL i'm glad that God doesn't differentiate between the holocaust and looking at porn...He's firm but fair, i'll give him that. I hope he gave himself a good telling off when he turned water into wine, though. And I've already already told you about the evil of your God before...remember when you took the giant meltdown, refused to address any of the points i made and instead claimed that God kills kids because we keep on sinning? It was like You turned into the "seven minute abs" guy from there's something about mary when he flips out lol.
So god "gives us" the free will to sin ( ::)), declares all sins are equal (according to your post), yet sometimes decides to destroy cities and drown everyone when he's pissed off, and blames us for the fact that he's an abject failure of a god; he hates sin and killing that much that he occasionally decides to kill people for it haha.
I've come to realise that you're mentally ill. Your views are poisonous and if there ever was such a thing as a moral and just creator, he would surely send you and your kind to hell - Of that i am certain.
No I said God wants our sin to stop. You then made the statement that there's no difference between the holocaust and pornography....those are your words. God is just.
Why is turning water into wine is wrong? Consuming alcohol isn't sinful. Being drunk is sinful. Being an alcoholic is sinful.
No, I didn't meltdown previously...I was composed I just made a mistake. I did error my initial interpretation of your position and I apologized for that. You accepted my apology and are now misrepresenting the situation and throwing it back in my face....classy.
God kills kids because we sin? I don't understand what you're saying....need clarification to comment.
I never said all sin was equal....you just made that inference and stated it here as if I made that claim. I said God wants our sin to stop....Nazi sin, my sin, your sin, etc...
He destroys cities because he's an adject failure of a God? Again, don't understand....need clarification to comment.
God has pronounced judgment upon the wicked and reprobate when they came into the fullness of their sin. Are you suggesting that the wicked should go unpunished? Why would you side with evil instead of righteousness? God saves the good and punishes evil. Why is that improper?
I'm mentally ill? Is that because I don't agree with your subjective presuppositions and atheist worldview? Is it because I can defend my position as a theist?
I think you need to calm down because you seem really angry right now and I'm not sure why. It's reads as though you're boiling over and yet you don't truly understand that which you criticize or perhaps you're confused...it happens to the best of us. I'll do my best to help explains things, but better if you calm down a bit.
-
Sure do.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=589225.0
Let's of course remember this part of that dialogue:
Captain Freedom, I fully apologize for claiming you were mocking me, for initially deleting your nuclear explosion picture and claiming that you were anything other than genuine and forthright and never putting forth any negativity whatsoever.
I apologize for making unfair assumptions about your good intentions and ask for your forgiveness. I should not have assumed the worst case and should have given you the benefit of the doubt.
I've reread the beginning of the thread with fresh eyes and I admit I was wrong in my assumption of you. We've had good back and forth before and I should've been patient and not jumped to conclusions. Even Christians make mistakes in judgment from time to time. I let the actions of others dictate my judgment of you here.
That said, what questions do you still have?
-
Sure do.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=589225.0
Thanks for that, it is an interesting debate. I can see you put a lot of thought into your replies. I am a bit wary of writing very elaborate posts, because inevitably theists hit a brick wall and then, absent a meltdown, two things happen:
1) they will either go into long winded digressions or obfuscations, so they give the appearance of a reply without actually staying on point, or
2) they will latch onto a shift in tone and claim that some sort of grievous injury has been done and therefore they cannot read your post, which might easily have taken an hour to write.
Man of Steel did both of those things. Actually it is a consistent pattern with him. Same with pellius on the creation thread, when the going got rough he started repeating himself, quoting Hamlet, throwing non-sequiturs, like a child covering his ears with his hands and jumping in circles.
It is very hard to move past that brick wall and admit that religious thinking might have contradictions or that it might not be internally consistent. It requires a certain level of confidence and a willingness to show vulnerability.
-
It is you that needs constant clarification on your own posts and doesn't seem to grasp exactly what it is you are saying, or what it is that it would mean if your comments hold any truth.
"God kills kids because we sin? I don't understand what you're saying....need clarification to comment."
"It's the effect of our sinful choices that have brought about things like pain and fear upon the world (in both people and pigs). We're subjected to evil, disease, famine, disasters, etc...all the results of our sin. This world and it inhabitants exist in a perpetual state of decay leading to death because of sin."
for you to also say this: "God has pronounced judgment (sic) upon the wicked and reprobate when they came into the fullness of their sin. Are you suggesting that the wicked should go unpunished? Why would you side with evil instead of righteousness? God saves the good and punishes evil. Why is that improper?"
Well, it doesn't make any sense. It is you that seems to think that not only the wicked should go unpunished, but the innocent should too. Was god saving the good when he fucking drowned everyone in an enormous flood, inflicted plagues on people, turned them into pillars of salt and issued commands to kill our own kids for the most trivial of deeds? This is the nonsense that you believe in, deem as moral and seek to proselytise onto others. He quite clearly is an abject failure of a god and i can't fathom as to why you cannot see this, which is part of the reason why i think you're mentally ill. I also don't accept the fact that you can defend your position as a theist in any sort of logical, rational manner. You are right, however, that i should probably go chill out. I shall go and sculpt my guns for a bit before continuing with any more discussion.
As for our previous debate i linked. Yes, you did calm down over the few days that we had that discussion, but you can't deny that you went mental initially lol.
Ok, now I understand what you're suggesting. Thank you for the clarification. Yes, what I wrote previously is correct.
Now, God doesn't kill kids because of your sin or my sin. God takes kids lives for many reasons which are both righteous and just. I couldn't begin to understand them all.
Those that aren't aligned with God aren't innocent....they're steeped in their sin. They deserve the punishment for their chosen actions to defy God's laws.
To be made righteous means you repent and stop sinning and follow the will of God. Like Christ told his disciples we should become like the little children....innocent and without willful sin. Said it's shameful to lead those little ones into sin and those who do will be punished.
We make the assumption that the innocents that perished (in the flood for example) died a painful, horrific death. We don't know that. Did they lose their lives here on earth? Absolutely. As did generations of pagans before them. Had they been allowed to flourish for another generation or several generations they (the children...the innocent) would've fallen prey to the sinful behavior of their ancestors and been separated from God eternally when they died. God saw that the pagan nations had come into the fullness of their sin. So he pronounced judgment upon the wicked and took the innocent to be with him. Spared the innocent their inevitable and repeatedly demonstrated fate via their elders and saved them from an existence of being virtually alone in the post-flood world.....just went straight to the Father in his glory.
Yes, as I already posted in that thread and again in this one I did make a mistake. I apologized, I asked for forgiveness and you acknowledged that and did. Today you're throwing it back in my face; hence you've demonstrated a Godless condition that lacks the understanding of forgiveness. I can't help that.
-
sin sin sin is all I hear.
"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
there is a field. I'll meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about.
Ideas, language, even the phrase "each other" doesn't make any sense." -Rumi
-
sin sin sin is all I hear.
"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
there is a field. I'll meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about.
Ideas, language, even the phrase "each other" doesn't make any sense." -Rumi
Man has subjective ideas of wrong and right.
God has absolute objective standards of wrong and right.
And yes, we all need to repent and stop sinning.....even Rumi needed to.
-
Man has subjective ideas of wrong and right.
God has absolute objective standards of wrong and right.
And yes, we all need to repent and stop sinning.....even Rumi needed to.
so he absolutely knows what right and wrong is
but allows his priests to freely molest children while being protected by his church
-
so he absolutely knows what right and wrong is
but allows his priests to freely molest children while being protected by his church
Yes, we have free will to sin.
Catholic church is the Pope's church...he sets the standards there.
God has his church.....we follow God's standards.
-
And how do we distinguish mans subjective standards versus gods objective standards...the holy bible? The bible was written by men.
By being obsessed about sin, what sin is and trying to avoid it one becomes like the Pharisees. All clean and pure without but lacking spiritual realization and keeping others from entering in to that kingdom of direct understanding.
If sin means to miss the mark, then the essential sin out of which all ignorance arises is falling out of the enlightened state of union with god which is the state that Rumis poem describes. Perfect Oneness, no duality there, no right and wrong, yet no harm done to oneself or others.
-
God has appeared in the form of a samsquanch. Werd.
-
And how do we distinguish mans subjective standards versus gods objective standards...the holy bible? The bible was written by men.
By being obsessed about sin, what sin is and trying to avoid it one becomes like the Pharisees. All clean and pure without but lacking spiritual realization and keeping others from entering in to that kingdom of direct understanding.
If sin means to miss the mark, then the essential sin out of which all ignorance arises is falling out of the enlightened state of union with god which is the state that Rumis poem describes. Perfect Oneness, no duality there, no right and wrong, yet no harm done to oneself or others.
Solid question. Yes the bible written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
A person should be "obsessed" with righteousness and in doing so avoid sin. We should live a Christ-like existence (without sin) and through Christ we will enter his kingdom.
The Pharisees became idols unto themselves and objected to Jesus Christ as Messiah because it meant their influence and position was instantly limited and called into question.
Sin is actually an offense against God....a breaking of his law which sinners willfully engage in. The only way to be made righteous is through Jesus Christ.
I appreciate how you're always civil and gracious when we speak.
-
Yes, we have free will to sin.
Catholic church is the Pope's church...he sets the standards there.
God has his church.....we follow God's standards.
That's probably very comforting to (and possibly somewhat smug of) those who dislike the papists but human behaviour in all its varieties exhibits and exercises it self in all beliefs
-
That's probably very comforting to (and possibly somewhat smug of) those who dislike the papists but human behaviour in all its varieties exhibits and exercises it self in all beliefs
It may read smug, but sadly it's the truth. I don't believe all Catholics are going to hell. I believe many are absolute followers of Christ and are simply ignorant of the history of the RCC and the teachings of magisterium. I believe many love the Lord as I do and are saved as I am....they're just in a bad church environment. The church doesn't make one a believer or guarantee salvation....we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
-
Thank you, I strongly agree with what you said regarding how they tend to react. I concede that this has led me to lose my temper recently, as MOS suggested, and tend to go into rants rather than stick to a more mature line of reasoning, so i will probably just cease to address his posts for a little while!
I look forward to it.
-
"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
there is a field. I'll meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about.
Ideas, language, even the phrase "each other" doesn't make any sense." -Rumi
Nice quote.
-
to think the universe, man, the order of things, the depth of human emotion, etc., all simply came out of nothingness.
Only a truly blind fool would think so.
-
Jesus Christ is God. Is a human being. Lived on earth. Died, buried and rose from dead. There were witnesses. His life and death were prophesied.
This is what you believe. Not everyone agrees with these concepts.
I thought Jesus was "the son of God" and not God himself.
Has anyone interviewed these witnesses to see if their stories are consistent? No one since the time of Jesus would really know what is real and what isn't. We just take it on "faith" rather than facts.
-
Man has subjective ideas of wrong and right.
God has absolute objective standards of wrong and right.
And yes, we all need to repent and stop sinning.....even Rumi needed to.
Yes, and we all know how awesome God's objective standards are: if you think impure thoughts and masturbate, youre going to hell.
Yup, sounds like a great objective standard of morality lol.
-
It's almost painful to watch a believer in the bible stumble when trying to reconcile all the contradictions and hypocrisy it contains.
-
I mean, look at this (from a bible site) lol
1. Psychic effects. Masturbation has a tendency to isolate its captives psychologically and socially. In masturbation, the person is focused on self-alone even though he or she usually is fantasizing about someone else at the same time.
2. Emotional deprivation. It is impossible for the one who is practicing this habit to experience the full extent of sex emotions. Therefore, in short-circuiting the emotions one can easily be removed from the world of reality.
3. Damaged sensibility. The habit of masturbation has a tendency in numbing the mechanism of the sexual organs if practiced excessively. This lessens the sensibility and thus detracts from normal sexual relations of married life.
4. Self-gratification. The emotional background of self-gratification is not the least bit healthy and usually militates against the home, wife and family because it is focused only on self.
Notice above, it never says "EXCESSIVE" masturbation. Just masturbation.
Science weighs in:
While it once was regarded as a perversion and a sign of a mental problem, masturbation now is regarded as a normal, healthy sexual activity that is pleasant, fulfilling, acceptable, and safe. It is a good way to experience sexual pleasure and can be done throughout life.
In general, the medical community considers masturbation to be a natural and harmless expression of sexuality for both men and women. It does not cause any physical injury or harm to the body, and can be performed in moderation throughout a person's lifetime as a part of normal sexual behavior.
-
While it once was regarded as a perversion and a sign of a mental problem, masturbation now is regarded as a normal, healthy sexual activity that is pleasant, fulfilling, acceptable, and safe. It is a good way to experience sexual pleasure and can be done throughout life.
In general, the medical community considers masturbation to be a natural and harmless expression of sexuality for both men and women. It does not cause any physical injury or harm to the body, and can be performed in moderation throughout a person's lifetime as a part of normal sexual behavior.
Not only this, but from my perspective as a senior and a widower, it's safe as compared to sex with someone else, particularly when it's someone you are dating or just a one night stand.
-
Literally every one of you is spiritually blind. Even the so called Christians. It's amazing.
-
Literally every one of you is spiritually blind. Even the so called Christians. It's amazing.
And you know this how? What makes you believe you are not also "spiritually blind"?
-
And you know this how? What makes you believe you are not also "spiritually blind"?
I know this because I'm not spiritually blind and I'm not spiritually blind because The Most High gave me eyes to see and ears to hear.
It all starts with the Bible. Not any specific religion but the Bible. Religions come from the Bible. The Bible itself is not incorrect.
Lets keep in mind being a Hebrew Israelite has alot to do with it. I'm not saying this to exalt myself, I'm saying this because for the last 4 years I've quoted bible verses, broke them down etc but no one wants to hear. Everyone wants to keep doing what they do and complain when they fail.
-
I know this because I'm not spiritually blind and I'm not spiritually blind because The Most High gave me eyes to see and ears to hear.
It all starts with the Bible. Not any specific religion but the Bible. Religions come from the Bible. The Bible itself is not incorrect.
Lets keep in mind being a Hebrew Israelite has alot to do with it. I'm not saying this to exalt myself, I'm saying this because for the last 4 years I've quoted bible verses, broke them down etc but no one wants to hear. Everyone wants to keep doing what they do and complain when they fail.
The only thing "most high" is you, kid. Get your CNA yet? "Hebrew Israelite"...What a maroon.
-
I know this because I'm not spiritually blind and I'm not spiritually blind because The Most High gave me eyes to see and ears to hear.
It all starts with the Bible. Not any specific religion but the Bible. Religions come from the Bible. The Bible itself is not incorrect.
Lets keep in mind being a Hebrew Israelite has alot to do with it. I'm not saying this to exalt myself, I'm saying this because for the last 4 years I've quoted bible verses, broke them down etc but no one wants to hear. Everyone wants to keep doing what they do and complain when they fail.
So I gather you can actually trace your ancestry to the Hebrew Israelites. That's great! Many folks have trouble tracing their ancestry back more than a couple of generations.
"As a direct result of their disobedience to the laws and commandments of God, the ancient Hebrew Israelites were held captive by various nations including the Egyptians, Assyrians and Babylonians. In 70 C.E. the remnants of The African Hebrew Israelites were driven from Jerusalem by the Romans into different parts of the world, including Africa. Many Hebrew Israelites migrated to West Africa where they, once again, were carried away captive – this time by Europeans on slave ships – to the Americas along with other African tribes people."
More recently:
"The African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem are comprised of approximately 2,000 men, women and children residing in three development towns – – Dimona, Arad and Mitzpe Ramon – – in southern Israel. We maintain a vibrant culture which includes a communal lifestyle, a vegan diet, a system of preventive health care and high moral standards – – a holistic approach to life based on righteousness. Our intent is to live according to the laws and prophecies of God."
http://africanhebrewisraelitesofjerusalem.com/?page_id=2 (http://africanhebrewisraelitesofjerusalem.com/?page_id=2)
-
So I gather you can actually trace your ancestry to the Hebrew Israelites. That's great! Many folks have trouble tracing their ancestry back more than a couple of generations.
"The African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem are comprised of approximately 2,000 men, women and children residing in three development towns – – Dimona, Arad and Mitzpe Ramon – – in southern Israel. We maintain a vibrant culture which includes a communal lifestyle, a vegan diet, a system of preventive health care and high moral standards – – a holistic approach to life based on righteousness. Our intent is to live according to the laws and prophecies of God."
http://africanhebrewisraelitesofjerusalem.com/?page_id=2 (http://africanhebrewisraelitesofjerusalem.com/?page_id=2)
Let me help you out. It's more than just 2000 men and women. lol. It's all the slaves from the transatlantic slave trade. Saying African Hebrew is akin to saying White Caucasians. Hebrews (the real bloodline ones) are black. Anyway, back to the spiritual blindness think. It's true.
If you don't believe in the bible, you're screwed. Even if you do you can still be screwed from all these "religions". So much has been done to hide things and keep people from knowing the truth. It's quite sad. Lil ol' Wiggs isn't going to undo all of this. lol. I can help and explain though to those interested. I don't engage with atheists in this regard because I can't physically prove to you God. The same way you can't prove to me no God. It's a waste of time.
-
The only thing "most high" is you, kid. Get your CNA yet? "Hebrew Israelite"...What a maroon.
I believe Wiggs is going to school to be a Registered Nurse. Not a Certified Nursing Assistant.
-
I know this because I'm not spiritually blind and I'm not spiritually blind because The Most High gave me eyes to see and ears to hear.
It all starts with the Bible. Not any specific religion but the Bible. Religions come from the Bible. The Bible itself is not incorrect.
Lets keep in mind being a Hebrew Israelite has alot to do with it. I'm not saying this to exalt myself, I'm saying this because for the last 4 years I've quoted bible verses, broke them down etc but no one wants to hear. Everyone wants to keep doing what they do and complain when they fail.
If you were spiritually blind.. would you know it? If not...
-
If you were spiritually blind.. would you know it? If not...
No. You wouldn't know it unless someone told you and proved it, or you became not spiritually blind then you saw how spiritually blind you were.
-
No. You wouldn't know it unless someone told you and proved it, or you became not spiritually blind then you saw how spiritually blind you were.
You are stupid. The proof is in your posts.
-
And you know this how? What makes you believe you are not also "spiritually blind"?
Wiggs has a very high opinion of himself, plenty of spiritual pride.
-
Wiggs has a very high opinion of himself, plenty of spiritual pride.
DSM 4 TR Schizophrenia...
"Rarely patients are encouraged or comforted by the voices. An angel’s voice may proclaim their divinity; seductive voices may whisper enticement; their names may be praised. Unutterable joys are set aside for them."
-
Like in the sky or on tv or anything? Like to say do this and don't do that, im happy with this, im not happy with that.
He doesn't.
Because hes not real.
Now grow up.
Wiggs is the closest thing we have to God appearing on earth. FACT!
-
Wiggs is the closest thing we have to God appearing on earth. FACT!
Although being "atheist" and hating church etc. with a passion I would have no problem to attend church listening to Reverend Wiggs.
-
Seems like everyone has the truth in this thread.
-
Like in the sky or on tv or anything? Like to say do this and don't do that, im happy with this, im not happy with that.
He doesn't.
Because hes not real.
Now grow up.
Why would it be necessary?
-
"
"1"
-
Although being "atheist" and hating church etc. with a passion I would have no problem to attend church listening to Reverend Wiggs.
Why do you hate church?
-
Faith is something science can't explain. Almost every major religion has the basic premise that we are the children of God and that he loves us. He wants us to do the right things and he has a promised land. Faith is found with the most accomplished scientists and the most simple of men like some of the members of this board have faith.
It also goes without explanation that God's intelligence and power is something that as earthly humans cannot be understood or comprehended. To think we are so pompous that we think humans are all knowing. Hell, the majority of you couldn't figure out how to make a can opener. I know atheism is a growing movement. If they really had any conviction in atheism they wouldn't care if people believed but they sure do.
-
man of steel melting like a rookie in this thread
-
yep
-
yep
turn the other cheek my friend :-*
-
turn the other cheek my friend :-*
will do
-
turn the other cheek my friend :-*
Love those man-cheeks, eh?
-
Love those man-cheeks, eh?
you took that from my post
how gay are you ;D
-
Why do you hate church?
It's all fake, wrong and based on lies.
Also they are responsible for millions of deaths.
-
It's all fake, wrong and based on lies.
Also they are responsible for millions of deaths.
Which churches? All churches? What is fake? What is wrong? What are the lies? Which deaths?
-
Which churches? All churches? What is fake? What is wrong? What are the lies? Which deaths?
LOL!
Come on.
-
(http://www.godlessgirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/539623637_f48eecbed7.jpg)
-
LOL!
Come on.
They're your objections.
-
so he absolutely knows what right and wrong is
but allows his priests to freely molest children while being protected by his church
why do you always bring up child molestation? Everyone is a Peado according to you. Is there something you want to get off your chest? just asking Grasshopper :-\
-
Ron posts once in awhile so whats the problem?
-
::) god and his ridiculous creation, must be a brainless piece of shit.
So maybe he got lost?
-
The question is silly.
People of faith don't need proof. It's irrelevant if the faith stems from indoctrination or personal experience.
A slightly less silly question: "Would an atheist be able to see God (or his works) before him/her?" If God was bored one day and decided to visit insert atheist's name and said "I hear you have some questions" what would be the effect?
I believe there's a God.
It's religion I feel is mostly bullshit Man created to deal with his own mortality and control others.
-
::) god and his ridiculous creation, must be a brainless piece of shit.
So maybe he got lost?
Why is everything ridiculous? Why must God be brainless?
Clearly you hate God. Why?
-
Why is everything ridiculous? Why must God be brainless?
Clearly you hate God. Why?
religion has a lot to answer for in the world
you separate god from religion
but religion is ultimately the organised worship of god
man commits atrocities in the name of god there fore people hate god by association
maybe if god did some good in the world to counter mans "free will"
then people might not hate him
-
Why is everything ridiculous? Why must God be brainless?
Clearly you hate God. Why?
No hate, merely an assessment
Why would I bother hating something that likely doesn't exist. If there really is a creator, and it is somewhat proven to me, maybe then I could actually hate.
-
religion has a lot to answer for in the world
you separate god from religion
but religion is ultimately the organised worship of god
man commits atrocities in the name of god there fore people hate god by association
maybe if god did some good in the world to counter mans "free will"
then people might not hate him
Is there one God? or ...as in shinto more Gods and not just a "person" but also elements of nature.
-
religion has a lot to answer for in the world
you separate god from religion
but religion is ultimately the organised worship of god
man commits atrocities in the name of god there fore people hate god by association
maybe if god did some good in the world to counter mans "free will"
then people might not hate him
When people say they hate God they really mean they hate the actions of those who act in the name of God.
Such a being most likely does not exist. And the concept of God promoted by religions, especially by the Abrahamic tradition, is man-made, i.e. it has clear anthoropological characteristics. To worship or hate such an entity is understandable and absurd at the same time.
-
When people say they hate God they really mean they hate the actions of those who act in the name of God.
Such a being most likely does not exist. And the concept of God promoted by religions, especially by the Abrahamic tradition, is man-made, i.e. it has clear anthoropological characteristics. To worship or hate such an entity is understandable and absurd at the same time.
religion is all about oppression as a rule
used to scare people into behaving a certain way
the concept of sinning leading to damnation etc
its a load of nonsense
simply does not stand up in the modern world
the other reason people are religious is to take comfort in the after life
people fear their mortality
-
The question is silly.
People of faith don't need proof. It's irrelevant if the faith stems from indoctrination or personal experience.
A slightly less silly question: "Would an atheist be able to see God (or his works) before him/her?" If God was bored one day and decided to visit insert atheist's name and said "I hear you have some questions" what would be the effect?
I believe there's a God.
It's religion I feel is mostly bullshit Man created to deal with his own mortality and control others.
They could have fooled me. If they didn't need proof they wouldn't even bother engaging rational people in argument. Every time I said to them "God is a delusion" they would just say "it's down to faith bro" and be on their way.
Two things are likely happening:
1) They either suffer from doubt (some part of their mind cannot reconcile the innumerable contradictions of religion) and a rational argument inflames it or
2) They want to convert people to their worldview and think they can do it using rational means.
-
When people say they hate God they really mean they hate the actions of those who act in the name of God.
Such a being most likely does not exist. And the concept of God promoted by religions, especially the Abrahamic tradition is man-made, i.e. it has clear anthoropological characteristics. To worship or hate such an entity is understandable and absurd at the same time.
This is why i like Shinto, it is peace. There is not one God but Harmony with nature.
-
This is why i like Shinto, it is peace. There is not one God but Harmony with nature.
The eastern traditions are awesome from what I have seen. I haven't studied them very much, though.
-
The eastern traditions are awesome in my opinion.
yes i agree. I love the History and Origins of Aikido. I first started to learn the Techniques then later i understood.
-
I know this because I'm not spiritually blind and I'm not spiritually blind because The Most High gave me eyes to see and ears to hear.
It all starts with the Bible. Not any specific religion but the Bible. Religions come from the Bible. The Bible itself is not incorrect.
Lets keep in mind being a Hebrew Israelite has alot to do with it. I'm not saying this to exalt myself, I'm saying this because for the last 4 years I've quoted bible verses, broke them down etc but no one wants to hear. Everyone wants to keep doing what they do and complain when they fail.
This is funny.....the spiritually enlightened genius just chooses to masquerade as a fat, unemployed, lazy nag.
-
Faith is something science can't explain. Almost every major religion has the basic premise that we are the children of God and that he loves us. He wants us to do the right things and he has a promised land. Faith is found with the most accomplished scientists and the most simple of men like some of the members of this board have faith.
It also goes without explanation that God's intelligence and power is something that as earthly humans cannot be understood or comprehended. To think we are so pompous that we think humans are all knowing. Hell, the majority of you couldn't figure out how to make a can opener. I know atheism is a growing movement. If they really had any conviction in atheism they wouldn't care if people believed but they sure do.
I don't care what people believe, I care what people do. The problem is mostly with fundamendalists (of all religious creeds) and their actions.
-
If "god" (oh brother) does exist, he can smoke my pole.
And make me a sammich.
Greasy fuck.
-
They could have fooled me. If they didn't need proof they wouldn't even bother engaging rational people in argument. Every time I said to them "God is a delusion" they would just say "it's down to faith bro" and be on their way.
Two things are likely happening:
1) They either suffer from doubt (some part of their mind cannot reconcile the innumerable contradictions of religion) and a rational argument inflames it or
2) They want to convert people to their worldview and think they can do it using rational means.
I don't disagree and believe that's what motivates a lot of people to proselytize.
-
It's all fake, wrong and based on lies.
Also they are responsible for millions of deaths.
The millions of deaths are not the product of the church; they are the result of all the "sheep" who believe the church hype and follow the flock instead of thinking independently. I think it is called "blind faith" or something similar.
-
I don't disagree and believe that's what motivates a lot of people to proselytize.
It is a mechanism called social proof. The more people you get to subscribe to a worldview the more people will believe it is the right way forward.
-
It is a mechanism called social proof. The more people you get to subscribe to a worldview the more people will believe it is the right way forward.
Could also be called weak faith.
-
If "god" (oh brother) does exist, he can smoke my pole.
And make me a sammich.
Greasy fuck.
You should repent and ask forgiveness for comments such as this.
-
(http://api.ning.com/files/OB-dhcoGEkR7c4wmCdvGLPvRAfFqBBO3AnbKXkSDTuLC9*ffXk7Dx4uWH5lLI1INdFf7e*JnqO7cGhj7Z14DQch3h44Pxh9E/smite_button.jpg)
-
Anybody who has ever seen photos of Elle McPherson nude realizes God shows himself in many ways!
-
No hate, merely an assessment
Why would I bother hating something that likely doesn't exist. If there really is a creator, and it is somewhat proven to me, maybe then I could actually hate.
What is it that you assessed? How did you assess it?
-
Anybody who has ever seen photos of Elle McPherson nude realizes God shows himself in many ways!
(http://i.imgur.com/oWxMm1Y.gif)
-
Get drunk on bliss in meditation, just sitting still enjoying breathing. The more we are lost in thoughts the less we can access bliss. In such a condition of being one does not ponder the existence or non existence of God.
-
Get drunk on bliss in meditation, just sitting still enjoying breathing. The more we are lost in thoughts the less we can access bliss. In such a condition of being one does not ponder the existence or non existence of God.
I like this Big Irish Hippy :)
-
Get drunk on bliss in meditation, just sitting still enjoying breathing. The more we are lost in thoughts the less we can access bliss. In such a condition of being one does not ponder the existence or non existence of God.
Or you can simply come to Jesus Christ in humble surrender and be filled with the Holy Spirit and know without a shadow of a doubt the reality of God while experiencing his tangible presence, power and divine influence for the remainder of your days.
-
The famed 1263 Disputation of Barcelona has nothing over this thread. It's truly uplifting to see my skeptical and advocative colleagues at Getbig Theological Seminary debating with such rigor and clarity the seeming paucity of theophanous experience, and the necessary conditions which must obtain to form sound ontological commitments of divine presence. Will Lay Brother Tbombz,* S.T.D.,** be gluing together the publication of the proceedings?
* A.K.A., the Repentass.
** Doctor of Sacred Theology. What? ;D
-
Or you can simply come to Jesus Christ in humble surrender and be filled with the Holy Spirit and know without a shadow of a doubt the reality of God while experiencing his tangible presence, power and divine influence for the remainder of your days.
such a state of being is humble surrender.
-
such a state of being is humble surrender.
I applaud your personal desire for humility and peaceful meditation, but without resolution of our sin our individual efforts are in vain as we have no advocate in Jesus Christ and no salvation by grace through faith.
-
He just left Chicago with Jesus.
-
I applaud your personal desire for humility and peaceful meditation, but without resolution of our sin our individual efforts are in vain as we have no advocate in Jesus Christ and no salvation by grace through faith.
Deep meditation is like a baptism by both water and fire. All the Christian mystics went in to deep meditation where they communed with Christ. In such a state ones 'sin' which is ignorance of our true nature is resolved.
-
Get drunk on bliss in meditation, just sitting still enjoying breathing. The more we are lost in thoughts the less we can access bliss. In such a condition of being one does not ponder the existence or non existence of God.
I love meditating, it makes my life much better.
Exercise + meditation = bliss
And as opposed to religious indoctrination, meditation has a clear body of evidence showcasing its effects.
-
good to see your smugness bypass is working well
I don't know what you mean, but you're welcome to clarify.
-
I love meditating, it makes my life much better.
Exercise + meditation = bliss
And as opposed to religious indoctrination, meditation has a clear body of evidence showcasing its effects.
I truly believe i achieve a state of Zen when i perform Jo and Ken Suburi :)
-
Deep meditation is like a baptism by both water and fire. All the Christian mystics went in to deep meditation where they communed with Christ. In such a state ones 'sin' which is ignorance of our true nature is resolved.
I haven't read about that in scripture. Where are those passages located?
-
-
The gospel of Thomas is a non-canonical gospel because it is not in harmony with the other canonical gospels and promotes the teachings of gnosticism which is not of Christ. Unfortunately Thomas joins the company of the gospels of Barnabas, Enoch, Clement and Baruch. False gospels and epistles that have no harmony with inspired canon. The gospel of Thomas is a 2nd century gospel and has no association with the apostles of Christ as they were deceased at the time of it's writing; hence it has no authority in that regard and certainly no divine inspiration. The gospel denies the deity of Christ and that he is the Messiah. Further it states that salvation is essentially achieved via inward reflection and that teaching is simply not of Christ.
The Gospel of Thomas contains the followings bits of theology which are simply not of Jesus Christ:
"Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go forth from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Behold, I shall lead her, that I may make her male, in order that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who makes herself male shall enter into the kingdom of heaven."
-
all the gospels were written long after Jesus departure by people who may not have had any direct connection with his disciples. Teachings were passed on orally for the most part.
On the saying about women; so Jesus was a getbigger afterall! :D
-
all the gospels were written long after Jesus departure by people who may not have had any direct connection with his disciples. Teachings were passed on orally for the most part.
On the saying about women; so Jesus was a getbigger afterall! :D
This ^ :)
-
all the gospels were written long after Jesus departure by people who may not have had any direct connection with his disciples. Teachings were passed on orally for the most part.
On the saying about women; so Jesus was a getbigger afterall! :D
Matthew and John were Christ's disciples. Mark was a contemporary of the disciple Peter and the apostle Paul. Luke was contemporary of the disciples and close friend of Paul. Paul was a contemporary of Peter and Luke. All gospels written within 30-60 years after Christ ascended and the earliest gospel of Mark being the pattern by which Matthew and Luke drafted their writings.
Most biographies are written many, many decades or centuries after the individuals written about have died. In comparison the gospels were written very close to the actual events.
There is evidence that some of Paul's letters were written within less than 25 years from Christ's crucifixion and Paul's conversion and encounter with Christ within 5-7 years of Christ's acsension.
Correct, as far as the apostles were concerned they did adhere to a long standing oral tradition including a talent for precise memorization and this is fantastic evidence supporting the accuracy of the writings. Hence it's relatively easy, under divine inspiration, to put pen to paper and recount these events; although, difficult to stop and write while constantly on the run from people trying to murder you and all your friends.
-
With direct reference to this thread title, maybe God has grown weary of being in the spotlight and just wants some celestial alone time. ;)
-
Matthew and John were Christ's disciples. Mark was a contemporary of the disciple Peter and the apostle Paul. Luke was contemporary of the disciples and close friend of Paul. Paul was a contemporary of Peter and Luke. All gospels written within 30-60 years after Christ ascended and the earliest gospel of Mark being the pattern by which Matthew and Luke drafted their writings.
Most biographies are written many, many decades or centuries after the individuals written about have died. In comparison the gospels were written very close to the actual events.
There is evidence that some of Paul's letters were written within less than 25 years from Christ's crucifixion and Paul's conversion and encounter with Christ within 5-7 years of Christ's acsension.
Correct, as far as the apostles were concerned they did adhere to a long standing oral tradition including a talent for precise memorization and this is fantastic evidence supporting the accuracy of the writings. Hence it's relatively easy, under divine inspiration, to put pen to paper and recount these events; although, difficult to stop and write while constantly on the run from people trying to murder you and all your friends.
All the gospels as we know them were originally written in Greek. There are no Hebrew or Aramaic first hand accounts that have been found.
Even if Jesus manifested before me right now and asked me to believe he is the one and only savoir it would not make any difference to me. I would still have to put in hard efforts coupled with grace to realize the kingdom of heaven. The truth as I see it is that no enlightened being is going to make his form, his personality an exclusive entry point in to salvation. It was the Church who created this theology in order to control the masses. Christians are generally lazy. I sometimes sit for hours in the empty church and people come and go say a prayer light a candle and leave. People think Jesus, the saints, Mary, God will do it all for them, no need to put oneself through anything remotely transformational.
How does it feel to live surrounded by people who you 'know' are going to hell?
-
He just left Chicago with Jesus.
Is he headed to New Orleans?
-
All the gospels as we know them were originally written in Greek. There are no Hebrew or Aramaic first hand accounts that have been found.
Even if Jesus manifested before me right now and asked me to believe he is the one and only savoir it would not make any difference to me. I would still have to put in hard efforts coupled with grace to realize the kingdom of heaven. The truth as I see it is that no enlightened being is going to make his form, his personality an exclusive entry point in to salvation. It was the Church who created this theology in order to control the masses. Christians are generally lazy. I sometimes sit for hours in the empty church and people come and go say a prayer light a candle and leave. People think Jesus, the saints, Mary, God will do it all for them, no need to put oneself through anything remotely transformational.
How does it feel to live surrounded by people who you 'know' are going to hell?
Most of apostles (Peter and Paul included) spoke Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek, but it was the empire of Rome that did their level best to destroy the Christian libraries and halt the progression of Jesus Christ's gospel message.
The field of archeology continues to undercover more and more extant manuscripts and have their authenticity validated with great intellectual vigor. Back in 2012, textual critic Dan Wallace announced the discovery of a 1st century manuscript of Mark (results pending publication via EJ Brill) in addition to various 2nd century biblical manuscripts (all of which are significant findings). Slowly but surely the gap between the present and the writing of the originals closes, but that doesn't mean we're without confidence in our present materials.
The field of textual criticism is dedicated to the understanding the transmission and copying process of these ancient documents and has done so for decade after decade. Their level of certainty is so great that they certify the New Testament with a 98.5% level of accuracy and reliability. Even the great liberal textual critic Bart Ehrman (who is an admitted God hater) has stated in the appendix of the 4th edition of his famous book Misquoting Jesus that "the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament" (please note that this appendix was removed in later additions of the book ;D).
Further, the use of dead languages such the Koine Greek, Aramaic (sister language of Arabic) and Hebrew (derivative of ancient Chaldean) has helped preserve the integrity of the writings given the development of these languages has both stopped and their usage ceased. It's as if time halted with the biblical writings so that further linguistic corruption could not occur.
Now, what truly troubles me is your statement that even if Christ were to manifest in front of you it wouldn't be enough to convert or convince you of his truthfulness and righteousness. This is unfortunately the point in the discussion in which I know that answering the objections of the God-hater is pointless.
For most God haters they aren't looking to have their objections answered.....they're simply looking for their next objection. You can surf the net and find atheist sites with lists of biblical objections...some substantive yet most trivial. If the substantive objections are answered first (and the vast majority can be) that should satisfy the remaining trivial objections, but it doesn't. It's a rabbit hole that God haters - who admittedly have no level of satiation - travel down endlessly.....always looking for the next way to object to God.
You say Christians are lazy and that they don't seek personal transformation. That tells me you don't understand Christianity and you certainly don't understand concepts of salvation, justification, imputation and sanctification. I don't claim expert level understanding of the theology, but I certainly grasp these concepts and can communicate them to others (and have on these boards repeatedly). Still, there isn't any point in me AGAIN presenting these materials here because you've clearly put forth that interaction with Christ himself (even if accomplished on your terms) wouldn't be sufficient. So even if you pitch further objections and I continue to bat them away it won't make a lick of difference for you. Hopefully it will for others. I don't think you're a bad person (quite the opposite), but I don't think you seek discussion about God to understand his truth....it's merely to validate yourself.
-
Most of apostles (Peter and Paul included) spoke Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek, but it was the empire of Rome that did their level best to destroy the Christian libraries and halt the progression of Jesus Christ's gospel message.
The field of archeology continues to undercover more and more extant manuscripts and have their authenticity validated with great intellectual rigor. Back in 2012, textual critic Dan Wallace announced the discovery of a 1st century manuscript of Mark (results pending publication via EJ Brill) in addition to various 2nd century biblical manuscripts (all of which are significant findings). Slowly but surely the gap between the present and the writing of the originals closes, but that doesn't mean we're without confidence in our present materials.
The field of textual criticism is dedicated to the understanding the transmission and copying process of these ancient documents and has done so for decade after decade. Their level of certainty is so great that they certify the New Testament with a 98.5% level of accuracy and reliability. Even the great liberal textual critic Bart Ehrman (who is an admitted God hater) has stated in the appendix of the 4th edition of his famous book Misquoting Jesus that "the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament" (please note that this appendix was removed in later additions of the book ;D).
Further, the use of dead languages such the Koine Greek, Aramaic (sister language of Arabic) and Hebrew (derivative of ancient Chaldean) has helped preserve the integrity of the writings given the development of these languages has both stopped and their usage ceased. It's as if time halted with the biblical writings so that further linguistic corruption could not occur.
Now, what truly troubles me is your statement that even if Christ were to manifest in front of you it wouldn't be enough to convert or convince you of his truthfulness and righteousness. This is unfortunately the point in the discussion in which I know that answering the objections of the God-hater is pointless.
For most God haters they aren't looking to have their objections answered.....they're simply looking for their next objection. You can surf the net and find atheist sites with lists of biblical objections...some substantive yet most trivial. If the substantive objections are answered first (and the vast majority can be) that should satisfy the remaining trivial objections, but it doesn't. It's a rabbit hole that God haters who admittedly have no level of satiation travel down endlessly.....always looking for the next way to object to God.
You say Christians are lazy and that they don't seek personal transformation. That tells me you don't understand Christianity and you certainly don't understand concepts of salvation, justification, imputation and sanctification. I don't claim expert level understanding of the theology, but I certainly grasp these concepts and can communicate them to others (and have on these boards repeatedly). Still, there isn't any point in me AGAIN presenting these materials here because you've clearly put forth that interaction with Christ himself (even if accomplished on your terms) wouldn't be sufficient. So even if you pitch further objections and I continue to bat them away it won't make a lick of difference for you. Hopefully it will for others. I don't think you're a bad person (quite the opposite), but I don't think you seek discussion about God to understand his truth....it's merely to validate yourself.
I admire and respect you and enjoy enlightening discussions. I am not a God hater. I do have alot of objections to mainstream Christianity, as I do with aspects of other religious paths (or any worldview) which I feel keep people from experiencing the fullness of life and god and themselves. If Jesus manifested before me I would be thoroughly reverent and feel blessed as I would if it were another enlightened being. What I meant is that belief by itself is not sufficient if it does not blossom in to personal inner awakening. Awakening to the exact same state that that enlightened being before me is experiencing. Which takes dedicated concentration and practise, which takes a whole lot more than what most Christians put forth of themselves. If one cannot bring the interior consciousness in to a perfect stillness one cannot allow in the full benediction of the Divine. Shalom.
-
I admire and respect you and enjoy enlightening discussions. I am not a God hater. I do have alot of objections to mainstream Christianity, as I do with aspects of other religious paths (or any worldview) which I feel keep people from experiencing the fullness of life and god and themselves. If Jesus manifested before me I would be thoroughly reverent and feel blessed as I would if it were another enlightened being. What I meant is that belief by itself is not sufficient if it does not blossom in to personal inner awakening. Awakening to the exact same state that that enlightened being before me is experiencing. Which takes dedicated concentration and practise, which takes a whole lot more than what most Christians put forth of themselves. If one cannot bring the interior consciousness in to a perfect stillness one cannot allow in the full benediction of the Divine. Shalom.
I understand much more now....thanks for the clarification! I need hand holding from time to time. ;D
See, I don't mind answering questions at all. Now, I don't always have an answer (or sometimes even a good answer), but the dialogue is good provided it isn't the typical "question asked >> answer given >> utter brick wall of rejection received" scenario over and over and over. This isn't happening in this instance so I'm grateful for that.
I think how I can attempt to relate to what your saying is with the idea that "faith without works is dead". This is true. All sorts claim to be Christian, claim Jesus as Lord, etc....but so much of that is nominal or vapid claims. Further a genuine faith in Christ is absolutely accompanied by a desire to live for Christ and be the proverbial "salt and light" and "hands and feet" of Christ.
I simply can't articulate your position as well as you can, but I do agree that if a person claims a change in Christ that others should recognize that change and that the individual should proactively be seeking to be as Christ-like as possible.
I'm glad you are not a God-hater. ;)
-
I understand much more now....thanks for the clarification! I need hand holding from time to time. ;D
See, I don't mind answering questions at all. Now, I don't always have an answer (or sometimes even a good answer), but the dialogue is good provided it isn't the typical "question asked >> answer given >> utter brick wall of rejection received" scenario over and over and over. This isn't happening in this instance so I'm grateful for that.
I think how I can attempt to relate to what your saying is with the idea that "faith without works is dead". This is true. All sorts claim to be Christian, claim Jesus as Lord, etc....but so much of that is nominal or vapid claims. Further a genuine faith in Christ is absolutely accompanied by a desire to live for Christ and be the proverbial "salt and light" and "hands and feet" of Christ.
I simply can't articulate your position as well as you can, but I do agree that if a person claims a change in Christ that others should recognize that change and that the individual should proactively be seeking to be as Christ-like as possible.
I'm glad you are not a God-hater. ;)
I wont always have questions but I always intend to be respectful. I am a God lover, sometimes to the point that devotional tears will flow, a very different state from crying.
I resonate with your understanding about how a real Christian should be and would also concur that works without faith are dead, though we differ in the narrowness or breadth that that faith takes.
-
-
-
The gospel of Thomas is a non-canonical gospel because it is not in harmony with the other canonical gospels and promotes the teachings of gnosticism which is not of Christ. Unfortunately Thomas joins the company of the gospels of Barnabas, Enoch, Clement and Baruch. False gospels and epistles that have no harmony with inspired canon. The gospel of Thomas is a 2nd century gospel and has no association with the apostles of Christ as they were deceased at the time of it's writing; hence it has no authority in that regard and certainly no divine inspiration. The gospel denies the deity of Christ and that he is the Messiah. Further it states that salvation is essentially achieved via inward reflection and that teaching is simply not of Christ.
The Gospel of Thomas contains the followings bits of theology which are simply not of Jesus Christ:
"Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go forth from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Behold, I shall lead her, that I may make her male, in order that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who makes herself male shall enter into the kingdom of heaven."
What does that mean for Maria Calo?
(http://www.ambal.ru/32922786671.jpg)
-
Matthew and John were Christ's disciples. Mark was a contemporary of the disciple Peter and the apostle Paul. Luke was contemporary of the disciples and close friend of Paul. Paul was a contemporary of Peter and Luke. All gospels written within 30-60 years after Christ ascended and the earliest gospel of Mark being the pattern by which Matthew and Luke drafted their writings.
Most biographies are written many, many decades or centuries after the individuals written about have died. In comparison the gospels were written very close to the actual events.
There is evidence that some of Paul's letters were written within less than 25 years from Christ's crucifixion and Paul's conversion and encounter with Christ within 5-7 years of Christ's acsension.
Correct, as far as the apostles were concerned they did adhere to a long standing oral tradition including a talent for precise memorization and this is fantastic evidence supporting the accuracy of the writings. Hence it's relatively easy, under divine inspiration, to put pen to paper and recount these events; although, difficult to stop and write while constantly on the run from people trying to murder you and all your friends.
Jesus H Christ you can't be serious!
-
Jesus H Christ you can't be serious!
You know that "Christ" isn't a last name, right LOL?
Yes, I'm serious.
I'll wait for the Ehrman and Carrier opinions that suggest manuscripts were forged last week.
Then I'll reply with evaluations from Metzger, Wallace, White, Habermas, McDowell, Geisler, etc.....I know the drill.
So let's cut to chase: you like the opinions that say the bible is garbage and I like the opinions that say it's the inspired word.
-
You know that "Christ" isn't a last name, right LOL?
Yes, I'm serious.
I'll wait for the Ehrman and Carrier opinions that suggest manuscripts were forged last week.
Then I'll reply with evaluations from Metzger, Wallace, White, Habermas, McDowell, Geisler, etc.....I know the drill.
So let's cut to chase: you like the opinions that say the bible is garbage and I like the opinions that say it's the inspired word.
So then we agree I'm the logical reasonable one
-
So then we agree I'm the logical reasonable one
Sounds great!
-
mos has tipped over the edge
crazy preacher of peace
there is irrefutable evidence of other historical facts around that time
bu no evidence outside of the speculation of christians regarding the facts around jesus
-
Is he headed to New Orleans?
;)
-
You will remember that very sentence on your death bed (and start to get a lil nervous) :)
HAHA, i cannot agree more!!
-
(https://indieethos.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/3-obstacles.jpg)
-
mos has tipped over the edge
crazy preacher of peace
there is irrefutable evidence of other historical facts around that time
bu no evidence outside of the speculation of christians regarding the facts around jesus
Trust me, I know you're trolling and know that none of what I've said below (or have said before) means anything to you. I just want to show that those trolling generalizations are nonsense.
You understand that libraries, textbooks, microfiche, the internet, etc....were not yet available?
In addition, how many professional historians do you think existed at that time? Further, how many existing historians do you think existed that documented this new "Christian" thing? Nevermind that the Roman Empire essentially tried to erase Jesus Christ and Christianity from history. Yet, we still have a prominent Jewish historian named Josephus who was absolutely not a follower of Jesus yet documented who he was, what he claimed to be and some of the the "goings on". The goal of non-Christians at the time was the elimination of Jesus Christ and his Christians....not to promote them.
What folks fail to recognize is that the bible itself is an absolute historical record of Christianity? 66 books written by multiple authors spanning 1,500 years including prophetical writings that were both fulfilled and to be fulfilled that blends seamlessly. The words include eyewitness testimonies of those that knew and traveled with Christ and the testimonies of those that were close contemporaries of Christ's disciples.
"But where's the evidence for the bible?"
Well like other historical writings we have archaeological findings that validate biblical people, places and things. We have the field of textual criticism dedicated to validation of the ancient documents (biblical scripture included). We have extant, extra-biblical, contemporaneous sources of writings such as those of Josephus. We have the continued oral tradition passed to the early church fathers whose teachings recount virtually every word and verse of the New Testament. We also have the continued string of testimonies of millions of followers of Jesus Christ spanning directly from the disciples down to the folks like myself today who attest to the reality of God.
Maybe try the "flat earth" thread.
-
The Deers Cry
Anon. 8th Century: translated from old Irish by Kuno Meyer.
I arise today
Through the strength of Heaven
Light of sun
Radiance of moon
Splendour of fire
Speed of lightning
Swiftness of wind
Depth of the sea
Stability of earth
Firmness of rock
I arise today
Through Gods strength to pilot me
Gods eye to look before me
Gods wisdom to guide me
Gods way to lie before me
From all who shall wish me ill
Afar and anear
Alone and in a multitude
Against every cruel
Merciless power
That may oppose my body and soul
Christ with me, Christ before me,
Christ behind me, Christ in me,
Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ on my right, Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down, Christ when I sit down,
Christ when I arise, Christ to shield me
Christ in the heart of everyone who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me
I arise today.
That's awesome....thanks for sharing!!
-
Having a discussion with some folks over a local pastor that plead guilty to molesting his foster child for the last 7 years. After someone offered a prayer for her healing I asked "Rather than damage control, why didn't god prevent the molestation by one of his representatives 7 years ago? Isn't it too late to get god involved now? The answer was.. "God gave man dominion over the earth" as if this answer made sense.
So I asked "Which is it? Does god NOT ever get involved as you suggest with your "dominion" reasoning, or does he? You can't have it both ways. You can't pray for healing, or Johnny makes it home safe or give god credit for someone surviving a car accident but then when a tornado wipes out a daycare center, or a child is repeatedly raped for 7 years, throw up your hands and say "God gave man dominion over the earth"....
Thoughts MOS?
-
Having a discussion with some folks over a local pastor that plead guilty to molesting his foster child for the last 7 years. After someone offered a prayer for her healing I asked "Rather than damage control, why didn't god prevent the molestation by one of his representatives 7 years ago? Isn't it too late to get god involved now? The answer was.. "God gave man dominion over the earth" as if this answer made sense.
So I asked "Which is it? Does god NOT ever get involved as you suggest with your "dominion" reasoning, or does he? You can't have it both ways. You can't pray for healing, or Johnny makes it home safe or give god credit for someone surviving a car accident but then when a tornado wipes out a daycare center, or a child is repeatedly raped for 7 years, throw up your hands and say "God gave man dominion over the earth"....
Thoughts MOS?
Maybe god wanted the priest to molest the boy. Its only illegal to us humans. God may take a different stance. For all we know God, likes sex with infants and thus does not have a problem with it. Who are we to question gods sexual preference? He works in mysterious ways.
-
Maybe god wanted the priest to molest the boy. Its only illegal to us humans. God may take a different stance. For all we know God, likes sex with infants and thus does not have a problem with it. Who are we to question gods sexual preference? He works in mysterious ways.
That sadly enough makes a little more sense than what I've been getting from the believers..
-
Having a discussion with some folks over a local pastor that plead guilty to molesting his foster child for the last 7 years. After someone offered a prayer for her healing I asked "Rather than damage control, why didn't god prevent the molestation by one of his representatives 7 years ago? Isn't it too late to get god involved now? The answer was.. "God gave man dominion over the earth" as if this answer made sense.
So I asked "Which is it? Does god NOT ever get involved as you suggest with your "dominion" reasoning, or does he? You can't have it both ways. You can't pray for healing, or Johnny makes it home safe or give god credit for someone surviving a car accident but then when a tornado wipes out a daycare center, or a child is repeatedly raped for 7 years, throw up your hands and say "God gave man dominion over the earth"....
Thoughts MOS?
Since I know you won't agree with my words here are some quick copy and pastes from my previous posts:
Nominal Christian:
That pastor is not a Christian. Sorry that behavior is demonic and no person made a new man in Christ would or could do such a thing. Plenty of nominal Christians....even pastors. Plenty of heretical teachings and sinful practices from "God's representatives" all over the place.
Mankind is given dominion over the earth:
Genesis 1:26
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
When you're given dominion you act as governor over that with which you've been given authority, but from the perspective of the giver you are acting as a steward on his behalf.
A steward is one given authority by a greater power to manage a situation. A king would often have governors or stewards over territories within his kingdom.
God is the creator and king and empowers mankind as stewards in that they are given dominion over creation to govern it and all its resources.
Why pray?
The main reason I can think of to pray is that Jesus Christ told us to pray and later the apostle Paul affirmed that we should pray (without ceasing) according to that which was revealed to him by Jesus Christ.
A second reason to consider praying is that while Jesus Christ came as the incarnate Son of God on earth and assumed a limited human form that he prayed to God the Father for guidance and strength as an example of how we should seek him in our own lives. If prayer was appropriate for the Son of God then it’s appropriate for me…..God set the standard.
Another reason to pray is because believers are engaged in a personal relationship with the Almighty and relationships are two-way streets. How many successful relationships involve only one party engaged in communication with the other? None that I’ve ever known of. This is our opportunity as believers to consistently remain connected with our Lord and Savior and experience the tangible presence of the Holy Spirit (not the only way to feel the Holy Spirit's presence, but a powerful way).
A fourth reason to consider is that the act of prayer is not for God’s edification, it’s for ours (God doesn't need our prayers). Prayer is a means by which we as believers can strengthen our faith. Prayer is our opportunity to draw closer to God, to feel his presence via the Holy Spirit, to worship and to seek his will. As believers our will for our lives should always match God’s will for our lives. Almost every day I pray and I ask God that he reveal himself through me to others and that his will be done in my life. I pray that I am able to recognize his fingerprints and guidance along the way to ensure that he will is being accomplished and that I’m not a hindrance. As Dave already suggested, God’s will for our lives is perfect and anything less than that is a step in wrong direction.
A fifth reason to consider prayer is that despite the fact that God doesn’t change his mind about his will for our lives this doesn’t necessitate his inability to intervene supernaturally to right the course of our lives while remaining in complete harmony with his preset will for our lives…..he is God afterall. How does he accomplish this? Wish I could tell you LOL.
Why are people allowed to suffer?
So that we can more clearly recognize the division between us and God and our need for him in our lives. It's the effect of our sinful choices that have brought about our pain. This world and it inhabitants exist in a perpetual state of decay. We're subjected to evil, disease, famine, disasters, etc.....all the results of our sin. God gave us dominion over his creation and we're to govern it and it's inhabitants appropriately. He's also allowed us to engage in activities and choices that he knew would harm is good creation and defy his will and law. The gulf of sin dividing creation from creator is recognized by those who seek to eliminate their individual sin and encourage others to do the same.
God desires for us to be saved, repent of our sins and seek his righteousness in our lives. To be filled with his spirit and guided by it for the remainder of our days seeking his will as opposed to our own. Salvation is the answer to the problem of evil and the problem is resolved one soul at a time. Having the ability to engage in every form of good and wicked choice makes those humble choices to surrender to God's will that much more genuine and sincere.
The answer to our evil choices is Jesus Christ. The representative God sent was himself. We can choose live for him as the salt and light and hands and feet or we can pretend to love God and represent evil and hurt others.
Expected replies:
"tl/dr......I feel sorry for you.....are you kidding me.....etc...."
-
Nominal Christian:
That pastor is not a Christian. Sorry that behavior is demonic and no person made a new man in Christ would or could do such a thing. Plenty of nominal Christians....even pastors. Plenty of heretical teachings and sinful practices from "God's representatives" all over the place.
Mankind is given dominion over the earth:
Genesis 1:26
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
When you're given dominion you act as governor over that with which you've been given authority, but from the perspective of the giver you are acting as a steward on his behalf.
A steward is one given authority by a greater power to manage a situation. A king would often have governors or stewards over territories within his kingdom.
God is the creator and king and empowers mankind as stewards in that they are given dominion over creation to govern it and all its resources.
Why pray?
The main reason I can think of to pray is that Jesus Christ told us to pray and later the apostle Paul affirmed that we should pray (without ceasing) according to that which was revealed to him by Jesus Christ.
A second reason to consider praying is that while Jesus Christ came as the incarnate Son of God on earth and assumed a limited human form that he prayed to God the Father for guidance and strength as an example of how we should seek him in our own lives. If prayer was appropriate for the Son of God then it’s appropriate for me…..God set the standard.
Another reason to pray is because believers are engaged in a personal relationship with the Almighty and relationships are two-way streets. How many successful relationships involve only one party engaged in communication with the other? None that I’ve ever known of. This is our opportunity as believers to consistently remain connected with our Lord and Savior and experience the tangible presence of the Holy Spirit (not the only way to feel the Holy Spirit's presence, but a powerful way).
A fourth reason to consider is that the act of prayer is not for God’s edification, it’s for ours (God doesn't need our prayers). Prayer is a means by which we as believers can strengthen our faith. Prayer is our opportunity to draw closer to God, to feel his presence via the Holy Spirit, to worship and to seek his will. As believers our will for our lives should always match God’s will for our lives. Almost every day I pray and I ask God that he reveal himself through me to others and that his will be done in my life. I pray that I am able to recognize his fingerprints and guidance along the way to ensure that he will is being accomplished and that I’m not a hindrance. As Dave already suggested, God’s will for our lives is perfect and anything less than that is a step in wrong direction.
A fifth reason to consider prayer is that despite the fact that God doesn’t change his mind about his will for our lives this doesn’t necessitate his inability to intervene supernaturally to right the course of our lives while remaining in complete harmony with his preset will for our lives…..he is God afterall. How does he accomplish this? Wish I could tell you LOL.
Why are people allowed to suffer?
So that we can more clearly recognize the division between us and God and our need for him in our lives. It's the effect of our sinful choices that have brought about our pain. This world and it inhabitants exist in a perpetual state of decay. We're subjected to evil, disease, famine, disasters, etc.....all the results of our sin. God gave us dominion over his creation and we're to govern it and it's inhabitants appropriately. He's also allowed us to engage in activities and choices that he knew would harm is good creation and defy his will and law. The gulf of sin dividing creation from creator is recognized by those who seek to eliminate their individual sin and encourage others to do the same.
God desires for us to be saved, repent of our sins and seek his righteousness in our lives. To be filled with his spirit and guided by it for the remainder of our days seeking his will as opposed to our own. Salvation is the answer to the problem of evil and the problem is resolved one soul at a time. Having the ability to engage in every form of good and wicked choice makes those humble choices to surrender to God's will that much more genuine and sincere.
The answer to our evil choices is Jesus Christ. The representative God sent was himself. We can choose live for him as the salt and light and hands and feet or we can pretend to love God and represent evil and hurt others.
How do you know god that god does not like suffering or child molestation? What if god thinks its a good idea and wants it to happen and supports it. Do you have any evidence that he is against child molestation? What about in cases where the priest like it and his supposed "victims" like it? Maybe god is okay with that. Molestation, I bet in gods eyes, is not always a one way street.
-
Since I know you won't agree with my words here are some quick copy and pastes from my previous posts:
Nominal Christian:
That pastor is not a Christian. Sorry that behavior is demonic and no person made a new man in Christ would or could do such a thing. Plenty of nominal Christians....even pastors. Plenty of heretical teachings and sinful practices from "God's representatives" all over the place.
Mankind is given dominion over the earth:
Genesis 1:26
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
When you're given dominion you act as governor over that with which you've been given authority, but from the perspective of the giver you are acting as a steward on his behalf.
A steward is one given authority by a greater power to manage a situation. A king would often have governors or stewards over territories within his kingdom.
God is the creator and king and empowers mankind as stewards in that they are given dominion over creation to govern it and all its resources.
Why pray?
The main reason I can think of to pray is that Jesus Christ told us to pray and later the apostle Paul affirmed that we should pray (without ceasing) according to that which was revealed to him by Jesus Christ.
A second reason to consider praying is that while Jesus Christ came as the incarnate Son of God on earth and assumed a limited human form that he prayed to God the Father for guidance and strength as an example of how we should seek him in our own lives. If prayer was appropriate for the Son of God then it’s appropriate for me…..God set the standard.
Another reason to pray is because believers are engaged in a personal relationship with the Almighty and relationships are two-way streets. How many successful relationships involve only one party engaged in communication with the other? None that I’ve ever known of. This is our opportunity as believers to consistently remain connected with our Lord and Savior and experience the tangible presence of the Holy Spirit (not the only way to feel the Holy Spirit's presence, but a powerful way).
A fourth reason to consider is that the act of prayer is not for God’s edification, it’s for ours (God doesn't need our prayers). Prayer is a means by which we as believers can strengthen our faith. Prayer is our opportunity to draw closer to God, to feel his presence via the Holy Spirit, to worship and to seek his will. As believers our will for our lives should always match God’s will for our lives. Almost every day I pray and I ask God that he reveal himself through me to others and that his will be done in my life. I pray that I am able to recognize his fingerprints and guidance along the way to ensure that he will is being accomplished and that I’m not a hindrance. As Dave already suggested, God’s will for our lives is perfect and anything less than that is a step in wrong direction.
A fifth reason to consider prayer is that despite the fact that God doesn’t change his mind about his will for our lives this doesn’t necessitate his inability to intervene supernaturally to right the course of our lives while remaining in complete harmony with his preset will for our lives…..he is God afterall. How does he accomplish this? Wish I could tell you LOL.
Why are people allowed to suffer?
So that we can more clearly recognize the division between us and God and our need for him in our lives. It's the effect of our sinful choices that have brought about our pain. This world and it inhabitants exist in a perpetual state of decay. We're subjected to evil, disease, famine, disasters, etc.....all the results of our sin. God gave us dominion over his creation and we're to govern it and it's inhabitants appropriately. He's also allowed us to engage in activities and choices that he knew would harm is good creation and defy his will and law. The gulf of sin dividing creation from creator is recognized by those who seek to eliminate their individual sin and encourage others to do the same.
God desires for us to be saved, repent of our sins and seek his righteousness in our lives. To be filled with his spirit and guided by it for the remainder of our days seeking his will as opposed to our own. Salvation is the answer to the problem of evil and the problem is resolved one soul at a time. Having the ability to engage in every form of good and wicked choice makes those humble choices to surrender to God's will that much more genuine and sincere.
The answer to our evil choices is Jesus Christ. The representative God sent was himself. We can choose live for him as the salt and light and hands and feet or we can pretend to love God and represent evil and hurt others.
I wish you would stop with copy and pasting and provide some real world evidence. All you do is copy and paste things that don't have any evidence in them. At least if you are going to copy and paste, give us something with some evidence. You are just copy and pasting opinions which is bizarre.
-
Since I know you won't agree with my words here are some quick copy and pastes from my previous posts:
Nominal Christian:
That pastor is not a Christian. Sorry that behavior is demonic and no person made a new man in Christ would or could do such a thing. Plenty of nominal Christians....even pastors. Plenty of heretical teachings and sinful practices from "God's representatives" all over the place.
Mankind is given dominion over the earth:
Genesis 1:26
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
When you're given dominion you act as governor over that with which you've been given authority, but from the perspective of the giver you are acting as a steward on his behalf.
A steward is one given authority by a greater power to manage a situation. A king would often have governors or stewards over territories within his kingdom.
God is the creator and king and empowers mankind as stewards in that they are given dominion over creation to govern it and all its resources.
Why pray?
The main reason I can think of to pray is that Jesus Christ told us to pray and later the apostle Paul affirmed that we should pray (without ceasing) according to that which was revealed to him by Jesus Christ.
A second reason to consider praying is that while Jesus Christ came as the incarnate Son of God on earth and assumed a limited human form that he prayed to God the Father for guidance and strength as an example of how we should seek him in our own lives. If prayer was appropriate for the Son of God then it’s appropriate for me…..God set the standard.
Another reason to pray is because believers are engaged in a personal relationship with the Almighty and relationships are two-way streets. How many successful relationships involve only one party engaged in communication with the other? None that I’ve ever known of. This is our opportunity as believers to consistently remain connected with our Lord and Savior and experience the tangible presence of the Holy Spirit (not the only way to feel the Holy Spirit's presence, but a powerful way).
A fourth reason to consider is that the act of prayer is not for God’s edification, it’s for ours (God doesn't need our prayers). Prayer is a means by which we as believers can strengthen our faith. Prayer is our opportunity to draw closer to God, to feel his presence via the Holy Spirit, to worship and to seek his will. As believers our will for our lives should always match God’s will for our lives. Almost every day I pray and I ask God that he reveal himself through me to others and that his will be done in my life. I pray that I am able to recognize his fingerprints and guidance along the way to ensure that he will is being accomplished and that I’m not a hindrance. As Dave already suggested, God’s will for our lives is perfect and anything less than that is a step in wrong direction.
A fifth reason to consider prayer is that despite the fact that God doesn’t change his mind about his will for our lives this doesn’t necessitate his inability to intervene supernaturally to right the course of our lives while remaining in complete harmony with his preset will for our lives…..he is God afterall. How does he accomplish this? Wish I could tell you LOL.
Why are people allowed to suffer?
So that we can more clearly recognize the division between us and God and our need for him in our lives. It's the effect of our sinful choices that have brought about our pain. This world and it inhabitants exist in a perpetual state of decay. We're subjected to evil, disease, famine, disasters, etc.....all the results of our sin. God gave us dominion over his creation and we're to govern it and it's inhabitants appropriately. He's also allowed us to engage in activities and choices that he knew would harm is good creation and defy his will and law. The gulf of sin dividing creation from creator is recognized by those who seek to eliminate their individual sin and encourage others to do the same.
God desires for us to be saved, repent of our sins and seek his righteousness in our lives. To be filled with his spirit and guided by it for the remainder of our days seeking his will as opposed to our own. Salvation is the answer to the problem of evil and the problem is resolved one soul at a time. Having the ability to engage in every form of good and wicked choice makes those humble choices to surrender to God's will that much more genuine and sincere.
The answer to our evil choices is Jesus Christ. The representative God sent was himself. We can choose live for him as the salt and light and hands and feet or we can pretend to love God and represent evil and hurt others.
Expected replies:
"tl/dr......I feel sorry for you.....are you kidding me.....etc...."
Yeah.. his answer made more sense..
-
How do you know god that god does not like suffering or child molestation? What if god thinks its a good idea and wants it to happen and supports it. Do you have any evidence that he is against child molestation? What about in cases where the priest like it and his supposed "victims" like it? Maybe god is okay with that. Molestation, I bet in gods eyes, is not always a one way street.
Children are the most precious in God's kingdom.
Sexual immorality is an offense against God.
Christ instructed those desiring to be the greatest in God's kingdom to be like little children given their innocence as it pertains to sin.
Priests and victims engaging willfully in sinful sexual perversions are wicked in God's eyes.
Those that lead the children into sin will suffer greater punishment than those that do not.
-
I wish you would stop with copy and pasting and provide some real world evidence. All you do is copy and paste things that don't have any evidence in them. At least if you are going to copy and paste, give us something with some evidence. You are just copy and pasting opinions which is bizarre.
Virtually everything I copy and paste I wrote and researched myself. It's of God's word it's validation for the Christian perspective. I seek the things of God not the things of the world. The world will lead you to sin and hell. There isn't any evidence or proof of God you will accept.....not my problem, it's yours.
-
Yeah.. his answer made more sense..
Exactly why I wrote nothing fresh....copy and pasted.
-
That's awesome....thanks for sharing!!
[youtubehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3KUymM8TEo][/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3KUymM8TEo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3KUymM8TEo)
-
Children are the most precious in God's kingdom.
Sexual immorality is an offense against God.
Christ instructed those desiring to be the greatest in God's kingdom to be like little children given their innocence as it pertains to sin.
Priests and victims engaging willfully in sinful sexual perversions are wicked in God's eyes.
Those that lead the children into sin will suffer greater punishment than those that do not.
In biblical times men fucked children and no one batted an eye. There were no laws against it. I don't think god cares about any adult fucking a child or a child fucking an adult. Why would he care? You are applying 21 century law to Bronze aged ideas. Why do that when that simply was not the case when the bible was written and certainly when jesus existed. Jesus was not against child fucking at all. It would not make sense for him to be so given the time.
-
Virtually everything I copy and paste I wrote and researched myself. It's of God's word it's validation for the Christian perspective. I seek the things of God not the things of the world. The world will lead you to sin and hell. There isn't any evidence or proof of God you will accept.....not my problem, it's yours.
Unlike you, I accept evidence and proof. So far, for god, there is none. Let me know when you get some.
-
Children are the most precious in God's kingdom.
Sexual immorality is an offense against God.
Christ instructed those desiring to be the greatest in God's kingdom to be like little children given their innocence as it pertains to sin.
Priests and victims engaging willfully in sinful sexual perversions are wicked in God's eyes.
Those that lead the children into sin will suffer greater punishment than those that do not.
and what punishment would that be
eternal damnation
unless you are a catholic and confess
you are talking nonsense
and in regard to the flat earth thread its about as believable as the shit you spew
you are a weak man hiding in faith
because you dare not confront reality
go and preach to idiots because only idiots believe :-*
-
In biblical times men fucked children and no one batted an eye. There were no laws against it. I don't think god cares about any adult fucking a child or a child fucking an adult. Why would he care? You are applying 21 century law to Bronze aged ideas. Why do that when that simply was not the case when the bible was written and certainly when jesus existed. Jesus was not against child fucking at all. It would not make sense for him to be so given the time.
I'm not going to continue this disgusting conversation with you. You're the epitome of the internet troll and I'd rather not engage with you.
-
All the gospels as we know them were originally written in Greek. There are no Hebrew or Aramaic first hand accounts that have been found.
Even if Jesus manifested before me right now and asked me to believe he is the one and only savoir it would not make any difference to me. I would still have to put in hard efforts coupled with grace to realize the kingdom of heaven. The truth as I see it is that no enlightened being is going to make his form, his personality an exclusive entry point in to salvation. It was the Church who created this theology in order to control the masses. Christians are generally lazy. I sometimes sit for hours in the empty church and people come and go say a prayer light a candle and leave. People think Jesus, the saints, Mary, God will do it all for them, no need to put oneself through anything remotely transformational.
How does it feel to live surrounded by people who you 'know' are going to hell?
What you wrote is very well put.
Many people want to believe their soul will live on in some beautiful place, that it (they) will be reincarnated or somehow immortal. Most people spend their lives surviving. It is hard to give that up.
I'm on my way to reaching my 72nd year. Like a lot of folks, I have no idea when I will end. Unlike a lot of folks, I do not fear it....it is inevitable. In the meantime, I intend to live each day I have to the fullest. It would be difficult to do this, if I was worrying about dying.
I'm curious as to why you sit for hours in an empty church. Does the quiet atmosphere comfort you?
-
and what punishment would that be
eternal damnation
unless you are a catholic and confess
you are talking nonsense
and in regard to the flat earth thread its about as believable as the shit you spew
you are a weak man hiding in faith
because you dare not confront reality
go and preach to idiots because only idiots believe :-*
Absolutely, damnation....separation from God and all he is.
Catholic confession and mediation is not of Christ.
nonsense, weak, hiding, can't deal with reality, idiot....you hit almost every cliche in a brief post.
You hate the words of God because you love your sin.
-
Not one piece of credible evidence has been put forth by MOS. All second hand-accounts, or people finding various "scriptures" that support the existence of God lol.
If this was irrefutable evidence, the person who proved god would have won a nobel prize by now. Yet, crickets.
-
Absolutely, damnation....separation from God and all he is.
Catholic confession and mediation is not of Christ.
nonsense, weak, hiding, can't deal with reality, idiot....you hit almost every cliche in a brief post.
You hate the words of God because you love your sin.
Confession can comfort a person as can doing penance. It does not take away your sin as I imagine some people believe.
-
Confession can comfort a person as can doing penance. It does not take away your sin as I imagine some people believe.
I agree with this.
-
I'm not going to continue this disgusting conversation with you. You're the epitome of the internet troll and I'd rather not engage with you.
Disgusting in your mind, not disgusting to jesus and god's mind though. Child fucking was all the rage in the Bronze Age. You didn't know that?
How old do you think Muhammed of Islam's bride was? They all liked child fucking back then and children fucked them back. It was lawful and common back then.
-
Disgusting in your mind, not disgusting to jesus and god's mind though. Child fucking was all the rage in the Bronze Age. You didn't know that?
How old do you think Muhammed of Islam's bride was? They all liked child fucking back then and children fucked them back. It was lawful and common back then.
Not taking your troll bait. Already told you God's standards. You're defending from the world's standards.
-
Not taking your troll bait. Already told you God's standards. You're defending from the world's standards.
Well, Muhammed saw it differently and he is the equivalent to jesus and greater according to billions.
You are defending from today's standards. Why would jesus be against child fucking when everyone else at the time wasn't? That does not make any sense.
-
Having a discussion with some folks over a local pastor that plead guilty to molesting his foster child for the last 7 years. After someone offered a prayer for her healing I asked "Rather than damage control, why didn't god prevent the molestation by one of his representatives 7 years ago? Isn't it too late to get god involved now? The answer was.. "God gave man dominion over the earth" as if this answer made sense.
So I asked "Which is it? Does god NOT ever get involved as you suggest with your "dominion" reasoning, or does he? You can't have it both ways. You can't pray for healing, or Johnny makes it home safe or give god credit for someone surviving a car accident but then when a tornado wipes out a daycare center, or a child is repeatedly raped for 7 years, throw up your hands and say "God gave man dominion over the earth"....
Thoughts MOS?
I'm sure MOS will give a much more well thought out answer but the reality is bad, horrific things happen in life, the Christian faith and the practice of it doesn't excuse, protect or prevent these atrocities from taking place.
In all honesty if you read the Bible and it's accounts suffering, hardships and travesty are all vital keys to the Christian faith. The primary belief is that Christians are ambassadors of God's kingdom. The trials of this life are nothing in the light of eternity. If the Christ lived out suffering and rejection and overcame it His followers can too.
This can make Christianity a tough faith to believe in. There are many tough questions that offer no easy/simple answers.
Great question though!
Adonis makes a valid point though, as many biblical scholars believe Mary, the virgin mother, was around 13 years old when she was pregnant.
-
Well, Muhammed saw it differently and he is the equivalent to jesus and greater according to billions.
You are defending from today's standards. Why would jesus be against child fucking when everyone else at the time wasn't? That does not make any sense.
Islam is not of Christ.
I defend from God's standards. You're seeking the world's standards. Jesus Christ is God who entered the world to redeem it.
-
I'm sure MOS will give a much more well thought out answer but the reality is bad, horrific things happen in life, the Christian faith and the practice of it doesn't excuse, protect or prevent these atrocities from taking place.
In all honesty if you read the Bible and it's accounts suffering, hardships and travesty are all vital keys to the Christian faith. The primary belief is that Christians are ambassadors of God's kingdom. The trials of this life are nothing in the light of eternity. If the Christ lived out suffering and rejection and overcame it His followers can too.
This can make Christianity a tough faith to believe in. There are many tough questions that offer no easy/simple answers.
Great question though!
Adonis makes a valid point though, as many biblical scholars believe Mary, the virgin mother, was around 13 years old when she was pregnant.
Exactly.
Pregnant with gods sperm. God fucked her so god fucked a child. God likes child fucking. Not hard to deduce at all.
-
Exactly.
Pregnant with gods sperm. God fucked her so god fucked a child. God likes child fucking. Not hard to deduce at all.
TA I pray you find deliverance in Jesus Christ. I pray God pours out his mercy upon you. I pray God blesses you abundantly.
-
I'm sure MOS will give a much more well thought out answer but the reality is bad, horrific things happen in life, the Christian faith and the practice of it doesn't excuse, protect or prevent these atrocities from taking place.
In all honesty if you read the Bible and it's accounts suffering, hardships and travesty are all vital keys to the Christian faith. The primary belief is that Christians are ambassadors of God's kingdom. The trials of this life are nothing in the light of eternity. If the Christ lived out suffering and rejection and overcame it His followers can too.
This can make Christianity a tough faith to believe in. There are many tough questions that offer no easy/simple answers.
Great question though!
Adonis makes a valid point though, as many biblical scholars believe Mary, the virgin mother, was around 13 years old when she was pregnant.
Thank you for your words Dave. What you stated is correct and I affirm it.
-
TA I pray you find deliverance in Jesus Christ. I pray God pours out his mercy upon you. I pray God blesses you abundantly.
Was mary pregnant and was she above the age of consent in today's terms?
-
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/25/25c1d1dd8c1a9b46e1d6b93d246c89142deb4494edcb1bf0dfcaa820b08666c6.jpg)
-
Was mary pregnant and was she above the age of consent in today's terms?
We don't know how old Mary was when she became pregnant. Can't answer your question fully. Some say 12, some say 16, some say 18, some say 22.
-
For anyone unsure as to why i said you are mentally ill, i would invite them to read your words more closely, as they demonstrate perfectly, the mind of a very sick man. You've just said that children are the most precious in God's Kingdom, yet you've posted that God does indeed kill children...but for a variety of ways that you couldn't begin to understand. Not only do you admit that this God you believe in Kills innocent people, you actually try to justify it as something righteous too!
"We make the assumption that the innocents that perished (in the flood for example) died a painful, horrific death. We don't know that"
"Did they lose their lives here on earth? Absolutely. As did generations of pagans before them. Had they been allowed to flourish for another generation or several generations they (the children...the innocent) would've fallen prey to the sinful behavior of their ancestors and been separated from God eternally when they died. God saw that the pagan nations had come into the fullness of their sin. So he pronounced judgment upon the wicked and took the innocent to be with him."
What contradictory nonsense: God kills pagans, but he doesn't Kill children because of sin...yet you claim he judged the wicked and took the innocent with him. How can any man be so deluded as to claim that God literally did flood the world, drown everyone - the innocent too, and rightfully so, but we cannot be sure that he didn't magically remove their ability to feel pain as he drowned him? This is the same type of dangerous fundamentalism that we see being preached by Islamic extremists as they justify honour killings. I cannot believe that people would seriously PM you and thank you for making these kinds of posts. There should be no doubt now as to why it is that you are often called out. It's nothing to do with Atheists "hating god" or being unsure of their own beliefs; there is a clear distinction between someone who has a sense of spirituality, or believes in a deity of sorts, and the militant fundamentalists who justify all the disgusting passages in the bible and use them to condemn everyone to hell. I have no need for wishful thinking, but i don't really have much of a problem with those that do. You stand apart from them, and your posts in this thread demonstrate why.
Answer this succinctly and honestly, please. You've already taken many passages of scripture as literal and attempted to justify them, as with the parable of Christ and the pigs, Noah's Ark etc, so if a man reads passages from the bible which instruct him to kill unbelievers and members of family who have sinned, and takes them as literal, is he right in doing so? and if God appeared before you and asked you to sacrifice your child as a test of faith, would you?
I encourage folks to read my words.....I stand behind them 100%. If folks read them they'll also get every bit of context you excluded.
-
Since I know you won't agree with my words here are some quick copy and pastes from my previous posts:
Nominal Christian:
That pastor is not a Christian. Sorry that behavior is demonic and no person made a new man in Christ would or could do such a thing. Plenty of nominal Christians....even pastors. Plenty of heretical teachings and sinful practices from "God's representatives" all over the place.
This a prime example of the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy.
-
the one thing you can rely on with religious nuts
as soon as you confront them with facts
they start with the i will pray for your soul crap
i cant believe this is the same man of steel
he used to be funny self depreciating and really got this place
what a shame :'(
-
This a prime example of the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy.
This fallacy is thrown out anytime a genuine Christian identifies another as non-Christian. I measure others by God's standards and his words. You don't understand God's word so all you have is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy to rely upon.
-
the one thing you can rely on with religious nuts
as soon as you confront them with facts
they start with the i will pray for your soul crap
i cant believe this is the same man of steel
he used to be funny self depreciating and really got this place
what a shame :'(
We know that our old sinful selves were crucified with Christ so that sin might lose its power in our lives. We are no longer slaves to sin.
-
Virtually everything I copy and paste I wrote and researched myself. It's of God's word it's validation for the Christian perspective. I seek the things of God not the things of the world. The world will lead you to sin and hell. There isn't any evidence or proof of God you will accept.....not my problem, it's yours.
You are abusing the term "research", just like you regularly misunderstand and abuse the terms "facts", "evidence", "personal attack", "space", "time", etc.
There is no hell, no God and no evidence for God.
-
This fallacy is thrown out anytime a genuine Christian identifies another as non-Christian. I measure others by God's standards and his words. You don't understand God's word so all you have is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy to rely upon.
Logic is what I have to reply upon. Men use it to make sense of the world. Men.
Curious how you didn't even attempt to refute that your post is as "no true Scotsman" as it gets.
-
I quoted your two posts in their entirety and highlighted specific parts that i wanted to address; i did not exclude context. Avoid addressing it if you like, the fact that you've said you stand by those words 100% simply adds weight to the point i was making.
I've already addressed your issues in this thread.....please refer to those posts....they aren't changing and I'm 100% behind them. You're just rehashing your same objections because you don't like the answer.
Perhaps someone else will provide a better reply.
You did include my full posts....I was wrong....I concentrated on your new words. I stand by my posts nonetheless.
Which passages of scripture tells folks to kill nonbelievers today?
-
What you wrote is very well put.
Many people want to believe their soul will live on in some beautiful place, that it (they) will be reincarnated or somehow immortal. Most people spend their lives surviving. It is hard to give that up.
I'm on my way to reaching my 72nd year. Like a lot of folks, I have no idea when I will end. Unlike a lot of folks, I do not fear it....it is inevitable. In the meantime, I intend to live each day I have to the fullest. It would be difficult to do this, if I was worrying about dying.
I'm curious as to why you sit for hours in an empty church. Does the quiet atmosphere comfort you?
Yes it does, though my motivation for doing so is not comfort. It is to cultivate the ability to dwell in Presence which brings exceeding joy and love and is not a selfish state but a more complete interaction with all that is. People spend hours in the gym to sculpt their bodies. Some spend hours in contemplation to allow the universe to sculpt their mind.
-
Adonis makes a valid point though, as many biblical scholars believe Mary, the virgin mother, was around 13 years old when she was pregnant.
She was not a virgin. Parthenogenesis is not possible in primates.
-
Logic is what I have to reply upon. Men use it to make sense of the world. Men.
Curious how you didn't even attempt to refute that your post is as "no true Scotsman" as it gets.
I did refute it. I told you I measure others according to God's standards.....the ultimate standard. This fallacy references the denial of others according to the behaviors of men and their subjectivity. I prescribe to the objectivity of God.
-
She was not a virgin. Parthenogenesis is not possible in primates.
If you engage the Christian worldview you are bound by it terms and therefore God is allowed to be God and his will and abilities transcends the natural world.
-
I did refute it. I told you I measure others according to God's standards.....the ultimate standard. This fallacy references the denial of others according to the behaviors of men and their subjectivity. I prescribe to the objectivity of God.
It is not a refutation ::)
I constantly find myself in the position of having to school you.
You assert that that pastor is not a Christian because he abused a child, whereas you should be proving how child abuse is against what you call "God's standards". And since most reasonably people do not believe in such vague terms, your best bet would be to quote your Holy Book and show me verses where child abuse is proscribed. This is one of few cases where quoting the bible would be appropriate, in contrast to your practice so far, which is to quote the bible when you're having a meltdown.
-
She was not a virgin. Parthenogenesis is not possible in primates.
Yes I understand your point.
However Mary's virgin status is vital to establish the impregnation of the Holy Spirit. If she were not a virgin than Jesus wouldn't be who He claims to be.
-
It is not a refutation ::)
I constantly find myself in the position of having to school you.
You assert that that pastor is not a Christian because he abused a child, whereas you should be proving how child abuse is against what you call "God's standards". And since most reasonably people do not believe in such vague terms, your best bet would be to quote your Holy Book and show me verses where child abuse is proscribed. This is one of few cases where quoting the bible would be appropriate, in contrast to your practice so far, which is to quote the bible when you're having a meltdown.
Saying things like "having to school you" doesn't phase me.
That is correct. A man identifying as a pastor repeatedly abused a child. Therefore he is not of Christ....he is not made new in Christ....he is of the devil and his old wicked self. The pastor needs to repent and be made new in Christ. This behavior is neither of God nor is this "pastor" saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and sanctified by the Holy Spirit in order to fulfill the will of God. We have a false convert in the form of a pastor still steeped in his sin....the old man did not die but remains a slave to sin. Not a Christian according to the objective, ultimate standards of God.
-
Yes I understand your point.
However Mary's virgin status is vital to establish the impregnation of the Holy Spirit. If she were not a virgin than Jesus wouldn't be who He claims to be.
Well then, he wasn't.
-
Well then, he wasn't.
Touche . And again your point is valid.
Inevitably we will all know for sure one way or another if Jesus is indeed a liar.
-
Yes I understand your point.
However Mary's virgin status is vital to establish the impregnation of the Holy Spirit. If she were not a virgin than Jesus wouldn't be who He claims to be.
In what way would Jesus not be who he claims to be if he was conceived in the normal manner? Why the dichotomy between spiritual purity and the reproductive process. Original sin is it.
-
Saying things like "having to school you" doesn't phase me.
That is correct. A man identifying as a pastor repeatedly abused a child. Therefore he is not of Christ....he is not made new in Christ....he is of the devil and his old wicked self. The pastor needs to repent and be made new in Christ. This behavior is neither of God nor is this "pastor" saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and sanctified by the Holy Spirit in order to fulfill the will of God. We have a false convert in the form of a pastor still steeped in his sin....the old man did not die but remains a slave to sin. Not a Christian according to the objective, ultimate standards of God.
This is as "no true Scotsman" as it gets. I am going to use this as an example on another website I work on.
Instead of pointing me to a specific objective rule, you use rhetoric to exclude the pastor's specific case.
This is schooling since you either:
1) Know the difference between your indoctrination and logic and indoctrination wins every time, you just refuse to play by logical rules, or
2) You are simply ignorant and don't understand half the stuff we post, merely pretend you do.
-
In what way would Jesus not be who he claims to be if he was conceived in the normal manner? Why the dichotomy between spiritual purity and the reproductive process. Original sin is it.
It was a misunderstanding based on translation from medieval Greek to another language. "Virgin" in medieval Greek also meant "young girl".
-
This is as "no true Scotsman" as it gets. I am going to use this as an example on another website I work on.
Instead of pointing me to a specific objective rule, you use rhetoric to exclude the pastor's specific case.
This is schooling, since you either:
1) Know the difference between your indoctrination and logic and indoctrination wins every time, you just refuse to play by logical rules, or
2) You are simply ignorant and don't understand half the stuff we post, merely pretend you do.
As I'm repeating for the third time I prescribe to God's standards....that's all I need LOL.
All of God's word is meaningless rhetoric to you, Freedom, TA, SF, the O1 guy., etc....
-
As I'm repeating for the third time I prescribe to God's standards....that's all I need LOL.
Exactly. Don't even try to argue. You're not in a position to.
-
It was a misunderstanding based on translation from medieval Greek to another language. "Virgin" in medieval Greek also meant "young girl".
possibly though the supernatural conception scenario is present in many other savior figure stories.
-
possibly though the supernatural conception scenario is present in many other savior figure stories.
Many elements of the Jesus narrative are found in saviour figure stories. Like in the Sun God. Death in winter, resurrection in spring... etc.
-
Exactly. Don't even try to argue. You're not in a position to.
I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between God's ultimate, objective standard and a logical fallacy used correct the subjective standards of men.
Maybe someone else can articulate it in terms that are easier to understand.
-
I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between God's ultimate, objective standard and a logical fallacy used correct the subjective standards of men.
Maybe someone else can articulate it in terms that are easier to understand.
There's nothing to understand other than your thought process.
(http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8k1jy3Y681qfxkqoo1_500.png)
-
In what way would Jesus not be who he claims to be if he was conceived in the normal manner? Why the dichotomy between spiritual purity and the reproductive process. Original sin is it.
Great question.
If Jesus were born of a man, say Joseph, he would be no different than the "sons of Abraham" (in this sense circumcised Jews who believed in YHWH ) and even more so a son of Adam, the original fallen savior/ruler of the earth (this is your original sin point).
Jesus being born of the spirit of God explains His divinity and and sin free nature. He then is the "new" Adam sent to rectify a broken system offering to restore the relationship between God and man (long story short before sin Adam walked and talked freely amongst /with God. Sin broke that relationship and the recorded encounters with God took place in Holy places and/or on Holy ground (think of priests in the inner sanctuary of the temple or Moses on Mt. Sinai). Only "purified" priests went before God).
Jesus became a sacrificial lamb, that when crucified made it possible for man to communicate directly with God, just as the first Adam did.
-
It was a misunderstanding based on translation from medieval Greek to another language. "Virgin" in medieval Greek also meant "young girl".
Parthenos? The original Greek meant virgin or maiden. The idea was sexually pure, or am I mistaken?
-
Great question.
If Jesus were born of a man, say Joseph, he would be no different than the "sons of Abraham" (in this sense circumcised Jews who believed in YHWH ) and even more so a son of Adam, the original fallen savior/ruler of the earth (this is your original sin point).
Jesus being born of the spirit of God explains His divinity and and sin free nature. He then is the "new" Adam sent to rectify a broken system offering to restore the relationship between God and man (long story short before sin Adam walked and talked freely amongst /with God. Sin broke that relationship and the recorded encounters with God took place in Holy places and/or on Holy ground (think of priests in the inner sanctuary of the temple or Moses on Mt. Sinai). Only "purified" priests went before God).
Jesus became a sacrificial lamb, that when crucified made it possible for man to communicate directly with God, just as the first Adam did.
Sinning (sex) is needed for the survival and reproduction of species. Did Jesus's 'sin free nature' never get an erection? If we allow him other human emotions like anger etc why cant we allow him a libido also. One that he very well could have transformed through a celibate path in to his enlightenment but he still had a body with hormones.
-
There's nothing to understand other than your thought process.
