Jesus said that only those who God calls will be saved. The question is, who gets the call? God is omniscient. He knows everything and everyone, past, present, future. He knows who will answer the call long before he gives it. He doesn't call the rest because he knows they won't answer. No, it's not predestination. It's foreknowledge. He doesn't control who will answer, he just knows who we are. While this passage says predestined as 1 step in the process, note that the foreknowing comes first. You have to answer 'yes' before the predestination comes in.
Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
I for one count myself as one by Gods grace alone. Suppose I was fortunate enough to be raised by multi generation family of Christian up-bringing. Not a perfect Christian to be sure and I know no perfect christians unless you want to count Jesus Christ.
Anyone considering and unsure if this is for them may I offer a opportunity to access a huge opportunity to take in the Gospel from the comfort of your own home from a family member that is a outstanding yet can be quite humble pastor of a southern California church of all places.
Check out the message archive under watch if you have time. So many options to select. Hope you find one that connects with you and or yours!
I strive, with difficulty, to be a follower of Jesus. The idea that the Power that created the universe is interested in having a relationship with me...one of His creations...resonates with me. Everything else really pales in comparison to that idea. Once that relationship was established, fine theological points that are so often considered important, evaporated. To know that when the Creator of all the universe is on your side...it changes your perspective and gives life real meaning. It makes my life better, and makes me better at life. And it causes me to see other people differently...I strive to see them the way that God sees them...made in the spiritual image of God, they are the supreme objects of His creation. I truly feel that extending grace to other people is the greatest opportunity that we’ll ever have, relationally, while we’re on this earth. “Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.“ - Jesus I take ‘that’ to heart.
It's personal, a personal relationship with the Lord.
And to have the Peace that passes understanding, we can't get stuck in our understanding. I think that's where so many miss it. If they can't figure it out, in essence control the narrative, they're out.
So many attempting to follow the Lord don't want to die to self, take up their cross daily and follow him.
If He's to reign in your life, you gotta surrender your high places to Him. That's not always easy. Sometimes we have to reach the "bottom of our barrel" before we look up and ask Him for help, not too unlike the alcoholic.
Jesus said that only those who God calls will be saved. The question is, who gets the call? God is omniscient. He knows everything and everyone, past, present, future. He knows who will answer the call long before he gives it. He doesn't call the rest because he knows they won't answer. No, it's not predestination. It's foreknowledge. He doesn't control who will answer, he just knows who we are. While this passage says predestined as 1 step in the process, note that the foreknowing comes first. You have to answer 'yes' before the predestination comes in.
Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
This gal I was interested in had a bunch of good whitetail acreage, she told me a story 'bout free milk and a cow And said, "No huggy, no kissy, until I get a Wedding Vow"
The only extreme unction you need is Jesus' promise of 'believe in me and you will be saved'. No priest, no sprinkling of water, no ceremony, just his promise.
The only extreme unction you need is Jesus' promise of 'believe in me and you will be saved'. No priest, no sprinkling of water, no ceremony, just his promise.
Yeah,
But I ain't takin' no chances if there's a priest or fellow Catholic around to say the last rights.
I'm a follower of Christ, been aware of the spiritual part of me and others since I was old enough to have conscious thought. I never understood the 'born again in the spirit' claim by religion, when obviously we are born with the spirit. Anyway Christ's life, teachings, death, resurrection and the Holy spirit all make sense to what I felt at my earliest age.
It also doesn't negate other's spiritual awareness that never knew of Christ or put another name to God.
I'm a follower of Christ but not of religion with all it's exclusiveness, christian usually means a follower of a religion so I don't claim to be one.
I am a Christian because Jesus offered the free gift of salvation and eternal life. The only thing expected of me (a sinner) was to have faith in Jesus. That is all that was necessary. Eternal life is a free gift, freely offered, and freely received.
“I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish. No one can snatch them out of my hand.” John 10:28
As a Christian, I am totally forgiven, righteous, reconciled, redeemed, justified, sanctified, part of the body of Jesus, a citizen of heaven, and I have eternal life.
“Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.” Acts 16:31
All we have to do is claim it and accept it. Jesus made it THAT easy for us. So I am a Christian because I want eternal life, and Jesus is my reality.
Apart from simple faith in the loving Savior, Jesus Christ, there can be no salvation. John 14:6. Jesus is enough for me.
There’s nothing we can do to be saved except accept Jesus. There’s nothing we can do to be lost with no hope of eternal life except decline the free gift of Jesus’s grace.
The only extreme unction you need is Jesus' promise of 'believe in me and you will be saved'. No priest, no sprinkling of water, no ceremony, just his promise.
Yeah,
But I ain't takin' no chances if there's a priest or fellow Catholic around to say the last rights.
Just in case.
Geno
W.C. Fields was asked why he was reading the bible while he was on his deathbed. He replied " I'm looking for loopholes" He was an underappreciated philosopher and savant.
I dont have a choice. . There is only one way to the Father and that is through Jesus Christ. If I am wong what do I loose? If I am right , I gain paradise forever. After I became a Christian, I noticed I was not missing out on any fun. Matter of fact, I have a bunch more money from not going to bars, seeing " friends" that wanted to borrow 10 bucks and would be back tomorrow with the money. Never saw most of them again. My wife was attracted to me cause I was a solid young guy in the Lord. I still hear form some of my old buddies. One is dead, one is so over weight he cant do anything and the rest I knew are very old looking compared to me. A Christian life is a very good one. I go to a bigger somewhat Pentacostal church. It is amazing how young every looks. Women I thought were in college till I find they have Highschool daughters. One lady , I thought was 40, she is 54. Guys, look younger too. Living a life for Christ is not just to serve God, it is a guide to live a good life and it shows . I was pulbearer this afternoon. My cousin Kurt. He did not live for the Lord . He was 67 . Alcholalic , diabetic, and lived like a wildcat. Nicest guy in the world when he got older though.
When evolution fell apart for me I realized A Creator was necessary. After becoming a Creationist I read the Bible. It took a couple years and I accepted Jesus. The peace was overwhelming. Right then I knew what born again was all about.
Eternity, Omniscience, Omnipotence - powerful and awesome beyond description. Omnipresent Grace - offers the immense opportunity and sustenance. Faith - to grasp the opportunity, follow and strive. The Truth shall set you free.
The Lord showed me the way to Him, and He has been with me ever since, through hell and back, He was there, and remains there with me always. Hallelujah ! Praise the the Lord ! Amen.
Why, because it helps me maintain and keep my freedom, it’s helps me keep the agency and freedom to choose that god gave me. Lastly it keeps my family together, in particular my marriage. Been divorced before and it only takes one of 2 party’s to destroy a family. If I am told tomorrow it’s all Santa Claus. I change nothing
I am a child of the Father. Christian means many things to many people. But to be His child... you are, or you are not. To be sure, I am no easily loved child, and sometimes wonder why He chose me. But when He chooses you, it is His choice, not yours. You can’t pick your family, they say. Once chosen, it is incumbent on you to at least attempt to live as the Father would desire of you, and to study to understand what that is. I struggled for years to fit God to the box I thought He should fit, and as I previously have stated here, with one sentence, He destroyed that box and showed me my position relative to Him. Call it a come-to-Jesus meeting with Dad, the one where He says one thing that lets you know that He is in charge, and you just need to let it go. The peace of finally understanding that I am the child and He is the ruler of all things is indescribable.
When you know that everything that happens is His will, it makes it impossible to worry, or to hate your circumstance. If all is His will, and His will is good, then to worry or complain is to place yourself in charge of that which you cannot control. To me, the peace that passes understanding is what is possessed by the person who is in their proper place with the Father, because they know He controls all things, and what He does is good. We are not the arbiters of good, He is. Our job is simply to trust. Reaching that point has brought me more peace than I ever thought possible.
Why, because it helps me maintain and keep my freedom, it’s helps me keep the agency and freedom to choose that god gave me. Lastly it keeps my family together, in particular my marriage. Been divorced before and it only takes one of 2 party’s to destroy a family. If I am told tomorrow it’s all Santa Claus. I change nothing
I can't imagine how empty my life would be without having faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. And while my life doesn't always reflect it, He is the most important thing in my life. I love Him, because He first loved me. And gave Himself as a sacrifice for me, to pay the price for my sins. Someday we will all bow before Him and acknowledge Him as Lord.
Not a fan of religion, but Jesus Christ is my savior. Took many years to come to HIM but a better life is knowing HIM. I struggle every day to be better than I am. Especially with what the left is trying to do to our great country. And I do mean I Struggle. I know GOD is in control but I also know HE gave us free will. We can screw it up as much as we choose, And there in lies the problem and why we have to continue to fight the evil that is confronting our great nation.
I became a Christain because as a young boy, my Dad taught me to love Jesus first. Secondly, he taught me to love my family and how to treat my fellow man. He lived his faith and it always made me proud. powdr
I have posted this before, and it's still the reason I believe.
1) The odds: Scientist says that the odds of all of the amino acids, proteins, etc. came together at the same time in the right place to get electrically charged to create a cell (the simplest form of life) is around 10 to the 40,000th power (this is a 10 with 39,999 zeros behind it). Mathematicians say that anything higher than 10 to the 50th power is impossible to happen through random chance. Charles Darwin thought that the cell was very simple but today we know better. One cell contains enough information that if printed out would take over 500,000 pages.
2) Design and purpose: Albert Einstein (one of the smartest men to walk the Earth) did not profess to be a Christian but he did believe in a creator. Einstein said that when he looked at the universe and the way all things worked together, he saw design and purpose. If I gave you a watch and told you that the watch had evolved over millions of years because nature knew that man needed a way to tell time you would think I was crazy! But we have been taught to believe that (even though thousands of times more complicated) our eyes, nose, ears, etc. just evolved because we needed them.
3) Ignorance of man: Just a few years ago the scientific community was on fire celebrating the fact that they had created life for the first time. Over thousands of years one of man's greatest accomplishments was to copy the simplest form of life (a cell) and reproduce it. If this is the best that we can do, why then would I put faith in the ignorance of man to tell me how we came to be.
4) Population growth rate: Studies of population growth rate shows us that there is around a 2% growth rate in the human population. If you take the 7 billion people alive today, and reverse that at a rate of 2% you will come up with roughly somewhere between 7,000 to 10,000 years. Which goes hand-in-hand with what the Bible tells us. If you go back just 25,000 years with a 2% growth rate you will come up with 100+ billion people, but we have nowhere near this today. Scientist say that humans have walked the Earth for 500,000+ years. Surely over 500,000 years (even with disease or famine nearly wiping out the human population several times) there would be periods of 10 to 20 thousand years with no catastrophic disease or famine, but there is no evidence of large populations. Most scientists agree that there are almost as many people alive today as there are dead.
I have posted this before, and it's still the reason I believe.
1) The odds: Scientist says that the odds of all of the amino acids, proteins, etc. came together at the same time in the right place to get electrically charged to create a cell (the simplest form of life) is around 10 to the 40,000th power (this is a 10 with 39,999 zeros behind it). Mathematicians say that anything higher than 10 to the 50th power is impossible to happen through random chance. Charles Darwin thought that the cell was very simple but today we know better. One cell contains enough information that if printed out would take over 500,000 pages.