(http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8k1jy3Y681qfxkqoo1_500.png)
Will you continue to school me on the application of logical fallacies before or after your continued ad hominems?
-
Sinning (sex) is needed for the survival and reproduction of species. Did Jesus's 'sin free nature never get an erection? If we allow him other human emotions like anger etc why cant we allow him a libido also. One that he very well could have transformed through a celibate path in to his enlightenment but he still had a body with hormones.
Where did the idea that erections are sin come from? I wasn't aware of this.
Jesus spoke of heart issues, that men's actions were the result of a false/corrupt belief system. He taught to look inward to understand outward expressions.
I'm of the belief that Jesus was celibate, and took no wife.
-
If sexual desire was the reason we fell out of paradise and erections usually go in tandem with a libido then if Jesus had sexual desire/erections how could he have a sin free body. I can also believe he lived a chaste life but surely he was tempted to marry and live a normal life with children instead of fulfilling his difficult mission.
-
Will you continue to school me on the application of logical fallacies before or after your continued ad hominems?
I see no problem in calling out your stupidity after the argument is settled.
-
If sexual desire was the reason we fell out of paradise and erections usually go in tandem with a libido then if Jesus had sexual desire/erections how could he have a sin free body. I can also believe he lived a chaste life but surely he was tempted to marry and live a normal life with children instead of fulfilling his difficult mission.
Jesus was without sin. No sexual desires. No lust. No adultery. No pornographic thoughts.
Being tempted does not equate to engaging in the temptation.
-
I see no problem in calling out your stupidity after the argument is settled.
Ok Ray, you do that.
-
Jesus was without sin. No sexual desires. No lust. No adultery. No pornographic thoughts.
Being tempted does not equate to engaging in the temptation.
So he was tempted? I thought you said no "desires".
Which is it?
-
Jesus was without sin. No sexual desires. No lust. No adultery. No pornographic thoughts.
Being tempted does not equate to engaging in the temptation.
How can you (or anyone else) know about another person's every thought?
-
Jesus was without sin. No sexual desires. No lust. No adultery. No pornographic thoughts.
Being tempted does not equate to engaging in the temptation.
but it does equate to having desire even if not acted apon, and your not willing to allow him that humanness.
-
No pornographic thoughts? ahha lol.
The idea that having sexual thoughts is a sin just shows you how illogical religion is. Trying to control what you think on a daily basis. As if having a sexual feeling about someone is so bad. ::) ::) Seriously, I cant believe religion thinks of this shit and people follow it lol.
-
So he was tempted? I thought you said no "pornographic" thoughts.
Which is it?
He was tempted by Satan. There was no mention of pornographic thoughts within that episode of temptation.
My statement is that pornographic thoughts are often associated with lust and masturbation about adulterous situations and sexual perversions.
He was without sin.
-
How can you (or anyone else) know about another person's every thought?
We know about Jesus' life.
Jesus Christ was without sin. He had no sinful thoughts.
-
Good thing we have science and reason to tell us that masturbation, within the confines of a sexual relationship or alone, is healthy.
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/masturbation-guide
While it once was regarded as a perversion and a sign of a mental problem, masturbation now is regarded as a normal, healthy sexual activity that is pleasant, fulfilling, acceptable, and safe. It is a good way to experience sexual pleasure and can be done throughout life.
-
but it does equate to having desire even if not acted apon, and your not willing to allow him that humanness.
Jesus Christ was human but perfect in every thought, word and deed. He was without sin. The spotless lamb. The perfect sacrifice for our sin.
-
So he was tempted? I thought you said no "pornographic" thoughts.
Which is it?
Raymondo you're obviously very smart and well versed on the subject matter so you already know Jesus was tempted, the scripture recordings give an example of Satan tempting Him with promises.
Just because someone has a thought doesn't make it sin, when you start to dwell/obsess on those thoughts it becomes an issue.
I honestly understand why you consider this belief foolishness, and I appreciate you having well thought out valid points. It causes me to challenge my own beliefs.
-
We know about Jesus' life.
Jesus Christ was without sin. He had no sinful thoughts.
Can you really know his every thought?
-
Raymondo you're obviously very smart and well versed on the subject matter so you already know Jesus was tempted, the scripture recordings give an example of Satan tempting Him with promises.
Just because someone has a thought doesn't make it sin, when you start to dwell/obsess on those thoughts it becomes an issue.
I honestly understand why you consider this belief foolishness, and I appreciate you having well thought out valid points. It causes me to challenge my own beliefs.
Dwelling on any issue becomes a psychological problem, which can affect quality of life. However, its not a sin.
-
We know about Jesus' life.
Jesus Christ was without sin. He had no sinful thoughts.
Jesus of Nazareth was a man and all men have desires.
-
Raymondo you're obviously very smart and well versed on the subject matter so you already know Jesus was tempted, the scripture recordings give an example of Satan tempting Him with promises.
Just because someone has a thought doesn't make it sin, when you start to dwell/obsess on those thoughts it becomes an issue.
I honestly understand why you consider this belief foolishness, and I appreciate you having well thought out valid points. It causes me to challenge my own beliefs.
Thank you, I appreciate your comments and your tone. I have had many stimulating conversations with believers, although they tend to be of the more "liberal" disposition, religiously speaking.
-
If sexual desire was the reason we fell out of paradise and erections usually go in tandem with a libido then if Jesus had sexual desire/erections how could he have a sin free body. I can also believe he lived a chaste life but surely he was tempted to marry and live a normal life with children instead of fulfilling his difficult mission.
Sexual desire? According to the Bible man was removed from paradise because of disobedience. Now whether Adam disobeyed because he wanted Eves acceptance/approval, didn't care what the rule was or simply because he was hungry is all speculation, so to is your sexual reference.
I'm sure Jesus had many temptations. Being married likely would have been one of them (the bible refers to the church as the bride (of Christ)). Jesus was also tempted not to go to the cross, it was said His sweat was like blood while praying that God removed the burden, the very action He came on earth to fulfill.
Temptation isn't sin. Acting on it is.
-
Dwelling on any issue becomes a psychological problem, which can affect quality of life. However, its not a sin.
Lol, great point. I just meant in context of the "generalized definition of biblical sin".
SF1900 I say the same to you as I did Raymando, I know you're intelligent and I understand why you don't believe in this manner, you also do.an excellent job in presenting your points.
-
Lol, great point. I just meant in context of the "generalized definition of biblical sin".
SF1900 I say the same to you as I did Raymando, I know you're intelligent and I understand why you don't believe in this manner, you also do.an excellent job in presenting your points.
Thanks, Dave D. Same to you, broskie.
But that's the thing, I thought that point above is pretty obvious. Yet, religious people have to go around and turn it into a sin and all this complicated nonsense lol
-
Can anyone give me cliffs on this thread? LOL ;D
-
Jesus Christ was human but perfect in every thought, word and deed. He was without sin. The spotless lamb. The perfect sacrifice for our sin.
He was tempted by Satan, but the form that temptation took never arose in his consciousness as a desire for wedded intimacy with a beautiful woman? How could he effectively be tempted then?
God does not need a sacrifice for our sin, for the humanness which he himself created to ensure the continuation of the species.
-
Thanks, Dave D. Same to you, broskie.
But that's the thing, I thought that point above is pretty obvious. Yet, religious people have to go around and turn it into a sin and all this complicated nonsense lol
Religion is one of the banes of society . It seeks to control and dominant.
Religious ideas, customs and superstitions can offer comfort and familiarity. When people don't challenge their ideas the become entrapped by them.
-
Sexual desire? According to the Bible man was removed from paradise because of disobedience. Now whether Adam disobeyed because he wanted Eves acceptance/approval, didn't care what the rule was or simply because he was hungry is all speculation, so to is your sexual reference.
I'm sure Jesus had many temptations. Being married likely would have been one of them (the bible refers to the church as the bride (of Christ)). Jesus was also tempted not to go to the cross, it was said His sweat was like blood while praying that God removed the burden, the very action He came on earth to fulfill.
Temptation isn't sin. Acting on it is.
Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, which means sex. Its pretty obvious. Religious man has always had a hangup about sex so he has created these dualities.
-
Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, which means sex. Its pretty obvious. Religious man has always had a hangup about sex so he has created these dualities.
Interesting perspective on the forbidden fruit/sex connotations. I've always read it straight forward as direct disobedience.
There's no question on your second statement though. Sex is still a "taboo" subject for the religious while the secular make it as common as eating.
Ro you're a deep introspective dude.
-
Interesting perspective on the forbidden fruit/sex connotations. I've always read it straight forward as direct disobedience.
There's no question on your second statement though. Sex is still a "taboo" subject for the religious while the secular make it as common as eating.
Ro you're a deep introspective dude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_fruit
-
Interesting perspective on the forbidden fruit/sex connotations. I've always read it straight forward as direct disobedience.
There's no question on your second statement though. Sex is still a "taboo" subject for the religious while the secular make it as common as eating.
Ro you're a deep introspective dude.
Because it should be as common as eating. The two biggest taboos in america: Death and sex. Yet, both are the most natural things ever. Both should be openly discussed.
The religious people try to control sex, as if its such an immoral thing. Its appears its their own projection onto everyone else, i.e., they have unclean and dirty feelings/thoughts that they try to suppress, thus attempting to inflict a similar morality onto others. Its all a crock.
In fact, part of early childhood development for children is sexual exploration of their genitals. You can do great harm to a child if you scold them for that, which I am sure religious parents do.
Religion does the opposite of everything that is normal and healthy.
-
Because it should be as common as eating. The two biggest taboos in america: Death and sex. Yet, both are the most natural things ever. Both should be openly discussed.
The religious people try to control sex, as if its such an immoral thing. Its appears its their own projection onto everyone else, i.e., they have unclean and dirty feelings/thoughts that they try to suppress, thus attempting to inflict a similar morality onto others. Its all a crock.
In fact, part of early childhood development for children is sexual exploration of their genitals. You can do great harm to a child if you scold them for that, which I am sure religious parents do.
Religion does the opposite of everything that is normal and healthy.
That's debatable, below is an extract from the Roman Catholic Churches Catechism on chastity. Doesn't sound too abnormal and unhealthy to me.. but in today's hyper saturated world of lust it may be seen as 'abnormal' sure, but this wasn't always so..
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.
2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.
2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.
-
That's debatable, below is an extract from the Roman Catholic Churches Catechism on chastity. Doesn't sound too abnormal and unhealthy to me.. but in today's hyper saturated world of lust it may be seen as 'abnormal' sure, but this wasn't always so..
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.
2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.
2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.
Abstinence does not work. There is nothing moral about waiting until marriage to have sex. What kind of crock is that anwyay? lol
People have been having sex since the beginning of time, pre-bible. ::) ::)
Religion DESPISES the body. They have a real hate for anything that feels good. I mean, masturbation is a sin lol. Ridiculous. Research has shown TIME AND TIME AGAIN, that masturbation is a healthy, normal part of development. But of course religion goes and makes it into a sin lol.
-
Because it should be as common as eating. The two biggest taboos in america: Death and sex. Yet, both are the most natural things ever. Both should be openly discussed.
The religious people try to control sex, as if its such an immoral thing. Its appears its their own projection onto everyone else, i.e., they have unclean and dirty feelings/thoughts that they try to suppress, thus attempting to inflict a similar morality onto others. Its all a crock.
In fact, part of early childhood development for children is sexual exploration of their genitals. You can do great harm to a child if you scold them for that, which I am sure religious parents do.
Religion does the opposite of everything that is normal and healthy.
Great points. And of course you're correct. I didn't mean to imply that sex should be taboo. I meant culturally it's "marketed" as the be all end all. Sex has been (or always has been) sensationalized. Quality relationships aren't built on great sex. Sex is a component of great relationships but communication, trust, honesty and transparency are of far more importance, yet everywhere you look the headlines are 7 keys to a better sex life or become a better lover.
Sex sells, but even in the best of cases at 2 hours(hopefully im using this as a large enough number) a day of intercourse there's still a lot of non Sex relationship issues.
Sex is normal though and should be discussed.
-
Abstinence does not work.
Do you mean for those who desire sex? Johhnynoname has 5 years that would say otherwise. :)
-
Abstinence does not work. There is nothing moral about waiting until marriage to have sex. What kind of crock is that anwyay? lol
People have been having sex since the beginning of time, pre-bible. ::) ::)
Religion DESPISES the body. They have a real hate for anything that feels good. I mean, masturbation is a sin lol. Ridiculous. Research has shown TIME AND TIME AGAIN, that masturbation is a healthy, normal part of development. But of course religion goes and makes it into a sin lol.
Abstinence does work and many still practice it, we can look at today's single parent, teenage pregnancy, and STD rates to show some of the benefits of waiting until marriage.
And masturbation being a thing to be condoned? Read what I posted above why its not, besides the fact that in order to do it you need to objectify someones body for your own pleasure...And the health benefits of it? if your body really does need the release, it will do so itself.
-
Abstinence does work and many still practice it, we can look at today's single parent, teenage pregnancy, and STD rates to show some of the benefits of waiting until marriage.
And masturbation being a thing to be condoned? Read what I posted above why its not, besides the fact that in order to do it you need to objectify someones body for your own pleasure...And the health benefits of it? if your body really does need the release, it will do so itself.
???? Nocturnal emissions? Those aren't considered in the same class because it's in the subconscious?
-
Abstinence does work and many still practice it, we can look at today's single parent, teenage pregnancy, and STD rates to show some of the benefits of waiting until marriage.
And masturbation being a thing to be condoned? Read what I posted above why its not, besides the fact that in order to do it you need to objectify someones body for your own pleasure...And the health benefits of it? if your body really does need the release, it will do so itself.
Abstinence rarely works.
"Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs don't work. To date, 11 states have evaluated the impact of their abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. None has been shown to reduce teen sexual activity."
Secondly, single parent, STD and pregnancy often has a lot to do with not educating the youth about proper and safe sex. Teens are going to have sex. Fact. Its best to educate them. Furthermore, a lot of teenage pregnancy has nothing to do with sinning or trying to avoid sexual feelings: a lot has to do with crime, poverty, lack of education, etc.
What does masturbation have to do with objectifying someone elses body? ??? ???
Research is quite clear that masturbation is a healthy act within reason. You can either cite evidence of the contrary, or be quiet about it and continue to spew your religious stuff, gimmick.
"intrinsically and gravely disordered action."
Research does not show that masturbation is gravely disordered action. Try again, gimmick.
-
???? Nocturnal emissions? Those aren't considered in the same class because it's in the subconscious?
Exactly
-
Abstinence rarely works.
"Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs don't work. To date, 11 states have evaluated the impact of their abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. None has been shown to reduce teen sexual activity."
Secondly, single parent, STD and pregnancy often has a lot to do with not educating the youth about proper and safe sex. Teens are going to have sex. Fact. Its best to educate them. Furthermore, a lot of teenage pregnancy has nothing to do with sinning or trying to avoid sexual feelings: a lot has to do with crime, poverty, lack of education, etc.
What does masturbation have to do with objectifying someone elses body? ??? ???
Research is quite clear that masturbation is a healthy act within reason. You can either cite evidence of the contrary, or be quiet about it and continue to spew your religious stuff, gimmick.
"intrinsically and gravely disordered action."
Research does not show that masturbation is gravely disordered action. Try again, gimmick.
I said if you need to ejaculate, your body will do so itself. The health benefits of you jerking off on top of it would probably be negligible.
What does masturbation have to do with objectifying someone elses body? Try getting it off thinking about / looking at flowers..and if you do, once again, probably something not quite normal.
Single parent, STDs and teenage pregnancy can all be greatly avoided by waiting until marriage, and many do. Its not taboo or abnormal despite the strong push against it these days.
-
I said if you need to ejaculate, your body will do so itself. The health benefits of you jerking off on top of it would probably be negligible.
What does masturbation have to do with objectifying someone elses body? Try getting it off thinking about / looking at flowers..and if you do, once again, probably something not quite normal.
Single parent, STDs and teenage pregnancy can all be greatly avoided by waiting until marriage,and many do. Its not taboo or abnormal despite the strong push against it these days.
That is not what the research shows about masturbation. Tons of articles. So either show evidence or shut up with your supposed reasoning. Your opinion means nothing without evidence.
lol at objectifying someone else because of thoughts. Yeah, ridiculous.
I already showed abstinent programs dont work. You failed to provide evidence to the contrary.
Its all your opinion. You = fail.
-
Jesus in cereal is all the proof I need.
-
Would you say these benefits could also be gained by having sex in a married relationship, or does it only work when you jerk off? I personally believe these added benefits are negligible to your overall health and can probably be obtained otherwise.
"lol at objectifying someone else because of thoughts. Yeah, ridiculous." - this is your opinion, but thoughts do lead to actions and actions have consequences, even if you're not aware of them.
And I don't know what abstinence programs you speak of, but please test this yourself and try getting someone accidentally pregnant or contracting and STD by not having sex, lemme know how it goes.
you need to get out more
-
Abstinence can be helpful for someone wanting to progress in meditation/elevate their consciousness as long as the energy can be sublimated. The power of concentration is enhanced but not if the mind is constantly dwelling on sex. I have always felt a considerable difference between being vitally charged and depleted, and much prefer the former state, even as a teen I knew this so always made efforts for self control, but from an energetic experiential standpoint not a moral one.
-
What do you mean "kill nonbelievers today"?
Why are you adding in this condition of context to certain passages but not to others? If the bible is a historical document to be understood within its own context, and not interpreted for life today then stop using scripture to tell everyone how to live their life. I noticed you recently quote Deuteronomy as an example of why drug use is wrong; Deuteronomy 13:6-10 clearly states that you should kill family members that worship other Gods, and you know there are many other passages that i could post which call for similar actions. Will you now please answer my question of whether it is justified for a Christian to act upon these passages and kill his family for worshipping false idols?
Either you believe it is Gods word and they would be justified in following it, or you are guilty of cherry-picking and twisting scripture to fit your own agenda. I would appreciate an answer regarding the second question i put to you, also.
I'm sorry if I haven't given your posts more undivided attention, but yesterday (and most days) I answer questions as I'm able. Some days I have to be brief and others days allow me to be more thorough. Yesterday I was answering comments from about 5-6 folks at once while multitasking stuff. My replies were quick and brief or copied and pasted from previous posts. Sometimes I miss posts, sometimes I have to gloss posts, sometimes I can't get to every post. I'll try to answer as I'm able.
I read your longer post yesterday quickly and some of the last sentences mentioned something about "justifying killing unbelievers"...something to that effect. So I was asking for clarification. I know you have no idea what's occurring in my current day-to-day, but it hasn't afforded a ton of time to devote to atheist objections.....so my responses have been more brief.
I quoted out of Deuteronomy recently? I don't recall that at all. Not saying I didn't....I just don't remember. Maybe some of the articles I posted did?
I'm not telling anyone how to live their lives. I'm telling them how God views sin and how to be saved from the wrath and judgment of God because of their sin. Just about the most loving thing someone can do for another. And I continue to do it amidst consistent ridicule and mockery and hate.
Given the book mentioned do you have a question about something pertaining to the specific laws for Israelites? The Israelites are God's chosen folks and as such they were to be set apart in every facet of their lives from the world around them. Their existence was such that everything done was in order to be holy and pure representatives of God. They had specific dietary laws, clothing laws, sacrificial laws, tithing laws, hygiene laws, etc.....
A big "no-no" was putting false gods before God (or having any part of false gods). You can't be part of the chosen, set apart folks and give worship to man-made, demonic, false gods.....punishment was death. Gentiles were grafted into the nation of Israel, but Christ's salvific work eliminated the sacrificial laws yet upheld the moral laws (10 commandments...with the exception of Sabbath law) and removed Gentile involvement from old dietary, clothing, hygeine, tithing laws, etc.....the new testament is a new covenant.
Is this what you were wanting to understand? Or is there something else?
-
Like in the sky or on tv or anything? Like to say do this and don't do that, im happy with this, im not happy with that.
He doesn't.
Because hes not real.
Now grow up.
Because people wouldn't do shit with their lives waiting for him to show up and dictate when or how to do things
WoooSHHHHHHHH
-
"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage."
Divinely inspired stuff :o
-
I already showed abstinent programs dont work. You failed to provide evidence to the contrary.
I think his point was that abstinence works not that abstinent programs work. All that shows is a lack of self control which is a lot of people's issue in many areas.
Abstinence is a 100% effective.
-
"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage."
Divinely inspired stuff :o
So in this case we need some historical context.
Objectors of these verses typically envision and portray the Israelites worshipping fun-loving, happy-go-lucky, false gods of flowers, puppies and rainbows. :-* And whichever of the pure of heart Israelites chose to worship these sugary-sweet, gentler than gentle, kinder than kind false gods was put to death by the vindictive, murderous, jealous, bitter, petty, vile God of the Hebrews!! BOOOOOOOO Hebrew God! How could you?!! >:(
Not the case.
Pagan worship was anything but smiles, puppies and candy bars. It was live infant sacrifice via burning to death on white hot altars to Molech. It was self-mutilation within ceremonies of sexual perversion and the whoring of young women in demonic rituals to Baal. It was demonic rituals of witchcraft/sorcery and further ritualistic sexual perversion and whoring of women to the pagan goddess Asherah. It was carnal, it was dark, it was twisted, it was evil, it was demonic and it destroyed countless innocents.
So, if an Israelite defied his/her sacred covenant with God and chose to participate in the evil worship and practices of false pagan gods such as Baal, Asherah and Molech they lost their wretched lives for it. These folks traded new and righteous life in order to corrupt and destroy the lives of others.
Do I believe God was just? Absolutely. If a person is going to break a righteous covenant with God and engage in acts that pervert and murder innocents then it's absolutely just that your life be forfeit as punishment.
-
Jesus of Nazareth was a man and all men have desires.
True and Jesus Christ's desires were pure and righteous and unblemished.
-
We know about Jesus' life.
Jesus Christ was without sin. He had no sinful thoughts.
You actually know very little about Jesus' life. You know almost nothing from the time he was 1 years old until 30 years old. He died roughly at 33 years. What you DON'T know about Jesus' life could fill a book... no pun intended
-
You actually know very little about Jesus' life. You know almost nothing from the time he was 1 years old until 30 years old. He died roughly at 33 years. What you DON'T know about Jesus' life could fill a book... no pun intended
We know his life was without sin whether we know 5 minutes or 33 years of his life.
-
Can anyone give me cliffs on this thread? LOL ;D
The majority of people are God haters and a few of us are God lovers.....you're welcome. ;)
-
Saying things like "having to school you" doesn't phase me.
That is correct. A man identifying as a pastor repeatedly abused a child. Therefore he is not of Christ....he is not made new in Christ....he is of the devil and his old wicked self. The pastor needs to repent and be made new in Christ. This behavior is neither of God nor is this "pastor" saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and sanctified by the Holy Spirit in order to fulfill the will of God. We have a false convert in the form of a pastor still steeped in his sin....the old man did not die but remains a slave to sin. Not a Christian according to the objective, ultimate standards of God.
When you say standards of god.. do you mean
Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together
or
13If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19They shall fine him a hundred shekelsb of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
maybe you meant this standard from god;
23If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
25But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
28If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29he shall pay her father fifty shekelsc of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
All good standards to live by right? Your God is a pretty whacked out dude by any real moral standards.
-
The majority of people are God haters and a few of us are God lovers.....you're welcome. ;)
It was strictly a rhetorical question my brother as we all know how these threads are just repeats of similar threads that are of the same subject matter.
Peace buddy,and keep doing your thing! ;)
-
He was tempted by Satan, but the form that temptation took never arose in his consciousness as a desire for wedded intimacy with a beautiful woman? How could he effectively be tempted then?
God does not need a sacrifice for our sin, for the humanness which he himself created to ensure the continuation of the species.
As noted previously, there is not indication of temptation via sexual intimacy, perversion, etc.....it was promises of grand giving of the world and testing of his divine power.
Correct, God does not need a sacrifice for our sin. Once you work from a perspective of "God needing" you're in error. The sacrifice is what we need in order to be aligned with God. Everything God does is in accordance with what humanity needs and drawing us out of our own will and into his will for our lives.
-
We know his life was without sin whether we know 5 minutes or 33 years of his life.
you can't tell me his favorite color, favorite food, favorite pastime as a kid, best friend as a child, if he had a dog. You can't tell me if he had a sense of humor, if he liked to swim, was he a morning person or a night owl. You can't tell me anything about this person you claim to have a personal relationship with, but you KNOW he was without sin... yeah that's totally believable.
-
you can't tell me his favorite color, favorite food, favorite pastime as a kid, best friend as a child, if he had a dog. You can't tell me if he had a sense of humor, if he liked to swim, was he a morning person or a night owl. You can't tell me anything about this person you claim to have a personal relationship with, but you KNOW he was without sin... yeah that's totally believable.
Ok, so if I knew the answers were blue, roast chicken, playing stick ball, Saul, Skippy, knock-knock jokes, the backstroke and the calm of early morning would that change anything else in scripture we do know about Christ and the love and grace revealed to his body of believers?
Yes, we know he was without sin.
-
Ok, so if I knew the answers were blue, roast chicken, playing stick ball, Saul, Skippy, knock-knock jokes, the backstroke and the calm of early morning would that change anything else in scripture we do know about Christ and the love and grace revealed to his body of believers?
Yes, we know he was without sin.
No further questions your honor.. I rest my case..
-
When you say standards of god.. do you mean
Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together
or
13If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19They shall fine him a hundred shekelsb of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
maybe you meant this standard from god;
23If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
25But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
28If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29he shall pay her father fifty shekelsc of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
All good standards to live by right? Your God is a pretty whacked out dude by any real moral standards.
These were standards for the Israelites in the OT in order to maintain their righteous standing and covenant with God. They entered a holy, sacred covenant with God and were to be set apart in all facets of life from the pagan nations that surrounded them.
Yes, Israelites were not meant to mix certain fabrics, a symbol of being set apart from the world and not intermingling with it's ungodly practices and customs. Gentiles are not subject to this standard are they part of a new covenant.
Yes, if a Israelite man suspected that his betrothed had engaged in an adulterous relationship and it was determined that he was in error in this regard then he was to pay penance to the family as an apology, he was punished for his behavior and the marriage would continue as initially planned since he made good on his wrongdoing.....they were to be pure and set apart.
Yes, the standard for adulterous relationships could be death within the Israelites.....they are to be pure and set apart.
Yes, if a man raped a young woman he was put to death.....they were to be pure and set apart.
You chose the harshest translation which includes the term "rape" which is the minority of the various translations. The terms "and they are discovered" implies a complicit relationship hence invalidating the improper use of "rape" and indicating an adulterous relationship......they were to be pure and set apart.
If they broke God's laws and defied his standards their lives could be forfeit.
Today we live in an increasingly Godless world in which people turn evil into good and good into evil. Sexual perversion and adultery is just "having some fun WHOO-HOOH!!"
Zero accountability for actions so lets all agree the actions are good....WE DID IT!!
-
No further questions your honor.. I rest my case..
You didn't answer my question. You just claimed some sort of victory. Ok.
-
These were standards for the Israelites in the OT in order to maintain their righteous standing and covenant with God. They entered a holy, sacred covenant with God and were to be set apart in all facets of life from the pagan nations that surrounded them.
Yes, Israelites were not meant to mix certain fabrics, a symbol of being set apart from the world and not intermingling with it's ungodly practices and customs. Gentiles are not subject to this standard are they part of a new covenant.
Yes, if a Israelite man suspected that his betrothed had engaged in an adulterous relationship and it was determined that he was in error in this regard then he was to pay penance to the family as an apology, he was punished for his behavior and the marriage would continue as initially planned since he made good on his wrongdoing.....they were to be pure and set apart.
Yes, the standard for adulterous relationships was death within the Israelites.....they are to be pure and set apart.
Yes, if a man raped a young woman he was put to death.....they were to be pure and set apart.
You chose the harshest translation which includes the term "rape" which is the minority of the various translations. The terms "and they are discovered" implies a complicit relationship hence invalidating the improper use of "rape" and indicating an adulterous relationship......they were to be pure and set apart.
If they broke God's laws and defied his standards their lives could be forfeit.
Today we live in an increasingly Godless world in which people turn evil into good and good into evil. Sexual perversion and adultery is just "having some fun WHOO-HOOH!!"
If a man rapes a woman she must marry her rapist.. Stoning was appropriate punishment for adultery. Again, the character of your god, whether it was 5 years ago, or 1500 years ago is pretty piss poor. You would give him a pass on anything he did and we've proven that with the stories of his soldiers cutting open pregnant women with swords, and all manner of atrocities.. just because he is god. Dangerous grounds there.. similar to Hitler.. well, if Hitler says to burn the jews.. must be right.. he's Hitler after all
-
If a man rapes a woman she must marry her rapist.. Stoning was appropriate punishment for adultery. Again, the character of your god, whether it was 5 years ago, or 1500 years ago is pretty piss poor. You would give him a pass on anything he did and we've proven that with the stories of his soldiers cutting open pregnant women with swords, and all manner of atrocities.. just because he is god. Dangerous grounds there.. similar to Hitler.. well, if Hitler says to burn the jews.. must be right.. he's Hitler after all
You glossed my explanation. Here it is again:
You chose the harshest translation which includes the term "rape" which is the minority of the various translations. The terms "and they are discovered" implies a complicit relationship hence invalidating the improper use of "rape" and indicating an adulterous relationship......they were to be pure and set apart. She wasn't forced to marry a rapist, she was forced to marry the man she gave her virginity to. The term "young woman" often implies virginity. Virginity is to be given to her husband. Therefore the man in question is to be her husband since marriage and sex is highly regarded by God.
Today's world wants to make marriage a bad situation and treat sex as casual and carefree and fun.....trading evil for good. You have no regard for sex and God's standards in reference to it. You define it according to your subjective presuppositions and Godless worldview. "It feels good so what's wrong with that?" God is the objective standard....the bar....the ultimate degree of righteousness and he says otherwise. You like your sin you so you dismiss God as irrational and vindictive and carry on trading good for evil. The world's standards are grounded in subjective opinions and whimsy. Whatever god abhors the world wants to legalize and justify as good.
When God wiped out nations of pagan folks it's because they came into the fullness of their sin and God passed judgment upon them. Pregnant, pagan women that would've given birth to future Godless pagans that would've been eternally separated from God were wiped out. God had had enough of their wickedness and generation after generation of children brought into the world and destroyed by the influence of their reprobate elders. These unborn children were innocent and brought to God's kingdom before the generations of pagans before them could corrupt them and separate them from him permanently.
Why do you side with evil and hate righteousness?
Yes, because he is God and he is good and rigtheous and holy and the ultimate standard is his law and will always supercede our opinions. Don't want righteousness then move along and give someone else an opportunity to be saved.
-
You glossed my explanation. Here it is again:
You chose the harshest translation which includes the term "rape" which is the minority of the various translations. The terms "and they are discovered" implies a complicit relationship hence invalidating the improper use of "rape" and indicating an adulterous relationship......they were to be pure and set apart. She wasn't forced to marry a rapist, she was forced to marry the man she gave her virginity to. The term "young woman" often implies virginity. Virginity is to be given to her husband. Therefore the man in question is to be her husband since marriage and sex is highly regarded by God.
Today's world wants to be make marriage a bad situation and treat sex as casual and carefree and fun.....trading evil for good. You have no regard for sex and God's standards in reference to it. You define it according to your subjective presuppositions and Godless worldview. "It feels good so what's wrong with that?" God is the objective standard....the bar....the ultimate degree of righteous and he says otherwise. You like your sin you so you dismiss God as irrational and vindictive and carry on trading good for evil. The world's standards are grounded in subjective opinions and whimsy. Whatever god abhors the world wants to legalize and justify as good.
When God wiped out nations of pagan folks it's because they came into the fullness of their sin and God passed judgment upon them. Pregnant, pagan women that would've given birth to future Godless pagans that would've been eternally separated from God were wiped out. God had had enough of their wickedness and generation after generation of children brought into the world and destroyed by the influence of their reprobate elders. These unborn children were innocent and brought to God's kingdom before the generations of pagans before them could corrupt them and separate them from him permanently.
Why do you side with evil and hate righteousness?
Yes, because he is God and he is good and rigtheous and holy and the ultimate standard is his law and will always supercedes our opinions. Don't want righteous then move along and give someone else an opportunity to be saved.
It's rare when flowery language like "When God wiped out nations of pagan folks it's because they came into the fullness of their sin and God passed judgment upon them. Pregnant, pagan women that would've given birth to future Godless pagans that would've been eternally separated from God were wiped out." doesn't whitewash the stench of what it is saying.. but this is one of those rare times..
-
It's rare when flowery language like "When God wiped out nations of pagan folks it's because they came into the fullness of their sin and God passed judgment upon them. Pregnant, pagan women that would've given birth to future Godless pagans that would've been eternally separated from God were wiped out." doesn't whitewash the stench of what it is saying.. but this is one of those rare times..
In my experience this is how God haters tend to view scripture:
Let's say 50 verses say God is loving and good.
Let's say 50 other verses are called into question.
Let's say 40 of the verses are explained and then align with the 50 verses indicating the goodness of God.
10 of the verses didn't have complete context included and could be perceived as good or bad.
The God hater then deems the verses are absolutely bad regardless of the predominance of the good and lack of clear context.
I have rarely heard or read a God hater stating, "you know, you did reconcile the majority of my objections and although you didn't a few of them I think it's safe to assume the unreconciled verses shouldn't be deemed negative in light of the others."
Oh, you still haven't answered any of my questions.
-
We don't know how old Mary was when she became pregnant. Can't answer your question fully. Some say 12, some say 16, some say 18, some say 22.
A twenty-two year old was middle aged in those days.
-
the one thing you can rely on with religious nuts
as soon as you confront them with facts
they start with the i will pray for your soul crap
i cant believe this is the same man of steel
he used to be funny self depreciating and really got this place
what a shame :'(
Perhaps he found God.
-
A twenty-two year old was middle aged in those days.
Yep, just an opinion I've read. Doesn't mean I agree with it.
The age range I read the most is 14 to 18.
I just don't know.
-
Yes it does, though my motivation for doing so is not comfort. It is to cultivate the ability to dwell in Presence which brings exceeding joy and love and is not a selfish state but a more complete interaction with all that is. People spend hours in the gym to sculpt their bodies. Some spend hours in contemplation to allow the universe to sculpt their mind.
Interesting.
Would you say your use of the term "universe" could also be defined as universal intelligence?
"I AM THAT I AM." All inquiry into Truth must begin with the self-evident fact that Life Is. The Truth is that which Is and so is Self-Existent.
The Science of Mind, by Ernest Shurtleff Holmes [1926]
-
Interesting.
Would you say your use of the term "universe" could also be defined as universal intelligence?
"I AM THAT I AM." All inquiry into Truth must begin with the self-evident fact that Life Is. The Truth is that which Is and so is Self-Existent.
The Science of Mind, by Ernest Shurtleff Holmes [1926]
For me the universe is incredibly intelligent yes.
I agree with these words above, and it is something to be experienced with the whole being not something that can be conceptually understood.
-
Interesting perspective on the forbidden fruit/sex connotations. I've always read it straight forward as direct disobedience.
Would God create this basis of direct disobedience? Really, an apple?
-
you can't tell me his favorite color, favorite food, favorite pastime as a kid, best friend as a child, if he had a dog. You can't tell me if he had a sense of humor, if he liked to swim, was he a morning person or a night owl. You can't tell me anything about this person you claim to have a personal relationship with, but you KNOW he was without sin... yeah that's totally believable.
Nice try.
I don't know most of this stuff about my closest of friends but since you asked:
Color: scarlet and/or white
Food: I know He likes figs and lamb
Past time as a child: scripture study at the synagogue
Bf: his younger brother John
Dog: yes, His was a carpenter but also a shepherd
He has a sense of humor, it's pretty obvious
Swim: He's more likely to walk on water as opposed to wade in it
Jesus is an early riser so morning person
Good questions.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_fruit
"Forbidden fruit"
"As a metaphor, the phrase typically refers to any indulgence or pleasure that is considered illegal or immoral." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_fruit
This means the apple was and is symbolic. Illegal or immoral are not synonymous with procreation i.e. intercourse (sex).
-
Would God create this basis of direct disobedience? Really, an apple?
An apple? Where did you learn that?
You're asking me why God said don't do one thing, He had one rule in the garden and your question is why? Yet after the exile from the garden He established books of rules and law and everyone wants to question why there are so many?
Then Jesus came and taught us to love our neighbor as ourself, to treat others as we want to be treated and even that is to hard to follow.
So I guess what we've really learned is ultimately people do what they want, regardless of rules and laws. The consequences will eventually be determined ....
-
Abstinence does not work. There is nothing moral about waiting until marriage to have sex.
Both statements are correct. Marriage is man's invention. We've seen what can result from unnatural suppression of sexual desire (abstinence).
-
Do you mean for those who desire sex? Johhnynoname has 5 years that would say otherwise. :)
Has he defined what he means with regards his abstinence?
-
Both statements are correct. Marriage is man's invention. We've seen what can result from unnatural suppression of sexual desire (abstinence).
Marriage is man's invention? Where was it established? What's the first recorded instance? What are some of the popular inventions of cats or dogs (these can be of the domestic or wild variety)?
-
???? Nocturnal emissions? Those aren't considered in the same class because it's in the subconscious?
Nocturnal emissions do not provide the same emotional, mental and physical release.
-
You know what i wanted to understand, and you still choose to deliberately obfuscate and deflect. I have never once asked for your undivided attention or complained that you take too long to reply to me. I merely point out the fact that you refuse to answer simple questions that you are seemingly uncomfortable with, choosing instead to post verbiage unrelated to what i asked. You could have given me two simple yes or no answers multiple posts ago, but you still continue to avoid doing so. All you've said now is that Jesus came along and put an end to the laws relating to murder, which only highlights the issue of God being an immoral and capricious psychopath in the first place, if he initially justified it and carried it out himself in multiple biblical passages.
As for you quoting out of Deuteronomy, what difference would it make if it was your original words or an article which you posted in support of your stance? Are you saying that you personally repudiate all of its passages and do not believe them to have come from God? Or could Deuteronomy be correct when it comes to drug use, but wrong nowadays, when it comes to sacrificing your family?
I'm telling you, MOS....the ice is thin and you're skating all over it. Don't make me write a getbig poem. DON'T MAKE ME DO IT!!
I don't know which post, which page, which thread, what question, etc....
Write brief statements in your reply to this. What are your questions? Clearly I'm missing something.
I'm not avoiding anything.
-
We know his life was without sin whether we know 5 minutes or 33 years of his life.
Rather than know this, you believe it and that is fine.
-
Rather than know this, you believe it and that is fine.
I know and believe it. You and others won't accept that. Ok by me.
-
Ok, so if I knew the answers were blue, roast chicken, playing stick ball, Saul, Skippy, knock-knock jokes, the backstroke and the calm of early morning would that change anything else in scripture we do know about Christ and the love and grace revealed to his body of believers?
Yes, we know he was without sin.
It is not possible to "know" the unknowable. It is possible to believe that you do.
-
It is not possible to "know" the unknowable. It is possible to believe that you do.
Special revelation of God in believers validates the words of scripture.
-
Right, that's it. YOU'RE GETTING POEMED!!
Fine, right a poem.
What are your unanswered questions:
Question 1)
Question 2)
Question 3)
etc....
I'm not gonna fish for them. Ask them now....short and sweet is best.
In a short time Raymondo, OB1, SF, etc...are gonna find the thread and start to clutter it.
-
Nocturnal emissions do not provide the same emotional, mental and physical release.
Prime you're a strange dude.
If you read the question I quoted I was asking if he meant NE's were permissible as opposed to masturbation. My point was if it's subconscious then wouldn't it be considered a heart (internal) issue.
Everyone is so worked up over sex.
Why?
People display self control regarding sex every day and everyday there are people who don't have self control. A man can't just mate any woman he wants whenever he wants, we define that as rape. So everyday people display sexual self control. Those who don't are usually labeled criminals.
If you're married be married, enjoy being faithful to your partner . If that doesn't work or you have some of different relationship fine.
If you're single do you. If you want to sleep with multiple people than by all means.
If you can't to committed rrelationships dont. But don't get mad when people are hurt and upset by your choice.
-
http://www.truthbeknown.com/ :o :-X :P
-
An apple? Where did you learn that?
You're asking me why God said don't do one thing, He had one rule in the garden and your question is why? Yet after the exile from the garden He established books of rules and law and everyone wants to question why there are so many?
Then Jesus came and taught us to love our neighbor as ourself, to treat others as we want to be treated and even that is to hard to follow.
So I guess what we've really learned is ultimately people do what they want, regardless of rules and laws. The consequences will eventually be determined ....
I am not sure what you mean in your opening paragraph. In retrospect, I first leaned this in Sunday school, like many of us did. It could have been any fruit, indeed it could have been anything. No one really knows. It is simply what many were taught....it is symbolic.
Did I ask why? I don't believe I did.
The consequences of what we do, either good or bad, are in the here and now.
-
An apple? Where did you learn that?
You're asking me why God said don't do one thing, He had one rule in the garden and your question is why? Yet after the exile from the garden He established books of rules and law and everyone wants to question why there are so many?
Then Jesus came and taught us to love our neighbor as ourself, to treat others as we want to be treated and even that is to hard to follow.
So I guess what we've really learned is ultimately people do what they want, regardless of rules and laws. The consequences will eventually be determined ....
LOL!!! Exactly
-
Marriage is man's invention? Where was it established? What's the first recorded instance? What are some of the popular inventions of cats or dogs (these can be of the domestic or wild variety)?
You are making comparisons which are illogical. Marriage and monogamy are not the same thing, although The Bible presents marriage as a divine institution.
Though marriage has ancient roots, until recently love had little to do with it.
"What marriage had in common was that it really was not about the relationship between the man and the woman," said Stephanie Coontz, the author of Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage "It was a way of getting in-laws, of making alliances and expanding the family labor force."
-
I know and believe it. You and others won't accept that. Ok by me.
You believe this. Therefor you believe you know this.
-
You believe this. Therefor you believe you know this.
It's up. No it's down.
It's black. No it's white.
It's left. No it's right.
It's bad. No it's good.
It's correct. No it's incorrect.
All this nonsense is.
-
http://www.truthbeknown.com/ :o :-X :P
Ro as I said you're a deep spiritual dude. What are your thoughts? Is there a God (it doesn't have to be the Christian version)?
If there is does God care?
Does God owe his creation any explanation?
Do we owe God anything? Or is God an absentee parent deserving of our hate?
What I find so funny is those who believe there is no God that science can disprove Him (and of course those that say science is dangerous and wrong).
For THOUSANDS of years people believed the earth was flat. For 500 we've believed it's round. In both cases science explained those beliefs.
Science evolved.
People have discovered more in the last 100 years than all of history combined, think about that. That's pretty phenomenal.
Maybe one day soon science will finally offer verifiable evidence there is no God, but don't be surprised when people don't believe it, we still have flat earthers today.
-
Right, that's it. YOU'RE GETTING POEMED!!
Take 2 ==>>
Ask your questions Captain:
Question 1)
Question 2)
Question 3)
etc......
Are these your questions?
How can any man be so deluded as to claim that God literally did flood the world, drown everyone - the innocent too, and rightfully so, but we cannot be sure that he didn't magically remove their ability to feel pain as he drowned him?
The miraculous, tangible, special revelation of the Holy Spirit in my life when I surrendered my life to God. It affirmed everything in scripture and that revelation has continued to this day. I understand God's reality, his grace, his love, his mercy, etc....
You've already taken many passages of scripture as literal and attempted to justify them, as with the parable of Christ and the pigs, Noah's Ark etc, so if a man reads passages from the bible which instruct him to kill unbelievers and members of family who have sinned, and takes them as literal, is he right in doing so?
Are you referring to actual passages in scripture? Is this an invented situation of your own making? If God deems an event appropriate then it is even if I can’t comprehend it fully. I trust in his goodness, grace, mercy and justice. Why? Because of the special revelation of his reality in my life. I have faith in what I don't understand of his will because of the truth of his will he's revealed in my life and the confidence it brings.
if God appeared before you and asked you to sacrifice your child as a test of faith, would you?
Given I know of Abraham’s example in scripture yes I would follow through, but I also know that God stopped Abraham after he was tested and didn't allow his child to die.
Without that knowledge of Abraham’s circumstance would my faith be as strong as Abraham’s if I were tested in the same manner? I don’t know.
Now, what other questions am I missing. I went fishing for you posts in this thread (even though I said I wouldn't) and came up with one post that contained these.
Did I answer everything or do you have other questions?
What are they?
Question 1)
Question 2)
Question 3)
etc.....
-
Would God create this basis of direct disobedience? Really, an apple?
I am not sure what you mean in your opening paragraph. In retrospect, I first leaned this in Sunday school, like many of us did. It could have been any fruit, indeed it could have been anything. No one really knows. It is simply what many were taught....it is symbolic.
Did I ask why? I don't believe I did.
The consequences of what we do, either good or bad, are in the here and now.
Prime I guess I don't know what you're asking on this or any of your other comments.
You are making comparisons which are illogical. Marriage and monogamy are not the same thing, although The Bible presents marriage as a divine institution.
Though marriage has ancient roots, until recently love had little to do with it.
"What marriage had in common was that it really was not about the relationship between the man and the woman," said Stephanie Coontz, the author of Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage "It was a way of getting in-laws, of making alliances and expanding the family labor force."
I'm well aware of the history of marriage. Western culture is responsible for the idea of "love based" matrimony (although the Old Testament introduces the idea).
Your point was marriage is a man made invention. So is rape, imprisonment and pizza. Man invents everything. My comparison was made because your point was unknown or incomplete.
Monogamy works with swans. It has worked with man. If it's not your thing fine. But don't act like it's impossible.
-
Ro as I said you're a deep spiritual dude. What are your thoughts? Is there a God (it doesn't have to be the Christian version)?
there is one divine source beyond name and form, containing name and form, as name and form
If there is does God care?
If I care then that is proof enough that god cares, for we are not separate from god.
Does God owe his creation any explanation?
its up to us to figure it out and make our own meaning
Do we owe God anything? Or is God an absentee parent deserving of our hate?
does my foot owe my brain anything?
What I find so funny is those who believe there is no God that science can disprove Him (and of course those that say science is dangerous and wrong).
For THOUSANDS of years people believed the earth was flat. For 500 we've believed it's round. In both cases science explained those beliefs.
Science evolved.
People have discovered more in the last 100 years than all of history combined, think about that. That's pretty phenomenal.
Maybe one day soon science will finally offer verifiable evidence there is no God, but don't be surprised when people don't believe it, we still have flat earthers today.
Science is going outside of its realm of functionality when it attempts to prove or disprove spiritual origin. For that we need a different methodology altogether.
-
Prime you're a strange dude.
If you read the question I quoted I was asking if he meant NE's were permissible as opposed to masturbation. My point was if it's subconscious then wouldn't it be considered a heart (internal) issue.
Everyone is so worked up over sex.
Why?
People display self control regarding sex every day and everyday there are people who don't have self control. A man can't just mate any woman he wants whenever he wants, we define that as rape. So everyday people display sexual self control. Those who don't are usually labeled criminals.
If you're married be married, enjoy being faithful to your partner . If that doesn't work or you have some of different relationship fine.
If you're single do you. If you want to sleep with multiple people than by all means.
If you can't to committed rrelationships dont. But don't get mad when people are hurt and upset by your choice.
I prefer eccentric to strange.
At my age, I don't get very worked up about sex. Abstinence would be fairly easy for me. I'm not ready to abstain though. ;)
It is a myth, however, that males "must ejaculate" regularly to get rid of built-up sperm. It's true that "unused" semen is absorbed back into the body, and that you don't "need" to ejaculate regularly to live a healthy and fulfilling life. This doesn't mean that wet dreams won't be more likely if you do not regularly orgasm, as there has been no scientific study that's proven a correlation between sexual activity and wet dreams.
“Orgasm relives tension as oxytocin stimulates feelings of warmth and relaxation” Carol Rinkleib Ellison
In 1997, a group of researchers in Wales decided to look into the relationship between orgasms and mortality. They studied the sexual frequency of 918 men between the ages of 45 and 59. They evaluated those who died from coronary heart disease and discovered that those who had two or more orgasms a week died at a rate half of those who had orgasms less than once a month. The researchers concluded that “sexual activity seems to have a protective effect on men’s health.” Findings from the Caerphilly cohort study
-
I appreciate your thoughts bro.
-
It is me I that asked you to keep your answers succinct in this thread.
Small correction there (grammar nazism).
Otherwise, carry on. Your posts rock.
-
Jesus Christ, It's barely been about twenty minutes, hardly a need for a "take 2". Suddenly you're all ears when you know there's a poeming on the horizon!
Firstly, It is me that asked you to keep your answers succinct in this thread. Don't be trying to impose a "short and sweet" on me when you can't manage it yourself; secondly, you don't need to go fishing for them, It's not like you haven't already seen them and just chose to ignore them. Nonetheless, Let's just go with these:
Question 1) Is it not somewhat nonsensical for God to have created a pig, granted it quite a high degree of intelligence and ability to feel pain, and then demonised it, declared it as unclean and allowed it to be used as a sacrificial object to exorcise demons with?
Question 2) You've already tried to answer this one vaguely by suggesting that Jesus rocked up in the New Testament to cancel out God's old orders of killing your family if they worship other gods, so just to clarify - You are saying it is wrong for people to kill their family for idolatry, but it was fine before Jesus came?
Question 3) Given that you've claimed to have experienced God's presence before, as well as that of Angels and Demons (if i am not mistaken), Would you sacrifice your child and "give up their "worldly existence" if God asked you to?
Question 4) As for you quoting out of Deuteronomy, what difference would it make if it was your original words or an article which you posted in support of your stance? Are you saying that you personally repudiate all of its passages and do not believe them to have come from God? Or could Deuteronomy be correct when it comes to drug use, but wrong nowadays, when it comes to sacrificing your family?
No need for excessive logorrheas, let's keep the answers short and sweet, please.
You make great points and as I've said to others I understand why you don't share these beliefs. Your questions cause me to evaluate my stance.
I know you haven't addressed me but I'll give this a shot though I don't think it'll change your opinion (not that I'm trying to).
1) good question and if you remember the whole story the community was mad as well that Jesus let the pigs go over the cliff. I think the bigger message Jesus sent that day was that a humans life is more valuable than other life (that said I'd be upset if it were my heard of pigs).
2) Idk Mos's stance nor the context of the original question but killing people for idolatry was an acceptable practice, it didn't always happen much like we have discrepancies our legal system today.
3) I once had someone ask me what if God told them to sell drugs? My only response was if that's what you really think that is what God is telling you to do and that's the area where you feel like you should obey Him, above all other area, well you shouldnt get mad if you're shot, robbed and/or imprisoned. Because that's obviously part of the plan if you're going to break the law.
So if someone took the Abraham stance to sacrifice their child (they'd be wrong biblically because Jesus was the final sacrifice) and went through with it they should expect everything that would come with murdering a child.
4) I'm not sure context so i have no answer
Very good questions.
-
Question 1) Is it not somewhat nonsensical for God to have created a pig, granted it quite a high degree of intelligence and ability to feel pain, and then demonised it, declared it as unclean and allowed it to be used as a sacrificial object to exorcise demons with?
Just your subjective opinion. You don’t agree with God. And? I trust in God’s objective standards. That simple. He used a herd of pigs to help free an entire region of people from the oppression and possession of demons. I trust his judgment.
Here is the link to the pig thread….all my responses included:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=589225.0#quickreply
Question 2) You've already tried to answer this one vaguely by suggesting that Jesus rocked up in the New Testament to cancel out God's old orders of killing your family if they worship other gods, so just to clarify - You are saying it is wrong for people to kill their family for idolatry, but it was fine before Jesus came?
I don’t know what “rocked up in the New Testament” means.
You’re referring to laws specific for the Israelites which I addressed already in this thread today.
Here are today’s replies (I shortened them here):
Given the book mentioned do you have a question about something pertaining to the specific laws for Israelites? The Israelites are God's chosen folks and as such they were to be set apart in every facet of their lives from the world around them. Their existence was such that everything done was in order to be holy and pure representatives of God. They had specific dietary laws, clothing laws, sacrificial laws, tithing laws, hygiene laws, etc.....
A big "no-no" was putting false gods before God (or having any part of false gods). You can't be part of the chosen, set apart folks and give worship to man-made, demonic, false gods.....punishment was death. Gentiles were grafted into the nation of Israel, but Christ's salvific work eliminated the sacrificial laws yet upheld the moral laws (10 commandments...with the exception of Sabbath law) and removed Gentile involvement from old dietary, clothing, hygeine, tithing laws, etc.....the new testament is a new covenant.
So in this case we need some historical context.
Objectors of these verses typically envision and portray the Israelites worshipping fun-loving, happy-go-lucky, false gods of flowers, puppies and rainbows. :-* And whichever of the pure of heart Israelites chose to worship these sugary-sweet, gentler than gentle, kinder than kind false gods was put to death by the vindictive, murderous, jealous, bitter, petty, vile God of the Hebrews!! BOOOOOOOO Hebrew God! How could you?!! >:(
Not the case.
Pagan worship was anything but smiles, puppies and candy bars. It was live infant sacrifice via burning to death on white hot altars to Molech. It was self-mutilation within ceremonies of sexual perversion and the whoring of young women in demonic rituals to Baal. It was demonic rituals of witchcraft/sorcery and further ritualistic sexual perversion and whoring of women to the pagan goddess Asherah. It was carnal, it was dark, it was twisted, it was evil, it was demonic and it destroyed countless innocents.
So, if an Israelite defied his/her sacred covenant with God and chose to participate in the evil worship and practices of false pagan gods such as Baal, Asherah and Molech they lost their wretched lives for it. These folks traded new and righteous life in order to corrupt and destroy the lives of others.
Do I believe God was just? Absolutely. If a person is going to break a righteous covenant with God and engage in acts that pervert and murder innocents then it's absolutely just that your life be forfeit as punishment.
Question 3) Given that you've claimed to have experienced God's presence before, as well as that of Angels and Demons (if i am not mistaken), Would you sacrifice your child and "give up their "worldly existence" if God asked you to?
Just answered this above.
Here was my reply:
Given I know of Abraham’s example in scripture yes I would follow through, but I also know that God stopped Abraham after he was tested and didn't allow his child to die.
Without that knowledge of Abraham’s circumstance would my faith be as strong as Abraham’s if I were tested in the same manner? I don’t know.
Dave is exactly correct though, Jesus Christ is the ultimate sacrifice so the question is bascially void...the circumstance wouldn't happen....it's merely a thought experiment.
Question 4) As for you quoting out of Deuteronomy, what difference would it make if it was your original words or an article which you posted in support of your stance? Are you saying that you personally repudiate all of its passages and do not believe them to have come from God? Or could Deuteronomy be correct when it comes to drug use, but wrong nowadays, when it comes to sacrificing your family?
I don’t agree with every word written in articles or remember every facet of every article posted, but I post things up for the sake of discussion. There’s no activity on the board. In general I agree with most things posted in their entirety. Sometimes I put articles up just to stimulate discussion.
What does make a difference is the example you’re referring to. I need context to understand your questions. Show me which of my posts referred to Deuteronomy or which article I posted that referred to it. Then we can discuss…..as intended. Or better yet. Go to the thread that interests you and begin discussing.
What drug use are you referring to in Deuteronmony? I don’t have the book memorized.
Have all your questions been addressed now between this post and one above (to you)?
-
There is a world of difference between Dave D's and Man of Steel's posts.
The former answers relatively to the point and his replies show a confident believer who is not afraid of showing vulnerability.
-
Thank you for taking the time to answer, Dave. It is good to hear that you are willing to evaluate your stances. It is something i frequently do, also.
There is a world of difference between Dave D's and Man of Steel's replies.
The former answers relatively to the point, which shows a confident believer who is not afraid of showing vulnerability.
Thanks guys, as I said you guys bring up great logical points that really cause me to think. I know things can get heated quickly, that's the beauty of getbig, but you guys know MOS he's a passionate dude, he was before he knew Jesus so of course he will be afterwards.
Mos is a good dude.
-
Prime I guess I don't know what you're asking on this or any of your other comments.
I'm well aware of the history of marriage. Western culture is responsible for the idea of "love based" matrimony (although the Old Testament introduces the idea).
Your point was marriage is a man made invention. So is rape, imprisonment and pizza. Man invents everything. My comparison was made because your point was unknown or incomplete.
Monogamy works with swans. It has worked with man. If it's not your thing fine. But don't act like it's impossible.
I must be coming across as contrary, which I did not intend. The written word is often misunderstood. When folks discuss things in person, it is easier to clear up misunderstandings.
My religious background is with Religious Science (not to be confused with Christian Science). Religious Science is considered metaphysical. Religious Science is not contrary to other Religions, which explains why one will find folks of many different faiths attending services. You could describe Religious Science and me as coming from the standpoint of "live and let live." Having said this, I also have formed over the years personal beliefs. I am not interested in convincing anyone to believe as I do.
In my opinion it is important to believe in something bigger than ourselves. This manifests in many different ways and beliefs. I pretty much accept any belief which is not evil or harmful to others. In this thread, BigRo comes closest to me in his thinking. He is spiritual and he's doesn't impose his beliefs on others. My guess would be that he is completely at peace much of the time.
Unfortunately, I have the bad habit to taking the bait and then engaging in discussions I probably shouldn't and being annoying or seemingly contrary to other folks. I took note of Man of Steel's comments on things being black or white just for the sake of argument. The truth is I see things in shades of gray and not black or white. Man of Steel seems honorable and committed to his beliefs. I respect him for this.
I believe monogamy is very possible and probably more prevalent than we know. It is not clear to me how you came to the conclusion I believed it wasn't possible.
-
Sorry, MOS. My laptop crashed before i could post my original reply; i'll keep this one short. Yes you have answered my questions, and in the manner which i expected. To summarise:
God is free to abuse and harm animals; he created them and you have no need to question his judgement. He is also free to kill unbelievers and pagans; you believe this is justified and again, have no reason to doubt his morality. Killing your family for idolatry was fine if you were an Israelite as they were God's chosen people and held to a higher standard - which resulted in death if it was not upheld. Nowadays, this would be unacceptable as Jesus decided to contradict this by eliminating the sacrificial laws but uphold the moral laws. Yes you would kill your child if God asked you to; you have the benefit of scripture to know that it is likely he would stop you at the last minute, but without this knowledge, you would be slightly more hesitant.
Thanks for clarifying.
Exactly the reply I expected. Could have written it myself.
-
Was having my post-shower wank the other day, the door bell rings, I remember I have an amazon delivery due. I cut the wank 10 shuffles short of the vinegar stroke, strap my hampton to my stomach using the band of my thermal underwear, chuck on a t-shirt and shorts, run downstairs, open the door......Fucking god squadders wanting to convert me! I just say:"you have got to be kidding me.." and shut the door in their face before they can say anything.
-
Exactly the reply I expected. Could have written it myself.
Why don't you leave the condescension aside for a moment? The guy took the trouble of carefully reading your post, including posts you quoted in order to craft a neat and concise summary, out of what in my own opinion, is sheer nonsense. This sort of thing that takes effort and there is zero hostility in his summary. Can you not see this?
You owe Captain Freedom an honest and even tempered reply.
-
Why don't you leave the condescension aside for a moment? The guy took the trouble of carefully reading your post, including posts you quoted in order to craft a neat and concise summary, out of what in my own opinion, is sheer nonsense. This sort of thing that takes effort and there is zero hostility in his summary. Can you not see this?
You owe Captain Freedom an honest and even tempered reply.
AHAHAHAHHAH
-
Thank you. I've come to expect this from Man of Steel. I simply wanted to bring an end to our conversation by providing a brief summary which would allow others to understand where I was coming from when I questioned him. I don't believe I misrepresented him at all but this isn't the first time he has reacted in this way, and I doubt it will be the last.
They do this all the time. You could have spent half and hour shifting through all that shit. And they just wave your response aside.
Ignorant, arrogant, cowardly, disrespectful behaviour.
-
Why don't you leave the condescension aside for a moment? The guy took the trouble of carefully reading your post, including posts you quoted in order to craft a neat and concise summary, out of what in my own opinion, is sheer nonsense. This sort of thing that takes effort and there is zero hostility in his summary. Can you not see this?
You owe Captain Freedom an honest and even tempered reply.
Lol, worst attempt at obvious trolling I've seen in awhile. So terrible it was almost a literal "lol".
-
Was having my post-shower wank the other day, the door bell rings, I remember I have an amazon delivery due. I cut the wank 10 shuffles short of the vinegar stroke, strap my hampton to my stomach using the band of my thermal underwear, chuck on a t-shirt and shorts, run downstairs, open the door......Fucking god squadders wanting to convert me! I just say:"you have got to be kidding me.." and shut the door in their face before they can say anything.
lol
-
Was having my post-shower wank the other day, the door bell rings, I remember I have an amazon delivery due. I cut the wank 10 shuffles short of the vinegar stroke, strap my hampton to my stomach using the band of my thermal underwear, chuck on a t-shirt and shorts, run downstairs, open the door......Fucking god squadders wanting to convert me! I just say:"you have got to be kidding me.." and shut the door in their face before they can say anything.
Perfect example of the world.
-
what should he have done Man of Steel? Confessed that he was in the middle of having a wank and let them in to intervene?
-
Perfect example of the world.
I know, these deluded god squadders, always trying to stop others from having a good time.....
-
what should he have done Man of Steel? Confessed that he was in the middle of having a wank and let them in to intervene?
He should've done exactly what he did....whatever he wants to.
-
I know, these deluded god squadders, always trying to stop others from having a good time.....
Well, technically you stopped your fun to go get your Amazon package and had the package not been expected the fun would've continued regardless of the door, correct?
Hey, it doesn't matter. I just liked your example.
-
Well, technically you stopped your fun to go get your Amazon package and had the package not been expected the fun would've continued regardless of the door, correct?
Hey, it doesn't matter. I just liked your example.
Perhaps, in an alternate universe, where no one believed in god, and didn't go round pressing random people's doorbells, I ejaculated. Who knows?
-
Was having my post-shower wank the other day, the door bell rings, I remember I have an amazon delivery due. I cut the wank 10 shuffles short of the vinegar stroke, strap my hampton to my stomach using the band of my thermal underwear, chuck on a t-shirt and shorts, run downstairs, open the door......Fucking god squadders wanting to convert me! I just say:"you have got to be kidding me.." and shut the door in their face before they can say anything.
Since you were otherwise occupied, why answer the door?
-
Special revelation of God in believers validates the words of scripture.
That's why there's only one denomination. All believers have the same understanding of the words of scripture because of the revelations from God.... oh wait... there are hundreds upon hundreds of denominations ALL claiming to have the right revelation. Something you might expect to see if a book of various manuscripts translated and updated over the years would cause......that was written by man for man
-
Exactly the reply I expected. Could have written it myself.
No, no you couldn't.. it's way too direct and clear
-
That's why there's only one denomination. All believers have the same understanding of the words of scripture because of the revelations from God.... oh wait... there are hundreds upon hundreds of denominations ALL claiming to have the right revelation. Something you might expect to see if a book of various manuscripts translated and updated over the years would cause......that was written by man for man
First Commandment: Join not anything in worship with God
Second Commandment: Be good and dutiful to parents
Third Commandment: Kill not your children because of poverty
Forth Commandment: Come not near to "shameful" sins whether committed openly or secretly
Fifth Commandment: Kill not anyone whom God has forbidden
Sixth Commandment: Come not near to the orphan’s property, except to improve it, until he (or she) attains the age of full strength
Seventh Commandment: Give full measure and full weight with justice
Eight Commandment: Whenever you speak, say the truth even if a near relative is concerned
Ninth Commandment: Fulfill the Covenant of God
Tenth Commandment: And, indeed, this is My Straight Path, so follow it, and do not follow other paths, for they will separate you away from His Path. This He has ordained for you that you may become pious
-
First Tables of Stone (Exodus 20)
("which Moses didst break")
Second Tables of Stone (Exodus 34)
("the words that were on the first")
1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.
1. Thou shalt worship no other god (For the Lord is a jealous god).
2. You shall not make for yourself a graven image. You shall not bow down to them or serve them.
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep in the month when the ear is on the corn.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
4. All the first-born are mine.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
5. Six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh thou shalt rest.
6. You shall not kill.
6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread.
8. You shall not steal.
8. The fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9. The first of the first fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.
10. You shall not covet.
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.
Beats these 2 sets of Commandments from the bible
-
Ten Punishments
(Let's post these in the schoolroom!)
1. Exodus 22:20: He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
2. Leviticus 24:16: And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.
3. Exodus 31:15: Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
4. Exodus 21:15: He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
5. Exodus 21:17: He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
6. Exodus 22:19: Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
7. Leviticus 20:13: If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.
8. Leviticus 20:10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.
9. Mark 16:16: He that believeth not, shall be damned.
10. Malachi 2:1-4: And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. If you will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart to give glory to my name, ... behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces.
-
High quality book, full of reason.
-
High quality book, full of reason.
Certainly not a book written from the perspective of men some 2000 years ago... not with all that talk about beating your slave is okay as long as you don't kill them because they are your property or throwing feces in your face. That has god written all over it ::)
I don't know, anyone who has actually read the bible and still thinks a god had a hand in it concerns me...The reality is very few take the time to read the whole thing during their lifetime, so the preacher is able to cherry pick and put his spin on it to make it more plausible. Those people, I kind of get it.. they were raised from birth in that atmosphere and that's all they know. But someone who actually read it cover to cover and still concludes it's true... wow..
-
nearly as bad as the Koran all that.
-
That's why there's only one denomination. All believers have the same understanding of the words of scripture because of the revelations from God.... oh wait... there are hundreds upon hundreds of denominations ALL claiming to have the right revelation. Something you might expect to see if a book of various manuscripts translated and updated over the years would cause......that was written by man for man
In reality the number of denominations is drastically reduced as compared to you "hundreds and hundreds". The vast majority of differences in Christian denominations often come down to styles of worship and adiaphora. Now, there are a bunch (probably thousands) of different Christians churches (this is true), but each church isn't a different denomination (that is false).
Essentials of Christian theology are pretty solid between the vast majority of denominations....it's secondary matters (more non essentials) where there are differences....that is true. Still "hundreds and hundreds" or "thousands and thousands".....not correct.
Under divine inspiration, various men were the agents used by God to put the words on paper. Are there different translations? Yes. Are most pretty solid yes. Are there a few not so great translations. Yes. That's not a secret nor is it reason to condemn the faith....it's an excuse for God haters.
-
That's why there's only one denomination. All believers have the same understanding of the words of scripture because of the revelations from God.... oh wait... there are hundreds upon hundreds of denominations ALL claiming to have the right revelation. Something you might expect to see if a book of various manuscripts translated and updated over the years would cause......that was written by man for man
Excellent point. The multiple denominations has always been an issue for me personally. Ultimately I view it as people who grow up in the same household (or go to the same school, work, basically around the same people all the time) and have completely different perspectives of their parents. Both are valid views because they're shaped by their interactions and experiences.
Or if you tell a group of people one idea and the group was spilt by what they took away as the important concept.
Bringing it back to the denominations, people get involved and have their perspective and things get complicated.
Undoubtedly there are frauds, but again that's people playing others, it's in all walks of life.
-
In reality the number of denominations is drastically reduced as compared to you "hundreds and hundreds". The vast majority of differences in Christian denominations often come down to styles of worship and adiaphora. Now, there are a bunch (probably thousands) of different Christians churches (this is true), but each church isn't a different denomination (that is false).
Essentials of Christian theology are pretty solid between the vast majority of denominations....it's secondary matters (more non essentials) where there are differences....that is true. Still "hundreds and hundreds" or "thousands and thousands".....not correct.
Under divine inspiration, various men were the agents used by God to put the words on paper. Are there different translations? Yes. Are most pretty solid yes. Are there a few not so great translations. Yes. That's not a secret nor is it reason to condemn the faith....it's an excuse for God haters.
When I ask myself.. what would a book look like that was not only inspired by a supernatural being, but that being took a hand in crafting it, and would answer questions about the book either personally or through divine revelation of a holy spirit, it looks nothing like what exists today. In my view, there would be no need for the Carthage council where dozens of manuscripts were reviewed and voted on to be included in the final book. There would not be mention in the final book of manuscripts that don't appear in it. It wouldn't change over time depending on who was in power (King James 1604-1611) and there would be zero contradictions. These "minor" disagreements as you refer to them wouldn't exist. One church wouldn't believe you have to be baptized in water to be saved and the other think it unnecessary. Or one group wouldn't claim it says once saved always saved and the other say you can lose your salvation. Musical instruments in some churches are prohibited while others it is full blown rock band. It wouldn't condone things we now agree are reprehensible just because at the time it was written those things were morally acceptable. I could go on and on but the bottom line is, the current bible has mans fingerprints all over it and the results are exactly what one would expect if it originated with humans and not a god.
It's no excuse for God haters as you like to call people who don't share your personal belief in a supernatural being based on lack of evidence, it is just one of the reasons to continue to lack belief
-
First Tables of Stone (Exodus 20)
("which Moses didst break")
Second Tables of Stone (Exodus 34)
("the words that were on the first")
1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.
1. Thou shalt worship no other god (For the Lord is a jealous god).
2. You shall not make for yourself a graven image. You shall not bow down to them or serve them.
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep in the month when the ear is on the corn.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
4. All the first-born are mine.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
5. Six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh thou shalt rest.
6. You shall not kill.
6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread.
8. You shall not steal.
8. The fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9. The first of the first fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.
10. You shall not covet.
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.
Beats these 2 sets of Commandments from the bible
These kinds of tricks of atheist sites are terrific for those who aren't going to read the bible but reject it outright regardless of their ignorance. Most won't know this is "smoke and mirrors", but I do.
What you've stated here is both deceptive and false.
So, in Exodus 20 the 10 commandments are given to Moses on stone tablets. Later Moses became enraged when he witnessed the idolatry and evil of the Israelites upon his return and he smashed the tablets.
Then we jump to Exodus 34 and read the following verse:
Exodus 34:1
34 Now the Lord said to Moses, “Cut out for yourself two stone tablets like the former ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets which you shattered.
The second time God himself replicated the writing on tablets, but instructed Moses to cut out the second (new) pair of tablets (since he destroyed the first).
After this passage of scripture concludes is where the "smoke and mirrors" occurs. We have a passage in which the Lord makes a new covenant with Israel in preparation for the land they will inherit.
Exodus 34:10
10 Then God said, “Behold, I am going to make a covenant. Before all your people I will perform miracles which have not been produced in all the earth nor among any of the nations; and all the people among whom you live will see the working of the Lord, for it is a fearful thing that I am going to perform with you.
This section of 25-26 verses of scripture do not twist and distort the 10 commandments previously given....it states the covenant and decrees within it.
The passage concludes with the following instruction to Moses:
Exodus 34:27
27 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”
The reality was that the Israelites were subject to dozens upon dozens upon dozens upon dozens of divine laws and decrees for all sort of situations.
The 10 commandments remained the same 10 commandments from the original tablets to the replacement tablets.
-
MOS, all these walls of scripture, why not put as much effort in learning other, non-religious texts? You may learn something new.
-
MOS, all these walls of scripture, why not put as much effort in learning other, non-religious texts? You may learn something new.
There was three short verses of scripture and a refutation of what was presented above. That wall of text can be read in under a minute.
I've already taken university level biology, genetics, physics, chemistry, organic chemistry, psychology, sociology, geology, calculus, finance, accounting, marketing, management, etc...my passion is my faith and theology.
-
Certainly not a book written from the perspective of men some 2000 years ago... not with all that talk about beating your slave is okay as long as you don't kill them because they are your property or throwing feces in your face. That has god written all over it ::)
I don't know, anyone who has actually read the bible and still thinks a god had a hand in it concerns me...The reality is very few take the time to read the whole thing during their lifetime, so the preacher is able to cherry pick and put his spin on it to make it more plausible. Those people, I kind of get it.. they were raised from birth in that atmosphere and that's all they know. But someone who actually read it cover to cover and still concludes it's true... wow..
You make many interesting points. Out of all the absurd stories you could have used (Noah and the ark and the flood, anything from Babylon, Samson, and so on) you focus on God allowing slaves to be beat, I'm assuming making the point that it wasn't God but man making that rule.
I say this over and over here, but I mean it and hope you know I'm being honest, that you're intelligent and well informed.
That said slavery has always been a part of mankind's history. We've "outlawed" it today, labeling it barbaric and oppressive but it still is practiced in less developed countries (sex trade industry ). In the west we are enslaved but we choose to call it debt, and look at it as a part of life.
Without going on a long tirade slavery is practiced throughout the bible, in the Christian view you are either a slave to God or a slave to Satan. Whether people think that's right or wrong, just or unjust isn't the point, that's God's system (from the Christian perspective).
Undoubtedly the books were written from a perspective of their time, and they were relevant to that Era for thousands of years ( and to prove that even though weve become so advanced and that the ideas in the books are out dated we need to remember it's only been since the 1960s that African Americans have been considered "equal" with whites).
There's nothing unusual about that. The rules were important for that time. The old testament was a recounting of the Hebrew nation and it's struggles. The idea that God labeled these people as His chosen is/can be offensive but that's neither here nor there. It would have made no sense to have rules for speed limits or aircraft travel because those things were irrelevant to those people and the time period.
Fast forward to today and the Christian view is that Jesus did away with the laws and rules that people couldn't adhere to (and make no mistake the multiple rules and laws were set up to show man how unclean he was in front of a Holy God, that it was impossible to keep those rules and that was the significance of the death of the Christ, to do away with the laws that kept man separated from God).
There are rules from the old testament that can be beneficial today, but Jesus left us with the golden rule, love others as you love yourself and love God wholeheartedly.
I hope I didn't wonder off topic....
-
When I ask myself.. what would a book look like that was not only inspired by a supernatural being, but that being took a hand in crafting it, and would answer questions about the book either personally or through divine revelation of a holy spirit, it looks nothing like what exists today. In my view, there would be no need for the Carthage council where dozens of manuscripts were reviewed and voted on to be included in the final book. There would not be mention in the final book of manuscripts that don't appear in it. It wouldn't change over time depending on who was in power (King James 1604-1611) and there would be zero contradictions. These "minor" disagreements as you refer to them wouldn't exist. One church wouldn't believe you have to be baptized in water to be saved and the other think it unnecessary. Or one group wouldn't claim it says once saved always saved and the other say you can lose your salvation. Musical instruments in some churches are prohibited while others it is full blown rock band. It wouldn't condone things we now agree are reprehensible just because at the time it was written those things were morally acceptable. I could go on and on but the bottom line is, the current bible has mans fingerprints all over it and the results are exactly what one would expect if it originated with humans and not a god.
It's no excuse for God haters as you like to call people who don't share your personal belief in a supernatural being based on lack of evidence, it is just one of the reasons to continue to lack belief
All valid points 100%.
However is there any field of life where people are in 100% agreement on everything? Scientists disagree about known facts, corporations disagree about focus, married couples disagree about friends.
People are people and when we get involved things get complicated. I agree that people of God should be held to higher standards, but getting 100% agreement on any idea is rare let alone multiple ideas.
Even biblically speaking there's multiple accounts of the people (collectively as well as individually) disagreeing with God, the very one they were having divine encounters with....... why would we expect it to be different today?
-
These kinds of tricks of atheist sites are terrific for those who aren't going to read the bible but reject it outright regardless of their ignorance. Most won't know this is "smoke and mirrors", but I do.
What you've stated here is both deceptive and false.
So, in Exodus 20 the 10 commandments are given to Moses on stone tablets. Later Moses became enraged when he witnessed the idolatry and evil of the Israelites upon his return and he smashed the tablets.
Then we jump to Exodus 34 and read the following verse:
Exodus 34:1
34 Now the Lord said to Moses, “Cut out for yourself two stone tablets like the former ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets which you shattered.
The second time God himself replicated the writing on tablets, but instructed Moses to cut out the second (new) pair of tablets (since he destroyed the first).
After this passage of scripture concludes is where the "smoke and mirrors" occurs. We have a passage in which the Lord makes a new covenant with Israel in preparation for the land they will inherit.
Exodus 34:10
10 Then God said, “Behold, I am going to make a covenant. Before all your people I will perform miracles which have not been produced in all the earth nor among any of the nations; and all the people among whom you live will see the working of the Lord, for it is a fearful thing that I am going to perform with you.
This section of 25-26 verses of scripture do not twist and distort the 10 commandments previously given....it states the covenant and decrees within it.
The passage concludes with the following instruction to Moses:
Exodus 34:27
27 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”
The reality was that the Israelites were subject to dozens upon dozens upon dozens upon dozens of divine laws and decrees for all sort of situations.
The 10 commandments remained the same 10 commandments from the original tablets to the replacement tablets.
Hmmmm...nice... but no...
-
All valid points 100%.
However is there any field of life where people are in 100% agreement on everything? Scientists disagree about known facts, corporations disagree about focus, married couples disagree about friends.
People are people and when we get involved things get complicated. I agree that people of God should be held to higher standards, but getting 100% agreement on any idea is rare let alone multiple ideas.
Even biblically speaking there's multiple accounts of the people (collectively as well as individually) disagreeing with God, the very one they were having divine encounters with....... why would we expect it to be different today?
Dave,
If there was a religious group that worshipped Tom Clancy as their God and his work "The Hunt For Red October" as being written by their God, AND Tom Clancy was alive to answer any and all questions they had about the book, how many denominations of Clanciers would you think would develop due to disagreements over what the book said? Think about it.
-
Dave,
If there was a religious group that worshipped Tom Clancy as their God and his work "The Hunt For Red October" as being written by their God, AND Tom Clancy was alive to answer any and all questions they had about the book, how many denominations of Clanciers would you think would develop due to disagreements over what the book said? Think about it.
Good point.
However we have legions of Star War fanatics that argue with George Lucas, the inventor of that "world".
I think you're assuming that people are all rational and intelligent like yourself. We forget that the vast majority of people are simpletons, and behave accordingly.
-
Exodus 34King James Version (KJV)
34 And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.
2 And be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me in the top of the mount.
3 And no man shall come up with thee, neither let any man be seen throughout all the mount; neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount.
4 And he hewed two tables of stone like unto the first; and Moses rose up early in the morning, and went up unto mount Sinai, as the Lord had commanded him, and took in his hand the two tables of stone.
5 And the Lord descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord.
6 And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
8 And Moses made haste, and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshipped.
9 And he said, If now I have found grace in thy sight, O Lord, let my Lord, I pray thee, go among us; for it is a stiffnecked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for thine inheritance.
10 And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the Lord: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.
11 Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.
12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:
13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:
14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;
16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
18 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
19 All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.
20 But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
23 Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel.
24 For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the Lord thy God thrice in the year.
25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
26 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
27 And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
28 And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
-
Good point.
However we have legions of Star War fanatics that argue with George Lucas, the inventor of that "world".
I think you're assuming that people are all rational and intelligent like yourself. We forget that the vast majority of people are simpletons, and behave accordingly.
but..well...uh...but.... .. yeah.. you have a point there
-
You make many interesting points. Out of all the absurd stories you could have used (Noah and the ark and the flood, anything from Babylon, Samson, and so on) you focus on God allowing slaves to be beat, I'm assuming making the point that it wasn't God but man making that rule.
I say this over and over here, but I mean it and hope you know I'm being honest, that you're intelligent and well informed.
That said slavery has always been a part of mankind's history. We've "outlawed" it today, labeling it barbaric and oppressive but it still is practiced in less developed countries (sex trade industry ). In the west we are enslaved but we choose to call it debt, and look at it as a part of life.
Without going on a long tirade slavery is practiced throughout the bible, in the Christian view you are either a slave to God or a slave to Satan. Whether people think that's right or wrong, just or unjust isn't the point, that's God's system (from the Christian perspective).
Undoubtedly the books were written from a perspective of their time, and they were relevant to that Era for thousands of years ( and to prove that even though weve become so advanced and that the ideas in the books are out dated we need to remember it's only been since the 1960s that African Americans have been considered "equal" with whites).
There's nothing unusual about that. The rules were important for that time. The old testament was a recounting of the Hebrew nation and it's struggles. The idea that God labeled these people as His chosen is/can be offensive but that's neither here nor there. It would have made no sense to have rules for speed limits or aircraft travel because those things were irrelevant to those people and the time period.
Fast forward to today and the Christian view is that Jesus did away with the laws and rules that people couldn't adhere to (and make no mistake the multiple rules and laws were set up to show man how unclean he was in front of a Holy God, that it was impossible to keep those rules and that was the significance of the death of the Christ, to do away with the laws that kept man separated from God).
There are rules from the old testament that can be beneficial today, but Jesus left us with the golden rule, love others as you love yourself and love God wholeheartedly.
I hope I didn't wonder off topic....
Yes, I could have used many things from the bible to illustrate my point. Beating a slave with a rod because he or she is your property is one. Marrying your rape victim is another. There are multitudes of what we now consider barbaric things which tends to make my point I think. People tell me God never changes. But he sure evolves his morals and what's acceptable along with us humans.
-
but..well...uh...but...... yeah.. you have a point there
Lucas created his vision. In it Darth Vader was evil (and was redeemed in the end) and Luke Skywalker was a noble hero.
Yet multiple LOVE Vader and HATE Luke, lol. That wasn't the original idea, but people see what they want.
Same thing with denominations. And again there's the group who only want to cause disruption and chaos and use and take advantage of others (wolves in sheep's clothing). People mess stuff up.
Again I'm not saying you or I are wrong or right. You've, along with many other, challenged me and appreciate your perspective.
-
the Eucharist...
-
Yes, I could have used many things from the bible to illustrate my point. Beating a slave with a rod because he or she is your property is one. Marrying your rape victim is another. There are multitudes of what we now consider barbaric things which tends to make my point I think. People tell me God never changes. But he sure evolves his morals and what's acceptable along with us humans.
Yeah I guess it's perspective.
God established Adam and Eve, one man one woman yet we see where Jacob, David and Solomon had multiple wives.
Does God's morality change or do people adjust what they deem acceptable and God allows it?
Why was the homosexuality of Sodom and Gomorrah so bad it was burnt to the ground, but today we don't see those actions?
I get your points and observations but I think at the core God is consistent in what He requires even if He is inconsistent with what He allows (if that makes sense, and I'm sure it doesn't because you don't see God as real but I mean outside of that).
-
There was three short verses of scripture and a refutation of what was presented above. That wall of text can be read in under a minute.
I've already taken university level biology, genetics, physics, chemistry, organic chemistry, psychology, sociology, geology, calculus, finance, accounting, marketing, management, etc...my passion is my faith and theology.
Fair enough. Perhaps try philosophy?
-
Hmmmm...nice... but no...
Do construction companies build buildings from the top down or the bottom up?
-
There was three short verses of scripture and a refutation of what was presented above. That wall of text can be read in under a minute.
I've already taken university level biology, genetics, physics, chemistry, organic chemistry, psychology, sociology, geology, calculus, finance, accounting, marketing, management, etc...my passion is my faith and theology.
lol. Stop trying to get something by these people. Like ALL Americans, you took these classes at the basic level, in order to graduate with a Bachelors level degree. In other words, you maybe took 1-3 classes in each subject, then focused the rest of your classes on your major. No way in hell you studied each topic in depth, like you would with your major.
Listen, I have a BA, MA and going for my Doctorate. The amount of specialization that is required at the MA and Doctoral level is MUCH different than you would receive at the BA level. So, you took psychology at the undergrad level. So, did I. All basic stuff. Are you implying that you know as much as someone with a Doctorate in psych because you took it at the undergrad level? hahah. Delusional as they come! Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Furthermore, I took basic classes in geology, biology, math, history, etc., and in no way do I feel I am skilled enough to discusses these topics with an indepth understanding. The education is so basic at the undergrad level, that its near impossible to get a comprehensive understanding of each topic.
-
Fair enough. Perhaps try philosophy?
Yes, I've taken two philosophy courses.
SF, deleting and reposting his post to get the thread back to the top.....I know the trick.
-
MOS, avoiding my response because it exposes him. You can pull one by the Euro guys, who may not understand the American educational system. But, Ive been there, done that.
Implying that youre some sort of expert in all 12 of those fields because you took basic classes at the university level is ridiculous.
This is why you often see religious people with no college degree or just a BA-level degree, trying to tell PhD physicists/biologists about science haha lol. Of course, someone with no college education can no more than a PhD-level physicist, but its EXTREMELY rare. I have not met many people who took undergrad science classes (especially if it was not their major) who know more than PhD-level scientists.
In MOS's mind, he knows more than a PhD level physicists because he took 2 undergrad courses in it. :D :D
-
Captain Freedom resorting to insults on the poem thread now.....it's alright....I forgive him.
-
Captain Freedom resorting to insults on the poem thread now.....it's alright....I forgive him.
Can you point me towards this thread?
**edit** found it
-
For the record, I no longer reply to any of SF's posts and he's blocked from PM'ing me. Numerous folks for the last 2 years repeatedly warned me about his antics and I both defended him and attempted to work with him publically and privately, but he became progressively more aggressive and hostile......EXACTLY as I was warned. I certainly learned about heeding the warnings of others that have "been there, done that". It simply got to be too much and when he finally insulted my wife that was it for me.
So yes I purposefully avoid all of his posts now.
....dust off my feet
-
Can you point me towards this thread?
**edit** found it
I'm not ashamed of my faith and I don't fear the criticism of God haters.
So here's the poem:
There lives a man who’s made of steel
His views so twisted, contorted
Never one to miss a meal
His body - bloated, distorted
He’ll condemn you to hell with a religious zeal
And give praise to a higher power
He convinces himself his God is real
For he so fears his final hour
A real disgrace, this man of metal
‘Drugs are a sin! You must seek sobriety’
A classic case of pot and kettle
He staggers, drunk on religious piety
Once, in the quiet hours of the night,
He suffered a lapse of concentration,
He struggled but could not find the might
To resist the temptation of masturbation
Help me father! I’ve sinned! He cried
And the lord answered from his celestial station
‘Go commit the act of filicide
To repent for your self-gratification’
So off he went to get his knife
To commit an act so wicked and tragic
But even this is not so sad
As a man- full grown -who believes in magic.
Enjoy.
-
That's actually a really good poem by Captain Freedom!!
-
I'm not ashamed of my faith and I don't fear the criticism of God haters.
So here's the poem:
Enjoy.
You try to lay a guilt trip on me just for asking :)
Is there any chance of you just relaxing, kicking back and indulging in some self-deprecating humour?
-
For the record, I no longer reply to any of SF's posts and he's blocked from PM'ing me. Numerous folks for the last 2 years repeatedly warned me about his antics and I both defended him and attempted to work with him publically and privately, but he became progressively more aggressive and hostile......EXACTLY as I was warned. I certainly learned about heeding the warnings of others that have "been there, done that". It simply got to be too much and when he finally insulted my wife that was it for me.
So yes I purposefully avoid all of his posts now.
....dust off my feet
Oh, geez, grow up. People warned you about me lol. Ive never outted anyone, Ive never involved anyones personal life, Ive never been outright vicious with anyone. Everyone bust chops here. But you've been "warned" about me. Get a grip on reality lol.
You consider some antics hostile and aggressive? haha lol
-
Almost 20 pages. ;)
/morons
-
You try to give me a guilt trip just for asking :)
Is there any chance of you just relaxing, kicking back and indulging in some self-deprecating humour?
Absolutely I can. I'm all business in these types of threads because I have to be.
How I interact with folks (believer and nonbelievers) that don't spend hours at a time attacking every word I say and insulting everything that I am in Christ have a very different relationship with me.
I know plenty of nonbelievers and atheists. Worked and sat next to a strong atheist for 3 years. He knew I was a Christian and I knew he was an atheist. He never attacked me and I never attacked him. We talked, did chili cooks off together, worked side by side on projects for years...it was cordial and friendly....he's a sweet, sweet man with a great sense of humor. He never cursed. He was generous. He was a great conversationalist. He was professional. He was educated. He was a delight to work with. Yet, he disagreed with me 100% as it pertains to God. I love him and continue to lift him up in prayer.....wish we still worked together but he got another opportunity in another town. We still talk via email from time to time.
-
Absolutely I can. I'm all business in these types of threads because I have to be.
How I interact with folks (believer and nonbelievers) that don't spend hours at a time attacking every word I say and insulting everything that I am in Christ have a very different relationship with me.
I know plenty of nonbelievers and atheists. Worked and sat next to a strong atheist for 3 years. He knew I was a Christian and I knew he was an atheist. He never attacked me and I never attacked him. We talked, did chili cooks off together, worked side by side on projects for years...it was cordial and friendly....he's a sweet, sweet man with a great sense of humor. He never cursed. He was generous. He was a great conversationalist. He was professional. He was educated. He was a delight to work with. Yet, he disagreed with me 100% as it pertains to God. I love him and continue to lift him up in prayer.....wish we still worked together but he got another opportunity in another town. We still talk via email from time to time.
I worked next to an evangelical for nearly 3 years. Highly educated guy (Oxford), mathematician, about twice as smart as I (which made him the smartest guy in the building by a certain margin). Generous and professional, too, although not always a pleasure to work with (he would probably say the same for me). I had many stimulating discussions with him, almost always not on religion. We talked about science fiction, politics, astronomy, physics, sociology, etc. In 3 years I only remember him once talking about religion or God with a high degree of fervour. This was around the election of 2010, when the British National Party tried to appropriate Jesus in some way. My colleague was very offended.
I remember him fondly sitting on the bus on the way home reading the Bible.
-
Haha, you did grant me permission, MOS. And try not to forget that we are on an anonymous and informal website that discusses male beauty pageants...we don't have to keep things 100% serious. Go write one back about me.
Look man, I don't hate you or Raymondo. I actually like y'all quite a bit. I'm also easy....keep conversation light even if the topic is heavy and we're good. The only desire I have towards the folks on this board is love in Christ. If you don't agree with me that's fine. We can still discuss things that we differ on and have a beer afterwards (well, I'll have a Coke ;) ).
You have to know I'm not you're enemy or Raymondo's enemy or even SF's enemy. I care a great deal about all of you.....best way I can put it.