2) Design and purpose: Albert Einstein (one of the smartest men to walk the Earth) did not profess to be a Christian but he did believe in a creator. Einstein said that when he looked at the universe and the way all things worked together, he saw design and purpose. If I gave you a watch and told you that the watch had evolved over millions of years because nature knew that man needed a way to tell time you would think I was crazy! But we have been taught to believe that (even though thousands of times more complicated) our eyes, nose, ears, etc. just evolved because we needed them.
3) Ignorance of man: Just a few years ago the scientific community was on fire celebrating the fact that they had created life for the first time. Over thousands of years one of man's greatest accomplishments was to copy the simplest form of life (a cell) and reproduce it. If this is the best that we can do, why then would I put faith in the ignorance of man to tell me how we came to be.
4) Population growth rate: Studies of population growth rate shows us that there is around a 2% growth rate in the human population. If you take the 7 billion people alive today, and reverse that at a rate of 2% you will come up with roughly somewhere between 7,000 to 10,000 years. Which goes hand-in-hand with what the Bible tells us. If you go back just 25,000 years with a 2% growth rate you will come up with 100+ billion people, but we have nowhere near this today. Scientist say that humans have walked the Earth for 500,000+ years. Surely over 500,000 years (even with disease or famine nearly wiping out the human lippopulation several times) there would be periods of 10 to 20 thousand years with no catastrophic disease or famine, but there is no evidence of large populations. Most scientists agree that there are almost as many people alive today as there are dead.
Trash this post. It's too deep and complicated for unbelievers to comprehend, therefore, impossible.
Schiett exploded a long time ago. They told us that in skool. Therefore, I no.
.. Albert Einstein (one of the smartest men to walk the Earth)
January 3, 1954, Einstein reply to Eric Gutkind:
"The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."
March 1954, Einstein reply to Joe Dispentiere:
" It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
EINSTEINS book of Ideas and Opinions (1954) stated:
"In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests."
1950, Einstein letter to M. Berkowitz:
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
April 1929, Einstein cable to Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein:
"I believe in Spinoza's God {of Philosophy} , who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
December 1922 Einstein stated the following on the concept of a savior:
"Denominational traditions I can only consider historically and psychologically; they have no other significance for me."
EINSTEIN to Japanese magazine Kaizō 1923:
"Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order.... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.."
And the winner is......because my parents were. - - -
No winner there - you are so very wrong.
People who have had no contact with the bible or Christianity cannot become Christians, that can only happen through conditioning, conversion or people being drawn to the faith once it has been established....missionaries or evangelism at work, etc.
Do you think you would be a Christian if you were born in Saudi Arabia? Or India? Or Japan? Or Nepal?
Well said and the truth. A Founding Father, one of the main ones, said the same thing.
"As I have now given you my reasons for believing that the Bible is not the word of God, that it is a falsehood, I have a right to ask you your reasons for believing the contrary; but I know you can give me none, except that you were educated to believe the Bible; and as the Turks give the same reason for believing the Koran, it is evident that education makes all the difference, and that reason and truth have nothing to do in the case. [[[[ ["You believe in the Bible from the accident of birth, and the Turks believe in the Koran from the same accident, and each calls the other 'infidel.'"] ]]]]] But leaving the prejudice of education out of the case, the unprejudiced truth is, that all are infidels who believe falsely of God, whether they draw their creed from the Bible, or from the Koran, from the Old Testament, or from the New.
When you have examined the Bible with the attention that I have done, (for I do not think you know much about it,) and permit yourself to have just ideas of God, you will most probably believe as I do. But I wish you to know that this answer to your letter is not written for the purpose of changing your opinion. It is written to satisfy you, and some other friends whom I esteem, that my disbelief of the Bible is founded on a pure and religious belief in God; for in my opinion the Bible is a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God, in almost every part of it.
Jesus said that God's desire is that NO man would perish. Everyone has a chance at salvation, no matter where they're born or who their parents are. How this happens to those in pagan countries we aren't told, just that it happens. Everyone, there and here, has a chance. Some grab it but the majority reject it, even when it's right in front of them. One thing's for sure, many on this forum can't stand in front of God at the judgement and say 'I never heard'. Just in reading this forum you've heard.
1) The odds: Scientist says that the odds of all of the amino acids, proteins, etc. came together at the same time in the right place to get electrically charged to create a cell (the simplest form of life) is around 10 to the 40,000th power (this is a 10 with 39,999 zeros behind it). Mathematicians say that anything higher than 10 to the 50th power is impossible to happen through random chance. Charles Darwin thought that the cell was very simple but today we know better. One cell contains enough information that if printed out would take over 500,000 pages.
Scientists are always looking for life 'out there'. The odds of it spontaneously happening here are 1 in billions. The odds of it happening a 2d time 'out there' are 1 in billions squared. The odds of happening twice are so low as to be completely ludicrous.
Do you think you would be a Christian if you were born in Saudi Arabia? Or India? Or Japan? Or Nepal?
Well said and the truth. A Founding Father, one of the main ones, said the same thing.
"As I have now given you my reasons for believing that the Bible is not the word of God, that it is a falsehood, I have a right to ask you your reasons for believing the contrary; but I know you can give me none, except that you were educated to believe the Bible; and as the Turks give the same reason for believing the Koran, it is evident that education makes all the difference, and that reason and truth have nothing to do in the case. [[[[ ["You believe in the Bible from the accident of birth, and the Turks believe in the Koran from the same accident, and each calls the other 'infidel.'"] ]]]]] But leaving the prejudice of education out of the case, the unprejudiced truth is, that all are infidels who believe falsely of God, whether they draw their creed from the Bible, or from the Koran, from the Old Testament, or from the New.