-
I worked next to an evangelical for nearly 3 years. Highly educated guy (Oxford), mathematician, about twice as smart as I (which made him the smartest guy in the building by a certain margin). Generous and professional, too, although not always a pleasure to work with (he would probably say the same for me). I had many stimulating discussions with him, most of the time not on religion. We talked about science fiction, politics, astronomy, physics, sociology, etc. In 3 years I only remember him once talking about religion or God with a high degree of fervour. This was around the election of 2010, when the British National Party tries to appropriate Jesus in some way. My colleague was very offended.
I remember him fondly sitting on the bus on the way home reading the Bible.
Now, guaranteed I'm not as smart as your friend, but I'm certainly laid back I just have a passion for my faith and love to share it.
-
Almost 20 pages. ;)
/morons
King Jesus threads> King Shizzo threads.
-
:)
-
The world is quite a bit more sinful then it has ever been no? hitler wasn't worse then the pagens? nuclear bombs? where is god to step in now?
We are killing more animals then ever, in fact we are in the 6th mass extinction event, we have wrecked the climate, more people likely die in syria and the middle east then over the last ten years then ever in history.
-
The world is quite a bit more sinful then it has ever been no? hitler wasn't worse then the pagens? nuclear bombs? where is god to step in now?
We are killing more animals then ever, in fact we are in the 6th mass extinction event, we have wrecked the climate, more people likely die in syria and the middle east then over the last ten years then ever in history.
Do you have to be so depressing? Sometimes ignorance is bliss.
-
The world is quite a bit more sinful then it has ever been no? hitler wasn't worse then the pagens? nuclear bombs? where is god to step in now?
We are killing more animals then ever, in fact we are in the 6th mass extinction event, we have wrecked the climate, more people likely die in syria and the middle east then over the last ten years then ever in history.
Great question!
It would seem some sort of "judgement" is pending.
-
Great question!
It would seem some sort of "judgement" is pending.
Disclosure is coming
-
Some sort of judgement has always been pending, every generation has felt this is the time when the shit will hit the fan.
Goodness always reigns supreme.
-
Some sort of judgement has always been pending, every generation has felt this is the time when the shit will hit the fan.
Goodness always reigns supreme.
It really doesn't at all, sadly. More exception than rule ime.
-
were still here as a humanity,world, thats alot of proof given our warring nature for thousands of years.
-
Proof that people like to screw!
-
20 pages.....we did it.
-
Some sort of judgement has always been pending, every generation has felt this is the time when the shit will hit the fan.
Goodness always reigns supreme.
Why am I not worried about this?
-
Why am I not worried about this?
Hard suppression of the truth of God's existence (that everyone already knows) in order to mentally avoid accountability for sins committed against him and most importantly to keep on sinning.
It's an ugly reality that most refuse to face, but the reality nonetheless.
-
Hard suppression of the truth of God's existence (that everyone already knows) in order to mentally avoid accountability for sins committed against him and most importantly to keep on sinning.
It's an ugly reality that most refuse to face, but the reality nonetheless.
You sure?
Yes, of course, infallible book. Apologies.
OP, he DOES appear, dummy. Last sighting was 1977, Oral Roberts: "I saw a 900-foot Jesus in Tulsa, Oklahoma." He took a Polaroid from the 7-11.
-
You sure?
Yes, of course, infallible book. Apologies.
OP, he DOES appear, dummy. Last sighting was 1977: "I saw a 900-foot Jesus in Tulsa, Oklahoma." - Oral Roberts
No need to apologize.
-
No need to apologize.
Ok, sorry.
-
You sure?
Yes, of course, infallible book. Apologies.
OP, he DOES appear, dummy. Last sighting was 1977, Oral Roberts: "I saw a 900-foot Jesus in Tulsa, Oklahoma." He took a Polaroid from the 7-11.
That's thing most people don't realize about Jesus, He is pretty tall for any time period.
-
That's thing most people don't realize about Jesus, He is pretty tall for any time period.
Dude, he can dunk from a 700-foot hole. Crazy, right?
-
Dude, he can dunk from, like, a 700-foot hole. Crazy, right?
That's the other thing people don't realize about 900 foot Jesus, He's crazy athletic!
-
That's the other thing people don't realize about 900 foot Jesus, He's crazy athletic!
(Fucker's a Peeping Tom, too. Look at Him up there, all sneaky and shit with his humongous, peeky perv eyes.)
-
(Fucker's a Peeping Tom, too. Look at Him up there, all sneaky and shit with his humongous, peeky perv eyes.)
Lol he's knocking not peeping. I'm sure he has ex ray vision anyhow so it doesn't really matter.
-
Lol he's knocking not peeping. I'm sure he has ex ray vision anyhow so it doesn't really matter.
C'mon, guy. He's knocking on the 78th to let the dude know his gal's banging a VP on 85. While watching her bang, look at Him.
Creepy messiah, bro.
-
C'mon, guy. He's knocking on the 78th to let the dude know his gal's banging a VP on 85. While watching her bang, look at Him.
Creepy messiah, bro.
I think you've got the wrong idea here bro. I'd imagine the conversation goes more like this:
GUY: Jesus is that you? What are doing, knocking like that? You scared the crap out of me.
Jesus: Hey, just a heads up, your relationship isn't going to work out.
G: What do you mean, are you talking short term or long term? We're in love, we're pretty much inseparable, soooooo....
J: Yeah....... I mean it's over. As in done. As in you'll spend the next 2 years trying to work it out but you'll eventually realize you should have listened to me all along.
G: I don't know Jesus, I don't want to say I don't believe you but I positive you're wrong.
J: Yeah...... I hear that a lot more than you'd think....... Just so you know I'm around if you need to talk.
See way less creepy.
-
I think you've got the wrong idea here bro. I'd imagine the conversation goes more like this:
GUY: Jesus is that you? What are doing, knocking like that? You scared the crap out of me.
Jesus: Hey, just a heads up, your relationship isn't going to work out.
G: What do you mean, are you talking short term or long term? We're in love, we're pretty much inseparable, soooooo....
J: Yeah....... I mean it's over. As in done. As in you'll spend the next 2 years trying to work it out but you'll eventually realize you should have listened to me all along.
G: I don't know Jesus, I don't want to say I don't believe you but I positive you're wrong.
J: Yeah...... I hear that a lot more than you'd think....... Just so you know I'm around if you need to talk.
See way less creepy.
Sure, fine and all, but I'm seeing this:
78: Jesus, DUDE! You knocked? Whoa, look everyone, it's Him!
JC: Yeah, yeah. Listen, Grace is fucking Paul upstairs. Thought you should know.
78: Wait, what?
JC: Your woman. On the 85th, right now. Fucking.
78: But ...
85: Oh, oh, oooooh - OH GOD! Ooooooh ...
78: Jesus?
JC: Sorry, guy, we're all cumming here soon. Later.
Creepy savior.
-
Hard suppression of the truth of God's existence (that everyone already knows) in order to mentally avoid accountability for sins committed against him and most importantly to keep on sinning.
It's an ugly reality that most refuse to face, but the reality nonetheless.
faith?
faith is not knowledge its belief
-
I could see the Scottish Islands yesterday from the east coast of Inishowen, do you ever go back to visit?
-
I could see the Scottish Islands yesterday from the east coast of Inishowen, do you ever go back to visit?
im taking my son up this summer hopefully
-
faith?
faith is not knowledge its belief
Yes and people know the reality of God. Some suppress it and fight it and try to make it go away....say something enough times to convince themselves it isn't real. If something truly doesn't concern you you don' bother a moment about it.
-
Yes and people know the reality of God. Some suppress it and fight it and try to make it go away....say something enough times to convince themselves it isn't real. If something truly doesn't concern you you don' bother a moment about it.
Same with the doubt of believers, always stuffin' it back down.
-
Hard suppression of the truth of God's existence (that everyone already knows) in order to mentally avoid accountability for sins committed against him and most importantly to keep on sinning.
It's an ugly reality that most refuse to face, but the reality nonetheless.
This would be funny if it weren't so sad. You have this personal belief you developed likely from youth that the bible is true. It has many many fantastic yarns that are similar to stories told in accepted fairytales like Jack and the Bean Stalk. You accept these unbelievable stories as true and then have the gall to paint others who don't believe such nonsense as somehow just suppressing the "truth" of this fairytale god because we some how give a rats ass about what he thinks about what we do...because we like to keep on sinning. Seems to me you are forgetting that Christians KEEP ON SINNING on the same level and often times worse than non believers and apparently get forgiven on a regular basis. This tends to nullify your hypothesis, because if we really did believe in this god of yours, we wouldn't have to change a thing.
-
Yes and people know the reality of God. Some suppress it and fight it and try to make it go away....say something enough times to convince themselves it isn't real. If something truly doesn't concern you you don' bother a moment about it.
i really dont have knowledge that god exists
ive never had to fight something i have never had
i dont think belief in god stacks up to scrutiny on any level
be great if there was a god
-
Same with the doubt of believers, always stuffin' it back down.
Not sure what you mean? You're welcome to clarify.
-
Hard suppression of the truth of God's existence (that everyone already knows) in order to mentally avoid accountability for sins committed against him and most importantly to keep on sinning.
It's an ugly reality that most refuse to face, but the reality nonetheless.
so god is accountable to no one? even his creations? non-sense. Is a father no beholden to his child? because he created him he can do as he pleases? that's so north korea logic right there, you want to be a slave. Sorry relationships go both ways, love does not exist in the presence of worship, how could it.
-
This would be funny if it weren't so sad. You have this personal belief you developed likely from youth that the bible is true. It has many many fantastic yarns that are similar to stories told in accepted fairytales like Jack and the Bean Stalk. You accept these unbelievable stories as true and then have the gall to paint others who don't believe such nonsense as somehow just suppressing the "truth" of this fairytale god because we some how give a rats ass about what he thinks about what we do...because we like to keep on sinning. Seems to me you are forgetting that Christians KEEP ON SINNING on the same level and often times worse than non believers and apparently get forgiven on a regular basis. This tends to nullify your hypothesis, because if we really did believe in this god of yours, we wouldn't have to change a thing.
Christians that keep on sinning on the same level and often times worse are not Christians....this is a nominal Christian or a false convert.
An individual that becomes a Christian has a transformation within them....they're made perfect and righteous in Christ and no longer seek for the things of this world. We are filled with Holy Spirit and in that state are sanctified for God's good will and purposes.
Scripture states that those the continue in willful sin after having received the knowledge of truth (in Jesus Christ) no longer have an advocate before the Father. Essentially, if you know the truth and claim to accept the truth of Christ's salvation yet willfully deny his commands and continue living for the world (in sin) that Christ will not act as advocate before the Father in the time of judgment. This points directly as those that were false conversions or nominal Christians. You can't be made righteous in Christ and continue sinning as you once did. That's continuing to abide by your will and not that of God and you can't remain steeped in sin and be aligned with Christ....you can't, that simple.
Here's how atheists respond to this: "That's the no true scotsman fallacy." No, it isn't LOL. This fallacy references the denial of others according to the behaviors of men and their subjectivity....it measures man according to standards of men. Christians measure other Christians according to God's standards.....the ultimate standard. We prescribe to the objectivity of God. We know what genuine belief entails and we measure and hold each other accountable according to a standard that transcends men. When you have the ultimate authority for guidance and someone fails to measure up to that standard we (as believers) can make that righteous judgment confidently.
-
so god is accountable to no one? even his creations? non-sense. Is a father no beholden to his child? because he created him he can do as he pleases? that's so north korea logic right there, you want to be a slave. Sorry relationships go both ways, love does not exist in the presence of worship, how could it.
Why would God who is the ultimate standard of righteousness, justice, grace, mercy and love be accountable to his creation? Because you say so? And?
If God were accountable he wouldn't be God. That which he would be accountable to would be God and and so forth and so on.....an infinite regression that doesn't work.
Your personal lack of humility has no bearing on God or any standard by which other men should be required to follow....it's subjective standards. Believers prescribe to the ultimate, objective standards of God.
What is worship? And tell me about your experience with worship and the love of God?
-
This thread, summarized:
(https://media.tumblr.com/120b7810bf117fa3843dbe5f279197c4/tumblr_n8qk8jVnIi1sjc974o1_500.gif)
-
Christians that keep on sinning on the same level and often times worse are not Christians....this is a nominal Christian or a false convert.
An individual that becomes a Christian has a transformation within them....they're made perfect and righteous in Christ and no longer seek for the things of this world. We are filled with Holy Spirit and in that state are sanctified for God's good will and purposes.
Scripture states that those the continue in willful sin after having received the knowledge of truth (in Jesus Christ) no longer have an advocate before the Father. Essentially, if you know the truth and claim to accept the truth of Christ's salvation yet willfully deny his commands and continue living for the world (in sin) that Christ will not act as advocate before the Father in the time of judgment. This points directly as those that were false conversions or nominal Christians. You can't be made righteous in Christ and continue sinning as you once did. That's continuing to abide by your will and not that of God and you can't remain steeped in sin and be aligned with Christ....you can't, that simple.
Here's how atheists respond to this: "That's the no true scotsman fallacy." No, it isn't LOL. This fallacy references the denial of others according to the behaviors of men and their subjectivity....it measures man according to standards of men. Christians measure other Christians according to God's standards.....the ultimate standard. We prescribe to the objectivity of God. We know what genuine belief entails and we measure and hold each other accountable according to a standard that transcends men. When you have the ultimate authority for guidance and someone fails to measure up to that standard we (as believers) can make that righteous judgment confidently.
Christians are no better morally than non Christians. Yet ask any person in any church on any given sunday to raise their hand if they believe they are Christian and every single hand will raise. That YOU decide they can't be Christian because it goes against what you THINK ought to be is silly. It's not my problem you Christians talk the talk but don't walk the walk..
-
Why would God who is the ultimate standard of righteousness, justice, grace, mercy and love be accountable to his creation? Because you say so? And?
If God were accountable he wouldn't be God. That which he would be accountable to would be God and and so forth and so on.....an infinite regression that doesn't work.
Your personal lack of humility has no bearing on God or any standard by which other men should be required to follow....it's subjective standards. Believers prescribe to the ultimate, objective standards of God.
What is worship? And tell me about your experience with worship and the love of God?
If your god is the ultimate standard of justice mercy and love, god help us all.. pun intended
-
Christians are no better morally than non Christians. Yet ask any person in any church on any given sunday to raise their hand if they believe they are Christian and every single hand will raise. That YOU decide they can't be Christian because it goes against what you THINK ought to be is silly. It's not my problem you Christians talk the talk but don't walk the walk..
Correct which is why we abide by God's objective, perfect standards as opposed to our own subjective, imperfect standards. We measure one another according to God.
-
Excuse me MOS, in your mind do you see God taking male form as a human being? Do you picture him with a muscular torso and long grey beard? Please don't think I am insulting you I am genuinely interested in what you think.
-
Excuse me MOS, in your mind do you see God taking male form as a human being? Do you picture him with a muscular torso and long grey beard? Please don't think I am insulting you I am genuinely interested in what you think.
It's a great question.
Jesus Christ is God incarnate and is a male...we know this from scripture. Given the region he lived and ministered in I would expect he'd look something like the following (maybe darker....but like those from the region and that which he descended in the Davidic line):
Isaiah 53:2
For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.
God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are both spirit form and are basically immaterial. We read of images of the God the Father as spirit and brilliant light.
-
It's a great question.
Jesus Christ is God incarnate and is a male...we know this from scripture. Given the region he lived and ministered in I would expect he'd look something like the following (maybe darker....but like those from the region and that which he descended in the Davidic line):
Isaiah 53:2
For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.
God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are both spirit form and are basically immaterial. We read of images of the God the Father as spirit and brilliant light.
Thank you. I appreciate the way you stand your ground here and always answer people's questions in a thorough manner.
-
Thank you. I appreciate the way you stand your ground here and always answer people's questions in a thorough manner.
I appreciate that. I don't always have good answers (or sometimes any answer), but I consider it a privilege to stand for Jesus Christ.
-
Not sure what you mean? You're welcome to clarify.
The presuppositional nonsense, guy. "Everyone knows" couldn't be more dishonest or insulting, especially when the opposite is more often true. Many believers are regularly filled with doubt, I certainly was. Enveloped in it, really. None at all now, not an iota.
Just doesn't mesh with your book is all.
-
What if...theres a being even more powerful than God that even God doesn't know about waiting in the wings to overthrow God when he or she or it is ready!
-
Why would God who is the ultimate standard of righteousness, justice, grace, mercy and love be accountable to his creation? Because you say so? And?
If God were accountable he wouldn't be God. That which he would be accountable to would be God and and so forth and so on.....an infinite regression that doesn't work.
Your personal lack of humility has no bearing on God or any standard by which other men should be required to follow....it's subjective standards. Believers prescribe to the ultimate, objective standards of God.
What is worship? And tell me about your experience with worship and the love of God?
So he is a dictator? great@! I love indebted servitude forced upon me in order to avoid eternal torture. That's love guys.
How do you know someone loves you? he forces you to obey him. A relationship goes both ways. He has conditions on his love, that's bullshit, that's not a relationship but slavery, by definition.
God has no ultimate objective standards, by whom's standard, the bible's LMAO. Objective means quantifiable, you have no idea what you are saying, there is no verifiable moral or godly standard, nothing, only in your mind which is subjective. If it was objective there would be no debate, like how gravity is objective, not subjective. Things fall whether I want them to or not, objective.
God has to be held accountable for his creation, how could he not? he created it? he created the bone cancer that killed the 6 year old I was with in the hospital, or is that sin passed down ::) You know who else punishes people for their fathers sins? North Korea... when the only comparable thing we can find to god is north korea something is wrong. If my father murders someone should I be put on trial for murder? this is the logic god uses, it's absurd and frankly sick.
God sounds like he gets to do whatever the fuck he wants, demand what he wants, can wipe everything out, can cause untold suffering and cannot be questioned, where do I sign up?
If anyone treated their child like god treats his supposed children they would have the kids removed instantly. He tells us we are born bad, born sick and ordered to get well, fuck that, why? sounds more like the devil to me.
-
Correct which is why we abide by God's objective, perfect standards as opposed to our own subjective, imperfect standards. We measure one another according to God.
You can't use words like perfect, objective if you don't know what they mean, you are making them meaningless. Perfect is without fault, I can find all sorts of fault and errors, it's not objective at all, you are confused.
-
why cant Jesus be better looking than that? Robert Powell in Jesus of Nazareth for instance.
-
Christians are no better morally than non Christians. Yet ask any person in any church on any given sunday to raise their hand if they believe they are Christian and every single hand will raise. That YOU decide they can't be Christian because it goes against what you THINK ought to be is silly. It's not my problem you Christians talk the talk but don't walk the walk..
I think the great misconception of Christians is that they are "better" or "superior" morally.
Christians are not born into their faith, it's an acceptance of God's ways and plans. Christianity is a lifestyle.
When you ask where do Christians come from, what is there background you'll see that they're very diverse. However the common denominator for most is that they were hurt, broken people, in one way or another. These backgrounds and experiences then all fall under the larger umbrella of Christianity. If you thought their were to many denominations think about each individual trying to adhere to a new lifestyle....
So when you have a large diverse group of people, many who don't initially know/agree, let alone practice them, with some of beliefs or morality standards, it's easy to understand why Christians are just as corrupt as the world.
The word Christian evokes many connotations. Even non Christians "know how real believers" should behave.
The truth is if most lived how they thought "Christians" should live the world would be a better place.
-
I was just meditating there and thinking about what is humility. What came to mind was a state of being that is completely non rigid due to an absence of clinging to concepts about anything whatsoever. A total trust in the unknown, an abiding faith beyond any particular belief, and that such a state is identical with enlightenment.
-
The presuppositional nonsense, guy. "Everyone knows" couldn't be more dishonest or insulting, especially when the opposite is more often true. Many believers are regularly filled with doubt, I certainly was. Enveloped in it, really. None at all now, not an iota.
Just doesn't mesh with your book is all.
Actually it's directly from scripture in Romans and Psalms (New and Old Testaments). All know God exists via his creation so that none are without excuse.
It's not my presupposition or opinion....scripture is the source.
-
why cant Jesus be better looking than that? Robert Powell in Jesus of Nazareth for instance.
Sucks, huh? Imagine spending eternity worshipping the same dude your mortal self shooed away with pocket change by the 7-11 dumpster.
-
So he is a dictator? great@! I love indebted servitude forced upon me in order to avoid eternal torture. That's love guys.
How do you know someone loves you? he forces you to obey him. A relationship goes both ways. He has conditions on his love, that's bullshit, that's not a relationship but slavery, by definition.
God has no ultimate objective standards, by whom's standard, the bible's LMAO. Objective means quantifiable, you have no idea what you are saying, there is no verifiable moral or godly standard, nothing, only in your mind which is subjective. If it was objective there would be no debate, like how gravity is objective, not subjective. Things fall whether I want them to or not, objective.
God has to be held accountable for his creation, how could he not? he created it? he created the bone cancer that killed the 6 year old I was with in the hospital, or is that sin passed down ::) You know who else punishes people for their fathers sins? North Korea... when the only comparable thing we can find to god is north korea something is wrong. If my father murders someone should I be put on trial for murder? this is the logic god uses, it's absurd and frankly sick.
God sounds like he gets to do whatever the fuck he wants, demand what he wants, can wipe everything out, can cause untold suffering and cannot be questioned, where do I sign up?
If anyone treated their child like god treats his supposed children they would have the kids removed instantly. He tells us we are born bad, born sick and ordered to get well, fuck that, why? sounds more like the devil to me.
Excellent points.
The bible talks about God as a king and His kingdom. So the structure would be that of a monarchy as opposed to a dictator. And again slavery is a theme throughout the bible, the idea that you're either a slave to God or a slave to satan, so you're correct with your assessment.
Again your points are spot on. However from the Christian perspective the sufferings, pains and troubles of this life are expected. The bible is a recording of sufferings, where God ultimately shows up as the hero, the christian world view is that we are passing through this life, we weren't meant to live here forever.
Again your points are well thought.
-
So he is a dictator? great@! I love indebted servitude forced upon me in order to avoid eternal torture. That's love guys.
How do you know someone loves you? he forces you to obey him. A relationship goes both ways. He has conditions on his love, that's bullshit, that's not a relationship but slavery, by definition.
God has no ultimate objective standards, by whom's standard, the bible's LMAO. Objective means quantifiable, you have no idea what you are saying, there is no verifiable moral or godly standard, nothing, only in your mind which is subjective. If it was objective there would be no debate, like how gravity is objective, not subjective. Things fall whether I want them to or not, objective.
God has to be held accountable for his creation, how could he not? he created it? he created the bone cancer that killed the 6 year old I was with in the hospital, or is that sin passed down ::) You know who else punishes people for their fathers sins? North Korea... when the only comparable thing we can find to god is north korea something is wrong. If my father murders someone should I be put on trial for murder? this is the logic god uses, it's absurd and frankly sick.
God sounds like he gets to do whatever the fuck he wants, demand what he wants, can wipe everything out, can cause untold suffering and cannot be questioned, where do I sign up?
If anyone treated their child like god treats his supposed children they would have the kids removed instantly. He tells us we are born bad, born sick and ordered to get well, fuck that, why? sounds more like the devil to me.
You didn't answer my questions. You asked 6 new questions.
-
Actually it's directly from scripture in Romans and Psalms (New and Old Testaments). All know God exists via his creation so that none are without excuse.
It's not my presupposition or opinion....scripture is the source.
Scriptural means it can't be presuppositional? Aren't you presupposing those words are true?
-
Scriptural means it can't be presuppositional? Aren't you presupposing those words are true?
They've been demonstrated to be true in the lives of believers hence our witness to nonbelievers.
-
They've been demonstrated to be true in the lives of believers hence our witness to nonbelievers.
Guess we gotta take their word for it, too. Lots of strangers' words we're trusting here, solid stuff.
-
Guess we gotta take their word for it, too. Lots of strangers' words we're trusting here, solid stuff.
Well Christ's disciples spread the gospel and did so under the constant threat of death and many were eventually beaten and killed brutally. Long way to go for a lie.
I share my faith and typically all I receive in return from folks is ridicule and mockery. Well, I do receive the blessings of my heavenly Father so it ain't all bad. ;)
But, it's why I share my faith so those that desire to know the Lord can do so and understand his divine revelation in their lives. I care about everyone on this board so I persist.
-
I think the great misconception of Christians is that they are "better" or "superior" morally.
Christians are not born into their faith, it's an acceptance of God's ways and plans. Christianity is a lifestyle.
When you ask where do Christians come from, what is there background you'll see that they're very diverse. However the common denominator for most is that they were hurt, broken people, in one way or another. These backgrounds and experiences then all fall under the larger umbrella of Christianity. If you thought their were to many denominations think about each individual trying to adhere to a new lifestyle....
So when you have a large diverse group of people, many who don't initially know/agree, let alone practice them, with some of beliefs or morality standards, it's easy to understand why Christians are just as corrupt as the world.
The word Christian evokes many connotations. Even non Christians "know how real believers" should behave.
The truth is if most lived how they thought "Christians" should live the world would be a better place.
But the allegation was, that non believers actually really believe, they just don't want to give up their sinful lives so they suppress the god belief. My point is.. no need....
-
But the allegation was, that non believers actually really believe, they just don't want to give up their sinful lives so they suppress the god belief. My point is.. no need....
However God haters choose to phrase or rephrase their situation is fine....it doesn't change the reality of scripture.
You're never going to state, "yep MOS, you're right". It's within your quiet personal moments of reflection that this truth will be acknowledged....certainl y still suppressed tooth and nail, but acknowledged nonetheless. Publically that will never be disclosed unless you have a change of heart....some do, most don't. Jesus Christ calls men to repentance. I'm here to spread the gospel as believers have been called.
-
Well Christ's disciples spread the gospel and did so under the constant threat of death and many were eventually beaten and killed brutally. Long way to go for a lie.
I share my faith and typically all I receive in return from folks is ridicule and mockery. Well, I do receive the blessings of my heavenly Father so it ain't all bad. ;)
But, it's why I share my faith so those that desire to know the Lord can do so and understand his divine revelation in their lives. I care about everyone on this board so I persist.
We don't know this, any of it. All stories, spoken/translated/retranslated/transcribed/retranscribed over years and years, like history's silliest telephone game. All in hopes that some unseen, omniscient editor kept everyone honest. All we really know is Constantine made our ancestors Christians, and here we are.
Btw, I'm criticizing your claims, not you. Same as you clowning our intelligence with this "everyone knows" business. No hard feelings.
-
But the allegation was, that non believers actually really believe, they just don't want to give up their sinful lives so they suppress the god belief. My point is.. no need....
Lol
Sorry bro I got caught up in your initial sentence, I could see why these conversations would be frustrating.
I get lost in a lot of the theology stuff .
My point was not everyone is at the same level, therefore not everyone can be held to the same standard. There's some black and white issues but more gray areas
My apologies.
-
I understand that, MOS. And i think it is important for you to realise that in real life, it’s not like we would be forming a bully-circle around you, shoving you back and forth whilst pinching bits of flab and chanting "Christian homo". I am quite sure that we would all get on and be civil; i have a few friends who are religious and i don’t go around challenging them or debating all the time. You need to understand that you aren't being persecuted because people hate the religious - you are being challenged because you specifically post on this topic all the time, and have stated that your aim is to convert those who are undecided/agnostic.
What i take issue with is the fundamentalist mindset that you have. In my opinion, it is irrational and poisonous. When we strip away all the Orwellian doublespeak, pseudoscience and word-salad, what we are left with are the views of a man who supports genocide, slavery, human-sacrifice, coercion and eternal hell for anyone unfortunate enough to be born into a different culture. You may not like the summary of your views that i posted in this thread - but they are accurate, and your posts are there to be viewed as evidence. When fundamentalists obfuscate in the manner that you do, it is normally due to them trying to delude others or to simply delude themselves. I believe it is the latter in this instance but given that you want others to come round to your way of thinking, i feel it is important to continually question the justifications you have for your beliefs, as they are easily picked apart under scrutiny. A quick study of history reveals what happened when your views had the power of consensus; For those of us fortunate enough to be born into Western society, we should be extremely grateful that they no longer do.
Trust me, I know there wouldn't be a bully circle around me LOL.
I can't convert anyone....not up to me. I'm here to share the gospel (as believers are called to do) and gives reasons for the hope within me so that others who haven't made a choice can make a more informed decision.
I do not support genocide, slavery, human-sacrifice, coercion and eternal hell for folks LOL, but I know you're content with your summarization so I'm not going to bother explaining and re-explaining what I already have. My words are clearly and repeatedly written and others can read them. Others don't agree with your synopsis....only the hardcores like Raymondo, SF, TA do. It's real simple, I say up y'all say down. I say left y'all say right. I say good y'all say bad. There's nothing of God or God's church you will accept......that's the way some folks are.
-
We don't know this, any of it. All stories, spoken/translated/retranslated/transcribed/retranscribed over years and years, like history's silliest telephone game. All in hopes that some unseen, omniscient editor kept everyone honest. All we really know is Constantine made our ancestors Christians, and here we are.
Btw, I'm criticizing your claims, not you. Same as you clowning our intelligence with this "everyone knows" business. No hard feelings.
Textual criticism of ancient documents and manuscripts is not the "telephone game". The textual critic examines multiple routes of manuscript development across centuries to determine the original wording. This isn't an oral communication of a singular route of communication transferred from one point to another and the end being a jumbled mess. That's the errant understanding of the field. Dan Wallace is one of today's preeminent textual critics and his books dedicate entire chapters to the "telephone game" claim that so many make.
Yes Constantine certainly helped pave the way for Christianity and the early organized church of Rome. After centuries of persecution Christians finally had a advocate in him. It was Constantine that was responsible for establishing the Council of Nicea so I would definitely agree he helped shape the predominance of Christianity in the West today. That wasn't the focus of Nicea though....to make people Christians. Constantine was primarily concerned about preserving the brief era of peace that was currently being observed.
I'm not making any claims about anyone's intelligence. Y'all are all smart people....never called into question by me. I'm reiterating scripture.
-
"Trust me, I know there wouldn't be a bully circle around me LOL"
We could definatley get you in a bully-circle. I've seen grown men crumble in them. You'd fatigue quickly and end up praying for for God to remove your Worldly existence!
You said you wouldn't put me in a bully circle and come after me and I agreed that y'all wouldn't do something like that.
Now you would?
What's all the tough guy stuff? ???
-
Lol, chill out MOS...I'm quite clearly joking.
Ok, my bad...thought was odd LOL. ;D
fyi.....y'all sound absolutely terrifying.
-
Interesting for me that two obviously highly intelligent guys like MOS and Captain Freedom could have such a difference of opinion. Still, it makes for lively debate and excellent reading here on Getbig.
-
"Trust me, I know there wouldn't be a bully circle around me LOL"
We could definatley get you in a bully-circle. I've seen grown men crumble in them. You'd fatigue quickly and end up praying for for God to remove your Worldly existence!
Hahaha haha
;D
-
Excellent points.
The bible talks about God as a king and His kingdom. So the structure would be that of a monarchy as opposed to a dictator. And again slavery is a theme throughout the bible, the idea that you're either a slave to God or a slave to satan, so you're correct with your assessment.
Again your points are spot on. However from the Christian perspective the sufferings, pains and troubles of this life are expected. The bible is a recording of sufferings, where God ultimately shows up as the hero, the christian world view is that we are passing through this life, we weren't meant to live here forever.
Again your points are well thought.
your like the getbig whisperer, where is the hate brah?
If this life is but a finite blip in eternity, what does it matter? Eternity eliminates purpose, being punished for finite things which ultimately have no real consequence (this is eternity) is twisted.
I think suggesting a hypercomplex entity that existed before anything as a way to explain the complexity we see is logically void. If complexity begets explanation, surely an even more complex thing then the universe, GOD, requires one? It would make sense that thinking about god ultimately ends in illogical fallacies and paradoxical situations, in makes sense that it makes no sense, so telling others anything you think you know about such a thing is absurd, such a person is not to be trusted, they have left reality.
-
Exodus 34King James Version (KJV)
34 And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.
2 And be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me in the top of the mount.
3 And no man shall come up with thee, neither let any man be seen throughout all the mount; neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount.
4 And he hewed two tables of stone like unto the first; and Moses rose up early in the morning, and went up unto mount Sinai, as the Lord had commanded him, and took in his hand the two tables of stone.
5 And the Lord descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord.
6 And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
8 And Moses made haste, and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshipped.
9 And he said, If now I have found grace in thy sight, O Lord, let my Lord, I pray thee, go among us; for it is a stiffnecked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for thine inheritance.
10 And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the Lord: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.
11 Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.
12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:
13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:
14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;
16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
18 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
19 All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.
20 But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
23 Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel.
24 For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the Lord thy God thrice in the year.
25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
26 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
27 And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
28 And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
You understand that by highlighting the last verse it further serves my explanation.
As with all scripture it is inspired by God. Man is the agent of God by which scripture is written, but ultimately the words penned are those of God.
In this case we have two separate writings, but yet all of God and still one and the same. The rewriting of the original commandments and the covenant decree and stipulations. Like the divine nature of God and his expression of that nature in Father, Son and Spirit we have 3 persons differently purposed yet all coequal and coeternal and all one God.
We see some commandments mentioned in the discussion of the covenant, but that's why I asked if buildings are constructed "top down" or "bottom up"? They're built from the bottom up because the foundation is required and upon that foundation everything is constructed. The commandments are the foundational, moral code and upon them other decrees are derived and established. Even within the 10 commandments itself exists a foundation of "loving God" and "loving one another". All of God's objective moral values rest confidently upon this firm foundation, but even more foundational than "loving God" and "loving one another" is the basest of principles upon which everything is established and that's Jesus Christ.
-
Do you believe any scripture outside of Judaism and Christianity is inspired by God?
-
Do you believe any scripture outside of Judaism and Christianity is inspired by God?
No I do not.
-
Very narrow world-view.
Are the Jewish saved then as they have inspired scripture, even if they reject Christ?
-
Very narrow world-view.
Are the Jewish saved then as they have inspired scripture, even if they reject Christ?
All scripture both new and old testament points to Jesus Christ.
There are jewish folks that belief in Christ and are saved.
Why narrow world view? There's only one God and one inspired word and that's Jesus Christ.....the logos.
Men have penned some beautiful works and ideas of peace, but there's only one inspired word.
-
All scripture both new and old testament points to Jesus Christ.
There are jewish folks that belief in Christ and are saved.
Why narrow world view? There's only one God and one inspired word and that's Jesus Christ.....the logos.
Men have penned some beautiful works and ideas of peace, but there's only one inspired word.
Really that is a stretch to say all of Judaism and the Old Testament points to Jesus Christ. The majority of Jews reject Jesus. I have seen people interviewed on the streets of Israel and most make a clear distinction between Judaism and Christianity, and most reject Jesus as the Messiah.
If there is only one God then he is infinite and manifest as the whole universe otherwise he would not be God, he is not holed up within the pages of one holy book like a Genie.
Peace.
-
Really that is a stretch to say all of Judaism and the Old Testament points to Jesus Christ. The majority of Jews reject Jesus. I have seen people interviewed on the streets of Israel and most make a clear distinction between Judaism and Christianity, and most reject Jesus as the Messiah.
If there is only one God then he is infinite and manifest as the whole universe otherwise he would not be God, he is not holed up within the pages of one holy book like a Genie.
Peace.
Not a stretch at all. The OT and NT point to the Messiah. The Jews envisioned a mighty, conquering king on a white horse and carrying a sword leading an army to destroy their enemies. Instead arrived Jesus Christ. A man with humble beginnings, nothing in his pockets and desire to teach, relay prophecy, perform miracles and die brutally at the hands of the Romans coaxed by the Sanhedrin.
The majority of the world rejects Jesus Christ...the jews are just a portion of that. I've seen jews, muslims, hindus, unitarians, scientologists, atheists and even some "Christians" reject Jesus Christ.
Exactly he's evident through all of his creation, through his body of believers, through the pages of history and through scripture.
-
Not a stretch at all. The OT and NT point to the Messiah. The Jews envisioned a mighty, conquering king on a white horse and carrying a sword leading an army to destroy their enemies. Instead arrived Jesus Christ. A man with humble beginnings, nothing in his pockets and desire to teach, relay prophecy, perform miracles and die brutally at the hands of the Romans coaxed by the Sanhedrin.
The majority of the world rejects Jesus Christ...the jews are just a portion of that. I've seen jews, muslims, hindus, unitarians, scientologists, atheists and even some "Christians" reject Jesus Christ.
Exactly he's evident through all of his creation, through his body of believers, through the pages of history and through scripture.
Of course the new testament points to the Messiah. As far as I know only a few passages of Jewish scripture talks about the Messiah, certainly not all of the Old Testament...and when he came they rejected him for the most part and still do today as they feel there religion is complete in and of itself and has no need to be redeemed by Jesus. The Messiah for them will always be in the future. Moses and his Torah are enough for them, plus the Talmud.
A Hindu perspective would be that Jesus was an enlightened being come to lift people out of bondage in to the light of their own awakening, but they would reject the idea that he is the one and only ticket to salvation for all beings of the whole universe for all time. I would tend to agree with that view. Are aliens from other planets going to go to hell because they are not saved by Jesus. I remember a Vatican priest mentioning that if Aliens came to earth he would be glad to baptise them, how ridiculous is that.
-
Of course the new testament points to the Messiah. As far as I know only a few passages of Jewish scripture talks about the Messiah, certainly not all of the Old Testament...and when he came they rejected him for the most part and still do today as they feel there religion is complete in and of itself and has no need to be redeemed by Jesus. The Messiah for them will always be in the future. Moses and his Torah are enough for them, plus the Talmud.
A Hindu perspective would be that Jesus was an enlightened being come to lift people out of bondage in to the light of their own awakening, but they would reject the idea that he is the one and only ticket to salvation for all beings of the whole universe for all time. I would tend to agree with that view. Are aliens from other planets going to go to hell because they are not saved by Jesus. I remember a Vatican priest mentioning that if Aliens came to earth he would be glad to baptise them, how ridiculous is that.
It is in keeping with the utter stupidity of christ-i-insanity and the paedo catholic church.
-
Like in the sky or on tv or anything? Like to say do this and don't do that, im happy with this, im not happy with that.
He doesn't.
Because hes not real.
Now grow up.
Weird that something so obviously made up has entranced the whole Middle 50% of backward America into thinking he's real enough to bother hating on other religions who believe in different made up Gods. What a world we live in.
-
Weird that something so obviously made up has entranced the whole Middle 50% of backward America into thinking he's real enough to bother hating on other religions who believe in different made up Gods. What a world we live in.
Fortunately you've got it all figured out so you can guide the rest of us.
-
Of course the new testament points to the Messiah. As far as I know only a few passages of Jewish scripture talks about the Messiah, certainly not all of the Old Testament...and when he came they rejected him for the most part and still do today as they feel there religion is complete in and of itself and has no need to be redeemed by Jesus. The Messiah for them will always be in the future. Moses and his Torah are enough for them, plus the Talmud.
A Hindu perspective would be that Jesus was an enlightened being come to lift people out of bondage in to the light of their own awakening, but they would reject the idea that he is the one and only ticket to salvation for all beings of the whole universe for all time. I would tend to agree with that view. Are aliens from other planets going to go to hell because they are not saved by Jesus. I remember a Vatican priest mentioning that if Aliens came to earth he would be glad to baptise them, how ridiculous is that.
http://adriandvir.tripod.com/indexgod.htm (http://adriandvir.tripod.com/indexgod.htm)
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vida_alien/vidaalien_alienmind34.htm (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vida_alien/vidaalien_alienmind34.htm)
http://io9.com/5921472/would-people-still-believe-in-god-after-we-made-contact-with-aliens (http://io9.com/5921472/would-people-still-believe-in-god-after-we-made-contact-with-aliens)
https://www.alien-ufos.com/showthread.php?t=26429 (https://www.alien-ufos.com/showthread.php?t=26429)
http://www.alienresistance.org/ufo-alien-deception/deceptive-extraterrestrial-messages/ (http://www.alienresistance.org/ufo-alien-deception/deceptive-extraterrestrial-messages/)
-
Fortunately you've got it all figured out so you can guide the rest of us.
Lol pot meet kettle. It's sort of ironic for you to say that, considering you act the same exact way, i.e., I have it all figured out, God is 100% real, let me all guide you toward Christ.
You're the same exact way, except with religion.
-
Correct which is why we abide by God's objective, perfect standards as opposed to our own subjective, imperfect standards. We measure one another according to God.
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.
I appreciate that. I don't always have good answers (or sometimes any answer), but I consider it a privilege to stand for Jesus Christ.
-
mos seems to be having some kind of breakdown
hes one step away from shouting on the streets about fire and brimstone
not very christian to say that only people that believe will be saved
bit harsh
-
mos seems to be having some kind of breakdown
hes one step away from shouting on the streets about fire and brimstone
not very christian to say that only people that believe will be saved
bit harsh
That is actually Christian love disguised as hate. You see, MOS and God love you so much, that they are threatening you with a lifetime of torture in Hell, all because they love you. They love you so much, that they want to threaten and frighten you with torture.
Its really a confusing mess.
;D ;D ;D ;D
(http://41.media.tumblr.com/2ba6aa150cb90df3c608e4ab6ce4d41e/tumblr_npofpcFK151u6vcqq_og_1280.png)
-
mos seems to be having some kind of breakdown
hes one step away from shouting on the streets about fire and brimstone
not very christian to say that only people that believe will be saved
bit harsh
Yep between mid-2010 and this post I'm gonna breakdown.....at any moment LOL.
"not very christian to say that only people that believe will be saved"......that's one of the most loving things someone can tell another. To warn folks of impending danger and be ridiculed for it and yet continue to warn them out of love despite replies of hate and mocking laughter.
But to not speak would be terrible. Like knowing there's a fire on the first floor of a building and having the ability to warn others on the floors above and have the knowledge to help get them out before the building collapes and the fire consumes them. To say nothing would be evil and twisted....to just let folks die when there's a way out.
-
However God haters choose to phrase or rephrase their situation is fine....it doesn't change the reality of scripture.
You're never going to state, "yep MOS, you're right". It's within your quiet personal moments of reflection that this truth will be acknowledged....certainl y still suppressed tooth and nail, but acknowledged nonetheless. Publically that will never be disclosed unless you have a change of heart....some do, most don't. Jesus Christ calls men to repentance. I'm here to spread the gospel as believers have been called.
Do you call adults "Santa Haters".. just wondering
-
Yep between mid-2010 and this post I'm gonna breakdown.....at any moment LOL.
"not very christian to say that only people that believe will be saved"......that's one of the most loving things someone can tell another. To warn folks of impending danger and be ridiculed for it and yet continue to warn them out of love despite replies of hate and mocking laughter.
But to not speak would be terrible. Like knowing there's a fire on the first floor of a building and having the ability to warn others on the floors above and have the knowledge to help get them out before the building collapes and the fire consumes them. To say nothing would be evil and twisted....to just let folks die when there's a way out.
If someone has never heard of Jesus Christ do they escape hell? If so then the compassion of missionaries bringing Jesus to the four corners of the earth is really something...
-
Do you call adults "Santa Haters".. just wondering
What's wrong with the term "God Hater"?
Is it universally applied? Of course not. If you simply have no belief in God and leave it at that I wouldn't apply it to that person.
Although, that's not the behavior of most atheists (hard or soft). Most are highly entertained with the ridicule and mockery of God lovers, yet when called out on it the tune changes.
Why is when atheists are called out on their mockery and ridicule they suddenly become pious protectors of all knowledge and the common good?
I love the comparison between Santa and God; although, you could swap Santa for the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Great Pumpkin, etc... The simple logic being both are make believe and since believers don't believe in Santa then they must be "Santa Haters"!!
After all that's all atheists are - those that have no belief in God or gods and you can't hate what doesn't exist.
Yet believers don't spend hour after hour, thread after thread, year after year arguing about Santa Claus or insulting folks that do believe.
Just own the title because it's exactly what the vast majority of atheists represent and demonstrate over and over and over.
[/youtube]
There is a SMALL percentage of atheists that genuinely don't hate God, don't hate Christians and simply have no belief. I know one personally. I've listened to a couple of them speak. They are out there, but they are an extreme minority.
If someone says "I don't hate God, I hate the church" or "I don't hate God, I hate Christians" or "I don't hate God, I hate Jesus Christ" or "I don't hate God, I hate religion" or "I don't hate God, I just hate you MOS".....it's all one and the same in hatred. Christ himself said the world hates you because they hated him first. And it goes both ways, if you hate those that represent Christ then you hate Christ because we are an extension of him.
John 15:18-25
18 “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He who hates Me hates My Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well. 25 But they have done this to fulfill the word that is written in their Law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’
-
If someone has never heard of Jesus Christ do they escape hell? If so then the compassion of missionaries bringing Jesus to the four corners of the earth is really something...
This is a big question. First, I must offer that scripture is not completely clear on this issue in that it is not laid out in one book, chapter or passage of scripture.
Further, this question often focuses directly or indirectly on 5 categories of people:
- those of the old testament that came before Christ
- those in general that have never heard the gospel of Christ
- those born into cultures with non-Christian religions/faiths
- children and babies
- mentally handicapped individuals
The first category concerns those folks of OT that never new Christ. If Christ is the “way, truth and life” and only through him is salvation attained how can OT believers in God attain salvation? As it states in scripture, Abraham believed in God and to him was credited righteousness…..it was Abraham’s faith that was key despite Mosaic law not yet being given to man. The Israelites given Mosaic law atoned for their sins and were aligned with God via the sacrifice of the prime specimens of their herds and flocks. The blood atonement acted as a temporary covering for sin until Christ came and provided the ultimate sacrifice on calvary’s cross that paid the debt for all sins past, present and future.
The second and third category concerns those in general that have never heard the gospel of Christ and those born into cultures raised in non-Christian religions/faiths . Here we look to the primary traits of God in love, grace, justice and mercy. This is not an exhaustive list of God’s traits, but those most often associated with him. It’s within God’s justice that we find the word “just”. God’s justice is grounded in him being just in that he will always do what is good and correct. It was the apostle Paul that said all people instinctively know of God’s existence through his creation and that people that don’t know God instinctively know his law as their consciences and thoughts accuse them of wrong doing or tell them they are doing right. Given that God is a just God he will judge those persons that have never heard the gospel according to what has been revealed to them and according to how righteously they lived. In this instance I must trust in the righteous justice of God since he has revealed he has already revealed his love, grace and mercy to me.
The fourth and fifth categories concern children and the mentally handicapped. I group them together given their inherent innocence. 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.
I should note that this is why outreach and missionary work is so crucial in today's churches. What's the point of believing in Christ if believers sit idle and not share his good news?
Again, this isn’t an exhaustive reply, but here it is for what it’s worth.
-
This is a big question. First, I must offer that scripture is not completely clear on this issue in that it is not laid out in one book, chapter or passage of scripture.
Further, this question often focuses directly or indirectly on 5 categories of people:
- those of the old testament that came before Christ
- those in general that have never heard the gospel of Christ
- those born into cultures with non-Christian religions/faiths
- children and babies
- mentally handicapped individuals
The first category concerns those folks of OT that never new Christ. If Christ is the “way, truth and life” and only through him is salvation attained how can OT believers in God attain salvation? As it states in scripture, Abraham believed in God and to him was credited righteousness…..it was Abraham’s faith that was key despite Mosaic law not yet being given to man. The Israelites given Mosaic law atoned for their sins and were aligned with God via the sacrifice of the prime specimens of their herds and flocks. The blood atonement acted as a temporary covering for sin until Christ came and provided the ultimate sacrifice on calvary’s cross that paid the debt for all sins past, present and future.
The second and third category concerns those in general that have never heard the gospel of Christ and those born into cultures raised in non-Christian religions/faiths . Here we look to the primary traits of God in love, grace, justice and mercy. This is not an exhaustive list of God’s traits, but those most often associated with him. It’s within God’s justice that we find the word “just”. God’s justice is grounded in him being just in that he will always do what is good and correct. It was the apostle Paul that said all people instinctively know of God’s existence through his creation and that people that don’t know God instinctively know his law as their consciences and thoughts accuse them of wrong doing or tell them they are doing right. Given that God is a just God he will judge those persons that have never heard the gospel according to what has been revealed to them and according to how righteously they lived. In this instance I must trust in the righteous justice of God since he has revealed he has already revealed his love, grace and mercy to me.
The fourth and fifth categories concern children and the mentally handicapped. I group them together given their inherent innocence. 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.
I should note that this is why outreach and missionary work is so crucial in today's churches. What's the point of believing in Christ if believers sit idle and not share his good news?
Again, this isn’t an exhaustive reply, but here it is for what it’s worth.
Dude, humans ahve been here for at least 100k years, At the very least, god sits, for 98k years, as death, rape, most animals go extinct he watches, does nothing, then he says after a while, you know what this is no good, let me send myself as a sacrifice to myself to clean this up.
all those people born before christ came, are dead, neandethals? are they in heaven?
-
Dude, humans ahve been here for at least 100k years, At the very least, god sits, for 98k years, as death, rape, most animals go extinct he watches, does nothing, then he says after a while, you know what this is no good, let me send myself as a sacrifice to myself to clean this up.
all those people born before christ came, are dead, neandethals? are they in heaven?
Are you critical of God because he made us good stewards of this earth and allowed folks to make free choices including the ability to engage in their sin?
Or are you critical when he passes judgment upon folks that came into the fullness of their sin?
Which is it "too little" or "too much" of God?
The neanderthal "man" is not a human man (being) and therefore not created in the image of God and not subject to the his laws. There are some animals that "soulish" or part of the "nephesh" animals as stated in the Hebrew, but not subject to transgressions of sin because the concept is beyond their comprehension...they are outside that scope.
-
This is a big question. First, I must offer that scripture is not completely clear on this issue in that it is not laid out in one book, chapter or passage of scripture.
Further, this question often focuses directly or indirectly on 5 categories of people:
- those of the old testament that came before Christ
- those in general that have never heard the gospel of Christ
- those born into cultures with non-Christian religions/faiths
- children and babies
- mentally handicapped individuals
The first category concerns those folks of OT that never new Christ. If Christ is the “way, truth and life” and only through him is salvation attained how can OT believers in God attain salvation? As it states in scripture, Abraham believed in God and to him was credited righteousness…..it was Abraham’s faith that was key despite Mosaic law not yet being given to man. The Israelites given Mosaic law atoned for their sins and were aligned with God via the sacrifice of the prime specimens of their herds and flocks. The blood atonement acted as a temporary covering for sin until Christ came and provided the ultimate sacrifice on calvary’s cross that paid the debt for all sins past, present and future.
The second and third category concerns those in general that have never heard the gospel of Christ and those born into cultures raised in non-Christian religions/faiths . Here we look to the primary traits of God in love, grace, justice and mercy. This is not an exhaustive list of God’s traits, but those most often associated with him. It’s within God’s justice that we find the word “just”. God’s justice is grounded in him being just in that he will always do what is good and correct. It was the apostle Paul that said all people instinctively know of God’s existence through his creation and that people that don’t know God instinctively know his law as their consciences and thoughts accuse them of wrong doing or tell them they are doing right. Given that God is a just God he will judge those persons that have never heard the gospel according to what has been revealed to them and according to how righteously they lived. In this instance I must trust in the righteous justice of God since he has revealed he has already revealed his love, grace and mercy to me.
The fourth and fifth categories concern children and the mentally handicapped. I group them together given their inherent innocence. 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.
I should note that this is why outreach and missionary work is so crucial in today's churches. What's the point of believing in Christ if believers sit idle and not share his good news?
Again, this isn’t an exhaustive reply, but here it is for what it’s worth.
So if they live good lives in tune with the God that permeates all creation, then they can escape hell, so what need is there to bring the "good news" to them then?
-
Are you critical of God because he made us good stewards of this earth and allowed folks to make free choices including the ability to engage in their sin?
Or are you critical when he passes judgment upon folks that came into the fullness of their sin?
Which is it "too little" or "too much" of God?
The neanderthal "man" is not a human man (being) and therefore not created in the image of God and not subject to the his laws. There are some animals that "soulish" or part of the "nephesh" animals as stated in the Hebrew, but not subject to transgressions of sin because the concept is beyond their comprehension...they are outside that scope.
Homosapiens have been around for 200,000 years or so.
-
Defending the arsonist would be evil and twisted. Telling those he sent into the building that the only way out is to acquiesce to his demands or perish in the flames that he fanned for them, would be evil and twisted. To deny that this is what you are doing would be a willing immolation of your own integrity.
As I've stated repeatedly the God Hater trades evil for good and good for evil.....it's a backwards approach and a denial of accountability.
God didn't force anyone to break his laws. They did that all on their own. God only gives a way to be freed from sin and forgiven for our transgressions. But you contort that to you own end and present God as a sadist twisting his greasy moustache while cackling and saying "Do this or burn MUAH HAH HAH!!! I WANT YOU TO BURN!!!"
When the exact opposite is presented in scripture and by believers. But, traveling right back to square one, folks hate sin and do not want to be held accountable for it. So they eliminate sin from the equation and replace their own sin with "God's demands" and capricious demands at that.
God is fire insurance, the fire department, the NYFD.
-
So if they live good lives in tune with the God that permeates all creation, then they can escape hell, so what need is there to bring the "good news" to them then?
This is a point that gets murky because essentially I'm being asked to play the role of God as it pertains to his divine judgment and I simply can't do that.
Although, based upon what you said I would agree with it, but spreading the good news would be for the neighbor that has not heard of Christ either and lived in the opposite manner.....best way I can put it.
-
Yep between mid-2010 and this post I'm gonna breakdown.....at any moment LOL.
"not very christian to say that only people that believe will be saved"......that's one of the most loving things someone can tell another. To warn folks of impending danger and be ridiculed for it and yet continue to warn them out of love despite replies of hate and mocking laughter.
But to not speak would be terrible. Like knowing there's a fire on the first floor of a building and having the ability to warn others on the floors above and have the knowledge to help get them out before the building collapes and the fire consumes them. To say nothing would be evil and twisted....to just let folks die when there's a way out.
if jesus has no capacity for sin or evil
then surely the evil deed of sending humans to hell for eternity
is something that would be abhorrent to him
the ultimate act of evil
perpetuated by the ultimate agent of good
if you cant see the idiocy of that concept then you are blind
-
In your analogy, the building is burning and those inside are oblivious to the impeding inferno. The denial of accountability comes when you refuse to acknowledge who started the fire and why. It is you doing the contorting by suggesting that god didn't force anyone to break his laws - yet he wrote the laws and set the penalty for disobeying them. You claim you wish to spare them this punishment, but hold them accountable for breaking the laws that they had no awareness of, rather than condemn the one who built the bonfire. You are a masochist defending a sadist.
As for the second part of your post, It makes no sense. People cannot hate sin if they are, as you say, unaware of it; not only can't they hate it, but they cannot "replace it with god’s demands" either, as it is god’s demands, or "laws", as you put it, which created the sin in the first place. We have already engaged in a parsing of scripture earlier in this thread, so for you to say that the exact opposite of God's sadism is present there, is testament to the dark depths of your delusion. You have already defended his right to wipe out unbelievers, to sacrifice animals and to kill children:
"God takes kids lives for many reasons which are both righteous and just. I couldn't begin to understand them all."
And given that you stated that God held the Israelites to a higher standard than everyone else, and ordered them to kill each other if they didn't meet those standards - until Jesus came along to change that, then i would say that "capricious" would be the most accurate definition of his demands.
And this is exactly how religion poisons ones mind. MOS is totally okay with the death of children.
Again, if people reading this thread cannot see how religion has polluted his mind, then you are as blind as he is.
Yes, it is righteous and just to make a kid suffer with cancer for 2 years before dying. If a child is tortured and murdered, MOS is okay with this because its Gods will. Its righteous and just.
I swear, how can anyone not see that religion is not a morally just system. Geez, it pollutes your mind.
-
In your analogy, the building is burning and those inside are oblivious to the impeding inferno. The denial of accountability comes when you refuse to acknowledge who started the fire and why. It is you doing the contorting by suggesting that god didn't force anyone to break his laws - yet he wrote the laws and set the penalty for disobeying them. You claim you wish to spare them this punishment, but hold them accountable for breaking the laws that they had no awareness of, rather than condemn the one who built the bonfire. You are a masochist defending a sadist.
As for the second part of your post, It makes no sense. People cannot hate sin if they are, as you say, unaware of it; not only can't they hate it, but they cannot "replace it with god’s demands" either, as it is god’s demands, or "laws", as you put it, which created the sin in the first place. We have already engaged in a parsing of scripture earlier in this thread, so for you to say that the exact opposite of God's sadism is present there, is testament to the dark depths of your delusion. You have already defended his right to wipe out unbelievers, to sacrifice animals and to kill children:
"God takes kids lives for many reasons which are both righteous and just. I couldn't begin to understand them all."
And given that you stated that God held the Israelites to a higher standard than everyone else, and ordered them to kill each other if they didn't meet those standards - until Jesus came along to change that, then i would say that "capricious" would be the most accurate definition of his demands.
When I first read your reply I was admittedly confused by it, but I then I understood how you could draw out of it what you did.
My burning building example wasn't an analogy or metaphor for something else. The building doesn't represent "x" and God doesn't represent "y" and the fire doesn't represent "z". It was just an example of something bad happening to someone and someone else with the ability to help standing by and doing nothing but letting it happen and how terrible that is. You've read a lot more into the example that simply wasn't intended, but I understand your interpretation. I don't know who started the fire. I don't know if anyone started the fire. I don't know why the fire started. There was just a fire. You could change the example to a tornado or financial disaster or a freak billiards accident.
Now again, God didn't force you or anyone to break his laws. People made choices...that simple. And God's moral law is written upon everyone's hearts....they already know it and act upon it whether they suppress God as the source or not.
Romans 2:14-15
14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them
No, I defend his passing judgment upon the evil and reprobate.
Why do you casually ignore the evil of these folks? Why do you defend/ignore their evil?
Well, the answer is easy. If you ignore their evil acts it it makes your argument stick a bit better. The way you portray the situation is completely flawed and deceptive. God didn't randomly eliminate a bunch of sweet old grandparents working their flower gardens and dancing with their grandchildren. No, he passed judgment upon the reprobate and fully evil. Generation after generation of folks lead by the former evil generation into partaking in despicable acts separating them from God. God comes in and eliminates the evil pagan folks and takes their small children with him to his heaven so that they can exist with him and be free from the twisted evil of their parents, grandparents, great grandparents, etc....and not be left alone to fend for themselves. He showed them grace, mercy and love.
But here's the rub, you acknowledge God passing judgment (but only in the form of outright murder with no cause), but ignore the abhorrent evil of the folks judgment was passed upon and then deny any afterlife with God for the children he took to be with him. You focus on God's actions (which you portray as murder with no cause) and the finality of death with no afterlife...it's smoke and mirrors.
You both understand and don't understand at the same time. God's laws for the Israelites were designed so that they would be his holy and righteous representatives and these laws were in place for centuries, but you can call that "capricious" if you want.....you'll define it however best makes your argument so it really doesn't matter (and SF will be right there with his pom poms to cheer you on).
-
You can't hide behind god brah, you are claiming that you have the answers to all, where we came from, whywe are here, what happens when you die, you have all the answers!!
-
You can't hide behind god brah, you are claiming that you have the answers to all, where we came from, whywe are here, what happens when you die, you have all the answers!!
No, I don't have all the answers and I'm clearly not hiding behind God....I'm waaaaay out in the open. God is simply the source I trust in...and this confidence in God infuriates some. I make ZERO apologies.
And yes I do know where we came from and why we are here, but I don't know exactly what happens when we die....I just know where we end up. But here's the thing....you know too so chin up!
-
In your analogy, the building is burning and those inside are oblivious to the impeding inferno. The denial of accountability comes when you refuse to acknowledge who started the fire and why. It is you doing the contorting by suggesting that god didn't force anyone to break his laws - yet he wrote the laws and set the penalty for disobeying them. You claim you wish to spare them this punishment, but hold them accountable for breaking the laws that they had no awareness of, rather than condemn the one who built the bonfire. You are a masochist defending a sadist.
We have a winner, god creates us sick and forces us to be well under threat of eternal torture, it's obviously fake, obviously man made and obviously for control
As for the second part of your post, It makes no sense. People cannot hate sin if they are, as you say, unaware of it; not only can't they hate it, but they cannot "replace it with god’s demands" either, as it is god’s demands, or "laws", as you put it, which created the sin in the first place. We have already engaged in a parsing of scripture earlier in this thread, so for you to say that the exact opposite of God's sadism is present there, is testament to the dark depths of your delusion. You have already defended his right to wipe out unbelievers, to sacrifice animals and to kill children:
"God takes kids lives for many reasons which are both righteous and just. I couldn't begin to understand them all."
And given that you stated that God held the Israelites to a higher standard than everyone else, and ordered them to kill each other if they didn't meet those standards - until Jesus came along to change that, then i would say that "capricious" would be the most accurate definition of his demands.
Human sacrifice was the only way to get through to people, he sent himself to absolve those of sins they committed based on the rules he set up knowing the future? WTF. it's OBVIOUSLY a lie, anyone who can't see how it's clear as day bullshit are delusional. How could anyone believe in such preposterous ideas?
God wants to change things and completely fucks the message up, unsure of how to reach everyone, he kills himself, not quite himself, not obviously himself ::) another brilliant move.
The only thing better was if he put made our genitals both a waste processing plant and reproductive organ! that makes perfect fucking sense!
-
No, I don't have all the answers and I'm clearly not hiding behind God....I'm waaaaay out in the open. God is simply the source I trust in...and this confidence in God infuriates some. I make ZERO apologies.
And yes I do know where we came from and why we are here, but I don't know exactly what happens when we die....I just know where we end up. But here's the thing....you know too so chin up!
You know the answers to the biggest questions of humanity, why we are here, where we came form and where we end up. You don't know these things, you HOPE they are true, if you knew, you could easily convert people, demonstrate things and otherwise know things others do not. Since you are a human, same as me, I KNOW you do not know these things, I am weary of people who claim it so.
It doesn't infuriate me, perhaps some, I honestly could care less, it's a lie, my only concern is trying to save you from wasting your one life, I know it feels good but it can't be true, if the bible is, I am afraid we are already in hell.
-
You know the answers to the biggest questions of humanity, why we are here, where we came form and where we end up. You don't know these things, you HOPE they are true, if you knew, you could easily convert people, demonstrate things and otherwise know things others do not. Since you are a human, same as me, I KNOW you do not know these things, I am weary of people who claim it so.
It doesn't infuriate me, perhaps some, I honestly could care less, it's a lie, my only concern is trying to save you from wasting your one life, I know it feels good but it can't be true, if the bible is, I am afraid we are already in hell.
www.biblegateway.com (http://www.biblegateway.com)
Read it and do what Christ says...simple.
Then you'll know too!!
-
Human sacrifice was the only way to get through to people, he sent himself to absolve those of sins they committed based on the rules he set up knowing the future? WTF. it's OBVIOUSLY a lie, anyone who can't see how it's clear as day bullshit are delusional. How could anyone believe in such preposterous ideas?
God wants to change things and completely fucks the message up, unsure of how to reach everyone, he kills himself, not quite himself, not obviously himself ::) another brilliant move.
The only thing better was if he put made our genitals both a waste processing plant and reproductive organ! that makes perfect fucking sense!
Completely incorrect.
-
if jesus has no capacity for sin or evil
then surely the evil deed of sending humans to hell for eternity
is something that would be abhorrent to him
the ultimate act of evil
perpetuated by the ultimate agent of good
if you cant see the idiocy of that concept then you are blind
answer this please mos
its the ultimate contradiction for your whole belief set
-
answer this please mos
its the ultimate contradiction for your whole belief set
if jesus has no capacity for sin or evil
then surely the evil deed of sending humans to hell for eternity
is something that would be abhorrent to him
the ultimate act of evil
perpetuated by the ultimate agent of good
if you cant see the idiocy of that concept then you are blind
Sure thing.
Jesus does not sin. He is without sin. Correct.
Hell serves two distinct purposes. It gives folks that reject and hate God an existence in which all of his divine attributes are removed. If yon't want any part of God then you don't get God. The second purpose served is justice for offenses committed against a righteous, eternal God. The two purposes go hand in hand. While on one hand you get exactly what you want in "no God" and on the other you'll also exist in the punishing reality of eternity in an existence without God and his attributes.
Right now you're typing on your computer, you're breathing easily, you've probably eaten food you enjoy, the sun is shining or maybe a big beautiful thunderstorm happened (like it did here), might be planning on enjoying fun times with friends or just the opportunity to awaken again and go work hard and earn a living. Maybe it just rained and there's that great smell after everything is washed clean and it's crisp and nice outside. Maybe you just enjoyed a really good fart and then a donut. Either way, every bit of that goodness you enjoy right now is a result of the goodness of God. When you reject God you're rejecting all that he is and he will extract from your eternity all of it because you chose to reject and defy him.
What's abhorrent to God is sin. When we break his law we engage in evil. Jesus Christ is the ultimate example of goodness and he existed without sin. He raises us up so that we may enter into goodness and righteousness with him.
I see just fine thanks.
-
God is good. Or is it Lucifer? ;D
(https://bootyoftheday.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/bodacious-booty.jpg)
-
so mos
lets take an example
a man spends his whole life doing good deeds helping others putting others first
however he is not a religious man
therefore is he doomed to an eternity in hell
surely his good deeds would earn him a rewards despite his lack of belief
Either way, every bit of that goodness you enjoy right now is a result of the goodness of God. - you said
how about the man who enjoys killing and raping and sees that as good is that a result of the goodness of god
-
how about the man who enjoys killing and raping and sees that as good is that a result of the goodness of god
The man who enjoys killing and raping is a Muslim.
-
There is no eternal hell.
-
There is no eternal hell.
The thing is absolutely no one alive actually knows for sure. That's what makes this thread so fascinating and the question of the after life such a delicious one. We just don't know, some like MOS have faith and believe 100% what they believe and some are adamant that there is nothing, no after life whatsoever. We don't have the concrete evidence only what our feelings and intuition tell us.
-
so mos
lets take an example
a man spends his whole life doing good deeds helping others putting others first
however he is not a religious man
therefore is he doomed to an eternity in hell
surely his good deeds would earn him a rewards despite his lack of belief
Either way, every bit of that goodness you enjoy right now is a result of the goodness of God. - you said
how about the man who enjoys killing and raping and sees that as good is that a result of the goodness of god
Romans 3:11-12
11 There is none who understands,There is none who seeks for God;
12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.”
Every freedom we have on this earth is because God allows it. Even the ability to engage in sin. He doesn't force us to sin, but allows the potential for sin via our choice. So even if a person finds pleasure in any sin on earth you can be certain they won't find any pleasure in an eternity in hell.
That's why I repeatedly state that men twist evil for good and good for evil.
Isaiah 5:20
20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
-
The thing is absolutely no one alive actually knows for sure. That's what makes this thread so fascinating and the question of the after life such a delicious one. We just don't know, some like MOS have faith and believe 100% what they believe and some are adamant that there is nothing, no after life whatsoever. We don't have the concrete evidence only what our feelings and intuition tell us.
True, I don't know exactly what hell is or how it works in detail, but I know we're warned about it and I know it's the absence of God and it's eternal. No greater hellfire preacher than Jesus Christ.
-
This thread is 24 pages deep and nearing the end which means that at anytime now avxo could randomly enter this thread and begin his patented line by line dissection and request I go through the bulk of my posts all over again LOL. ;)
I won't be participating in that though...done it many, many times in the past.
-
Absence of God? But but but I thought God was everywhere?
-
This thread is 24 pages deep and nearing the end which means that at anytime now avxo could randomly enter this thread and begin his patented line by line dissection and request I go through the bulk of my posts all over again LOL. ;)
I won't be participating in that though...done it many, many times in the past.
ultimately you are stating your beliefs as facts
difficult to argue against that
i admire your conviciont
but dismay at your lack of logic
i respect your right to your beliefs
i doubt you respect my doubt
peace :)
-
ultimately you are stating your beliefs as facts
difficult to argue against that
i admire your conviciont
but dismay at your lack of logic
i respect your right to your beliefs
i doubt you respect my doubt
peace :)
Explain my lack of logic.
-
The thing is absolutely no one alive actually knows for sure. That's what makes this thread so fascinating and the question of the after life such a delicious one. We just don't know, some like MOS have faith and believe 100% what they believe and some are adamant that there is nothing, no after life whatsoever. We don't have the concrete evidence only what our feelings and intuition tell us.
from an emperical materialist perspective you are correct. Maybe we should trust our feelings and intuitions more, or better yet develop the consciousness to such a degree that it can know.
-
ultimately you are stating your beliefs as facts
difficult to argue against that
i admire your conviciont
but dismay at your lack of logic
i respect your right to your beliefs
i doubt you respect my doubt
peace :)
There is no way to argue with someone like someone with MOS. He already has his mind made up. As you see, he never asks any questions of others, because in his mind, he has it all figured out. A very blind way to go through life.
-
You didn't answer my questions. You asked 6 new questions.
-
lol at MOS being a big baby and responding to me without actually quoting me lol. Very mature behavior by a grown adult. :D :D :D
-
And this is exactly how religion poisons ones mind. MOS is totally okay with the death of children.
Again, if people reading this thread cannot see how religion has polluted his mind, then you are as blind as he is.
Yes, it is righteous and just to make a kid suffer with cancer for 2 years before dying. If a child is tortured and murdered, MOS is okay with this because its Gods will. Its righteous and just.
I swear, how can anyone not see that religion is not a morally just system. Geez, it pollutes your mind.
Come on bro, the judicial system is OK with the death of children, as long as it's the mothers choice while it's still in the womb.
Yet if a pregnant woman is murdered the murder charge is doubled.
Peoples minds are poisoned. I agree religion can be and is unhealthy for the vast majority of people but you guys are just as ridiculous as Mos thinking you're going to convert him.
Life is full of hardship and heartbreak. I get it if you think "God" owes you answers and explanations, but even if you got them I'm not sure you'd agree with the answers.
-
There is no way to argue with someone like someone with MOS. He already has his mind made up. As you see, he never asks any questions of others, because in his mind, he has it all figured out. A very blind way to go through life.
MOS reminds me of interviewing a burglar suspect found inside a business with stolen phones in his backpack. The suspect spent a lot of time during the interview trying to rationalize how he was innocent and the facts were misinterpreted. Every time a contradiction was pointed out he would earnestly try to explain how it could be both ways. In spite of overwhelming evidence including CCTV images, he never backed off his story
-
MOS reminds me of interviewing a burglar suspect found inside a business with stolen phones in his backpack. The suspect spent a lot of time during the interview trying to rationalize how he was innocent and the facts were misinterpreted. Every time a contradiction was pointed out he would earnestly try to explain how it could be both ways. In spite of overwhelming evidence including CCTV images, he never backed off his story
MOS has even said that if there was 100% indisputable evidence that God did not exist (hypothetically speaking), he would still believe. That is the definition of a closed mind. Blind faith.
-
Explain my lack of logic.
you are claiming passages in a fictional book with no supporting evidence are facts
the words of god written by men ffs
that aint logic chuckles
-
Religion = absolute garbage not worth a second thought
-
you are claiming passages in a fictional book with no supporting evidence are facts
the words of god written by men ffs
that aint logic chuckles
Who should have written the words, God?
Would that make it more believable?
Isn't the Bible a book of recorded history? Does this mean no history books are true?
The ten commandments were allegedly written by God, and those seem to be a point of contention too.
-
you are claiming passages in a fictional book with no supporting evidence are facts
the words of god written by men ffs
that aint logic chuckles
LOL ok
-
LOL ok
typical
8)
-
typical
8)
Well, you didn't put forth any more argumentation.
You asked questions. I answered them. You put forth the ultimate objection. I resolved it. Then you just returned to absolute square one with "fiction books" and "no evidence".
There's nowhere else to go LOL.
-
Who should have written the words, God?
Would that make it more believable?
Isn't the Bible a book of recorded history? Does this mean no history books are true?
The ten commandments were allegedly written by God, and those seem to be a point of contention too.
1. It would have made them less divisive, fewer contradictions, rational, factual.
2. I would assume a god wouldn't put things in a book that contradict, that defy known laws of physics or history without providing overwhelming evidence to support such things. So I would assume that a god would do a much better job than the anonymous authors of the bible did
3. No, the bible contains some information that is historical much like a Clancy book may contain some information that is historical. That doesn't make it a history book.
4. Which set? He is alleged to have written both sets. But that story was written by man.. so...
-
typical
8)
The issue is that all evidence that the bible and God are real is inherently biased. The majority of people who study these topics are devout believers. They begin their research with the idea that God 100% exists, then they try to find evidence to support this notion. That is not the way science works. You can begin research with a hypothesis, but you can't already be convinced of your conclusion. Religious people are. Its a horrible way to do research. This is inherently going to lead to a confirmation bias regarding all evidence that contradicts what one initially believed. We all know if Ken Ham found evidence that contradicts the bible, he would "throw it away."
-
Lee Strobel (former atheist converted to Christianity and became preeminent apologist because of evidence)
Allister McGraith (former atheist converted to Christianity and became preeminent apologist because of evidence)
Ravi Zacharias (former atheist raised Hindu converted to Christianity and became preeminent apologist because of evidence)
Nabeel Qureshi (former muslim converted to Christianity and became preeminent apologist because of evidence)
C.S. Lewis (former atheist converted to Christianity and became preeminent apologist because of evidence)
David Wood (former atheist converted to Christianity and became preeminent apologist because of evidence)
Dr Hugh Ross (former atheist converted to Christianity and became preeminent apologist because of evidence)
None of them had any Christian upbringing.
-
1. It would have made them less divisive, fewer contradictions, rational, factual.
2. I would assume a god wouldn't put things in a book that contradict, that defy known laws of physics or history without providing overwhelming evidence to support such things. So I would assume that a god would do a much better job than the anonymous authors of the bible did
3. No, the bible contains some information that is historical much like a Clancy book may contain some information that is historical. That doesn't make it a history book.
4. Which set? He is alleged to have written both sets. But that story was written by man.. so...
1. Just so we're clear, you think a book written by God would be MORE believable. Could you also give an example of a contradiction (and please be a legitimate example besides Jesus rose from the dead, or a virgin birth, as I understand you don't believe in these (and I'm not faulting you)).
2. I do understand your point here, pillar of clouds by day fire by night, and so on, however most scientists agree that there was a "great flood" at some point in human history (a common folklore among many beliefs, and noted). What specific historical time pieces are you referring to that dont don't line up?
As a side note we consider Stonehenge to be something of an unexplained mystery that defies logic, and it still stands
3. Again would give a specific example (besides "miracles")? In terms of time line the bible lines up with other documented history.
4. I've always wondered what was on the first set of stones, life would have likely been much simpler before Moses was mad. If only we were able to find these tablets....
Again I understand and respect your stance and position. However just because there are portions of the bible that appear untrue doesn't mean we dismiss everything.
-
Poor evidence for suggesting their conversion was based on "evidence." lol. Man, this is sad. It's really pitiful.
I think I am going to have to vacate this thread. The delusion is strong. :D :D :D :D
-
Again I understand and respect your stance and position. However just because there are portions of the bible that appear untrue doesn't mean we dismiss everything. - dave d
so the bible is true where it suits you
but false where it makes you look stupid
mos said the bible were the words of god channeled through man
and to be taken as absolute fact
see none of this stands up to any scrutiny at all
-
Again I understand and respect your stance and position. However just because there are portions of the bible that appear untrue doesn't mean we dismiss everything. - dave d
so the bible is true where it suits you
but false where it makes you look stupid
mos said the bible were the words of god channeled through man
and to be taken as absolute fact
see none of this stands up to any scrutiny at all
Scrutinize it bro.
Agnostic made his point that the Bible contains events that defy the law of physics and history without providing overwhelming evidence. I conceded the fact that those events, namely the virgin birth and the resurrection, could be dismissed because obviously those are events that he wouldn't believe in.
I never said it's true when it suits me. But that's how people live everyday, we chose which rules/laws we will adhere to and those we won't depending on our needs and desires. I don't need the bible to make me look stupid, I'm good at doing that on my own.
I referenced Stonehenge, and I'll throw in the pyramids as well. Those defy logic and the technology of their era, especially how Stonehenge was constructed through generations, and even though we can't fullt explain their existence we know what we see.
There's a lot we don't see, there's a lot we don't know. As advanced as we are we still discover "new" plants, insects, animals and discoveries in the ocean.
You don't believe in God. That's fine. That doesn't mean you're right nor does it mean you're wrong.
Mos said he believes the bible is the divine inspired word of God and I agree, doesn't mean anything.
-
Scrutinize it bro.
Agnostic made his point that the Bible contains events that defy the law of physics and history without providing overwhelming evidence. I conceded the fact that those events, namely the virgin birth and the resurrection, could be dismissed because obviously those are events that he wouldn't believe in.
I never said it's true when it suits me. But that's how people live everyday, we chose which rules/laws we will adhere to and those we won't depending on our needs and desires. I don't need the bible to make me look stupid, I'm good at doing that on my own.
I referenced Stonehenge, and I'll throw in the pyramids as well. Those defy logic and the technology of their era, especially how Stonehenge was constructed through generations, and even though we can't fullt explain their existence we know what we see.
There's a lot we don't see, there's a lot we don't know. As advanced as we are we still discover "new" plants, insects, animals and discoveries in the ocean.
You don't believe in God. That's fine. That doesn't mean you're right nor does it mean you're wrong.
Mos said he believes the bible is the divine inspired word of God and I agree, doesn't mean anything.
it doesnt mean anything ::)
it does when you are preaching that good men will suffer for eternity in hell
because they dont believe the absolute fact that god exists
you see the problem is as our thinking becomes evolved
the old fire and brimstone doesnt cut it anymore
the bible was a book used as a tool to opress the masses through fear
live to our edict or you will suffer an eternity in hell
its an evil concept you support my friend
the purest form of evil disguised as good
-
it doesnt mean anything ::)
it does when you are preaching that good men will suffer for eternity in hell
because they dont believe the absolute fact that god exists
you see the problem is as our thinking becomes evolved
the old fire and brimstone doesnt cut it anymore
the bible was a book used as a tool to opress the masses through fear
live to our edict or you will suffer an eternity in hell
its an evil concept you support my friend
the purest form of evil disguised as good
Gotcha.
Turn or burn that's the bible message?
What is used to oppress the masses through fear today? Media, government, or maybe schools?
I'm assuming you're referring to the Catholic Church when you say "live by our edict.....". And because that group used the bible to enslave the masses it's complete garbage.
The US constitution once considered women beneath men and supported slavery.
So by your logic, the tools used to cause fear among society today should be considered evil, yet you still post on the Internet.
Or would it be more accurate to say that the Bible, like a gun in the wrong hands is a potentially deadly weapon.
I respect that you never sleep though.
-
1. Just so we're clear, you think a book written by God would be MORE believable. Could you also give an example of a contradiction (and please be a legitimate example besides Jesus rose from the dead, or a virgin birth, as I understand you don't believe in these (and I'm not faulting you)).
2. I do understand your point here, pillar of clouds by day fire by night, and so on, however most scientists agree that there was a "great flood" at some point in human history (a common folklore among many beliefs, and noted). What specific historical time pieces are you referring to that dont don't line up?
As a side note we consider Stonehenge to be something of an unexplained mystery that defies logic, and it still stands
3. Again would give a specific example (besides "miracles")? In terms of time line the bible lines up with other documented history.
4. I've always wondered what was on the first set of stones, life would have likely been much simpler before Moses was mad. If only we were able to find these tablets....
Again I understand and respect your stance and position. However just because there are portions of the bible that appear untrue doesn't mean we dismiss everything.
2. Stonehenge is very basic physics, a dude did it in his backyard with no tools but ropes. A great flood did not occur, the water cycle as it exists makes that impossible, we would need extra water, where does rain come from again? The mayan's believed the earth was held up by four palm trees of different colors, ancients were stupid, just like we will seem stupid in a thousand years.
Throw away everything from that time period, it's a completely useless relic of superstition
-
(https://mir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net/project_modules/disp/66a0be55534423.56098d6af31b9.jpg)
In the end, we will all face the same fate.
-
Gotcha.
Turn or burn that's the bible message?
What is used to oppress the masses through fear today? Media, government, or maybe schools?
I'm assuming you're referring to the Catholic Church when you say "live by our edict.....". And because that group used the bible to enslave the masses it's complete garbage.
The US constitution once considered women beneath men and supported slavery.
So by your logic, the tools used to cause fear among society today should be considered evil, yet you still post on the Internet.
Or would it be more accurate to say that the Bible, like a gun in the wrong hands is a potentially deadly weapon.
I respect that you never sleep though.
Just ignore Ginger he has a business worth 10 Million... :D Writes just BS on getbig trolls on many threads. Nothing Bodybuilding related.
-
Gotcha.
Turn or burn that's the bible message?
What is used to oppress the masses through fear today? Media, government, or maybe schools?
I'm assuming you're referring to the Catholic Church when you say "live by our edict.....". And because that group used the bible to enslave the masses it's complete garbage.
The US constitution once considered women beneath men and supported slavery.
So by your logic, the tools used to cause fear among society today should be considered evil, yet you still post on the Internet.
Or would it be more accurate to say that the Bible, like a gun in the wrong hands is a potentially deadly weapon.
I respect that you never sleep though.
some good points here
but ultimately in trying to be clever by referring to slavery etc
you have just proved my point that people evolve
in the future we will look back on the concept of being punished for eternity for watching porn
with the same scorn we now put on barbaric concepts like slavery
-
some good points here
but ultimately in trying to be clever by referring to slavery etc
you have just proved my point that people evolve
in the future we will look back on the concept of being punished for eternity for watching porn
with the same scorn we now put on barbaric concepts like slavery
NO he just proved you are a Buffoon.. :D
-
MOS would kill his own child in a sacrifice to God. He said it. His response after does not matter. The proper answer to the question, "would you sacrifice your own son if god wanted you to?" should be "NOOOO!" every single time. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that he knows God stopped Abraham. The answer, no matter the circumstance, should be, "NO, I will not sacrifice my own child for you, God." This just shows his warped thinking.
CaptainFreedom on March 16, 2016, 02:15:20 PM
if God appeared before you and asked you to sacrifice your child as a test of faith, would you?
MOS
Given I know of Abraham’s example in scripture yes I would follow through, but I also know that God stopped Abraham after he was tested and didn't allow his child to die.
Without that knowledge of Abraham’s circumstance would my faith be as strong as Abraham’s if I were tested in the same manner? I don’t know.
-
There is no eternal hell.
There actually is a lot of evidence showing that the concept of an eternal hell didn't become mainstream among Christians until several hundred years after Jesus. The Jews in biblical times didn't believe in eternal hell; it was more of a pagan belief.
-
MOS would kill his own child in a sacrifice to God. He said it. His response after does not matter. The proper answer to the question, "would you sacrifice your own son if god wanted you to?" should be "NOOOO!" every single time. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that he knows God stopped Abraham. The answer, no matter the circumstance, should be, "NO, I will not sacrifice my own child for you, God." This just shows his warped thinking.
CaptainFreedom on March 16, 2016, 02:15:20 PM
if God appeared before you and asked you to sacrifice your child as a test of faith, would you?
MOS
Given I know of Abraham’s example in scripture yes I would follow through, but I also know that God stopped Abraham after he was tested and didn't allow his child to die.
Without that knowledge of Abraham’s circumstance would my faith be as strong as Abraham’s if I were tested in the same manner? I don’t know.
In Problema I of Fear and Trembling, Søren Kierkegaard uses the story of Abraham to argue that there can be a teleological suspension of the ethical. The ethical is understood here as represented by Hegel's idea of Sittlichkeit (i.e., the 'ethical life' of an individual in a community built on custom and tradition). A teleological suspension of the ethical is performed by way of the absurd (or that which eludes, and is not dependent on, rational explanation).
In order to show what this means, Kierkegaard introduces a distinction between a "tragic hero," who is willing to perform unthinkable sacrifices (e.g., Agamemnon's willing sacrifice of his young daughter to safeguard the Greek fleet to Troy) for the sake of the ethical (i.e., the community), and a "Knight of Faith," who is willing to make monstrous sacrifices for the sake of something "above" the community, e.g., one's faith in God (e.g., Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac). Subsequently, a Knight of Faith exhibits an intensely private relation with God, one that cannot be verbally expressed or rationally defended (because if it could, it would have to be expressed in a rational language that the community could understand – hence bringing faith back from the absurd and down to the ethical – which, for Kierkegaard, is a failure).
I have no doubt that MOS is certainly a man of faith, but he's no Knight of Faith (with which I'm sure he's perfectly fine).
-
2. Stonehenge is very basic physics, a dude did it in his backyard with no tools but ropes. A great flood did not occur, the water cycle as it exists makes that impossible, we would need extra water, where does rain come from again? The mayan's believed the earth was held up by four palm trees of different colors, ancients were stupid, just like we will seem stupid in a thousand years.
Throw away everything from that time period, it's a completely useless relic of superstition
Fair enough on Stonehenge. A little preposterous to say a great flood didnt occur when scientific evidence would suggest otherwise. Scientists believe that giant glaciers once covered the earth, why would they melt, where did the extra heat come from? That's like saying dinosaurs never existed because we never see them........
Again totally fine if you don't believe in a god or Christianity and you think that it's all foolishness.
-
In Problema I of Fear and Trembling, Søren Kierkegaard uses the story of Abraham to argue that there can be a teleological suspension of the ethical. The ethical is understood here as represented by Hegel's idea of Sittlichkeit (i.e., the 'ethical life' of an individual in a community built on custom and tradition). A teleological suspension of the ethical is performed by way of the absurd (or that which eludes, and is not dependent on, rational explanation).
In order to show what this means, Kierkegaard introduces a distinction between a "tragic hero," who is willing to perform unthinkable sacrifices (e.g., Agamemnon's willing sacrifice of his young daughter to safeguard the Greek fleet to Troy) for the sake of the ethical (i.e., the community), and a "Knight of Faith," who is willing to make monstrous sacrifices for the sake of something "above" the community, e.g., one's faith in God (e.g., Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac). Subsequently, a Knight of Faith exhibits an intensely private relation with God, one that cannot be verbally expressed or rationally defended (because if it could, it would have to be expressed in a rational language that the community could understand – hence bringing faith back from the absurd and down to the ethical – which, for Kierkegaard, is a failure).
I have no doubt that MOS is certainly a man of faith, but he's no Knight of Faith (with which I'm sure he's perfectly fine).
Eh, I believe his response candidly demonstrates that he would be a "Knight of Faith" if ordered by God.
He even said it himself. I am just going by what he said.
-
some good points here
but ultimately in trying to be clever by referring to slavery etc
you have just proved my point that people evolve
in the future we will look back on the concept of being punished for eternity for watching porn
with the same scorn we now put on barbaric concepts like slavery
Lol, porn wasn't even a concept during the time period.
You are correct when you say people evovle, as we gain more knowledge and understanding we can apply those lessons to advance.
The same happens with biblical understanding, as long as people stay open minded.
-
Lol, porn wasn't even a concept during the time period.
You are correct when you say people evovle, as we gain more knowledge and understanding we can apply those lessons to advance.
The same happens with biblical understanding, as long as people stay open minded.
being open minded is important
my biggest problem is this
everything good is put down to god
everything bad is put down to mans free will
basically its a win win for god
throws the ability to debate rationally under the bus
cause you can always fall back on the above argument
-
Eh, I believe his response candidly demonstrates that he would be a "Knight of Faith" if ordered by God.
He even said it himself. I am just going by what he said.
Hey, SF!
Not if he talks about why he chose to perform such a monstrous act. Knights of Faith, if there are any, cannot justify their actions via rational explanations. No rational reasons can be given, that's why it's absurd. So, a true, Kierkegaardian Knight of Faith would not, e.g., tell authorities: I killed my child because God told me to, and then go on to some kind of apologetic justification of their crime. He'd keep his mouth shut about his faith.
-
Hey, SF!
Not if he talks about why he chose to perform such a monstrous act. Knights of Faith, if there are any, cannot justify their actions via rational explanations. No rational reasons can be given, that's why its absurd. So, a true, Kierkegaardian Knight of Faith would not, e.g., tell authorities: I killed my child because God told me to, and then go on to some kind of apologetic justification of their crime. He'd keep his mouth shut about his faith.
Thanks for the clarification.
I still think its an absurd thing to say, even if he would not actually sacrifice his own child. Just goes to show you!
-
being open minded is important
my biggest problem is this
everything good is put down to god
everything bad is put down to mans free will
basically its a win win for god
throws the ability to debate rationally under the bus
cause you can always fall back on the above argument
Yeah, those are very good points. As I said before I understand why people don't believe in a god let alone the Christian version.
The Christian concept is that God is just and righteous and when you view god from that perspective all the "issues" of good and evil fall into place. However for those who don't see it that way, and there's many, taking the god is good stance on blind faith seems foolish.
In life there's a lot of areas I disagree with "God". It doesn't matter though because what is is what is. I have to make peace with that.
People will ask how do I know that God is real or why do I believe, and I'll share my personal experiences, which is the best anyone can do. That said I realize insane people really believe in their hallucinations, so again it's a toss up.
I'll stand by my original point that there's so much about the world, and I mean just this planet, that we don't know. When you consider how unknown space is it seems preposterous to say there's no God at all.
-
Yeah, those are very good points. As I said before I understand why people don't believe in a god let alone the Christian version.
The Christian concept is that God is just and righteous and when you view god from that perspective all the "issues" of good and evil fall into place. However for those who don't see it that way, and there's many, taking the god is good stance on blind faith seems foolish.
In life there's a lot of areas I disagree with "God". It doesn't matter though because what is is what is. I have to make peace with that.
People will ask how do I know that God is real or why do I believe, and I'll share my personal experiences, which is the best anyone can do. That said I realize insane people really believe in their hallucinations, so again it's a toss up.
I'll stand by my original point that there's so much about the world, and I mean just this planet, that we don't know. When you consider how unknown space is it seems preposterous to say there's no God at all.
ok good answer
explain how you know god exists
i have seen to many bad things to thinks there is a supreme being looking out for us
bad people thrive good people dont
children die in their millions
we are basically a plague on the earth
if god was ever going to wipe humans out it would be now
but
he was appearing every five minutes before we started accurately recording history
interfering in everything
now the world has gone to shit and we are killing the planet
and the silence is deafening
-
ok good answer
explain how you know god exists
i have seen to many bad things to thinks there is a supreme being looking out for us
bad people thrive good people dont
children die in their millions
we are basically a plague on the earth
if god was ever going to wipe humans out it would be now
but
he was appearing every five minutes before we started accurately recording history
interfering in everything
now the world has gone to shit and we are killing the planet
and the silence is deafening
Listen I agree. If there was a time when God would be showing up it should be now.
I commented on the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and how the perversion was so bad there it was wiped out, or in the case of the flood the whole earth was so bad everyone was eliminated. Surely mankind is much worse today..... especially by the standards of that era.
However if you read the bible, outside of those two instances, God doesn't really do anything "spectacular" that causes all of mankind to follow Him. Yes there are accounts of miracles of His intervention, but there are many more stories of people suffering and God allowing it to transpire.
As far as me being able to explain how I know that God exists, I can only use my personal experiences (and for many those are debatable, as I used the comparison of insane people believing hallucinations )based on a relationship that i have with Him.
The best I can offer is that it gives me peace to believe in something bigger than myself.
-
Listen I agree. If there was a time when God would be showing up it should be now.
I commented on the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and how the perversion was so bad there it was wiped out, or in the case of the flood the whole earth was so bad everyone was eliminated. Surely mankind is much worse today..... especially by the standards of that era.
However if you read the bible, outside of those two instances, God doesn't really do anything "spectacular" that causes all of mankind to follow Him. Yes there are accounts of miracles of His intervention, but there are many more stories of people suffering and God allowing it to transpire.
As far as me being able to explain how I know that God exists, I can only use my personal experiences (and for many those are debatable, as I used the comparison of insane people believing hallucinations )based on a relationship that i have with Him.
The best I can offer is that it gives me peace to believe in something bigger than myself.
thats a very honest answer
i envy you the comfort your faith must bring you
i think you die then you are worm food
oh but i still sleep at night :)
-
thats a very honest answer
i envy you the comfort your faith must bring you
i think you die then you are worm food
oh but i still sleep at night :)
Lol you might be right!
That's the problem with the unknown. There are multiple documented people who have claimed to experience life after death transitions but until you've done/lived it, you can't be 100% certain.
That's why I don't think those who believe in a flat earth are completely insane. I actually give them some credit for being outside of "box" and not accepting what the standard teachings are as complete truth, after all they've never been to space.
I've enjoyed the discussion and your ideas. Thanks
-
You dont need to wait until death occurs to find out that you are the immortal eternal soul whose nature is perfect freedom and joy.
-
You dont need to wait until death occurs to find out that you are the immortal eternal soul whose nature is perfect freedom and joy.
Jesus fuck, man. Ease up on the acid.
Two things:
1) Why does something have to come from something? And if it does, and there IS a god (there isn't), where did he come from?
2) If something did create us, why does it have to be labelled a god and worshipped as such? Especially considering its obvious lack of interest to assist us.
-
You dont need to wait until death occurs to find out that you are the immortal eternal soul whose nature is perfect freedom and joy.
Why are we in these bodies, seems like a odd situation for an eternal soul who's nature is perfectly free? we are patently not free, if a soul exists(no such thing does) it's trapped in this body for some odd reason.
If we have souls how do you explain multiple personalities? schizophrenics? bipolars?
Define Soul for me.
-
-
I want some of what you're having BigRo. Lovely ideas and interesting stuff.
-
The reason they are listed as class A is because of the threat they create to the established consensus reality.
It is illogical. However some people have gone insane, those who approach it without care and reverence and who have a very troubled mind are likely to flip out.
Never tried DMT, quite a short experience without much of a bridge between the realms, though very profound I hear. Psilocybin is molecularly very similar.
-
According to the bible god is allowing satan to cause havoc on earth for certain period of time until jesus comes back on earth once again to beat satan and claim his rightful thrown.
Ok so satan is behind the death of jews... why would god still allow satan to kill jews if god is all capable?
The time we are living right now is to show in inarguably that man cannot rule himself and that only God has the right to rule(Jeremiah 10:23). It is to show that even under the worst conditions brought about by the devil, who has the whole world in his control at this time (1 John 5:19), many of us will not turn our backs and stop recognizing and worshipping God. He has the power to resurrect all who have perished (John 5:28) and not to call the former things to mind in those that are resurrected (Isaiah 65:17). Nothing that happens now is permanent and though many of the things that happen are truly horrific they are not caused by God (James 1:13) and he will step in and destroy the devil and his followers and the universe will be void of all wickedness to time indefinite(Revelation 12:12). "You will look to the place where the wicked were and they will not be there." (Psalm 37:10) Death and pain and mourning will be done away with and righteous mankind will live forever in Paradise. (Revelation 21:3,4 and Psalm 37:29)
-
we are spirits on a human experience.....
not humans on a spiritual experience....
-
Why are we in these bodies, seems like a odd situation for an eternal soul who's nature is perfectly free? we are patently not free, if a soul exists(no such thing does) it's trapped in this body for some odd reason.
If we have souls how do you explain multiple personalities? schizophrenics? bipolars?
Define Soul for me.
Could it be that the "soul" picked said body? Said soul was looking through the Akashic records and was like "hmmm, this looks like fun, I'll take this body for a spin."
-
Could it be that the "soul" picked said body? Said soul was looking through the Akashic records and was like "hmmm, this looks like fun, I'll take this body for a spin."
Soul—A Living Creature. As stated, man “came to be a living soul”; hence man was a soul, he did not have a soul as something immaterial, invisible, and intangible residing inside him. The apostle Paul shows that the Christian teaching did not differ from the earlier Hebrew teaching, for he quotes Genesis 2:7 in saying: “It is even so written: ‘The first man Adam became a living soul [psy·khenʹ zoʹsan].’ . . . The first man is out of the earth and made of dust.”—1Co 15:45-47.The Genesis account shows that a living soul results from the combination of the earthly body with the breath of life. The expression “breath of the force of life [literally, breath of the spirit, or active force (ruʹach), of life]” (Ge 7:22) indicates that it is by breathing air (with its oxygen) that the life-force, or “spirit,” in all creatures, man and animals, is sustained. This life-force is found in every cell of the creature’s body, as is discussed under LIFE; SPIRIT.Since the term neʹphesh refers to the creature itself, we should expect to find the normal physical functions or characteristics of fleshly creatures attributed to it. This is exactly the case. Neʹphesh (soul) is spoken of as eating flesh, fat, blood, or similar material things (Le 7:18, 20, 25, 27; 17:10, 12, 15; De 23:24); being hungry for or craving food and drink (De 12:15, 20, 21; Ps 107:9; Pr 19:15; 27:7; Isa 29:8; 32:6; Mic 7:1); being made fat (Pr 11:25); fasting (Ps 35:13); touching unclean things, such as a dead body (Le 5:2; 7:21; 17:15; 22:6; Nu 19:13); being ‘seized as a pledge’ or being ‘kidnapped’ (De 24:6, 7); doing work (Le 23:30); being refreshed by cold water when tired (Pr 25:25); being purchased (Le 22:11; Eze 27:13); being given as a vow offering (Le 27:2); being put in irons (Ps 105:18); being sleepless (Ps 119:28); and struggling for breath (Jer 15:9).It may be noted that in many texts reference is madeto “my soul,” “his [or her] soul,” “your soul,” and so forth. This is because neʹphesh and psy·kheʹ can mean one’s own self as a soul. The sense of the term can therefore often be expressed in English by use of personal pronouns. Thus Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (p. 627) shows that “my neʹphesh” means “I” (Ge 27:4, 25; Isa 1:14); “your [singular] neʹphesh” means “thou” or “you” (Ge 27:19, 31; Isa 43:4; 51:23); “his neʹphesh” means “he, himself” (Nu 30:2; Isa 53:10); “her neʹphesh” means “she, herself” (Nu 30:5-12), and so forth.The Greek term psy·kheʹ is used similarly. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1981, Vol. 4, p. 54) says it may be used as “the equivalent of the personal pronoun, used for emphasis and effect:—1st person, John 10:24 (‘us’); Heb. 10:38; cp. [compare] Gen. 12:13; Num. 23:10; Jud. 16:30; Ps. 120:2 (‘me’); 2nd person, 2 Cor. 12:15; Heb. 13:17,” and so forth.
-
If Jesus showed up and said "That's not what my dad meant", people would kill him again. :)
-
If Jesus showed up and said "That's not what my dad meant", people would kill him again. :)
No, they would have him committed to a hospital---like they do with almost everybody else that claims that they are Jesus.
-
No, they would have him committed to a hospital---like they do with almost everybody else that claims that they are Jesus.
Throw in a few miracles and we'd get the same result, LOL!
-
I love Alan Watts, but you are really missing his message if you think he had the answers, no one does, he is guessing, surmising, we could be a simulation.
-
Glad you like Watts and I know people like you do not like statements made with certitude, I am not going to try and convince you of what I said above, it is a product of my experiences. If one wants to find out if it is true or false they have to dive deep in to the ocean of their inner being which takes years of dedicated meditation.
-
I'm fascinated by DMT, but I haven't got the stones to take something like that. I just know that I'd end up paralysed and trapped in some sort of permanent, psychotic nightmare.
Then liberation is on the other side, you need to face the fear head on, after is the reward, the release.
-
It's never been something that would interest me in terms of taking stuff recreationally, but after watching a few documentaries specifically on DMT, i do think it could be worthwhile trying once just to potentially understand more about consciousness. It looks like all these near-death experience stories can be explained by the release of DMT as the brain shuts down and prepares to die; I don't believe that consciousness can exist after the brain dies, but I'm uneducated on the subject and it's fascinating to hear from Doctors and other highly educated individuals in this field who have tried DMT and then entertained the idea of consciousness as a "non-local phenomenon".
Good post :)
-
It's never been something that would interest me in terms of taking stuff recreationally, but after watching a few documentaries specifically on DMT, i do think it could be worthwhile trying once just to potentially understand more about consciousness. It looks like all these near-death experience stories can be explained by the release of DMT as the brain shuts down and prepares to die; I don't believe that consciousness can exist after the brain dies, but I'm uneducated on the subject and it's fascinating to hear from Doctors and other highly educated individuals in this field who have tried DMT and then entertained the idea of consciousness as a "non-local phenomenon".
Putting all your eggs on one basket ie one attempt with DMT is bound to leave you disappointed. It can take a while for someone to build a good relationship with it. I still think starting out with low dose magic mushrooms is the way to go. The thoughts and feelings one is having at the moment before immersing in the DMT realm have a profound influence on the experience. If your freaking out that's not going to help you understand your consciousness.
-
-
Good points, Ro. I think you're right and that video finalises things for me. After realising it's a Class A drug, i wouldn't do it (or mushrooms) anyway, and given that it appears there are a lot of myths surrounding it, i think i'll just stick to reading/watching consciousness debates!
DMT is one of, if not, the most amazing thing you can experience in your short time on this planet. Don't let it pass you by!
There really is no prepping for its intensity. Don't worry about freaking out, it knocks you straight on your ass, you leave your body.
-
It's never been something that would interest me in terms of taking stuff recreationally, but after watching a few documentaries specifically on DMT, i do think it could be worthwhile trying once just to potentially understand more about consciousness. It looks like all these near-death experience stories can be explained by the release of DMT as the brain shuts down and prepares to die; I don't believe that consciousness can exist after the brain dies, but I'm uneducated on the subject and it's fascinating to hear from Doctors and other highly educated individuals in this field who have tried DMT and then entertained the idea of consciousness as a "non-local phenomenon".
At it's base it must be, it's a quantum event (consciousness), through entanglement coherence could be maintained. However, if consciousness is non-local, like the signal and your brain the tv tuning it, it would appear to need hardware, how can you have thought without the brain, like typing without keys.
We came out of the universe, we are the universe manifest and demonstrably so.
-
You've tried it? Awesome...you should write a review about it on here!
Here is my review:
As the incessant storm of reality grows,
I seek shelter in the fabricated dreams of another.
My existence grows weary of its inherent fallacies.
Cascading complexities, distilled for general consumption.
A solitary, psychedelic beam of hope appears.
Arms raised, my curiosity rampant, the promise of truth drives me onward.
I purse my lips and inhale from the font of chaos.
Slowly, I drown in a sea of contradicting logic. My ego, crushed in a heartbeat.
I fly through the earthen godhead.
I am but a passenger on a roller coaster through the celestial vortex of infinity.
The onslaught of confusion, mesmerising and relentless, crashes resplendent,
as figments of imagined lives flicker across my mind's horizon.
Randomness spews its inconsistent melody,
as soul is ripped, blissfully, from its corporeal chassis.
I stare blindly into the abyss.
My life, pathetic in its perceived certainly, succumbs to the fractal carnage.
I am nothing. A spiralling footnote in the failure of humanity.
A self reflecting abstraction of what could have been.
I die a thousand deaths. I live a million lies. The knowledge, too great to compute.
The experience, too vast to recall. Words drown in its majestic haze.
What is this demented hologram? What is "I"? Where does it end?
What kind of intelligence produces such an infernal quandary?
-
Nice poetry well done.
Next time you could meditate on the thought who am I, what is I, from where does I arise, what sustains I, in to what does this I merge again then blast off :)
-
When i posted my reply, i fully expected you to backtrack on your analogy and attempt to deny its validity in explaining why you proselytise, but i wish you wouldn't. The fact is, it’s actually a very good analogy and it offers a very accurate summary of your faith - you just don’t like the conclusion which must be derived from it, as it places the crown of culpability firmly upon God's head. This has led you to repeat yourself and psychologically project your own moral and logical failings onto me by asserting that i am the one who has chosen to "defend/ignore evil". Let me be clear: not once have i ever defended or ignored the evil that people do; I point out the contradictions and inconsistencies that are present in your line of thinking which not only defends all the nonsensical evil being done on the innocent, but calls for it to be celebrated and revered, in order to spare yourself a similar fate. Your post is a perfect example of intellectual cowardice and to claim that i'm the one attempting to create a deceptive portrayal of your views would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. In the same paragraph you go on to claim that:
“God comes in and eliminates the evil pagan folks and takes their small children with him...He showed them grace, mercy and love.”
It takes a truly warped mind to try and justify this as an act of love, It also begs the question as to why he doesn't do it more often, if that was the case? Why turn a blind eye to the millions of innocent people suffering in the world today, when he could simply flood the world again so that they may be with him, as opposed to being "left alone to fend for themselves"?
Why create a set of rules for his "righteous representatives", which were allegedly in place for centuries and enforced through an unrelenting and brutal form of totalitarianism, only to then renounce these laws at a later date? God made it a law for Israelites to kill their own family members if they didn't worship him, then decided to contradict himself by enforcing a “thou shall not kill” rule, which if broken, will supposedly see you spend eternity in hell. I refuse to accept that you cannot see the glaring absurdities here; if you genuinely wish to cling to something so patently ridiculous, then feel free, but please keep it to yourself.
We don’t need to keep going around in circles on this particular point, as i would say that our positions have been clearly stated now, and there is something else that you've posted recently which i would like to question you on - but i'll post it in the religion thread when i have the time.
All that happened is that you were overly analytical and drew out of my little example something that wasn’t intended and I gave you clarification. Would’ve been easier to acknowledge that clarification and move forward as intended, but that wouldn’t allow your invalidated argument to flourish….gotta force that position to stick somehow. The focus of the example was the person that could help and stood by and did nothing. You turned it into something completely different…about God as an arsonist. The reason for the fire didn’t matter to the example. In fact the fire itself didn’t matter. That’s why I told you can swap “fire” for some other bad situation. It was not some grand analogy or metaphor where x,y and z represent something else in theology. You just twisted it into that so you could argue from that angle....yet I'm dishonest.
You say it takes a warped mind to think that way. Yet your opinion is grounded in nothing but subjectivity and you continue to side with evildoers. Why is that? Why do you side with those that are fully wicked and deserve punishment and then get punished? You're also angry because God showed mercy to children and took them with him to his heaven? Why is that evil? So do you want more of God or less of God? In one breathe you’re angry because God judged the wicked and in another you’re angry because he doesn’t judge enough. Which is it? The world is once again coming into the fullness of its sin and then one final judgment will be passed. There is no blind eye being turned. That’s why we have Jesus Christ. The problem of evil is not of God, the problem of evil is of us….Christ is the solution. Yet, slowly and prophetically the world is collectively denying Christ.
The nation of Israel entered into a covenant with God and they were to be righteous and set apart from the pagan nations around them. The Israelites were then engaged in a theocracy and willingly bound themselves to God's standards. If they were to act as God's representatives they were then subject to the highest standards and penalties.
No, you’re previous statement was about death for worshipping other false Gods. You moved the goalposts just slightly:
Question 2) You've already tried to answer this one vaguely by suggesting that Jesus rocked up in the New Testament to cancel out God's old orders of killing your family if they worship other gods, so just to clarify - You are saying it is wrong for people to kill their family for idolatry, but it was fine before Jesus came?
I already explained the sinister nature of engaging in the practice of worshipping pagan gods and the harm it brought others. Again, why do you support folks that engage in this type of evil? Why do you feel this behavior should go unpunished? Yes folks that engage in evil and cause others to participate in said evil could lose their lives because of it. Shouldn't those that commit evil acts be punished? Shouldn't those that outright defy God's holy standards be punished? Even lose their lives in some instances? Actually think for a moment about who is being defied here....the sovereign Lord and God of all there is.
-
Well, i'm glad to see that you've finally composed yourself enough to write a reply, after the emotional rollercoaster that was Batman V Superman, and it appears to have inspired you to battle your enemies of logic and reason with a renewed resolve. I've talked to some brick walls before, but you are a fortress of lunacy that even superman couldn't penetrate.
Let’s begin with this now persistent renouncement of your own analogy, and let me try and simplify it the best i can so that you can no longer attempt to feign confusion or deny what it was that you were first defending. You addressed bigmc and claimed:
"not very christian to say that only people that believe will be saved"......'that's one of the most loving things someone can tell another. To warn folks of impending danger and be ridiculed for it and yet continue to warn them out of love despite replies of hate and mocking laughter'.
And you then gave the analogy directly after. It was a straightforward defence of why you proselytise: To warn people of an impending danger. Let's do as you wish and swap out the fire for any other type of situation as it makes no difference. You claim to have information that may save others from an impending doom, and to do or say nothing would be immoral. People are living a life of sin, unaware of the hell that waits them in the afterlife - you claim to have once won the celestial lottery and received a personal visit from God and you now feel compelled to speak for him; this really requires no twisting of words from me, it merely requires you to do as you have always done and unashamedly delude yourself with regards to the wider implications of what this means.
The bible condemns people to hell for the most trivial of things and you defend it because you're mentally unstable and terrified of death. How can you have the gall to say that my opinion is grounded in nothing but subjectivity and i continue to side with evildoers?
My opinion comes from scientific consensus and what we know to be objectively good regarding human and animal well-being; as in, not being used as a sacrificial object, not being held culpable for sins that you had absolutely no hand in committing, not being wiped off the earth for no justifiable reason and not being held to ransom by an irrational and psychopathic God who promises an eternity of hell for disobedience.
Your opinions come from the subjective experience you had as a grown man, when you were sick and hallucinating. Let’s not forget that you openly expressed your willingness to sacrifice your own child if God asked you to… and I’m the one siding with evil? You should hang your sinful head in shame for making such a comment. Let me restate what i said to you in my last post, when you accused me of this: you are psychologically projecting your own moral and logical failings onto me by asserting that i am the one who has chosen to "defend/ignore evil".
I do not claim that evil should go unpunished, so you can drop the mendacity and stop clinging to something so demonstrably false. What i claim is that evil DOES go unpunished, it goes unpunished every single day, and the few times in scripture that God did supposedly intervene, he not only punished these "evil pagans" that you constantly refer to, but every innocent life too - a fact which you do not deny, but rather, seek to defend in the most pusillanimous and feeble manner. I've addressed these points ad nauseum now, and the fact that you still persist in denying the irrational, inconsistent and immoral behaviour present in scripture simply proves the fact that you truly are a man of steely ignorance and cast-iron dishonesty.
Yes, I'm just getting back to this thread. Had some things to do, but if it makes you feel bigger and better to continue insulting me you go ahead and do that. ;)
Yes, believers are called to warn others of the impending danger of a Godless eternity and to sit by knowing of the danger and to not tell others would be evil IMHO....it wouldn't represent Christ. So thank you for finally addressing my original point and the bolding of my comments to bigmc helps further that so thank you. Yes the information I have is about Jesus Christ, but many others have it as well. I just share it here. Yes, people do define God's standards as trivial and trade evil for good and good for evil. They don't want God's standards, they want their own standards to be upheld. I'm here to warn others about how dangerous that proposition is.
It's not gall that I say your opinion is grounded in subjectivity....it's the reality. I'm sorry you don't like it. Without God you have no objective moral values....only subjectivity and opinions. Even if a gathering of a large body of godless opinions agrees with you it is all grounded completely in subjectivity....hide it behind the generic facade of "science" if you want. It just is what it is. If you want truth then ground yourself in God....he's the standard by which all people are subject to and judged. You keep referring to me and keep stating I'm projecting my psychological morals and logic (as if it's a mic drop of sorts LOL). My position is grounded in God's standards....my position is God's standards. That's it.
And please, do yourself a HUGE favor and don't draw from the poisoned well that is SF1900 LOL. He's a walking contradiction (of epic proportions) and a master dodger and proponent of repeatedly speaking with no (or occassionally partial) context. I've already clarified my position about "killing my child at God's command" within this very thread. Y'all are choosing to ignore my words and pick the ones that you like to make your flawed argument stick....I can't help that. :)
I am glad that you've finally answered by question about evil and that you claim not to support it. That's terrific!!
-
:D
-
:D
That is awesome!!
-
How embarrassing...you cannot even comprehend your own analogies or recognise the implications of your beliefs. First you write a defence of why you preach - comparing it to a burning building scenario, you then denounce this scenario when the obvious immorality of it is pointed out to you; i then simplify it further in the hope that you might actually grasp what it is you are rambling on about by stating that any disaster scenario is the same - that being - you are warning everyone about an impending doom coming their way, and now you thank me for "addressing your original point"? lol. Are you genuinely not able to understand that whichever way we tell the story, the fact remains that God is responsible for the impending doom, as he is the one responsible for the existence of hell and for creating the terms which will lead to people being condemned to spend eternity there. Go ahead and repeat yourself for the umpteenth time with the cowardly cop-out of "My position is God’s standards", but it doesn't negate the point i'm making that these standards are moronic, immoral, illogical and clearly untenable- given your pitiful attempt at justifying them.
“It's not gall that I say your opinion is grounded in subjectivity....it's the reality.”
I’ve literally just stated in my last post that my opinions on morality are based around what we know to be good and beneficial for the wellbeing of people and animals. Is it right to sacrifice pigs for no reason? Is it right to Murder innocent children? Is it right to drown the world because you’re angry? Is it right to stage a human sacrifice in order to remove sin through vicarious redemption?
For any rational, moral individual the answer to these questions would be a resounding "no". For you to claim it's fine when God does it, because these are his standards, and his standards are infallible, shows that you have no grasp of reality, no sense of morality and no ability to think for yourself. It’s all well and good being able to regurgitate arguments made the likes of William Lane Craig and Francis Collins, but you clearly have no ability to rationalise what it is that you are claiming to be God's inviolable laws - this is clearly displayed in your shocking inability to explain the logic behind God’s double standard that he set for the Israelites, only to then abandon these rules and make it a sin to obey them, after having already rigidly enforced them himself for a number of years. This is God's objective morality? LOL, get a grip. As for me "finally answering" you regarding evil and my apparent willingness to support it - perhaps if you weren't so busy basking in your own skewed sense of self-righteousness, you might have noted that i had already answered that earlier in the thread, when you first asked the obviously loaded question.
Regarding your blatant psychological projection - this is hardly an attempt at a "mic drop" on my part, either. it's simply pointing out something which you are continually guilty of, but are either unwilling or unable to rectify. For you to describe SF1900 as a "walking contradiction (of epic proportions) and a master dodger and proponent of repeatedly speaking with no (or occassionally(sic) partial) context" is another hilarious example of you attempting to place your own shortcomings onto the shoulders of another. The comment wasn't even related to him; it was regarding the question that i put to you, and you answered. Let me remind you of your words:
"Given I know of Abraham’s example in scripture yes I would follow through, but I also know that God stopped Abraham after he was tested and didn't allow his child to die.
Without that knowledge of Abraham’s circumstance would my faith be as strong as Abraham’s if I were tested in the same manner? I don’t know."
What words are we ignoring here? Only the sickest of fundamentalist minds could make such a truly reprehensible statement. you've said previously that it is wrong for an individual to try to "test God", yet you're perfectly fine with God testing you with a demand for child sacrifice in order to establish how much you love him, and you would willingly obey, given that you believe God would intervene before your child actually died? Even more shocking - you cannot even state outright that you wouldn't kill your kid if you didn't have this prior information!
What the hell is wrong with you? How could you say "I don’t know"? You don’t know if you would kill your own child or not, if you didn't have Abraham’s example in scripture? Unbelievable. Please reply with something more credible than "If God says it, then it must be true", if you are going to make a rebuttal, as this is going nowhere, and it's extremely frustrating.
You can't logically debate delusions.
-
Guys I'm missing a lot of the conversation but I wanted to jump in on the Abraham sacrificing Issac discussion real quick.
Without getting into the subjectiveness of the situation, it was literally a one time deal. Abraham was the first to have many experiences, for somone to think that they were being called to offer a human sacrifice based on his example is preposterous. It was a moment in history. We are called to live our lives in the here and now.
This was also a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of the son of God. Abraham, the father of the faith, was a archetype God and his long promised newborn son, innocent and pure, being a copy of Jesus.
It was a one time deal in scripture. We are to take away the symbolic act of laying down our lives (desires and nature) for Christ's life. Most Christian can barely do this, so those who think they could fulfill Abrahams shoes are deluded or insane.
I know most of you know this already but I thought I'd chime in.
I've also Google dmt..... so it's a mind altering drug that taps into the subconscious or am I way off base?
-
I've also Google dmt..... so it's a mind altering drug that taps into the subconscious or am I way off base?
mind altering or mind transcending.
taps in to the subconscious or catapults one beyond all personal identity altogether in to the womb of creation.
Or both. It depends on the person using it too and the amount ingested.
I have never taken it, but mushrooms and ayahuasca are structurally similar.
You have to inhale the plastic tasting smoke through a crack pipe :-X
-
Yes, I'm just getting back to this thread. Had some things to do, but if it makes you feel bigger and better to continue insulting me you go ahead and do that. ;)
Yes, believers are called to warn others of the impending danger of a Godless eternity and to sit by knowing of the danger and to not tell others would be evil IMHO....it wouldn't represent Christ. So thank you for finally addressing my original point and the bolding of my comments to bigmc helps further that so thank you. Yes the information I have is about Jesus Christ, but many others have it as well. I just share it here. Yes, people do define God's standards as trivial and trade evil for good and good for evil. They don't want God's standards, they want their own standards to be upheld. I'm here to warn others about how dangerous that proposition is.
It's not gall that I say your opinion is grounded in subjectivity....it's the reality. I'm sorry you don't like it. Without God you have no objective moral values....only subjectivity and opinions. Even if a gathering of a large body of godless opinions agrees with you it is all grounded completely in subjectivity....hide it behind the generic facade of "science" if you want. It just is what it is. If you want truth then ground yourself in God....he's the standard by which all people are subject to and judged. You keep referring to me and keep stating I'm projecting my psychological morals and logic (as if it's a mic drop of sorts LOL). My position is grounded in God's standards....my position is God's standards. That's it.
And please, do yourself a HUGE favor and don't draw from the poisoned well that is SF1900 LOL. He's a walking contradiction (of epic proportions) and a master dodger and proponent of repeatedly speaking with no (or occassionally partial) context. I've already clarified my position about "killing my child at God's command" within this very thread. Y'all are choosing to ignore my words and pick the ones that you like to make your flawed argument stick....I can't help that. :)
I am glad that you've finally answered by question about evil and that you claim not to support it. That's terrific!!
You've been targeted for social assassination. You'll be over at RX in no time. :)
-
I've also Google dmt..... so it's a mind altering drug that taps into the subconscious or am I way off base?
mind altering or mind transcending.
taps in to the subconscious or catapults one beyond all personal identity altogether in to the womb of creation.
Or both. It depends on the person using it too and the amount ingested.
I have never taken it, but mushrooms and ayahuasca are structurally similar.
You have to inhale the plastic tasting smoke through a crack pipe :-X
Vaping it is the way to go, no nasty plastic taste, and no crack pipe!
-
Guys I'm missing a lot of the conversation but I wanted to jump in on the Abraham sacrificing Issac discussion real quick.
Without getting into the subjectiveness of the situation, it was literally a one time deal. Abraham was the first to have many experiences, for somone to think that they were being called to offer a human sacrifice based on his example is preposterous. It was a moment in history. We are called to live our lives in the here and now.
This was also a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of the son of God. Abraham, the father of the faith, was a archetype God and his long promised newborn son, innocent and pure, being a copy of Jesus.
It was a one time deal in scripture. We are to take away the symbolic act of laying down our lives (desires and nature) for Christ's life. Most Christian can barely do this, so those who think they could fulfill Abrahams shoes are deluded or insane.
I know most of you know this already but I thought I'd chime in.
I've also Google dmt..... so it's a mind altering drug that taps into the subconscious or am I way off base?
A one time deal from a perfect all loving creator? to kill his child? LMAO...
it's as clear as day, ALL holy books are books written by morons, morality does not come from the bible, this is a fact. We know where morals come from, reason and logic, that's it. As we get more intelligent as a civilization our collective morality (ethics) improves, slavery is no longer acceptable, it was in biblical times, how can you derive your morals from a book which is patently bullshit?
You fuckers want to take us back to the stone age(not you lol), talking about sacrifices, sins and all other made up bullshit the goat herders believed in.
It's laughable any grown human could look at this book objectively and find it helpful in any manner, if I put it next to the documents of scientology, how would you determine which is true? by corroborating the evidence, snakes don't talk, people don't walk on water, no contemporary historian mentions any of these miraculous feats. Imagine if he went to the asians, who actually had a civilization, not the backward nutbags in the middle east received the message.
-
No, you’re previous statement was about death for worshipping other false Gods. You moved the goalposts just slightly:
I already explained the sinister nature of engaging in the practice of worshipping pagan gods and the harm it brought others. Again, why do you support folks that engage in this type of evil? Why do you feel this behavior should go unpunished? Yes folks that engage in evil and cause others to participate in said evil could lose their lives because of it. Shouldn't those that commit evil acts be punished? Shouldn't those that outright defy God's holy standards be punished? Even lose their lives in some instances? Actually think for a moment about who is being defied here....the sovereign Lord and God of all there is.
His holy standards are quite poor, newsflash, no pagan gods exist, why the fuck would god care about them? does he care about thor the god of thunder also?
WORSHIPPING is the sin, he invented paganism if he created all, how many mental backflips must you do to keep the dissonance down?
-
Slavery, just fine and dandy according to the Bible.
-
You've been targeted for social assassination. You'll be over at RX in no time. :)
You going to assassinate me Abraham?
-
How embarrassing...you cannot even comprehend your own analogies or recognise the implications of your beliefs. First you write a defence of why you preach - comparing it to a burning building scenario, you then denounce this scenario when the obvious immorality of it is pointed out to you; i then simplify it further in the hope that you might actually grasp what it is you are rambling on about by stating that any disaster scenario is the same - that being - you are warning everyone about an impending doom coming their way, and now you thank me for "addressing your original point"? lol. Are you genuinely not able to understand that whichever way we tell the story, the fact remains that God is responsible for the impending doom, as he is the one responsible for the existence of hell and for creating the terms which will lead to people being condemned to spend eternity there. Go ahead and repeat yourself for the umpteenth time with the cowardly cop-out of "My position is God’s standards", but it doesn't negate the point i'm making that these standards are moronic, immoral, illogical and clearly untenable- given your pitiful attempt at justifying them.
“It's not gall that I say your opinion is grounded in subjectivity....it's the reality.”
I’ve literally just stated in my last post that my opinions on morality are based around what we know to be good and beneficial for the wellbeing of people and animals. Is it right to sacrifice pigs for no reason? Is it right to murder innocent children? Is it right to drown the world because you’re angry? Is it right to stage a human sacrifice in order to remove sin through vicarious redemption?
For any rational, moral individual the answer to these questions would be a resounding "no". For you to claim it's fine when God does it, because these are his standards, and his standards are infallible, shows that you have no grasp of reality, no sense of morality and no ability to think for yourself. It’s all well and good being able to regurgitate arguments made by the likes of William Lane Craig and Francis Collins, but you clearly have no ability to rationalise what it is that you are claiming to be God's inviolable laws - this is clearly displayed in your shocking inability to explain the logic behind God’s double standard that he set for the Israelites, only to then abandon these rules and make it a sin to obey them, after having already rigidly enforced them himself for a number of years. This is God's objective morality? LOL, get a grip. As for me "finally answering" you regarding evil and my apparent willingness to support it - perhaps if you weren't so busy basking in your own skewed sense of self-righteousness, you might have noted that i had already answered that earlier in the thread, when you first asked the obviously loaded question.
Regarding your blatant psychological projection - this is hardly an attempt at a "mic drop" on my part, either. it's simply pointing out something which you are continually guilty of, but are either unwilling or unable to rectify. For you to describe SF1900 as a "walking contradiction (of epic proportions) and a master dodger and proponent of repeatedly speaking with no (or occassionally(sic) partial) context" is another hilarious example of you attempting to place your own shortcomings onto the shoulders of another. The comment wasn't even related to him; it was regarding the question that i put to you, and you answered. Let me remind you of your words:
"Given I know of Abraham’s example in scripture yes I would follow through, but I also know that God stopped Abraham after he was tested and didn't allow his child to die.
Without that knowledge of Abraham’s circumstance would my faith be as strong as Abraham’s if I were tested in the same manner? I don’t know."
What words are we ignoring here? Only the sickest of fundamentalist minds could make such a truly reprehensible statement. you've said previously that it is wrong for an individual to try to "test God", yet you're perfectly fine with God testing you with a demand for child sacrifice in order to establish how much you love him, and you would willingly obey, given that you believe God would intervene before your child actually died? Even more shocking - you cannot even state outright that you wouldn't kill your kid if you didn't have this prior information!
What the hell is wrong with you? How could you say "I don’t know"? You don’t know if you would kill your own child or not, if you didn't have Abraham’s example in scripture? Unbelievable. Please reply with something more credible than "If God says it, then it must be true", if you are going to make a rebuttal, as this is going nowhere, and it's extremely frustrating.
Since you contacted me privately about this post I won't reply to it.
*** for the record Captain Freedom did not privately request that I not post a reply ***
-
His holy standards are quite poor, newsflash, no pagan gods exist, why the fuck would god care about them? does he care about thor the god of thunder also?
WORSHIPPING is the sin, he invented paganism if he created all, how many mental backflips must you do to keep the dissonance down?
Actually he cares about the people that hurt themselves and others while engaging in worship of these false gods.
So in this case we need some historical context.
Objectors of these verses typically envision and portray the Israelites worshipping fun-loving, happy-go-lucky, false gods of flowers, puppies and rainbows. :-* And whichever of the pure of heart Israelites chose to worship these sugary-sweet, gentler than gentle, kinder than kind false gods was put to death by the vindictive, murderous, jealous, bitter, petty, vile God of the Hebrews!! BOOOOOOOO Hebrew God! How could you?!! >:(
Not the case.
Pagan worship was anything but smiles, puppies and candy bars. It was live infant sacrifice via burning to death on white hot altars to Molech. It was self-mutilation within ceremonies of sexual perversion and the whoring of young women in demonic rituals to Baal. It was demonic rituals of witchcraft/sorcery and further ritualistic sexual perversion and whoring of women to the pagan goddess Asherah. It was carnal, it was dark, it was twisted, it was evil, it was demonic and it destroyed countless innocents.
So, if an Israelite defied his/her sacred covenant with God and chose to participate in the evil worship and practices of false pagan gods such as Baal, Asherah and Molech they lost their wretched lives for it. These folks traded new and righteous life in order to corrupt and destroy the lives of others.
Do I believe God was just? Absolutely. If a person is going to break a righteous covenant with God and engage in acts that pervert and murder innocents then it's absolutely just that your life be forfeit as punishment.
People came up with their false, pagan gods. God gave folks the ability to choose and that includes the option to defy his law and engage in evil. Look there, no backflips.
Worship is sin? Ok. What is worship necrosis? I've asked you this already and you ignored it (you ignored all my questions actually).
Why would God who is the ultimate standard of righteousness, justice, grace, mercy and love be accountable to his creation? Because you say so? And?
If God were accountable he wouldn't be God. That which he would be accountable to would be God and and so forth and so on.....an infinite regression that doesn't work.
Your personal lack of humility has no bearing on God or any standard by which other men should be required to follow....it's subjective standards. Believers prescribe to the ultimate, objective standards of God.
What is worship? And tell me about your experience with worship and the love of God?
-
Slavery, just fine and dandy according to the Bible.
The rules for slavery regarding Israel in the OT had nothing to do with the antebellum South or the slavery they were delivered from in Egypt. Two entirely different things....one was forced (ex: antebellum South and Israelites in Egypt) and the other was voluntary/customary for debt payment (ex: Israelites post-Egypt freedom). One was about inhumanity (ex: antebellum South and Israelites in Egypt) and one was about the preservation of humanity and rights of the servant/slave while working off individual or family debt (ex: Israel post-Egypt freedom). The word "slave" is always incorrecty associated with the antebellum South...just not the case for OT Israel.
Many slaves/bond servants ended up staying with the very owner/family they worked for after their debts were satisfied because they chose to. Many became full-time hands on the owners land receiving a normal wage. These folks weren't "picking the cotton on Massah's plantation" and then being beaten and/or raped in the evenings.....no, no, no.
I know many have serious issues with slavery in the bible, but the "issue of slavery" doesn't carry the negative connotation often force fit onto it because of the words “slave” or ”slavery”. It’s the culture and history of the Israelites who were delivered from the forced, "work til you die" slavery in Egypt that needs to be understood. If the Israelite that held the debt did something to mistreat the bondservant working off the debt the holder of debt was punished. God that freed the Israelites didn't turn around and say, "Ok, now y'all go ahead and enslave and mistreat others in the same manner you were just freed from".
-
MOS, if you have additional points to make that we haven't gone over then please, feel free to make them. I just wanted to message that on reading back my post from yesterday, it sounded a bit more vitriolic than I had intended. I didn't have much time to post and wasn't in the greatest of moods!
I understand. I have my bad days too. Happens to the best of us.
If you want me to respond I will and I'll do so considering exactly what you PM'd.
I appreciate and respect folks that can apologize....shows quality of character.
-
MOS,
Do you concede that it may be possible that the bible is a 2000 year old work of fiction?
-
MOS,
Do you concede that it may be possible that the bible is a 2000 year old work of fiction?
Short answer: no
Given all of God that I've experienced it is absolutely impossible that it is a work of fiction.
-
What is "Dog Food Lid" backwards?
"Dildo of God"
Coincidence? I think not.
-
Short answer: no
Given all of God that I've experienced it is absolutely impossible that it is a work of fiction.
One can experience the fullness of God without even knowing the bible exists.
-
One can experience the fullness of God without even knowing the bible exists.
Agreed!
-
Short answer: no
Given all of God that I've experienced it is absolutely impossible that it is a work of fiction.
Do you concede that it is pointless to attempt to reason with someone who is immovable in their views?
-
Do you concede that it is pointless to attempt to reason with someone who is immovable in their views?
I agree (not concede) it is pointless to attempt to reason as stated.
-
One can experience the fullness of God without even knowing the bible exists.
Like the three hermits, "who understand nothing, and never speak a word," in Tolstoy's classic tale* (which echoes much of Kierkegaard, and served as inspiration for Wittgenstein's famous Prop. 7, "pass over in silence" thingamajiggy, in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus).**
*(http://www.online-literature.com/tolstoy/2896/)
**Which provided for fruitful analysis of certain bodybuilding phenomena:
Whereof one cannot secure professional sponsorship, thereof one can G4P with subtropical fruit.
And further scholarly Kai-ntrabutions from the think tank:
The most memorable (and arguably most important) proposition of the Tractatus Filtico-Homoeroticus, to be sure.
-
I agree (not concede) it is pointless to attempt to reason as stated.
Would it therefore be correct to say that: your belief that jesus christ is the son of god, is immune to a reasonable argument for the opposite?
-
Would it therefore be correct to say that: your belief that jesus christ is the son of god, is immune to a reasonable argument for the opposite?
Depends on the argument presented.
If it's the standard issue argument that includes refusing to actively engage in that which God stipulates in scripture in order to know Jesus Christ personally then yes. It's an uninformed argument based completely in subjectivity. If you desire to argue about God's existence yet refuse to abide by his terms in scripture then you don't have a leg to stand on....you just have an uninformed opinion.
Psalm 1:1
1 How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked,
Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!
-
Depends on the argument presented.
See above. re: my previous three questions.
-
See above. re: my previous three questions.
I'm sorry, what about them do I need to reference?
If the argument is based upon genuine, proactive knowledge of God as stated in scripture then there's an argument to be had.
If the argument is the standard fare "I'm not following the bible and have no experience with God, but know he doesn't exist" bit then there's no argument to be had.
-
I'm sorry, what about them do I need to reference?
If the argument is based upon genuine, proactive knowledge of God as stated in scripture then there's an argument to be had.
If the argument is the standard fare "I'm not following the bible and have no experience with God, but know he doesn't exist" bit then there's no argument to be had.
I have extensive knowledge of God. But it's not stated in words written in a controversial book... does that count? Can I argue that this God I know extensively says the claim Jesus is the son of God is complete nonsense?
Your criteria for the discussion is laughable MOS
-
I have extensive knowledge of God. But it's not stated in words written in a controversial book... does that count? Can I argue that this God I know extensively says the claim Jesus is the son of God is complete nonsense?
Your criteria for the discussion is laughable MOS
My criteria? This is God's criteria. Why would I take counsel from an unbeliever with no personal knowledge of God? Anyone can read a book about God.
-
28 pages. God is, obviously, not a Getbigger.
-
My criteria? This is God's criteria. Why would I take counsel from an unbeliever with no personal knowledge of God? Anyone can read a book about God.
You do realize there will come a day when people who talk as you do about this imaginary friend will be considered mentally ill right?
-
You do realize there will come a day when people who talk as you do about this imaginary friend will be considered mentally ill right?
That day is already here.
A day will come when believers are jailed and/or executed.....that's already beginning as well.
-
Short answer: no
Given all of God that I've experienced it is absolutely impossible that it is a work of fiction.
Do you concede that it is pointless to attempt to reason with someone who is immovable in their views?
I agree (not concede) it is pointless to attempt to reason as stated.
Would it therefore be correct to say that: your belief that jesus christ is the son of god, is immune to a reasonable argument for the opposite?
I am asking you if your belief that jesus is the son of god is even debatable, given that you previously stated that it is impossible for the bible to be a work of fiction, and that you agree that it is pointless to attempt to reason with someone is immovable in their views.
I simply highlight the fact that I would like an answer from you. The question is simple, and is based on your previous answers.
-
That day is already here.
A day will come when believers are jailed and/or executed.....that's already beginning as well.
Christians have done this to non-christians (or even christians who deviate from the dogma) for thousands of years. Muslims have been doing this to everyone non-stop to this day.
-
I am asking you if your belief that jesus is the son of god is even debatable, given that you previously stated that it is impossible for the bible to be a work of fiction, and that you agree that it is pointless to attempt to reason with someone is immovable in their views.
I simply highlight the fact that I would like an answer from you. The question is simple, and is based on your previous answers.
Here was my answer:
Depends on the argument presented.
If it's the standard issue argument that includes refusing to actively engage in that which God stipulates in scripture in order to know Jesus Christ personally then yes. It's an uninformed argument based completely in subjectivity. If you desire to argue about God's existence yet refuse to abide by his terms in scripture then you don't have a leg to stand on....you just have an uninformed opinion.
Psalm 1:1
1 How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked,
Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!
Here's the answer you want: no it isn't
-
Christians have done this to non-christians (or even christians who deviate from the dogma) for thousands of years. Muslims have been doing this to everyone non-stop to this day.
All sort of folks have done things in the name of God....doesn't make them Christians. The early Christian church was the Catholic church and it failed miserably after the initial crusades. Hiring hordes of mercenary like thugs to fight on their behalf and eventually the godless hordes took over. The Catholic church continued to fail in its ministry and mission and the church was split and reformed because the Catholic church no longer represented Christ. There have been some folks that call themselves Christians and have done some despicable things today and I wouldn't consider them Christians (nominal Christians only....cue the No True Scotsman fallacy). I can't say for certain on every individual though.
The level of religious and Christian persecution in particular will reach heights never seen before.
-
Here was my answer:
Here's the answer you want: no it isn't
Thanks. See, there really was no need for quoting the bible.
I just wanted to check that you really were confirming you are immune to reason in this regard. Are there any other areas of your life where you are immune to reason?
-
A one time deal from a perfect all loving creator? to kill his child? LMAO...
it's as clear as day, ALL holy books are books written by morons, morality does not come from the bible, this is a fact. We know where morals come from, reason and logic, that's it. As we get more intelligent as a civilization our collective morality (ethics) improves, slavery is no longer acceptable, it was in biblical times, how can you derive your morals from a book which is patently bullshit?
You fuckers want to take us back to the stone age(not you lol), talking about sacrifices, sins and all other made up bullshit the goat herders believed in.
It's laughable any grown human could look at this book objectively and find it helpful in any manner, if I put it next to the documents of scientology, how would you determine which is true? by corroborating the evidence, snakes don't talk, people don't walk on water, no contemporary historian mentions any of these miraculous feats. Imagine if he went to the asians, who actually had a civilization, not the backward nutbags in the middle east received the message.
You make some valid points.
I once dated a woman who's 6 year old told his teacher that the reason snakes don't have legs anymore is because they tricked Adam and Eve, and the teacher was polite and told the rest of the class snakes never had legs.
I totally understand why people have complete opposition to the bible. There are claims that we can't verify (snakes with legs, where is the garden of eden today, the ark...).
There were cultural practices and events that occurred that of course are obsolete. As I've said before slavery has been and is a staple of the human condition. Just because modern society has "outlawed" it within the last 180 years doesn't mean it isn't practiced (again I'll refer to debt and the sex trade).
We live in a culture where we publicly admonish racism, sexism and bigotry yet privately many practice it. During biblical times they were blatant with their judgements.
To say one way is better than another is subjective, both systems have their strengths and weaknesses (Of course I'm talking about the American justice/court system).
If someone were to take anything from the Bible it would be the primary principle that Jesus taught that we should love others as we do ourselves. But so many despise their own self it's near impossible for then to love someone else.
Again great perspective.
-
29 pages and still not moved to the religion board. ::)
-
You make some valid points.
I once dated a woman who's 6 year old told his teacher that the reason snakes don't have legs anymore is because they tricked Adam and Eve, and the teacher was polite and told the rest of the class snakes never had legs.
I totally understand why people have complete opposition to the bible. There are claims that we can't verify (snakes with legs, where is the garden of eden today, the ark...).
There were cultural practices and events that occurred that of course are obsolete. As I've said before slavery has been and is a staple of the human condition. Just because modern society has "outlawed" it within the last 180 years doesn't mean it isn't practiced (again I'll refer to debt and the sex trade).
We live in a culture where we publicly admonish racism, sexism and bigotry yet privately many practice it. During biblical times they were blatant with their judgements.
To say one way is better than another is subjective, both systems have their strengths and weaknesses (Of course I'm talking about the American justice/court system).
If someone were to take anything from the Bible it would be the primary principle that Jesus taught that we should love others as we do ourselves. But so many despise their own self it's near impossible for then to love someone else.
Again great perspective.
Sure, but the main point is that you do not have to read the bible or know anything about jesus to love others, the bible got it's morals from men.
-
29 pages and still not moved to the religion board. ::)
We have a religion board?!!! ??? ???
-
We have a religion board?!!! ??? ???
yes it makes for some excellent reading ::)
-
Like in the sky or on tv or anything? Like to say do this and don't do that, im happy with this, im not happy with that.
He doesn't.
Because hes not real.
Now grow up.
Dubai, India
-
yes it makes for some excellent reading ::)
Guess you discovered that new thing called sarcasm ::)
-
Thanks. See, there really was no need for quoting the bible.
I just wanted to check that you really were confirming you are immune to reason in this regard. Are there any other areas of your life where you are immune to reason?
That's just it, you didn't confirm anything. It's the reason I quoted scripture. God and his scripture is the authority that I appeal to...it isn't of me.
Why would I take counsel about God from the godless? Or opinions about Jesus Christ from those that deny him?
-
29 pages and still not moved to the religion board. ::)
That is why it is 29 pages. Had it been moved... 4 pages tops
-
That's just it, you didn't confirm anything. It's the reason I quoted scripture. God and his scripture is the authority that I appeal to...it isn't of me.
Why would I take counsel about God from the godless? Or opinions about Jesus Christ from those that deny him?
But you realize.. maybe you don't, that the scripture you reference to support your position was written by men.. anonymous men.. and not from God. So knowing that for fact, how can you use that to support your stance.? isn't that the definition of circular logic?
-
But you realize.. maybe you don't, that the scripture you reference to support your position was written by men.. anonymous men.. and not from God. So knowing that for fact, how can you use that to support your stance.? isn't that the definition of circular logic?
Of course it seems circular to those who haven't experienced or outright deny God. "You're just appealing to a book written by men that states it's inspired by God.....men wrote that verse as well. Saying a book is inspired because it says it's inspired isn't justification for inspiration....its circular logic." I'm well aware of this, but there's FAR more to my justification and it's absolutely personal and completely divine.
Here's the simple yet crucial reason why the bible is 100% accurate and inspired: I have experience Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit in my life repeatedly in exactly the same manner as those in scripture and those experiences validate scripture and who God is for me. I followed scripture and it was fulfilled. I have 100% confidence because of it.....a lot of believers don't share that same confidence (I understand that).
I surrendered to Christ exactly as stated in scripture and my perception was instantly changed, my outlook on life was almost instantly changed, I could understand scripture like never before, I no longer desired the sinful things I craved heavily the day before and I've repeatedly and continuously experienced the tangible presence of the Holy Spirit.
I've interacted physically with the Holy Spirit while in private moments of prayer (and worship). Within moments of prayer I'm speaking to my heavenly father and I humbly ask that the Holy Spirit's presence that was surrounding me be increased and it did the moment after I asked. I humbly ask for more of God and I get more of God. I can feel the Holy Spirit....his presence is thick and tangible around me at times. My body will tingle and get hot....sometimes head to toe. And although my body reacts to the stimulus in the same way all our bodies are designed to react the stimulus does not originate from the inside of me. I'm touched from outside of myself and my body reacts to that interaction. No drugs, no mental illness, no confusion, no nothing that would cloud my judgment....completely lucid, healthy and aware (of course I know this sentence will be played upon).
I can speak more on this topic, but I know the response from atheists in this thread and to this post. Frankly, I'm unconcerned about that response and I know exactly what it will be before it's written. There may be only one other person that reads my words and needed to read my words to help make an affirmative choice for Jesus Christ. That's what I care about. I spend almost 30 pages in a single thread going back and forth with atheists so the Christian voice is heard. I'm not motivated by "winning a debate"....that's meaningless.
-
The reason you know the answer before you hear it is that it's a perfectly logical normal sane response to your claim.
-
(http://agonist.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/god-loves-you_n.jpg)
-
That's just it, you didn't confirm anything. It's the reason I quoted scripture. God and his scripture is the authority that I appeal to...it isn
Why would I take counsel about God from the godless? Or opinions about Jesus Christ from those that deny him?
You are correct "I" didn't confirm anything, you did.
I am not offering counsel about god. I am not offering opinions about Jesus.
I am merely trying to ascertain when you are open to reason, and when you are not.
On the subject of Jesus Christ being the son of God, by your own admission, you are not open to reason.
-
(http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/18181000/ngbbs494ed23ba078c.jpg)
-
(http://agonist.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/god-loves-you_n.jpg)
(http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/18181000/ngbbs494ed23ba078c.jpg)
Thread for the generic religion troll:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=605923.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=605923.0)
tl/dr
-
man of pies had to sacrifice his once great sense of humour for his religion
must be in the job description tat you have to become a pious twat
-
Thread for the generic religion troll:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=605923.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=605923.0)
tl/dr
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/400x/34772714.jpg)
-
You are correct "I" didn't confirm anything, you did.
I am not offering counsel about god. I am not offering opinions about Jesus.
I am merely trying to ascertain when you are open to reason, and when you are not.
On the subject of Jesus Christ being the son of God, by your own admission, you are not open to reason.
As I said, when it comes to reasoning given by God haters I am not open to any of it.....it's a completely uninformed opinion. I really used to try to understand and be very considerate....after repeatedly getting spit in the face I learned how pointless that is. I don't care about which God hater book you read that stands opposed to my faith. I'm happy to entertain it only for the sake of refuting it and giving others reading an informed Christian perspective.
Discussion with non God haters (believer or unbeliever) that's completely different.....fully open to it.....all day, every day.
-
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/400x/34772714.jpg)
tl/dr/dc
-
man of pies had to sacrifice his once great sense of humour for his religion
must be in the job description tat you have to become a pious twat
Romans 6:1-7
1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for he who has died is freed from sin.
Romans 8:12-17
12 So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— 13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.
-
As I said, when it comes to reasoning given by God haters I am not open to any of it.....it's a completely uninformed opinion. I really used to try to understand and be very considerate....after repeatedly getting spit in the face I learned how pointless that is. I don't care about which God hater book you read that stands opposed to my faith. I'm happy to entertain it only for the sake of refuting it and giving others reading an informed Christian perspective.
Discussion with non God haters (believer or unbeliever) that's completely different.....fully open to it.....all day, every day.
"God haters" That is a strange choice of words. It sounds militant.
If I told you that I am a Hindu, and that the hindu book is the is the Gita, which clearly is opposed to your book, and that; I am in no way attempting to "spit in your face".
What would you say? Am I uniformed?
-
"God haters" That is a strange choice of words. It sounds militant.
If I told you that I am a Hindu, and that the hindu book is the is the Gita, which clearly is opposed to your book, and that; I am in no way attempting to "spit in your face".
What would you say? Am I uniformed?
What would you prefer? Why does it bother you? I'm a Satan hater. I'm an evil hater. I'm a sin hater.
Uniformed on matters of Christianity? Probably. Completely uninformed and a God hater? No.
We can do "what ifs" all day attempting to find that perfect combination that refutes my post, but in the end it'll come right back to my position on God haters.
-
What would you prefer? Why does it bother you? I'm a Satan hater. I'm an evil hater. I'm a sin hater.
Uniformed on matters of Christianity? Probably. Completely uninformed and a God hater? No.
We can do "what ifs" all day attempting to find that perfect combination that refutes my post, but in the end it'll come right back to my position on God haters.
I don't hate God. I don't even know if he exists! Can we stop using your hatred of those who do not believe in God as a proxy for the real issue, which I am trying to discuss: your admitted unreasonableness.
Other than the whole Jesus / God thing, are you a reasonable person?
-
I don't hate God. I don't even know if he exists! Can we stop using your hatred of those who do not believe in God as a proxy for the real issue, which I am trying to discuss: your admitted unreasonableness.
Other than the whole Jesus / God thing, are you a reasonable person?
I've admitted no such thing and my previous posts already outline my position so this will be my last statement in that regard.
I don't hate you or anyone. I speak like I do out of love and concern for people. I never attack anyone, but today I speak plainly and directly....folks are critical of it. Yet they have no problem mocking and ridiculing me publically.....no nevermind that though. I rarely see one of you guys telling another of your atheist pals to "stop attacking MOS...no need for that".
I want to see people saved, but it isn't up to me.
Still, some folks have made up their minds and don't want any part of God.....I can't do anything for em and I'm certainly not taking counsel about God from them either.
Now if you aren't a God hater you shouldn't be bothered by the term because it doesn't apply to you. It's really that simple.
When people react to a term like "God hater" or scripture stating things like "don't have sex outside of marriage" or "don't get drunk" it elicits responses in folks. If you aren't doing those things it shouldn't bother you at all, but it holds folks accountable and triggers anger because most folks don't like to have their sinful behaviors disclosed. They challenge it, they insult the messenger, they twist arguments, the twist scripture, they search for red herrings....they try anything they can to avoid accepting accountability. Most of these threads go off on so many wild tangents and completely divert from the topic at hand because of that very reason. So many religious threads may begin with a topic such as "people engaging in idolatry" and by the end of the thread I'm answering questions about "not mixing fabrics", "kinds of animals", eschatology and the crusades.
-
When I'm constipated, stomach and belly hurts, visit the bathroom time after time.........
And then I finally succeed....I THANK GOD !!!!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Cima_da_Conegliano,_God_the_Father.jpg)
-
When I'm constipated, stomach and belly hurts, visit the bathroom time after time.........
And then I finally succeed....I THANK GOD !!!!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Cima_da_Conegliano,_God_the_Father.jpg)
There are no atheists in foxholes on toilet bowls.
-
That is why it is 29 pages. Had it been moved... 4 pages tops
Exactly, there isn't any dog piling and bandwagoning on the religion board....not as fun for folks.
-
It should be renamed the Christianity board lets be honest now :)
-
It should be renamed the Christianity board lets be honest now :)
May not jibe with MOS' evangelical angle. ???
-
i hope mos sees the light
its getting worse like religious tourettes
he even cried at the batman film
a decent in to madness :-\
-
I once dated a woman who's 6 year old told his teacher that the reason snakes don't have legs anymore is because they tricked Adam and Eve, and the teacher was polite and told the rest of the class snakes never had legs.
The teacher obviously is a moron. Snakes had legs, they evolved from Lizards.
http://news.discovery.com/animals/zoo-animals/snakes-lost-legs-evolution-110207.htm (http://news.discovery.com/animals/zoo-animals/snakes-lost-legs-evolution-110207.htm)
THE GIST
- Snakes lost their legs by growing them more slowly or for a shorter period of time until the legs eventually disappeared.
- Legs on snakes likely disturbed some form of movement, such as burrowing, rendering the legs useless.
- It's now believed that snakes either evolved from a lizard that burrowed on land or swam in the ocean.
Some, if not all, snakes used to have legs, and now new research suggests snakes lost their limbs by growing them more slowly or for a shorter period of time.
The research, outlined in the latest issue of the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, strengthens the belief that snakes evolved from a lizard that either burrowed on land or swam in the ocean.
In either case, its legs must have become less useful as the animal evolved over time.
-
I don't hate God. I don't even know if he exists! Can we stop using your hatred of those who do not believe in God as a proxy for the real issue, which I am trying to discuss: your admitted unreasonableness.
Other than the whole Jesus / God thing, are you a reasonable person?
The Creator does exist. Proof for that is the Universe you live in and you yourself. You can't have a design without a designer.
Some call him God, others Allah. Whatever. To me it is more important to comprehend that a Creator exists instead of getting caught up in religions or differences between them.
However it is interesting that Genesis is an allegorical explanation of the Big Bang. I don't take the Bible literal. For example Noah and his Ark and that the Earth was created literally in 6 days.
I am unsure if the Creator is a "Personal Creator".
-
To the Atheists:
For life to exist in our Universe the fine tuning required to the four fundamental forces of our Universe is so very extreme that it could not have happened randomly. Scientists concede this.
However this did not satisfy some scientists since that means they would have to admit a higher force / intelligence created the Universe.
So they came up with the theory that you would need an infinite amount of universes. In this multiverse it would be possible that at least one of those Universes would have the correct values for life to develop as it has over billions of years.
This is hilarious. I mean, the odds of this is even greater than the odds of a Creator existing.
And how did this multiverse come to be?
Anybody with eyes wide open and a clear mind will realize there is a Creator.
-
This wasn't an accident...
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/21/91/b6/2191b65b1aacd980b2adcdeccd54016a.jpg)
-
To the Atheists:
For life to exist in our Universe the fine tuning required to the four fundamental forces of our Universe is so very extreme that it could not have happened randomly. Scientists concede this.
However this did not satisfy some scientists since that means they would have to admit a higher force / intelligence created the Universe.
So they came up with the theory that you would need an infinite amount of universes. In this multiverse it would be possible that at least one of those Universes would have the correct values for life to develop as it has over billions of years.
This is hilarious. I mean, the odds of this is even greater than the odds of a Creator existing.
And how did this multiverse come to be?
Anybody with eyes wide open and a clear mind will realize there is a Creator.
oh jesus, the weak and strong anthropomorphic arguments, CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!!!
How about reality, there are millions of planets in the goldilocks zone for habitable environments, the chances of life not occurring is rare, there are near infinite oppurtunities. Other universes may have other or no "fine tuning". Just like the water in a puddle you think this hole was made for me, I fit it perfect, it must have been created for me.
-
This wasn't an accident...
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/21/91/b6/2191b65b1aacd980b2adcdeccd54016a.jpg)
A dirty asshole would look the same.
We are fractals
-
This wasn't an accident...
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/21/91/b6/2191b65b1aacd980b2adcdeccd54016a.jpg)
x Infinity
-
I've admitted no such thing and my previous posts already outline my position so this will be my last statement in that regard.
Now if you aren't a God hater you shouldn't be bothered by the term because it doesn't apply to you. It's really that simple.
You admitted that reason cannot persuade you in relation to Jesus Christ not being the Son of God. Therefore, you are admitting that your belief in this as being true is beyond reasonable discourse. As such, you are being unreasonable in relation to this particular topic.
I am not bothered by the use of the term "God Hater". It is a term that an unreasonable person would use to describe someone who has an alternative world view.
-
Logical fallacies called out in bold red.
The Creator does exist. Proof for that is the Universe you live in and you yourself. You can't have a design without a designer.
First sentence: Proof by assertion; second sentence: fallacy of the single cause, circular reasoning and regression fallacy; third sentence: reification and false analogy.
There you go again... "Everything requires a creator! Except the creator, because that'd just be silly. He's just eternal." Come on... that argument was debunked at least as early as 1927 by Russell.
Some call him God, others Allah. Whatever. To me it is more important to comprehend that a Creator exists instead of getting caught up in religions or differences between them.
Well, if it's important to you, I'll try. But in order to comprehend that a Creator exists, I first need to comprehend why (a) a Creator is needed and (b) why this Creator doesn't, himself, need a Creator. On your mark... Ready... Set... Go!
I am unsure if the Creator is a "Personal Creator".
But you're sure there is one. Interesting. Tell us, what attributes are you sure of and how did you come to be sure? How can we discover them for ourselves so that we can be sure too?
For life to exist in our Universe the fine tuning required to the four fundamental forces of our Universe is so very extreme that it could not have happened randomly. Scientists concede this.
First paragraph: Fallacy of the single cause, gambler's fallacy, proof by assertion, begging the question, fallacy of insufficient sample and lucid fallacy; second sentence: Fallacy of quoting out of context and appeal to authority and/or accomplishment.
Ah yes, the argument of the fine-tuned universe. It's all the rage these days... except, it's nonsense. Let's start with the simple and indisputable fact that the Universe doesn't seem to be at all tuned to support human life.
However this did not satisfy some scientists since that means they would have to admit a higher force / intelligence created the Universe.
Appeal to motive, false dilemma and bulverism
If they thought this, they committed a number of logical fallacies - starting with the either/or fallacy. I'm forced to conclude that the unnamed scientists whose motives and thought you're privy to probably weren't very good scientists. Are you sure you aren't just making this shit up and pretending that "some scientists" said it?
So they came up with the theory that you would need an infinite amount of universes. In this multiverse it would be possible that at least one of those Universes would have the correct values for life to develop as it has over billions of years.
Straw man fallacy
The same is possible without a multiverse, just not in parallel. Not that "in parallel" means much when applied outside the temporal causality framework of the Universe we exist in.
This is hilarious. I mean, the odds of this is even greater than the odds of a Creator existing.
Pooh-pooh fallacy, wishful thinking, kettle logic, argument from incredulity and Nirvana fallacy.
Well, since you see to have, precisely, quantified the odds, care to share them with us? I mean, it's not like I think you're bullshiting us... I just like to see the numbers.
And how did this multiverse come to be?
Onus probandi and moving the goalposts
I'll answer after you tell me how your Creator come to be.
Anybody with eyes wide open and a clear mind will realize there is a Creator.
Fallacy of esoteric knowledge, fallacy of magical thinking, proof by assertion and thought-terminating cliché
-
Excellent post by avxo.
-
Logical fallacies called out in bold red.
First sentence: Proof by assertion; second sentence: fallacy of the single cause, circular reasoning and regression fallacy; third sentence: reification and false analogy.
There you go again... "Everything requires a creator! Except the creator, because that'd just be silly. He's just eternal." Come on... that argument was debunked at least as early as 1927 by Russell.
Debunked? Lmao. You don't have to provide an explanation of an explanation. That would lead to an endless loop of explanations with no answers and against the very principles on which science is based.
For example, if humans were to find extraterrestrial artifacts or technology on the moon which were not left behind by anyone from Earth, they would be able to recognize that a designer created those artifacts without asking the question who designed these extraterrestrials. Another example might be digging up artifacts from an ancient civilization on Earth. The archaeologists can instantly identify arrows as designed by a designer, without having to answer the question if these designers were created by a Creator.
-
oh jesus, the weak and strong anthropomorphic arguments, CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!!!
How about reality, there are millions of planets in the goldilocks zone for habitable environments, the chances of life not occurring is rare, there are near infinite oppurtunities. Other universes may have other or no "fine tuning". Just like the water in a puddle you think this hole was made for me, I fit it perfect, it must have been created for me.
You don't understand the fine tuning concept moron.
There are 4 fundamental forces that have been identified. In our present Universe they have rather different properties.
Properties of the Fundamental Forces
•The strong interaction is very strong, but very short-ranged. It acts only over ranges of order 10-13 centimeters and is responsible for holding the nuclei of atoms together. It is basically attractive, but can be effectively repulsive in some circumstances.
• The electromagnetic force causes electric and magnetic effects such as the repulsion between like electrical charges or the interaction of bar magnets. It is long-ranged, but much weaker than the strong force. It can be attractive or repulsive, and acts only between pieces of matter carrying electrical charge.
• The weak force is responsible for radioactive decay and neutrino interactions. It has a very short range and, as its name indicates, it is very weak.
• The gravitational force is weak, but very long ranged. Furthermore, it is always attractive, and acts between any two pieces of matter in the Universe since mass is its source.
Scientists have ran computer simulations of the Big Bang, and if any of these forces are different by a minuscule fraction, the Universe does not develop as it did. Galaxies don't form, solar systems don't develop out of Nebulae, accretion of solar dust into planets and stars does not occur. And life does not develop on planets.
The fact that there could be millions of planets in the Universe teaming with life is irrelevant to the discussion about this fine tuning of the Universe. Planets would not even exist if the forces were different by a minuscule, incalculable amount.
Go do some reading and stop being a fucking idiot.
-
For example, if humans were to find extraterrestrial artifacts or technology on the moon which were not left behind by anyone from Earth, they would be able to recognize that a designer created those artifacts without asking the question who designed these extraterrestrials.
Why would their ability to question simply end with the extraterrestrials?
Also, you have dismissed the possibility that the universe could appear to be designed, simply because we have the intelligence to imagine it as being as such. Having this ability doesn't make it true.
-
Question for Atheists:
Theists believe the Universe was created by a Creator.
Atheists reason the Universe came into existence randomly out of nothing.
Atheists argue who created the Creator?
Well, my question is, why can't the Creator come from nothing according to the Atheist's viewpoint?
I mean, Atheists are already open to the idea that the Universe came from nothing, so what stretch of the imagination would it be for them to acknowledge that a Creator could also start from nothing?
-
You don't understand the fine tuning concept moron.
Go do some reading and stop being a fucking idiot.
If you genuinely believe that avxo doesn't understand the concept, and has not read extensively on this subject, then perhaps it is you who should be impaled.
-
Why would their ability to question simply end with the extraterrestrials?
Also, you have dismissed the possibility that the universe could appear to be designed, simply because we have the intelligence to imagine it as being as such. Having this ability doesn't make it true.
Why would their ability to question simply end with the extraterrestrials?
Also, you have dismissed the possibility that the universe could appear to be designed, simply because we have the intelligence to imagine it as being as such. Having this ability doesn't make it true.
How can you prove it is untrue?
And you are dismissing the idea that a Creator could start from nothing, yet reason that the Universe COULD start from nothing??
The reality is, the odds of the Universe not being designed is so great that it is impossible to have developed randomly without design. This scientists acknowledge. Which is why they came up with the multiverse theory.
Go read up on the fine tuning of the Universe. Computer simulations have proven that the Universe simply does not develop as it did if the fundamental forces are slightly different.
-
If you genuinely believe that avxo doesn't understand the concept, and has not read extensively on this subject, then perhaps it is you who should be impaled.
That post was in response to Necrosis, who does not understand the fine tuning concept at all.
And apparently you don't understand the concept of reading.
You should be fucking impaled for your ignorance!
-
A problem cannot be solved on the same level that created it.
-
I'll answer after you tell me how your Creator come to be.
Could be out of nothing. You should be open to that idea, since you "believe" the Universe came from nothing. See you are a believer in something. "Nothing" is your Creator.
Checkmate.
-
How can you prove it is untrue?
And you are dismissing the idea that a Creator could start from nothing, yet reason that the Universe COULD start from nothing??
The reality is, the odds of the Universe not being designed is so great that it is impossible to have developed randomly without design. This scientists acknowledge. Which is why they came up with the multiverse theory.
Go read up on the fine tuning of the Universe. Computer simulations have proven that the Universe simply does not develop as it did if the fundamental forces are slightly different.
I dismissed nothing. I am well aware of the fine tuning concept. The multi-verse theory is an example of why the fine tuning theory, and the subsequent belief that everything is fine tuned = creator, is a human construct, based of on an incomplete understanding of reality.
-
That post was in response to Necrosis, who does not understand the fine tuning concept at all.
And apparently you don't understand the concept of reading.
You should be fucking impaled for your ignorance!
I stand corrected, and await my death sentence to be carried out by your dutiful minions.
-
Avxo's posts are a thing of beauty. He just nailed obsidian to a cross of brilliant scientific reasoning. I do hope obsidian will have the courage to address all his points in a detailed and civil manner.
Hi CaptainTampon,
How nice to see you! This subject is way beyond your scope of "reasoning". Please, go make us a sandwhich.
I'll wait for Avxo's response to my questions that I asked.
Thanks!
-
I stand corrected, and await my death sentence to be carried out by your dutiful minions.
LMAO! That was funny! ;D
-
How can you prove it is untrue?
And you are dismissing the idea that a Creator could start from nothing, yet reason that the Universe COULD start from nothing??
The reality is, the odds of the Universe not being designed is so great that it is impossible to have developed randomly without design. This scientists acknowledge. Which is why they came up with the multiverse theory.
Go read up on the fine tuning of the Universe. Computer simulations have proven that the Universe simply does not develop as it did if the fundamental forces are slightly different.
Yes. The chances that this is all an accident or random are ridiculously small, so small it is virtually impossible. The reason this narrative which is an obvious farce is continued is because it's really about two world views. God vs. no God. The secularists hijacked science and through lies and theories created a new religion. In this new religion, the earth is round not flat, there is a force called gravity that cannot be proven yet exists. Gravity is a must for the heliocentric theory. In addition, the theory of evolution and big bang theory are a part of this religion. This religion is taught in public schools and institutes of higher learning. It's also perpetuated through media, television, film and print. NASA is very important in perpetuating these lies. Planets are actually wandering stars, we've never been to the moon, the sun and the moon move around the earth and not the earth around the sun. We've never been to outer space. There's just so much we've been lied to for so long, trying to wake someone from their brainwashing/programming is nearly impossible. And that's just the beginning of some truths. All these lies are told in order to build a world where the idea that there is no God is the dominant thought. This has happened over a long period of time.
The thinking goes if God exists, and the Hebrews are his chosen and the Bible is correct as it is written not as it is currently practiced, we are all grossly out of order. This is not a surprise as the bible stated all this would happen. Those without spiritual eyes don't see.
-
I dismissed nothing. I am well aware of the fine tuning concept. The multi-verse theory is an example of why the fine tuning theory, and the subsequent belief that everything is fine tuned = creator, is a human construct, based of on an incomplete understanding of reality.
Humans happen to be creators themselves. And in the Universe we observe, the most logical conclusion would be that the Universe and everything in it was designed. Because we as designers can recognize this. I don't expect a dog to see this or any other known animal / species on Earth.
I agree that intelligence is required to recognize designs and designers.
If all humans disappeared and all our inventions and designs were left behind, no current species on Earth would understand the implications of these buildings, cars etc. And the question could then be asked: "Did we ever exist?"
-
Yes. The chances that this is all an accident or random are ridiculously small. The reason this narrative which is an obvious farce is continued is because it's really about two world views. God vs. no God. The secularists hijacked science and through lies and theories created a new religion. In this new religion, the earth is round not flat, there is a force called gravity that cannot be proven yet exists. Gravity is a must for the heliocentric theory. In addition, the theory of evolution and big bang theory are a part of this religion. This religion is taught in public schools and institutes of higher learning. It's also perpetuated through media, television, film and print. NASA is very important in perpetuating these lies. Planets are actually wandering stars, we've never been to the moon, the sun and the moon move around the earth and not the earth around the sun. We've never been to outer space. There's just so much we've been lied to for so long, trying to wake someone from their brainwashing/programming is nearly impossible. And that's just the beginning of some truths. All these lies are told in order to build a world where the idea that there is no God is the dominant thought. This has happened over a long period of time.
The thinking goes if God exists, and the Hebrews are his chosen and the Bible is correct as it is written not as it is currently practiced, we are all grossly out of order. This is not a surprise as the bible stated all this would happen. This without spiritual eyes don't see.
Do you understand the number of people who would have to "be in" on these multiple conspiracies for them to be to perpetuated? In our lifetime, providing we don't all kill ourselves, you will be able to take a flight outside of the earths atmosphere. How will you be able to perpetuate your theories of a flat earth, when anyone can jump on a flight and see that the earth is a sphere?
-
Question for Atheists:
Theists believe the Universe was created by a Creator.
Atheists reason the Universe came into existence randomly out of nothing.
Atheists argue who created the Creator?
Well, my question is, why can't the Creator come from nothing according to the Atheist's viewpoint?
I mean, Atheists are already open to the idea that the Universe came from nothing, so what stretch of the imagination would it be for them to acknowledge that a Creator could also start from nothing?
Occam's Razor. Why postulate the existence of a Creator if doing so isn't demonstrably needed and only adds complexity?
-
Debunked? Lmao. You don't have to provide an explanation of an explanation. That would lead to an endless loop of explanations with no answers and against the very principles on which science is based.
For example, if humans were to find extraterrestrial artifacts or technology on the moon which were not left behind by anyone from Earth, they would be able to recognize that a designer created those artifacts without asking the question who designed these extraterrestrials. Another example might be digging up artifacts from an ancient civilization on Earth. The archaeologists can instantly identify arrows as designed by a designer, without having to answer the question if these designers were created by a Creator.
It is debunked and it's an "argument" full of logical fallacies, the least of which is special pleading. You claim that everything requires a Creator, except the Creator. Why the exception? If the Creator doesn't himself need to be created why does the Universe need to be?
-
Could be out of nothing. You should be open to that idea, since you "believe" the Universe came from nothing. See you are a believer in something. "Nothing" is your Creator.
Checkmate.
See my previous post: Occam's razor. Postulating that the Universe was created by a Creator who was not, himself, created simply adds unwarranted complexity over the simpler case where it is the Universe that is not created.
To assume a Creator is illogical and irrational in the absence of concrete evidence justifying the existence of a Creator.
-
in conclusion:
the ones here who don't believe in god reject the bullshit from one book so they can cherry pick and choose the bullshit they like better from a whole bunch of differend books. do we believe in god with a capital g? maybe, haven't decided yet. continues to preach how he feels connected with the sun when he stares at it. believes in "energy". or when he's taking a piss in the woods, sees a deer looking straight into his eyes and starts pissing as well he explains it to be the most spiritual thing he has ever experienced. doesn't believe in hell or heaven but is on the fence of reincarnation. sets up the meditation app in the phone to 15 minutes
i win
-
in conclusion:
the ones here who don't believe in god reject the bullshit from one book so they can cherry pick and choose the bullshit they like better from a whole bunch of differend books. do we believe in god with a capital g? maybe, haven't decided yet. continues to preach how he feels connected with the sun when he stares at it. believes in "energy". or when he's taking a piss in the woods, sees a deer looking straight into his eyes and starts pissing as well he explains it to be the most spiritual thing he has ever experienced. doesn't believe in hell or heaven but is on the fence of reincarnation. sets up the meditation app in the phone to 15 minutes
i win
If only the underlined part above were true... ;)
-
If only the underlined part above were true... ;)
AHAHAHAHAHA!! Legit LOL!
-
Logical fallacies called out in bold red.
First sentence: Proof by assertion; second sentence: fallacy of the single cause, circular reasoning and regression fallacy; third sentence: reification and false analogy.
There you go again... "Everything requires a creator! Except the creator, because that'd just be silly. He's just eternal." Come on... that argument was debunked at least as early as 1927 by Russell.
Well, if it's important to you, I'll try. But in order to comprehend that a Creator exists, I first need to comprehend why (a) a Creator is needed and (b) why this Creator doesn't, himself, need a Creator. On your mark... Ready... Set... Go!
But you're sure there is one. Interesting. Tell us, what attributes are you sure of and how did you come to be sure? How can we discover them for ourselves so that we can be sure too?
First paragraph: Fallacy of the single cause, gambler's fallacy, proof by assertion, begging the question, fallacy of insufficient sample and lucid fallacy; second sentence: Fallacy of quoting out of context and appeal to authority and/or accomplishment.
Ah yes, the argument of the fine-tuned universe. It's all the rage these days... except, it's nonsense. Let's start with the simple and indisputable fact that the Universe doesn't seem to be at all tuned to support human life.
Appeal to motive, false dilemma and bulverism
If they thought this, they committed a number of logical fallacies - starting with the either/or fallacy. I'm forced to conclude that the unnamed scientists whose motives and thought you're privy to probably weren't very good scientists. Are you sure you aren't just making this shit up and pretending that "some scientists" said it?
Straw man fallacy
The same is possible without a multiverse, just not in parallel. Not that "in parallel" means much when applied outside the temporal causality framework of the Universe we exist in.
Pooh-pooh fallacy, wishful thinking, kettle logic, argument from incredulity and Nirvana fallacy.
Well, since you see to have, precisely, quantified the odds, care to share them with us? I mean, it's not like I think you're bullshiting us... I just like to see the numbers.
Onus probandi and moving the goalposts
I'll answer after you tell me how your Creator come to be.
Fallacy of esoteric knowledge, fallacy of magical thinking, proof by assertion and thought-terminating cliché
This post looks like a KJV NT; although, in this case, the words in red are GB's atheist Messiah avxo!! ;D
And oh did the lambs then flock to this because "my sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me".
There's almost as many words related to randomly naming of logical fallacies than actual words in said fallacies....this is part I loved! :D
Still your reply is essentially the fallacy fallacy or a subjectivist fallacy or a red herring.
The other problem is that your reply doesn't really defend or refute anything....its simply generalizations, questions and requirements to defend the need for and origin of God. Perhaps a refutation wasn't a specific part of this post and is still to come....I get that. Although if your prerequisite for presenting said refutation is first proving the need and origin of God I can make that pretty plain. We need God to create all that is and we need God for salvation and freedom from sin. We aren't told of an origin of God. What we are told is that he has existed from everlasting to everlasting. God simply is, was and always will be....he has no start or creator otherwise that "starter" or "creator" would be God and so forth and so on in an infinite regression (but you already know that). You and I have discussed these things before so the answers are already there.
Either way, well played.....well played! I again legit LOL'd!! ;D Still I mean no offense, I just literally LOL'd!
-
If only the underlined part above were true... ;)
if only. but i put it rather accurately if i may say so my self how this thread be about because it do
-
if only. but i put it rather accurately if i may say so my self how this thread be about because it do
YES!
-
Why does the creator need a creator?
What if the true answer is God always existed?
People question who created God but don't question that the Universe is infinite?
The universe HAS to be infinite.... if not what's on the other side?..lol
How is an infinite universe possible but a God that always existed not to you?
-
Why does the creator need a creator?
What if the true answer is God always existed?
People question who created God but don't question that the Universe is infinite?
The universe HAS to be infinite.... if not what's on the other side?..lol
How is an infinite universe possible but a God that always existed not to you?
Indeed.
-
That post was in response to Necrosis, who does not understand the fine tuning concept at all.
And apparently you don't understand the concept of reading.
You should be fucking impaled for your ignorance!
yes, we are fine tuned like the water is to a hole in the ground.
It's an old argument, why troll so late in the thread?
-
You don't understand the fine tuning concept moron.
There are 4 fundamental forces that have been identified. In our present Universe they have rather different properties.
Properties of the Fundamental Forces
•The strong interaction is very strong, but very short-ranged. It acts only over ranges of order 10-13 centimeters and is responsible for holding the nuclei of atoms together. It is basically attractive, but can be effectively repulsive in some circumstances.
• The electromagnetic force causes electric and magnetic effects such as the repulsion between like electrical charges or the interaction of bar magnets. It is long-ranged, but much weaker than the strong force. It can be attractive or repulsive, and acts only between pieces of matter carrying electrical charge.
• The weak force is responsible for radioactive decay and neutrino interactions. It has a very short range and, as its name indicates, it is very weak.
• The gravitational force is weak, but very long ranged. Furthermore, it is always attractive, and acts between any two pieces of matter in the Universe since mass is its source.
Scientists have ran computer simulations of the Big Bang, and if any of these forces are different by a minuscule fraction, the Universe does not develop as it did. Galaxies don't form, solar systems don't develop out of Nebulae, accretion of solar dust into planets and stars does not occur. And life does not develop on planets.
The fact that there could be millions of planets in the Universe teaming with life is irrelevant to the discussion about this fine tuning of the Universe. Planets would not even exist if the forces were different by a minuscule, incalculable amount.
Go do some reading and stop being a fucking idiot.
so... lol, the fundamental forces need to be specific, we have nothing to compare it to, it may be the only way it could ever be, the variations are SIMULATIONS as they don't exist, only this does, hence the N=1.
If monkeys didn't eat fruit and meat our PFC wouldn't have developed, then elon musk couldn't make teh model 3, god did it, to fine tuned.
-
See my previous post: Occam's razor. Postulating that the Universe was created by a Creator who was not, himself, created simply adds unwarranted complexity over the simpler case where it is the Universe that is not created.
To assume a Creator is illogical and irrational in the absence of concrete evidence justifying the existence of a Creator.
It is actually the reverse. Scientists have determined the odds are too great for the Universe to have developed as it did randomly after the Big Bang. So in order to account for the random development, they added complexity by coming up with the multiverse theory. Occam's Razor is not applicable.
The most simplest explanation is that the Universe was created with precise tuning.
It is illogical and irrational to insist that it happened randomly when science is providing proof that there must be a Creator.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568)
"There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.
Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?"
-
yes, we are fine tuned like the water is to a hole in the ground.
It's an old argument, why troll so late in the thread?
Not sure what you trying to say. Forget we, the whole Universe is fine tuned. Without this specific tuning of the Universe planets and galaxies would not even exist. For life to have developed on Earth just adds more to the odds. It is basically impossible that it developed randomly. Science is proving this.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568)
-
so... lol, the fundamental forces need to be specific, we have nothing to compare it to, it may be the only way it could ever be, the variations are SIMULATIONS as they don't exist, only this does, hence the N=1.
If monkeys didn't eat fruit and meat our PFC wouldn't have developed, then elon musk couldn't make teh model 3, god did it, to fine tuned.
Are you a scientist? Computers can simulate the development of Universe. And if any of the values are changed even slightly, boom no galaxies, planets or life on planets.
-
Why does the creator need a creator?
What if the true answer is God always existed?
People question who created God but don't question that the Universe is infinite?
The universe HAS to be infinite.... if not what's on the other side?..lol
How is an infinite universe possible but a God that always existed not to you?
The Universe is expanding. At one point right after the Big Bang it was smaller than a cell in your body and very shortly after as big as a golf ball. You could hold it in your hand. Of course we cannot comprehend this time scale. It expanded to the size of our Solar System in an instant. And it has been expanding ever since, for over 13 billion years. So it is not infinite.
Regarding the Creator, I am open to the idea that this Creator always existed, or appeared from nowhere. It is really crazy to think about these things. The reality is we just cannot understand this with our intellect. Why is there a Universe? Why is there a Creator? Using common sense and logic it would seem that there should not have been anything. And yet here we are on Getbig talking about this shit.
-
It is debunked and it's an "argument" full of logical fallacies, the least of which is special pleading. You claim that everything requires a Creator, except the Creator. Why the exception? If the Creator doesn't himself need to be created why does the Universe need to be?
The problem is the Atheist viewpoint does not stand up when reviewing the odds stacked against a random development of the Universe.
How could the Universe develop from nothing? If you can explain that please do. Where did the mass and energy come from prior to the Big Bang. Why are there Hydrogen Atoms?
The reality is as an Atheist you cannot answer this because it is impossible to explain. But please try.
-
It is actually the reverse. Scientists have determined the odds are too great for the Universe to have developed as it did randomly after the Big Bang. So in order to account for the random development, they added complexity by coming up with the multiverse theory. Occam's Razor is not applicable.
Of course Occam's razor is applicable: you are adding a layer of complexity that, ultimately, explains nothing. You claim that everything needs a creator and deduce that, therefore, the Universe needs a creator. You then assert that the Creator doesn't need a creator. You've explained nothing while adding the unnecessary layer of complexity of a Creator.
You claim that "scientists have determined the odds are too great for the Universe to have developed as it did randomly after the Big Bang." Perhaps some scientist said so, but it's unclear to me how they can estimate odds with (a) a sample size of 1, (b) without knowing how all the variables interact with each other and (c) how those variables affect life. This type of argument is favored by people like Eric Metaxas, whose article you quote a little further down in your post; specifically he babbles about how a miniscule change in the relative strength of the electromagnetic and strong nuclear forces - to the order of 1x10-17 - would cause the Universe to not exist. This, of course, is nonsense. It might cause our Universe to not exist, but he can't claim that no Universe could exist.
The most simplest explanation is that the Universe was created with precise tuning.
Except it's not. Not only is it based on a faulty premise, but it also posits something of almost immesurable complexity - a Creator that can "fine tune" the entire Universe. I fail to see how positing such an entity is the "simplest" explanation.
It is illogical and irrational to insist that it happened randomly when science is providing proof that there must be a Creator.
Please explain what consistutes a proof that there must be a Creator and then produce said proof.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568)
I don't find Eric Metaxas' arguments particularly convincing. In addition to what I explained earlier, it seems to me that he takes great pains to make things fit into his preconceived notions and preexisting beliefs.
"There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.
No, sorry... I won't. As I said, this argument isn't convincing for a number of reasons. First, even if it's true that gravity, and the electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear forces could have different values, we don't know what the result would be. Sure, maybe our Universe wouldn't be possible, but so what? It says nothing about the possibility of other Universes.
What's more, this argument is deeply rooted in a hasty generalization. Just because the Universe is what it is and we evolved in it does not mean that the Universe was designed or fine-tuned for us.
Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?"[/i]
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that everything in the above quote is correct: that the odds are beyond even astronomical. So? Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible. But even if it were, one is forced to wonder... surely, by a similar argument, a creator that's able to "create" such a Universe could not have "happened" by chance. Why, a brief back-of-the-napkin calculation tells me that would be like tossing a coin and coming up heads 666 octillion times in a row. Really?
-
The problem is the Atheist viewpoint does not stand up when reviewing the odds stacked against a random development of the Universe.
The problem is that you assume that all Atheists have a common viewpoint about how the Universe developed.
How could the Universe develop from nothing? If you can explain that please do. Where did the mass and energy come from prior to the Big Bang. Why are there Hydrogen Atoms?
Let's say I can't explain any of those things. Now, I have a question for you: how could the Creator you posit develop from nothing? If you can't explain that, then adding a Creator into the mix adds nothing of value and needs to be rejected outright.
The reality is as an Atheist you cannot answer this because it is impossible to explain. But please try.
I'm unintersted in answering those quests as an atheist, because those questions aren't relevant to my atheism. I attempted to answer these questions as a scientist more than once and you kept ignoring those explanations and repeating the same nonsensical questions, page after page after page.
You, on the other hand, can't really even answer those questions, despite inventing a "Creator" as the answer. You can't answer them because your invented answer is vacuous. Allow me to demonstrate:
- You ask "How could the Universe develop from nothing?" You answer "the Creator!"
- You ask "Where did the mass and energy come from prior to the Big Bang"? You answer "the Creator!"
- You ask "Why are there Hydrogen Atoms"? You answer "the Creator!"
Your answer adds nothing of value to the discussion. And, what's more, you can't identify a single characteristic of this Creator that allows us to distinguish him from nothingness. If you want to try and prove me wrong, I have one very simple question for you:
How could the Creator develop from nothing?
-
This post looks like a KJV NT; although, in this case, the words in red are GB's atheist Messiah avxo!! ;D
And oh did the lambs then flock to this because "my sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me".
There's almost as many words related to randomly naming of logical fallacies than actual words in said fallacies....this is part I loved! :D
Still your reply is essentially the fallacy fallacy or a subjectivist fallacy or a red herring.
The other problem is that your reply doesn't really defend or refute anything....its simply generalizations, questions and requirements to defend the need for and origin of God. Perhaps a refutation wasn't a specific part of this post and is still to come....I get that. Although if your prerequisite for presenting said refutation is first proving the need and origin of God I can make that pretty plain. We need God to create all that is and we need God for salvation and freedom from sin. We aren't told of an origin of God. What we are told is that he has existed from everlasting to everlasting. God simply is, was and always will be....he has no start or creator otherwise that "starter" or "creator" would be God and so forth and so on in an infinite regression (but you already know that). You and I have discussed these things before so the answers are already there.