When you have examined the Bible with the attention that I have done, (for I do not think you know much about it,) and permit yourself to have just ideas of God, you will most probably believe as I do. But I wish you to know that this answer to your letter is not written for the purpose of changing your opinion. It is written to satisfy you, and some other friends whom I esteem, that my disbelief of the Bible is founded on a pure and religious belief in God; for in my opinion the Bible is a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God, in almost every part of it.
Thomas Paine died on June 8, 1809, in NYC and was buried on his property in New Rochelle. On his deathbed, his doctor asked him if he wished to accept Jesus Christ before passing. “I have no wish to believe on that subject,” Paine replied before taking his final breath.
.. Albert Einstein (one of the smartest men to walk the Earth)
January 3, 1954, Einstein reply to Eric Gutkind:
"The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."
March 1954, Einsteins reply to Joe Dispentiere:
" It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
EINSTEINS book of Ideas and Opinions (1954) stated:
"In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests."
1950, Einstein letter to M. Berkowitz:
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
April 1929, Einstein cable to Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein:
"I believe in Spinoza's God {of Philosophy} , who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
December 1922 Einstein stated the following on the concept of a savior:
"Denominational traditions I can only consider historically and psychologically; they have no other significance for me."
EINSTEIN to Japanese magazine Kaizō 1923:
"Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order.... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.."
He also said,
“I am not an atheist,” he began.
“The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.”
Furthermore, who would die for a lie? Many Apostles died for spreading what they knew was true.
This world, this time, this place, is no accident. God has a purpose for us.
Yep, we are to spread the Gospel, AND.......we are to serve our fellow man. I reckon that’s why we end up doing mission trips to places like Montana, along with trying to cover things in our own state.
Furthermore, who would die for a lie? Many Apostles died for spreading what they knew was true.
This world, this time, this place, is no accident. God has a purpose for us.
Yep, we are to spread the Gospel, AND.......we are to serve our fellow man. I reckon that’s why we end up doing mission trips to places like Montana, along with trying to cover things in our own state.
Far more who were NOT apostles died for the Truth of the Gospel, and continue dying for those Truth's to this day, and will until the Lord returns.
The point being I don't have to keep telling Christians that I'm a Christian, nor do I have to keep reminding myself. Anyone interested in spreading the Gospel needs to spread it with non believers.
Do you think you would be a Christian if you were born in Saudi Arabia? Or India? Or Japan? Or Nepal?
Well said and the truth. A Founding Father, one of the main ones, said the same thing.
"As I have now given you my reasons for believing that the Bible is not the word of God, that it is a falsehood, I have a right to ask you your reasons for believing the contrary; but I know you can give me none, except that you were educated to believe the Bible; and as the Turks give the same reason for believing the Koran, it is evident that education makes all the difference, and that reason and truth have nothing to do in the case. [[[[ ["You believe in the Bible from the accident of birth, and the Turks believe in the Koran from the same accident, and each calls the other 'infidel.'"] ]]]]] But leaving the prejudice of education out of the case, the unprejudiced truth is, that all are infidels who believe falsely of God, whether they draw their creed from the Bible, or from the Koran, from the Old Testament, or from the New.
When you have examined the Bible with the attention that I have done, (for I do not think you know much about it,) and permit yourself to have just ideas of God, you will most probably believe as I do. But I wish you to know that this answer to your letter is not written for the purpose of changing your opinion. It is written to satisfy you, and some other friends whom I esteem, that my disbelief of the Bible is founded on a pure and religious belief in God; for in my opinion the Bible is a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God, in almost every part of it.
Thomas Paine died on June 8, 1809, in NYC and was buried on his property in New Rochelle. On his deathbed, his doctor asked him if he wished to accept Jesus Christ before passing. “I have no wish to believe on that subject,” Paine replied before taking his final breath.
Smug arrogance to the end.
In his own words concerning his belief.................................
You may have an opinion that a man is inspired, but you cannot prove it, nor can you have any proof of it yourself, because you cannot see into his mind in order to know how he comes by his thoughts; and the same is the case with the word 'revelation.' There can be no evidence of such a thing, for you can no more prove revelation than you can prove what another man dreams of, neither can he prove it himself.
It is often said in the Bible that God spake unto Moses, but how do you know that God spake unto Moses? Because, you will say, the Bible says so. The Koran says, that God spake unto Mahomet, do you believe that too? No. Why not? Because, you will say, you do not believe it; and so because you do, and because you don't is all the reason you can give for believing or disbelieving except that you will say that Mahomet was an impostor. And how do you know Moses was not an imposter? For my own part, I believe that all are impostors who pretend to hold verbal communication with the Deity. It is the way by which the world has been imposed upon; but if you think otherwise you have the same right to your opinion that I have to mine, and must answer for it in the same manner. But all this does not settle the point, whether the Bible be the 'word of God,' or not. It is therefore necessary to go a step further. The case then is: --
You form your opinion of God from the account given of him in the Bible; and I form my opinion of the Bible from the wisdom and goodness of God manifested in the structure of the universe, and in all works of Creation. The result in these two cases will be, that you, by taking the Bible for your standard, will have a bad opinion of God; and I, by taking God for my standard, shall have a bad opinion of the Bible.
The Bible represents God to be a changeable, passionate, vindictive Being; making a world and then drowning it, afterwards repenting of what he had done, and promising not to do so again. Setting one nation to cut the throats of another, and stopping the course of the sun till the butchery should be done. But the works of God in the Creation preach to us another doctrine. In that vast volume we see nothing to give us the idea of a changeable, passionate, vindictive God; everything we there behold impresses us with a contrary idea, -- that of unchangeableness and of eternal order, harmony, and goodness. The sun and the seasons return at their appointed time, and everything in the Creation proclaims that God is unchangeable. Now, which am I to believe, a book that any impostor might make and call the 'word of God,' or the Creation itself which none but an Almighty Power could make? For the Bible says one thing, and the Creation says the contrary. The Bible represents God with all the passions of a mortal, and the Creation proclaims him with all the attributes of a God.
It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man. That bloodthirsty man, called the prophet Samuel, makes God to say, (i Sam. xv. 3,) "Now go and smite Amaleck, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."
I'm a follower of Christ, been aware of the spiritual part of me and others since I was old enough to have conscious thought. I never understood the 'born again in the spirit' claim by religion, when obviously we are born with the spirit. Anyway Christ's life, teachings, death, resurrection and the Holy spirit all make sense to what I felt at my earliest age.
It also doesn't negate other's spiritual awareness that never knew of Christ or put another name to God.
I'm a follower of Christ but not of religion with all it's exclusiveness, christian usually means a follower of a religion so I don't claim to be one.
Kent
I have what many Christians would consider a warped view of spirituality. So it’s a bit of a comfort to find I am not alone.
I can’t see the things I’ve seen & not be convinced there’s a higher power.
Plus some of the best & most successful men I’ve known have been devout in their faith. Even if you could prove it was just a big fairy tale, there’s power in submitting ourselves to a higher power that guides our thoughts, words & actions
Jesus said that God's desire is that NO man would perish. Everyone has a chance at salvation, no matter where they're born or who their parents are. How this happens to those in pagan countries we aren't told, just that it happens. Everyone, there and here, has a chance. Some grab it but the majority reject it, even when it's right in front of them. One thing's for sure, many on this forum can't stand in front of God at the judgement and say 'I never heard'. Just in reading this forum you've heard.
Sorry brother, this is a great forum w/ lots of good info but not a stellar source of moral or spiritual guidance. Or medical or financial advice. Spirituality comes in many forms not included in a book.
Jesus said that God's desire is that NO man would perish. Everyone has a chance at salvation, no matter where they're born or who their parents are. How this happens to those in pagan countries we aren't told, just that it happens. Everyone, there and here, has a chance. Some grab it but the majority reject it, even when it's right in front of them. One thing's for sure, many on this forum can't stand in front of God at the judgement and say 'I never heard'. Just in reading this forum you've heard.
Sorry brother, this is a great forum w/ lots of good info but not a stellar source of moral or spiritual guidance. Or medical or financial advice. Spirituality comes in many forms not included in a book.
mike r
I find this to be very true. After years of religion from the organized church corporations, I'll take Spirituality over religious salvation.
Jesus said that God's desire is that NO man would perish. Everyone has a chance at salvation, no matter where they're born or who their parents are. How this happens to those in pagan countries we aren't told, just that it happens. Everyone, there and here, has a chance. Some grab it but the majority reject it, even when it's right in front of them. One thing's for sure, many on this forum can't stand in front of God at the judgement and say 'I never heard'. Just in reading this forum you've heard.
That's what I was taught in church too but it seems many of the Christians here disagree with you.
At one time in my life I was young, and thought I could act as I pleased, this is contrary to my raising.
I found myself in a spot that taught me I was not as smart as I had thought.
I had let enough of God's word linger in my mind to know I had to reach out. I am every so glad I did.
Thank you Jesus.
Any of you good folks have anything to share?
I find it funny you have to keep reminding us/yourself you are a “Christian”
I find this interesting also.
I find it interesting that other 'christians' feel the need to deride others of their faith. I find it more interesting when those whose words/actions often show their hypocrisy tend to do so.
I strive, with difficulty, to be a follower of Jesus. The idea that the Power that created the universe is interested in having a relationship with me...one of His creations...resonates with me. Everything else really pales in comparison to that idea. Once that relationship was established, fine theological points that are so often considered important, evaporated. To know that when the Creator of all the universe is on your side...it changes your perspective and gives life real meaning. It makes my life better, and makes me better at life. And it causes me to see other people differently...I strive to see them the way that God sees them...made in the spiritual image of God, they are the supreme objects of His creation. I truly feel that extending grace to other people is the greatest opportunity that we’ll ever have, relationally, while we’re on this earth. “Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.“ - Jesus I take ‘that’ to heart.
Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
There it is in a nutshell. You believe or you don't. You're saved or you're not. There's no other option.
Seems simple enough, but what about God calling only those who he knows will answer, and not bothering with the others?
Ok. Scenario.
I am your neighbor, I have cookies for sale.....I know you don’t eat cookies because of your sugar diabetes but knowing you are my neighbor and we are friends and I don’t want to hurt your feelings I ask you anyways knowing well ahead you will not purchase them. In this case I know you won’t buy my cookies....I offer them to you anyways because we are great friends....you still say no. Now what?
Why am I a Christian? Short answer is: Because Christ died for me and paid the penalty for my sin.
Jesus said "repent and believe the gospel"...i did, and continue to.
I could expound on some theology of God's efficacious call, etc. I hold to more of what some call a reformed doctrine. I found Romans 9 answered a lot of my questions. I'm not looking to debate, but glad to discuss this by pm.
I was raised in a family that worshipped God through Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit but decided I wanted freedom. I went out and tried to invent a worldview that would allow me to do what I wanted when I wanted. I found pursuit of my appetites a pointless and empty endeavor.
Once my God’s grace allowed me to get to the point where I was in so much pain I had to kill myself or bend the knee to the Lord of the universe I became sane and said as did the great king, I ...” lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever...”
I cannot see another worldview that doesn’t lead to nihilism and we’re reaping our collective abandonment of the Lord of Heaven.