Either way, well played.....well played! I again legit LOL'd!! ;D Still I mean no offense, I just literally LOL'd!
I'm glad I could make you laugh, but I'd hardly describe myself as a Messiah.
As for the style of my reply: I've engaged with Obsidian in this thread before and I refuse to play his game. I see little point in spending time and energy addressing arguments that are based on faulty premises or are, otherwise, fundamentally flawed. I choose to call out the logical fallacies in the arguments to show that they are, indeed, fallacious and flawed and don't make the point that Obsidian claims they do.
You say that my reply is "simply generalizations, questions and requirements to defend the need for and origin of God." But that's not true. My reply is challenging Obsidian's unfounded and unsupported assertion that there exists a Creator. He made this claim, and it's up to him to defend it. Yes, I want him to defend the need and origin of a Creator that was not, himself, created, especially when his argument about why a Creator is necessary boils down to that something can't come from nothing. I refuse to allow Obsidian - or you for that matter - to have your cake and eat it too. If you claim that the Universe - and everything else - requires a creator then I will not allow you to get away with asserting that your creator is special and bypasses that rule.
If you think that this is forcing you defend your deity, then so be it.
-
I'm glad I could make you laugh, but I'd hardly describe myself as a Messiah.
As for the style of my reply: I've engaged with Obsidian in this thread before and I refuse to play his game. I see little point in spending time and energy addressing arguments that are based on faulty premises or are, otherwise, fundamentally flawed. I choose to call out the logical fallacies in the arguments to show that they are, indeed, fallacious and flawed and don't make the point that Obsidian claims they do.
You say that my reply is "simply generalizations, questions and requirements to defend the need for and origin of God." But that's not true. My reply is challenging Obsidian's unfounded and unsupported assertion that there exists a Creator. He made this claim, and it's up to him to defend it. Yes, I want him to defend the need and origin of a Creator that was not, himself, created, especially when his argument about why a Creator is necessary boils down to that something can't come from nothing. I refuse to allow Obsidian - or you for that matter - to have your cake and eat it too. If you claim that the Universe - and everything else - requires a creator then I will not allow you to get away with asserting that your creator is special and bypasses that rule.
If you think that this is forcing you defend your deity, then so be it.
Well, I don't need to defend God (and he definitely doesn't need me to defend him LOL), but I do give reasons for the hope within me and explain the experiences I've had with God and knowledge of God I've learned. God has and will exist from everlasting to everlasting. He's uncaused and has no beginning and only those things that have a beginning are caused (simple kalam cosmological argument). If you consider that having my cake and eating it too then so be it that's fine by me....I take no offense. I'm not at all worried about convincing the atheists of this board about anything as it pertains to God....minds are made up. Would I love for atheists to become Christians? Absolutely. I don't want to see any of you separated from God in an eternal hell....I honestly do care for the members of this board. I'm just giving the Christian perspective, answering questions, correcting misinformation about Christianity and attempting to help others that might want to know more. If that happens primarily through dialogue with atheists then so be it. You keep things civil and lighthearted with a touch of heat here and there ;) so it's all good. I appreciate that you really don't insult....goes a long way with me.
-
Some great intelligent discussion taking place here, it makes a fascinating read.
I have a serious question, as science is ever learning, evolving and adapting has it ever been able to prove that there is no other "advanced life forms" (obviously I'm referring to a "creator", if it be the judo Christian God or some other alien life).
And as a thought, if science can evolve, change and admit errors in belief/practice and it is readily accepted why is the same grace not extended to a belief system, Christianity for example. In this case people seem to focus on its history of short comings and poor practices, yet no one ever harps on false scientific beliefs that were widely held years ago like genetic ethnic superiority (or a superior sex). Any comments or thoughts are welcomed.
-
Some great intelligent discussion taking place here, it makes a fascinating read.
I have a serious question, as science is ever learning, evolving and adapting has it ever been able to prove that there is no other "advanced life forms" (obviously I'm referring to a "creator", if it be the judo Christian God or some other alien life).
And as a thought, if science can evolve, change and admit errors in belief/practice and it is readily accepted why is the same grace not extended to a belief system, Christianity for example. In this case people seem to focus on its history of short comings and poor practices, yet no one ever harps on false scientific beliefs that were widely held years ago like genetic ethnic superiority (or a superior sex). Any comments or thoughts are welcomed.
As the human consciousness evolves or joins with what is already above, behind and within then its scientific scope will also increase. If it insists (or the atheists who proudly proclaim to be her mouthpiece) stubbornly to require logical proof on the level of ordinary human reasoning then I cant see it ever comprehending these things.
Wiggs still believes in genetic ethnic superiority!
-
so to sum up
good people who dont believe in god go to hell for eternity
bad people who believe in god go to heaven
good stuff ::)
-
so to sum up
good people who dont believe in god go to hell for eternity
bad people who believe in god go to heaven
good stuff ::)
Do you want to give your life to Christ?
-
Some great intelligent discussion taking place here, it makes a fascinating read.
I have a serious question, as science is ever learning, evolving and adapting has it ever been able to prove that there is no other "advanced life forms" (obviously I'm referring to a "creator", if it be the judo Christian God or some other alien life).
The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. Religion cannot provide evidence for the existence of God that is not subject to serious logical fallacies like tautologies, circular reasoning, appeals to emotion/authority/tradition, etc. By any reasonable standard the claim must then be rejected.
Science offers reasons for the rejection of God, albeit indirectly, by providing natural explanations antithetical to religious doctrines. For example the origins of man are explained by evolution via natural selection instead of supernatural being creating us from scratch, the age of the Earth is known to be billions of years old as measured by carbon dating instead of just 6,000 years old, etc. You cannot entirely disprove the existence of God, especially since some religious claims are unfalsifiable (and thus beyond the realm of rational disource-they require faith), however, if every God-related claim regarding the natural world can be disproved and is eventually disproved, it gives very strong hints as to the non existence of God.
And as a thought, if science can evolve, change and admit errors in belief/practice and it is readily accepted why is the same grace not extended to a belief system, Christianity for example. In this case people seem to focus on its history of short comings and poor practices, yet no one ever harps on false scientific beliefs that were widely held years ago like genetic ethnic superiority (or a superior sex). Any comments or thoughts are welcomed.
Scientists are obliged to change their minds if presented with appropriate evidence. Even if they do not (they are only human), they still function in a peer-reviewed discipline that will ostracize them if they start acting irrationally, see for example the Fleischmann–Pons cold fusion experiments. Once it became clear they had made a mistake in their calculations and scientists worldwide could not replicate their results, cold fusion was as good as dead and is never published in scientific journals these days.
I think you answered your question with the first sentence. The difference is that a belief system of the religious type has a strong doctrinal core that is immutable, whereas science does not, it can evolve, change and admit errors in belief/practice. The science of the 21st century is radically different from the science of the 19th, whereas religion still relies on doctrines of some kind or other.
-
Do you want to give your life to Christ?
i want to give my life to bringing my child up in a secure and loving enviroment
i dont believe in christ
so by your edict i am therefore damned to hell
while catholic priests abuse children safe in the knowledge that because they believe they have a place in heaven
::)
-
i want to give my life to bringing my child up in a secure and loving enviroment
i dont believe in christ
so by your edict i am therefore damned to hell
while catholic priests abuse children safe in the knowledge that because they believe they have a place in heaven
::)
solid post.
-
Of course Occam's razor is applicable: you are adding a layer of complexity that, ultimately, explains nothing. You claim that everything needs a creator and deduce that, therefore, the Universe needs a creator. You then assert that the Creator doesn't need a creator. You've explained nothing while adding the unnecessary layer of complexity of a Creator.
blah blah blah....
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that everything in the above quote is correct: that the odds are beyond even astronomical. So? Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible. But even if it were, one is forced to wonder... surely, by a similar argument, a creator that's able to "create" such a Universe could not have "happened" by chance. Why, a brief back-of-the-napkin calculation tells me that would be like tossing a coin and coming up heads 666 octillion times in a row. Really?
Occam's Razor is applicable from the Theist's point of view. The simplest explanation is that the Universe is designed.
Atheists are latching on to the multiverse concept which adds complexity. In addition, a multiverse cannot be observed or measured so cannot be proven. And what kind of fine tuning would this generator of Universes require?
The Cosmological Constant is tuned so precisely that it would be impossible for a random development of our Universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant)
"Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang's low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 10 10 (123). Penrose comments, "I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010 (123)."5 And it's not just each constant or quantity which must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers."
Let's say before a Big Bang occurs the Cosmological Constant would always be random / different in the absence of a Designer. You would have to flip a coin almost forever and never come up with the correct Cosmological Constant value that would allow for the the formation of galaxies, stars, planets and ultimately life on planets.
-
i want to give my life to bringing my child up in a secure and loving enviroment
i dont believe in christ
so by your edict i am therefore damned to hell
while catholic priests abuse children safe in the knowledge that because they believe they have a place in heaven
::)
You can still believe there is a Creator without subscribing to the concept of Hell and Heaven.
In my mind there is a Creator that designed the Universe, however I am not sure if there is a Heaven and Hell.
-
i want to give my life to bringing my child up in a secure and loving enviroment
i dont believe in christ
so by your edict i am therefore damned to hell
while catholic priests abuse children safe in the knowledge that because they believe they have a place in heaven
::)
I don't believe most Catholics are aaved. I certainly don't believe that pedo priests are saved. Catholicism is not Christianity.
And good folks don't go to heaven.....none are good.
Those that trust in Christ do. Lord knows the fakes from the real thing.
-
I'm glad I could make you laugh, but I'd hardly describe myself as a Messiah.
As for the style of my reply: I've engaged with Obsidian in this thread before and I refuse to play his game. I see little point in spending time and energy addressing arguments that are based on faulty premises or are, otherwise, fundamentally flawed. I choose to call out the logical fallacies in the arguments to show that they are, indeed, fallacious and flawed and don't make the point that Obsidian claims they do.
You say that my reply is "simply generalizations, questions and requirements to defend the need for and origin of God." But that's not true. My reply is challenging Obsidian's unfounded and unsupported assertion that there exists a Creator. He made this claim, and it's up to him to defend it. Yes, I want him to defend the need and origin of a Creator that was not, himself, created, especially when his argument about why a Creator is necessary boils down to that something can't come from nothing. I refuse to allow Obsidian - or you for that matter - to have your cake and eat it too. If you claim that the Universe - and everything else - requires a creator then I will not allow you to get away with asserting that your creator is special and bypasses that rule.
If you think that this is forcing you defend your deity, then so be it.
No human could possibly understand the concept of a Being that always existed. Christianity teaches that God always existed - a Beginningless Being.
Yet even an Atheist has to be open to the concept of eternity. If the Big Bang happened randomly as Atheists reason, what preceded that?
And why would the Universe start from nothing all of a sudden in this eternity? I mean in the absence of a Creator, what made the decision that a Big Bang would occur? If there was no intelligence behind it, then I fail to see how this came to be. Not even taking into consideration the precise fine tuned values.
I look forward to you answer.
-
I don't believe most Catholics are aaved. I certainly don't believe that pedo priests are saved. Catholicism is not Christianity.
And good folks don't go to heaven.....none are good.
Those that trust in Christ do. Lord knows the fakes from the real thing.
Let's say all that is true... even then, all it takes to be saved is genuine repentance at the very last pico-second before death. So that pedo-priest can be saved. True or false?
-
Let's say all that is true... even then, all it takes to be saved is genuine repentance at the very last pico-second before death. So that pedo-priest can be saved. True or false?
Yes in that extremist of examples that would be true.
The ole Hitler deathbed conversion example.
-
No human could possibly understand the concept of a being that always existed. Christianity teaches that God always existed - a Beginningless being.
And yet, you somehow claim to not only understand this concept, but that it is absolutely necessary and without it, nothing makes sense.
Yet even an Atheist had to be open to the concept of eternity. If the Big Bang happened randomly as Atheists reason, what preceded that?
As I've pointed out before, there's no common position about the origin of Universe shared by all "Atheists". The only shared, common position between atheists is our lack of belief in deities.
You ask what preceded the Big Bang. As I've explained before, the question is meaningless. "Precede" implies a temporal relation (and, perhaps, a causal one) but temporal and causal relations as we understand them are a property of the Universe itself.
And why would the Universe start from nothing all of a sudden in this eternity?
Even if this is a question that is (a) worth asking and (b) possible to answer, I suggest that "because the Creator started it" is a vacuous answer - one that answers nothing and only adds an additional layer of complexity without proving that it is necessary.
I mean in the absence of a Creator, what made the decision that a Big Bang would occur?
You assume that a decision is needed and that one was taken. Where's the proof of this? Notice, answering this is a prerequisite to even asking your question.
If there was no intelligence behind it, then I fail to see how this came to be.
Oh... well... if you fail to see how it could be, then... shit... I guess it couldn't.
Not even taking into consideration the precise fine tuned values.
You mean the bogus argument that has been thoroughly debunked - a fact that I pointed out a few posts ago in an post that you conveniently ignored?
I look forward to you answer.
I hope that it's everything you were hoping it would be.
-
Yes in that extremist of examples that would be true.
The ole Hitler deathbed conversion example.
and there is it
a lifetime of sin
one second of retribution and bingo a ticket to heaven
if you cant see how nonsensical that is
the you might as well be a potato
-
And yet, you somehow claim to not only understand this concept, but that it is absolutely necessary and without it, nothing makes sense.
What concept? I asked the question earlier: "If Atheists are open to the idea of a self creating Universe, why would they oppose a self creating Creator?" I don't have a clue about the origins of the Creator. The Creator could always have existed or spontaneously started. All I believe is the Universe was designed based on Scientific data.
As I've pointed out before, there's no common position about the origin of Universe shared by all "Atheists". The only shared, common position between atheists is our lack of belief in deities.
So you do believe in something. Interesting choice of words for an "Atheist" - lol! Belief should not be part of your vocabulary.
be·lief.
[bəˈlēf]
NOUN
1.an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists:
"his belief in the value of hard work" ·
[more]
2.
(belief in)
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something:
You ask what preceded the Big Bang. As I've explained before, the question is meaningless. "Precede" implies a temporal relation (and, perhaps, a causal one) but temporal and causal relations as we understand them are a property of the Universe itself.
Even if this is a question that is (a) worth asking and (b) possible to answer, I suggest that "because the Creator started it" is a vacuous answer - one that answers nothing and only adds an additional layer of complexity without proving that it is necessary.
Nice dodging of the question. So basically you're choosing the easy way out. You can claim the Universe just started by itself and just magically had the correct Cosmological Constant Values required for you to exist. And a question of what preceded this Auto Start Universe is meaningless. That's not an answer. Looks more like a dog running with his tail between his legs.
You assume that a decision is needed and that one was taken. Where's the proof of this? Notice, answering this is a prerequisite to even asking your question.
The proof is in the fine tuned nature of the Universe. And the fact that you exist - and will die (via impalement .. j/k)
Oh... well... if you fail to see how it could be, then... shit... I guess it couldn't.
Yep, glad you agree :P
You mean the bogus argument that has been thoroughly debunked - a fact that I pointed out a few posts ago in an post that you conveniently ignored?
Where? Link?
I hope that it's everything you were hoping it would be.
Nope, too much dodging.
-
and there is it
a lifetime of sin
one second of retribution and bingo a ticket to heaven
if you cant see how nonsensical that is
the you might as well be a potato
An Atheist with morals? What? By what standards? The is no Creator or God according to you - right? So why do you care if someone is murdered or raped? Where do you get your morals from?
-
being moral is not dependent on belief in God.
-
What concept? I asked the question earlier: "If Atheists are open to the idea of a self creating Universe, why would they oppose a self creating Creator?" I don't have a clue about the origins of the Creator. The Creator could always have existed or spontaneously started. All I believe is the Universe was designed based on Scientific data.
You don't have a clue, but you are sure that a Creator is needed. Also, enough with this nonsense about basing your belief on scientific data - you aren't.
So you do believe in something. Interesting choice of words for an "Atheist" - lol! Belief should not be part of your vocabulary.
Nonsense. I believe in many things. I believe, for example, that my girlfriend loves me; I believe that my parents will be home later tonight; I believe that my DVR recorded at least two shows and I believe that in about 10 days I will receive a bill for my cellular phone.
As a rational person, I don't believe things on faith (that is, in the absence of or contrary to evidence).
As an atheist, I don't believe in deities.
Nice dodging of the question. So basically you're choosing the easy way out. You can claim the Universe just started by itself and just magically had the correct Cosmological Constant Values required for you to exist. And a question of what preceded this Auto Start Universe is meaningless. That's not an answer. Looks more like a dog running with his tail between his legs.
Except I make none of those claims. Let's take it one at a time, shall we?
I don't claim the Universe just started by itself - I merely observe the fact that Universe exists and proprose that your suggestion that the Universe couldn't have started by itself and required a Creator is bogus since, by extension of your argument, the Creator you posit couldn't have started by himself and required a Uber-Creator and that even positing him answers nothing.
I don't claim that the Universe magically had the correct Cosmological Constant Values required for me to exist. I make no claim that other Cosmological Constant Values would preclude my existence or the existence of the Universe. You make that claim by arguing that these values are fine-tuned and proof of design. Yet, you offer no evidence that these values are anything other than random, except to say "well, it's unlikely" but "unlikely" doesn't equal "impossible" and unlikely things happen all the time.
The proof is in the fine tuned nature of the Universe. And the fact that you exist - and will die (via impalement .. j/k)
You haven't proven that the Universe is fine tuned. You merely claim that it is, because you assert that the probability of these values being what they are is infinitesimally small and if they were something else we wouldn't exist. But again, infinitesimally small doesn't equal impossible and doesn't imply design, and you have no concrete evidence that only these values and no others lead to other viable universes. Our existence can't be used to infer that the Universe was designed for us; the simple fact is that the Universe is a terribly hostile place for us and doesn't seem designed with us in mind.
-
and there is it
a lifetime of sin
one second of retribution and bingo a ticket to heaven
if you cant see how nonsensical that is
the you might as well be a potato
Here's the thing, the extreme example (that isn't based any real examples) and the conclusions reached are basically a fallacy of exaggeration. Last second, deathbed conversions such as this do not occur for the fully twisted, evil folks. Pol Pot, Mae Tse Tung, Hitler, Stalin, etc....did not convert from their evil, reprobate ways moments before death....simply false. And to then conclude that given the possibility that this type of conversion is possible ("while my sweet, nonbelieving grandmother that never hurt a fly goes to hell") that Christ and Christianity is perverted and twisted. It's an example purely for shock value, but grounded in nothing. Scripture is full of examples of fully evil and reprobate folks going to their deaths fully evil and reprobate....these folks RARELY (if ever) change their ways. Jeffrey Dahmer didn't murder some of his unbelieving victims and send them to hell and then convert to Christianity in his last breaths after being stabbed in prison and go to heaven with Jesus...it's nonsense.
-
An Atheist with morals? What? By what standards? The is no Creator or God according to you - right? So why do you care if someone is murdered or raped? Where do you get your morals from?
Basically grounded in the subjectivity of a group of nonbelievers disguised behind the facade of scientific consensus.....all in all it's an argumentum ad populum.
-
Where does Purgatory fit in to the grand scheme of things?
-
Where does Purgatory fit in to the grand scheme of things?
false catholic doctrine...fits into the catholic church
-
Logical fallacies called out in bold red.
First sentence: Proof by assertion; second sentence: fallacy of the single cause, circular reasoning and regression fallacy; third sentence: reification and false analogy.
There you go again... "Everything requires a creator! Except the creator, because that'd just be silly. He's just eternal." Come on... that argument was debunked at least as early as 1927 by Russell.
Well, if it's important to you, I'll try. But in order to comprehend that a Creator exists, I first need to comprehend why (a) a Creator is needed and (b) why this Creator doesn't, himself, need a Creator. On your mark... Ready... Set... Go!
But you're sure there is one. Interesting. Tell us, what attributes are you sure of and how did you come to be sure? How can we discover them for ourselves so that we can be sure too?
First paragraph: Fallacy of the single cause, gambler's fallacy, proof by assertion, begging the question, fallacy of insufficient sample and lucid fallacy; second sentence: Fallacy of quoting out of context and appeal to authority and/or accomplishment.
Ah yes, the argument of the fine-tuned universe. It's all the rage these days... except, it's nonsense. Let's start with the simple and indisputable fact that the Universe doesn't seem to be at all tuned to support human life.
Appeal to motive, false dilemma and bulverism
If they thought this, they committed a number of logical fallacies - starting with the either/or fallacy. I'm forced to conclude that the unnamed scientists whose motives and thought you're privy to probably weren't very good scientists. Are you sure you aren't just making this shit up and pretending that "some scientists" said it?
Straw man fallacy
The same is possible without a multiverse, just not in parallel. Not that "in parallel" means much when applied outside the temporal causality framework of the Universe we exist in.
Pooh-pooh fallacy, wishful thinking, kettle logic, argument from incredulity and Nirvana fallacy.
Well, since you see to have, precisely, quantified the odds, care to share them with us? I mean, it's not like I think you're bullshiting us... I just like to see the numbers.
Onus probandi and moving the goalposts
I'll answer after you tell me how your Creator come to be.
Fallacy of esoteric knowledge, fallacy of magical thinking, proof by assertion and thought-terminating cliché
i have to say, you are one of my favorite posters..
-
i have to say, you are one of my favorite posters..
;D ;D
No offense at all meant towards avxo....I like him too!
-
MOS, the truth is, you were faltering long before that.. to pretend you were even close to holding your own in the discussion is funny. You were and are giving 5th grade apologist answers that have been debunked long before this thread. You believe what you do because you want to believe it. To suggest science supports your belief or it makes logical sense is ridiculous
-
MOS, the truth is, you were faltering long before that.. to pretend you were even close to holding your own in the discussion is funny. You were and are giving 5th grade apologist answers that have been debunked long before this thread. You believe what you do because you want to believe it. To suggest science supports your belief is ridiculous
LOL!! Settle down Agnostic.....after the 10000 memes thrown at me y'all can endure 4. ::)
I like that one by the way...."5th grade apologetics"....that's actually a new insult I haven't heard before!
-
LOL!! Settle down Agnostic.....after the 10000 memes thrown at me y'all can endure 4. ::)
I like that one by the way...."5th grade apologetics"....that's actually a new insult I haven't heard before!
Thanks, I considered 6th grade but I recall by the 6th grade their logic and reason is further developed ;-)
-
You don't have a clue, but you are sure that a Creator is needed. Also, enough with this nonsense about basing your belief on scientific data - you aren't.
Do you have a clue? Why are you here? Why is there a Universe. You don't have a clue so don't act like you do. Oh yes, you will probably counter that you never claimed to have a clue - lol! However you do know for a fact there can't be a Creator. How do you know this for a fact? Why do you believe this?
Nonsense. I believe in many things. I believe, for example, that my girlfriend loves me; I believe that my parents will be home later tonight; I believe that my DVR recorded at least two shows and I believe that in about 10 days I will receive a bill for my cellular phone.
And let's say hypothetically your parents had a flat tire or had a drink with friends and could not reach you on the phone, what happens to that belief of yours that they would be home in the evening? You believed your parents would be home as usual with you waiting eagerly in the Basement. You had faith that they would bring you food and video games as usual. But it did not happen as you dreamed. What then??
As a rational person, I don't believe things on faith (that is, in the absence of or contrary to evidence).
You have faith that your parents would be home, however that might not always be the case.
Except I make none of those claims. Let's take it one at a time, shall we?
I don't claim the Universe just started by itself - I merely observe the fact that Universe exists and proprose that your suggestion that the Universe couldn't have started by itself and required a Creator is bogus since, by extension of your argument, the Creator you posit couldn't have started by himself and required a Uber-Creator and that even positing him answers nothing.
I don't claim that the Universe magically had the correct Cosmological Constant Values required for me to exist. I make no claim that other Cosmological Constant Values would preclude my existence or the existence of the Universe. You make that claim by arguing that these values are fine-tuned and proof of design. Yet, you offer no evidence that these values are anything other than random, except to say "well, it's unlikely" but "unlikely" doesn't equal "impossible" and unlikely things happen all the time.
You haven't proven that the Universe is fine tuned. You merely claim that it is, because you assert that the probability of these values being what they are is infinitesimally small and if they were something else we wouldn't exist. But again, infinitesimally small doesn't equal impossible and doesn't imply design, and you have no concrete evidence that only these values and no others lead to other viable universes. Our existence can't be used to infer that the Universe was designed for us; the simple fact is that the Universe is a terribly hostile place for us and doesn't seem designed with us in mind.
But surely as an Atheist you know for certain a Creator did not create the Universe. That is the impression you are giving. What is you position then on the origins of the Universe? You just proposed that you make no claim on whether the Universe self started or not. Do you agree that the Universe had a beginning?
I don't have to prove the Universe is fine tuned. This has already been proven by leading Scientists.
And who said the Universe was designed with us in mind? Not me. The human species is only 200,000 years old. That's young compared to most species with some being a few million years old. Hostility could very well be part of the designer's plan and necessary so species can adapt via evolution. I see evolution as just part of the design.
The Universe was designed for everything. Galaxies, Stars, Solar Systems, Planets, Earth, Dinosaurs, Megalodons, Monkeys, Humans, Cars, Computers etc.
We are star dust. Your great great great..... parents were ancient stars that died before our Solar System was born.
-
i have to say, you are one of my favorite Basement posters..
Fixed ;)
-
being moral is not dependent on belief in God.
https://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality (https://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality)
-
Thanks, I considered 6th grade but I recall by the 6th grade their logic and reason is further developed ;-)
So close to junior high reasoning abilties! Guess we'll see how I do throughout the rest of 2016.
Although to be fair I have had to dumb down my responses so they are more brief and more direct and therefore actually read.
-
Many good points are being made but no one is convincing any one here. It seems each side only grows stronger in their position.
I would like to point out the fact that despite whatever you believe, technically faith is a part of your everyday life. It's woven in your very being. You have faith that your job will pay you on the correct day, that money is deposited into your account, that you will be able to access that money from the account, that the money will pay for goods/services, and so on.
Again it's a technicality but everyone uses faith in everyday life and future planning.
-
Where does Pulgasari fit in to the grand scheme of things?
Methinks North Korea
(http://static1.squarespace.com/static/53290cd2e4b091b8426b546b/t/53fecb76e4b0f2094a2fadaa/1409207161523/pulgasari+1)
-
Why are you here?
I guess that "because God put me here" is supposed to be the meaningful answer to this deep and insighful question?
Why is there a Universe.
Is that supposed to be a question? If so, it's a poor one - it assumes that there is a why. Is there?
You don't have a clue so don't act like you do. Oh yes, you will probably counter that you never claimed to have a clue - lol! However you do know for a fact there can't be a Creator. How do you know this for a fact? Why do you believe this?
I said that your argument for a Creator is vacuous and logically flawed. You are claiming that everything requires a creator, but you then turn around and claim that the Creator doesn't. This is bullshit. Unless you can definitively and concusively explain why the Universe requires a Creator but the Creator doesn't, you have no argument.
You ask me what I believe - and you highlight that term as if the word is supposed to offend me or prove something about me. I told you before, there's a difference between rational and irrational beliefs. You believe, irrationally, that a Creator is required and you have faith (whether in the absence of or contrary to evidence) in that Creator. I lack the capability to have faith like you do - I value my mind too much to forego its use.
And let's say hypothetically your parents had a flat tire or had a drink with friends and could not reach you on the phone, what happens to that belief of yours that they would be home in the evening? You believed your parents would be home as usual with you waiting eagerly in the Basement. You had faith that they would bring you food and video games as usual. But it did not happen as you dreamed. What then??
Yawn... ad hominem attacks. The last bastion of the defeated keyboard warriors. What's next? You'll call me a nerd and a pointdexter because I took part in mathematical olympiads instead of playing football when I was in highschool? Or maybe you'll call me a bald-pate because I've lost my hair? Do you really think that insults are effective and that you can come out on top of this conversation if you manage to hurt my feelings?
Believing, based on empirical evidence, that they'll be at their home doesn't mean that they will. And if they aren't, then my worldview doesn't collapse. This is in stark contrast to the belief that you have when it comes to the Creator.
You have faith that your parents would be home, however that might not always be the case.
No, I don't have faith that they will. I believe that they will be based on empirical evidence (they are usually at home on Sunday evenings). There's a difference. It's possible that they won't be home tonight; let's say they don't. So what?
But surely as an Atheist you know for certain a Creator did not create the Universe. That is the impression you are giving.
That's your interpretation. Here's what I've actually said instead: that you claim that everything requires a creator, and that since the Universe is something then then Universe requires a creator, before adding "oh and by the way, the Creator is exempt from this requirement that everything requires a creator." That this claim is logically irrational and inconsistent and the argument you're making is fundamentally flawed.
I also added that even if your argument was consistent and not irrational, it still doesn't help us understand anything. It merely adds another layer of complexity. You claim that, somehow, positing a Creator with unknown (and perhaps unknowable) attributes gives us answers. But it does not - it answers nothing and only brings up more questions.
What is you position then on the origins of the Universe? You just proposed that you make no claim on whether the Universe self started or not.
See Big Bang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang).
Do you agree that the Universe had a beginning?
Your question presupposes that the well-ordering principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-ordering_principle) applies to time.
I don't have to prove the Universe is fine tuned. This has already been proven by leading Scientists.
Appeal to authority, but let's let that slide for a second. Please tell us which leading scientists have proven that the Universe is fine-tuned.
And who said the Universe was designed with us in mind? Not me. The human species is only 200,000 years old. That's young compared to most species with some being a few million years old. Hostility could very well be part of the designer's plan and necessary so species can adapt via evolution. I see evolution as just part of the design.
In other words, "there's no evidence pointing towards design, and that implies a designer!"
The Universe was designed for everything. Galaxies, Stars, Solar Systems, Planets, Earth, Dinosaurs, Megalodons, Monkeys, Humans, Cars, Computers etc.
Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.
We are star dust. Your great great great..... parents were ancient stars that died before our Solar System was born.
Deep man... deep.
-
;D ;D
No offense at all meant towards avxo....I like him too!
Haha! Those are awesome! Although I must point out that posting PMs is a bannable offense on getbig! ;D
-
Many good points are being made but no one is convincing any one here. It seems each side only grows stronger in their position.
I would like to point out the fact that despite whatever you believe, technically faith is a part of your everyday life. It's woven in your very being. You have faith that your job will pay you on the correct day, that money is deposited into your account, that you will be able to access that money from the account, that the money will pay for goods/services, and so on.
Again it's a technicality but everyone uses faith in everyday life and future planning.
To have faith is to believe something in the absence of or contrary to evidence... You have faith that your <INSERT DEITY HERE> will take the cancer away without radiation. Or that there's some cosmic supernatural justice underlying the Universe and that everyone will get their dues.
You have a rational belief that your job will pay you, based on a legally binding contract that can be enforced through a Court system. Of course, this doesn't mean you won't get the shaft from a bad employer who will refuse to pay. Only that your belief isn't faith-based.
There's a difference between rational belief and blind faith.
is based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
-
To have faith is to believe something in the absence of or contrary to evidence... You have faith that your <INSERT DEITY HERE> will take the cancer away without radiation. Or that there's some cosmic supernatural justice underlying the Universe and that everyone will get their dues.
You have a rational belief that your job will pay you, based on a legally binding contract that can be enforced through a Court system. Of course, this doesn't mean you won't get the shaft from a bad employer who will refuse to pay. Only that your belief isn't faith-based.
There's a difference between rational belief and blind faith.
is based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Lol that's an extreme version of the definition of faith..... wasn't this Steve Jobs method of fighting cancer (and it had nothing to do with a belief in a deity, but a belief in holistic healing)? The second part of your statement sounds more like the concept of karma or "reaping what one has sown."
I think we are agreeing though. I didn't mean faith as a spiritual aprehension without proof I meant it as a complete trust in. ...... whatever be it daily routine or rational belief.
I think both sides are going to the extreme of their definition of one another, when their reality is somewhere in the middle.
Most Christians don't live in a "blind" faith other than they believe in "God" that loves them (and the occasional get rich quick ponsi scheme). Those who would deny radiation treatment for cancer treatment are either simpletons or someone who is in an advanced state and isn't willing to go through the trouble and pain of the treatments, the God will heal me line is likely more for their survivors who cant/dont/won't understand their position.
Many atheists wouldn't deny the possibility of another advanced life form in the universe (which is what Christianity is really based in, a "higher power" or a more advanced life than ours).
Good points nonetheless.
-
Here's the thing, the extreme example (that isn't based any real examples) and the conclusions reached are basically a fallacy of exaggeration. Last second, deathbed conversions such as this do not occur for the fully twisted, evil folks. Pol Pot, Mae Tse Tung, Hitler, Stalin, etc....did not convert from their evil, reprobate ways moments before death....simply false. And to then conclude that given the possibility that this type of conversion is possible ("while my sweet, nonbelieving grandmother that never hurt a fly goes to hell") that Christ and Christianity is perverted and twisted. It's an example purely for shock value, but grounded in nothing. Scripture is full of examples of fully evil and reprobate folks going to their deaths fully evil and reprobate....these folks RARELY (if ever) change their ways. Jeffrey Dahmer didn't murder some of his unbelieving victims and send them to hell and then convert to Christianity in his last breaths after being stabbed in prison and go to heaven with Jesus...it's nonsense.
you havent disagreed with me
just waffled a load of shit
you are basically saying that most evil people dont repent so the example has no merit
what a crock of shit
you lose tubby 8)
-
The thing I find ridiculous about the theist position is that: they are quite happy to accept that change is a fundamental constant of their day to day reality, yet they want to halt the change in their thinking to circa 2000 years ago. Those who are so deep into the delusion will go further, and deny that change / evolution even occurs. Next they will be telling us that the earth is flat....
-
Do you have a clue? Why are you here? Why is there a Universe. You don't have a clue so don't act like you do. Oh yes, you will probably counter that you never claimed to have a clue - lol! However you do know for a fact there can't be a Creator. How do you know this for a fact? Why do you believe this?
And let's say hypothetically your parents had a flat tire or had a drink with friends and could not reach you on the phone, what happens to that belief of yours that they would be home in the evening? You believed your parents would be home as usual with you waiting eagerly in the Basement. You had faith that they would bring you food and video games as usual. But it did not happen as you dreamed. What then??
You have faith that your parents would be home, however that might not always be the case.
But surely as an Atheist you know for certain a Creator did not create the Universe. That is the impression you are giving. What is you position then on the origins of the Universe? You just proposed that you make no claim on whether the Universe self started or not. Do you agree that the Universe had a beginning?
I don't have to prove the Universe is fine tuned. This has already been proven by leading Scientists.
The Universe was designed for everything. Galaxies, Stars, Solar Systems, Planets, Earth, Dinosaurs, Megalodons, Monkeys, Humans, Cars, Computers etc.
Faith is belief without evidence, if you were a smart human, you could deduce simply from that definition that belief with evidence must exist, that is the opposite of faith. You have to pick one, believing his parents are coming home is based on evidence and probability, this is not faith, you are amalgamating definitions to form an incoherent argument.n Something occurring other then what is expected does not make the belief a faith based one, how silly is that?
The universe is not fine tuned, we have nothing to compare it to, if you had one car and no others existed could you say it's fine tuned? how would you know? perhaps the values could only be what they are, some scientists make such a claim, likely religious ones, the thing by using the appeal to authority is that no one is an expert in this question, it's opinion as it cannot be tested.
If the force of gravity was weaker the planets would never form, and if my grandmother had wheels she would be a bicycle.
you must be pellius
-
Are you a scientist? Computers can simulate the development of Universe. And if any of the values are changed even slightly, boom no galaxies, planets or life on planets.
What a stupid question, are you a scientist LOL, you mean cosmologist? you see social scientists exist, you may want to be more specific if you are trying to sound smart.
Why would one presume the values could be anything other then they are? if they were we wouldn't be here to comment on how specific they are, perhaps they are not specific, nothing to compare it to.
-
Faith is belief without evidence, if you were a smart human, you could deduce simply from that definition that belief with evidence must exist, that is the opposite of faith.
you must be pellius
Wrong. Credulity is belief without evidence.
Faith is assured expectation of the things to come, realities though not yet beheld.
Or if you prefer secular definition: strong belief in someone or something.
-
Wrong. Credulity is belief without evidence.
Faith is assured expectation of the things to come, realities though not yet beheld.
Or if you prefer secular definition: strong belief in someone or something.
Credulity is a tendency to believe, a bias with slight or uncertain evidence, faith is belief in absence of evidence.
How could you fuck up the definitions that bad with google right there?
-
Credulity is a tendency to believe, a bias with slight or uncertain evidence, faith is belief in absence of evidence.
How could you fuck up the definitions that bad with google right there?
;D That made me chuckle.
-
Wrong. Credulity is belief without evidence.
Faith is assured expectation of the things to come, realities though not yet beheld.
Or if you prefer secular definition: strong belief in someone or something.
Many secular circles seem to correlate faith as explicit knowledge and frown upon any suggestions of a lower quantity than the absolute.
..
It is plausible that in a "many worlds" situation, there might be "worlds" in which there really is a creator of this particular region with just the same predilection for having fuck all to do with us, yet judging us on our err.. "faith" in a whisper.
I haven't read this thread up until now because the fact is, nobody wants to be wrong. Nobody will be convinced of anything. It's a pointless exercise in which the faithful attempt to defend themselves and we, those who either do not believe or have no proof in which to believe with, look at you poor fools as deluded and of limited intelligence.
It's the same dance, over and over again. Fact is, faith has a constructive and positive impact on many people's lives and being smarter than someone doesn't make life better - in many cases, it is the exact opposite.
But it is clearly at the cost of being able to thinking critically - because the world we live in does not lend much credence to your faith actually being correct.
Choose your adventure, it's pointless trying to choose other people's. They will believe in precisely what they want to believe in.
-
too much ego and not enough meditation and mushrooms in this thread of peace.
-
Haha! Those are awesome! Although I must point out that posting PMs is a bannable offense on getbig! ;D
Ok, that makes me feel good cause it was all in fun! ;)
-
The thing I find ridiculous about the theist position is that: they are quite happy to accept that change is a fundamental constant of their day to day reality, yet they want to halt the change in their thinking to circa 2000 years ago. Those who are so deep into the delusion will go further, and deny that change / evolution even occurs. Next they will be telling us that the earth is flat....
Well our thinking isn't about a 2000 year old idea....God never changes so the beliefs we hold to are as timeless as God is.
-
Credulity is a tendency to believe, a bias with slight or uncertain evidence, faith is belief in absence of evidence.
How could you fuck up the definitions that bad with google right there?
No that whole "faith is belief without evidence" bit is completely incorrect, but I understand where the unbeliever is coming from.....it's a matter of ignorance and that's ok.
Hebrews 11:1
1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
As believers in Christ we have assurance of who God is and his reality in our lives via the presence of the Holy Spirit. My faith is rock solid via the repeat demonstration and testable presence of the Holy Spirit in my life. Now we have faithful assurance of God's promises not yet fulfilled in our lives, but things of God revealed today we have absolute proof of and our changed lives are evidence of God's work and relationship with us. We stand confidently and faithfully in his promises to come because of what is revealed of him today and in the past. We have assurance of scriptural past because of indwelling, tangible spirit in the present.
-
Well our thinking isn't about a 2000 year old idea....God never changes so the beliefs we hold to are as timeless as God is.
You're right, The Most High never changes so the idea that his laws have been done away with shows that modern Christianity doesn't follow the bible. My people's book was taken and religions were created from it. After the Hebrews were ran out of Israel by the Romans and they either fled into Africa or were taken as slaves elsewhere, our book was taken and twisted by Constintine to created the Christianity you see today. Pre-Constintine Christianity is nothing like Christianity today. It's why it's so easy for me to skillfully slay modern Christians with the Bible because they don't follow it. They follow doctrines.
-
God will emerge as a Black James Bond, stirred and quite shaken from what is left of Nibiru after the impact.
-
God will emerge as a Black James Bond, stirred and quite shaken from what is left of Nibiru after the impact.
The Most High, aka The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is black. God created the original man in his image, the original man is so called black. God has a spiritual body. He sits on his throne in heaven. Deal with it.
-
You're right, The Most High never changes so the idea that his laws have been done away with shows that modern Christianity doesn't follow the bible. My people's book was taken and religions were created from it. After the Hebrews were ran out of Israel by the Romans and they either fled into Africa or were taken as slaves elsewhere, our book was taken and twisted by Constintine to created the Christianity you see today. Pre-Constintine Christianity is nothing like Christianity today. It's why it's so easy for me to skillfully slay modern Christians with the Bible because they don't follow it. They follow doctrines.
You here to slay me Wiggs? I'd rather just have civil discussions if that's alright. We have a white devil on the board and it isn't me.
You're welcome to dialogue though, but starting like that isn't necesary with me. I'm not intimidated in the slightest with puffed up bravado...it's simply unnecessary.
I've read a lot of BHI materials and watched HOURS of their doctrines online. Lots of talented men diving into scripture...it's the motivation and predetermined conclusions that are unfortunate.
But you are welcome to say what you need to say.
-
The Most High, aka The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is black. God created the original man in his image, the original man is so called black. God has a spiritual body. He sits on his throne in heaven. Deal with it.
Hey... is Nibiru here yet? Did 2012 get postponed for 2017?
-
i like how mos drops out each argument as he is proved wrong
or falls back to copy and paste views
scrutiny is not his friend
reason is not his bedfellow
-
i like how mos drops out each argument as he is proved wrong
or falls back to copy and paste views
scrutiny is not his friend
reason is not his bedfellow
Neither is reason his hebrewfellow
-
You here to slay me Wiggs? I'd rather just have civil discussions if that's alright. We have a white devil on the board and it isn't me.
You're welcome to dialogue though, but starting like that isn't necesary with me. I'm not intimidated in the slightest with puffed up bravado...it's simply unnecessary.
I've read a lot of BHI materials and watched HOURS of their doctrines online. Lots of talented men diving into scripture...it's the motivation and predetermined conclusions that are unfortunate.
But you are welcome to say what you need to say.
Man of Steel, I have no personal qualms with you. You are a brother in Christ. The problem is you believe in a false doctrine. It's not even minor things it's major things. It came to be that way because as I've explained earlier when my people, the Hebrews were conquered in 70 AD and had to flee into Africa or become slaves.
Christ said he is sent for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The idea and doctrine that Christ is here for everyone is a lie. No where in the Bible does it say that. Below taken from Matthew 15: 22-28 a woman Canaan (An African) asked Christ for help and he told her verbatim I AM NOT SENT BUT UNTO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL. That's pretty clear that he's not here for Africans, whites, asians or whatever else. He's here for HIS PEOPLE. He even called the woman a dog! When he saw that the woman had faith, he healed her daughter anyway. So this idea that Christ is coming back to save everyone is a lie. He's coming back to save his people the HEBREW ISRAELTES that happen to be black (no need to preface BLACK before Hebrew Israelites because Hebrew Israelites are black). What you Christians have done is dismissed Christs people the Hebrews and made up some spiritual Israel garbage to graft yourselves in. A small number of heathen will indeed be grafted in. Yes. Guess what they'll be doing in the Kingdom? Serving Hebrews. They'll be in servitude but not the way whites did to us. All of this is in the Bible and you Christians NEVER touch it. Why? Because if you do, you'll be exposed. This is why Christianity has 1001 denominations.
22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
-
MOS, have you considered that this presence of the Holy Spirit that you experienced, might have been a full-body orgasm? This is what happens when you stop masturbating...it's got to come out somehow
"I can feel the Holy Spirit....his presence is thick and tangible around me at times. My body will tingle and get hot....sometimes head to toe. And although my body reacts to the stimulus in the same way all our bodies are designed to react the stimulus does not originate from the inside of me. I'm touched from outside of myself and my body reacts to that interaction."
(http://dumpfm.s3.amazonaws.com/images/20100918/1284790324497-dumpfm-christ-orgasm.gif)
(http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/glee/images/4/44/Orgasm.gif/revision/latest?cb=20121220184853)
(http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lsin9rhCOP1qbe30io1_500.gif)
The point was that the stimulation occurred outside of myself...it's wasn't a reaction to a drug or bad piece fish that was inside my body.
LOL, I knew y'all would start making memes.
-
i like how mos drops out each argument as he is proved wrong
or falls back to copy and paste views
scrutiny is not his friend
reason is not his bedfellow
What in the world are you talking about? Been on this thread for 30+ pages....been doing this since 2010....pretty well established.
-
Man of Steel, I have no personal qualms with you. You are a brother in Christ. The problem is you believe in a false doctrine. It's not even minor things it's major things. It came to be that way because as I've explained earlier when my people, the Hebrews were conquered in 70 AD and had to flee into Africa or become slaves.
Christ said he is sent for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The idea and doctrine that Christ is here for everyone is a lie. No where in the Bible does it say that. Below taken from Matthew 15: 22-28 a woman Canaan (An African) asked Christ for help and he told her verbatim I AM NOT SENT BUT UNTO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL. That's pretty clear that he's not here for Africans, whites, asians or whatever else. He's here for HIS PEOPLE. He even called the woman a dog! When he saw that the woman had faith, he healed her daughter anyway. So this idea that Christ is coming back to save everyone is a lie. He's coming back to save his people the HEBREW ISRAELTES that happen to be black (no need to preface BLACK before Hebrew Israelites because Hebrew Israelites are black). What you Christians have done is dismissed Christs people the Hebrews and made up some spiritual Israel garbage to graft yourselves in. A small number of heathen will indeed be grafted in. Yes. Guess what they'll be doing in the Kingdom? Serving Hebrews. They'll be in servitude but not the way whites did to us. All of this is in the Bible and you Christians NEVER touch it. Why? Because if you do, you'll be exposed. This is why Christianity has 1001 denominations.
22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
total pure retarded delusion.
-
Hebrews are supposed to teach the Bible to the Heathen. it's ours. Not Heathen to the world. That's why things are all messed up. WE HAD ONE JOB!...
We didn't do it. We decided to follow the way of the Heathen and for that we were punished with slavery many times. Hebrews overall have been in slavery 6 times throughout history! This last time here in the Americas was our last time.
You have to have a certain spirit on you to understand the Bible as it should. Many Hebrews have this spirit. Prior to 2012 I did not have this spirit. I do now.
There are major differences between Christians and Hebrews.
Christians don't acknowledge the actual true chosen people meaning so called African Americans as the actual biblical Hebrews. Christians don't acknowledge Christs real name Yahshua or his ethnicity (today he'd be known as a Negro). Christians celebrate Pagan days and say their doing it for Christ (Christmas and Easter). Christians believe the biblical Edomites are the Hebrew Israelites (Edomites are the antagonists). Christians follow Holidays. Christians don't believe in following a dietary law, they eat any and everything. Christians don't observe Shabbat they go to church on Sunday and even then, they don't keep that day holy either. They still buy and sell and still do their own pleasures on this day. Christians believe God's law is done away with even though the Bible says God doesn't change. Christians believe in a rapture that's not in the bible. Christians believe when you die you immediately go to heaven or hell. Christians believe they're going to float off into heaven. Christians believe Christ is returning peacefully.
Hebrews know that Christ was a black man and they are the chosen people of the bible. Hebrews know they aren't Africans. Hebrews know Christs real name is Yahshua and know The Most High's real name as well. Hebrews follow HOLY DAYS not Holidays. Hebrews follow the Holy Days of the Bible. Meaning feast days, Passover etc. Hebrews know that the so called Jewish people are actually Edomites of the Bible, that they are converts that have stolen the identity of the actual Hebrews and know that Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 means in that regard. Hebrews follow the biblical dietary law in Leviticus meaning not eating pork, shell fish etc. Hebrews observe the Shabbat. They don't buy or sell, do their own pleasures. Hebrews follow God's Laws and know they aren't done away with. Hebrews know the Kingdom is coming here and that we're not floating off into heaven. Hebrews know when you die, you're dead until judgement or until if you're chosen, you are a part of Christ's Army to cull the earth with blood up to the horses bridle. Hebrews know Christ is returning with the sword.
This is just SOME major differences between Hebrews and Christians. The thing is Hebrews can show you all what we believe in the bible. Christians can't do this. Christmas, Easter, Sunday Church, White "Jesus", White Hebrews, rapture and nice peacefull "Jesus" returning is not in the Bible. You're following a corrupt doctrine all of you.
In all you're studying I hope youre getting some understanding because you're following a lie and traditions of men with cause people to lose their salvation.
-
total pure retarded delusion.
I have ruined you. You are a broken man because you reject truth. You haven't recovered and you won't. Perhaps you should do some meditation, smoke a blunt or whatever it is you do to help you get over it. It sucks to be not included doesn't it? We're not all created equal, that's a bunch of shite. There is a pecking order Mr. Ronan whether you like it or not. Even many Hebrews will be sent to the lake of fire because they don't want to come back to the Laws, Statutes and Commandments of The Most High. Many will enter, few will win.
-
I have ruined you. You are a broken man because you reject truth. You haven't recovered and you won't. Perhaps you should do some meditation, smoke a blunt or whatever it is you do to help you get over it. It sucks to be not included doesn't it? We're not all created equal, that's a bunch of shite. There is a pecking order Mr. Ronan whether you like it or not. Even many Hebrews will be sent to the lake of fire because they don't want to come back to the Laws, Statutes and Commandments of The Most High. Many will enter, few will win.
thanks for the laugh bro. Tell me when you have succeeded in sitting with a still mind for 1 hour. Then you will begin to know true peace and joy.
-
i can't diss noone for believing in whatever they want to believe in, but wiggs is talking some of the most twisted versions of christianity i have ever read. thank god he's not trying to be historian, lol
-
Now in regards to the original question by OP, why doesn't God appear every now and again?
The Most High doesn't move from his thrown. He has others to do his work for him. He has angelic beings, (Angels) Prophets of the Bible, Christ and the Most High's Chosen people to get his word out, The Hebrew Israelites.
Humans would not be able to look at the Most High and live. The Most High told Moses that in Exodus 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. Even when Angels made themselves known to prophets in the past, it caused terror. As much as I would like to stand in the presence of an angelic being, I'd be scared shitless and may even give up the ghost (die) without help. It's too much. So the idea of being in the Most High's presence or seeing him in all is glory is not possible in human flesh without dying.
You have free will to believe what you want and do what you want but there are consequences.
-
thanks for the laugh bro. Tell me when you have succeeded in sitting with a still mind for 1 hour. Then you will begin to know true peace and joy.
An idle mind is the devils playground. "Good Luck".
-
An idle mind is the devils playground. "Good Luck".
and a concentrated single pointed mind is not. Stillness of mind is really the basis of spiritual understanding.
-
i can't diss noone for believing in whatever they want to believe in, but wiggs is talking some of the most twisted versions of christianity i have ever read. thank god he's not trying to be historian, lol
There's nothing twisted about it. It's twisted to you because it hurts your feelings and you don't understand it. Let's get something straight. I'm not a christian. I'm a Hebrew. Christians use a HEBREW Bible. I don't need to become a historian, the Bible speaks for itself.
The Hebrews are coming... And none of you are ready for us...
-
and a concentrated single pointed mind is not. Stillness of mind is really the basis of spiritual understanding.
Not into the New Age stuff.
-
meditation is not new age, its thousands of years old.
-
There's nothing twisted about it. It's twisted to you because it hurts your feelings and you don't understand it. Let's get something straight. I'm not a christian. I'm a Hebrew. Christians use a HEBREW Bible. I don't need to become a historian, the Bible speaks for itself.
The Hebrews are coming... And none of you are ready for us...
funny shit wigg :D
-
funny shit wigg :D
-
.
-
I guess that "because God put me here" is supposed to be the meaningful answer to this deep and insighful question?
Is that supposed to be a question? If so, it's a poor one - it assumes that there is a why. Is there?
Classic example of running away from a question with another question. Why are you here? Why would the Universe just start automatically? Please provide a scientific explanation for that.
I said that your argument for a Creator is vacuous and logically flawed. You are claiming that everything requires a creator, but you then turn around and claim that the Creator doesn't. This is bullshit. Unless you can definitively and concusively explain why the Universe requires a Creator but the Creator doesn't, you have no argument.
I believe a design needs a designer. The Universe is observable, measurable and fine tuned. Just as a building, car, watch or computer can be viewed, measured, and experienced. This to me is a design. The Creator in my mind is only known through the design. So this question is invalid. We cannot measure or observe this Creator. So you cannot make the claim that the Creator is a design.
You ask me what I believe - and you highlight that term as if the word is supposed to offend me or prove something about me. I told you before, there's a difference between rational and irrational beliefs. You believe, irrationally, that a Creator is required and you have faith (whether in the absence of or contrary to evidence) in that Creator. I lack the capability to have faith like you do - I value my mind too much to forego its use.
But this is your subjective opinion. Its not irrational to claim the Universe is highly fine tuned, because scientists have done the calculations and measurements already. These values were calculated rationally. Are you saying the research is bogus?
Yawn... ad hominem attacks. The last bastion of the defeated keyboard warriors. What's next? You'll call me a nerd and a pointdexter because I took part in mathematical olympiads instead of playing football when I was in highschool? Or maybe you'll call me a bald-pate because I've lost my hair? Do you really think that insults are effective and that you can come out on top of this conversation if you manage to hurt my feelings?
Believing, based on empirical evidence, that they'll be at their home doesn't mean that they will. And if they aren't, then my worldview doesn't collapse. This is in stark contrast to the belief that you have when it comes to the Creator.
Lighten up Princess. Just messing with you. It's fine if you live in the basement. I'm cool with that.
No, I don't have faith that they will. I believe that they will be based on empirical evidence (they are usually at home on Sunday evenings). There's a difference. It's possible that they won't be home tonight; let's say they don't. So what?
Then they might be home tonight ;)
That's your interpretation. Here's what I've actually said instead: that you claim that everything requires a creator, and that since the Universe is something then then Universe requires a creator, before adding "oh and by the way, the Creator is exempt from this requirement that everything requires a creator." That this claim is logically irrational and inconsistent and the argument you're making is fundamentally flawed.
I also added that even if your argument was consistent and not irrational, it still doesn't help us understand anything. It merely adds another layer of complexity. You claim that, somehow, positing a Creator with unknown (and perhaps unknowable) attributes gives us answers. But it does not - it answers nothing and only brings up more questions.
I believe I said every design needs a designer. Not everything requires a Creator. I don't think the Creator requires a Creator. That would result in a never ending circular loop. I still would like to know how the Universe could self start from nothing - from an Atheist point of view? You are here, the Universe is here. Why is there a Universe?
See Big Bang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang).
Your question presupposes that the well-ordering principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-ordering_principle) applies to time.
Appeal to authority, but let's let that slide for a second. Please tell us which leading scientists have proven that the Universe is fine-tuned.
In other words, "there's no evidence pointing towards design, and that implies a designer!"
Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.
Deep man... deep.
"I was reminded of this a few months ago when I saw a survey in the journal Nature. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God--and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."(1)
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)
Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)
George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)
Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)
Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics of ChristianityThe Physics of Christianity.
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)
Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)
Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)
There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind - Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." (27)
1. Jim Holt. 1997. Science Resurrects God. The Wall Street Journal (December 24, 1997), Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
2. Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.
3. Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30.
4. Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.
5. Davies, P. 1984. Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 243.
6. Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.
7. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 200.
8. Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.
9. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.
10. Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.
11. Penrose, R. 1992. A Brief History of Time (movie). Burbank, CA, Paramount Pictures, Inc.
12. Casti, J.L. 1989. Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483.
13. Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 52.
14. Jastrow, R. 1978. God and the Astronomers. New York, W.W. Norton, p. 116.
15. Hawking, S. 1988. A Brief History of Time. p. 175.
16. Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.
17. Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57
18. Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.
19. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 166-167.
20. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 223.
21. Zehavi, I, and A. Dekel. 1999. Evidence for a positive cosmological constant from flows of galaxies and distant supernovae Nature 401: 252-254.
22. Margenau, H. and R. A. Varghese, eds. Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens (Open Court Pub. Co., La Salle, IL, 1992).
23. Sheler, J. L. and J.M. Schrof, "The Creation", U.S. News & World Report (December 23, 1991):56-64.
24. McIver, T. 1986. Ancient Tales and Space-Age Myths of Creationist Evangelism. The Skeptical Inquirer 10:258-276.
25. Mullen, L. 2001. The Three Domains of Life from SpaceDaily.com
26. Atheist Becomes Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew at Biola University (PDF version).
27. Tipler, F.J. 2007. The Physics Of Christianity. New York, Doubleday.
-
only one thing i agree with wiggs is that pope isn't christian, pope doesn't represent christians, pope doesn't even want u to pray for jesus. pope is literally anti god. pope even said he wants to blend all religions into one. nothing to do with christianity. pope has his own religion. but pope doesn't represent white people or christians
-
only one thing i agree with wiggs is that pope isn't christian, pope doesn't represent christians, pope doesn't even want u to pray for jesus. pope is literally anti god. pope even said he wants to blend all religions into one. nothing to do with christianity. pope has his own religion. but pope doesn't represent white people or christians
Good to see you know that. I'm impressed hearing that coming from you. You have a long ways to go. Guess where all modern doctrines come from? Roman Catholic Church.
-
What in the world are you talking about? Been on this thread for 30+ pages....been doing this since 2010....pretty well established.
you never answered my question
yes or no
if a man commits evil all his life and accepts god in his last seconds
will he be allowed in to heaven
-
only one thing i agree with wiggs is that pope isn't christian, pope doesn't represent christians, pope doesn't even want u to pray for jesus. pope is literally anti god. pope even said he wants to blend all religions into one. nothing to do with christianity. pope has his own religion. but pope doesn't represent white people or christians
The pope is a bought and paid for globalist whore.
-
Good to see you know that. I'm impressed hearing that coming from you. You have a long ways to go. Guess where all modern doctrines come from? Roman Catholic Church.
exactly, that's why people should listen to the right ones, the gospels that jesus would preach
u showed me that imo funny music video. i watched it. this is pretty much my view on christianity how it is in a nutshell. takes 4 minutes of ur time.
-
you never answered my question
yes or no
if a man commits evil all his life and accepts god in his last seconds
will he be allowed in to heaven
No.
You get your salvation through keeping The Big 10. The 10 Commandments.
Christ said if you love him, KEEP HIS Commandments.
John 14:15-31King James Version (KJV)
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
1 John 2King James Version (KJV)
2 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
If you're not following the 10 Commandments and claim to love Christ, you are a liar and the truth is not him. Don't expect to have a favorable decision during judgment. This last min. thing is bullshit. You're answer is they have meeting in the lake with the snake...
-
No.
You get your salvation through keeping The Big 10. The 10 Commandments.
Christ said if you love him, KEEP HIS Commandments.
John 14:15-31King James Version (KJV)
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
1 John 2King James Version (KJV)
2 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
If you're not following the 10 Commandments and claim to love Christ, you are a liar and the truth is not him. Don't expect to have a favorable decision during judgment. This last min. thing is bullshit. You're answer is they have meeting in the lake with the snake...
in your version
see its down to interpretation
you are a sodomite and user of drugs
where does that fit in
remember you posted about fucking trannies
how about that
how about preaching the heathen mayan message does that count
i could go on
-
exactly, that's why people should listen to the right ones, the gospels that jesus would preach
u showed me that imo funny music video. i watched it. this is pretty much my view on christianity how it is in a nutshell. takes 4 minutes of ur time.
Which one is the right one? And why?
Do know what doctrine I subscribe to? No doctrine. I only use the Bible and books associated i.e. Book of Enoch, Book of Jasher, Book of Jubilee and the Apocrypha.
When you read it for yourself with understanding, you're going to see my crazy doctrine isn't crazy, it's what it says. So you'll end up believing it or be totally turned off from it.
-
What exactly is God's endgame or goal?
I mean, if he doesn't insist on at least ending the in-fighting between humans then wtf are we to think?
-
in your version
see its down to interpretation
you are a sodomite and user of drugs
where does that fit in
remember you posted about fucking trannies
how about that
how about preaching the heathen mayan message does that count
i could go on
There is no my version. it's what the bible says. I've never been a sodomite, that is a lie. Drug user? You mean pot? That's not a drug that's a plant. You see, I see you're trying to discredit me to discredit my message but it's not going to work. So to answer your question, sin doesn't fit in. Sin is transgression of the law. Meaning the 10 Commandments. You've been paying attention to my long enough to know that I've given up my sinful ways a while ago. Meaning whoremongering, fornication the whole thing. In regards to Mayan message stuff, you know what I said. I said I was afraid something would happen but I didn't know what. Never have I said the world would end because that would be in contrast with what the Bible says. So yes, please go on... A person has the whole time while they're alive to turn their life from sin to follow God's laws. There is no repentance when you're in the grave.
Guess what? Sodomites and drug users and EVERY kind of sinner can repent and change their lives and follow God's Laws and make it to the Kingdom. So making fun of people trying to receive salvation by following God's laws is like making fun of an unlearned person for going to school to learn. It shows you for the wicked shithead you are.
-
in your version
see its down to interpretation
you are a sodomite and user of drugs
where does that fit in
remember you posted about fucking trannies
how about that
how about preaching the heathen mayan message does that count
i could go on
he also said he is willing to try ayahuasca only under some shaman's supervision in peru was it. those shamans deal with spirits and do spiritism. christ is strongly against this, yet wiggs would have no problem with it. yeah
Which one is the right one? And why?
Do know what doctrine I subscribe to? No doctrine. I only use the Bible and books associated i.e. Book of Enoch, Book of Jasher, Book of Jubilee and the Apocrypha.
When you read it for yourself with understanding, you're going to see my crazy doctrine isn't crazy, it's what it says. So you'll end up believing it or be totally turned off from it.
which one is the right one and why? LOL, if only u went with this
if u can't see the right one, then ur heart is not in the right place. right now ur in the wrong.
i don't subscribe to any doctrine neither. i don't even belong to church. and i don't have to read any of your books, because the last page u spewed some of the illest crap i've read and you were wrong in all parts regarding to what christians think. none of those things apply to christianity
Christians don't acknowledge Christs real name Yahshua or his ethnicity WRONG!. Christians celebrate Pagan days and say their doing it for Christ (Christmas and Easter) WRONG. Christians believe the biblical Edomites are the Hebrew Israelites (Edomites are the antagonists) SAY WHAT?!. Christians follow Holidays WRONG. Christians don't believe in following a dietary law, they eat any and everything WRONG". Christians don't observe Shabbat they go to church on Sunday and even then, they don't keep that day holy either WRONG. They still buy and sell and still do their own pleasures on this day WRONG. Christians believe God's law is done away with even though the Bible says God doesn't change WRONG. Christians believe in a rapture that's not in the bible The term Rapture is used to refer to the faithful believers being taken up to meet Christ in the air as described in this passage written by the apostle Paul. Christians believe when you die you immediately go to heaven or hell FUCKING WRONG. Christians believe they're going to float off into heaven WHAT???. Christians believe Christ is returning peacefully HELL NO THEY DON'T.
i just want to let u know that christianity does not teach those things. people fucking do sin regardless of religion because people are vile. and doing their own pleasure? noone is without sin, u'r doing ur own pleasure all the time. u preach like christians are the only one doing shit. u were the biggest sinner here just awhile back and u still are, get the hell on with this crap. u seem like the biggest hypcrite here. u'r definitely a whack ass preacher
-
What exactly is God's endgame or goal?
I mean, if he doesn't insist on at least ending the in-fighting between humans then wtf are we to think?
why should he help? humans once decline gods future intervianance when god drowned the world. told god not to kill people anymore, sinners or no. god said "that's cool i'll leave u alone, but there will become a day when u people kill each other anyway". so that's how it is. enjoy your independance, god will definitely not kill or be involved in none of this crap, and he isn't
-
Now in regards to the original question by OP, why doesn't God appear every now and again?
The Most High doesn't move from his thrown. He has others to do his work for him. He has angelic beings, (Angels) Prophets of the Bible, Christ and the Most High's Chosen people to get his word out, The Hebrew Israelites.
Humans would not be able to look at the Most High and live. The Most High told Moses that in Exodus 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. Even when Angels made themselves known to prophets in the past, it caused terror. As much as I would like to stand in the presence of an angelic being, I'd be scared shitless and may even give up the ghost (die) without help. It's too much. So the idea of being in the Most High's presence or seeing him in all is glory is not possible in human flesh without dying.
You have free will to believe what you want and do what you want but there are consequences.
33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.
oops....
-
What exactly is God's endgame or goal?
I mean, if he doesn't insist on at least ending the in-fighting between humans then wtf are we to think?
End game or goal can be looked it in two different ways.
The Bible says the earth is given unto the unto the hands of the wicked. Satan has a specific time period to rule this world. This is why things are wrong and out of order for those wondering The Most High God gave Satan dominion over the plane to rule. We as humans have free will. The Most High wants us to WILLFULLY serve him. Those that do by following his laws statues and Commandments will be rewarded by being part of the Kingdom aka New Jerusalem here on earth. Not floating off in the sky somewhere. He gave a specific people his laws and directions to follow to spread the word and those people if they did their part, they'd be rewarded but if they didn't they'd be cursed. He said people would be able to identify those people by the curses on them. These people today are the so called Negroes that are spread across the four corners of the earth.
Because the Hebrews were so hard headed and riddled in sin, Christ needed to be sent by The Most High to atone for the sins of the Hebrews otherwise we'd all be sent to hell. Christ is the King of Hebrews and will reign for 1000 years on earth when he returns. During those thousand years, Satan and his fallen angels will be held in a pit. After those thousand years, he'll let go again for a short period of time. All of this is in the book of Revelation.
-
33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.
oops....
I bet you thought you really had me... ;D ::)
Can God be seen face to face (Genesis 32:30; Exodus 33:11) or not (Exodus 33:20; John 1:18; 1 John 4:12)?
Relevant passages:
Genesis 32:30
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: “For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”
Exodus 33:11
So the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. And he would return to the camp, but his servant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, did not depart from the tabernacle.
Exodus 33:20
But He said, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.”
John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
1 John 4:12
No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us.
At first, one might think this is among the greatest of alleged contradictions, for its form mimics the Law of Non-contradiction. A contradictionist may say, “We’ve got a good one on you because A cannot equal not-A, and these verses show that God can both be seen face to face and not.” But sometimes people fail to realize the rest of the Law of Non-contradiction that states, “A cannot equal not-A at the same time and in the same relationship.”
Usually, when I see two verses allegedly in contradiction so close together in context, e.g. Exodus 33:11 and Exodus 33:20, then the context will be significant in helping us reveal there is a different time or relationship, hence not in contradiction. And this is exactly the case here. Between Exodus 33:11 and Exodus 33:20, Moses and the Lord are speaking, but a change in relationship occurs in verses 18 and 19. The greater context of this is shown:
17 So the Lord said to Moses, “I will also do this thing that you have spoken; for you have found grace in My sight, and I know you by name.”
18 And he said, “Please, show me Your glory.”
19 Then He said, “I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”
20 But He said, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.”
At this point, the relationship has changed to signify that Moses asked to see the Lord in His glory! Not the typical face to face as revealed to sinful humans and as had already been revealed to Moses. Then, the Lord informed Moses that if any man saw Him face to face (in His glory), then they would die (see also 1 Corinthians 1:29).
The context of John 1 reveals a similar situation of God in His glory:
15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’”
16 And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace.
17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
John discusses God’s fullness (hence, His glory) in verse 16 and points out that no one has seen God (in this fullness), but Christ, who declares Him (who was God in humbled flesh, according to Philippians 2:8 and the earlier context of John 1). The verse in 1 John 4:12 restates John’s previous statement and is, thus, not in contradiction, but consistent as well.
Hence, there is no contradiction, as God can speak face to face with men, but not while in all His glory; otherwise, sinful man would die.
-
he also said he is willing to try ayahuasca only under some shaman's supervision in peru was it. those shamans deal with spirits and do spiritism. christ is strongly against this, yet wiggs would have no problem with it. yeah
which one is the right one and why? LOL, if only u went with this
if u can't see the right one, then ur heart is not in the right place. right now ur in the wrong.
i don't subscribe to any doctrine neither. i don't even belong to church. and i don't have to read any of your books, because the last page u spewed some of the illest crap i've read and you were wrong in all parts regarding to what christians think. none of those things apply to christianity
i just want to let u know that christianity does not teach those things. people fucking do sin regardless of religion because people are vile. and doing their own pleasure? noone is without sin, u'r doing ur own pleasure all the time. u preach like christians are the only one doing shit. u were the biggest sinner here just awhile back and u still are, get the hell on with this crap. u seem like the biggest hypcrite here. u'r definitely a whack ass preacher
You don't subscribe to a doctrine and you don't read scripture? For the duration of your time here you've been everywhere. How do you know if I'm right or wrong when you don't know scripture? You just don't like what I say and you never look to verify if I'm telling the truth. LOL! We're done kid. Keep it movin' When you want to talk scripture, lets talk. If you want to philosophize you're on your own.
-
i just want to let u know that christianity does not teach those things. people fucking do sin regardless of religion because people are vile. and doing their own pleasure? noone is without sin, u'r doing ur own pleasure all the time. u preach like christians are the only one doing shit. u were the biggest sinner here just awhile back and u still are, get the hell on with this crap. u seem like the biggest hypcrite here. u'r definitely a whack ass preacher
As long as he keeps his wackyness to himself it's all good.
Nobody wants to hear his shit about Hebrews. He was a good militaryman before but now he's gone over the deep end.
But let him be, let him be one with his Nibiru.
-
You don't subscribe to a doctrine and you don't read scripture? For the duration of your time here you've been everywhere. How do you know if I'm right or wrong when you don't know scripture? You just don't like what I say and you never look to verify if I'm telling the truth. LOL! We're done kid. Keep it movin' When you want to talk scripture, lets talk. If you want to philosophize you're on your own.
i know the scripture enough to know you're full of crap, "kid". when u copy and paste more of that cult crap u just verify more and more u'r lost. the video u posted looked to have some street dindus straight out of the crackhouse, and they r ur brothers, lol. that's ur religion, "kid"
when u said jesus isn't for everyone, that it's only for the brews i know ur full of shit. many fake christian cults have said the same thing hundreds of times claiming they have vip salvation only for those who follow their crap.
i'm not verifying u'r wrong? u don't rly want to have a debate or a conversation, i can tell when someone isn't reading my post when they reply, u don't care, u just want to post walls of text, leave the thread and say u have won. u ignore everyone completely, u'r the worst guy to have a conversation or a debate with
As long as he keeps his wackyness to himself it's all good.
Nobody wants to hear his shit about Hebrews. He was a good militaryman before but now he's gone over the deep end.
But let him be, let him be one with his Nibiru.
u'r exactly right. wiggs is talking with himself. i bet he prefers to talk with himself better.
the scriptures he reads he claims to be truth, continues to copy paste wall of text that takes 15 minutes to read completely as "proof". he accuses christians of doing sin, but he refuses to acknowledge his own, refuses to acknowledge human nature, continues to copy paste another huge wall of text as "proof". he just wants people to listen to him but he ignores everyone else, he's the kid. u'r right kwon, i'll ignore this madman :D
-
As long as he keeps his wackyness to himself it's all good.
Nobody wants to hear his shit about Hebrews. He was a good militaryman before but now he's gone over the deep end.
But let him be, let him be one with his Nibiru.
Nope, you and others will hear about this. It's spreading everywhere. You'll be forced to deal with it. You'll have to deal with Muslims and now Hebrews. Good luck in Sweden. :-*
-
i know the scripture enough to know you're full of crap, "kid". when u copy and paste more of that cult crap u just verify more and more u'r lost. the video u posted looked to have some street dindus straight out of the crackhouse, and they r ur brothers, lol. that's ur religion, "kid"
when u said jesus isn't for everyone, that it's only for the brews i know ur full of shit. many fake christian cults have said the same thing hundreds of times claiming they have vip salvation only for those who follow their crap.
i'm not verifying u'r wrong? u don't rly want to have a debate or a conversation, i can tell when someone isn't reading my post when they reply, u don't care, u just want to post walls of text, leave the thread and say u have won. u ignore everyone completely, u'r the worst guy to have a conversation or a debate with
u'r exactly right. wiggs is talking with himself. i bet he prefers to talk with himself better.
the scriptures he reads he claims to be truth, continues to copy paste wall of text that takes 15 minutes to read completely as "proof". he talks about christians doing sin, but he refuses to acknowledge his own, refuses to acknowledge human nature, continues to copy paste another huge wall of text as "proof". he just wants people to listen to him but he ignores everyone else, he's the kid
No, you don't know. You can't answer basic questions. When you as you always do go off on other subjects, start philosophizing based on your limited intelligence, ignoring my questions and using them to ask other questions, it tells me you're not here to learn or exchange ideas you're here to try to raise hell. It never works. So yes, I've ignored you plenty of time because you go into your mind numbing philosophizing mode. I don't have time for that.
Furthermore, you don't read what I do put, and then write that I don't do things that I actually already wrote about in the same thread. Lol. Human nature is to sin. And sinning is going to get you sent to hell. I test someone's spirit then ignore ignoramuses and answer the legit. Whether you listen to what I say or not is up to you. I lose no sleep at night. I have plenty of people that do listen and ask questions. :)
Yes, please ignore me. I only wish.
-
How Wiggs sees himself:
(http://wallpaperhdwide.com/wp-content/gallery/pictures-of-black-jesus/blackjesus%20crop.jpg)
How everyone else sees Wiggs:
(http://media.virbcdn.com/cdn_images/resize_1024x1024/44/fa5b01c8e8de884a-IMG_9795.jpg)
-
How Wiggs sees himself:
(http://wallpaperhdwide.com/wp-content/gallery/pictures-of-black-jesus/blackjesus%20crop.jpg)
How everyone else sees Wiggs:
(http://media.virbcdn.com/cdn_images/resize_1024x1024/44/fa5b01c8e8de884a-IMG_9795.jpg)
Um, No. I see myself as these Hebrews in the second picture because that's who we are.
-
...
Because the Hebrews were so hard headed and riddled in sin, Christ needed to be sent by The Most High to atone for the sins of the Hebrews otherwise we'd all be sent to hell. Christ is the King of Hebrews and will reign for 1000 years on earth when he returns. During those thousand years, Satan and his fallen angels will be held in a pit. After those thousand years, he'll let go again for a short period of time. All of this is in the book of Revelation.
Didn't the Quran say the same 1000 year thing?
Weird...
-
How everyone else sees Wiggs:
(http://media.virbcdn.com/cdn_images/resize_1024x1024/44/fa5b01c8e8de884a-IMG_9795.jpg)
Haha yes, that's how everyone sees Wiggster these days, just like those nignogs with clown-outfits.
-
Didn't the Quran say the same 1000 year thing?
Weird...
I don't know about Quran saying that. I do know that the Roman Catholic Church created Islam though.
-
Credulity is a tendency to believe, a bias with slight or uncertain evidence, faith is belief in absence of evidence.
How could you fuck up the definitions that bad with google right there?
Faith is backed by evidence. Just because the godless culture continually perverts the language to try to win their point doesn't make it correct. Look at the subtle adjustments made over time to edge faith out to the sidelines as mere wishful thinking.
If your business associate was heading into a negotiation and he'd won the last 10 rounds of negotiations you would that you had faith that he would prevail again. That would be based on the results or evidence he provided by way of his track record. Similarly, God's track record of prophecies being recorded before they happen and then bring proved true after they happen both by secular and biblical evidence is the basis of a believer's faith.
-
How Wiggs sees himself:
(http://wallpaperhdwide.com/wp-content/gallery/pictures-of-black-jesus/blackjesus%20crop.jpg)
How everyone else sees Wiggs:
(http://media.virbcdn.com/cdn_images/resize_1024x1024/44/fa5b01c8e8de884a-IMG_9795.jpg)
don't forget these guys, seems legit
holy shit is that actually wiggs in 01:33 ?
-
don't forget these guys, seems legit
Instead of Hundred, they seem to be inclined to say "Hunnid". :D
-
Faith is backed by evidence. Just because the godless culture continually perverts the language to try to win their point doesn't make it correct. Look at the subtle adjustments made over time to edge faith out to the sidelines as mere wishful thinking.
If your business associate was heading into a negotiation and he'd won the last 10 rounds of negotiations you would that you had faith that he would prevail again. That would be based on the results or evidence he provided by way of his track record. Similarly, God's track record of prophecies being recorded before they happen and then bring proved true after they happen both by secular and biblical evidence is the basis of a believer's faith.
Where are these predictions?
-
Instead of Hundred, they seem to be inclined to say "Hunnid". :D
have to appeal to the youth with generic autotune and gang signs as well, but it's still legit :D
look at 01:33, is that wiggs? serious question
-
hebrews were black
hebrews were NOT black
-
God's presence has kept this thread going (or from dying) for 36 pages!
-
Where are these predictions?
PROPHECIES ABOUT ABRAHAM AND HIS DESCENDANTS
The descendants of the faithful man Abraham would become a great nation, later called the nation of Israel.—Genesis 12:1, 2.
Abraham’s descendants would return to the land of Canaan after living in a foreign land for four generations.—Genesis 15:13, 16.
Abraham’s descendants would take possession of “the entire land of Canaan.”—Genesis 17:8.
Because the Israelites rebelled against God, he would allow them to be conquered and taken captive.—Jeremiah 25:8-11.
God would restore the Jews to their homeland after they spent 70 years in captivity.—Jeremiah 25:12; 29:10.
The Babylonian world power would be overthrown, and in time Babylon would become rubble.—Isaiah 13:19, 20.
PROPHECIES ABOUT THE MESSIAH AND HIS FOLLOWERS
The Messiah, or Christ, would stem from the family line of King David.—Isaiah 9:7.
The future Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.—Micah 5:2.
The Messiah would appear 483 years after “the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem.” That word was given in 455 B.C.E.—Daniel 9:25.
Before his execution, the Messiah would be severely flogged.—Isaiah 50:6.
The Messiah would be executed as a despised criminal, yet he would be buried with “the rich class.”—Isaiah 53:9.
Christ’s followers would spread his message throughout Judea, Samaria, and the rest of the known world.—Acts 1:8.
Christians would be persecuted.—Mark 13:9.
Deceitful and oppressive individuals would infiltrate the Christian congregation, causing many to become apostate.—Acts 20:29, 30; 2 Peter 2:1, 2.
PROPHECIES ABOUT THE LAST DAYS
The time of the end would be marked by
Worldwide preaching of the “good news of [God’s] kingdom.”—Matthew 24:14.
Warfare, even on a global scale.—Matthew 24:7; Revelation 6:4.
Food shortages.—Matthew 24:7.
Great earthquakes.—Luke 21:11.
Terrible diseases.—Luke 21:11.
Hatred and violence.—Matthew 24:10, 12.
Greedy, self-centered people and money lovers.—2 Timothy 3:1-5.
-
;D ;D
No offense at all meant towards avxo....I like him too!
This is funny :D
-
Classic example of running away from a question with another question.
Really? Asking if your question makes sense means "running away"?
Why are you here?
I don't ascribe any particular supernatural meaning to my (or yours, or anyone else's) existence. Why are you here? Because the Creator wanted it? If so, why? And how do you know that?
Why would the Universe just start automatically?
Please provide a scientific explanation for that.
Science is concerned with the natural. Permit me to slight "abuse" the word cause for a second by using it as if I were you: the cause of the Universe, if there is a cause, is outside the realm and purview of science.
I believe a design needs a designer.
That's a tautology that tells us nothing.
The Universe is observable, measurable and fine tuned.
Plenty of things are observable and measurable. That's hardly evidence of design. Take your shit, for example. You can observe it by looking into the toilet bowl. You can even measure it, by shitting inside a bucket and weighing it or calculating the volume it occupies. Yet, your observable and measurable shit is hardly evidence of design.
You again claim that the Universe is "fine tuned" but the term is meaningless as you use it. You claim that if one value was off by a microscopic amount, the Universe could not exist and you cite the ratio of the electromagnetic and strong nuclear forces as an example. But your argument is flawed. First of all, even if this Universe could not exist, you cannot rule that no other could. And even if you could rule the possibility out, you have to contend with the fact that unlikely does not imply impossible.
Just as a building, car, watch or computer can be viewed, measured, and experienced. This to me is a design. The Creator in my mind is only known through the design. So this question is invalid. We cannot measure or observe this Creator. So you cannot make the claim that the Creator is a design.
But this is your subjective opinion. Its not irrational to claim the Universe is highly fine tuned, because scientists have done the calculations and measurements already.
It's not a subjective opinion. You claim that the Universe is highly fined tuned because - and this is what your argument boils down to - "unless it has the values it has it wouldn't exist, and it exists, therefore the values were carefully selected." This is not a joke or a misrepresentation. This is what you are actually claiming.
These values were calculated rationally.
Sure. And? Are you suggesting that anything that's been calculated rationally cannot be misused or used in an irrational way?
Are you saying the research is bogus?
Since you haven't provided any links to such research, I can't say. But I am fairly confident that there is scientific consensus that "the Universe is finely tuned" but just to be sure, I went by the Physics department today and spoke with a friend who is an astrophysicist and he also ensured me that there he's aware of no such research that is published in a peer reviewed journal.
Lighten up Princess.
You first, I'm shy.
I believe I said every design needs a designer.
Again, that's a tautology.
Not everything requires a Creator.
Oh! Now we're getting somewhere.
I don't think the Creator requires a Creator. That would result in a never ending circular loop.
Right. I'm glad to see you get with the program.
I still would like to know how the Universe could self start from nothing - from an Atheist point of view? You are here, the Universe is here. Why is there a Universe?
I don't know, and, to be honest, I don't think it matters in the sense that if something is "outside" the Universe (again, pardon my slight abuse of the term "outside") then it is outside the purview of science.
Now, we get to the part of your post that you copied from http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=quotes (http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=quotes). I will point out ahead of time, that every single one of these quotes is, at its core, an appeal to authority. "Look, this scientist says X!" as if that, automatically, lends credence to the saying.
"I was reminded of this a few months ago when I saw a survey in the journal Nature. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God--and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."(1)
Good for them I guess. But so what? Is the existence of God subject to a straw poll?
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)
Fred Hoyle's personal beliefs are his business but I doubt he'd present them as scientifically supported or publish this "common sense" interpretation of his for peer review.
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)
Well, if you assume that "amazing fine tuning occurs" then yes... but does it? George Ellis brushes that question aside by simply asserting the truth of his premise.
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)
Dr. Davies (whom I met at ASU for a conference about astrobiology) is, no doubt, a very smart man. But the "powerful evidence" he cites hasn't convinced the scientific community at large.
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)
He may find it improbable, but the improbable is not impossible.
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)
John O'Keefe was entitled to his view, but there's little actual evidence that humans are pampered, cosseted or cherished - whether by astronomical or other standards. The argument that "if the Universe wasn't just so we wouldn't be here and were are so it was made just so" is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent).
George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)
Really? The thought "instantly arises"? There are plenty of scientists for whom that thought doesn't instantly arises. Why should we treat this as anything other that Greenstein's personal opinion?
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)
Well, thinking about it is one thing. Showing scientific evidence that is is quite another.
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)
It's unclear why Arno Penzias thinks that only these conditions permit life, or why life is, somehow, special. But hey, let's not worry about such (some might say silly) questions.
Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)
OK... so Dr. Rothman apparently took a leap of faith. He then takes another by claiming he knows that many other phycisists want to as well before lamenting they won't admit to doing it. And?
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)
Unfortunately, the divine hasn't answered yet...
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)
Dr. Jastrow might have been a self-proclaimed agnostic, but his beliefs on creation - as he expressed them - paint him as nothing short of a Creationist.
Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)
Dr. Hawking is using the term "God" metaphorically here, but let's not worry about such things.
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics of ChristianityThe Physics of Christianity.
And yet, plenty of other prominent physicists in that same special branch of physics haven't been forced into those conclusions. Is their logic, somehow, flawed?
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)
Huh?
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)
And, apparently, many don't. Who cares what scientists incline toward? The question is what can they prove?
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)
If you're going to claim that the picture is incomplete without God, then you really aren't leaving much for the reader to insert, are you?
Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)
Barry Parker may be a cosmologist, but he's not above logical fallacies. His first question assumes facts not in evidence. If only he'd proven that the laws in question were, actually, created...
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)
Even if true, so what? Correlation does not imply causation.
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)
If he finds a need for God in his own life, he's welcome to have God in his life.
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)
Well, if Dr. Schaefer goes into the lab and uncritically looks for God, I'm sure he'll have no problem finding him. After all, the easiest person to fool is oneself.
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)
Well, sounds like Dr. von Braun had some communications issues.
Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)
I'm unsure what the point is here...
There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind - Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)
If that's how it seems to him, then great. What's that got to do with the rest of us?
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." (27)
Well damn... let's get to experimentally testing then. Oh, by the way, which sect? Let me guess.. whichever sect Dr. Tipler's church happens to belong to. How convenient!
-
Faith is backed by evidence. Just because the godless culture continually perverts the language to try to win their point doesn't make it correct. Look at the subtle adjustments made over time to edge faith out to the sidelines as mere wishful thinking.
If your business associate was heading into a negotiation and he'd won the last 10 rounds of negotiations you would that you had faith that he would prevail again. That would be based on the results or evidence he provided by way of his track record. Similarly, God's track record of prophecies being recorded before they happen and then bring proved true after they happen both by secular and biblical evidence is the basis of a believer's faith.
No, that's incorrect.
Faith is the decision and conviction that something is when there is no evidence to back up such belief. The bible puts it as follows: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Faith is needed when there is no evidence of something. If there is evidence then faith is not needed. That's why the bible says you must believe by faith regardless of evidence. There isn't evidence about god or Jesus yet you have to make the decision they are real even though you have no evidence to prove they are real.
-
No, that's incorrect.
Faith is the decision and conviction that something is when there is no evidence to back up such belief. The bible puts it as follows: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Faith is needed when there is no evidence of something. If there is evidence then faith is not needed. That's why the bible says you must believe by faith regardless of evidence. There isn't evidence about god or Jesus yet you have to make the decision they are real even though you have no evidence to prove they are real.
So, with that said Alfurinn, Black James Bond or not?
-
Faith is backed by evidence. Just because the godless culture continually perverts the language to try to win their point doesn't make it correct. Look at the subtle adjustments made over time to edge faith out to the sidelines as mere wishful thinking.
If your business associate was heading into a negotiation and he'd won the last 10 rounds of negotiations you would that you had faith that he would prevail again. That would be based on the results or evidence he provided by way of his track record. Similarly, God's track record of prophecies being recorded before they happen and then bring proved true after they happen both by secular and biblical evidence is the basis of a believer's faith.
\
No it is not, you do not know what you are talking about. There is zero objective evidence otherwise we would agree.
Your example, is not one faith, there is evidence he will win based on past occurrences, probability and logic are the terms you are looking for. Faith is belief without evidence. I don't have faith the sun will rise in the morning.
-
Let's say there is a God and he looks like us. If you were standing around and some dude walked up to you and said "I am God", wouldn't you just laugh?
-
Well our thinking isn't about a 2000 year old idea....God never changes so the beliefs we hold to are as timeless as God is.
Funny, I could have sworn this thread was replete with quotes from a 2000 year old book, which men wrote and you believe in....
-
Really? Asking if your question makes sense means "running away"?
I don't ascribe any particular supernatural meaning to my (or yours, or anyone else's) existence. Why are you here? Because the Creator wanted it? If so, why? And how do you know that?
Science is concerned with the natural. Permit me to slight "abuse" the word cause for a second by using it as if I were you: the cause of the Universe, if there is a cause, is outside the realm and purview of science.
Just admit that you don't have an answer to the question. And I don't blame you. How could you? You are not being honest with yourself though. You claim to know for sure that the Universe did not have a Creator, and when I ask you how the Universe came into existence you dodge the question by saying it is outside of the realm or purview of Science. Science has determined that the Universe had a beginning. It started via the Big Bang. So what was the catalyst that set off this Big Bang? Obviously you think you know - because you claim for a fact that the catalyst was not a Creator. Well then please enlighten us. What started the Big Bang?
That's a tautology that tells us nothing.
Saying "Every Design requires a Designer" is not the same as saying "Everything requires a Designer or Creator." I don't acknowledge that the Creator is a Design. Therefore in my mind the Creator does not require a Designer.
Plenty of things are observable and measurable. That's hardly evidence of design. Take your shit, for example. You can observe it by looking into the toilet bowl. You can even measure it, by shitting inside a bucket and weighing it or calculating the volume it occupies. Yet, your observable and measurable shit is hardly evidence of design.
Not true. Your smelly shit is evidence of a design. It was fabricated in your body as part of a cleansing process. Your body was designed. It is infinitely more complex than the most complex machinery ever designed by Humans.
A piece of rock is evidence of a design. There are molecules, atoms etc. in each rock. The elements were produced in Stars billions of years ago during Supernovae explosions and prior to the explosions the burning of Stars. This all points to design.
I don't think you comprehend the magnitude of the Universe and how amazing it is.
You again claim that the Universe is "fine tuned" but the term is meaningless as you use it. You claim that if one value was off by a microscopic amount, the Universe could not exist and you cite the ratio of the electromagnetic and strong nuclear forces as an example. But your argument is flawed. First of all, even if this Universe could not exist, you cannot rule that no other could. And even if you could rule the possibility out, you have to contend with the fact that unlikely does not imply impossible.
Of course it is not impossible. We wouldn't be here if it was impossible. My point is we are here because a Designer made it possible. The forces of nature were set precisely to make the Universe possible. I have an answer for why the Universe is here. You don't, and claim it is outside of the realm of science. So you are not convincing on making any claims about the origins of the Universe by your own admission. How could you claim to know? Aren't you arguing from a Scientific point of view?
It's not a subjective opinion. You claim that the Universe is highly fined tuned because - and this is what your argument boils down to - "unless it has the values it has it wouldn't exist, and it exists, therefore the values were carefully selected." This is not a joke or a misrepresentation. This is what you are actually claiming.
Sure. And? Are you suggesting that anything that's been calculated rationally cannot be misused or used in an irrational way?