My life is not my own and I am deeply grateful for that. I have been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world NOT (THERE IS NO WAY OBVIOUSLY) because I am better than anyone, but because God “will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy”
The foreknowledge argument either ignores the plain meaning of the text (ie God foreknew everyone which would lead to universalism) or adds to it “those He foreknew would choose Him...” but in any case it ignores the clear teaching of Scripture that apart from the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of depraved man we are all without hope of any kind whatsoever.
I was raised in a family that worshipped God through Christmas by the power of the Holy Spirit but decided I wanted freedom. I went out and tried to invent a worldview that would allow me to do what I wanted when I wanted. I found pursuit of my appetites a pointless and empty endeavor.
Once my God’s grace allowed me to get to the point where I was in so much pain I had to change or kill myself or bend the knee to the Lord of the universe I became sane and said as did the great king, I ...” lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever...”
I cannot see another worldview that doesn’t lead to nihilism and we’re reaping our collective abandonment of the Lord of Heaven.
My life is not my own and I am deeply grateful for that. I have been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world NOT (THERE IS NO WAY OBVIOUSLY) because I am better than anyone, but because God “will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy”
The foreknowledge argument either ignores the plain meaning of the text (ie God foreknew everyone which would lead to universalism) or adds to it “those He foreknew would choose Him...” but in any case it ignores the clear teaching of Scripture that apart from the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of depraved man we are all without hope of any kind whatsoever.
I find it both interesting and informative, hearing the different answers to this question, probably the most important question of all times.
I appreciate the responses, in essence testimonies of who we are and whose we are.
There were two trees in the Garden of Eden. Each and everyone of us has roots in one or the other. Google the Spiritual significance of Two Trees in the Garden, discover your roots.
Not having a position IS a position, default is a declaration.
I find it both interesting and informative, hearing the different answers to this question, probably the most important question of all times.
I appreciate the responses, in essence testimonies of who we are and whose we are.
There were two trees in the Garden of Eden. Each and everyone of us has roots in one or the other. Google the Spiritual significance of Two Trees in the Garden, discover your roots.
Not having a position IS a position, default is a declaration.
DF
.
Two trees?
Genesis 2:8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
There were many trees in the Garden. Likely hundreds or even thousands, that were pleasant to look at and good for food. But there was only one that God told the man they could not eat of it. And we all, with certain exceptions, know what happened next..........
I find it both interesting and informative, hearing the different answers to this question, probably the most important question of all times.
I appreciate the responses, in essence testimonies of who we are and whose we are.
There were two trees in the Garden of Eden. Each and everyone of us has roots in one or the other. Google the Spiritual significance of Two Trees in the Garden, discover your roots.
Not having a position IS a position, default is a declaration.
DF
.
Two trees? Genesis_2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The two trees referenced are the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
I find it both interesting and informative, hearing the different answers to this question, probably the most important question of all times.
I appreciate the responses, in essence testimonies of who we are and whose we are.
There were two trees in the Garden of Eden. Each and everyone of us has roots in one or the other. Google the Spiritual significance of Two Trees in the Garden, discover your roots.
Not having a position IS a position, default is a declaration.
DF
.
Two trees? Genesis_2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The two trees referenced are the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Focus on those two. Interesting stuff.
DF
That was the problem: Adam, and later Eve, focusing on the only tree God forbid them from eating of, with the introduction of Satan in the Garden. It did not appear to be hard for Adam, but Eve was a different story. God stacked the deck.
God “stacked the deck”? Are you suggesting He is a trickster?
If one reads the interaction between the serpent & Eve you can see that human kinds’ tendency to doubt God’s word existed before the serpent even came along. The father of lies coaxed along a tendency already existent.
God, however, has always been about the business of redemption from the beginning. He is, by definition, the One who is in control of the universe and owes man nothing. The post enlightenment worship of individual autonomy is today isogeted into the texts to support our notion that we are in control even of Gods redemptive plan for His people.
God “stacked the deck”? Are you suggesting He is a trickster?
If one reads the interaction between the serpent & Eve you can see that human kinds’ tendency to doubt God’s word existed before the serpent even came along. The father of lies coaxed along a tendency already existent.
God, however, has always been about the business of redemption from the beginning. He is, by definition, the One who is in control of the universe and owes man nothing. The post enlightenment worship of individual autonomy is today isogeted into the texts to support our notion that we are in control even of Gods redemptive plan for His people.
Being omniscient He would have known it was happening in real time, would have known it was coming, would have known what would happen...
Not to mention it was all by His Creation. He’s in charge of all of it...
Originally Posted by Rock Chuck
Originally Posted by xxclaro
Originally Posted by Rock Chuck
Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
There it is in a nutshell. You believe or you don't. You're saved or you're not. There's no other option.
Seems simple enough, but what about God calling only those who he knows will answer, and not bothering with the others?
It's your choice. That fact that God already knows what it will be doesn't affect anything. It's still your choice.
Seems to me there’s not really any choice about it
In light of all the Einstein quotes I provided, That is lame and does nothing to give substance to christian mythology.
Einstein like the Founding Fathers and ancient philosophical Greeks (which the F/Fathers gave their due consideration and respects to) , woke up and saw the folly in religions. but no doubt we have CF christians steeped in backward minded middle-east cult superstitions that consider themselves brighter-more aware than the above.
just waiting for a clueless CF goose to claim our western civilzation owes itself to the mythology of Judeo-Christrianity...LOL
Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
There it is in a nutshell. You believe or you don't. You're saved or you're not. There's no other option.
Seems simple enough, but what about God calling only those who he knows will answer, and not bothering with the others?
Ok. Scenario.
I am your neighbor, I have cookies for sale.....I know you don’t eat cookies because of your sugar diabetes but knowing you are my neighbor and we are friends and I don’t want to hurt your feelings I ask you anyways knowing well ahead you will not purchase them. In this case I know you won’t buy my cookies....I offer them to you anyways because we are great friends....you still say no. Now what?
You allegory is incomplete.
If you were god, you would also have been the one to give your neighbor diabetes, before offering him the cookies, you know he wouldn't accept.
No. Not true. Read the book of Job. That job of giving my neighbor diabetes was satans, being an all knowing and powerful god I gave him permission to give my neighbor diabetes. That way I have another venue to get my neighbors attention = through healing. He tries multiple ways but people being people look past all that and lay the blame on Him.
Tom is saying God hires bad ass mercenaries, ones no longer good enough for heaven but well suited to doing wicked dirty deeds on earth as sanctioned by God.
Originally Posted by Tom264
being an all knowing and powerful god I gave him permission to give my neighbor diabetes. That way I have another venue to get my neighbors attention = through healing. .
so set fire to your neigbors house, just so you can come in with garden hose to display how much you care for your neighbor.
[It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man. That bloodthirsty man, called the prophet Samuel, makes God to say, (i Sam. xv. 3,) "Now go and smite Amaleck, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."
How did people get the idea of being brutal prior to the Bible? It started about 3,500 years ago.
[It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man. That bloodthirsty man, called the prophet Samuel, makes God to say, (i Sam. xv. 3,) "Now go and smite Amaleck, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."
How did people get the idea of being brutal prior to the Bible? It started about 3,500 years ago.
You are off by a couple of orders of magnitude....per your usual.
Mao and Stalin were tools in the hand of satan given permission by God to carry out His ultimate plan. Call God what you will, one day you can ask Him face to face your own questions in your own Snyde way. We’ll see how far that carries you.
Do you think you would be a Christian if you were born in Saudi Arabia? Or India? Or Japan? Or Nepal?
And not one direct answer to my questions.
Do Christians believe that the other 3/4 of the world are going to hell?
There are a LOT more Christians in those countries than you can imagine. You don't hear about them because it's often illegal to be a Christian. It can be death. There are missionaries working under cover in all of them and their results are amazing. People there are starving for the truth. Jesus said that if you knock the door will be opened. Many are knocking and everyone who does will get an answer.
By your standards Mao and Stalin were ok guys since they didn't do the murdering themselves.
good grief....reading comprehension is apparently not your thing. Mao and Stalin DID the killing God ALLOWED it MY standards are not even in the equation.....
Mao and Stalin were tools in the hand of satan given permission by God to carry out His ultimate plan. Call God what you will, one day you can ask Him face to face your own questions in your own Snyde way. We’ll see how far that carries you.
I find it interesting how you are unable to critically evaluate the morality of your god sanctioning the misery wrought by Stalin and Mao, then, in the same breath, issue your threats of hellfire for those who would dare to question.
Mao and Stalin were tools in the hand of satan given permission by God to carry out His ultimate plan. Call God what you will, one day you can ask Him face to face your own questions in your own Snyde way. We’ll see how far that carries you.
I find it interesting how you are unable to critically evaluate the morality of your god sanctioning the misery wrought by Stalin and Mao, then, in the same breath, issue your threats of hellfire for those who would dare to question.
That’s because you nor I have ZERO authority or anything to question God in His decisions. Carry on.
Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
There it is in a nutshell. You believe or you don't. You're saved or you're not. There's no other option.
Seems simple enough, but what about God calling only those who he knows will answer, and not bothering with the others?
Ok. Scenario.
I am your neighbor, I have cookies for sale.....I know you don’t eat cookies because of your sugar diabetes but knowing you are my neighbor and we are friends and I don’t want to hurt your feelings I ask you anyways knowing well ahead you will not purchase them. In this case I know you won’t buy my cookies....I offer them to you anyways because we are great friends....you still say no. Now what?
Well that depends...are you the one who made me diabetic?
Not sure I can add anything other than I daily thank the Lord for saving me. He sent his son to die an awful death that my sins be forgiven and I have life everlasting. He lives me way more than I ever deserve. Not always/usually what I want but always what I need.
By your standards Mao and Stalin were ok guys since they didn't do the murdering themselves.
good grief....reading comprehension is apparently not your thing. Mao and Stalin DID the killing God ALLOWED it MY standards are not even in the equation.....
No.
You really think Mao and Stalin personally pulled the trigger 150 million times, just the two of them? Or did they delegate, like how you claim your god delegates to your satin.
God delegating to Satin, who delegates to Stalin and Mao, who delegate to their underlings, doesn't change the Christian position that all this suffering and Evil starts with your God.
In the words of Epicurus:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then from whence comes evil?"
Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
There it is in a nutshell. You believe or you don't. You're saved or you're not. There's no other option.
Seems simple enough, but what about God calling only those who he knows will answer, and not bothering with the others?
Ok. Scenario.
I am your neighbor, I have cookies for sale.....I know you don’t eat cookies because of your sugar diabetes but knowing you are my neighbor and we are friends and I don’t want to hurt your feelings I ask you anyways knowing well ahead you will not purchase them. In this case I know you won’t buy my cookies....I offer them to you anyways because we are great friends....you still say no. Now what?
Well that depends...are you the one who made me diabetic?
Mao and Stalin were tools in the hand of satan given permission by God to carry out His ultimate plan. Call God what you will, one day you can ask Him face to face your own questions in your own Snyde way. We’ll see how far that carries you.
I find it interesting how you are unable to critically evaluate the morality of your god sanctioning the misery wrought by Stalin and Mao, then, in the same breath, issue your threats of hellfire for those who would dare to question.
That’s because you nor I have ZERO authority or anything to question God in His decisions. Carry on.
And that is this biggest problem with religious types such as yourself. It is your unwillingness to ask the hard questions, such as does a given claim of a supernatural being meet it's burden of proof. If it does, is this being moral and ethical, and if not, would it be moral and ethical for me to follow it?