It would seem to me you are being irrational. Science provides evidence that the Universe is extremely fine tuned. Many people believe this is evidence of a Designer, including myself.
As an atheist you claim this is BS, yet when pressed to explain how you could know this and what caused the existence of the Universe in the absence of a Designer you say oh that is out of Science's reach. So are you dealing from a point of faith? You have faith that the Universe was not designed? Obviously you are not arguing from a scientific point of view.
Since you haven't provided any links to such research, I can't say. But I am fairly confident that there is scientific consensus that "the Universe is finely tuned" but just to be sure, I went by the Physics department today and spoke with a friend who is an astrophysicist and he also ensured me that there he's aware of no such research that is published in a peer reviewed journal.
Your friend obviously does not know what he is talking about. Has he ever published anything? Who is he?
Besides the BBC video, the scientific establishment's most prestigious journals, and its most famous physicists and cosmologists, have all gone on record as recognizing the objective truth of the fine-tuning. The August '97 issue of "Science" (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled "Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Here is an excerpt:
The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life -- such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars -- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.
In his best-selling book, "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable."
The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.
Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding, namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)
Penrose continues, Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe -- and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure -- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment.
Cosmologists debate whether the space-time continuum is finite or infinite, bounded or unbounded. In all scenarios, the fine-tuning remains the same.
It is appropriate to complete this section on "fine tuning" with the eloquent words of Professor John Wheeler:
To my mind, there must be at the bottom of it all, not an utterly simple equation, but an utterly simple IDEA. And to me that idea, when we finally discover it, will be so compelling, and so inevitable, so beautiful, we will all say to each other, "How could it have ever been otherwise?"
-
Let's say there is a God and he looks like us. If you were standing around and some dude walked up to you and said "I am God", wouldn't you just laugh?
Yes I would LOL! Actually, I might double check my surroundings and look for the nearest post in case he turns violent.
Why would a God take on an inferior human shape? An entity powerful enough to design the whole Universe would be outside of this Universe.
-
Just admit that you don't have an answer to the question. And I don't blame you. How could you? You are not being honest with yourself though. You claim to know for sure that the Universe did not have a Creator, and when I ask you how the Universe came into existence you dodge the question by saying it is outside of the realm or purview of Science. Science has determined that the Universe had a beginning. It started via the Big Bang. So what was the catalyst that set off this Big Bang? Obviously you think you know - because you claim for a fact that the catalyst was not a Creator. Well then please enlighten us. What started the Big Bang?
Saying "Every Design requires a Designer" is not the same as saying "Everything requires a Designer or Creator." I don't acknowledge that the Creator is a Design. Therefore in my mind the Creator does not require a Designer.
Not true. Your smelly shit is evidence of a design. It was fabricated in your body as part of a cleansing process. Your body was designed. It is infinitely more complex than the most complex machinery ever designed by Humans.
A piece of rock is evidence of a design. There are molecules, atoms etc. in each rock. The elements were produced in Stars billions of years ago during Supernovae explosions and prior to the explosions the burning of Stars. This all points to design.
I don't think you comprehend the magnitude of the Universe and how amazing it is.
Of course it is not impossible. We wouldn't be here if it was impossible. My point is we are here because a Designer made it possible. The forces of nature were set precisely to make the Universe possible. I have an answer for why the Universe is here. You don't, and claim it is outside of the realm of science. So you are not convincing on making any claims about the origins of the Universe by your own admission. How could you claim to know? Aren't you arguing from a Scientific point of view?
It would seem to me you are being irrational. Science provides evidence that the Universe is extremely fine tuned. Many people believe this is evidence of a Designer, including myself.
As an atheist you claim this is BS, yet when pressed to explain how you could know this and what caused the existence of the Universe in the absence of a Designer you say oh that is out of Science's reach. So are you dealing from a point of faith? You have faith that the Universe was not designed? Obviously you are not arguing from a scientific point of view.
Your friend obviously does not know what he is talking about. Has he ever published anything? Who is he?
Besides the BBC video, the scientific establishment's most prestigious journals, and its most famous physicists and cosmologists, have all gone on record as recognizing the objective truth of the fine-tuning. The August '97 issue of "Science" (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled "Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Here is an excerpt:
The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life -- such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars -- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.
In his best-selling book, "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable."
The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.
Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding, namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)
Penrose continues, Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe -- and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure -- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment.
Cosmologists debate whether the space-time continuum is finite or infinite, bounded or unbounded. In all scenarios, the fine-tuning remains the same.
It is appropriate to complete this section on "fine tuning" with the eloquent words of Professor John Wheeler:
To my mind, there must be at the bottom of it all, not an utterly simple equation, but an utterly simple IDEA. And to me that idea, when we finally discover it, will be so compelling, and so inevitable, so beautiful, we will all say to each other, "How could it have ever been otherwise?"
Nonsense, if everything is designed how can you tell it's designed? you have nothing to compare it to. The watchmaker argument (basically your argument) says if you seen a watch on the beach you would know it was designed, by logical extension the beach is not. You can't use your handicapped logic and not expect to get the tart stick.
These are opinions, not facts, biased and anecdotal,, all of the quotes are ideas, conjecture, they do nothing to get at the root of the problem, your lack of understanding and ability to use words appropriately.
-
\
No it is not, you do not know what you are talking about. There is zero objective evidence otherwise we would agree.
Your example, is not one faith, there is evidence he will win based on past occurrences, probability and logic are the terms you are looking for. Faith is belief without evidence. I don't have faith the sun will rise in the morning.
FAITH
The word “faith” is translated from the Greek piʹstis, primarily conveying the thought of confidence, trust, firm persuasion. Depending on the context, the Greek word may also be understood to mean “faithfulness” or “fidelity.”—1Th 3:7; Tit 2:10.
The Scriptures tell us: “Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.” (Heb 11:1) “Assured expectation” translates the Greek word hy·poʹsta·sis. This term is common in ancient papyrus business documents. It conveys the idea of something that underlies visible conditions and guarantees a future possession. In view of this, Moulton and Milligan suggest the rendering: “Faith is the title deed of things hoped for.” (Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, 1963, p. 660) The Greek word eʹleg·khos, rendered “evident demonstration,” conveys the idea of bringing forth evidence that demonstrates something, particularly something contrary to what appears to be the case. Thereby this evidence makes clear what has not been discerned before and so refutes what has only appeared to be the case. “The evident demonstration,” or evidence for conviction, is so positive or powerful that faith is said to be it.
Faith is, therefore, the basis for hope and the evidence for conviction concerning unseen realities. The entire body of truths delivered by Jesus Christ and his inspired disciples constitutes the true Christian “faith.” (Joh 18:37; Ga 1:7-9; Ac 6:7; 1Ti 5:8) Christian faith is based on the complete Word of God, including the Hebrew Scriptures, to which Jesus and the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures frequently referred in support of their statements.
Faith is based on concrete evidence. The visible creative works testify to the existence of an invisible Creator. (Ro 1:20) The actual occurrences taking place during the ministry and earthly life of Jesus Christ identify him as the Son of God. (Mt 27:54; see JESUS CHRIST.) God’s record of providing for his earthly creatures serves as a valid basis for believing that he will surely provide for his servants, and his record as a Giver and Restorer of life lends ample evidence to the credibility of the resurrection hope. (Mt 6:26, 30, 33; Ac 17:31; 1Co 15:3-8, 20, 21) Furthermore, the reliability of God’s Word and the accurate fulfillment of its prophecies instill confidence in the realization of all of His promises. (Jos 23:14) Thus, in these many ways, “faith follows the thing heard.”—Ro 10:17; compare Joh 4:7-30, 39-42; Ac 14:8-10.
So faith is not credulity. The person who may ridicule faith usually has faith himself in tried and trusted friends. The scientist has faith in the principles of his branch of science. He bases new experiments on past discoveries and looks for new discoveries on the basis of those things already established as true. Likewise, the farmer prepares his soil and sows the seed, expecting, as in previous years, that the seed will sprout and that the plants will grow as they receive the needed moisture and sunshine. Therefore faith in the stability of the natural laws governing the universe actually constitutes a foundation for man’s plans and activities. Such stability is alluded to by the wise writer of Ecclesiastes: “The sun also has flashed forth, and the sun has set, and it is coming panting to its place where it is going to flash forth. The wind is going to the south, and it is circling around to the north. Round and round it is continually circling, and right back to its circlings the wind is returning. All the winter torrents are going forth to the sea, yet the sea itself is not full. To the place where the winter torrents are going forth, there they are returning so as to go forth.”—Ec 1:5-7.
-
FAITH
The word “faith” is translated from the Greek piʹstis, primarily conveying the thought of confidence, trust, firm persuasion. Depending on the context, the Greek word may also be understood to mean “faithfulness” or “fidelity.”—1Th 3:7; Tit 2:10.
The Scriptures tell us: “Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.” (Heb 11:1) “Assured expectation” translates the Greek word hy·poʹsta·sis. This term is common in ancient papyrus business documents. It conveys the idea of something that underlies visible conditions and guarantees a future possession. In view of this, Moulton and Milligan suggest the rendering: “Faith is the title deed of things hoped for.” (Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, 1963, p. 660) The Greek word eʹleg·khos, rendered “evident demonstration,” conveys the idea of bringing forth evidence that demonstrates something, particularly something contrary to what appears to be the case. Thereby this evidence makes clear what has not been discerned before and so refutes what has only appeared to be the case. “The evident demonstration,” or evidence for conviction, is so positive or powerful that faith is said to be it.
Faith is, therefore, the basis for hope and the evidence for conviction concerning unseen realities. The entire body of truths delivered by Jesus Christ and his inspired disciples constitutes the true Christian “faith.” (Joh 18:37; Ga 1:7-9; Ac 6:7; 1Ti 5:8) Christian faith is based on the complete Word of God, including the Hebrew Scriptures, to which Jesus and the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures frequently referred in support of their statements.
Faith is based on concrete evidence. The visible creative works testify to the existence of an invisible Creator. (Ro 1:20) The actual occurrences taking place during the ministry and earthly life of Jesus Christ identify him as the Son of God. (Mt 27:54; see JESUS CHRIST.) God’s record of providing for his earthly creatures serves as a valid basis for believing that he will surely provide for his servants, and his record as a Giver and Restorer of life lends ample evidence to the credibility of the resurrection hope. (Mt 6:26, 30, 33; Ac 17:31; 1Co 15:3-8, 20, 21) Furthermore, the reliability of God’s Word and the accurate fulfillment of its prophecies instill confidence in the realization of all of His promises. (Jos 23:14) Thus, in these many ways, “faith follows the thing heard.”—Ro 10:17; compare Joh 4:7-30, 39-42; Ac 14:8-10.
So faith is not credulity. The person who may ridicule faith usually has faith himself in tried and trusted friends. The scientist has faith in the principles of his branch of science. He bases new experiments on past discoveries and looks for new discoveries on the basis of those things already established as true. Likewise, the farmer prepares his soil and sows the seed, expecting, as in previous years, that the seed will sprout and that the plants will grow as they receive the needed moisture and sunshine. Therefore faith in the stability of the natural laws governing the universe actually constitutes a foundation for man’s plans and activities. Such stability is alluded to by the wise writer of Ecclesiastes: “The sun also has flashed forth, and the sun has set, and it is coming panting to its place where it is going to flash forth. The wind is going to the south, and it is circling around to the north. Round and round it is continually circling, and right back to its circlings the wind is returning. All the winter torrents are going forth to the sea, yet the sea itself is not full. To the place where the winter torrents are going forth, there they are returning so as to go forth.”—Ec 1:5-7.
Nevermind man, even your article defines it as such, a trust,confidence, then goes on to say that gods works are concrete evidence of an INVISIBLE deity, ya that's airtight. We need hollowman aka kevin bacon to test the invisibility claim.
-
Man of Steel, I have no personal qualms with you. You are a brother in Christ.
I don’t have any personal issues with you either, but I’m not a fan of the current BHI movement, but I don’t believe all the men and women involved are bad people. Again, it’s the intense racial motivations that I question.
The problem is you believe in a false doctrine. It's not even minor things it's major things. It came to be that way because as I've explained earlier when my people, the Hebrews were conquered in 70 AD and had to flee into Africa or become slaves.
Christ said he is sent for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The idea and doctrine that Christ is here for everyone is a lie. No where in the Bible does it say that.
That’s not what I believe though.
Most uninformed Christians would go right to John 3:16 in order to defend. Although the term “world” within that verse is from the greek “kosmos” or “κόσμον” and has multiple definitions (ex: the entire universe, the heavens or a body of people). Although, the case of 1 John 2:1-2 the context defines the term “world” or “kosmos” much more efficiently via the concept of sin (offense against God or breaking of his law).
1 John 2:1-2
1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
The initial purpose of Christ’s ministry was the fulfillment of Israelite law and the Messianic prophecy and later the gentiles were grafted into the covenant....it's straight out of scripture.
Romans 11:13-17
13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
16 For if the first fruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Now after Christ’s death and resurrection the sacrificial law was fulfilled in Christ who became a curse for the law. Now believers in Christ are saved via the salvific work of Christ. We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and thereby deemed righteous and sanctified by the Holy Spirit for his good will and purposes.
Romans 3:22-31
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
The sacrificial law was abolished, but the moral law of the commandments continues to prevail.
Further as Christ stated:
John 14:6
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
As you stated noted in another we are to understand scripture precept upon precept:
Isaiah 28:10
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
But I’m quite aware of that passage:
There is no specific scripture that calls out adults with developmental disabilities. There is also no specific scripture about pizza delivery guys that molest young girls, but we know that isn't right either. Regardless, the concepts of the innocence children and the just nature of God are demonstrated.
Scripture says we understand the word precept upon precept:
Isaiah 28:13 "But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little"
We also know that adults with developmental disabilties are almost the same (and in some cases possess less than) the intellects of children. Like children they can't comprehend the idea of sin in a manner which would make them accountable. We have to trust in the just nature of God that each individual case will be handled appropriately. This is an element of faith, but it isn't a flawed, eisegetical interpretation of scripture as you suggest.
So what is the truth Jesus spoke of (in reference to himself):
Psalm 119:142
142 Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth.
The law is also defined as our schoolmaster:
Galatians 3:24-26
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
There are many, many verses about the law we could discuss, but my point is that the following of the 10 commandments does not provide our salvation. The Israelites had 600+ laws/decrees to follow and they were unable to so Christ fulfilled the law and replaced the sacrificial system and upheld the commandments (Sabbath Day withstanding). We are now under a system of grace and faith, but the law is our truth and Christ loves and embodies the law.
Romans 6:14-23
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Does that help clarify my Christian position on grace, faith and the law? You've noted other things I haven't forgotten, but I think a little more step by step approach makes it easier...at least for me.
I can write about the Sabbath and Deut 28:68 in another reply.
-
Nonsense, if everything is designed how can you tell it's designed? you have nothing to compare it to. The watchmaker argument (basically your argument) says if you seen a watch on the beach you would know it was designed, by logical extension the beach is not. You can't use your handicapped logic and not expect to get the tart stick.
These are opinions, not facts, biased and anecdotal,, all of the quotes are ideas, conjecture, they do nothing to get at the root of the problem, your lack of understanding and ability to use words appropriately.
I am glad you think everything is designed. Everything is not designed. The Creator cannot be observed or measured.
As an Atheist you also have an opinion. Your opinion is there is no Creator.
Yet I have asked in this thread: "How did the Universe Self Start?" I have not received an answer from an Atheist about this.
I have asked Atheists: "Do you agree that the Universe has a beginning?" I have not received an answer.
Only a lame attempt to dodge the question by saying: "This is outside the realm of science". So then the Atheists only have an opinion, not grounded in facts. Just a case of the pot calling the kettle black. You don't have the intellect to debate on this level Necrosphiliacs
-
Let's all become Jainists now...
-
Just admit that you don't have an answer to the question.
If you convince me that the question makes sense, then I will. You're asking why I am here. "Why" implies there is a reason. Can you back up that position?
You claim to know for sure that the Universe did not have a Creator, and when I ask you how the Universe came into existence you dodge the question by saying it is outside of the realm or purview of Science.
I don't claim that the Universe did not have a Creator. I am asking you to backup your claim that it does have one.
Science has determined that the Universe had a beginning. It started via the Big Bang. So what was the catalyst that set off this Big Bang? Obviously you think you know - because you claim for a fact that the catalyst was not a Creator. Well then please enlighten us. What started the Big Bang?
Your question suggests a misunderstanding of the physics underlying our Universe.
Saying "Every Design requires a Designer" is not the same as saying "Everything requires a Designer or Creator." I don't acknowledge that the Creator is a Design. Therefore in my mind the Creator does not require a Designer.
In other words: "I claim that the Universe needs a Creator. But I also claim that the Creator doesn't require one. LOGIC BITCHES! IT WORKS!" Get back to us after taking Logic 101 at your local Community College.
Not true. Your smelly shit is evidence of a design. It was fabricated in your body as part of a cleansing process. Your body was designed. It is infinitely more complex than the most complex machinery ever designed by Humans.
You assume the body was designed. Unless you can prove that it was, your statement doesn't hold water.
A piece of rock is evidence of a design. There are molecules, atoms etc. in each rock. The elements were produced in Stars billions of years ago during Supernovae explosions and prior to the explosions the burning of Stars. This all points to design.
And this is the problem. You're like Oprah... "this points to design and this points to design and this points to design... everything points to design." You aren't arguing by logic. You are arguing by vigorous handwaving.
I don't think you comprehend the magnitude of the Universe and how amazing it is.
I am currently mostly working on protein-folding simulations, but I spent a significant amount of my time as a post-graduate student developing computational models for rotating black holes and gravitational lensing... but yeah, you're probably right.
Of course it is not impossible. We wouldn't be here if it was impossible. My point is we are here because a Designer made it possible.
No... your unfounded assertion is that that a Designer made it possible. You're welcome to hold this position, but you can't claim that it's an indisputable fact.
The forces of nature were set precisely to make the Universe possible.
It's your unfounded assertion that they were "set precisely."
I have an answer for why the Universe is here.
Except your answer doesn't answer anything at all... postulating a designer and/or creator doesn't answer the question "why is the Universe here" anymore than postulating Zeus answers the question "why did a bolt of lightning fall from the sky?"
You don't, and claim it is outside of the realm of science.
That's right. Science is concerned with the natural - not the supernatural. Anything outside of the Universe is outside of nature and, thus, outside the realm of science.
It would seem to me you are being irrational. Science provides evidence that the Universe is extremely fine tuned. Many people believe this is evidence of a Designer, including myself.
And many people don't... but so what? Since when is reality subject to a popular vote?
As an atheist you claim this is BS, yet when pressed to explain how you could know this and what caused the existence of the Universe in the absence of a Designer you say oh that is out of Science's reach. So are you dealing from a point of faith? You have faith that the Universe was not designed? Obviously you are not arguing from a scientific point of view.
I am arguing from the following simple premise: that if you make a claim, then you should back it up. You make the claim that the Universe was designed. Back it up. I make no claim other than to challenge the position you hold.
Your friend obviously does not know what he is talking about. Has he ever published anything? Who is he?
He's a published physicist and astronomer.
Besides the BBC video, the scientific establishment's most prestigious journals, and its most famous physicists and cosmologists, have all gone on record as recognizing the objective truth of the fine-tuning. The August '97 issue of "Science" (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled "Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Here is an excerpt:
The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life -- such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars -- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.
It's silly to say "well, life as we know it couldn't have developed unless the Universe is exactly what it was, therefore the Universe was finely tuned." Life, as we know it, developed because the Universe is how it is, but it could have developed differently under a different Unvierse. For that matter, it might not have developed at all. Why is it something special, except that it's important to us?
The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.
So first of all he writes that the numbers seem adjusted - but appearances can be deceiving. He then goes on to claim that "that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life" but that premise is based on the concept of life as we know and understand it. Is that the only possible life? If not, is it the only desirable life? Nothing he writes definitively establishes design, and there's no way to infer evidence of design from observing a single instance of something - in this case, the Universe.
Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding, namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)
Penrose continues, Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe -- and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure -- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment.
Penrose's argument is interesting, but again, what does it prove? The improbable isn't impossible, and it's silly to argue that the Universe being what it is proves there's a designer or a creator because it could have been something else but isn't.
Cosmologists debate whether the space-time continuum is finite or infinite, bounded or unbounded. In all scenarios, the fine-tuning remains the same.
It's unclear what this statement means, if anything.
It is appropriate to complete this section on "fine tuning" with the eloquent words of Professor John Wheeler:
To my mind, there must be at the bottom of it all, not an utterly simple equation, but an utterly simple IDEA. And to me that idea, when we finally discover it, will be so compelling, and so inevitable, so beautiful, we will all say to each other, "How could it have ever been otherwise?"
Interesting words, but does it imply design? Take gravity: it curves spacetime, and explains what we observe. It's a simple, compelling and beautiful idea, underlying something that is, apparently, very complicated. That doesn't mean it's evidence of design.
-
If you convince me that the question makes sense, then I will. You're asking why I am here. "Why" implies there is a reason. Can you back up that position?
You are retreating from the question. I'll rephrase with two questions, one which I have asked before. Question 1: Does the Universe have a beginning / start? Question 2: If you agree that it does, then what was the catalyst that made it start?
I don't claim that the Universe did not have a Creator. I am asking you to backup your claim that it does have one.
Thanks for clarifying. So you are open to the idea of the Universe having a Creator - provided you are given concrete proof. Fine. In my mind the Universe itself is proof of a Creator based on the knowledge that the Universe is extremely fine tuned - thereby suggesting a Designer. And yes, that's my opinion. You don't have to agree with that. If you can provide evidence that the Universe began on its own without divine intervention I'll be happy to reconsider.
-
You are retreating from the question. I'll rephrase with two questions, one which I have asked before. Question 1: Does the Universe have a beginning / start? Question 2: If you agree that it does, then what was the catalyst that made it start?
Thanks for clarifying. So you are open to the idea of the Universe having a Creator - provided you are given concrete proof. Fine. In my mind the Universe itself is proof of a Creator based on the knowledge that the Universe is extremely fine tuned - thereby suggesting a Designer. And yes, that's my opinion. You don't have to agree with that. If you can provide evidence that the Universe began on its own without divine intervention I'll be happy to reconsider.
Christian apologist Matt Slick would now refer to this type of question "answering" as the "Dillahunty Dodge" named after infamous Austin, Texas atheist Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Experience public access show. ;D
-
Faith is simply convincing yourself of something that you can't prove it is true. If you have evidence you don't need to convince yourself of something.
Because no one can prove to you that the god of the bible is real nor does nature provide any proofs either all that was left for those who wrote it is asking you to have faith the "word is true".
-
You are retreating from the question. I'll rephrase with two questions, one which I have asked before. Question 1: Does the Universe have a beginning / start? Question 2: If you agree that it does, then what was the catalyst that made it start?
It's unclear what "beginning" or "start" means in this context. You may think this is me avoiding the question, but it's not. I just want to understand what you mean, because temporal and causal relationships exist within the Universe. If you wish to extend them beyond that, then you need to clearly define what they mean.
For example, what does "time" mean outside the space-time continuum? What does it mean for A to happen before B or for A to cause B when there is no temporal partial or total order?
Once we have a common vocabulary, I can try to answer your questions.
Thanks for clarifying. So you are open to the idea of the Universe having a Creator - provided you are given concrete proof.
Only a fool is not open to ideas, provided that the ideas are rational. The problem here is that I don't think that we have proof that the Universe exhibits design and doubt that a proof is possible.
Fine. In my mind the Universe itself is proof of a Creator based on the knowledge that the Universe is extremely fine tuned - thereby suggesting a Designer. And yes, that's my opinion. You don't have to agree with that. If you can provide evidence that the Universe began on its own without divine intervention I'll be happy to reconsider.
You are entitled to your opinion. I don't think that it's based in logic, but if you feel it is then that's good enough - you shouldn't trust my judgement over yours.
As for providing evidence that the Universe began on its own, allow me to show you why it would be pointless. Let's pretend that I have such evidence and I present it here. Everyone is stunned and I get fame, women, money and a fancy gold Nobel prize medal to use as a drink coaster.
You'll simply respond with "ahh, but even this is evidence of design, for you see there is still this deeper layer, full of fine-tuned variables that would make life impossible if they had any other values, but they don't and we are here! What you are observing is merely the Designer's plan in motion!"
At which point the Nobel committee would confiscate my drink coaster, my money, my women and my prized collection of 17th century beef jerky, while you were created Space Pope.
P.S.: I would have been much more willing to discuss the possibility that the Universe is a massive computer simulation and we are just elements in that simulation.
-
To those who do not believe in a higher being of some sort:
1) Is the Universe infinite?
2) Where did all the energy of the Universe originate from?
-
To those who do not believe in a higher being of some sort:
1) Is the Universe infinite?
2) Where did all the energy of the Universe originate from?
1) Why is the infinity of the universe relevant to the conversation?
2) We still don't know exactly. Let science discover as technology advances.
But if everything had to be designed/created by a higher being, who created god?
I will assume we are talking about the god of the bible.
-
To those who do not believe in a higher being of some sort:
1) Is the Universe infinite?
It doesn't appear to be.
2) Where did all the energy of the Universe originate from?
Do you know the sum total energy of the Universe?
-
I am glad you think everything is designed. Everything is not designed. The Creator cannot be observed or measured.
As an Atheist you also have an opinion. Your opinion is there is no Creator.
Yet I have asked in this thread: "How did the Universe Self Start?" I have not received an answer from an Atheist about this.
I have asked Atheists: "Do you agree that the Universe has a beginning?" I have not received an answer.
Only a lame attempt to dodge the question by saying: "This is outside the realm of science". So then the Atheists only have an opinion, not grounded in facts. Just a case of the pot calling the kettle black. You don't have the intellect to debate on this level Necrosphiliacs
so he didn't design everything? you said there was a designer for the atoms etc it's all a design. If all is a design how can you tell something that is designed from something that is not?
Perhaps it didn't self start, expansion occurred from a singularity, perhaps the singularity always has been, in state of expansion and contraction.
you are asking a philosophical question then insulting others for pointing out it's not observable, testable aka not scientific, and they are lacking intellect?
I just obliterated your design argument because you can't think, you just regurgitate, nothing novel or interesting comes from your mind. Polarity is needed for experience, if all is designed, how could you tell, if not all is designed how the fuck did it get there? god let one slip past I guess.
-
so he didn't design everything? you said there was a designer for the atoms etc it's all a design. If all is a design how can you tell something that is designed from something that is not?
Perhaps it didn't self start, expansion occurred from a singularity, perhaps the singularity always has been, in state of expansion and contraction.
you are asking a philosophical question then insulting others for pointing out it's not observable, testable aka not scientific, and they are lacking intellect?
I just obliterated your design argument because you can't think, you just regurgitate, nothing novel or interesting comes from your mind. Polarity is needed for experience, if all is designed, how could you tell, if not all is designed how the fuck did it get there? god let one slip past I guess.
But... but... it's fine tuned! Look at those Stephen Hawking quotes! And Roger Penrose! And that Anro guy with the Nobel prize!
;D
-
so he didn't design everything? you said there was a designer for the atoms etc it's all a design. If all is a design how can you tell something that is designed from something that is not?
Perhaps it didn't self start, expansion occurred from a singularity, perhaps the singularity always has been, in state of expansion and contraction.
you are asking a philosophical question then insulting others for pointing out it's not observable, testable aka not scientific, and they are lacking intellect?
I just obliterated your design argument because you can't think, you just regurgitate, nothing novel or interesting comes from your mind. Polarity is needed for experience, if all is designed, how could you tell, if not all is designed how the fuck did it get there? god let one slip past I guess.
This is pellius-style debating, if I was acting in bad faith I'd say obsidian is a gimmick.
-
You fail to grasp something....
If the Universe isn't infinite.... what's on the other side? I mean if indeed it does "end" whats there? A wall...lol
It HAS to be infinite, there is no other option.
It wasn't created - just always existed infinite in both time and space.
-
I'd like to understand individual explanations for the beginning of the universe from Necrosis, Raymondo, Captain Freedom and avxo.
I'm not suggesting that you supply all your own research LOL, but something that might be presented in a high school science class at a summary level of what is it you understand to have occurred.
This is not a trick either.....genuine request. This isn't about religion either. This is about the science you understand summarized for the average teenager....a brief paragraph (or two).
Why at such a remedial level? One, so I have a chance of understanding it LOL. Two, so I don't have to look at a wall of advanced math LOL.
-
I would not attempt to claim that i have an individual explanation for the beginning of the universe, and i certainly wouldn't be qualified to present a high-school level presentation on the subject, as most of it would be plagiarised. I have a great respect for the scientific method of enquiry, and i love reading about various scientific discoveries - but i am not a scientist.
I approach the topic of organised religion, and argue against the alleged benefits of it, generally from a rationalist perspective. I can point out the times when religion makes claims that are incompatible with scientific evidence, and when theists attempt to fabricate their own pseudo-scientific arguments in defence of a claim, but generally, i will attempt to argue my case based upon what i believe we can say to be true regarding the concept of human rights and what is generally believed to be good for the well-being of intelligent life. Religion does not have a monopoly on morality, it does not defend human rights, and it does not have evidence on its side.
I criticise organised religion because i believe that at its most benign, it is a delusion; a means of coping with the difficulties of being "all too human". You comfort yourself by adopting a Panglossian optimism which allows you to view every depraved, irrational and immoral act committed by God in the bible, as somehow "all for the best", and i view this nonsensical.
Organised Religion at it’s worst - and most frequent, is an absurd, divisive and nefarious method of exerting control over people. It’s totalitarian, harmful to society, and i look forward to the day when it dies out. How the universe may or may not have come to exist is not important to me in this regard, as even if it were true that the Abrahamic God had created the universe - i still wouldn't worship him. I’ll leave it to the real scientists to put forward an explanation on the origins of the universe, if they have one.
Like I said, respectfully, I'm not interested in anything related to religion and I don't expect a formal presentation LOL.
I have years of replies from folks concerning why religion and science are incompatible and why theists simply don't understand the science they argue about.
So, I'd like y'all to help me understand the science at a remedial level...public high school level. I understand some of y'all aren't scientists and teachers....I'm not a theological scholar.
If you google something you agree with and summarize it that would be fine. I'm not necessarily looking for a link to scientific journal with lengthy articles. Just a synopsis of the science you agree with.
Again, I'm not looking for anything related to religion or God.
-
I fail to see why it is that you would want this if you're not interested in relating it to religion, but like i said - the origin of the universe is not something which i have a real knowledge in, so all you would be getting is a regurgitation of something which is probably beyond my comprehension in scientifically evaluating. Still, i may have a search for something later and revisit some articles written by Laurence Krauss or another prominent scientist. But seeing as you've requested this of us, it's only right that you present your own thoughts regarding the topic, too.
I'd like to learn more about the science of the origin of the universe that you support. That's it.
-
Like I said, respectfully, I'm not interested in anything related to religion and I don't expect a formal presentation LOL.
I have years of replies from folks concerning why religion and science are incompatible and why theists simply don't understand the science they argue about.
So, I'd like y'all to help me understand the science at a remedial level...public high school level. I understand some of y'all aren't scientists and teachers....I'm not a theological scholar.
If you google something you agree with and summarize it that would be fine. I'm not necessarily looking for a link to scientific journal with lengthy articles. Just a synopsis of the science you agree with.
Again, I'm not looking for anything related to religion or God.
The beginning of the universe is unknown, this is due to lack of understanding. The way they know the big bang occurred (are we agreeable on this) is from things like redshift, inputting speed of expansion, gravity etc they can go backwards in time as things get closer and closer (currently all galaxies are moving away from each other at the speed of light. The math works, insofar as it predicts the current speed, where certain clusters should be etc, this is the proof (math) and observation.
The problem is that as we go back we eventually hit a singularity, which is a point of infinite mass and density, our math fails to describe it as the time scales are incomprehensibly short. I believe (I am just riffing off my head) the planck epoch is the shortest time scale we can quantify during the big bang.
So the universe never really came into existence per se, it simply expanded from the singularity (expansion is not causal in special relativity, the expansion creates time-space), which may have always been. I am not against a god, just a personal one as I can't justify that experience, it makes no sense. I can dig that something is primal, if it is "god" it's all that exists and I would agree with Alan Watts, that it is itself hiding from itself.
What was before the big bang? the question is illogical, as time was absent, in this state action is impossible, expansion side steps this.
-
I agree with almost everything in Necrosis's post.
-
The beginning of the universe is unknown, this is due to lack of understanding. The way they know the big bang occurred (are we agreeable on this) is from things like redshift, inputting speed of expansion, gravity etc they can go backwards in time as things get closer and closer (currently all galaxies are moving away from each other at the speed of light. The math works, insofar as it predicts the current speed, where certain clusters should be etc, this is the proof (math) and observation.
The problem is that as we go back we eventually hit a singularity, which is a point of infinite mass and density, our math fails to describe it as the time scales are incomprehensibly short. I believe (I am just riffing off my head) the planck epoch is the shortest time scale we can quantify during the big bang.
So the universe never really came into existence per se, it simply expanded from the singularity (expansion is not causal in special relativity, the expansion creates time-space), which may have always been. I am not against a god, just a personal one as I can't justify that experience, it makes no sense. I can dig that something is primal, if it is "god" it's all that exists and I would agree with Alan Watts, that it is itself hiding from itself.
What was before the big bang? the question is illogical, as time was absent, in this state action is impossible, expansion side steps this.
Thank you, good synopsis!
Do you believe that the speed of light is constant or different in different places?
-
Others can continue to answer if they prefer.
Another question for Raymondo, Captain Freedom, Necrosis and avxo:
What are your scientific positions on the beginning of life on earth and the beginnings of a conscious mind?
-
I agree with almost everything in Necrosis's post.
Thank you!!
Any noteworthy differences?
-
Thank you, good synopsis!
Do you believe that the speed of light is constant or different in different places?
First, consider that the speed of light depends on the medium through which the light is travelling - it's why a pen appears to be disjoint (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction) if it's dunked in water. Also keep in mind that if you were travelling at 99.99% of the speed of light and you could shine a flashlight to see what's coming up then, from your frame, the photons from the flashlight would be moving away from you at the same speed that they would as if you were standing still.
Without going deep into the theory of relativity, one of the key takeaways is that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames. It's hard to describe this in "simple" non-mathematical terms, since it involves a bit of complex math, but if you're really interested, I can try to write a post that gives just the very basics.
-
First, consider that the speed of light depends on the medium through which the light is travelling - it's why a pen appears to be disjoint (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction) if it's dunked in water. Also keep in mind that if you were travelling at 99.99% of the speed of light and you could shine a flashlight to see what's coming up then, from your frame, the photons from the flashlight would be moving away from you at the same speed that they would as if you were standing still.
Without going deep into the theory of relativity, one of the key takeaways is that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames. It's hard to describe this in "simple" non-mathematical terms, since it involves a bit of complex math, but if you're really interested, I can try to write a post that gives just the very basics.
Absolutely! I'd be very interested to learn more.
-
The god of the gaps.
-
The god of the gaps.
Not at all what is happening here. At least not from me.
I would like to note that just because an argument has been given a title doesn't mean it's invalid.
Regardless, "god of the gaps" not applicable right now.
-
The subject of consciousness is something i find really interesting, and i've mentioned it earlier in this thread, which i will quote and then elaborate on.
"I don't believe that consciousness can exist after the brain dies, but I'm uneducated on the subject and it's fascinating to hear from Doctors and other highly educated individuals in this field who have tried DMT and then entertained the idea of consciousness as a "non-local phenomenon".
Again, my position is not one that could be said to be a scientific one, but my personal opinion at this point, is that consciousness is a product of the brain, and when the brain is destroyed, consciousness ends. As i mentioned previously, i'm uneducated on the subject but i've recently been reading about the possibility of consciousness being a separate phenomenon that exists independently of the brain. It's an idea that i would love to be true and It seems plausible to me that the brain might simply be the mechanism which gives rise to consciousness as we know it. How it begins - i have no idea, but i would imagine that when it ends it's probably like being under anaesthetic; one minute you're conscious, then...nothing. I hope this isn't the case, however.
Education has nothing to do with a proper understanding of consciousness. Direct insight does.
-
It's unclear what "beginning" or "start" means in this context. You may think this is me avoiding the question, but it's not. I just want to understand what you mean, because temporal and causal relationships exist within the Universe. If you wish to extend them beyond that, then you need to clearly define what they mean.
For example, what does "time" mean outside the space-time continuum? What does it mean for A to happen before B or for A to cause B when there is no temporal partial or total order?
Once we have a common vocabulary, I can try to answer your questions.
I am referring to the Big Bang Model, where it is reasoned that the Universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. What was the cause for this sudden expansion?
(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2013/08/060915_CMB_Timeline75.jpg)
Only a fool is not open to ideas, provided that the ideas are rational. The problem here is that I don't think that we have proof that the Universe exhibits design and doubt that a proof is possible.
You are entitled to your opinion. I don't think that it's based in logic, but if you feel it is then that's good enough - you shouldn't trust my judgement over yours.
As for providing evidence that the Universe began on its own, allow me to show you why it would be pointless. Let's pretend that I have such evidence and I present it here. Everyone is stunned and I get fame, women, money and a fancy gold Nobel prize medal to use as a drink coaster.
You'll simply respond with "ahh, but even this is evidence of design, for you see there is still this deeper layer, full of fine-tuned variables that would make life impossible if they had any other values, but they don't and we are here! What you are observing is merely the Designer's plan in motion!"
At which point the Nobel committee would confiscate my drink coaster, my money, my women and my prized collection of 17th century beef jerky, while you were created Space Pope.
P.S.: I would have been much more willing to discuss the possibility that the Universe is a massive computer simulation and we are just elements in that simulation.
The evidence would have to be such that it is not possible to fall back on an argument that a designer was involved. That is the tricky part. Otherwise it could not be seen as proof that a Creator was not required.
I will admit I have also contemplated that the Universe could be a computer simulation. And in the not so distant future humans will be able to create convincing Virtual Universes. But it will be a while before it would be on the level of the Matrix. Today's VR is very crude in comparison with a 2k small screen hovering in front of you eyes - lol!
I am also aware that some scientists are contemplating that the Universe had no beginning.
Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning
http://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html (http://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html)
-
The subject of consciousness is something i find really interesting, and i've mentioned it earlier in this thread, which i will quote and then elaborate on.
"I don't believe that consciousness can exist after the brain dies, but I'm uneducated on the subject and it's fascinating to hear from Doctors and other highly educated individuals in this field who have tried DMT and then entertained the idea of consciousness as a "non-local phenomenon".
Again, my position is not one that could be said to be a scientific one, but my personal opinion at this point, is that consciousness is a product of the brain, and when the brain is destroyed, consciousness ends. As i mentioned previously, i'm uneducated on the subject but i've recently been reading about the possibility of consciousness being a separate phenomenon that exists independently of the brain. It's an idea that i would love to be true and It seems plausible to me that the brain might simply be the mechanism which gives rise to consciousness as we know it. How it begins - i have no idea, but i would imagine that when it ends it's probably like being under anaesthetic; one minute you're conscious, then...nothing. I hope this isn't the case, however.
Yes, from a perspective of science this is a topic I don't know much about at all.
Thanks for the summary!
-
so he didn't design everything? you said there was a designer for the atoms etc it's all a design. If all is a design how can you tell something that is designed from something that is not?
Perhaps it didn't self start, expansion occurred from a singularity, perhaps the singularity always has been, in state of expansion and contraction.
you are asking a philosophical question then insulting others for pointing out it's not observable, testable aka not scientific, and they are lacking intellect?
I just obliterated your design argument because you can't think, you just regurgitate, nothing novel or interesting comes from your mind. Polarity is needed for experience, if all is designed, how could you tell, if not all is designed how the fuck did it get there? god let one slip past I guess.
We can observe or measure the physical Universe.
My position is everything in the Universe is part of the design. But from a Theist Model standpoint the Creator is outside of the Universe and predates it. So the argument cannot be made that the Creator is designed because the Theist Model claims everything in the Universe is designed.
An analogy: A car was designed by humans for transportation. When viewed from a distance it appears as one object. Look closer and you realize it's made up of parts: An Engine, transmission, drive train, exhaust system, fuel system etc. Each of these components themselves can be broken down. The fuel system could consist of a fuel tank, fuel pumps, fuel filter, fuel lines, etc. You could break it all down into smaller parts until you arrive at little bolts, washers, computer boards / circuits etc.
The same with the Universe. There are bigger parts - galaxies, black holes, solar systems, stars, planets, moons - and smaller parts - continents, oceans, rocks, sand, all the way down to atoms and smaller building blocks.
That to me is a clear case of a design.
-
When i speak about myself being uneducated, i'm meaning in the sense that i don't have a full understanding of consciousness, and haven't put in enough time to trying to gain insight on the subject. And the highly-educated individuals i was referring to, would be doctors/neuroscientists with a formal education and understanding of the brains functions. I'm not sure if drinking a mushroom brew would give you the same insight that they have, Ro ;D
thats all they can do, study the brain functions, but the subject of consciousness (and god too) is an interior phenomenon only solved via each individuals awareness looking back apon itself, training its capacity in that way to such a high pitched degree that insight and understanding dawns, which usually takes more than some shroom brew (which can help) more like a total dedication spanning many years of protracted effort. For me the genuine yogis of the east are exemplars of this undertaking, the real scientists of consciousness. As an intellectual I think you may enjoy the writing of Sri Aurobindo.
-
The beginning of the universe is unknown, this is due to lack of understanding.
Then how can you claim for sure there is no Creator? We lack the understanding to even grasp how it all came to be. Seems pretty arrogant / haste to say without a doubt that the Universe was not designed.
Given what we know today it is more likely that there is a Designer / Creator.
I'll be the first to accept that a Creator does not exist - if I can be convinced scientifically.
-
The beginning of the universe is unknown, this is due to lack of understanding. The way they know the big bang occurred (are we agreeable on this) is from things like redshift, inputting speed of expansion, gravity etc they can go backwards in time as things get closer and closer (currently all galaxies are moving away from each other at the speed of light. The math works, insofar as it predicts the current speed, where certain clusters should be etc, this is the proof (math) and observation.
The problem is that as we go back we eventually hit a singularity, which is a point of infinite mass and density, our math fails to describe it as the time scales are incomprehensibly short. I believe (I am just riffing off my head) the planck epoch is the shortest time scale we can quantify during the big bang.
So the universe never really came into existence per se, it simply expanded from the singularity (expansion is not causal in special relativity, the expansion creates time-space), which may have always been. I am not against a god, just a personal one as I can't justify that experience, it makes no sense. I can dig that something is primal, if it is "god" it's all that exists and I would agree with Alan Watts, that it is itself hiding from itself.
What was before the big bang? the question is illogical, as time was absent, in this state action is impossible, expansion side steps this.
What caused it to simply start to expand from the singularity?
-
I am referring to the Big Bang Model, where it is reasoned that the Universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. What was the cause for this sudden expansion?
(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2013/08/060915_CMB_Timeline75.jpg)
It's hard to say - we're talking about the Planck and Grand Unification epochs where, based on our best theories, symmetry hadn't yet broken and the four fundamental forces were unified. Our physics doesn't really help us explain that very well, because it breaks down due to quantum effects.
But generally, to greatly simplify things, "extremely hot and dense" doesn't want to stay that way.
I will admit I have also contemplated that the Universe could be a computer simulation. And in the not so distant future humans will be able to create convincing Virtual Universes. But it will be a while before it would be on the level of the Matrix. Today's VR is very crude in comparison with a 2k small screen hovering in front of you eyes - lol!
I am talking more about the kind of simulation where we, as conscious entities, are nothing but code and some associated state, as opposed to distinct biological entities. I agree that existing VR can't really fool the senses, but it is getting there. The other day, a colleague was showing off an Oculus demo he did and it's pretty impressive. The human brain weighs visual stimuli much higher than other stimuli, so your brain can be fooled at times.
-
Then how can you claim for sure there is no Creator? We lack the understanding to even grasp how it all came to be. Seems pretty arrogant / haste to say without a doubt that the Universe was not designed.
The reasoning is quite simple, as far as I'm concerned: First, postulating a Creator doesn't answer anything - it merely adds another layer and a mystical one at that. Second, if the argument is that the Universe required a creator but that the creator didn't, then it's reasonable to ask what's the difference between the Universe and the Creator, and, if the Creator didn't require a Creator himself, why should the Universe? Alternatively, if the Creator required a Creator, then we're in a loop of ever mightier creators, which is clearly fallacious. Do note that it doesn't help to claim "well, 666 Creators are enough... that one didn't require a Creator" because that brings us back to the previous case.
Given what we know today it is more likely that there is a Designer / Creator.
That may be your interpretation, but it's by no means accurate to say that "it is more likely than there is a Designer / Creator." If you think it is, then clearly you've calculate the odds, and I'd be very interested in hearing the numbers you came up with and what kind of Type I and Type II errors you expect.
I'll be the first to accept that a Creator does not exist - if I can be convinced scientifically.
But you aren't open to being convinced. Everything, to you, is evidence of design. As I said in a previous post:
As for providing evidence that the Universe began on its own, allow me to show you why it would be pointless. Let's pretend that I have such evidence and I present it here. Everyone is stunned and I get fame, women, money and a fancy gold Nobel prize medal to use as a drink coaster.
You'll simply respond with "ahh, but even this is evidence of design, for you see there is still this deeper layer, full of fine-tuned variables that would make life impossible if they had any other values, but they don't and we are here! What you are observing is merely the Designer's plan in motion!"
At which point the Nobel committee would confiscate my drink coaster, my money, my women and my prized collection of 17th century beef jerky, while you were created Space Pope.
-
It's hard to say - we're talking about the Planck and Grand Unification epochs where, based on our best theories, symmetry hadn't yet broken and the four fundamental forces were unified. Our physics doesn't really help us explain that very well, because it breaks down due to quantum effects.
But generally, to greatly simplify things, "extremely hot and dense" doesn't want to stay that way.
I am talking more about the kind of simulation where we, as conscious entities, are nothing but code and some associated state, as opposed to distinct biological entities. I agree that existing VR can't really fool the senses, but it is getting there. The other day, a colleague was showing off an Oculus demo he did and it's pretty impressive. The human brain weighs visual stimuli much higher than other stimuli, so your brain can be fooled at times.
I told my mom once that some scientists are contemplating that the world is a simulation. She was horrified at this thought and I don't blame her.
-
I told my mom once that some scientists are contemplating that the world is a simulation. She was horrified at this thought and I don't blame her.
Why? What difference would it make to her?
-
Christian apologist Matt Slick would now refer to this type of question "answering" as the "Dillahunty Dodge" named after infamous Austin, Texas atheist Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Experience public access show. ;D
Very interesting - thanks for posting. There's many ways to tackle the atheist vs theist debate.
http://www.silverweapon.com/dillahuntydodge.html (http://www.silverweapon.com/dillahuntydodge.html)
"In an online debate with Christian apologist Matt Slick, atheist Matt Dillahunty was challenged to account for immaterial (non-physical), immutable, universal, transcendent laws of logic in his atheistic worldview. Slick argued that because these laws of logic are conceptual, they necessarily originate from a mind. Given this, Slick reasoned that the laws of logic derive from an immaterial, immutable, universal, transcendent.mind - i.e., the mind of God.
To dodge this conclusion, Dillahunty argued that while the laws of logic are indeed not physical, they're also not conceptual. I.e., he argued that they're not a product of 'mind'. In response to this, Slick challenged Dillahunty to furnish a third option as to the essence of the laws of logic. Dillahunty was unable to furnish any viable third option (credit to Matt Slick for completely stumping him on the very topic of their debate), but argued that 'there may be another option beyond physical and conceptual that we just don't know about'.This is where our article picks up..."
-
Why? What difference would it make to her?
Think about it. All the time you thought you grandparents and parents existed and now here comes this idea that they were just computer numbers. Yes you could make the argument when the light switches off what's the difference. People will react differently to this concept. Many people will not like the idea.
I have also wondered what if the Universe and life is just me dreaming and it didn't really happen.
-
The reasoning is quite simple, as far as I'm concerned: First, postulating a Creator doesn't answer anything - it merely adds another layer and a mystical one at that. Second, if the argument is that the Universe required a creator but that the creator didn't, then it's reasonable to ask what's the difference between the Universe and the Creator, and, if the Creator didn't require a Creator himself, why should the Universe? Alternatively, if the Creator required a Creator, then we're in a loop of ever mightier creators, which is clearly fallacious. Do note that it doesn't help to claim "well, 666 Creators are enough... that one didn't require a Creator" because that brings us back to the previous case.
You could also ask the question: Why should the Universe and the Creator both require a Creator? Asking the question: "If the Creator didn't require a Creator himself, why should the Universe?" does not mean therefore the Universe did not require a Creator. You're making the assumption they are on equal footing. Sure you can ask the question. But you cannot come to the conclusion that therefore there can't be a Creator of the Universe.
We can observe and measure the Universe as any other object. But the Theist Model proposes a Creator that cannot be seen or measured and is consequently not on the same level as the Universe. It's like comparing apples to oranges.
That may be your interpretation, but it's by no means accurate to say that "it is more likely than there is a Designer / Creator." If you think it is, then clearly you've calculate the odds, and I'd be very interested in hearing the numbers you came up with and what kind of Type I and Type II errors you expect.
Cosmic coincidences
The main drivers here are some truly perplexing developments in physics and cosmology. In recent years physicists and cosmologists have uncovered numerous eye-popping "cosmic coincidences," remarkable instances of apparent "fine-tuning" of the universe.
Here are just three out of many that could be listed:
Carbon resonance and the strong force. Although the abundance of hydrogen, helium and lithium are well-explained by known physical principles, the formation of heavier elements, beginning with carbon, very sensitively depends on the balance of the strong and weak forces. If the strong force were slightly stronger or slightly weaker (by just 1% in either direction), there would be no carbon or any heavier elements anywhere in the universe, and thus no carbon-based life forms like us to ask why.
The proton-to-electron mass ratio. A neutron's mass is slightly more than the combined mass of a proton, an electron and a neutrino. If the neutron were very slightly less massive, then it could not decay without energy input. If its mass were lower by 1%, then isolated protons would decay instead of neutrons, and very few atoms heavier than lithium could form.
The cosmological constant. Perhaps the most startling instance of fine-tuning is the cosmological constant paradox. This derives from the fact that when one calculates, based on known principles of quantum mechanics, the "vacuum energy density" of the universe, focusing on the electromagnetic force, one obtains the incredible result that empty space "weighs" 1,093g per cubic centimetre (cc). The actual average mass density of the universe, 10-28g per cc, differs by 120 orders of magnitude from theory.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html#jCp
But you aren't open to being convinced. Everything, to you, is evidence of design. As I said in a previous post:
I need to be convinced scientifically.
As for providing evidence that the Universe began on its own, allow me to show you why it would be pointless. Let's pretend that I have such evidence and I present it here. Everyone is stunned and I get fame, women, money and a fancy gold Nobel prize medal to use as a drink coaster.
You'll simply respond with "ahh, but even this is evidence of design, for you see there is still this deeper layer, full of fine-tuned variables that would make life impossible if they had any other values, but they don't and we are here! What you are observing is merely the Designer's plan in motion!"
At which point the Nobel committee would confiscate my drink coaster, my money, my women and my prized collection of 17th century beef jerky, while you were created Space Pope.
If you could create random Universes (with their own fundamental laws and properties) yourself via some machinery or other unknown method it would constitute proof to me. Then you would yourself become a Creator of Universes. I for one would not say that's "the Designer's plan in motion!" It would of course result in an endless loop of Designers. But we are not yet at that point are we ;D
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
Think about it. All the time you thought you grandparents and parents existed and now here comes this idea that they were just computer numbers. Yes you could make the argument when the light switches off what's the difference. People will react differently to this concept. Many people will not like the idea.
I have also wondered what if the Universe and life is just me dreaming and it didn't really happen.
I fail to see the difference from a philosophical point of view: what if we are just numbers in a computer? Does this change anything about our existence from our perspective?
-
Very interesting - thanks for posting. There's many ways to tackle the atheist vs theist debate.
http://www.silverweapon.com/dillahuntydodge.html (http://www.silverweapon.com/dillahuntydodge.html)
"In an online debate with Christian apologist Matt Slick, atheist Matt Dillahunty was challenged to account for immaterial (non-physical), immutable, universal, transcendent laws of logic in his atheistic worldview. Slick argued that because these laws of logic are conceptual, they necessarily originate from a mind. Given this, Slick reasoned that the laws of logic derive from an immaterial, immutable, universal, transcendent.mind - i.e., the mind of God.
To dodge this conclusion, Dillahunty argued that while the laws of logic are indeed not physical, they're also not conceptual. I.e., he argued that they're not a product of 'mind'. In response to this, Slick challenged Dillahunty to furnish a third option as to the essence of the laws of logic. Dillahunty was unable to furnish any viable third option (credit to Matt Slick for completely stumping him on the very topic of their debate), but argued that 'there may be another option beyond physical and conceptual that we just don't know about'.This is where our article picks up..."
I don't know Matt Dillahunty is (and the account you quote is obviously biased, what with the loaded wording it uses) but the notion that there are only two options is a logical fallacy and anyone with debate experience and 15 minutes of studying of first-order logic would have destroyed this silly argument. And that's not the only logical fallacy present in Matt Slick's argument - there's so many, in fact, that it could be trivially picked apart.
-
A poll to see how many agnostics, atheists and believers are here would be nice.
I'm actually impressed with the many users being non-believers. I was expecting the opposite.
-
A poll to see how many agnostics, atheists and believers are here would be nice.
I'm actually impressed with the many users being non-believers. I was expecting the opposite.
I can answer this. 10 believers and 10,000 nonbelievers.
-
A poll to see how many agnostics, atheists and believers are here would be nice.
I'm actually impressed with the many users being non-believers. I was expecting the opposite.
It's a bodybuilding board, of course there would be more non-believers than believers.
-
she is too busy being several gimicks on gb
exacty...nailed it. ;D
-
It's a bodybuilding board, of course there would be more non-believers than believers.
We're all just livin' the dream...
-
We're all just livin' the dream...
Reading Word Up! Magazine...
-
Just a buncha Christian bros chattin in this thread.
-
Just a buncha Christian bros chattin in this thread.
Easy, bro. 39 pages is no mean chattin.' Pretty sure Jesus resurrected himself in way less time.
-
Easy, bro. 39 pages is no mean chattin.' Pretty sure Jesus resurrected himself in way less time.
Yep.....resurrection son BOOM!!!
-
Jesus didn't resurrect himself, that would mean that he wasn't really dead and would not fulfill prophecy nor balance out the ransom. He is God's son, and God resurrected him.
-
Jesus didn't resurrect himself that would mean that he wasn't really dead and would not fulfill prophecy nor balance out the ransom. He is God's son, and God resurrected him.
-
I have a problem reconciling God aka this beautiful, masterful being with someone that would allow their son to be tortured to death. I know people say Jesus died for us but did he have to suffer so much? I chose to direct my energy and love towards a loving and merciful God, the energy of kindness and goodness.
-
Good observation and correct. The Holy Spirit did the resurrecting.
-
I have a problem reconciling God aka this beautiful, masterful being with someone that would allow their son to to be tortured to death. I know people say Jesus died for us but did he have to suffer so much? I chose to direct my energy and love towards a loving and merciful God, the energy of kindness and goodness.
I understand what you're suggesting but what so many fail to recognize is the justice of God and his supremely righteous character which abhores sin. Jesus Christ, the incarnate son of God came to this Earth to die for our sins, but the means of death and torture experienced was all of mankind.
-
You missed "himself."
-
I understand what you're suggesting but what so many fail to recognize is the justice of God and his supremely righteous character which abhores sin.
So h abhors sin and is supremely righteous. But:
- He hardens the Pharaoh's heart, directly causing the slaughter of Egypt's first-born (Exodus 4:21);
- He will exact "vengeance" on those that don't know God by burning them in fire (1 Thessalonians 1:7-9);and
- He visits the iniquities of the parents on the children (Jeremiah 32:10), kills the children if their parents worship other deities (Jeremiah 16:10) and condemns the Jews as the sons of those who killed the Prophets (Matthew 23:31).
Yeah... he is supremely righteous alright.
Jesus Christ, the incarnate son of God came to this Earth to die for our sins, but the means of death and torture experienced was all of mankind.
You fail to explain why all this was necessary. Remember, the key point of your religion is that your God sent himself to be sacrificed so that he would be appeased and his "wages of sin is death" pronouncement be met by proxy. Why not just say "aww, shucks... I forgive all of you. Let's not shed any blood!" And please don't hide behind the "well, I don't know but this is what God chose to do and who am I to second guess God" defense.
I am asking you a serious question: if the Christian God is all-powerful and all-knowing (which is certainly the way he is portrayed) then why did he send Jesus to die to then absolve those who believe through the blood of Christ? Why not just forgive everyone unconditionally? Isn't that what true love is?
And, remember, this is the same God that, supposedly, created every single one of us knowing with absolute and unerring certainty and finality what we would choose in the end and whether we'd end saved or not when all was said and done because we don't have a say in the matter (Romans 8:29, Ephesians 1:4). Which means that we are, in essence, being forced to play a game with loaded dice and to, when the inevitable losses rack up, pay up.
Forgive me if I find nothing righteous about your God. In fact, I find him deeply immoral and everything about him is offensive to me.
-
So h abhors sin and is supremely righteous. But:
- He hardens the Pharaoh's heart, directly causing the slaughter of Egypt's first-born (Exodus 4:21);
- He will exact "vengeance" on those that don't know God by burning them in fire (1 Thessalonians 1:7-9);and
- He visits the iniquities of the parents on the children (Jeremiah 32:10), kills the children if their parents worship other deities (Jeremiah 16:10) and condemns the Jews as the sons of those who killed the Prophets (Matthew 23:31).
Yeah... he is supremely righteous alright.
You fail to explain why all this was necessary. Remember, the key point of your religion is that your God sent himself to be sacrificed so that he would be appeased and his "wages of sin is death" pronouncement be met by proxy. Why not just say "aww, shucks... I forgive all of you. Let's not shed any blood!" And please don't hide behind the "well, I don't know but this is what God chose to do and who am I to second guess God" defense.
I am asking you a serious question: if the Christian God is all-powerful and all-knowing (which is certainly the way he is portrayed) then why did he send Jesus to die to then absolve those who believe through the blood of Christ? Why not just forgive everyone unconditionally? Isn't that what true love is?
And, remember, this is the same God that, supposedly, created every single one of us knowing with absolute and unerring certainty and finality what we would choose in the end and whether we'd end saved or not when all was said and done because we don't have a say in the matter (Romans 8:29, Ephesians 1:4). Which means that we are, in essence, being forced to play a game with loaded dice and to, when the inevitable losses rack up, pay up.
Forgive me if I find nothing righteous about your God. In fact, I find him deeply immoral and everything about him is offensive to me.
All questions have been asked by you (of me) and answered by me repeatedly in the past. Multiple discussions have taken place and the answers haven't changed.
Why a fourth time?
-
All questions have been asked by you (of me) and answered by me repeatedly in the past. Multiple discussions have taken place and the answers haven't changed.
Why a fourth time?
you never answer the questions properly
its ethier the god is 100 percent right who are we to question him vibe
or pasting multiple quotes which are open to interpretation
try answering his question using logic and rational facts
and not spouting patronising shit that any one of any detectable intelligence would pick to pieces
-
No I give correct and solid answers. Some questions can be more thoroughly answered than others.
But for most atheists the answers don't matter and are always predetermined to be insufficient...it's a game y'all play.
I personally no longer care anything about the atheist opinion on God. I still answer questions and all that but if I've done that repeatedly I stop.
The fact that an atheist finds God evil doesn't concern me anymore. It's simply woeful ignorance I can't overcome...final choices have been made.
Others that haven't made a choice can read for themselves and make a choice about God but I'm not gonna rehash the same things with the same people over and over. I could care less if I say yes and some atheist says no.
-
All questions have been asked by you (of me) and answered by me repeatedly in the past. Multiple discussions have taken place and the answers haven't changed.
Why a fourth time?
Well, we have to do something to pass the time until the rapture ;D
-
No I give correct and solid answers. Some questions can be more thoroughly answered than others.
But for most atheists the answers don't matter and are always predetermined to be insufficient...it's a game y'all play.
I personally no longer care anything about the atheist opinion on God. I still answer questions and all that but if I've done that repeatedly I stop.
The fact that an atheist finds God evil doesn't concern me anymore. It's simply woeful ignorance I can't overcome...final choices have been made.
Others that haven't made a choice can read for themselves and make a choice about God but I'm not gonna rehash the same things with the same people over and over. I could care less if I say yes and some atheist says no.
then you arent a good christian
you should be spreading the word without throwing tantrums when people challenge your point of view
which you cant back up with fact
you shouldnt be scared to debate the points
-
Well, we have to do something to pass the time until the rapture ;D
Fair enough. :)
For the record, I don't support the modern pre-tribulation rapture teachings. ;)
-
then you arent a good christian
you should be spreading the word without throwing tantrums when people challenge your point of view
which you cant back up with fact
you shouldnt be scared to debate the points
Oh no? Well, I've probably given the gospel message in some form or fashion on these boards a few thousand times.
It's also the top pinned thread on the religion board that never changes.
I don't continue to preach the gospel over and over to those that have clearly rejected it....that's foolishness.
Even still, why should I take advice on "proper Christianity" from an atheist LOL.
Throwing tantrums LOL....just a cliche thing to say to any post you don't like and nothing more.
My views challenged and scared to debate?? I have thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of posts replying and discussing all sorts of things related to theology, history, the bible, Jesus Christ, Christianity, etc......but you know that. I debate 1 on 1, 3 on 1, 5 on 1 and 8 on 1....have for years and have in this very thread.
Ball pitched and then sent over the fences.
-
Debates like these never convince the opposing factions to change their minds. They only strengthen them. Its stimulating intellectually but never gets anywhere. Thats why I never invest myself in them. I may throw in something now and then but whether it is accepted or rejected doesn't make much of a difference to anyone. I am of the belief that to get in touch with the spiritual behind appearances in a way that is personally meaningful (not to win a debate or change the world) one must transcend the mundane level of awareness in illuminating insight, deep meditation, heartfelt devotion and self forgetting service.
-
Oh no? Well, I've probably given the gospel message in some form or fashion on these boards a few thousand times.
It's also the top pinned thread on the religion board that never changes.
I don't continue to preach the gospel over and over to those that have clearly rejected it....that's foolishness.
Even still, why should I take advice on "proper Christianity" from an atheist LOL.
Throwing tantrums LOL....just a cliche thing to say to any post you don't like and nothing more.
My views challenged and scared to debate?? I have thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of posts replying and discussing all sorts of things related to theology, history, the bible, Jesus Christ, Christianity, etc......but you know that. I debate 1 on 1, 3 on 1, 5 on 1 and 8 on 1....have for years and have in this very thread.
Ball pitched and then sent over the fences.
i have never read a fact based answer from you
its all on the assumption that the scripture written by man is taken as the word of god
thats not fact thats an assumption
-
i have never read a fact based answer from you
its all on the assumption that the scripture written by man is taken as the word of god
thats not fact thats an assumption
You can't expect facts from someone with whom an ontological argument swings on a 2000 year old work of fiction. It stands that anything following this premise would be a bunch of self-referential codswallop. Which, shocker, is what you get.
Plus, he has already admitted that he is not open to reason on the issue of Christ not being the son of God. He is hardly likely to proffer reasonable responses on a subject he is immune to reason on, hence his choosing to opt out of answering / acknowledging certain questions.
-
Debates like these never convince the opposing factions to change their minds. They only strengthen them. Its stimulating intellectually but never gets anywhere. Thats why I never invest myself in them. I may throw in something now and then but whether it is accepted or rejected doesn't make much of a difference to anyone. I am of the belief that to get in touch with the spiritual behind appearances in a way that is personally meaningful (not to win a debate or change the world) one must transcend the mundane level of awareness in illuminating insight, deep meditation, heartfelt devotion and self forgetting service.
More often than not they don't. However there are occasions in my life where I have talked with someone about religion, discussing my reasons for not believing the bible is true and had them follow up some time later and eventually drop the belief. I suspect they were already wondering about some of the same things I did, and hearing someone else question those as well gave them the catalyst they needed to give it an honest review.
-
god does appear every now and then. i'v had a few instances throughout my life, getting out of scrapes where i have instantly thought god must have been behind that.
then again i'm probably just closer to god than the rest of the heathens on here :D
-
Oh no? Well, I've probably given the gospel message in some form or fashion on these boards a few thousand times.
It's also the top pinned thread on the religion board that never changes.
I don't continue to preach the gospel over and over to those that have clearly rejected it....that's foolishness.
Even still, why should I take advice on "proper Christianity" from an atheist LOL.
Throwing tantrums LOL....just a cliche thing to say to any post you don't like and nothing more.
My views challenged and scared to debate?? I have thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of posts replying and discussing all sorts of things related to theology, history, the bible, Jesus Christ, Christianity, etc......but you know that. I debate 1 on 1, 3 on 1, 5 on 1 and 8 on 1....have for years and have in this very thread.
Ball pitched and then sent over the fences.
-
You can't expect facts from someone with whom an ontological argument swings on a 2000 year old work of fiction. It stands that anything following this premise would be a bunch of self-referential codswallop. Which, shocker, is what you get.
Plus, he has already admitted that he is not open to reason on the issue of Christ not being the son of God. He is hardly likely to proffer reasonable responses on a subject he is immune to reason on, hence his choosing to opt out of answering / acknowledging certain questions.
You miss the whole point though. Just because you need some specific man made criteria to be fulfilled in order for you to consider something a fact and to believe it does not invalidate it in the real world nor does it prove that you are right and that one that believes the Bible as truth to be wrong. It simply makes you a nonbeliever and the other a believer.
There is no reason to be angry with or hate anyone that has a different belief system than you.
I personally believe in the Bible as the word of God and true and try my best to live according to it. If you think that's crazy or don't believe that's your opinion and I wish you well. The important thing to me is that I present a case as a witness to my beliefs and whether or not that message is rejected does not reflect on me but on the hearer and is between each person and God.
-
You miss the whole point though. Just because you need some specific man made criteria to be fulfilled in order for you to consider something a fact and to believe it does not invalidate it in the real world nor does it prove that you are right and that one that believes the Bible as truth to be wrong. It simply makes you a nonbeliever and the other a believer.
There is no reason to be angry with or hate anyone that has a different belief system than you.
I personally believe in the Bible as the word of God and true and try my best to live according to it. If you think that's crazy or don't believe that's your opinion and I wish you well. The important thing to me is that I present a case as a witness to my beliefs and whether or not that message is rejected does not reflect on me but on the hearer and is between each person and God.
technically it does....
-
For those that believe in God. What do you think God look like? You think he some sort of physical being? How you know God hasn't appeared?
-
i have never read a fact based answer from you
its all on the assumption that the scripture written by man is taken as the word of god
thats not fact thats an assumption
Sure you have. You all have. Most of you simply deny every bit of it. You don't like the facts presented so you invent ones that you do....that's it.
-
technically it does....
Again, you miss the entire point. You claim to be agnostic therefore you question everything. Being agnostic isn't about telling everyone else they're wrong. And again, those who subscribe to a higher power aren't limited to man's definition of fact based upon man's criteria of what is right or wrong.
Have a nice evening!
-
For those that believe in God. What do you think God look like? You think he some sort of physical being? How you know God hasn't appeared?
God the Father and the Holy Spirit are spirit. The Father is depicted as bathed in light.
Jesus Christ is a human man. Dark skin, kinky curly black hair, dark eyes, thick beard and moustache....like the men of the region.
Scripture says nothing about his appearance would draw attention to him.
-
God the Father and the Holy Spirit are spirit.
What does that mean?
The Father is depicted as bathed in light.
How can something non-corporeal, like a spirit, be bathed in anything?
-
It's a bodybuilding board, of course there would be more non-believers than believers.
My impression was that there were more believers than non-believers in the bodybuilding world. There is a stereotype about bodybuilders and bodybuiling fans having authoritarian personalities usually linked to or influenced by religious (christian) beliefs, despite the fact that several biblical passages can be interpreted as against bodybuilding from different aspects of the activity.
But to be fair, not all believers are like that, in fact , many are genuinely kind people.
-
Sure you have. You all have. Most of you simply deny every bit of it. You don't like the facts presented so you invent ones that you do....that's it.
your facts are based on a book you claim was written by god through mans hands
those arent facts skippy
-
My impression was that there were more believers than non-believers in the bodybuilding world. There is a stereotype about bodybuilders and bodybuiling fans having authoritarian personalities usually linked to or influenced by religious (christian) beliefs, despite the fact that several biblical passages can be interpreted as against bodybuilding from different aspects of the activity.
But to be fair, not all believers are like that, in fact , many are genuinely kind people.
Bodybuilders tend to be narcisstic individuals who lift weights, develop their bodies (and competitively show their bodies) for attention and in many ways the adoration of others. Also take into account the generational aspect,
God takes attention away from the individual bodybuilder. Bodybuilders honed their physiques to physical perfection to be like the Gods of Mt. Olympus. Bodybuilders are their own Gods, only in human form.
-
You miss the whole point though. Just because you need some specific man made criteria to be fulfilled in order for you to consider something a fact and to believe it does not invalidate it in the real world nor does it prove that you are right and that one that believes the Bible as truth to be wrong. It simply makes you a nonbeliever and the other a believer.
There is no reason to be angry with or hate anyone that has a different belief system than you.
I personally believe in the Bible as the word of God and true and try my best to live according to it. If you think that's crazy or don't believe that's your opinion and I wish you well. The important thing to me is that I present a case as a witness to my beliefs and whether or not that message is rejected does not reflect on me but on the hearer and is between each person and God.
what? lol, sorry facts are facts and not open to debate, there is but one truth.
you are in a fantasy land.
-
You miss the whole point though. Just because you need some specific man made criteria to be fulfilled in order for you to consider something a fact and to believe it does not invalidate it in the real world nor does it prove that you are right and that one that believes the Bible as truth to be wrong. It simply makes you a nonbeliever and the other a believer.
There is no reason to be angry with or hate anyone that has a different belief system than you.
I personally believe in the Bible as the word of God and true and try my best to live according to it. If you think that's crazy or don't believe that's your opinion and I wish you well. The important thing to me is that I present a case as a witness to my beliefs and whether or not that message is rejected does not reflect on me but on the hearer and is between each person and God.
See above, re: self referential codswallop.
Not missing any point, it is simple: you rely on empirical facts in every other area of your existence, then throw them out the window, because you believe in something completely bat shit crazy, and try and convince others of the same.
A lot of people who participate in this thread are not even atheists, they just object to the promotion of stupidity over reason, facts and rational thinking.
How can I prove I am right, when the whole basis of your argument rests on fiction? I can't. But those with a rational persuasion feel obliged to counteract the spreading of lunacy, in the hope that those who may be on the fence can make an informed choice.
-
your facts are based on a book you claim was written by god through mans hands
those arent facts skippy
No what I've put forth is correct. Atheists choose to suppress and deny at all costs so as not to be accountable.
I used to believe there was more to atheism than that, but I was wrong. It is that simple so I don't waste time anymore.
If an atheist is new to speaking with me I allow for much, much more in discussion. Older atheists....I respond to y'all like you do to me....that's why the thread is 40 pages.
-
Atheists choose to suppress and deny at all costs so as not to be accountable.
Why do you suppress and deny Allah at all costs so as not to be accountable?
-
No what I've put forth is correct. Atheists choose to suppress and deny at all costs so as not to be accountable.
I used to believe there was more to atheism than that, but I was wrong. It is that simple so I don't waste time anymore.
If an atheist is new to speaking with me I allow for much, much more in discussion. Older atheists....I respond to y'all like you do to me....that's why the thread is 40 pages.
lololololol
ya not accountable to your god, thor, odin, allah, horus or any other.
How absurd is is that you think those who don't believe in something are actually in fear of it? do you fear allah? do you fear pagan gods?
-
No what I've put forth is correct. Atheists choose to suppress and deny at all costs so as not to be accountable.
They don't acknowledge the premise, so there is no need to suppress anything. You interpretation is one born from your dogmatic belief in religion. You are the one who demands accountability to your deity.
-
Like in the sky or on tv or anything? Like to say do this and don't do that, im happy with this, im not happy with that.
He doesn't.
Because hes not real.
Now grow up.
He left a guide so you can go thru life without him having to babyseat you ,,,,its called the BIBLE .
WooSHHHHHHH The Lord; never used steroids, yet he die for us all
-
No what I've put forth is correct. Atheists choose to suppress and deny at all costs so as not to be accountable.
I used to believe there was more to atheism than that, but I was wrong. It is that simple so I don't waste time anymore.
If an atheist is new to speaking with me I allow for much, much more in discussion. Older atheists....I respond to y'all like you do to me....that's why the thread is 40 pages.
bit of a generalisation there sport
are you saying that all atheists have no morals
that just makes you sound like a holier than though pious idiot
thats just name calling because i wont buy that the bible is a book of fact
have you read that shit
the bible is a rule book to opress the masses through fear
most of us have evolved past that
some not so much
-
I used to be an atheist but I'm down with god again. Even if it's just a placebo effect, who cares if it gives you psychological comfort in a tough life who gives a fuck what anyone else thinks.
-
I used to be an atheist but I'm down with god again. Even if it's just a placebo effect, who cares if it gives you psychological comfort in a tough life who gives a fuck what anyone else thinks.
Oddly enough I agree with this statement. If life is tough and religion gives you solace I say go for it.
-
Why do you suppress and deny Allah at all costs so as not to be accountable?
There's only one God and Allah ain't it. Sorry, way it is. Come aboard or jump off....your choice.
-
You can't expect facts from someone with whom an ontological argument swings on a 2000 year old work of fiction. It stands that anything following this premise would be a bunch of self-referential codswallop. Which, shocker, is what you get.
Plus, he has already admitted that he is not open to reason on the issue of Christ not being the son of God. He is hardly likely to proffer reasonable responses on a subject he is immune to reason on, hence his choosing to opt out of answering / acknowledging certain questions.
Bible is non fiction.
Correct, not open to any counsel from atheists as it pertains the things and ways of God. I'll explain to you, but you cannot explain to me.
If you become a believer that changes.
-
They don't acknowledge the premise, so there is no need to suppress anything. You interpretation is one born from your dogmatic belief in religion. You are the one who demands accountability to your deity.
I know, I know....heard it a zillion times...."can't suppress what doesn't exist....yada, yada".
He exists, you know it, we all know it.....your choice to suppress in order to deny accountability.
-
What does that mean?
How can something non-corporeal, like a spirit, be bathed in anything?
Means he doesn't have a human, physical form.....Father and Spirit are described as spirit....an immaterial state.
Scriptures says the Father is accompanied by light and/or lighting, he's the father of lights, no one has seen him, gospel is light, Jesus is light, etc....always God and light.
Don't know how, just is.....good question though.
-
lololololol
ya not accountable to your god, thor, odin, allah, horus or any other.
How absurd is is that you think those who don't believe in something are actually in fear of it? do you fear allah? do you fear pagan gods?
Yes, yes LOLs until your sides hurt. Meh.
There's only one God and Allah, Zeus, Horus ain't it. Sorry, way it is. Come aboard or jump off....your choice.
-
bit of a generalisation there sport
are you saying that all atheists have no morals
that just makes you sound like a holier than though pious idiot
thats just name calling because i wont buy that the bible is a book of fact
have you read that shit
the bible is a rule book to opress the masses through fear
most of us have evolved past that
some not so much
No, I just said what I said. Yes, I've read it.
If you've added something to it here then you said that part....such as the comment about morals. Neither did I say that, suggest it nor do I believe it....you stated it.
Book is for truth and deliverance and salvation....only God haters seek to trade evil for good and good for evil.
You haven't evolved one inch past sin......you just tell yourself you have. Today's world is in all it's fancy, finery and tech has legalized much of sin and deemed the majority of it inconsequential. Just again creeping slowly towards another Sodom and Gomorrah yet this time with more man-made laws, tech and nicer stuff.
-
I know, I know....heard it a zillion times...."can't suppress what doesn't exist....yada, yada".
He exists, you know it, we all know it.....your choice to suppress in order to deny accountability.
He exists, you know it, we all know it....yada yada.
I've heard it a million times. Your choice is to suppress in order to appease a fictitious accountability score collector.
-
He exists, you know it, we all know it....yada yada.
I've heard it a million times. Your choice is to suppress in order to appease a fictitious accountability score collector.
I know you're doing the "take the words and reverse it" thing, but not sure what it accomplished.
I'm patient, you can try again if you'd like.
-
Yes, yes LOLs until your sides hurt. Meh.
There's only one God and Allah, Zeus, Horus ain't it. Sorry, way it is. Come aboard or jump off....your choice.
I think horus is the one true god, jesus ain't it, sorry, way it is, Come aboard or jump off... your choice.
God is a ever receding pocket of ignorance.
I wish your god was real, fuck I would repent, its pretty sweet fucking deal, be good here and receive heaven for ever? sweet deal.. I wouldn't turn that shit down, unfortunately being a grown man my mind won't allow fairy tales to deride objective reality.
I don;t believe he exists, and if he does he has some people to answer to, like those put in ovens, those kids with bone cancer all his "plan".
The only way forward is through reason, the bible is a relic of a shitty past were fantasy and wants were more important then testing and facts. Look how far we have come by ignoring religion, working on the sabbath, materials of two types together, questioning authority etc.
-
I think horus is the one true god, jesus ain't it, sorry, way it is, Come aboard or jump off... your choice.
God is a ever receding pocket of ignorance.
I wish your god was real, fuck I would repent, its pretty sweet fucking deal, be good here and receive heaven for ever? sweet deal.. I wouldn't turn that shit down, unfortunately being a grown man my mind won't allow fairy tales to deride objective reality.
I don;t believe he exists, and if he does he has some people to answer to, like those put in ovens, those kids with bone cancer all his "plan".
The only way forward is through reason, the bible is a relic of a shitty past were fantasy and wants were more important then testing and facts. Look how far we have come by ignoring religion, working on the sabbath, materials of two types together, questioning authority etc.
No, there is only one God expressed in Father, Son and Spirit.
There is no Horus.
God is truth and revealed through Jesus Christ....repent to today and belief in Jesus Christ and be saved.
Not a fairy tale....just an excuse for God haters...can't help you.
You know he exists, we all know he exists....you suppress to avoid accountability in order to continue in sin.
The bible is truth and through it deliverance and salvation
Yes, you've come such a long way. Sin is rampant, increasing and legalized. The era of tolerance is completely intolerant. Slowly but surely the world is inching it's way to the fullness of it's sin. Religion is slowly being defined as mental illness....a disease and eventually will be outlawed on a global scale. It will feel marvelous and victorious for some and then the Son will return and you'll get to partake in the eternity of your selection and might even recall the words of some believers that loved y'all enough to diligently challenge you and tell you to turn to God now....but then it will be too late. Don't want that for you....or anyone.
Out of my hands though....choices have been made.
-
^ Complete and utter nonsense.
Fear mongering at its best.
-
No, there is only one God expressed in Father, Son and Spirit.
There is no Horus.
God is truth and revealed through Jesus Christ....repent to today and belief in Jesus Christ and be saved.
Not a fairy tale....just an excuse for God haters...can't help you.
You know he exists, we all know he exists....you suppress to avoid accountability in order to continue in sin.
The bible is truth and through it deliverance and salvation
Yes, you've come such a long way. Sin is rampant, increasing and legalized. The era of tolerance is completely intolerant. Slowly but surely the world is inching it's way to the fullness of it's sin. Religion is slowly being defined as mental illness....a disease and eventually will be outlawed on a global scale. It will feel marvelous and victorious for some and then the Son will return and you'll get to partake in the eternity of your selection and might even recall the words of some believers that loved y'all enough to diligently challenge you and tell you to turn to God now....but then it will be too late. Don't want that for you....or anyone.
Out of my hands though....choices have been made.
But what if I consider some of the things god has done as sinful? when will he repent? and to whom? he owes his creations an explanation just as my son would (I have no kids) if I was whipping him. This idea of complete fault on the humans part with none being placed on god seems absurd, he is not accountable?
Why would he care what happens in this finite time if he lives in eternity? all is pointless in eternity, nothing means anything, it's endless, immutable and stagnant. Seems like a cruel exercise.
-
No, I just said what I said. Yes, I've read it.
If you've added something to it here then you said that part....such as the comment about morals. Neither did I say that, suggest it nor do I believe it....you stated it.
Book is for truth and deliverance and salvation....only God haters seek to trade evil for good and good for evil.
You haven't evolved one inch past sin......you just tell yourself you have. Today's world is in all it's fancy, finery and tech has legalized much of sin and deemed the majority of it inconsequential. Just again creeping slowly towards another Sodom and Gomorrah yet this time with more man-made laws, tech and nicer stuff.
i havent evolved one inch past sin ::)
you havent evolved one inch past a book written by supersticious idiots hundreds of years ago
you are evolving in to the biggest prick on here im afraid
you use to be a well balanced funny guy
now you preach an idiocy based on nothing more than the fear of your own mortality
judge ye not the deeds of others
isnt gluttony a sin you fat cu nt :-*
-
I really feel that some should look into Shinto.
-
But what if I consider some of the things god has done as sinful? when will he repent? and to whom? he owes his creations an explanation just as my son would (I have no kids) if I was whipping him. This idea of complete fault on the humans part with none being placed on god seems absurd, he is not accountable?
Why would he care what happens in this finite time if he lives in eternity? all is pointless in eternity, nothing means anything, it's endless, immutable and stagnant. Seems like a cruel exercise.
God has never sinned.
You're a creation of a righteous creator. You can be sinful, he cannot.
He is eternal and his law is eternal and his justice is eternal.
Spit on me and nothing may happen. Spit on a police officer and you'll spend some time in jail. Spit on the President and you may spend decades in jail. Spit on an eternal God and you'll face an eternal fine.
-
i havent evolved one inch past sin ::)
you havent evolved one inch past a book written by supersticious idiots hundreds of years ago
you are evolving in to the biggest prick on here im afraid
you use to be a well balanced funny guy
now you preach an idiocy based on nothing more than the fear of your own mortality
judge ye not the deeds of others
isnt gluttony a sin you fat cu nt :-*
You can see all the fear mongering in his posts. Threats of eternal damnation and fire. How can you even logically debate such lunacy? You can't. :-\ :-\
-
i havent evolved one inch past sin ::)
you havent evolved one inch past a book written by supersticious idiots hundreds of years ago
you are evolving in to the biggest prick on here im afraid
you use to be a well balanced funny guy
now you preach an idiocy based on nothing more than the fear of your own mortality
judge ye not the deeds of others
isnt gluttony a sin you fat cu nt :-*
No you haven't....sin is sin...doesn't change.
The bible still stands today.
I'm one of the most loving folks here because I actually care for your soul and take time to share with others the goodness and grace of God. You don't like it when I speak about sin because it's convicting. I don't feel conviction because I don't walk in willful sin. When I did sin regularly I felt conviction when I was called out.
I'm still a very funny guy, but I speak directly to atheists now and I'm primarily all business about matters of faith. I speak exactly like I've always been spoken to...it's effective. Same message, different delivery....today I do direct and in the past I did sunshine and rainbows.....most board atheists are waaaaaaay past that Cinderalla approach.
I have no fear of death.
Matthew 7:1. Already addressed that with you....continue on through 7:6 for the full context. Believers are to judge righteously, but not hypocritically. From me you get scripture, the gospel and the righteous words of God. You aren't getting the gospel according to MOS.
All sort are gluttons. I don't happen to be....I don't eat tremendous amounts of food anymore or engage in greed. I was in 20 times better shape in the past and ate 3 and 4 times the volume I eat today....that was gluttonous behavior. There are rail thin folks that are gluttons as well. Bodybuilders eat like gluttons. Others are gluttons out of greed and envy and mass accumulation of wealth and possession....gross materialism....I don't engage in that either.
-
MOS is nothing more than a zealot. Were he born in a muslim country, he would be strapping a suicide jacket on and blasting himself to smithereens.
-
MOS is nothing more than a zealot. Were he born in a muslim country, he would be strapping a suicide jacket on and blasting himself to smithereens.
Not a zealot. My passion is my passion. I want others to come to the saving grace of Jesus Christ.
Yep, most likely I would be a Muslim.
By the grace of God I experienced his drawing on my life and believed on Christ's salvific work. Many Muslims have done the same.
-
I know, I know....heard it a zillion times...."can't suppress what doesn't exist....yada, yada".
He exists, you know it, we all know it.....your choice to suppress in order to deny accountability.
yeah..because as a Christian we can't continue to sin and get forgiveness. You're an idiot
-
God is a ever receding pocket of ignorance.
Neil Degrasse Tyson. Smart man, god bless him.
-
MOS is nothing more than a zealot. Were he born in a muslim country, he would be strapping a suicide jacket on and blasting himself to smithereens.
zeal·ot
ˈzelət/
noun
noun: zealot; plural noun: zealots
a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.
Yup, that is MOS to a "T."
-
yeah..because as a Christian we can't continue to sin and get forgiveness. You're an idiot
No, Christians can continue in sin, but if they do continue in willful sin after the message of salvation and grace has been presented to them and profession of faith given (by the Christian) they no longer have an advocate before the God the Father. That's why many Christians will not prevail to the end. We need to abide by the santification of the Holy Spirit and endure long suffering and humbly submit to the will of God even going as far as taking every word and thought captive.
-
God has never sinned.
You're a creation of a righteous creator. You can be sinful, he cannot.
He is eternal and his law is eternal and his justice is eternal.
Spit on me and nothing may happen. Spit on a police officer and you'll spend some time in jail. Spit on the President and you may spend decades in jail. Spit on an eternal God and you'll face an eternal fine.
I cannot be the creation of something righteous, I contain many negatives, which would have to come from the source, ie god.
Punishment for eternity for finite things is absurd and immoral.
-
I cannot be the creation of something righteous, I contain many negatives, which would have to come from the source, ie god.
Punishment for eternity for finite things is absurd and immoral.
You choose to sin, you aren't forced. You bring about decay in yourself.
They aren't finite things...they are eternal....infinite. You just choose to suppress that reality of God.
Spit on me and nothing may happen. Spit on a police officer and you'll spend some time in jail. Spit on the President and you may spend decades in jail. Spit on an eternal God and you'll face an eternal fine.
You can run from it for the rest of your days on this earth if you so choose.
-
You choose to sin, you aren't forced. You bring about decay in yourself.
They aren't finite things...they are eternal....infinite. You just choose to suppress that reality of God.
Spit on me and nothing may happen. Spit on a police officer and you'll spend some time in jail. Spit on the President and you may spend decades in jail. Spit on an eternal God and you'll face an eternal fine.
You can run from it for the rest of your days on this earth if you so choose.
You are all over the place. He doesn't choose to sin, he was born into sin and has a sinful nature. it is his nature to sin according to that work of fiction you swallow. You don't even know your own religion dude.
-
You are all over the place. He doesn't choose to sin, he was born into sin and has a sinful nature. it is his nature to sin according to that work of fiction you swallow. You don't even know your own religion dude.
Yes, he chooses sin.
A sinful nature is a proclivity to sin not the active engagement in sin. When made righteous as a believer we still have a sinful nature, but we repent of our sin and are guided by the Holy Spirit that sanctifies us...we trust in the salvific work of God. If we choose to willfully engage in sin again we risk losing our advocate in Jesus Christ before the Father.
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. Anyone who comes to God and desires forgivenessness and righteousness will be deemed as such.
No, I understand "my religion" just fine and I'm grounded right here and now.
-
Yes, he chooses sin.
A sinful nature is a proclivity to sin not the active engagement in sin. When made righteous as a believer we still have a sinful nature, but we repent of our sin and are guided by the Holy Spirit that sanctifies us...we trust in the salvific work of God. If we choose to willfully engage in sin again we risk losing our advocate in Jesus Christ before the Father.
No, I understand "my religion" just fine and I'm grounded right here and now.
Romans 7:14 So the trouble is not with the law, for it is spiritual and good. The trouble is with me, for I am all too human, a slave to sin.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men5 because wall sinned—
Romans 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.
2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
The awesome thing about your religious book is almost everyone can be right.. it's just that poorly written
-
Romans 7:14 So the trouble is not with the law, for it is spiritual and good. The trouble is with me, for I am all too human, a slave to sin.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men5 because wall sinned—
Romans 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.
2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
The awesome thing about your religious book is almost everyone can be right.. it's just that poorly written
Thank you for these verses.....align exactly with what I just wrote and have written previously.
If you need more explanation let me know.
-
Thank you for these verses.....align exactly with what I just wrote and have written previously.
If you need more explanation let me know.
::)
-
::)
I hope "it cannot" wasn't your mic drop. :-\ The law is just and God loves the law, but man can't fulfill it. That's why Jesus Christ came.
Have a lengthy post in this very thread regarding the law of God and the grace of God.
-
I'll cut to the chase here. There is only one god and that is Horus. You really do know that in your heart, but your evil nature, stubbornness, and selfishness keep you from admitting it. I don't care if you finally admit it one day or not, though I hope you finally stop being pigheaded and accept the truth that your heart holds for you. I'll pray for you
-
I'll cut to the chase here. There is only one god and that is Horus. You really do know that in your heart, but your evil nature, stubbornness, and selfishness keep you from admitting it. I don't care if you finally admit it one day or not, though I hope you finally stop being pigheaded and accept the truth that your heart holds for you. I'll pray for you
There's only God expressed in Father, Son and Spirit. We are aligned in righteousness with the Father via the Son Jesus Christ and indwelt and sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
There isn't any Horus....sorry, way it is.
-
^ And there you have it folks. Typical dogmatic response. Cuts of all other possibilities to any other Gods.
MOS: "I am right, you're wrong. There is no need to assume any God you believe in is right. You're wrong. I am right."
The equivalent of a 5 year old throwing a temper tantrum on the playground.
The epitome of an absolutely close mind.
-
^ And there you have it folks. Typical dogmatic response. Cuts of all other possibilities to any other Gods.
MOS: "I am right, you're wrong. There is no need to assume any God you believe in is right. You're wrong. I am right."
The equivalent of a 5 year old throwing a temper tantrum on the playground.
The epitome of an absolutely close mind.
LOL, my position hasn't been made a secret in 5 solid years. Glad you finally broke the case wide open though!
Oh yeah, you're welcome for the reply....you did it!
-
LOL, my position hasn't been made a secret in 5 solid years. Glad you finally broke the case wide open though!
I thought you weren't going to respond to me because I hurt your feelings? :'( :'( :'(
No, it has not been made a secret, but your response clearly contradicts the times where you have alluded to the fact that you were an "open minded" individual.
That is the only thing I was pointing out.
Now, go back to your temper tantrum and stop responding to me, like you said you were initially going to do. :D :D
-
There's only God expressed in Father, Son and Spirit. We are aligned in righteousness with the Father via the Son Jesus Christ and indwelt and sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
There isn't any Horus....sorry, way it is.
You make me laugh at your naivety. You and I both know Horus is the only god, the only difference between us is you aren't ready to admit that yet
-
You make me laugh at your naivety. You and I both know Horus is the only god, the only difference between us is you aren't ready to admit that yet
Well, scripture indicates there is only one God. I have personally and repeatedly experienced demonstrations of God's reality in my life. Scripture has been demonstrated as correct in my life. Other believers attest to the same both in and out of scripture.
There's only one God.....sorry, way it is.
-
This is pretty fun today!
-
Agnostic007: "MOS, I am your father. Come over to the Dark Side."
MOS: "NOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo"
-
Agnostic007: "MOS, I am your father. Come over to the Dark Side."
MOS: "NOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo"
:D
Exactly, but I already own three lightsabers so Agnostic wouldn't stand a chance!
-
Well, scripture indicates there is only one God. I have personally and repeatedly experienced demonstrations of God's reality in my life. Scripture has been demonstrated as correct in my life. Other believers attest to the same both in and out of scripture.
There's only one God.....sorry, way it is.
Satan wrote that book you think is from god. Of course it uses another name for the real one true god. You've been fooled
-
Satan wrote that book you think is from god. Of course it uses another name for the real one true god. You've been fooled
-
Neil Degrasse Tyson. Smart man, god bless him.
nice. I use quotes or quips like this all the time and no one cares, no one till you :-*
-
Romans 7:14 So the trouble is not with the law, for it is spiritual and good. The trouble is with me, for I am all too human, a slave to sin.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men5 because wall sinned—
Romans 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.
2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
The awesome thing about your religious book is almost everyone can be right.. it's just that poorly written
The book is terribly written, no god could inspire such contradictory screed.
-
The book is terribly written, no god could inspire such contradictory screed.
No god inspired it or could have inspired it. It has endless contradictions because it was written by men and men are endlessly contradictory.
-
There's only one God and Allah ain't it. Sorry, way it is. Come aboard or jump off....your choice.
The Muslims say the same thing... if one of you is right, the other is wrong. You assert you're right, but then so do they. You claim your grimoire proves you're right, but then again so do they. If anything, their nonsense is slightly more grounded to reality: they don't claim a virgin gave birth to a man-deity hybrid that's fully man and fully deity.
God has never sinned.
What do you mean by "sin"? If you mean "act against God's will" then your statement is vacuous. If there's some other, objective definition of sin, let's hear it. Then we can decide if God has ever sinned or not.
You're a creation of a righteous creator.
"You're a creation" - that's your completely unsubstantiated belief.
"a righteous creator" - that's also your completely unsubstantiated belief but even if we assume the Bible is 100% accurate "righteous" is hardly the use I'd use to describe your deity.
You can be sinful, he cannot.
Why? Apparently he abhors sin (you claim he's never sinned and that he, in fact, cannot) so assuming I was created by him, I can only conclude that either:
- he meant for me to sin; or
- he didn't mean for me to sin, but designed or manufactured me poorly enough so that I do sin.
Either way, punishing me for sinning is a douche move and makes him unworthy of respect, let alone worship.
He is eternal and his law is eternal and his justice is eternal.
It's unclear what "law is eternal" or "justice is eternal" means. But before we get to that, please explain
Spit on me and nothing may happen. Spit on a police officer and you'll spend some time in jail. Spit on the President and you may spend decades in jail. Spit on an eternal God and you'll face an eternal fine.
Ah yes... this again (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=575315.msg8139308#msg8139308)...
You're doing the ol'switcheroo: you use the same word both literally and metaphorically. Spitting on you, a a cop or the President is almost certainly battery. Spitting on a spirit? That's a little different. You abuse words like that all the time... God's love is "infinitely" more "lovey" that plain-old human love. God's power? Why, it's "infinitely" more "powery" than plain-old human power. God's wrath? It, too, is infinitely more "wrathy" than the kind we have. Just another silly attempt to anthropomorphize your deity and try to work around the fact that you can't list his actual attributes so that we can evaluate whether a being that has those attributes is possible.
-
The atheists in here are going to win every debate. And I'm not an atheist. Everything that the theist has put down on the table is unsubstantiated. We are emotionally driven. And as always, no homo. :)
-
It's sad to see educated people in this thread (atheists and agnostics) unable or unwilling to ever consider that their belief or definition of truth and fact may be wrong.
Before one becomes a believer they are first convinced of the truth of what they are learning and then reject their old ways. This is not a process of shutting your mind off it is a process of opening your mind to the realization that man is not the ultimate authority in the universe and being moved enough but your beliefs to make necessary changes in your life to live in harmony with God's will.
I get that you don't believe in what I believe in yet I do not speak disparagingly of you. I simply ask that you consider the possibility that what you believe in may not be the actual truth. (Science and belief in God are NOT mutually exclusive). The issue I have is that you cannot express your opinion in a civilized manner, but instead insult and make any real discussion or debate impossible.
Anyone can name call and shout insults. It takes courage to open your mind and actually discuss what you do not believe or agree with.
Even if no agreement is made after a discussion there's no reason to end the discussion with insults etc. It is okay to disagree with one another without hate.
-
It's sad to see educated people in this thread (atheists and agnostics) unable or unwilling to ever consider that their belief or definition of truth and fact may be wrong.
Before one becomes a believer they are first convinced of the truth of what they are learning and then reject their old ways. This is not a process of shutting your mind off it is a process of opening your mind to the realization that man is not the ultimate authority in the universe and being moved enough but your beliefs to make necessary changes in your life to live in harmony with God's will.
I get that you don't believe in what I believe in yet I do not speak disparagingly of you. I simply ask that you consider the possibility that what you believe in may not be the actual truth. (Science and belief in God are NOT mutually exclusive). The issue I have is that you cannot express your opinion in a civilized manner, but instead insult and make any real discussion or debate impossible.
Anyone can name call and shout insults. It takes courage to open your mind and actually discuss what you do not believe or agree with.
Even if no agreement is made after a discussion there's no reason to end the discussion with insults etc. It is okay to disagree with one another without hate.
Yes, just like MOS who just stated that he is 100% correct and is not wrong. MOS has never considered the fact that he may be wrong.
And I simply ask you to consider the possibility that your God may not exist.
Try again.
-
The Muslims say the same thing... if one of you is right, the other is wrong. You assert you're right, but then so do they. You claim your grimoire proves you're right, but then again so do they. If anything, their nonsense is slightly more grounded to reality: they don't claim a virgin gave birth to a man-deity hybrid that's fully man and fully deity.
What do you mean by "sin"? If you mean "act against God's will" then your statement is vacuous. If there's some other, objective definition of sin, let's hear it. Then we can decide if God has ever sinned or not.
"You're a creation" - that's your completely unsubstantiated belief.
"a righteous creator" - that's also your completely unsubstantiated belief but even if we assume the Bible is 100% accurate "righteous" is hardly the use I'd use to describe your deity.
Why? Apparently he abhors sin (you claim he's never sinned and that he, in fact, cannot) so assuming I was created by him, I can only conclude that either:
- he meant for me to sin; or
- he didn't mean for me to sin, but designed or manufactured me poorly enough so that I do sin.
Either way, punishing me for sinning is a douche move and makes him unworthy of respect, let alone worship.
It's unclear what "law is eternal" or "justice is eternal" means. But before we get to that, please explain
Ah yes... this again (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=575315.msg8139308#msg8139308)...
You're doing the ol'switcheroo: you use the same word both literally and metaphorically. Spitting on you, a a cop or the President is almost certainly battery. Spitting on a spirit? That's a little different. You abuse words like that all the time... God's love is "infinitely" more "lovey" that plain-old human love. God's power? Why, it's "infinitely" more "powery" than plain-old human power. God's wrath? It, too, is infinitely more "wrathy" than the kind we have. Just another silly attempt to anthropomorphize your deity and try to work around the fact that you can't list his actual attributes so that we can evaluate whether a being that has those attributes is possible.
Muhammad states that the words of God cannot be altered and are incorruptible and affirms the writings of Moses and the gospels specifically. It therefore affirms the bible and the bible says there are not other valid teachings that differ from it therefore the Quran is false as is all of Islam.
Sin is an offense against God, a breaking of his law....I've explained this all before....repeatedly actually.
It’s unsubstantiated only by the body of unbelievers and that opinion is of zero concern or consequence to me…..I don’t take counsel on God from atheists.
He desires for you to be aligned with him in righteousness, but he allows you to choose to defy his will and have no God in your life and your eternity. No one makes you sin or reject God. Easy validation is that God wants you to choose him and today you’re still an atheist and will be again tomorrow and the day after that…..choices have been made.
We break laws so we get punished. Laws are meaningless without consequences.
God is eternal and therefore his law and justice are also eternal.
Yep, same example. Good on that day and again today. Atheists reject everything God related so no worries by me.
See previous posts concerning attributes of God.
-
The atheists in here are going to win every debate. And I'm not an atheist. Everything that the theist has put down on the table is unsubstantiated. We are emotionally driven. And as always, no homo. :)
Unsubstantiated only from the perspective of unbelief that has no comprehension or experience with the things of God.
-
Yes, just like MOS who just stated that he is 100% correct and is not wrong. MOS has never considered the fact that he may be wrong.
And I simply ask you to consider the possibility that your God may not exist.
Try again.
When did I write that I haven't considered that possibility?
I believe to my core that what I believe is true, but I didn't come to that conclusion without weighing all possibilities and making a decision based on information from myriad sources...
-
When did I write that I haven't considered that possibility?
I believe to my core that what I believe is true, but I didn't come to that conclusion without weighing all possibilities and making a decision based on information from myriad sources...
I used to consider that possibility....did for years as well....part of my testimony on these boards.
Then I crashed headfirst into the Holy Spirit....that changed me forever. I now have absolutely no doubts about God. That confidence is offensive to most atheists.
-
Unsubstantiated only from the perspective of unbelief that has no comprehension or experience with the things of God.
Yes, I know of your story, we have argued years ago. Peace brother.
-
Yes, I know of your story, we have argued years ago. Peace brother.
Have a good one!
-
Muhammad states that the words of God cannot be altered and are incorruptible and affirms the writings of Moses and the gospels specifically. It therefore affirms the bible and the bible says there are not other valid teachings that differ from it therefore the Quran is false as is all of Islam.
Well, that'd be all nice and dandy, except the Bible itself has been "altered" through the ages, and Christians can't even agree on what it's supposed to say, much less on what it's supposed to mean. Oh, and that's a slight misrepresentation of what Muhammad, supposedly, said and how he intended it to be applied. But let's not worry about such small things ;)
Sin is an offense against God, a breaking of his law....I've explained this all before....repeatedly actually.
"Offense against God". What does that even mean? How can a non-corporeal, non-human entity be "offended"? More than that, how can I be sure that God has a law and that it's what you claim it to be? Or that he even exists? You can't keep putting the cart before the horse.
It’s unsubstantiated only by the body of unbelievers and that opinion is of zero concern or consequence to me…..I don’t take counsel on God from atheists.
It's unsubstantiated, period. That's perfectly fine and nothing (and nobody) is stopping you from believing something that's unsubstantiated, but don't pretend that your belief is based on anything short of "feels". There's no substantive difference between your belief and the belief of a someone who follows, say, Shamanism.
He desires for you to be aligned with him in righteousness, but he allows you to choose to defy his will and have no God in your life and your eternity.
If he desires this, why does he not reveal himself to me? I mean, he had no problem showing his ass to Moses (Exodus 33:23) and I'll just settle for a phonecall! So either he doesn't desire for me to be aligned with him in righteousness or his plan doesn't give him free nights-and-weekends calling.
No one makes you sin or reject God.
Not true: if noone makes me sin, then Jesus isn't needed because it would be possible to live a sinless life and achieve my own salvation and that would render your Messiah moot. Indeed, the central tenet of Christianity is that we're born with Original Sin and that we have a sinful nature that we cannot, on our own, escape. In other words, under the Christian ethos, it is impossible for me to not sin and that's the reason why Jesus is necessary: to save us since we can't help but sin by paying the price of sin for us.
Easy validation is that God wants you to choose him and today you’re still an atheist and will be again tomorrow and the day after that…..choices have been made.
One wonders, how I can make a choice when the Bible clearly says that it's all predetermined and God knows the outcome. There is no way to reconcile free will with the Bible.
We break laws so we get punished. Laws are meaningless without consequences.
But it is, at least, possible for us to live without breaking human laws. The same is simply not possible with God's laws, which makes those laws unjust. And unjust laws shouldn't be followed.
-
It's sad to see educated people in this thread (atheists and agnostics) unable or unwilling to ever consider that their belief or definition of truth and fact may be wrong.
Before one becomes a believer they are first convinced of the truth of what they are learning and then reject their old ways. This is not a process of shutting your mind off it is a process of opening your mind to the realization that man is not the ultimate authority in the universe and being moved enough but your beliefs to make necessary changes in your life to live in harmony with God's will.
I get that you don't believe in what I believe in yet I do not speak disparagingly of you. I simply ask that you consider the possibility that what you believe in may not be the actual truth. (Science and belief in God are NOT mutually exclusive). The issue I have is that you cannot express your opinion in a civilized manner, but instead insult and make any real discussion or debate impossible.
Anyone can name call and shout insults. It takes courage to open your mind and actually discuss what you do not believe or agree with.
Even if no agreement is made after a discussion there's no reason to end the discussion with insults etc. It is okay to disagree with one another without hate.
I think you are asking the right question to the wrong people.
Most atheists and agnotics have gone through a process, be it simply studying the bible out of curiosity and found controversial stuff or went through a process in their lives that led them to question the bible and start studying it to find the same controversies.
The question should be directed at believers because it is believers who usually assume everything the bible says is the truth without questioning. Most believers don't question the bible and most prefer not to for the fear of finding something that might make their beliefs succumb.
Believers put so much of their emotions and hopes on the bible or religion in general that it is difficult to even think about questioning it.
-
gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins
mos by his own standard accepts he is going to hell for eternity
you have to admire him for sticking with it
futile as it is
-
It's sad to see educated people in this thread (atheists and agnostics) unable or unwilling to ever consider that their belief or definition of truth and fact may be wrong.
Before one becomes a believer they are first convinced of the truth of what they are learning and then reject their old ways. This is not a process of shutting your mind off it is a process of opening your mind to the realization that man is not the ultimate authority in the universe and being moved enough but your beliefs to make necessary changes in your life to live in harmony with God's will.
I get that you don't believe in what I believe in yet I do not speak disparagingly of you. I simply ask that you consider the possibility that what you believe in may not be the actual truth. (Science and belief in God are NOT mutually exclusive). The issue I have is that you cannot express your opinion in a civilized manner, but instead insult and make any real discussion or debate impossible.
Anyone can name call and shout insults. It takes courage to open your mind and actually discuss what you do not believe or agree with.
Even if no agreement is made after a discussion there's no reason to end the discussion with insults etc. It is okay to disagree with one another without hate.
I am neither right or wrong, I simply don't see any evidence for a deity, I accept he could exist, but without evidence it's quite a claim to make.
-
Man of Steel, I'm sure you've heard, "don't cast your pearls before swine". You're wasting your time with the scoffers.
-
Man of Steel, I'm sure you've heard, "don't cast your pearls before swine". You're wasting your time with the scoffers.
says the uneducated, jobless pot head.
-
I am neither right or wrong, I simply don't see any evidence for a deity, I accept he could exist, but without evidence it's quite a claim to make.
This is the best and most honest response.
God isn't offended by those who require nor demand proof. He has shown Himself before so it is not out of the question to ask Him to do it again. Jesus had to reassure Thomas of his doubts, I'm sure He'd be aware of disbelief 2000 years later.
The fact is there is much we don't know, we are always learning; this is true with God and science. It seems in Christianity many attribute superstitious beliefs to their faith, science tries eliminate superstition.
God declares He wants to be known, and if that's the case He can be measured and maybe one day science will develop a tool/technology to record and document His existence.
-
God wants to be known yet he never shows himself nor is there any evidence of his presence.
And the same about Jesus. I think it is in Matthew that says that Jesus did so many miracles that piles of books could be written about all the miracles he did. If that was true then it is logical to think that other people would have written them down, in the end, a miracle is a supernatural phenomenon that would surprise any person. Wouldn't you feel the need to write on facebook that a guy did a miracle if you saw it with your own eyes?
There is no evidence of those so many miracles, except for the "chosen ones" no one else wrote about those miracles; not even the smallest piece of paper that a guy did this or that.
-
Shinto knows no God just nature.
-
:)
-
The book is terribly written, no god could inspire such contradictory screed.
That's a go to answer for most critics that don't understand the material put before them and refuse to study in order to grasp it.
-
Man of Steel, I'm sure you've heard, "don't cast your pearls before swine". You're wasting your time with the scoffers.
Yes sir and it's solid guidance.
Although in this case the pearls aren't directed at the atheists....they're just the only folks asking the questions.
Most likely there are other readers with similar questions that aren't in constant attack mode as it pertains to theists. So, I just keep my cool and give answers as I'm able to. Most of answers as of late amount to "yes it does" when given a reply of "no it doesn't" LOL.
-
gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins
mos by his own standard accepts he is going to hell for eternity
you have to admire him for sticking with it
futile as it is
There aren't "seven deadly sins" in scripture or a list of sins labeled as such.
The sins are referenced in some form or fashion in scripture, but not as the "seven deadly sins".
The penalty for any sin is eternal separation from God.....all sin is deadly.
You don't understand salvation or the idea that I no longer walk in willful sin....those days are behind me.
-
There aren't "seven deadly sins" in scripture or a list of sins labeled as such.
The sins are referenced in some form or fashion in scripture, but not as the "seven deadly sins".
The penalty for any sin is eternal separation from God.....all sin is deadly.
You don't understand salvation or the idea that I no longer walk in willful sin....those days are behind me.
i understand that your are a glutton and that gluttony is a sin
or do you choose not to accept that one as it doesnt fit in with your lifestyle
you have to be all in munchkin
especially if you are going to be so pious and claim we are all damned for eternity
let he who is without sin cast the first stone tubby
-
MOS you are blatantly cheating when you say "God has never sinned". If we hold him to the same standards it allegedly holds us to then he absolutely is one of the biggest sinners in history. But if you say he is exempt from his own laws of murder, theft, vandalism and destruction because he holds the title god, then "God has never sinned" is meaningless. As you already know because I've already pointed it out, the biblical god committed numerous atrocities in the old testament that would see a human get the death penalty many times over. That you still consider him sinless and righteous is ... well it's just ignorant.
-
Well, that'd be all nice and dandy, except the Bible itself has been "altered" through the ages, and Christians can't even agree on what it's supposed to say, much less on what it's supposed to mean. Oh, and that's a slight misrepresentation of what Muhammad, supposedly, said and how he intended it to be applied. But let's not worry about such small things ;)
"Offense against God". What does that even mean? How can a non-corporeal, non-human entity be "offended"? More than that, how can I be sure that God has a law and that it's what you claim it to be? Or that he even exists? You can't keep putting the cart before the horse.
It's unsubstantiated, period. That's perfectly fine and nothing (and nobody) is stopping you from believing something that's unsubstantiated, but don't pretend that your belief is based on anything short of "feels". There's no substantive difference between your belief and the belief of a someone who follows, say, Shamanism.
If he desires this, why does he not reveal himself to me? I mean, he had no problem showing his ass to Moses (Exodus 33:23) and I'll just settle for a phonecall! So either he doesn't desire for me to be aligned with him in righteousness or his plan doesn't give him free nights-and-weekends calling.
Not true: if noone makes me sin, then Jesus isn't needed because it would be possible to live a sinless life and achieve my own salvation and that would render your Messiah moot. Indeed, the central tenet of Christianity is that we're born with Original Sin and that we have a sinful nature that we cannot, on our own, escape. In other words, under the Christian ethos, it is impossible for me to not sin and that's the reason why Jesus is necessary: to save us since we can't help but sin by paying the price of sin for us.
One wonders, how I can make a choice when the Bible clearly says that it's all predetermined and God knows the outcome. There is no way to reconcile free will with the Bible.
But it is, at least, possible for us to live without breaking human laws. The same is simply not possible with God's laws, which makes those laws unjust. And unjust laws shouldn't be followed.
Are you an Islamic apologist now? If you have a refutation why not just discuss it plainly? Don’t just go to well of “that isn’t what it says” and then leave it at that.
I know, critics of scripture often say “it’s been altered”, but technically that’s all they say. Unless of course they can find Bart Ehrman or Richard Carrier quotes to back their atheist denial. Do these same critics really understand the scope and instances of said changes like say textual critics of ancient documents such as Dan Wallace, Bruce Metzger or even a theologian like James White? We have an entire field of textual criticism dedicated to the study of the transmission of data in ancient documentation and thus far the field is in pretty solid agreement that the New Testament is pretty rock solid……98.5% accuracy rating.
You’re speaking to evidence of God. My testimony is part of that evidence. I understand it’s meaningless to you, but let’s be frank here…..there aren't any answers you’ll accept other than those you concoct yourself. Dude, you’re a classic goalpost mover and I’ve played the game of meeting your criteria in all instances and then you suddenly you demand more or different criteria. This can go on indefinitely.
There’s no difference between belief in Christianity and belief in Shamanism? Then you are clearly out of your depth. It hate to say that so bluntly again, but it’s true.
All other points I’ve discussed at least 4 others times with you at length. Previous posts are still available and answers are unchanged.
I don’t intend to be rude because I respect you, but repeating the same stuff I’ve answered repeatedly…..you aren’t going to put a stop to it, but I am. Again, I realize there are not theistic, religious, apologetic answers you'll accept.
-
i understand that your are a glutton and that gluttony is a sin
or do you choose not to accept that one as it doesnt fit in with your lifestyle
you have to be all in munchkin
especially if you are going to be so pious and claim we are all damned for eternity
let he who is without sin cast the first stone tubby
bigmc, you are also clearly out of your depth, but that's ok because you're just playing a game. And I'm not taking the bait. I'm not going to get upset...sorry.
-
MOS you are blatantly cheating when you say "God has never sinned". If we hold him to the same standards it allegedly holds us to then he absolutely is one of the biggest sinners in history. But if you say he is exempt from his own laws of murder, theft, vandalism and destruction because he holds the title god, then "God has never sinned" is meaningless. As you already know because I've already pointed it out, the biblical god committed numerous atrocities in the old testament that would see a human get the death penalty many times over. That you still consider him sinless and righteous is ... well it's just ignorant.
He's the supreme, righteous lawgiver and he punishes those who break his law.
You don't like that so better to just casually call him evil or a sinner....lump him in with yourself and attempt (at least in your own mind) to wipe away accountability so the sin can keep on keepin on!
-
bigmc, you are also clearly out of your depth, but that's ok because you're just playing a game. And I'm not taking the bait. I'm not going to get upset...sorry.
i am not trying to upset you
i am lowering myself to your level
just because you dress your name calling up in pious nonsense doesnt mean it isnt name calling
and just because i dont write 500 word replies designed to fan my own vanity
in a look at how clever i am way
doesnt make me out my depth
i see very clearly what you are
a stupid man taking comfort in a fairy tale
you are meant to be the man of god yet it is you who will paint the darkest picture of the people that dont agree with you
try sorting your own shit out my friend you are one step away from being a full blown lunatic
it is you who are drowning, it is you who needs to believe the fairy tale to make it through your life
you are weak - and thats why you throw stones at those of us strong enough to face up to the reality of our existence
go fuck yourself you pious cu nt :-*
-
i am not trying to upset you
i am lowering myself to your level
just because you dress your name calling up in pious nonsense doesnt mean it isnt name calling
and just because i dont write 500 word replies designed to fan my own vanity
in a look at how clever i am way
doesnt make me out my depth
i see very clearly what you are
a stupid man taking comfort in a fairy tale
you are meant to be the man of god yet it is you who will paint the darkest picture of the people that dont agree with you
try sorting your own shit out my friend you are one step away from being a full blown lunatic
it is you who are drowning, it is you who needs to believe the fairy tale to make it through your life
you are weak - and thats why you throw stones at those of us strong enough to face up to the reality of our existence
go fuck yourself you pious cu nt :-*
Shinto be at peace with yourself and nature. Do not get angry and abusive.
-
He's the supreme, righteous lawgiver and he punishes those who break his law.
You don't like that so better to just casually call him evil or a sinner....lump him in with yourself and attempt (at least in your own mind) to wipe away accountability so the sin can keep on keepin on!
I am fine with breaking laws that make sense and receiving punishment, however, you are ignoring logic completely. God drowned the whole world at one point, animals, plants even the fucking insects(did they sin?) which is basically him admitting mistake, you are absolving him of all responsibility to his creation, that's bullshit. His creation fucking up is his fault, no one else's any father is beholden to their children if they are worth a grain of salt, god included. What type of relationship is this? one of worship? true love under the guise of eternal torture? listening to your thoughts, watching all your actions, keeping score, only to stop in once every couple thousand years to leave an ambiguous book in a illiterate part of the world, it's impossible for a reasonable person to believe this so, it's the very definition of a dictatorship. a loving relationship goes both ways, you fuck up, your kid may hate you, that option has been taken away, if so, real love is impossible, the choice to not love has consequences, stipulations ie it's conditional.
if he is all loving how could conditions exist on his love? it doesn't make any sense, not only does it not sit well with me intellectually, but in the feels.
I will give it to you, this life seems odd, why exist at all? I often (daily) am in existential thought or crisis, often feeling as if there is a thin veil I can't see past, I see people going to work, worried about day to day life, meanwhile they hurdle towards sudden death, living life as if this is not the case.
-
i am not trying to upset you
i am lowering myself to your level
just because you dress your name calling up in pious nonsense doesnt mean it isnt name calling
and just because i dont write 500 word replies designed to fan my own vanity
in a look at how clever i am way
doesnt make me out my depth
i see very clearly what you are
a stupid man taking comfort in a fairy tale
you are meant to be the man of god yet it is you who will paint the darkest picture of the people that dont agree with you
try sorting your own shit out my friend you are one step away from being a full blown lunatic
it is you who are drowning, it is you who needs to believe the fairy tale to make it through your life
you are weak - and thats why you throw stones at those of us strong enough to face up to the reality of our existence
go fuck yourself you pious cu nt :-*
ad hominem, ad hominem, ad homimen.....meh
-
Are you an Islamic apologist now? If you have a refutation why not just discuss it plainly? Don’t just go to well of “that isn’t what it says” and then leave it at that.
Hardly - I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy: "my holy book is holy and true and what I believe is the truth! Those other guys... their book nonsense and they're heathens that have been swindled into believing a lie!"
I know, critics of scripture often say “it’s been altered”, but technically that’s all they say. Unless of course they can find Bart Ehrman or Richard Carrier quotes to back their atheist denial. Do these same critics really understand the scope and instances of said changes like say textual critics of ancient documents such as Dan Wallace, Bruce Metzger or even a theologian like James White? We have an entire field of textual criticism dedicated to the study of the transmission of data in ancient documentation and thus far the field is in pretty solid agreement that the New Testament is pretty rock solid……98.5% accuracy rating.
98.5% Damn... Let's say that this figure is accurate. You had just told us that the word of god is unalterable. Apparently that's not the case, as it's 1.5% alterable. And it gets worse, because there are serious and well-documented concerns that have been raised about what happened to the text, especially after the LXX translation from Hebrew to Greek, including the rather important decisions about what to include and what to exclude.
You’re speaking to evidence of God. My testimony is part of that evidence. I understand it’s meaningless to you, but let’s be frank here…..there aren't any answers you’ll accept other than those you concoct yourself. Dude, you’re a classic goalpost mover and I’ve played the game of meeting your criteria in all instances and then you suddenly you demand more or different criteria. This can go on indefinitely.
Your testimony isn't evidence, but even if I were to treat it as such, it doesn't help. You can't even clearly and unambigiously define what God is, much less offer evidence that he exists. I understand that you believe and I grant that your belief is legitimate, but what good does that do me? As I said, plenty of other people have simlar testimony about other religions and deities. Why is yours better?
You say I'm moving the goalposts; I'm not. God revealed himself to Moses, did he not? I'm asking for less than that... heck, I'll settle for a guest appearance on a chalupa!
More than that, I want to again point out a fundamental internal inconsistency in Christianity: the point around which Christianity revolves is that God loves us so much that he sent his son to die and pay for our sins so that he may forgive us and let live. But that's only if we believe in him.
From where I stand, if God loved us as much as he alleges, he'd be singing a different tune. One that goes like this: "I am the God of the Bible, the God that loves you so much that despite being unworthy, I will save you and grant you eternal life, no questions asked, regardless of what you choose to do."
Instead what your God says is: "You are, by nature, unworthy of me and nothing you do can change that. And so you must be punished and the punishment is death. Unless... you do a little something for me. Now, prostrate yourself before me, beg me to save you. Admit your own unworthiness. Praise me for being merciful. And then after you die, I'll make you live again so that you may worship me for all eternity."
To which I reply: "No thanks..."
You want to know true love? It's the kind you have for your kids - the kind that would make you jump in front of a moving vehicle to save their life even at the cost of your own without a moment's hesitation. Compared to that, the other love - the "believe in me or else" kind - which is what your Savior offers sounds more like a nightmare.
There’s no difference between belief in Christianity and belief in Shamanism? Then you are clearly out of your depth. It hate to say that so bluntly again, but it’s true.
Please explain the difference to me without resorting to "well, Christianity is true and Shamanism is bullshit."
I don’t intend to be rude because I respect you, but repeating the same stuff I’ve answered repeatedly…..you aren’t going to put a stop to it, but I am. Again, I realize there are not theistic, religious, apologetic answers you'll accept.
I don't intend to be rude either. I get that we've danced this dance before, and that you don't feel like dancing anymore. Pity because I genuinely find the conversation interesting.
-
MOS,
I have particularly enjoyed watching you avoid questions from myself and Bigmc. Questions which cut to the very core of your ludicrous arguments. I expect similar deflections in your response (if any) to this question:
If i told you that i believed that Ronald Dean Coleman was 100% natural at the "O" in 2000, and that the Weiders had confirmed this as being true (and they subsequently published it in scripture). Could it be false?
-
From where I stand, if God loved us as much as he alleges, he'd be singing a different tune. One that goes like this: "I am the God of the Bible, the God that loves you so much that despite being unworthy, I will save you and grant you eternal life, no questions asked, regardless of what you choose to do."
Instead what your God says is: "You are, by nature, unworthy of me and nothing you do can change that. And so you must be punished and the punishment is death. Unless... you do a little something for me. Now, prostrate yourself before me, beg me to save you. Admit your own unworthiness. Praise me for being merciful. And then after you die, I'll make you live again so that you may worship me for all eternity."
To which I reply: "No thanks..."
You want to know true love? It's the kind you have for your kids - the kind that would make you jump in front of a moving vehicle to save their life even at the cost of your own without a moment's hesitation. Compared to that, the other love - the "believe in me or else" kind - which is what your Savior offers sounds more like a nightmare.
this sums the whole argument up perfectly
truth!!
-
I don't get arguments for or against a creator.
That exist outside of time and space and is hence impossible for us to argue for or against.
I mean that's by DEFINITION!
The fact that you all want to win an argument about it is pathetic.
-
I don't get arguments for or against a creator.
That exist outside of time and space and is hence impossible for us to argue for or against.
I mean that's by DEFINITION!
The fact that you all want to win an argument about it is pathetic.
i'm more interested in the truth than winning any argument.
God may exist out of time and space but his actions here on planet earth can be analysed. His earthly rules can be analysed, his earthly behaviour can be analysed.
-
I don't get arguments for or against a creator.
That exist outside of time and space and is hence impossible for us to argue for or against.
I mean that's by DEFINITION!
The fact that you all want to win an argument about it is pathetic.
There is no winning, just hashing out reason and in essence philosophy. The particular arguments now are about the bible not the creator really, which is possible to argue against.
-
(http://www.memecreator.org/static/images/templates/288031.jpg)
-
MOS,
I have particularly enjoyed watching you avoid questions from myself and Bigmc. Questions which cut to the very core of your ludicrous arguments. I expect similar deflections in your response (if any) to this question:
If i told you that i believed that Ronald Dean Coleman was 100% natural at the "O" in 2000, and that the Weiders had confirmed this as being true (and they subsequently published it in scripture). Could it be false?
Please, list your questions and I will give answers where I am able to.
You want to know if Ronnie Coleman's natural claims were confirmed as true and then subsequently published (or that claim added) in scripture could it be false?
Yes. All sorts of uninspired words have been written and attempted to made part of the canon of scripture.
Follow up questions:
Why would Ronnie Coleman's natural claims be included in scripture?
So if it was confirmed as true what is the issue with the claim?
Are you wanting to falsify the claim in some way?
Do you want to find a means to deny the confirmation?
Is it because the claim itself is too fantastic for you to do on your own so you can't reason or accept it?
Again, please provide your questions or bigmc's questions that were unanswered. Remember, there's one of me typically responding to 5-8 of y'all.
Atheists for years tell me "it's fun watching you avoid my questions"....par for the course prodding. I don't avoid anything, but I might miss stuff sure. So, then I just answer the questions when they are presented again. Sometimes someone asks the same question so I only respond to one of the questions.
-
is this the word of god ???
Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. Leviticus 19:19
Ye shall not round the corners of your heads. Leviticus 19:27
When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand. Deuteronomy 25:11-12
Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 2 Kings 2:23-25 NIV
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. Numbers 31:17-18
You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
do you believe all the above are the words of god written through man ???
-
is this the word of god ???
Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. Leviticus 19:19
Ye shall not round the corners of your heads. Leviticus 19:27
When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand. Deuteronomy 25:11-12
Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 2 Kings 2:23-25 NIV
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. Numbers 31:17-18
You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
do you believe all the above are the words of god written through man ???
Yes.
Levitical Laws for Israelites:
You're referencing old covenant, levitical laws for the Israelites...fabric mixing, eating of clean animals, hygiene practices, animal sacrifice for sin atonement, tithing practices, etc....not applicable today.
The early Israelites were called by God to be holy or “set apart” from the pagan nations around them and they adhered to law and practices that made that distinction more evident. Their existence was such that everything done was in order to be holy and pure representatives of God.
Folks often say, “why is it a sin to eat lobster?” It’s not that the lobster is bad or unclean in and of itself, but the Israelites were set apart and did not blur the lines in all aspects of their lives. They ate fish because fish were animals meant only for water and did not have mixed physical characteristics like shellfish/lobsters do. Lobsters can survive in and out of water and have a mix of features designed for land and water so they were temporarily deemed “unclean” for purposes of maintaining the idea of distinction while the nation of Israel developed. Man then began to include other cultural concepts that indicated distinctiveness such as cultural practices for hair and head coverings, but as Paul mentions in these passages of scripture we are to “judge for ourselves” the appropriateness of these customs.
Hand cut off:
In the ancient near east or ancient Israelite culture the notion of lineage was vitally important. Especially given their covenantal status with the Almighty and his promise to increase their numbers and prosper them it was important that sex organs not be injured otherwise a line of lineage could forever be broken. Indicates the severity of committing such an act by God. You potentially end a familial line and your hand was forfeit because of it. Also grabbing a man’s genitals in public (especially one that wasn’t your husband) was considered to be a very lewd act.
Elisha:
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...it was a sign of hatred.
The KJV translation states “little children” or "boys" 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.
Midianites:
These pagan groups such as the Amalakites, Midianites, Moabites and Caananites had hundreds of years to repent and turn to God, but they persisted in their evil ways and ignored God. Sure today we have small sects of folks that may inflict harm upon a mass population (the Nazis for example), but we're talking about a massive population dedicated to evil and perverse, pagan rituals....different circumstances. We can look at the Chinese today and say the majority of this nation can't stand Christianity, but the Chinese are nothing like the Amalakites or the Midianites. They aren't engaging in the deviant perversions and human sacrifice like the pagan populations of the OT.
In fact, the Midianites not only turned from God, but during their time of denial they chose to repeatedly attack, brutalize and kill Israelite people….men, women, children and babies. The Midianites were also aligned with the Moabites and these pagan nations all typically worshipped pagan gods such as Baal and Molech. Pagan worship was anything but smiles, puppies and candy bars. It was live infant sacrifice via burning to death on white hot altars to Molech. It was self-mutilation within ceremonies of sexual perversion and the whoring of young women in demonic rituals to Baal. It was demonic rituals of witchcraft/sorcery and further ritualistic sexual perversion and whoring of women to the pagan goddess Asherah. It was carnal, it was dark, it was twisted, it was evil, it was demonic and it destroyed countless innocents. This was allowed to transpire for a time and then God pronounced judgment upon the Midianities.
God stepped in and allowed these pagan peoples to be destroyed and in turn brought the population of male children into eternity with him. Generation after generation after generation weren’t allowed to continue to pervert the younger generation before them and turn them from God which condemned them to an eternity without God when they died. God did show grace to the young, virginal women of Midian and allowed the Israelite men to take them as wives and bring them into the Israelite culture and covenant. The implication though is the Midianite women were raped and abused and tortured….absolutely false.
Slavery:
The rules for slavery regarding Israel in the OT had nothing to do with the antebellum South or the slavery they were delivered from in Egypt. Two entirely different things....one was forced (ex: antebellum South and Israelites in Egypt) and the other was voluntary/customary for debt payment (ex: Israelites post-Egypt freedom). One was about inhumanity (ex: antebellum South and Israelites in Egypt) and one was about the preservation of humanity and rights of the servant/slave while working off individual or family debt (ex: Israel post-Egypt freedom). The word "slave" is always incorrecty associated with the antebellum South...just not the case for OT Israel.
Many slaves/bond servants ended up staying with the very owner/family they worked for after their debts were satisfied because they chose to. Many became full-time hands on the owners land receiving a normal wage. These folks weren't "picking the cotton on Massah's plantation" and then being beaten and/or raped in the evenings.....no, no, no.
I know many have serious issues with slavery in the bible, but the "issue of slavery" doesn't carry the negative connotation often force fit onto it because of the words “slave” or ”slavery”. It’s the culture and history of the Israelites who were delivered from the forced, "work til you die" slavery in Egypt that needs to be understood. If the Israelite that held the debt did something to mistreat the bondservant working off the debt the holder of debt was punished. God that freed the Israelites didn't turn around and say, "Ok, now y'all go ahead and enslave and mistreat others in the same manner you were just freed from".
Yes, I find it morally correct that the rights of a bondservant working off an individual or family debt were upheld. That’s the progressive nature of the law that protected the bondservant (“ebed” in Hebrew) within Israel that was found nowhere else in the pagan nations of the ancient near east.
I absolutely know the perception is that these folks were kept in shackles, practically starved, beaten, maimed, raped and treated like human garbage based on the whims of the debt holder. Just not the case (this was not ancient Egypt or the antebellum south in US). Simple comparisons with other ancient near east cultures will show you that the slave (not the bondservant) was treated like human garbage in those cases. The practices utilized with bond servants in ancient Israel were leaps and bounds above the slavery of surrounding pagan nations (these were the “work you to death, starve, maim, rape and beat you” cultures). The reality is that there was virtually no comparison between the treatment of bondservants in ancient Israel versus the treatment of slaves in the surrounding pagan cultures.
The Israelites that had acquired debt (ex: through failed business, theft, failed crops, etc…) and were unable to repay entered into a contract with the debt holder to work off the debt. As was customary in ancient Israel, sometimes individuals, individual and a family member or entire families worked off the debt. If the debt was satisfied prior to 6 years of service then that was it….the bondservant was released. If 6 years of service came and went and the debt was not repaid in full the debt holder simply lost out and the bond servant was to be released regardless. Often times the released bondservant(s) was to be given compensation, life stock, grains, wine, etc…..upon their release. Sometimes the bondservants became full employees after the debt was settled and began earning a wage (if they chose to stay on board). Sometimes bondservants chose to stay with the family they worked off debt for and continue the bond servitude after the debt was satisfied because they developed such a strong relationship with the family they owed a debt to. Sometimes females bondservants became spouses of the owners or the owner's children (marriages were arranged) and as was customary the owner would pay out a bride price to the bondservants family. Within the year of jubilee many, many bondservants were released from their service regardless of time served or amount of debt repaid.
And yes sometimes the bondservants' performance or behavior was inappropriate and they were punished for it. Although, the laws for bondservants didn't condone the capricious beating of the bondservant, the laws were meant to discourage that behavior on behalf of the owner. If owner did something as vile as murder a bondservant then that owner lost their life. Everyone quotes the scripture “if the owner beats the slave and slave recovers after 3 days……then all is good”. This circumstance was simply an exception, not the norm, but the laws were meant to govern all circumstances both the good and the bad. If the bondservant was beaten to a point in which they could not work they were supposed to be freed. The debt holder/owner was engaged in a contract with the bondservant and that bondservant was deemed property, but human property for the purposes of sweat equity for debt repayment that retained rights and privileges and just treatment. The owner was outlawed from ruling over the bondservant like a tyrant….that was not permitted. Did they work some of these folks hard? Sure. Was that hard work intended to be cruel and brutal and relentless and unreasonable? LOL no….that’s a fiction inferred by ignorant readers.
God’s ultimate goal was to lead Israel away from the practice of using bondservants altogether. The Lord works within the confines of our lives drawing us closer to him and away from the adopted practices of our hardened hearts that we freely choose to engage in. Regardless, the Lord is patient and will allow our free choices and some our less than desirable customs to be honored with the intention of leading us away from those practices. The use of bondservants is not the preference of the Lord though. Bondservants were also meant to respect their owners. Remember, some of the bondservants were working off a debt based a crime they committed against the family that held their contract for debt repayment. As I’ve said time and again on this topic it is completely illogical that God would free the Israelites from the brutal, forced slavery in Egypt and then allow them to engage in that same behavior among the people of their own nation. Folks will simply say “well, that’s a biblical contradiction” LOL……sorry, no. That’s ignorance on part of the critic that has done little more than a surface reading of the scripture. When I first read the these scriptures I was SHOCKED, but then I dug in deeper and understood the culture of the Israelites, the culture of the pagan nations, learned some of the Hebrew terms and the definitely gained insight on the context…..makes all the difference.
-
and you are on board with that
im of to buy some slaves etc
8)
-
and you are on board with that
im of to buy some slaves etc
8)
This is exactly why I keep answers brief now because when I give thorough explanations they aren't read.
I had every answer at the ready and I copied and pasted from my previous writings to prove a point.
You aren't interested in the answers....just the objection itself.
Yet, someone like 10pints will say I'm avoiding answering your questions or his questions.
-
The elaborate post on slavery is a straw man. It assumes debt bondage whereas the passages quoted clearly refer to the purchase of slaves, presumably for no other reason than working them.
Is there a passage in the Bible that constraints slavery within the boundaries given in your post? How do you know the Israelites only enslaved people due to debt?
Also, there are no references in your post, is this research you have conducted yourself, if so, when/how?
-
The elaborate post on slavery is a straw man. It assumes debt bondage whereas the passages quoted clearly refer to the purchase of slaves, presumably for no other reason than working them.
Is there a passage in the Bible that constraints slavery within the boundaries given in your post? How do you know the Israelites only enslaved people due to debt?
Also, there are no references in your post, is this research you have conducted yourself, if so, when/how?
You can label it whatever you want.
There are no references in any of my posts....years and years of reading, watching lectures, reading, watching debates, listening to sermons, etc...written over the years and slowly compiled by me.
You could read "Is God a Moral Monster" by Paul Copan for starters.
However acquired, Israelite "slaves" weren't treated like the slaves of their ancient near east counterparts or in the antebellum South.
-
Yes, but can you prove it or point me to evidence? Or is this a matter of faith?
-
Yes, but can you prove it or is this a matter of faith?
This is grounded in historical study, study of linguistics, research of theologians and is always a matter of faith as well....it's all of the above.
But, as it pertains to the atheist, I am not at all concerned with the atheists opinion on scripture because I know nothing.....NOTHING....w ill satisfy as evidence or proof.
-
This is grounded in historical study, study of linguistics, research of theologians and is always a matter of faith as well....it's all of the above.
But, as it pertains to the atheist, I am not at all concerned with the atheists opinion on scripture because I know nothing.....NOTHING....w ill satisfy as evidence or proof.
You opinion of atheists notwithstanding, can you point me towards this historical study, study of linguistics, etc? I may not be able to accept research of theologians due to the issue of faith, however, someone who has "years and years of reading" must have numerous sources to back up the various claims made in the post.
-
You opinion of atheists notwithstanding, can you point me towards this historical study, study of linguistics, etc? I may not be able to accept research of theologians due to the issue of faith, however, someone who has "years and years of reading" must have numerous sources to back up the various claims made in the post.
You can read Josh McDowell, Paul Copan, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler.
I have articles compiled and printed at home. I have books at home. I have hyperlinks saved.
I know what you're trying to do and I can't roll my eyes far back enough in my head.
Now you want me to cite everything, notate it and provide a bibliography section in my posts LOL....these tactics have been tried repeatedly in the past.
-
game over 8)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Ephesians 6:5 NLT
-
game over 8)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Ephesians 6:5 NLT
Why's that bigmc?
-
some good parenting advice here ::)
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
-
this seems reasonable
so religious service men blown apart by mines are to be cast aside ???
No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD. Deuteronomy 23:1 NRSV
-
how many shirts you got man of pies ???
Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same. Luke 3:11 NIV
-
some good parenting advice here ::)
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
this seems reasonable
so religious service men blown apart by mines are to be cast aside ???
No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD. Deuteronomy 23:1 NRSV
Yes, the classic "my objections were soundly resolved by a previous post so now let's randomly go through the entire Pentateuch!!"
That'll show em!! ::)
-
You can read Josh McDowell, Paul Copan, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler.
I have articles compiled and printed at home. I have books at home. I have hyperlinks saved.
I know what you're trying to do and I can't roll my eyes far back enough in my head.
Now you want me to cite everything, notate it and provide a bibliography section in my posts LOL....these tactics have been tried repeatedly in the past.
Don't cite everything, just give me a simple historical reference towards your claims. I hope you will excuse my tendency to want to look at evidence for claims made.
I qoogled the names of the gentlemen provided. With the exception of William Lane Craig, none of them has obvious qualifications as a historian, in fact, all of them are theologians and apologists. Even Craig seems only to have been interested in the historical Jesus as far as history goes. Copan, who has written on slavery has degrees on biblical studies and philosophy of religion, but not history or linguistics (unless biblical studies includes those?)
Your post about Israelite culture only having allowed debt bondage is so specific that it must have historical sources behind it.
-
Don't cite everything, just give me a simple historical reference towards your claims. I hope you will excuse my tendency to want to look at evidence for claims made.
I qoogled the names of the gentlemen provided. With the exception of William Lane Craig, none of them has obvious qualifications as a historian, in fact, all of them are theologians and apologists. Even Craig seems only to have been interested in the historical Jesus as far as history goes. Copan, who has written on slavery has degrees on biblical studies and philosophy of religion, but not history or linguistics (unless biblical studies includes those?)
Your post about Israelite culture only having allowed debt bondage is so specific that it must have historical sources behind it.
I'd have to go through books and look at bibliographies. Gleason Archer is terrific linguist and theologian. I've referred to his materials as well.
Like I said start with Paul Copan's book if it interests you.
Of course there's also a wonderful internet search tool used worldwide called Google....it can be found at www.google.com (http://www.google.com)
Just saw your last sentence. You're misrepresenting what I wrote. I didn't state there was only direct "debt bondage". I repeatedly note "slaves/servants" in my writing...either way they weren't to be mistreated...that's the point.
-
I'd have to go through books and look at bibliographies. Gleason Archer is terrific linguist and theologian. I've referred to his materials as well.
Like I said start with Paul Copan's book if it interests you.
Of course there's also a wonderful internet search tool used worldwide called Google....it can be found at www.google.com (http://www.google.com)
Thanks for bringing google to my attention, however, the burden of proof is not on me to back up your claims, it's on you.
It would be a bit of a stretch for me to read Copan's books, because as I pointed out, he doesn't seem to be qualified in history and linguistics, and I would need historical evidence, not theological.
An example of historical evidence? A stone or pot unearthed in the area historically occupied by Israelites post-Egypt, carbon-tested and verified to have been from their time, with inscriptions in their language which when translated say something like the following:
"My brother in law caught some foreigners during a raid in their lands and suggested we enslave them. I told him to fuck off as they are not in debt to us. What he said was an affront to God and if our priest at the temple finds out there will be hell to pay!"
-
Thanks for bringing google to my attention, however, the burden of proof is not on me to back up your claims, it's on you.
It would be a bit of a stretch for me to read Copan's books, because as I pointed out, he doesn't seem to be qualified in history and linguistics, and I would need historical evidence, not theological.
An example of historical evidence? A stone or pot unearthed in the area historically occupied by Israelites post-Egypt, carbon-tested and verified to have been from their time, with inscriptions which when translated say something like the following:
"My brother in law caught some foreigners during a raid in their lands and suggested we enslave them. I told him to fuck off as they are not in debt to us. What he said was an affront to God and if our priest at the temple finds out there will be hell to pay!"
I gotcha. Yeah, best you don't read the books. Copan and Archer and other theologians probably aren't qualified because you gave them a 20 second googling.
Oh! Can't forget. They don't have the pot with the inscription.
Ok....ok.
-
some good parenting advice here ::)
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
this sounds nothing like the writings of superstitious morons.
-
how many shirts do you have mos?
-
-
how many shirts do you have mos?
Between dress shirts, casual button down, flannels, short sleeve polo style, tshirts, long sleeve long john style, etc.....60ish. Some stuff is pretty old.
Do you need some shirts? We donate clothes every quarter so let know.
-
Between dress shirts, casual button down, flannels, short sleeve polo style, tshirts, long sleeve long john style, etc.....60ish. Some stuff is pretty old.
so you dont accept that the passage i quoted was the word of god
or you would just keep one and share the rest among the needy
-
so you dont accept that the passage i quoted was the word of god
or you would just keep one and share the rest among the needy
What passage? I didn't see one in your post.
-
how many shirts you got man of pies ???
Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same. Luke 3:11 NIV
this one
-
this one
Oh I see it was higher up the page.
Yes, absolutely the idea is to give and give generously. Yes, I agree with this for sure. Great to be a generous giver.
We like to donate clothes multiple times throughout the year like I mentioned above. My wife has two big ole bags in her car right now....primarily little girls clothes, but that was big donation this time around. Middle and end of last year we gave a bunch of my stuff out. We did some work in our house recently and came across clothes in storage. Now that we're putting the house back together the majority of that clothing (all of which is current and in excellent condition) will be donated.
That help?
I actually don't like talking about our giving because my only audience is God, but because you asked.
-
Oh I see it was higher up the page.
Yes, absolutely the idea is to give and give generously. Yes, I agree with this for sure. Great to be a generous giver.
We like to donate clothes multiple times throughout the year like I mentioned above. My wife has two big ole bags in her car right now....primarily little girls clothes, but that was big donation this time around. Middle and end of last year we gave a bunch of my stuff out. We did some work in our house recently and came across clothes in storage. Now that we're putting the house back together the majority of that clothing (all of which is current and in excellent condition) will be donated.
That help?
But you have 60 shirts, you glutton! God is not happy with you!
-
Oh I see it was higher up the page.
Yes, absolutely the idea is to give and give generously. Yes, I agree with this for sure. Great to be a generous giver.
We like to donate clothes multiple times throughout the year like I mentioned above. My wife has two big ole bags in her car right now....primarily little girls clothes, but that was big donation this time around. Middle and end of last year we gave a bunch of my stuff out. We did some work in our house recently and came across clothes in storage. Now that we're putting the house back together the majority of that clothing (all of which is current and in excellent condition) will be donated.
That help?
you still have sixty shirts while your fellow christians have none
i donate stuff to charity every month but im going to hell according to you ???
how about the guy who set the bears on the kids for calling him baldy
seems a bit harsh to me im surprised god granted a wish like that
what are your thoughts?
-
But you have 60 shirts, you glutton! God is not happy with you!
I have stuff that has accumulated and some sentimental, but we donate consistently. This is just 1 small portion of our giving...again not something I like to disclose publically.
There isn't an ounce of greed involved. Trust me, I know what you're attempting to do....you will fail completely. I have 100% confidence.
Good works don't do anything about our sins. I've known plenty of cheery givers with wrecked, wretched lives....adulterous, sinful living.
It's great that you give though....keep it up.
You can't earn salvation. It's only through Christ. Our works thereafter, done in accordance with the Lord's will, is the fruit (the evidence) of a life changed. We stop our willful sin, share the gospel and produce fruit in our righteous works.
Charitable work is excellent and encouraged to help others. If the motivation isn't to help others then it's inherently selfish. It's a reason I don't talk about that stuff so that it might appear as boasting....only the Lord need know. Again, your good works don't eliminate the stain of your sin and gain righteousness....we aren't self-righteous. Righteousnes is imputed to the believer from Jesus Christ.
An eternity in hell is not about doing enough works, it's about rejecting Jesus Christ and opting for an eternity without him.
-
An eternity in hell is about not doing enough works, it's about rejecting Jesus Christ and opting for an eternity without him.
Absolutely, 100% certifiable. This world is one big fucking mad house!
-
Absolutely, 100% certifiable. This world is one big fucking mad house!
Really don't want any of you separated from God in hell, but I'm basically helpless.
You can call me crazy all day long if you want (and most do), but as far as I'm concerned it means nothing to me.
So hopefully this discussion helps someone else who hasn't made a choice for Christ to do so.
-
Absolutely, 100% certifiable. This world is one big fucking mad house!
10pints, forgive me, I typed something incorrectly in my last post. I initially typed "is about not" when I meant to type "is not about"....big difference.
Sorry for my error! I have corrected.
-
10pints, forgive me, I typed something incorrectly in my last post. I initially typed "is about not" when I meant to type "is not about"....big difference.
Sorry for my error! I have corrected.
mos i would appreciate your thoughts on the bear mauling of children
i think being mauled by a bear for calling someone baldy is harsh
do you think god would take that one back if he could
-
mos i would appreciate your thoughts on the bear mauling of children
i think being mauled by a bear for calling someone baldy is harsh
do you think god would take that one back if he could
Yes.
Levitical Laws for Israelites:
You're referencing old covenant, levitical laws for the Israelites...fabric mixing, eating of clean animals, hygiene practices, animal sacrifice for sin atonement, tithing practices, etc....not applicable today.
The early Israelites were called by God to be holy or “set apart” from the pagan nations around them and they adhered to law and practices that made that distinction more evident. Their existence was such that everything done was in order to be holy and pure representatives of God.
Folks often say, “why is it a sin to eat lobster?” It’s not that the lobster is bad or unclean in and of itself, but the Israelites were set apart and did not blur the lines in all aspects of their lives. They ate fish because fish were animals meant only for water and did not have mixed physical characteristics like shellfish/lobsters do. Lobsters can survive in and out of water and have a mix of features designed for land and water so they were temporarily deemed “unclean” for purposes of maintaining the idea of distinction while the nation of Israel developed. Man then began to include other cultural concepts that indicated distinctiveness such as cultural practices for hair and head coverings, but as Paul mentions in these passages of scripture we are to “judge for ourselves” the appropriateness of these customs.
Hand cut off:
In the ancient near east or ancient Israelite culture the notion of lineage was vitally important. Especially given their covenantal status with the Almighty and his promise to increase their numbers and prosper them it was important that sex organs not be injured otherwise a line of lineage could forever be broken. Indicates the severity of committing such an act by God. You potentially end a familial line and your hand was forfeit because of it. Also grabbing a man’s genitals in public (especially one that wasn’t your husband) was considered to be a very lewd act.
Elisha:
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...it was a sign of hatred.
The KJV translation states “little children” or "boys" 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.
Midianites:
These pagan groups such as the Amalakites, Midianites, Moabites and Caananites had hundreds of years to repent and turn to God, but they persisted in their evil ways and ignored God. Sure today we have small sects of folks that may inflict harm upon a mass population (the Nazis for example), but we're talking about a massive population dedicated to evil and perverse, pagan rituals....different circumstances. We can look at the Chinese today and say the majority of this nation can't stand Christianity, but the Chinese are nothing like the Amalakites or the Midianites. They aren't engaging in the deviant perversions and human sacrifice like the pagan populations of the OT.
In fact, the Midianites not only turned from God, but during their time of denial they chose to repeatedly attack, brutalize and kill Israelite people….men, women, children and babies. The Midianites were also aligned with the Moabites and these pagan nations all typically worshipped pagan gods such as Baal and Molech. Pagan worship was anything but smiles, puppies and candy bars. It was live infant sacrifice via burning to death on white hot altars to Molech. It was self-mutilation within ceremonies of sexual perversion and the whoring of young women in demonic rituals to Baal. It was demonic rituals of witchcraft/sorcery and further ritualistic sexual perversion and whoring of women to the pagan goddess Asherah. It was carnal, it was dark, it was twisted, it was evil, it was demonic and it destroyed countless innocents. This was allowed to transpire for a time and then God pronounced judgment upon the Midianities.
God stepped in and allowed these pagan peoples to be destroyed and in turn brought the population of male children into eternity with him. Generation after generation after generation weren’t allowed to continue to pervert the younger generation before them and turn them from God which condemned them to an eternity without God when they died. God did show grace to the young, virginal women of Midian and allowed the Israelite men to take them as wives and bring them into the Israelite culture and covenant. The implication though is the Midianite women were raped and abused and tortured….absolutely false.
Slavery:
The rules for slavery regarding Israel in the OT had nothing to do with the antebellum South or the slavery they were delivered from in Egypt. Two entirely different things....one was forced (ex: antebellum South and Israelites in Egypt) and the other was voluntary/customary for debt payment (ex: Israelites post-Egypt freedom). One was about inhumanity (ex: antebellum South and Israelites in Egypt) and one was about the preservation of humanity and rights of the servant/slave while working off individual or family debt (ex: Israel post-Egypt freedom). The word "slave" is always incorrecty associated with the antebellum South...just not the case for OT Israel.
Many slaves/bond servants ended up staying with the very owner/family they worked for after their debts were satisfied because they chose to. Many became full-time hands on the owners land receiving a normal wage. These folks weren't "picking the cotton on Massah's plantation" and then being beaten and/or raped in the evenings.....no, no, no.
I know many have serious issues with slavery in the bible, but the "issue of slavery" doesn't carry the negative connotation often force fit onto it because of the words “slave” or ”slavery”. It’s the culture and history of the Israelites who were delivered from the forced, "work til you die" slavery in Egypt that needs to be understood. If the Israelite that held the debt did something to mistreat the bondservant working off the debt the holder of debt was punished. God that freed the Israelites didn't turn around and say, "Ok, now y'all go ahead and enslave and mistreat others in the same manner you were just freed from".
Yes, I find it morally correct that the rights of a bondservant working off an individual or family debt were upheld. That’s the progressive nature of the law that protected the bondservant (“ebed” in Hebrew) within Israel that was found nowhere else in the pagan nations of the ancient near east.
I absolutely know the perception is that these folks were kept in shackles, practically starved, beaten, maimed, raped and treated like human garbage based on the whims of the debt holder. Just not the case (this was not ancient Egypt or the antebellum south in US). Simple comparisons with other ancient near east cultures will show you that the slave (not the bondservant) was treated like human garbage in those cases. The practices utilized with bond servants in ancient Israel were leaps and bounds above the slavery of surrounding pagan nations (these were the “work you to death, starve, maim, rape and beat you” cultures). The reality is that there was virtually no comparison between the treatment of bondservants in ancient Israel versus the treatment of slaves in the surrounding pagan cultures.
The Israelites that had acquired debt (ex: through failed business, theft, failed crops, etc…) and were unable to repay entered into a contract with the debt holder to work off the debt. As was customary in ancient Israel, sometimes individuals, individual and a family member or entire families worked off the debt. If the debt was satisfied prior to 6 years of service then that was it….the bondservant was released. If 6 years of service came and went and the debt was not repaid in full the debt holder simply lost out and the bond servant was to be released regardless. Often times the released bondservant(s) was to be given compensation, life stock, grains, wine, etc…..upon their release. Sometimes the bondservants became full employees after the debt was settled and began earning a wage (if they chose to stay on board). Sometimes bondservants chose to stay with the family they worked off debt for and continue the bond servitude after the debt was satisfied because they developed such a strong relationship with the family they owed a debt to. Sometimes females bondservants became spouses of the owners or the owner's children (marriages were arranged) and as was customary the owner would pay out a bride price to the bondservants family. Within the year of jubilee many, many bondservants were released from their service regardless of time served or amount of debt repaid.
And yes sometimes the bondservants' performance or behavior was inappropriate and they were punished for it. Although, the laws for bondservants didn't condone the capricious beating of the bondservant, the laws were meant to discourage that behavior on behalf of the owner. If owner did something as vile as murder a bondservant then that owner lost their life. Everyone quotes the scripture “if the owner beats the slave and slave recovers after 3 days……then all is good”. This circumstance was simply an exception, not the norm, but the laws were meant to govern all circumstances both the good and the bad. If the bondservant was beaten to a point in which they could not work they were supposed to be freed. The debt holder/owner was engaged in a contract with the bondservant and that bondservant was deemed property, but human property for the purposes of sweat equity for debt repayment that retained rights and privileges and just treatment. The owner was outlawed from ruling over the bondservant like a tyrant….that was not permitted. Did they work some of these folks hard? Sure. Was that hard work intended to be cruel and brutal and relentless and unreasonable? LOL no….that’s a fiction inferred by ignorant readers.
God’s ultimate goal was to lead Israel away from the practice of using bondservants altogether. The Lord works within the confines of our lives drawing us closer to him and away from the adopted practices of our hardened hearts that we freely choose to engage in. Regardless, the Lord is patient and will allow our free choices and some our less than desirable customs to be honored with the intention of leading us away from those practices. The use of bondservants is not the preference of the Lord though. Bondservants were also meant to respect their owners. Remember, some of the bondservants were working off a debt based a crime they committed against the family that held their contract for debt repayment. As I’ve said time and again on this topic it is completely illogical that God would free the Israelites from the brutal, forced slavery in Egypt and then allow them to engage in that same behavior among the people of their own nation. Folks will simply say “well, that’s a biblical contradiction” LOL……sorry, no. That’s ignorance on part of the critic that has done little more than a surface reading of the scripture. When I first read the these scriptures I was SHOCKED, but then I dug in deeper and understood the culture of the Israelites, the culture of the pagan nations, learned some of the Hebrew terms and the definitely gained insight on the context…..makes all the difference.
-
id like to hear your take on it
you know actually answer the question in a couple of sentences
making the children older adding in some bad intentions moving the goal posts etc
so lets spin this
so if you called me baldy in real life and i perceived you had bad intentions
then i should be allowed to maul you with my bear which god is controlling at the time
is this your serious position
-
id like to hear your take on it
you know actually answer the question in a couple of sentences
making the children older adding in some bad intentions moving the goal posts etc
so lets spin this
so if you called me baldy in real life and i perceived you had bad intentions
then i should be allowed to maul you with my bear which god is controlling at the time
is this your serious position
Those are my written words above. The part on Elisha is a few sentences.
Referring to someone as "baldy" or "baldhead" was sign of hatred related to those with leprosy in that day. Much like women with short hair or no hair was not a good thing as that was a typical styling of prostitutes. Different times, different customs then.
Having multiple translations for a single word is extremely common with Hebrew. It isn't moving the goalposts it's making sense of the context. The hebrew language is quite small and the entire language can be memorized by one person (unlike english with thousands and thousands of words and variants). I leave these things to linguists and defer to their expertise on translations.
-
Those are my written words above. The part on Elisha is a few sentences.
Referring to someone as "baldy" or "baldhead" was sign of hated related to those with leprosy in that day. Much like women with short hair or no hair was not a good thing as that was a typical styling of prostitutes. Different times, different customs then.
Having multiple translations for a single word is extremely common with Hebrew. It isn't moving the goalposts it's making sense of the context. The hebrew language is quite small and the entire thing can be memorized by one person (unlike english with thousands and thousands of words and variants). I leave these things to linguists and defer to their expertise.
do you accept they could have been young children?
you are speculating that they are older
-
do you accept they could have been young children?
you are speculating that they are older
Yes, I accept they could be young children because the language has multiple, literal definitions. Like the hebrew word "yom" ("day" in english) has 5-6 correct definitions, but context is key.
Never denied, but consensus of scholarship I've read indicates they were more akin to a teenage urban street gang of today.
I also know you want and need the passage to be about little, little boys...harmless and wide eyed playing in the streets AND GOD MURDERS THEM!!!! Doesn't fit the context or historical customs. It's why folks put in time to study out these issues.
-
Yes, I accept they could be young children because the language has multiple, literal definitions. Like the hebrew word "yom" ("day" in english) has 5-6 correct definitions, but context is key.
Never denied, but consensus of scholarship I've read indicates they were more akin to a teenage urban street gang of today.
I also know you want and need the passage to be about little, little boys...harmless and wide eyed playing in the streets AND GOD MURDERS THEM!!!! Doesn't fit the context or historical customs. It's why folks put in time to study out these issues.
so worse case scenario some 4 year olds called a man baldy
and god decided to maul them with bears
i can see why you try and shift the sands and change the story
my friend you are so full of delusion i feel sorry for you
i could get on board if you took the good things from the bible and lived by that edict
but you are defending barbaric bull shit written by primitive idiots
because and only because you think a book badly translated in recent history is the absolute word of god
think about it objectively just for a minute :)
-
MOS is the best!!
When his arguments have failed, he accuses EVERYONE of "moving the goal posts."
Yet, he so often moves the goal posts.
You just have to love it! :-D
-
Slavery:
"I absolutely know the perception is that these folks were kept in shackles, practically starved, beaten, maimed, raped and treated like human garbage based on the whims of the debt holder. Just not the case "
And then we have this in Exodus:
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.”
—Exodus 21:20-21 (RSV)
-
Elisha:
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...it was a sign of hatred.
The KJV translation states “little children” or "boys" 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.
This is one of the better examples of an apologists attempt to excuse gods atrocities. Just as they do when the bible says God says a raped virgin must marry her rapist. Then they try and say God is just, god is good, god is this and that. The only way they are able to do that is to invent what they want to read. The life span back then was probably 40 years.. so to argue children could mean young men.. hard to believe they are able to function in life with this kind of logic and thinking..
-
Slavery:
"I absolutely know the perception is that these folks were kept in shackles, practically starved, beaten, maimed, raped and treated like human garbage based on the whims of the debt holder. Just not the case "
And then we have this in Exodus:
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.”
—Exodus 21:20-21 (RSV)
This for me is clear evidence no biblical type god had a hand in writing the bible. This is clearly the opinion of a slave owner who considers his slave nothing more than property, not a god who allegedly created man in his own image, loves them all, etc etc.
-
Slavery:
"I absolutely know the perception is that these folks were kept in shackles, practically starved, beaten, maimed, raped and treated like human garbage based on the whims of the debt holder. Just not the case "
And then we have this in Exodus:
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.”
—Exodus 21:20-21 (RSV)
If a master beat a slave and the slave died, he was to be killed. If he caused any sort of permanent damage to the slave, the slave was to be set free immediately. Note that "permanent damage" included such things as knocking out a tooth! This was a stark contrast to other near-eastern cultures, where a master was allowed to put out the eyes of his slaves with no consequences. An Israelite master had incentive to avoid striking a slave in the face, which was considered a civic wrong.
Some try to use Exodus 21:20-21 as evidence that this is inaccurate:
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
On the surface, this looks as though a master could get away with mistreating a slave. When we look more closely, it's clear that this wasn't considered mistreatment. In fact, this verse shows that slaves were treated in much the same way as free citizens.
Being beaten by a rod was a common punishment. The community elders employed the rod to punish wrongdoers, and fathers applied the rod to rebellious older sons. Using a rod to discipline a slave would be common, if not customary. The punishments for harming slaves and free men were equivalent:
If the slave died, the owner was killed.
If the slave was permanently harmed, they were set free.
If the slave was temporarily harmed, the owner was not punished.
A free citizen who was temporarily harmed would be compensated for lost work time and medical bills, but the slave would not. The difference was simply economic: the owner was financially responsible for the slave, so he absorbed the loss of work time and made sure the slave was healed instead of paying them cash.
The laws are put in place to keep folks in check, not give them license to commit evil acts. This is a huge disconnect for almost every nonbeliever. As always context and historical customs is key.
BUT, this crowd in particular is nothing but GOD HATERS and y'all search for things to hate on. You rip them out of context, refuse to learn more, deny everything with some generic cliche even when educated. But I'm not here to help the atheist that's made a definite, absolute choice to deny Christ and hate God. I'm here for the reader that isn't speaking and seeing your comments and then sees them reconciled only moments later so that they can make an informed choice about Jesus Christ.
-
GOD HATERS...
Hard to hate something if you don't believe it exists.
-
BUT, this crowd in particular is nothing but GOD HATERS and y'all search for things to hate on. You rip them out of context, refuse to learn more, deny everything with some generic cliche even when educated. But I'm not here to help the atheist that's made a definite, absolute choice to deny Christ and hate God. I'm here for the reader that isn't speaking and seeing your comments and then sees them reconciled only moments later so that they can make an informed choice about Jesus Christ.
Стойкий мужик...Standing(Steadfast) Man
-
If a master beat a slave and the slave died, he was to be killed. If he caused any sort of permanent damage to the slave, the slave was to be set free immediately. Note that "permanent damage" included such things as knocking out a tooth! This was a stark contrast to other near-eastern cultures, where a master was allowed to put out the eyes of his slaves with no consequences. An Israelite master had incentive to avoid striking a slave in the face, which was considered a civic wrong.
Some try to use Exodus 21:20-21 as evidence that this is inaccurate:
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
On the surface, this looks as though a master could get away with mistreating a slave. When we look more closely, it's clear that this wasn't considered mistreatment. In fact, this verse shows that slaves were treated in much the same way as free citizens.
Being beaten by a rod was a common punishment. The community elders employed the rod to punish wrongdoers, and fathers applied the rod to rebellious older sons. Using a rod to discipline a slave would be common, if not customary. The punishments for harming slaves and free men were equivalent:
If the slave died, the owner was killed.
If the slave was permanently harmed, they were set free.
If the slave was temporarily harmed, the owner was not punished.
A free citizen who was temporarily harmed would be compensated for lost work time and medical bills, but the slave would not. The difference was simply economic: the owner was financially responsible for the slave, so he absorbed the loss of work time and made sure the slave was healed instead of paying them cash.
The laws are put in place to keep folks in check, not give them license to commit evil acts. This is a huge disconnect for almost every nonbeliever. As always context and historical customs is key.
BUT, this crowd in particular is nothing but GOD HATERS and y'all search for things to hate on. You rip them out of context, refuse to learn more, deny everything with some generic cliche even when educated. But I'm not here to help the atheist that's made a definite, absolute choice to deny Christ and hate God. I'm here for the reader that isn't speaking and seeing your comments and then sees them reconciled only moments later so that they can make an informed choice about Jesus Christ.
You would think a normal human being in 2016 would be uncomfortable trying to rationalize slavery and beating slaves.. but if it's "god" approved... not a problem...
-
Those are my written words above. The part on Elisha is a few sentences.
Referring to someone as "baldy" or "baldhead" was sign of hatred related to those with leprosy in that day. Much like women with short hair or no hair was not a good thing as that was a typical styling of prostitutes. Different times, different customs then.
Having multiple translations for a single word is extremely common with Hebrew. It isn't moving the goalposts it's making sense of the context. The hebrew language is quite small and the entire language can be memorized by one person (unlike english with thousands and thousands of words and variants). I leave these things to linguists and defer to their expertise on translations.
How can you use the different customs argument? the customs were retarded, no one deserves to die because the words they used, EVER, only retards could believe such a thing. What happened to sticks and stones? Your argument also shows how the book is exactly what we say, written by those during that time, nothing is divinely inspired, it reads just like it should, pertinent to the times. Why would a timeless being sound as if he was a human during the middle ages? why would he care about their customs? isnt his law timeless and divine? yet you are arguing that these things are fine because of the times, that's absurd, those ideas were wicked then and they are wicked now.
It's so obviously a lie that I feel a slight sadness for those who believe. All holy books are lies, no human knows anything related to the supernatural, ZERO. humans can't fly, I know this because I cannot, I am human, humans cannot talk to god, I know this because I am a human. I can't shit out my dick, I am human, you seeing how we can simply dismiss all this bullshit? it can't happen, like a human can't fly, don't let reality get in your way.
pretty fucking sensitive to what some random gang of kids think about his appearance, sounds like a broken man that probably should castrate himself for being such a vile pussy. If I saw a bear mauling kids, even adults, regardless of their insults I would be disgusted and certainly not wish that they are mauled to death, what kind of sick fuck is this god? you insult someone you are put to death in a most brutal way, god seems to over sentence quite a bit, like a jumpy retard from the stone ages. Eternal torture for finite insults, death for nearly everything (human life is never seen as special).
God also knows the future, he set those kids up knowing they would insult the man.
how many more basic logical premises are we going to ignore in order to keep your fantasy safe?
-
GOD HATERS...
Hard to hate something if you don't believe it exists.
True, but you already know God exists.
-
True, but you already know God exists.
You now know my thoughts. Perhaps you are god?
-
How can you use the different customs argument? the customs were retarded, no one deserves to die because the words they used, EVER, only retards could believe such a thing. What happened to sticks and stones? Your argument also shows how the book is exactly what we say, written by those during that time, nothing is divinely inspired, it reads just like it should, pertinent to the times. Why would a timeless being sound as if he was a human during the middle ages? why would he care about their customs? isnt his law timeless and divine? yet you are arguing that these things are fine because of the times, that's absurd, those ideas were wicked then and they are wicked now.
It's so obviously a lie that I feel a slight sadness for those who believe. All holy books are lies, no human knows anything related to the supernatural, ZERO. humans can't fly, I know this because I cannot, I am human, humans cannot talk to god, I know this because I am a human. I can't shit out my dick, I am human, you seeing how we can simply dismiss all this bullshit? it can't happen, like a human can't fly, don't let reality get in your way.
pretty fucking sensitive to what some random gang of kids think about his appearance, sounds like a broken man that probably should castrate himself for being such a vile pussy. If I saw a bear mauling kids, even adults, regardless of their insults I would be disgusted and certainly not wish that they are mauled to death, what kind of sick fuck is this god? you insult someone you are put to death in a most brutal way, god seems to over sentence quite a bit, like a jumpy retard from the stone ages. Eternal torture for finite insults, death for nearly everything (human life is never seen as special).
God also knows the future, he set those kids up knowing they would insult the man.
how many more basic logical premises are we going to ignore in order to keep your fantasy safe?
I speak about historical customs because they are absolutely germaine to the topic. You can ignore or dismiss them if you want.
Baldness was received with hate and contempt in ancient Israel. Baldness was also associated with prostitution. Baldness was associated with disease such as leprosy.
This gang of 42 young men set on bad intentions began coming at Elisha shouting with hatred. They made the choice to do this to a servant of God. God intervened and they were destroyed.
Normal people don’t cheer for the bad guys or excuse evil, but so many trade good for evil and evil for good.
Foreknowledge is a facet of total knowledge (omniscience). 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. Knowledge in and of itself is benign. It doesn't force you to act, but you can make choices based upon the knowledge you have. If you want pizza ,then you eat pizza. His foreknowledge is inerrant only because he’s aware of the definite choices you will make. Your argument could applied to any situation whether it's perceived as good or bad.
-
You now know my thoughts. Perhaps you are god?
Everyone knows God exists...they simply suppress and deny that understanding. I appeal only to scripture.
-
I speak about historical customs because they are absolutely germaine to the topic. You can ignore or dismiss them if you want.
No they are not, if gods is absolute, he wouldn't change his rules and allowances based on the customs, how silly is that? god has his law does he not, why would human customs matter to the eternal
Baldness was received with hate and contempt in ancient Israel. Baldness was also associated with prostitution. Baldness was associated with disease such as leprosy.
So what....such petty bullshit, god cares about the feelings of this man as the mean kids where implying he may be a prostitute, put the kids to death!!!!
This gang of 42 young men set on bad intentions began coming at Elisha shouting with hatred. They made the choice to do this to a servant of God. God intervened and they were destroyed.
God knew they would do this to his servant before it ever happened. Again, you can use words like hatred etc... I don't care.. name calling should never lead to death, not 42 fucking kids humans. Where is this god now? show me a servant and I will spit in his face, let's see if you god comes to his side, he ignored the crys of the kids being raped but not this balding fat man? some sick shit.
Normal people don’t cheer for the bad guys or excuse evil, but so many trade good for evil and evil for good.
Foreknowledge is a facet of total knowledge (omniscience). 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. Knowledge in and of itself is benign. It doesn't force you to act, but you can make choices based upon the knowledge you have. If you want pizza ,then you eat pizza. His foreknowledge is inerrant only because he’s aware of the definite choices you will make. Your argument could applied to any situation whether it's perceived as good or bad.
the foreknowledge argument makes absolutely no sense, how can I make a choice if he knows what I will do? that would be the action is crystallized ie not fluid as you are suggesting. So he knows he will do it, but the person is just deluded into thinking they have choice, really it's all known.
if it's a definite choice, it's not a choice, the definition of definite indicates this.
-
If a master beat a slave and the slave died, he was to be killed. If he caused any sort of permanent damage to the slave, the slave was to be set free immediately. Note that "permanent damage" included such things as knocking out a tooth! This was a stark contrast to other near-eastern cultures, where a master was allowed to put out the eyes of his slaves with no consequences. An Israelite master had incentive to avoid striking a slave in the face, which was considered a civic wrong.
Some try to use Exodus 21:20-21 as evidence that this is inaccurate:
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
On the surface, this looks as though a master could get away with mistreating a slave. When we look more closely, it's clear that this wasn't considered mistreatment. In fact, this verse shows that slaves were treated in much the same way as free citizens.
Being beaten by a rod was a common punishment. The community elders employed the rod to punish wrongdoers, and fathers applied the rod to rebellious older sons. Using a rod to discipline a slave would be common, if not customary. The punishments for harming slaves and free men were equivalent:
If the slave died, the owner was killed.
If the slave was permanently harmed, they were set free.
If the slave was temporarily harmed, the owner was not punished.
A free citizen who was temporarily harmed would be compensated for lost work time and medical bills, but the slave would not. The difference was simply economic: the owner was financially responsible for the slave, so he absorbed the loss of work time and made sure the slave was healed instead of paying them cash.
The laws are put in place to keep folks in check, not give them license to commit evil acts. This is a huge disconnect for almost every nonbeliever. As always context and historical customs is key.
BUT, this crowd in particular is nothing but GOD HATERS and y'all search for things to hate on. You rip them out of context, refuse to learn more, deny everything with some generic cliche even when educated. But I'm not here to help the atheist that's made a definite, absolute choice to deny Christ and hate God. I'm here for the reader that isn't speaking and seeing your comments and then sees them reconciled only moments later so that they can make an informed choice about Jesus Christ.
A fucking eternal all loving god would never allow slavery, the fact that your god changes with the times is again exactly in line with it being a book of fiction written by bloodthirsty idiots.
-
THERE IS NO GOD, IT'S MEDIEVAL BULL.....WAKE UP THIS IS THE 21ST CENTURY. >:( >:(
-
A fucking eternal all loving god would never allow slavery, the fact that your god changes with the times is again exactly in line with it being a book of fiction written by bloodthirsty idiots.
Exactly. The fact that a master would get killed for beating his slave still doesn't make slavery right.
Trying to justify slavery because the master gets punished for knocking a slaves tooth out.
Ive said it once and I will say it again: religion corrupts the mind.
-
the foreknowledge argument makes absolutely no sense, how can I make a choice if he knows what I will do? that would be the action is crystallized ie not fluid as you are suggesting. So he knows he will do it, but the person is just deluded into thinking they have choice, really it's all known.
if it's a definite choice, it's not a choice, the definition of definite indicates this.
God works within the confines of our lives allowing his law to guide us as a schoolmaster. His law is the path to righteousness, but in truth in it leads us to Christ. He's repeatedly allowed men to walk in defiance and has attempted to lead them from that defiance into the truth of his righteousness.
Well you ignore the customs and implications associated with them so no big surprise you'd casually dismiss all of it. I mean hey, if doesn't fit your argument!
Yes God knew the young men would do this before it happened and he allowed them to choose to do what they did..he didn't force them. I serve God daily and all sorts of bad things happen to me all the time. My truck was in a wreck on Monday of this week. My grandmother died from a brutal fall a few weeks back. Hail destroyed a ton of property for my folks, mother in law and best friends this week. Bad things happen all the time to all sorts of people. Back in November 2015 we watched a family friend slowly die of cancer in front of his wife and daughters. All these examples happened to believers. For me every bad incident is merely an opportunity to watch God work and to draw closer to his will. I'm getting to the point in which with each difficult circumstance I almost smile and think, "how are you gonna dazzle me this time Lord?" And he does.
Foreknowledge is a facet of total knowledge (omniscience). 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. Knowledge in and of itself is benign. It doesn't force you to act, but you can make choices based upon the knowledge you have. If you want pizza ,then you eat pizza. His foreknowledge is inerrant only because he’s aware of the definite choices you will make. Your argument could applied to any situation whether it's perceived as good or bad. Again, foreknowledge is not forceknowledge.....no divine power is used by God to make you act like his puppet.
I often know how my daughter is going to act or respond in a situation, but that knowledge didn't force her to choose to act in a manner I knew she would....she did it all by herself.
-
man of steel must be trolling
no decent human being would defend slavery based on the different customs argument
he is the one truly walking with sin in this thread
hopefully he wont set some bears on me ::)
-
10pints, still awaiting your unanswered questions.
MOS,
I have particularly enjoyed watching you avoid questions from myself and Bigmc. Questions which cut to the very core of your ludicrous arguments. I expect similar deflections in your response (if any) to this question:
If i told you that i believed that Ronald Dean Coleman was 100% natural at the "O" in 2000, and that the Weiders had confirmed this as being true (and they subsequently published it in scripture). Could it be false?
Please, list your questions and I will give answers where I am able to.
You want to know if Ronnie Coleman's natural claims were confirmed as true and then subsequently published (or that claim added) in scripture could it be false?
Yes. All sorts of uninspired words have been written and attempted to made part of the canon of scripture.
Follow up questions:
Why would Ronnie Coleman's natural claims be included in scripture?
So if it was confirmed as true what is the issue with the claim?
Are you wanting to falsify the claim in some way?
Do you want to find a means to deny the confirmation?
Is it because the claim itself is too fantastic for you to do on your own so you can't reason or accept it?
Again, please provide your questions or bigmc's questions that were unanswered. Remember, there's one of me typically responding to 5-8 of y'all.
Atheists for years tell me "it's fun watching you avoid my questions"....par for the course prodding. I don't avoid anything, but I might miss stuff sure. So, then I just answer the questions when they are presented again. Sometimes someone asks the same question so I only respond to one of the questions.
-
mos i have a serious question for you
did this god thing start out of some traumatic event
maybe a near death experience or losing someone close to you ?
-
mos i have a serious question for you
did this god thing start out of some traumatic event
maybe a near death experience or losing someone close to you ?
Yes, near death experience I had 5 years ago. I survived. Surrendered my life humbly to God. Holy Spirit of God instantly filled the room I was in with the thickest, most tangible, awesome presence and divine experience I've ever had. These demonstrations of his presence and reality have continued ever since. Left me a man on fire for God and changed forever. Experienced some wonderful, sweet, private moments of prayer and worship with just me and Lord during my recovery!
I proclaim his reality today, help others understand his word, grow in knowledge and understanding myself and give reasons for hope within me.
-
Yes, near death experience I had 5 years ago. I survived. Surrendered my life humbly to God. Holy Spirit of God instantly filled the room I was in with the thickest, most tangible, awesome presence and divine experience I've ever had. These demonstrations of his presence and reality have continued ever since. Left me a man on fire for God and changed forever. Experienced some wonderful, sweet, private moments of prayer and worship with just me and Lord during my recovery!
I proclaim his reality today, help others understand his word, grow in knowledge and understanding myself and give reasons for hope within me.
If you're referring to the blood clot, I remember you were already a fully committed Christian at the time. I could be mistaken.
-
If you're referring to the blood clot, I remember you were already a fully committed Christian at the time. I could be mistaken.
Yes, that almost killed me....one foot in the grave.
I was your classic nominal Christian....nothing about me said "that guy is a Christian". It was all fake. I constantly questioned "is all this God stuff real?" It was as if it was constantly replayed in my mind over and over. I used foul language like it was going out of style, I was smoking, drinking, partying, indulging in pornography, adulterous behavior, stealing, hate, anger, greed, envy, lust...about the only thing I didn't do was murder someone. I was pathetic.
I was raised in a Christian home, but to my great shame not at all a Christian and acted like a fool.
-
Yes, that almost killed me....one foot in the grave.
I was your classic nominal Christian....nothing about me said "that guy is a Christian". It was all fake. I constantly questioned "is all this God stuff real?" It was as if it was constantly replayed in my mind over and over. I used foul language like it was going out of style, I was smoking, drinking, partying, indulging in pornography, adulterous behavior, stealing, hate, anger, greed, envy, lust...about the only thing I didn't do was murder someone. I was pathetic.
I was raised in a Christian home, but to my great shame not at all a Christian and acted like a fool.
Ok, fair enough. It seems you turned your life around, this is admirable if nothing else.
*edit* If you don't do any of the above, what do you do for fun? :)
-
Yes, that almost killed me....one foot in the grave.
I was your classic nominal Christian....nothing about me said "that guy is a Christian". It was all fake. I constantly questioned "is all this God stuff real?" It was as if it was constantly replayed in my mind over and over. I used foul language like it was going out of style, I was smoking, drinking, partying, indulging in pornography, adulterous behavior, stealing, hate, anger, greed, envy, lust...about the only thing I didn't do was murder someone. I was pathetic.
I was raised in a Christian home, but to my great shame not at all a Christian and acted like a fool.
Does it ever happen to you that certain bible passages sound irrational or that put you in a difficult situation when trying to judge the morality of such passage?
-
Does it ever happen to you that certain bible passages sound irrational or that put you in a difficult situation when trying to judge the morality of such passage?
That happens to every seeker of truth imho. Prayer and more research helps to understand the meaning behind each. Some things are literal, some symbolic, some prophetic .
-
Does it ever happen to you that certain bible passages sound irrational or that put you in a difficult situation when trying to judge the morality of such passage?
Of course. Study, study, study....pray, pray, pray.
After I began understanding one difficult passage and another and another....and then 20 and 50 I realized I can have confidence in the word and trust in it. It became easier and easier to understand scripture.
I read a ton and still do. People think I pull stuff out of the air LOL.
The hours I've studied and read and written and prayed and listened....things have become clearer and clearer.
Today I continue to pray for more and more understanding of his word.
-
Yes, near death experience I had 5 years ago. I survived. Surrendered my life humbly to God. Holy Spirit of God instantly filled the room I was in with the thickest, most tangible, awesome presence and divine experience I've ever had. These demonstrations of his presence and reality have continued ever since. Left me a man on fire for God and changed forever. Experienced some wonderful, sweet, private moments of prayer and worship with just me and Lord during my recovery!
I proclaim his reality today, help others understand his word, grow in knowledge and understanding myself and give reasons for hope within me.
that makes sense
its your way of dealing with your mortality
the fear of death being offset by the promise of eternity in paradise
some of us just learn to live with it
we have an inner strength that doesnt require that coping mechanism
its not a coincidence that people that turn out like you have usually had a near death experience
if it gives you comfort great
just accept that some of us dont need that crutch to get through life
-
that makes sense
its your way of dealing with your mortality
the fear of death being offset by the promise of eternity in paradise
some of us just learn to live with it
we have an inner strength that doesnt require that coping mechanism
its not a coincidence that people that turn out like you have usually had a near death experience
if it gives you comfort great
just accept that some of us dont need that crutch to get through life
Candidate for Post of The Year.
-
That happens to every seeker of truth imho. Prayer and more research helps to understand the meaning behind each. Some things are literal, some symbolic, some prophetic .
How do you determine what is literal, what symbolic and what prophetic?
Could you tell us how praying tells you what is what and if you also use another method for corroboration afterwards?
-
10pints, still awaiting your unanswered questions.
Then general gist of what I am inferring, is that: just because something is written down, and promoted as being true, doesn't make it so.
My example is no different to what has happened with the bible. Except in the case of the bible, it has multiple authors, who have amended the story over the ages.
-
that makes sense
its your way of dealing with your mortality
the fear of death being offset by the promise of eternity in paradise
some of us just learn to live with it
we have an inner strength that doesnt require that coping mechanism
its not a coincidence that people that turn out like you have usually had a near death experience
if it gives you comfort great
just accept that some of us dont need that crutch to get through life
This cliche is actually the opposite of my situation and my experience.
-
This cliche is actually the opposite of my situation and my experience.
Yes, but that's the problem, your experience, you cannot see yourself objectively, your experience is not enough.Everyone looking from the outside could tell hitler is nuts, everyone looking at your situation can see the writings on the wall, whatever you inner thoughts and world may tell you. You could be deluded, have you considered this? seriously considered the possibility that the euphoria and transcendent experience you had wasn't just the rush of endorphins as you believed you had cracked the code to life, so shortly after almost losing it all. Such a realization must be life changing, that you honestly believe you have it figured out, that you know what you can't (what happens when we die), you have successfully circumvented the existential reality those with dissonance experience. You no longer suffer the human experience, it's fleeting, you feel comfort, finality and a sense of overall well being... things will be ok.
I could understand why this is intoxicating, why it would motivate, you feel enlightened, and in essence are. Perception is reality, your perception is a glorious one, the best one could hope for.
-
Yes, but that's the problem, your experience, you cannot see yourself objectively, your experience is not enough.Everyone looking from the outside could tell hitler is nuts, everyone looking at your situation can see the writings on the wall, whatever you inner thoughts and world may tell you. You could be deluded, have you considered this? seriously considered the possibility that the euphoria and transcendent experience you had wasn't just the rush of endorphins as you believed you had cracked the code to life, so shortly after almost losing it all. Such a realization must be life changing, that you honestly believe you have it figured out, that you know what you can't (what happens when we die), you have successfully circumvented the existential reality those with dissonance experience. You no longer suffer the human experience, it's fleeting, you feel comfort, finality and a sense of overall well being... things will be ok.
I could understand why this is intoxicating, why it would motivate, you feel enlightened, and in essence are. Perception is reality, your perception is a glorious one, the best one could hope for.
I read what you wrote, but it's not correct. Not endorphins causing a deluded euphoria. I don't mind the you suggesting it though as an option.
I read what bigmc wrote too, but it's backwards as I said.
-
Then general gist of what I am inferring, is that: just because something is written down, and promoted as being true, doesn't make it so.
My example is no different to what has happened with the bible. Except in the case of the bible, it has multiple authors, who have amended the story over the ages.
What are your questions and bigmc's questions you got a kick out of me avoiding answering?
-
Candidate for Post of The Year.
Well, if it was correct.
-
Of course. Study, study, study....pray, pray, pray.
After I began understanding one difficult passage and another and another....and then 20 and 50 I realized I can have confidence in the word and trust in it. It became easier and easier to understand scripture.
I read a ton and still do. People think I pull stuff out of the air LOL.
The hours I've studied and read and written and prayed and listened....things have become clearer and clearer.
Today I continue to pray for more and more understanding of his word.
i believe in god and class myself as a christian. but this is just taking things too far like the rest of the religious fanatics.
vanity is apparently a sin. so why would god want his 'children' to spend so much time praising him and worshipping him...is he that vain?
if you're a parent you want your children to grow up and be good people, do unto others as you would have done unto them and all that. but what parent would be so vain that they wanted their children to spend hours worshipping them?
look at the church and how much wealth it holds onto. from my memory of learning about jesus, he never wanted anything material, he gave everything he had away...so why is the church amassing all this wealth, look at all the opulence on display in the vatican...
organised religion has completely lost it's way.
-
I read what you wrote, but it's not correct. Not endorphins causing a deluded euphoria. I don't mind the you suggesting it though as an option.
I read what bigmc wrote too, but it's backwards as I said.
i realise you think i am out my "depth"
however i would ask you to consider what i said objectively
we never feel more alive than when we dance with death and survive
its also very difficult for us to get our head round the concept that when we die thats it
religion solves that problem
but you have to accept that you believe you dont know
and what you claim to be facts have been argued the other way just as convincingly by very intelligent people
you fall down when you move the goal posts
the bears story is a classic
shifting the sands to make it seem less ridiculous
religion is largely responsible for more death in the world than anything else
fanatics like you are dangerous
-
Ok, fair enough. It seems you turned your life around, this is admirable if nothing else.
*edit* If you don't do any of the above, what do you do for fun? :)
For fun? Protest abortion clinics, make "God hates fag" posters for Westboro Baptist church, burn science books in my front yard, go to gay pride parades and tell folks they're going to hell, brainwash young kids at Christian bible camps, find ways to make slavery happen again, hunt for Canaanites, work on my ark project, recreate the Passion of the Christ, stand on street corners and scream at people and point out their sins, read the New Testament over and over and over and over front to back and back to front...the usual stuff. ;)
Seriously, hang out with family, take wife on dates, have family "date nights", hang out with friends, bbq, lift weights, watch movies, watch sports, read, go on vacations....stuff like that.
-
i realise you think i am out my "depth"
however i would ask you to consider what i said objectively
we never feel more alive than when we dance with death and survive
its also very difficult for us to get our head round the concept that when we die thats it
religion solves that problem
but you have to accept that you believe you dont know
and what you claim to be facts have been argued the other way just as convincingly by very intelligent people
you fall down when you move the goal posts
the bears story is a classic
shifting the sands to make it seem less ridiculous
religion is largely responsible for more death in the world than anything else
fanatics like you are dangerous
It's not that your analysis was bad, it just didn't have anything to do with my me or my situation.
-
It's not that your analysis was bad, it just didn't have anything to do with my me or my situation.
ah ok my bad
you were at deaths door
recovered
had a revelation
now you preach the bible as absolute fact
am i wrong ???
-
i believe in god and class myself as a christian. but this is just taking things too far like the rest of the religious fanatics.
vanity is apparently a sin. so why would god want his 'children' to spend so much time praising him and worshipping him...is he that vain?
if you're a parent you want your children to grow up and be good people, do unto others as you would have done unto them and all that. but what parent would be so vain that they wanted their children to spend hours worshipping them?
look at the church and how much wealth it holds onto. from my memory of learning about jesus, he never wanted anything material, he gave everything he had away...so why is the church amassing all this wealth, look at all the opulence on display in the vatican...
organised religion has completely lost it's way.
What has been taken too far? Studying, learning, praying? Or did you mean something else?
Anything that becomes an idol of sorts is sinful....vanity included.
What is worship?
There's nothing wrong with money. In and of itself it's benign. Turning money into idol is where trouble starts. Christ wasn't anti-possession, but his ministry was an absolute demonstration of complete faith in God and required the same of his disciples during the extent of his ministry God's earliest servants became very wealthy folks...Abraham, David, Solomon, Job all had tremendous wealth....blessed by God. How any of us use those blessings is what indicates the fruits of our faith and work of the Holy Spirit in us.
Now, the prosperity gospel taught in churches, the displays of opulence, the vast sums of money despite the definite poverty in surrounding communities....none of that screams Christian witness to me.....it's nonsense.
I"m not against organized religion provided the organization promotes scripture and demonstrates a devotion to Christ. Otherwise it's man-centric nothing.
-
ah ok my bad
you were at deaths door
recovered
had a revelation
now you preach the bible as absolute fact
am i wrong ???
Yes that summarizes some points of my written, posted testimony.
-
Yes that summarizes some points of my written, posted testimony.
i think you are a good person
i just think you have put too much faith in one experience you had at a very difficult time
i also think you should respect other peoples opinions
judge ye not and all that
peace 8)
-
MOS,
You genuinely believe in the bible as being the word of God.
God existing aside, this makes your argument incredulous, because humans have proven themselves, throughout the ages, to be lying, duplicitous shits, that will do / say anything to get their genes the upper hand in the game of survival.
It logically follows, that the humans, who wrote these texts (unless you are ready to offer an cogent argument that, throughout the ages, the bible was not inscribed by human hands), which you so like to quote, would have, throughout the ages, amended the words (regardless of their initial validity) so as to promote their own genetic interests.
Therefore, it stands to reason, that the words contained therein, have been amended, in this highly influential text, so as to suit human needs, and are no longer the word of God (assuming indeed that he even exists, and said the things that were initially documented by humans).
If you cannot see why a majority of us find your position utterly incredulous, purely from a lexical viewpoint, discounting the gaping holes in the logical / ontological fallacies inherent in the theist position, then we should really just accept you as someone who lacks the desire to inspect this topic with the necessary, critical granularity that such great claims require.
It is simply beyond your ken.
Even the Muslim philosopher: Averroës knew that religion was for those who didn't possess the mental fortitude to persevere with the inherent uncertainties of human existence, aka the stage of the absurd.
I completely understand why many people, yourself included, opt for a variant of Camus' philosophical suicide. The alternative is a lifetime of existential crisis / angst. But such is the calling of the Ubermensch!
I, like Sisyphus, am happy in my struggle, and have no recourse to such tricks of the mind, to assuage my struggle for meaning.
-
MOS,
You genuinely believe in the bible as being the word of God.
God existing aside, this makes your argument incredulous, because humans have proven themselves, throughout the ages, to be lying, duplicitous shits, that will do / say anything to get their genes the upper hand in the game of survival.
It logically follows, that the humans, who wrote these texts (unless you are ready to offer an cogent argument that, throughout the ages, the bible was not inscribed by human hands), which you so like to quote, would have, throughout the ages, amended the words (regardless of their initial validity) so as to promote their own genetic interests.
Therefore, it stands to reason, that the words contained therein, have been amended, in this highly influential text, so as to suit human needs, and are no longer the word of God (assuming indeed that he even exists, and said the things that were initially documented by humans).
If you cannot see why a majority of us find your position utterly incredulous, purely from a lexical viewpoint, discounting the gaping holes in the logical / ontological fallacies inherent in the theist position, then we should really just accept you as someone who lacks the desire to inspect this topic with the necessary, critical granularity that such great claims require.
It is simply beyond your ken.
Even the Muslim philosopher: Averroës knew that religion was for those who didn't possess the mental fortitude to persevere with the inherent uncertainties of human existence, aka the stage of the absurd.
I completely understand why many people, yourself included, opt for a variant of Camus' philosophical suicide. The alternative is a lifetime of existential crisis / angst. But such is the calling of the Ubermensch!
I, like Sisyphus, am happy in my struggle, and have no recourse to such tricks of the mind, to assuage my struggle for meaning.
What are your unanswered and bigmc's unanswered questions you got a kick out of me dodging? Quote those posts for me.
I'll then answer those.
Then we'll move on.
-
i think you are a good person
i just think you have put too much faith in one experience you had at a very difficult time
i also think you should respect other peoples opinions
judge ye not and all that
peace 8)
Well the experience hasn't stopped.....there have been many experiences.
-
Well the experience hasn't stopped.....there have been many experiences.
Once you take that first step and believe that an invisible elf hiding inside my hat is the source of all rain, then it only takes a couple of drops of rain to reaffirm and strengthen than belief.
-
Once you take that first step and believe that an invisible elf hiding inside my hat is the source of all rain, then it only takes a couple of drops of rain to reaffirm and strengthen than belief.
Yep I've read the same mockery with a purple space elephant and a pink unicorn.
I'll use my canned response here that I also did there. Meh.
-
Yep I've read the same mockery with a purple space elephant and a pink unicorn.
I'll use my canned response here that I also did there. Meh.
mos
yes or no
do you think its acceptable for god to set bears on children for calling someone names?
and mos back in the day god appeared to people every five minutes
as soon as we were able to record history accurately this all stopped why?
-
mos
yes or no
do you think its acceptable for god to set bears on children for calling someone names?
and mos back in the day god appeared to people every five minutes
as soon as we were able to record history accurately this all stopped why?
I asked a similar question some time ago, the response was: "God appears to believers all the time".
-
I asked a similar question some time ago, the response was: "God appears to believers all the time".
you would think someone would have caught that on a camera phone by now
-
I asked a similar question some time ago, the response was: "God appears to believers all the time".
Sounds eerily similar to the emperor's new clothes....
-
mos
yes or no
do you think its acceptable for god to set bears on children for calling someone names?
and mos back in the day god appeared to people every five minutes
as soon as we were able to record history accurately this all stopped why?
I would need more information....more context.
As I've explained that wasn't the situation. It was a gang of young men hatefully threatening a prophet of God. You refuse to accept this...can't help you anymore.
Well he actually didn't appear to folks every five minutes, but the record of some significant appearances is recorded. Then he lived on earth for decades, completed his salvific work and then returned to the Father. The difference thereafter is the Holy Spirit that began permanently living within believers....never leaving or lifting from them. The presence of God is tangible and repeatedly demonstrated in my life and in the lives of others.
-
I asked a similar question some time ago, the response was: "God appears to believers all the time".
Would you please provide that post? I would like to read the greater context.
Although God has appeared to many folks.
-
Would you please provide that post? I would like to read the greater context.
Although God has appeared to many folks.
I think the context was in a discussion where you said that the Holy Spirit appeared to you and that your father had literally heard the voice of God. I gave several natural explanations as to how and why people hear voices, my position being that accepting a supernatural explanation over a natural one is delusion, your position was that the context of your father's experience supported a supernatural explanation.
Does God appear to contemporary skeptics? if not why not, if yes, please provide examples.
-
I asked a similar question some time ago, the response was: "God appears to believers all the time".
He also appeared to unbelievers which should also be still occurring :-\
-
I would need more information....more context.
As I've explained that wasn't the situation. It was a gang of young men hatefully threatening a prophet of God. You refuse to accept this...can't help you anymore.
Well he actually didn't appear to folks every five minutes, but the record of some significant appearances is recorded. Then he lived on earth for decades, completed his salvific work and then returned to the Father. The difference thereafter is the Holy Spirit that began permanently living within believers....never leaving or lifting from them. The presence of God is tangible and repeatedly demonstrated in my life and in the lives of others.
no you explained it could have been by interpreting it a certain way
and you still refuse to answer the question
you accepted that it could just have easily been children as young men
i ask you again do you think god jumped the gun a little there
straight answer please
you claim you will answer any questions
-
its worth noting that a direct translation of the original script
regarding the bear attack is "little children"
who mos has decided to change to young men
admit it mos you are wrong
-
no you explained it could have been by interpreting it a certain way
and you still refuse to answer the question
you accepted that it could just have easily been children as young men
i ask you again do you think god jumped the gun a little there
straight answer please
you claim you will answer any questions
No, God murdering a group of young children with bears for teasing Elisha does not seem right to me.
Again, my straight forward answer is no.
-
its worth noting that a direct translation of the original script
regarding the bear attack is "little children"
who mos has decided to change to young men
admit it mos you are wrong
I'm going to note this one more time and then I'll stop.
The hebrew language is very small and can memorized by one individual. Hebrew words can therefore have multiple literal, correct definitions. I gave you the example of the word "yom" which in english is "day". It has 5-6 literal, correct definitions. Although, context is always key.
The hebrew word for children is "yeled" (this is the english transliteration) and it also has 4-5 literal, correct definitions. Defintions include the terms children, lads, youths, young men.....all correct, literal definitions. "Yeled" can even refer to an apostate within the Israelite ranks.
I've read a dozen articles from mutliple scholars that agree that the KJV usage of the literal definition of "children" is incorrect given the context and it's usage has caused a disservice to later english translations. This is where the KJV incorporated an inappropriate yet literal, correct definition.
Further, I discussed the cultural convention surrounding baldness and how being bald brought with it a very negative connotation in ancient Israel. Calling someone "baldy" or "baldhead" was sign of hatred and contempt. Baldness was often associated with disease (ex: leprosy) and women with short hair were often prostitutes.
Further the expression "go up" was a forceful way to tell Elisha "get out of here" or "go up like your master Elijah". Basically, get the "you know what" out of here or else. All of it was meant as a threat.
So, what makes more sense given the context?
A group of 42 small children were playfully teasing a prophet and God murdered them with bears for no reason.
or
A group of 42 bad-intentioned "youths" or "young men" (anywhere from 16-20 yrs old) were threatening a prophet of God (and by extension threatening God himself) and God protected his prophet and destroyed the gang.
What makes more sense given the context (both linguistically, culturally and reasonably)?
-
I think the context was in a discussion where you said that the Holy Spirit appeared to you and that your father had literally heard the voice of God. I gave several natural explanations as to how and why people hear voices, my position being that accepting a supernatural explanation over a natural one is delusion, your position was that the context of your father's experience supported a supernatural explanation.
Does God appear to contemporary skeptics? if not why not, if yes, please provide examples.
Contemporary skeptics? I couldn't say. Jesus Christ has appeared to many Muslims who have converted to Christianity.
-
none of it makes sense my friend
the guy talking to a burning bush was on drugs
a lot of the stuff was left out as it shone a bad light on the whole thing and mentioned other gods
not sure a guy who would turn someone in to a pillar of salt for looking back
is that good a role model
-
none of it makes sense my friend
the guy talking to a burning bush was on drugs
a lot of the stuff was left out as it shone a bad light on the whole thing and mentioned other gods
not sure a guy who would turn someone in to a pillar of salt for looking back
is that good a role model
That's ok if you don't want to answer. "none of it makes sense" isn't an answer...it's a dodge. "burning bushes" and "pillars of salt" are red herrings.
My questions are rarely answered.
I've provided explanation for the passage and others can read it now. I'm fine with it.
-
That's ok if you don't want to answer. "none of it makes sense" isn't an answer...it's a dodge. "burning bushes" and "pillars of salt" are red herrings.
My questions are rarely answered.
I've provided explanation for the passage and others can read it now. I'm fine with it.
sorry i missed your question
put it up in one sentence and il answer to the best of my ability
-
sorry i missed your question
put it up in one sentence and il answer to the best of my ability
No problem.
Question: Which of the following makes more sense given the context (both linguistically, culturally and reasonably):
A group of 42 small children were playfully teasing a prophet and God murdered them with bears for no reason.
or
A group of 42 bad-intentioned "youths" or "young men" (anywhere from 16-20 yrs old) were threatening a prophet of God (and by extension threatening God himself) and God protected his prophet and destroyed the gang.
-
No problem.
Question: Which of the following makes more sense given the context (both linguistically, culturally and reasonably):
A group of 42 small children were playfully teasing a prophet and God murdered them with bears for no reason.
or
A group of 42 bad-intentioned "youths" or "young men" (anywhere from 16-20 yrs old) were threatening a prophet of God (and by extension threatening God himself) and God protected his prophet and destroyed the gang.
as a starting point none of it makes sense to me
of course objectively its easier to digest if the second version where you are now of course saying they could be twenty they seem to get older everytime you post it
and threatening is a real stretch even by your standards
and have you forgotten the bears
my take is that passage was written by an angry bald guy that got teased by kids a lot
you know they tell kids fairy tales to scare them in to good behaviour
it could be argued that the bible is a fairy tale designed to get people to behave a certain way
of course when i post other examples of ridiculous nonsense like the pillar of salt you call them red herrings
can you explain why that is?
my points is the bible is full of ridiculous superstitious nonsense
which dilutes the many good parts for instance i like the good samaritin story
the mas killings and petulant revenge parts not so much
-
as a starting point none of it makes sense to me
of course objectively its easier to digest if the second version where you are now of course saying they could be twenty they seem to get older everytime you post it
and threatening is a real stretch even by your standards
and have you forgotten the bears
my take is that passage was written by an angry bald guy that got teased by kids a lot
you know they tell kids fairy tales to scare them in to good behaviour
it could be argued that the bible is a fairy tale designed to get people to behave a certain way
of course when i post other examples of ridiculous nonsense like the pillar of salt you call them red herrings
can you explain why that is?
my points is the bible is full of ridiculous superstitious nonsense
which dilutes the many good parts for instance i like the good samaritin story
the mas killings and petulant revenge parts not so much
Question: Which of the following makes more sense given the context (both linguistically, culturally and reasonably):
A group of 42 small children were playfully teasing a prophet and God murdered them with bears for no reason.
or
A group of 42 bad-intentioned "youths" or "young men" (anywhere from 16-20 yrs old) were threatening a prophet of God (and by extension threatening God himself) and God protected his prophet and destroyed the gang.
-
Question: Which of the following makes more sense given the context (both linguistically, culturally and reasonably):
A group of 42 small children were playfully teasing a prophet and God murdered them with bears for no reason.
or
A group of 42 bad-intentioned "youths" or "young men" (anywhere from 16-20 yrs old) were threatening a prophet of God (and by extension threatening God himself) and God protected his prophet and destroyed the gang.
you are phrasing the question like a bully would
chill out tubbs
dont set any bears on me
i think in the contect of the bible the first passage is the most likely
for yours is a vengeful god
flooded the world killed everyone little babies etc
how can they be wicked?
your religion is evil and your god lacks compassion for anyone who doesnt kiss his ass
you hear me :-*
-
you are phrasing the question like a bully would
chill out tubbs
dont set any bears on me
i think in the contect of the bible the first passage is the most likely
for yours is a vengeful god
flooded the world killed everyone little babies etc
how can they be wicked?
your religion is evil and your god lacks compassion for anyone who doesnt kiss his ass
you hear me :-*
Ok, you refuse to answer the question, but yet you require of me to consistently give you simple answers or "yes/no" answers.
That's fine.
-
I think that most of the forum can now see that MOS stands alone in the belief that he's guarding a heavily fortified position. For those whose minds have not been corrupted by the virus of religious fundamentalism, it should be clear that MOS' arguments are as transparent, contradictory and absurd as the scripture that it is intended to defend - and defend for no reason other than his own self-preservation. Fear and fear alone has lead him to the now incorrigible belief that he his protected by his own personal mascot who receives the sycophantic praise bestowed upon him through MOS concentrating REALLY hard, and grants him immortality as a result. Cue the trite rejoinders of "meh" "i've addressed this before" and "I don't care about the opinions of God haters", but the fact remains that MOS doesn't give a damn about the rights of sentient beings to live free from the threat of death and eternal torture - as evidenced through his posts in this thread. He's not only comfortable with it, but actively condones the actions of a God that holds us all to ransom in this manner - providing he is spared from such a fate. MOS is steeped in sin!
If I have to stand alone that's fine.
Some of y'all try and try and haven't defeated God's word yet. I just communicate it's truth and give reason for the hope within me.
If his word convicts then it convicts....praise God for that.
I've repented of my sins and no longer walk in willful sin. I don't care about the atheist's analysis of me LOL.....y'all know absolutely nothing of God.
Glory to God!
-
I understand that confidence in Christ is both offensive and intimidating for many. That's the path of a Christian....to be made perfect in Christ, spread the gospel and give reasons for the hope within us.
I mean of course the atheist is going to disagree and challenge every inch of this....y'all are your own little gods.
-
Lol, you keep telling yourself that. If there is such a thing as a just and loving God then you will never know him. Good luck.
Gods word has pretty much been destroyed in this very thread. Many of its inconsistencies, ramblings, and fallacies have been exposed here. Its quite clear that there is no God, and if there is, he is a jealous, vindictive, cry baby.
-
;D
-
Here come the "MOS is crackin up!! He's melting down!"
-
Exactly. MOS has failed miserably to defend the contradictory, repugnant and clearly man-made passages in his "Holy" book; the best he's been able to come up with is that "God works in mysterious ways" and that certain individuals were held to a higher standard - then that standard was subsequently lowered lol.
x2.
Oh well. Another thread where there was no confirming evidence for God's existence. I shall await a new religious thread in a week and it will begin anew. Nothing new on getbig. :) :)
-
Exactly. MOS has failed miserably to defend the contradictory, repugnant and clearly man-made passages in his "Holy" book; the best he's been able to come up with is that "God works in mysterious ways" and that certain individuals were held to a higher standard - then that standard was subsequently lowered lol.
;D I legit LOL'd at your post and the pic (I saved the pic)!!!
-
I love when you atheists high five each other!
-
as a starting point none of it makes sense to me
of course objectively its easier to digest if the second version where you are now of course saying they could be twenty they seem to get older everytime you post it
and threatening is a real stretch even by your standards
and have you forgotten the bears
my take is that passage was written by an angry bald guy that got teased by kids a lot
you know they tell kids fairy tales to scare them in to good behaviour
it could be argued that the bible is a fairy tale designed to get people to behave a certain way
of course when i post other examples of ridiculous nonsense like the pillar of salt you call them red herrings
can you explain why that is?
my points is the bible is full of ridiculous superstitious nonsense
which dilutes the many good parts for instance i like the good samaritin story
the mas killings and petulant revenge parts not so much
I seem to remember from the Historian Joseph us from the Antiquities of the Jews him mentioning that the pillar or salt was still standing as a reminder during the time he wrote that historical account. I need to do a little more research for a quote.
-
I seem to remember from the Historian Joseph us from the Antiquities of the Jews him mentioning that the pillar or salt was still standing as a reminder during the time he wrote that historical account. I need to do a little more research for a quote.
I don't know about that so I'd be very interested if you can find that....thanks!!
-
It's in Book One Chapter 11 of the Antiquities of the Jews -- 4. But God was much displeased at their impudent behavior, so that he both smote those men with blindness, and condemned the Sodomites to universal destruction. But Lot, upon God's informing him of the future destruction of the Sodomites, went away, taking with him his wife and daughters, who were two, and still virgins; for those that were betrothed to them were above the thoughts of going, and deemed that Lot's words were trifling. God then cast a thunderbolt upon the city, and set it on fire, with its inhabitants; and laid waste the country with the like burning, as I formerly said when I wrote the Jewish War. But Lot's wife continually turning back to view the city as she went from it, and being too nicely inquisitive what would become of it, although God had forbidden her so to do, was changed into a pillar of salt;for I have seen it, and it remains at this day. Now he and his daughters fled to a certain small place, encompassed with the fire, and settled in it: it is to this day called Zoar, for that is the word which the Hebrews use for a small thing. There it was that he lived a miserable life, on account of his having no company, and his want of provisions.
-
I think that most of the forum can now see that MOS stands alone in the belief that he's guarding a heavily fortified position. For those whose minds have not been corrupted by the virus of religious fundamentalism, it should be clear that MOS' arguments are as transparent, contradictory and absurd as the scripture that it is intended to defend - and defend for no reason other than his own self-preservation.
Not really. Just looks like the same 4 or so "good ole boys" yucking it up without much to back up what they say except "haha, sky god, you got him good with that zinger, etc." And the usual glossing over of his replies. Not really any substance to most of your posts. Sorry, but that's the reality. Luckily, it's pretty obvious so those who actually want to read/learn can skip over most of those.
-
My 10 and 12 year old kids just lectured their religious nutbag of an aunt on what bullshit creationism is and how there probably isn't too much difference between God and Santa Claus. 10 and 12. Grow the fuck up people.
-
Ok, you refuse to answer the question, but yet you require of me to consistently give you simple answers or "yes/no" answers.
That's fine.
i did answer the question very clearly
you are being petulant
your position is indefensible
your god is turning people into salt, wiping out the entire world and setting bears on children
cant defend that skipper you cant defend that at all
-
I love when you atheists high five each other!
It happens. Why? Atheism is based on the facts, on the science and on the evidence what has been found and proved to be facts. Religion is based on faith, and that has nothing to do with intelligence.
Just try to explain this: There were this bloke in this thread telling he had a near death experience five years earlier, and he is endlessly thankful for God who saved him. So nice..
What we know about God? He is ruler of everything, nothing happens against his will, and everything happens by his will. So facts of the matter is that in the first place God make him nearly dead, it was his will and doings, and then this same God save him by letting him live, and this make him endlessly thankful.
So why in the first place he has to nearly kill him? He has all the power, why didn't him make this bloke learn the love of God some other way, like showing him the true kindness of the people? Why there has to be nearly death experience before people can believe God? God take a hold of your throat and squeeze until you obey his will, and you are thankful? And if he kill your child, you say, it was a gods will, but if he only crush your child so he would be handicapped to the end of his life, you thank God for saving his life? So your God is like gangster who make you obey with violence, and beat the crap out of you when ever he feels the need, and would kill all your kind if he happen to find that funny thing to do to you?
So religiousness is more like a mental illness which prevents people to learn the facts of this world by filling their head with the bullshit, and this is obvious fact, if you look religious fanatics, like islamists.
-
It happens. Why? Atheism is based on the facts, on the science and on the evidence what has been found and proved to be facts. Religion is based on faith, and that has nothing to do with intelligence.
Just try to explain this: There were this bloke in this thread telling he had a near death experience five years earlier, and he is endlessly thankful for God who saved him. So nice..
What we know about God? He is ruler of everything, nothing happens against his will, and everything happens by his will. So facts of the matter is that in the first place God make him nearly dead, it was his will and doings, and then this same God save him by letting him live, and this make him endlessly thankful.
So why in the first place he has to nearly kill him? He has all the power, why didn't him make this bloke learn the love of God some other way, like showing him the true kindness of the people? Why there has to be nearly death experience before people can believe God? God take a hold of your throat and squeeze until you obey his will, and you are thankful? And if he kill your child, you say, i.t was a gods will, but if he only crush your child so he would be handicapped to the end of his life, you thank God for saving his life? So your God is like gangster who make you obey with violence, and beat the crap out of you when ever he feels the need, and would kill all your kind if he happen to find that funny thing to do to you?
So religiousness is more like a mental illness which prevents people to learn the facts of this world by filling their head with the bullshit, and this is obvious fact, if you look religious fanatics, like islamists.
So you asked 3 paragraphs worth of critical questions about this testimony coupled with flourishes of insults, but didn't bother to understand "the bloke" is me?
-
i did answer the question very clearly
you are being petulant
your position is indefensible
your god is turning people into salt, wiping out the entire world and setting bears on children
cant defend that skipper you cant defend that at all
Uh huh.
I gave you one question with two options. The option you've been defending and my option that gave a different perspective.
You dodged the question by inventing a third option,, abandoned your previous position and tacked on a couple red herrings hoping to divert me off topic and then called me childish.
Virtually every single atheist tells me something like "you provided no defense" after I've done exactly that. I know the routine.
-
My 10 and 12 year old kids just lectured my religious nutbag of an aunt on what bullshit creationism is and how there probably isn't too much difference between God and Santa Claus. 10 and 12. Grow the fuck up people.
Most believers aren't prepared to answer questions of nonbelievers....even kids cause deer in headlights responses. It's one of the reasons I do what I do.
Difference today is everyone has the potential to be an instant expert with google. Unfortunately there's a ton of bad information out there.
I don't always have great answers. I sometimes have no answer. Still I try to take the time to be honest.
-
So you asked 3 paragraphs worth of critical questions about this testimony coupled with flourishes of insults, but didn't bother to understand "the bloke" is me?
What difference it make, while in your tiny little mind truth is an insult anyway? It makes no difference how you fold it, I told the truth, and from your point of view it is just crap. How about this: I write a word of God, because it is a God's will that I wrote what I wrote. This has to be a fact, because some heavenly force is guiding my hands on the keyboard. Just prove otherwise.. ;D
-
What difference it make, while in your tiny little mind truth is an insult anyway? It makes no difference how you fold it, I told the truth, and from your point of view it is just crap. How about this: I write a word of God, because it is a God's will that I wrote what I wrote. This has to be a fact, because some heavenly force is guiding my hands on the keyboard. Just prove otherwise.. ;D
Are you an atheist Ropo? Please forgive me if you've answered this question before.
-
Uh huh.
I gave you one question with two options. The option you've been defending and my option that gave a different perspective.
You dodged the question by inventing a third option,, abandoned your previous position and tacked on a couple red herrings hoping to divert me off topic and then called me childish.
Virtually every single atheist tells me something like "you provided no defense" after I've done exactly that. I know the routine.
you mean like you did when i asked you the question
instead of saying yes or no
you changed all the parameters the age of the children etc
i am saying and listen clearly
some bald idiot who got called names by little kids
wrote that story to make himself feel better or to scare kids so much that they dont name call
bit like how other fairy stories work
is that straight forward enough for you
and yes it does fit in to the context of the bible where your god wipes out the entire planet apart from one family and turns people in to salt for the heinous crime of looking back
:)
-
@bigmc those are all fleshly, base viewpoints. When you open your mind and sincerely search for understanding then your eyes are opened and you see the spiritual reasoning behind each event recorded.
When someone's life is taken by God, it is divine judgment, not a whim. He reads hearts and minds and is NEVER unjust. Just because we may not understand something at first glance or feel something may be too harsh we do well to remember that his ways are always just and righteous.
She wasn't turned into a pillar of salt for the heinous crime of looking back, she was judged for longing for the wicked land that was to be destroyed and was told to hurry away and not to look back to the things behind.
Similarly, the boys in Elisha's case were punished for disrespecting God prophet and by extension, God himself as he appointed Elisha. The total number of boys in the group wasn't given just the number destroyed.
We are living in a time or mercy where we have time to repent and bring our lives into harmony with God's will. I'm gracious for the opportunity.
-
@bigmc those are all fleshly, base viewpoints. When you open your mind and sincerely search for understanding then your eyes are opened and you see the spiritual reasoning behind each event recorded.
When someone's life is taken by God, it is divine judgment, not a whim. He reads hearts and minds and is NEVER unjust. Just because we may not understand something at first glance or feel something may be too harsh we do well to remember that his ways are always just and righteous.
She wasn't turned into a pillar of salt for the heinous crime of looking back, she was judged for longing for the wicked land that was to be destroyed and was told to hurry away and not to look back to the things behind.
Similarly, the boys in Elisha's case were punished for disrespecting God prophet and by extension, God himself as he appointed Elisha. The total number of boys in the group wasn't given just the number destroyed.
We are living in a time or mercy where we have time to repent and bring our lives into harmony with God's will. I'm gracious for the opportunity.
this is probably the most ridiculous post i have ever read
are you trolling
-
@bigmc those are all fleshly, base viewpoints. When you open your mind and sincerely search for understanding then your eyes are opened and you see the spiritual reasoning behind each event recorded.
When someone's life is taken by God, it is divine judgment, not a whim. He reads hearts and minds and is NEVER unjust. Just because we may not understand something at first glance or feel something may be too harsh we do well to remember that his ways are always just and righteous.
She wasn't turned into a pillar of salt for the heinous crime of looking back, she was judged for longing for the wicked land that was to be destroyed and was told to hurry away and not to look back to the things behind.
Similarly, the boys in Elisha's case were punished for disrespecting God prophet and by extension, God himself as he appointed Elisha. The total number of boys in the group wasn't given just the number destroyed.
We are living in a time or mercy where we have time to repent and bring our lives into harmony with God's will. I'm gracious for the opportunity.
divine judgments of peace
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS1f1q2djSfvWvHdEjsMCURGuOGcdYUaV-LgfTzIMB4eCRpej5s-A)
-
divine judgments of peace
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS1f1q2djSfvWvHdEjsMCURGuOGcdYUaV-LgfTzIMB4eCRpej5s-A)
There's a reason why God gave that little child cancer. The bastard ate too many cookies and now he must pay
-
There's a reason why God gave that little child cancer. The bastard ate too many cookies and now he must pay
God doesn't give kids cancer. Not even close. He doesn't 'take children because he needs another angel', all of.that nonsense isn't true, it's things that people that doesn't understand truth say to try to explain death. James 1:13 says, "When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone."
Right now we are living in a time period where God is letting man prove beyond any doubt that he cannot successfully rule himself and that regardless of the situationamynof mankind will not turn away from him but stay faithful this proving Satan a liar. Those are the ones that will be given everlasting life on a paradise Earth when thisnsyst is destroyed and Satan is judged once and for all and God's name is vindicated and his sovereignty clearly established.
There is an answer from.the bible to every objection given in this thread. No matter what fleshly argument is brought up there is no rebuttal to truth and there is no way to prove.God unjust or wrong.
-
God doesn't give kids cancer. Not even close. He doesn't 'take children because he needs another angel', all of.that nonsense isn't true, it's things that people that doesn't understand truth say to try to explain death. James 1:13 says, "When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone."
Right now we are living in a time period where God is letting man prove beyond any doubt that he cannot successfully rule himself and that regardless of the situationamynof mankind will not turn away from him but stay faithful this proving Satan a liar. Those are the ones that will be given everlasting life on a paradise Earth when thisnsyst is destroyed and Satan is judged once and for all and God's name is vindicated and his sovereignty clearly established.
There is an answer from.the bible to every objection given in this thread. No matter what fleshly argument is brought up there is no rebuttal to truth and there is no way to prove.God unjust or wrong.
Fuck, you're an idiot. None of that nonsense made any sense and that little 'scripture' explains Jack shit as to why bad things happen to the innocent. The humans who wrote this fairytale booklet should've gotten a little more creative
-
God doesn't give kids cancer. Not even close. He doesn't 'take children because he needs another angel', all of.that nonsense isn't true, it's things that people that doesn't understand truth say to try to explain death. James 1:13 says, "When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone."
Right now we are living in a time period where God is letting man prove beyond any doubt that he cannot successfully rule himself and that regardless of the situationamynof mankind will not turn away from him but stay faithful this proving Satan a liar. Those are the ones that will be given everlasting life on a paradise Earth when thisnsyst is destroyed and Satan is judged once and for all and God's name is vindicated and his sovereignty clearly established.
There is an answer from.the bible to every objection given in this thread. No matter what fleshly argument is brought up there is no rebuttal to truth and there is no way to prove.God unjust or wrong.
read that back to yourself
then go and see a doctor
seriously
-
God doesn't give kids cancer. Not even close. He doesn't 'take children because he needs another angel', all of.that nonsense isn't true, it's things that people that doesn't understand truth say to try to explain death. James 1:13 says, "When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone."
Right now we are living in a time period where God is letting man prove beyond any doubt that he cannot successfully rule himself and that regardless of the situationamynof mankind will not turn away from him but stay faithful this proving Satan a liar. Those are the ones that will be given everlasting life on a paradise Earth when thisnsyst is destroyed and Satan is judged once and for all and God's name is vindicated and his sovereignty clearly established.
There is an answer from.the bible to every objection given in this thread. No matter what fleshly argument is brought up there is no rebuttal to truth and there is no way to prove.God unjust or wrong.
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/10/20/pastor.jpg)
-
God doesn't give kids cancer. Not even close. He doesn't 'take children because he needs another angel', all of.that nonsense isn't true, it's things that people that doesn't understand truth say to try to explain death. James 1:13 says, "When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone."
Right now we are living in a time period where God is letting man prove beyond any doubt that he cannot successfully rule himself and that regardless of the situationamynof mankind will not turn away from him but stay faithful this proving Satan a liar. Those are the ones that will be given everlasting life on a paradise Earth when thisnsyst is destroyed and Satan is judged once and for all and God's name is vindicated and his sovereignty clearly established.
There is an answer from.the bible to every objection given in this thread. No matter what fleshly argument is brought up there is no rebuttal to truth and there is no way to prove.God unjust or wrong.
We are travelling around in outer space, understand quantum theory yet we need the bible?
The book is written by men, making shit up like all humans do.
-
God doesn't give kids cancer.
Oh. So he just allows it to happen. That's so much better!
He doesn't 'take children because he needs another angel', all of.that nonsense isn't true, it's things that people that doesn't understand truth say to try to explain death. James 1:13 says, "When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone."
So then why does he take children? Surely, the God of love - who sent his Son to die for us so that we may live - would not wish for a toddler to die a painful death caused by cancer. And since, by your own assertion, he's "NEVER unjust" and doesn't take lives on a whim, I am forced to conclude that God's plan must have required that the toddler die, and that it must have happened exactly as it did. Which leads me to the inescapable conclusion that your God did indeed give the kid cancer, because what's a kid's life in the grand scheme of things, right?
There is an answer from.the bible to every objection given in this thread. No matter what fleshly argument is brought up there is no rebuttal to truth and there is no way to prove.God unjust or wrong.
And yet, so far plenty of important and pointed questions have gone unanswered... it's a mystery!
-
God doesn't give kids cancer. Not even close. He doesn't 'take children because he needs another angel', all of.that nonsense isn't true, it's things that people that doesn't understand truth say to try to explain death. James 1:13 says, "When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone."
Right now we are living in a time period where God is letting man prove beyond any doubt that he cannot successfully rule himself and that regardless of the situationamynof mankind will not turn away from him but stay faithful this proving Satan a liar. Those are the ones that will be given everlasting life on a paradise Earth when thisnsyst is destroyed and Satan is judged once and for all and God's name is vindicated and his sovereignty clearly established.
There is an answer from.the bible to every objection given in this thread. No matter what fleshly argument is brought up there is no rebuttal to truth and there is no way to prove.God unjust or wrong.
Thanks brah, really cleared it all up.
(http://6544-presscdn-0-22.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/poverty-in-africa.jpg)
(http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/mj-laughing.gif)
-
Comfort for Those Who Suffer
OVER the centuries, the question of why God allows suffering has challenged many philosophers and theologians. Some have asserted that since God is all-powerful, he must ultimately be responsible for suffering. The writer of The Clementine Homilies, an apocryphal second-century work, claimed that God rules the world with both hands. With his “left hand,” the Devil, he causes suffering and affliction, and with his “right hand,” Jesus, he saves and blesses.
Others, unable to accept that God could permit suffering even if he does not cause it, have chosen to deny that suffering exists. “Evil is but an illusion, and it has no real basis,” wrote Mary Baker Eddy. “If sin, sickness, and death were understood as nothingness, they would disappear.”—Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures.
In the wake of the tragic events of history, especially from the first world war until our day, many have reached the conclusion that God is simply unable to prevent suffering. “The Holocaust has, I think, dismissed any easy use of omnipotence as an attribute appropriate to God,” wrote Jewish scholar David Wolf Silverman. “If God is to be intelligible in some manner,” he added, “then His goodness must be compatible with the existence of evil, and this is only if He is not all-powerful.”
However, claims that God is somehow an accomplice to suffering, that he is unable to prevent it, or that suffering is a mere figment of our imagination offer scant comfort to those who suffer. And more important, such beliefs are utterly at odds with the just, dynamic, and caring God who is revealed in the pages of the Bible. (Job 34:10, 12; Jeremiah 32:17; 1 John 4:8) What, then, does the Bible say about the reason why suffering has been permitted?
How Did Suffering Begin?
God did not create humans to suffer. On the contrary, he endowed the first human couple, Adam and Eve, with perfect minds and bodies, prepared a delightful garden to serve as their home, and assigned them meaningful, satisfying work. (Genesis 1:27, 28, 31; 2:8) However, their continued happiness depended on their recognizing God’s rulership and his right to decide what was good and what was bad. That divine prerogative was represented by a tree called “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.” (Genesis 2:17) Adam and Eve would demonstrate their subjection to God if they obeyed his command not to eat from that tree.*
Tragically, Adam and Eve failed to obey God. A rebellious spirit creature, later identified as Satan the Devil, convinced Eve that it was not in her best interests to obey God. In fact, God was supposedly depriving her of something highly desirable: independence, the right to choose for herself what was good and what was bad. Satan claimed that if she ate of the tree, ‘her eyes were bound to be opened and she was bound to be like God, knowing good and bad.’ (Genesis 3:1-6; Revelation 12:9) Seduced by the prospect of independence, Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, and Adam soon did the same.
That same day, Adam and Eve began to experience the results of their rebellion. By rejecting divine rulership, they lost out on the protection and blessings that subjection to God had afforded them. God evicted them from Paradise and told Adam: “Cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground.” (Genesis 3:17, 19) Adam and Eve became subject to sickness, pain, aging, and death. Suffering had become a part of human experience.—Genesis 5:29.
Settling the Issue
Someone may ask, ‘Could God not have simply overlooked Adam and Eve’s sin?’ No, because that would have further undermined respect for his authority, perhaps encouraging future rebellions and resulting in even greater suffering. (Ecclesiastes 8:11) In addition, condoning such disobedience would have made God a party to wrongdoing. The Bible writer Moses reminds us: “God’s works are perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; righteous and upright is he.” (Deuteronomy 32:4, footnote) To be true to himself, God had to allow Adam and Eve to suffer the consequences of their disobedience.
Why did God not immediately destroy the first human couple along with Satan, the invisible instigator of their rebellion? He had the power to do so. Adam and Eve would not have produced offspring subject to a legacy of suffering and death. However, such a demonstration of divine power would not have proved the rightfulness of God’s authority over his intelligent creatures. Furthermore, had Adam and Eve died childless, that would have signaled the failure of God’s purpose to fill the earth with their perfect descendants. (Genesis 1:28) And “God is not like men . . . Whatever he promises, he does; he speaks, and it is done.”—Numbers 23:19, Today’s English Version.
In his perfect wisdom, Jehovah God decided to allow the rebellion to proceed for a limited time. The rebels would have ample opportunity to experience the effects of independence from God. History would demonstrate beyond doubt mankind’s need for divine guidance and the superiority of God’s rule over man’s or Satan’s. At the same time, God took steps to ensure that his original purpose for the earth would be fulfilled. He promised that a “seed,” or “offspring,” would come who would ‘bruise Satan in the head,’ eliminating once and for all his rebellion and its damaging effects.—Genesis 3:15, footnote.
Jesus Christ was that promised Seed. At 1 John 3:8, we read that “the Son of God was made manifest . . . to break up the works of the Devil.” This he did by laying down his perfect human life and paying the ransom price to redeem Adam’s children from inherited sin and death. (John 1:29; 1 Timothy 2:5, 6) Those who truly exercise faith in Jesus’ sacrifice are promised permanent relief from suffering. (John 3:16; Revelation 7:17) When will this happen?
An End to Suffering
The rejection of God’s authority has caused untold suffering. It is fitting, then, that God should use a special expression of his authority to end human suffering and accomplish his original purpose for the earth. Jesus mentioned this divine provision when he taught his followers to pray: “Our Father in the heavens, . . . let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth.”—Matthew 6:9, 10.
The time that God has allowed for humans to experiment with self-government is about to end. In fulfillment of Bible prophecy, his Kingdom was established in the heavens in 1914 with Jesus Christ as its King.* Shortly, it will crush and put an end to all human governments.—Daniel 2:44.
During his brief earthly ministry, Jesus provided a foregleam of the blessings that the restoration of divine rule will bring to humanity. The Gospels provide evidence that Jesus showed compassion for members of human society who were poor and discriminated against. He healed the sick, fed the hungry, and resurrected the dead. Even the forces of nature obeyed his voice. (Matthew 11:5; Mark 4:37-39; Luke 9:11-16) Imagine what Jesus will accomplish when he uses the cleansing effect of his ransom sacrifice to benefit all obedient mankind! The Bible promises that by means of Christ’s rule, God “will wipe out every tear from [mankind’s] eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore.”—Revelation 21:4.
Comfort for Those Who Suffer
How heartening it is to know that our loving and all-powerful God, Jehovah, cares for us and that he will shortly bring relief to mankind! Usually, a seriously sick patient willingly accepts treatment that will cure him even if it is very painful. In the same way, if we know that God’s way of handling matters will bring eternal blessings, that knowledge can sustain us no matter what temporary difficulties we face.
Ricardo, mentioned in the preceding article, is one who has learned to draw comfort from the Bible’s promises. “After my wife’s death, I felt a strong desire to isolate myself,” he recalls, “but I soon realized that this would not bring my wife back and would only worsen my emotional state.” Instead, Ricardo stuck to his routine of attending Christian meetings and sharing the Bible’s message with others. “As I felt Jehovah’s loving support and noticed how he answered my prayers in seemingly small matters, I drew closer to him,” says Ricardo. “It was this awareness of God’s love that enabled me to endure what certainly was the worst trial I had ever faced.” He admits: “I still miss my wife very much, but I now firmly believe that nothing Jehovah allows to happen can cause us lasting harm.”
Do you, like Ricardo and millions of others, yearn for the time when mankind’s present sufferings “will not be called to mind, neither will they come up into the heart”? (Isaiah 65:17) Be assured that the blessings of God’s Kingdom are within your grasp if you follow the Bible’s advice: “Search for Jehovah . . . while he may be found. Call to him while he proves to be near.”—Isaiah 55:6.
To help you do this, make the reading and careful study of God’s Word a priority in your life. Get to know God and the one whom he sent forth, Jesus Christ. Strive to live in harmony with God’s standards and thus show that you are willing to submit to his sovereignty. Such a course will bring you greater happiness now despite the tests that you may have to face. And in the future, it will result in your enjoying life in a world free of suffering.—John 17:3.
[Footnotes]
In its footnote to Genesis 2:17, The Jerusalem Bible explains “the knowledge of good and evil” as “the power of deciding . . . what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being.” It adds: “The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty.”
For a detailed discussion of Bible prophecy relating to 1914, see chapters 10 and 11 of the book Knowledge That Leads to Everlasting Life, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
[Box on page 6, 7]
HOW CAN WE COPE WITH SUFFERING?
“Throw all your anxiety upon [God].” (1 Peter 5:7) Feelings of confusion, anger, and abandonment are only natural when we endure suffering or see someone we love suffer. Still, be assured that Jehovah understands our feelings. (Exodus 3:7; Isaiah 63:9) Like faithful men of old, we can open our heart to him and express our doubts and anxieties. (Exodus 5:22; Job 10:1-3; Jeremiah 14:19; Habakkuk 1:13) He may not miraculously remove our trials, but in response to our heartfelt prayers, he can grant us the wisdom and strength to deal with them.—James 1:5, 6.
“Do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you.” (1 Peter 4:12, New International Version) Here Peter is speaking of persecution, but his words apply equally well to any suffering a believer may endure. Humans suffer privation, sickness, and loss. The Bible says that “time and unforeseen occurrence” befall everyone. (Ecclesiastes 9:11) Such things are part of the human condition at present. Realizing this will help us to deal with suffering and misfortune when it occurs. (1 Peter 5:9) Most of all, recalling the assurance that “the eyes of Jehovah are toward the righteous ones, and his ears are toward their cry for help” will especially be a source of comfort.—Psalm 34:15; Proverbs 15:3; 1 Peter 3:12.
“Rejoice in the hope.” (Romans 12:12) Instead of dwelling on lost happiness, we can meditate on God’s promise to end all suffering. (Ecclesiastes 7:10) This well-founded hope will protect us as a helmet protects the head. Hope cushions the blows in life and helps to ensure that they do not prove fatal to our mental, emotional, or spiritual health.—1 Thessalonians 5:8.
[Picture on page 5]
Adam and Eve rejected divine rulership
[Picture on page 7]
God promises a world free of suffering
-
divine judgments of peace
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS1f1q2djSfvWvHdEjsMCURGuOGcdYUaV-LgfTzIMB4eCRpej5s-A)
Fuck, you're an idiot. None of that nonsense made any sense and that little 'scripture' explains Jack shit as to why bad things happen to the innocent. The humans who wrote this fairytale booklet should've gotten a little more creative
Thanks brah, really cleared it all up.
(http://6544-presscdn-0-22.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/poverty-in-africa.jpg)
(http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/mj-laughing.gif)
It's the effect of our sinful choices that have brought about things like pain and fear upon the world. We're subjected to evil, disease, famine, disasters, etc...all the results of our sin. This world and it inhabitants exist in a perpetual state of decay leading to death because of sin.
The world calls this the problem of evil, but attribute it to God. Many accept no responsibility and certainly aren't accountable for their actions.
God entrusted the whole of creation to humanity...to act as stewards and govern it. 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 do 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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
-
Whenever I see pictures of dying kids, I just smile and think "how are you going to dazzle me next, Lord?"
You can mock me all you want...I'm only blessed when you do.
-
Comfort for Those Who Suffer
OVER the centuries, the question of why God allows suffering has challenged many philosophers and theologians. Some have asserted that since God is all-powerful, he must ultimately be responsible for suffering. The writer of The Clementine Homilies, an apocryphal second-century work, claimed that God rules the world with both hands. With his “left hand,” the Devil, he causes suffering and affliction, and with his “right hand,” Jesus, he saves and blesses.
Others, unable to accept that God could permit suffering even if he does not cause it, have chosen to deny that suffering exists. “Evil is but an illusion, and it has no real basis,” wrote Mary Baker Eddy. “If sin, sickness, and death were understood as nothingness, they would disappear.”—Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures.
In the wake of the tragic events of history, especially from the first world war until our day, many have reached the conclusion that God is simply unable to prevent suffering. “The Holocaust has, I think, dismissed any easy use of omnipotence as an attribute appropriate to God,” wrote Jewish scholar David Wolf Silverman. “If God is to be intelligible in some manner,” he added, “then His goodness must be compatible with the existence of evil, and this is only if He is not all-powerful.”
However, claims that God is somehow an accomplice to suffering, that he is unable to prevent it, or that suffering is a mere figment of our imagination offer scant comfort to those who suffer. And more important, such beliefs are utterly at odds with the just, dynamic, and caring God who is revealed in the pages of the Bible. (Job 34:10, 12; Jeremiah 32:17; 1 John 4:8) What, then, does the Bible say about the reason why suffering has been permitted?
How Did Suffering Begin?
God did not create humans to suffer. On the contrary, he endowed the first human couple, Adam and Eve, with perfect minds and bodies, prepared a delightful garden to serve as their home, and assigned them meaningful, satisfying work. (Genesis 1:27, 28, 31; 2:8) However, their continued happiness depended on their recognizing God’s rulership and his right to decide what was good and what was bad. That divine prerogative was represented by a tree called “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.” (Genesis 2:17) Adam and Eve would demonstrate their subjection to God if they obeyed his command not to eat from that tree.*
Tragically, Adam and Eve failed to obey God. A rebellious spirit creature, later identified as Satan the Devil, convinced Eve that it was not in her best interests to obey God. In fact, God was supposedly depriving her of something highly desirable: independence, the right to choose for herself what was good and what was bad. Satan claimed that if she ate of the tree, ‘her eyes were bound to be opened and she was bound to be like God, knowing good and bad.’ (Genesis 3:1-6; Revelation 12:9) Seduced by the prospect of independence, Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, and Adam soon did the same.
That same day, Adam and Eve began to experience the results of their rebellion. By rejecting divine rulership, they lost out on the protection and blessings that subjection to God had afforded them. God evicted them from Paradise and told Adam: “Cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground.” (Genesis 3:17, 19) Adam and Eve became subject to sickness, pain, aging, and death. Suffering had become a part of human experience.—Genesis 5:29.
Settling the Issue
Someone may ask, ‘Could God not have simply overlooked Adam and Eve’s sin?’ No, because that would have further undermined respect for his authority, perhaps encouraging future rebellions and resulting in even greater suffering. (Ecclesiastes 8:11) In addition, condoning such disobedience would have made God a party to wrongdoing. The Bible writer Moses reminds us: “God’s works are perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; righteous and upright is he.” (Deuteronomy 32:4, footnote) To be true to himself, God had to allow Adam and Eve to suffer the consequences of their disobedience.
Why did God not immediately destroy the first human couple along with Satan, the invisible instigator of their rebellion? He had the power to do so. Adam and Eve would not have produced offspring subject to a legacy of suffering and death. However, such a demonstration of divine power would not have proved the rightfulness of God’s authority over his intelligent creatures. Furthermore, had Adam and Eve died childless, that would have signaled the failure of God’s purpose to fill the earth with their perfect descendants. (Genesis 1:28) And “God is not like men . . . Whatever he promises, he does; he speaks, and it is done.”—Numbers 23:19, Today’s English Version.
In his perfect wisdom, Jehovah God decided to allow the rebellion to proceed for a limited time. The rebels would have ample opportunity to experience the effects of independence from God. History would demonstrate beyond doubt mankind’s need for divine guidance and the superiority of God’s rule over man’s or Satan’s. At the same time, God took steps to ensure that his original purpose for the earth would be fulfilled. He promised that a “seed,” or “offspring,” would come who would ‘bruise Satan in the head,’ eliminating once and for all his rebellion and its damaging effects.—Genesis 3:15, footnote.
Jesus Christ was that promised Seed. At 1 John 3:8, we read that “the Son of God was made manifest . . . to break up the works of the Devil.” This he did by laying down his perfect human life and paying the ransom price to redeem Adam’s children from inherited sin and death. (John 1:29; 1 Timothy 2:5, 6) Those who truly exercise faith in Jesus’ sacrifice are promised permanent relief from suffering. (John 3:16; Revelation 7:17) When will this happen?
An End to Suffering
The rejection of God’s authority has caused untold suffering. It is fitting, then, that God should use a special expression of his authority to end human suffering and accomplish his original purpose for the earth. Jesus mentioned this divine provision when he taught his followers to pray: “Our Father in the heavens, . . . let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth.”—Matthew 6:9, 10.
The time that God has allowed for humans to experiment with self-government is about to end. In fulfillment of Bible prophecy, his Kingdom was established in the heavens in 1914 with Jesus Christ as its King.* Shortly, it will crush and put an end to all human governments.—Daniel 2:44.
During his brief earthly ministry, Jesus provided a foregleam of the blessings that the restoration of divine rule will bring to humanity. The Gospels provide evidence that Jesus showed compassion for members of human society who were poor and discriminated against. He healed the sick, fed the hungry, and resurrected the dead. Even the forces of nature obeyed his voice. (Matthew 11:5; Mark 4:37-39; Luke 9:11-16) Imagine what Jesus will accomplish when he uses the cleansing effect of his ransom sacrifice to benefit all obedient mankind! The Bible promises that by means of Christ’s rule, God “will wipe out every tear from [mankind’s] eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore.”—Revelation 21:4.
Comfort for Those Who Suffer
How heartening it is to know that our loving and all-powerful God, Jehovah, cares for us and that he will shortly bring relief to mankind! Usually, a seriously sick patient willingly accepts treatment that will cure him even if it is very painful. In the same way, if we know that God’s way of handling matters will bring eternal blessings, that knowledge can sustain us no matter what temporary difficulties we face.
Ricardo, mentioned in the preceding article, is one who has learned to draw comfort from the Bible’s promises. “After my wife’s death, I felt a strong desire to isolate myself,” he recalls, “but I soon realized that this would not bring my wife back and would only worsen my emotional state.” Instead, Ricardo stuck to his routine of attending Christian meetings and sharing the Bible’s message with others. “As I felt Jehovah’s loving support and noticed how he answered my prayers in seemingly small matters, I drew closer to him,” says Ricardo. “It was this awareness of God’s love that enabled me to endure what certainly was the worst trial I had ever faced.” He admits: “I still miss my wife very much, but I now firmly believe that nothing Jehovah allows to happen can cause us lasting harm.”
Do you, like Ricardo and millions of others, yearn for the time when mankind’s present sufferings “will not be called to mind, neither will they come up into the heart”? (Isaiah 65:17) Be assured that the blessings of God’s Kingdom are within your grasp if you follow the Bible’s advice: “Search for Jehovah . . . while he may be found. Call to him while he proves to be near.”—Isaiah 55:6.
To help you do this, make the reading and careful study of God’s Word a priority in your life. Get to know God and the one whom he sent forth, Jesus Christ. Strive to live in harmony with God’s standards and thus show that you are willing to submit to his sovereignty. Such a course will bring you greater happiness now despite the tests that you may have to face. And in the future, it will result in your enjoying life in a world free of suffering.—John 17:3.
[Footnotes]
In its footnote to Genesis 2:17, The Jerusalem Bible explains “the knowledge of good and evil” as “the power of deciding . . . what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being.” It adds: “The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty.”
For a detailed discussion of Bible prophecy relating to 1914, see chapters 10 and 11 of the book Knowledge That Leads to Everlasting Life, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
[Box on page 6, 7]
HOW CAN WE COPE WITH SUFFERING?
“Throw all your anxiety upon [God].” (1 Peter 5:7) Feelings of confusion, anger, and abandonment are only natural when we endure suffering or see someone we love suffer. Still, be assured that Jehovah understands our feelings. (Exodus 3:7; Isaiah 63:9) Like faithful men of old, we can open our heart to him and express our doubts and anxieties. (Exodus 5:22; Job 10:1-3; Jeremiah 14:19; Habakkuk 1:13) He may not miraculously remove our trials, but in response to our heartfelt prayers, he can grant us the wisdom and strength to deal with them.—James 1:5, 6.
“Do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you.” (1 Peter 4:12, New International Version) Here Peter is speaking of persecution, but his words apply equally well to any suffering a believer may endure. Humans suffer privation, sickness, and loss. The Bible says that “time and unforeseen occurrence” befall everyone. (Ecclesiastes 9:11) Such things are part of the human condition at present. Realizing this will help us to deal with suffering and misfortune when it occurs. (1 Peter 5:9) Most of all, recalling the assurance that “the eyes of Jehovah are toward the righteous ones, and his ears are toward their cry for help” will especially be a source of comfort.—Psalm 34:15; Proverbs 15:3; 1 Peter 3:12.
“Rejoice in the hope.” (Romans 12:12) Instead of dwelling on lost happiness, we can meditate on God’s promise to end all suffering. (Ecclesiastes 7:10) This well-founded hope will protect us as a helmet protects the head. Hope cushions the blows in life and helps to ensure that they do not prove fatal to our mental, emotional, or spiritual health.—1 Thessalonians 5:8.
[Picture on page 5]
Adam and Eve rejected divine rulership
[Picture on page 7]
God promises a world free of suffering
I appreciate you standing strong for your faith....God bless you.
Unfortunately the more confident and steadfast we are in our faithful walk with Christ the more this angers and intimidates some folks (especially staunch atheists).
I expect that virtually everything I just wrote will be dismissed and mocked. Or attempts will be made to reverse it trading evil for good and good for evil and absolve man of any and all accountability in the process.
Yet, despite their mockery and ridicule we are blessed.
Me personally, I just try and remember that it's about bringing souls to Christ.....not winning some silly debate. I don't have all the answers, but the ones I do have I share.
Hatred of God is rampant today and increasing, but I don't return the hate. I share the gospel of Christ because I do care about folks.
-
In this life we’re meant to go through the fire, but that fire is cleansing if you’re aligned with Christ.
(http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsS/16266-16972.gif)
The Lord works in mysterious ways.
-
(http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsS/16266-16972.gif)
The Lord works in mysterious ways.
Keyser Soze ;D
-
It's the effect of our sinful choices that have brought about things like pain and fear upon the world. We're subjected to evil, disease, famine, disasters, etc...all the results of our sin. This world and it inhabitants exist in a perpetual state of decay leading to death because of sin.
The world calls this the problem of evil, but attribute it to God. Many accept no responsibility and certainly aren't accountable for their actions.
God entrusted the whole of creation to humanity...to act as stewards and govern it. 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 do 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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
(http://static1.fjcdn.com/comments/4667753+_c8a983fea8cf50ea44cd0459fefe708e.jpg)
-
My 10 and 12 year old kids just lectured their religious nutbag of an aunt on what bullshit creationism is and how there probably isn't too much difference between God and Santa Claus. 10 and 12. Grow the fuck up people.
Why do I have the feeling that they will be lecturing you in the future. Kids don't "lecture" adults, it shows a lack of respect. This is allowed, cultivated, and grown. Yet GBers sit here call MOS names, laugh at him, laugh at Muslims---yet those who follow Christianity and Islam, Judaism, and other religions, and non-western cultures tend to have this "thing" about respecting ones elders.
-
Why do I have the feeling that they will be lecturing you in the future. Kids don't "lecture" adults, it shows a lack of respect. This is allowed, cultivated, and grown. Yet GBers sit here call MOS names, laugh at him, laugh at Muslims---yet those who follow Christianity and Islam, Judaism, and other religions, and non-western cultures tend to have this "thing" about respecting ones elders.
In Islam they also have this "thing" where they marry pre-pubescent girls.
Some evangelical christians also have this "thing" where they beat their kids with canes.
-
In Islam they also have this "thing" where they marry pre-pubescent girls.
Some evangelical christians also have this "thing" where they beat their kids with canes.
I remember in my early school years we got caned. Infact i remember before our Dinner we had to say Grace..a prayer. The Head master was like the pink Floyd video "another brick in the wall" with his black cloak and hat. My friend got caned because when praying he laughed. I got caned one time cause i farted out loud ;D
-
Unfortunately the more confident and steadfast we are in our faithful walk with Christ the more this angers and intimidates some folks (especially staunch atheists).
I'm sure you'd like to think so, however, the "staunch atheists" do not get angry with you for the most part and when they do it fizzles out quickly. You are leaving yourself wide open to trolling most of the time and most of the time you are ignored while people take the time to argue your points instead.
I think you are projecting your anger and intimidation on others. You are the one who is intimidated. Don't forget, you have had your share of meltdowns.
I expect that virtually everything I just wrote will be dismissed and mocked. Or attempts will be made to reverse it trading evil for good and good for evil and absolve man of any and all accountability in the process.
Again you exaggerate as people do not disagree with you for the sake of disagreeing. What you write is often treated as absurd as it is predicated on the existence of your God, which you cannot prove to someone who does not already believe in him.
You can build an elaborate castle in the sand, but in the end you've only build it in sand.
Me personally, I just try and remember that it's about bringing souls to Christ.....not winning some silly debate. I don't have all the answers, but the ones I do have I share.
I commend you on engaging in discussion and even though I consider you an otherwise decent guy I often find your answers highly nonsensical and absurd. You have defended God's behaviour in the Old Testament with sick rationalizations that are compatible with Bronze Age ethics. I ignored that whole discussion as for me it was more like a thought experiment, like debating the behaviour of Zeus from ancient Greek mythology when he disguised himself as a white bull and abducted a chick called Europa.
Pure mythology, the folklore of the times.
Hatred of God is rampant today and increasing, but I don't return the hate. I share the gospel of Christ because I do care about folks.
Thanks for caring about us, but you cannot hate what does not exist, it would be absurd.
-
It happens. Why? Atheism is based on the facts, on the science and on the evidence what has been found and proved to be facts. Religion is based on faith, and that has nothing to do with intelligence.
Just try to explain this: There were this bloke in this thread telling he had a near death experience five years earlier, and he is endlessly thankful for God who saved him. So nice..
What we know about God? He is ruler of everything, nothing happens against his will, and everything happens by his will. So facts of the matter is that in the first place God make him nearly dead, it was his will and doings, and then this same God save him by letting him live, and this make him endlessly thankful.
So why in the first place he has to nearly kill him? He has all the power, why didn't him make this bloke learn the love of God some other way, like showing him the true kindness of the people? Why there has to be nearly death experience before people can believe God? God take a hold of your throat and squeeze until you obey his will, and you are thankful? And if he kill your child, you say, it was a gods will, but if he only crush your child so he would be handicapped to the end of his life, you thank God for saving his life? So your God is like gangster who make you obey with violence, and beat the crap out of you when ever he feels the need, and would kill all your kind if he happen to find that funny thing to do to you?
So religiousness is more like a mental illness which prevents people to learn the facts of this world by filling their head with the bullshit, and this is obvious fact, if you look religious fanatics, like islamists.
Well, I would say that religion is based on other factors like the need to explain the world around them, imagination, dellusions, need for power, etc. Faith is a secondary requirement after a certain belief has been proposed. You need to ask potential believers to believe blindly because of the lack of evidence in supernatural beings. This is how faith is created.
-
I'm sure you'd like to think so, however, the "staunch atheists" do not get angry with you for the most part and when they do it fizzles out quickly. You are leaving yourself wide open to trolling most of the time and most of the time you are ignored while people take the time to argue your points instead.
I think you are projecting your anger and intimidation on others. You are the one who is intimidated. Don't forget, you have had your share of meltdowns.
Again you exaggerate as people do not disagree with you for the sake of disagreeing. What you write is often treated as absurd as it is predicated on the existence of your God, which you cannot prove to someone who does not already believe in him.
You can build an elaborate castle in the sand, but in the end you've only build it in sand.
I commend you on engaging in discussion and even though I consider you an otherwise decent guy I often find your answers highly nonsensical and absurd. You have defended God's behaviour in the Old Testament with sick rationalizations that are compatible with Bronze Age ethics. I ignored that whole discussion as for me it was more like a thought experiment, like debating the behaviour of Zeus from ancient Greek mythology when he disguised himself as a white bull and abducted a chick called Europa.
Pure mythology, the folklore of the times.
Thanks for caring about us, but you cannot hate what does not exist, it would be absurd.
Thanks for your input!
-
mos
serious question
why do you keep using the word intimidate
again its the kind of thing a bully would do
if anyone is getting defensive its you
with you atheist high five post etc
all the non believers are doing is challenging your beliefs with facts and logic
you are being a prick seriously
grow up and stop patting yourself on the back like you are better than anyone else
you are a man who believes in a fairy tail because you are "intimidated" by your mortality
-
mos
serious question
why do you keep using the word intimidate
again its the kind of thing a bully would do
if anyone is getting defensive its you
with you atheist high five post etc
all the non believers are doing is challenging your beliefs with facts and logic
you are being a prick seriously
grow up and stop patting yourself on the back like you are better than anyone else
you are a man who believes in a fairy tail because you are "intimidated" by your mortality
I've said this once and I will say it again: MOS is extremely condescending, arrogant and rude. The difference is that he hides these traits behind religion, so it comes off as "loving" and "compassionate." It is the furthest thing from the truth.
-
mos
serious question
why do you keep using the word intimidate
again its the kind of thing a bully would do
if anyone is getting defensive its you
with you atheist high five post etc
all the non believers are doing is challenging your beliefs with facts and logic
you are being a prick seriously
grow up and stop patting yourself on the back like you are better than anyone else
you are a man who believes in a fairy tail because you are "intimidated" by your mortality
Well, I've been told it's initimidating and it's demonstrated via a simple pattern of behavior from God haters.....it's light mockery, serious discussion, frustration over discussion, heavier mockery.
It's hard to make a case for bullying when it's typically 5 on 1.
I defend my faith constantly because someone has to.
The high five references are basically about SF that comes in randomly to throw gas on the fire and "RA! RA! Go team!" stuff. (sure enough there it is right above my post right on cue ;D).
You challenge with opinions of scripture and pure subjectivity. Nevermind the atheist doesn't understand the things of God or are they able to discern scripture....I demonstrate that repeatedly for y'all....constantly correcting things.
Whether I'm sugary sweet or direct and discussing sin the level of mockery has never changed....you don't like the topic and that I don't get stymied with the biblical objections.
I'm not better than anyone...I'm nobody. I'm certainly not smarter than anyone....I just do my best. I'm a wretched sinner saved by grace. I owe everything to Jesus Christ and I share that with others so they might come to know Christ as well.
As I told you last week, you had my testimony backwards via the "mortality" cliche. I was afraid of living not dying. Lord drew me to him and rescued and changed me. I share that change today.
-
so mos it wasn't patronizing and condescending
when you said i was out of my depth discussing this
-
I am not "high fiving" Bigmc.
I have said this hundred times about you. Deep down, yes, I do feel like you are arrogant, rude, and condescending. You just hide it behind your religion, so it comes off as "loving" and "compassionate."
But keep telling yourself that. :D :D
-
so mos it wasn't patronizing and condescending
when you said i was out of my depth discussing this
It's straight from scripture:
1 Corinthians 2:10-16
10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.
-
It's straight from scripture:
1 Corinthians 2:10-16
10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.
i asked for your opinion not a copy and paste
are you allowed independent thoughts and opinions
or are you only allowed to quote the book
-
i asked for your opinion not a copy and paste
are you allowed independent thoughts and opinions
or are you only allowed to quote the book
I represent Christ. I represent "the book". Christ and "the book" are me and my opinions are based from them.
I have no shame or reservation in this whatsoever.
Of course I'm allowed independent thoughts and opinions, but I choose to align myself with Christ.
-
I represent Christ. I represent "the book". Christ and "the book" are me and my opinions are based from them.
I have no shame or reservation in this whatsoever.
Of course I'm allowed independent thoughts and opinions, but I choose to align myself with Christ.
do you accept its condescending and patronizing to call me out my depth
in discussing these issues
normally someone losing the intellectual argument would stoop that low
its genuinely offensive to speak to people like that and hardly christian
your lack of tolerance is shameful
-
do you accept its condescending and patronizing to call me out my depth
in discussing these issues
normally someone losing the intellectual argument would stoop that low
its genuinely offensive to speak to people like that and hardly christian
your lack of tolerance is shameful
It's straight from scripture:
1 Corinthians 2:10-16
10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.
If it were a level playing field I'd say yes, but that isn't the case. That doesn't mean I'm better or smarter than you or that you're a bad person...I'm not and you aren't. Just means the things of God aren't understood by unbelievers, God haters, atheists, anti-theists, epistivists, agnostics, etc.... So no I do not.
I have no expectation that any atheist on this board would agree with this passage. I'm also not concerned about condescension....not my intention....just is what it is.
I've been insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted.......for years now.
And insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted and insulted.......EVERY BIT justified by "hey if you can't accept the truth then you don't know what an insult is either".
Now, I've received a few apologies in the past so I won't dismiss that, but it ALWAYS goes right back to what it was (if not worse).
When I stand firm in my beliefs, when I give explanations of scripture that contradict objections, when I demonstrate to folks how they misunderstand it really sets them off. What am I supposed to do though? Yield and say, "yeah, maybe you're right."
-
It's the effect of our sinful choices that have brought about things like pain and fear upon the world. We're subjected to evil, disease, famine, disasters, etc...all the results of our sin. This world and it inhabitants exist in a perpetual state of decay leading to death because of sin.
Ah yes... of course... those little one and two year old kids in Africa are starving because of their "sinful choices." Just like the babies born with congenital heart defects. And the infants with cancer. And so on, and so forth... Yes, it's their own damn fault. If only they had accepted Jesus, then they wouldn't have be malnourished, or face brutal chemotherapy and radiation.
The world calls this the problem of evil, but attribute it to God. Many accept no responsibility and certainly aren't accountable for their actions.
Even if people have a share - even the lion's share - of the burden, that doesn't absolve your God for any responsibility. Living, breating human beings are suffering this very second, having committed no crime other than to be born into this world. This is something that your God could have prevented to begin with, and something the could stop at any time but he chooses not to. And not only does he not accept responsibility, he has groupies - like you - that think he's holy, just and a moral authority that is beyond reproach.
God entrusted the whole of creation to humanity...to act as stewards and govern it.
And he did that knowing that we'd be shitty stewards and that his creation would suffer for it.
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.
It must not have been a very good creation since... well... here we are.
Begs the question: given we know the potential for evil and outright engagement of evil within ourselves why do we continue to allow it?
It also begs the question why does God, who apparently hates this, continue to allow it, when it is within his power to conclusively end 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 you had the power to stop a rape from happening but chose not to use that power, should you not be, at least, shamed by the rest of us? If your God has that same ability, why should we use a different
The reality is, it’s God’s good creation which is the platform for resolving the problem of evil.
No. Assuming your God exists, then God himself created the problem of evil to begin with and now allows it to continue to exist and fester.
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.
It's unclear how Jesus "leaving eternity" and "entering his finite creation" helps anything, or why such a convoluted plan was even necessary. Why not simply make evil go away, forgive everyone, and we can all just remember this horrible human experience and laugh about it while sipping mojitos at the nudist section of Paradise beach?
God wants folks to come unto him that truly want to be with him.
According to Christian dogma, he knows everything, which means he knows what it would take for me to believe and want to be with him. Yet he doesn't take action. Which leads me to conclude that either he doesn't desire fellowship with me or that he simply doesn't exist.
It’s our choice to accept or reject him that provides the purest pathway to eliminating evil.
Is a choice made under duress really a choice? "Believe in me and be rewarded eternally, or else forever suffer!"
Our autonomy ends when we enter eternity.
If your God is omnipotent and omniscient, then we never had any autonomy to begin with. And if he's not omnipotent and omniscient, then he's not the God of the Bible.
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).
What are "infinite ramifications"? Are they countably (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CountablyInfinite.html) or uncountably infinite (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/UncountablyInfinite.html)? How are they different from "finite" ramifications?
-
I remember in my early school years we got caned. Infact i remember before our Dinner we had to say Grace..a prayer. The Head master was like the pink Floyd video "another brick in the wall" with his black cloak and hat. My friend got caned because when praying he laughed. I got caned one time cause i farted out loud ;D
Did the end of said cane make entry into your anus?
-
MOS has been told of my upbringing and subsequent and unwavering pledge of belief in God. That indeed there was a time in my 20s when I contemplated a life in the priesthood.
That I surrendered with the entirety of my being to my faith.
And ... nothing.
Then something DID happen: my intellect and capacity for reason began to clear the God fog. With each passing year I became more and more aware of the brainwashing I'd suffered. The clarity exposed the madness of religion and its inherent evil.
So what does MOS do when I detail my experience?
He says I'm full of shit.
Guess God figured, Fuck that Fortress guy! He believes in me. He loves me. He pledges his "soul" to me. Fuck 'im!
The problem is, if those suffering delusions brought on by mental illness can't emerge from the fantasy on their own strength and intellect, they're lost forever. No amount of reason from others can help them recognize their madness.
Wonder what MOS's fate will be.
-
It's straight from scripture:
1 Corinthians 2:10-16
10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.
So even in Paul's lifetime there were people ("natural men") who thought theism was bullshit.
-
So even in Paul's lifetime there were people ("natural men") who thought theism was bullshit.
Also rendered as "physical" man as opposed to "spiritual" man.
-
MOS has been told of my upbringing and subsequent and unwavering pledge of belief in God. That indeed there was a time in my 20s when I contemplated a life in the priesthood.
That I surrendered with the entirety of my being to my faith.
And ... nothing.
Then something DID happen: my intellect and capacity for reason began to clear the God fog. With each passing year I became more and more aware of the brainwashing I'd suffered. The clarity exposed the madness of religion and its inherent evil.
So what does MOS do when I detail my experience?
He says I'm full of shit.
Guess God figured, Fuck that Fortress guy! He believes in me. He loves me. He pledges his "soul" to me. Fuck 'im!
The problem is, if those suffering delusions brought on by mental illness can't emerge from the fantasy on their own strength and intellect, they're lost forever. No amount of reason from others can help them recognize their madness.
Wonder what MOS's fate will be.
You lost faith, it happens, a lot.. doesn't require strength or anything special. And for religion being evil, well if there's no God, by who's standard is something evil?
-
You lost faith, it happens, a lot.. doesn't require strength or anything special. And for religion being evil, well if there's no God, by who's standard is something evil?
Religion is unnecessary and sometimes antithetical to morality. See previous pages for biblical examples where the Christian God is anything but moral.
Morals are formed by people, not divine beings. There are no divine beings. The moral code of religions such as Christianity reflect the location and time period of the life of Jesus. The moral values discussed in the Bible were already established before Jesus was alive. Christian societies and cultures would later use the bible in forming their moral code. This does not mean that God created morality. People who do not believe in God or have a religion can still have strong morals because people, not gods, create them.
-
Religion is unnecessary and sometimes antithetical to morality. See previous pages for biblical examples where the Christian God is anything but moral.
Morals are formed by people, not divine beings. There are no divine beings. The moral code of religions such as Christianity reflect the location and time period of the life of Jesus. The moral values discussed in the Bible were already established before Jesus was alive. Christian societies and cultures would later use the bible in forming their moral code. This does not mean that God created morality. People who do not believe in God or have a religion can still have strong morals because people, not gods, create them.
So then 'moral codes' are a highly subjective and individual thing hardly worthy of a debate?
-
MOS, Christ never existed so how do you "get to know him?"
Is it like getting to know Santa?
-
So then 'moral codes' are a highly subjective and individual thing hardly worthy of a debate?
Cultural, not individual. And they evolve. Subjective? Up to a point.
-
MOS, Christ never existed so how do you "get to know him?"
Is it like getting to know Santa?
Guess I'm just silly.
I'm checking out of this thread.....50 pages is good for me.
-
So then 'moral codes' are a highly subjective and individual thing hardly worthy of a debate?
As subjective as murdering someone is bad, logic and reason dictate morals, this is a fact. It's not something that hasn't been studied to death ::) only religious people seem unaware of this. It is the reason morals have changed over time, why countries who rely on logic (secular) have far "better" morals then highly religious countries (muslim for example).
Being subjective doesn't mean something isn't worthy of debate, in what world does that make sense?
Your gods moral codes are subjective, there is no list of good and bad things to adhere to, logic dictates action. Situations are nuanced, would I always love my neighbor? should I? always? say it's hitler?
The chinese had a far better more civilized culture without jesus, how could this be? without the bible saying you should't murder people everyone would murder right?
And lastly, what you are suggesting is that morals are derived from a book, said another way, if MOS did not have his book he would be unable to resist killing nor would he understand it's bad. If the only thing keeping anyone moral is threat of eternal torture, they are not a good person to begin with.
-
MOS, Christ never existed so how do you "get to know him?"
Is it like getting to know Santa?
You do realize that there is no debate that a man named Jesus Christ existed and had followers and was sentenced to death by the Roman Pontius Pilate right...
-
You do realize that there is no debate that a man named Jesus Christ existed and had followers and was sentenced to death by the Roman Pontius Pilate right...
i think you will find there are several different "confirmed" stories regarding jesus
dont make statement of facts that are incorrect
you are on shaky ground as it is
-
i think you will find there are several different "confirmed" stories regarding jesus
dont make statement of facts that are incorrect
you are on shaky ground as it is
There is no question that early Christian followers were persecuted and killed by Romans and that there have been Christian followers down to this day and that began in the first century and that even our dating system is based on his existence... 2016 AD
Are you serious?
-
And lastly, what you are suggesting is that morals are derived from a book, said another way, if MOS did not have his book he would be unable to resist killing nor would he understand it's bad. If the only thing keeping anyone moral is threat of eternal torture, they are not a good person to begin with.
Who defines what is good without God the creator by who's nature has defined an objective right and wrong against which all actions and decisions are measured?
The idea of human rights comes from a belief in God. Without God then objectively speaking we are worthless pieces of matter with no more meaning than a cockroach, therefore, debating what is moral or not, ultimately becomes unimportant. Just do whatever gives you kicks until you die and are longer able to enjoy them.
-
God doesnt have time to appear, hes busy monitoring Joons gimmicks.
-
Who defines what is good without God the creator by who's nature has defined an objective right and wrong against which all actions and decisions are measured?
The idea of human rights comes from a belief in God. Without God then objectively speaking we are worthless peaces of matter with no more meaning than a cockroach, therefore, debating what is moral or not, ultimately becomes unimportant. Just do whatever gives you kicks until you die and are longer able to enjoy them.
You've heard of the Golden Rule, right? It had existed in some form or another for hundreds of years before Christ, it can be found in ancient China in the writings of Confucius. You think the ancient Chinese took their cues from their contemporaries in Palestine who at the time were desert tribesmen?
The notion that there cannot be morality without God is false, pernicious and self-serving.
-
There is no question that early Christian followers were persecuted and killed by Romans and that there have been Christian followers down to this day and that began in the first century and that even our dating system is based on his existence... 2016 AD
Are you serious?
thats not what you said
you said it was a fact that the bible jesus was killed by pontious
said it was a fact show me your proof
-
thats not what you said
you said it was a fact that the bible jesus was killed by pontious
said it was a fact show me your proof
Pontius Pilate is known to Bible readers because of his role in Jesus’ trial and execution. (Matt. 27:1, 2, 24-26) However, his name also appears a number of times in other contemporary historical records. According to The Anchor Bible Dictionary, the dossier of secular historical references to him is “larger and more detailed than that of any other Roman governor of Judea.”
Pilate’s name appears most frequently in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, who chronicled three specific incidents relating to the difficulties Pilate experienced while governing Judea. A fourth incident was added by the Jewish historian Philo. The Roman writer Tacitus, who recorded the history of Rome’s emperors, confirmed that Pontius Pilate ordered Jesus’ execution during the reign of Tiberius.
In 1961, archaeologists working in the ancient Roman theater in Caesarea, Israel, found that a reused stone slab clearly bore Pilate’s name in Latin. The inscription (shown here) is fragmentary but is thought originally to have read: “To the honorable gods (this) Tiberieum Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judaea, had dedicated.” The building referred to was likely a temple honoring the Roman Emperor Tiberius.
-
Pontius Pilate is known to Bible readers because of his role in Jesus’ trial and execution. (Matt. 27:1, 2, 24-26) However, his name also appears a number of times in other contemporary historical records. According to The Anchor Bible Dictionary, the dossier of secular historical references to him is “larger and more detailed than that of any other Roman governor of Judea.”
Pilate’s name appears most frequently in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, who chronicled three specific incidents relating to the difficulties Pilate experienced while governing Judea. A fourth incident was added by the Jewish historian Philo. The Roman writer Tacitus, who recorded the history of Rome’s emperors, confirmed that Pontius Pilate ordered Jesus’ execution during the reign of Tiberius.
In 1961, archaeologists working in the ancient Roman theater in Caesarea, Israel, found that a reused stone slab clearly bore Pilate’s name in Latin. The inscription (shown here) is fragmentary but is thought originally to have read: “To the honorable gods (this) Tiberieum Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judaea, had dedicated.” The building referred to was likely a temple honoring the Roman Emperor Tiberius.
i know he existed
thats not evidence he had jesus executed ffs
-
i know he existed
thats not evidence he had jesus executed ffs
If the writings of a Roman Historian confirming the event isn't evidence then I guess there's no evidence ::)
-
Who defines what is good without God the creator by who's nature has defined an objective right and wrong against which all actions and decisions are measured?
The idea of human rights comes from a belief in God. Without God then objectively speaking we are worthless pieces of matter with no more meaning than a cockroach, therefore, debating what is moral or not, ultimately becomes unimportant. Just do whatever gives you kicks until you die and are longer able to enjoy them.
We do, there is no objective right or wrong, it's why slavery existed yet it's wrong.
You are saying that without a belief in god, you would simply do whatever gives you kicks? lol, if the only reason you aren't going around raping people is that god has said it;s not (he doesn't mention rape) a good thing, you are sick in the head.
The idea of human rights comes from humans, I am a human, I would like fair and honest treatment, I would not want cruel things to happen to me... if others feel this way (it appears they do) we avoid those things. Lastly, you can do whatever you want, no god will stop you, humans may, but I can assure you god will be absent.
It's a pretty simple mental exercise, would you like to be raped? no? why not? apply logic to everyone else... unless you are a rapists sick fuck you won't rape.
Morals do not come from god, this is a fact, primates and other mammals exhibit morals and display social dynamics suggesting a communal order, is there a monkey bible? a dolphin bible?
Humans wrote the bible, using logic and the current times came up with a poor excuse for ten commandments. The chinese had morals and writings dating back further than the middle east, explain how this could be? they had a justice system, concepts of fairness all without jesus.
You sound like you are stuck in the middle ages
-
If the writings of a Roman Historian confirming the event isn't evidence then I guess there's no evidence ::)
ah so if one persons writes something without coroboration
then its a fact
makes sense ::)
-
Christian interpolation is a subsidiary category of scribal interpolation in manuscript transmission. The term generally refers in textual criticism to the specific phenomena of textual insertion and textual damage to Jewish sources text during Christian scribal transmission, but may also refer to possible interpolation in secular Roman texts, such as the case of Tacitus on Christ
-
A survey of the literature indicates that this citation by Tacitus has not been given enough regard, having often been overshadowed by the citations in Josephus (see next entry). Respected Christian scholar R. T. France, for example, does not believe that the Tacitus passage provides sufficient independent testimony for the existence of Jesus [Franc.EvJ, 23] and agrees with G. A. Wells that the citation is of little value.
-
We do, there is no objective right or wrong, it's why slavery existed yet it's wrong.
You are saying that without a belief in god, you would simply do whatever gives you kicks? lol, if the only reason you aren't going around raping people is that god has said it;s not (he doesn't mention rape) a good thing, you are sick in the head.
The idea of human rights comes from humans, I am a human, I would like fair and honest treatment, I would not want cruel things to happen to me... if others feel this way (it appears they do) we avoid those things. Lastly, you can do whatever you want, no god will stop you, humans may, but I can assure you god will be absent.
It's a pretty simple mental exercise, would you like to be raped? no? why not? apply logic to everyone else... unless you are a rapists sick fuck you won't rape.
Morals do not come from god, this is a fact, primates and other mammals exhibit morals and display social dynamics suggesting a communal order, is there a monkey bible? a dolphin bible?
Humans wrote the bible, using logic and the current times came up with a poor excuse for ten commandments. The chinese had morals and writings dating back further than the middle east, explain how this could be? they had a justice system, concepts of fairness all without jesus.
You sound like you are stuck in the middle ages
I explain this from scripture,(Romans 2:14-15) "for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them"
Without God you may decide that others have rights and deserve to be treated like you'd like to be, but someone else might disagree, and you will be no more correct than them. That's why I take the word of God to be corner stone of morality.
“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built His house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock” (Matthew 7:24-25).
Personally, if I believed there's no God, I definitely wouldn't spend time debating morality since each person can choose themselves whats 'moral', there's nothing concrete to it..a complete waste of time IMO - which would be all that matters anywho.
-
A survey of the literature indicates that this citation by Tacitus has not been given enough regard, having often been overshadowed by the citations in Josephus (see next entry). Respected Christian scholar R. T. France, for example, does not believe that the Tacitus passage provides sufficient independent testimony for the existence of Jesus [Franc.EvJ, 23] and agrees with G. A. Wells that the citation is of little value.
So one guy writing that it's not enough evidence invalidates it... circles.
-
I owe everything to Jesus Christ and I share that with others so they might come to know Christ as well.
Here's the thing, you came to know god through some divine intervention, regarding your medical experiences, or at least that is what confirmed your belief, am I correct?
So, the doubters in here haven't had such privilege as you, so you can't really convince them. You wouldn't have been convinced yourself hadn't you have experienced a miracle.
Which brings me to my point - All of Jesus's apostles had first hand, in the flesh proof. They saw him doing miracles and had unlimited Q&A time and what not, and still doubted him. They even pissed Jesus off to a degree. It finally took seeing Jesus after the resurrection to FINALLY believe. The apostle Peter, regarded as the first pope, needed proof. He was granted it.
We all need proof like Peter, he was an ordinary human being. Paul and the apostles today wouldn't be believers of some ancient written testimony had they have lived today.
-
Why worry about what you cannot change? Whether or not you accept Jesus is of no concern to me but rather how you treat others, including myself. And how I treat them.
I'm far from perfect and on more than one occasion have been known not to turn the other cheek as the person doing the striking was not doing so for His sake, but for his ego.
Not everyone that says "Lord!", knows whom he calls upon and in like manner not all that deny Him will always do so. I am not come to change hearts, minds nor diapers. The Bible was written by men and is purported to be inspired of God and who decided this was so? Men.
I look to the Word made flesh for what is of God. I follow no man. No priest. No Apostle. No Bishop nor Pope and definitely no Imam. I have no faith in the goodness of men. Sometimes I am proven wrong. I like it when that happens.
-
2000 years later and were taking about some Jew carpenter on a borderline homo bodybuilding site. If that's not proof he was He said he was, then there never will be.
-
So one guy writing that it's not enough evidence invalidates it... circles.
no
there is extensive documentation and corroboration about the romans
they really did like to write about their history
everything else is easy to prove around that time with multiple valid sources
but one guy mentions jesus and thats enough for you
::)
-
no
there is extensive documentation and corroboration about the romans
they really did like to write about their history
everything else is easy to prove around that time with multiple valid sources
but one guy mentions jesus and thats enough for you
::)
Yep. One guy. You got it. /thread
-
Yep. One guy. You got it. /thread
thanks 8)
you could have admitted its a fairy tale fifty pages ago
-
MOS Schooling you fools! :D