My grandparents raised me from about 3 to 11.my grandmother always talked about religion and sent me to sunday school . so it is her fault that I have some belief in god . and it influences how I make decisions.
And that is this biggest problem with religious types such as yourself. It is your unwillingness to ask the hard questions, such as does a given claim of a supernatural being meet it's burden of proof. If it does, is this being moral and ethical, and if not, would it be moral and ethical for me to follow it?
Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
There it is in a nutshell. You believe or you don't. You're saved or you're not. There's no other option.
Seems simple enough, but what about God calling only those who he knows will answer, and not bothering with the others?
Ok. Scenario.
I am your neighbor, I have cookies for sale.....I know you don’t eat cookies because of your sugar diabetes but knowing you are my neighbor and we are friends and I don’t want to hurt your feelings I ask you anyways knowing well ahead you will not purchase them. In this case I know you won’t buy my cookies....I offer them to you anyways because we are great friends....you still say no. Now what?
Well that depends...are you the one who made me diabetic?
Good grief........
Sorry just got in from working and didn't see the thread had moved on...
Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge? 3 Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. 4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. 5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? 6 On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone— 7 while the morning stars sang together and all the angels[a] shouted for joy? 8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, 9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness, 10 when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place, 11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt’? 12 “Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, 13 that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? 14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment. 15 The wicked are denied their light, and their upraised arm is broken. 16 “Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep? 17 Have the gates of death been shown to you? Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness? 18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth? Tell me, if you know all this. 19 “What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? 20 Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings? 21 Surely you know, for you were already born! You have lived so many years! 22 “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail, 23 which I reserve for times of trouble, for days of war and battle? 24 What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth? 25 Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain, and a path for the thunderstorm, 26 to water a land where no one lives, an uninhabited desert, 27 to satisfy a desolate wasteland and make it sprout with grass? 28 Does the rain have a father? Who fathers the drops of dew? 29 From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens 30 when the waters become hard as stone, when the surface of the deep is frozen? 31 “Can you bind the chains[b] of the Pleiades? Can you loosen Orion’s belt? 32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons[c] or lead out the Bear[d] with its cubs? 33 Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set up God’s[e] dominion over the earth? 34 “Can you raise your voice to the clouds and cover yourself with a flood of water? 35 Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’? 36 Who gives the ibis wisdom[f] or gives the rooster understanding?[g] 37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens 38 when the dust becomes hard and the clods of earth stick together? 39 “Do you hunt the prey for the lioness and satisfy the hunger of the lions 40 when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in a thicket? 41 Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God and wander about for lack of food?
By your standards Mao and Stalin were ok guys since they didn't do the murdering themselves.
good grief....reading comprehension is apparently not your thing. Mao and Stalin DID the killing God ALLOWED it MY standards are not even in the equation.....
Correction, Mao and Stalin, et al, had other people doing the killing.
Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge? 3 Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. 4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. 5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? 6 On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone— 7 while the morning stars sang together and all the angels[a] shouted for joy? 8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, 9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness, 10 when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place, 11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt’? 12 “Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, 13 that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? 14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment. 15 The wicked are denied their light, and their upraised arm is broken. 16 “Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep? 17 Have the gates of death been shown to you? Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness? 18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth? Tell me, if you know all this. 19 “What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? 20 Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings? 21 Surely you know, for you were already born! You have lived so many years! 22 “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail, 23 which I reserve for times of trouble, for days of war and battle? 24 What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth? 25 Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain, and a path for the thunderstorm, 26 to water a land where no one lives, an uninhabited desert, 27 to satisfy a desolate wasteland and make it sprout with grass? 28 Does the rain have a father? Who fathers the drops of dew? 29 From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens 30 when the waters become hard as stone, when the surface of the deep is frozen? 31 “Can you bind the chains[b] of the Pleiades? Can you loosen Orion’s belt? 32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons[c] or lead out the Bear[d] with its cubs? 33 Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set up God’s[e] dominion over the earth? 34 “Can you raise your voice to the clouds and cover yourself with a flood of water? 35 Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’? 36 Who gives the ibis wisdom[f] or gives the rooster understanding?[g] 37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens 38 when the dust becomes hard and the clods of earth stick together? 39 “Do you hunt the prey for the lioness and satisfy the hunger of the lions 40 when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in a thicket? 41 Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God and wander about for lack of food?
You can come up with nothing better than a 41 verse Red Herring?
If you really thought this through, I think you could do much better, but, I suspect you are not comfortable with where it would lead.
Mao and Stalin were tools in the hand of satan given permission by God to carry out His ultimate plan. Call God what you will, one day you can ask Him face to face your own questions in your own Snyde way. We’ll see how far that carries you.
I find it interesting how you are unable to critically evaluate the morality of your god sanctioning the misery wrought by Stalin and Mao, then, in the same breath, issue your threats of hellfire for those who would dare to question.
That’s because you nor I have ZERO authority or anything to question God in His decisions. Carry on.
The bible describes a set of values that we are told are dear to God, that God is the embodiment of these values.....yet we have God described breaking these very same values. That is the problem.
And the winner is......because my parents were. - - -
No winner there - you are so very wrong.
People who have had no contact with the bible or Christianity cannot become Christians, that can only happen through conditioning, conversion or people being drawn to the faith once it has been established....missionaries or evangelism at work, etc.
I'll not debate your contention but, even if true, it does not support your declarative statement about "the winner".
And the winner is......because my parents were. - - -
No winner there - you are so very wrong.
We are supposed to be that influence on our children. Proverbs 22:6 (NKJV) 6 Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it.
I agree with your comment about the parental role.
That’s because you nor I have ZERO authority or anything to question God in His decisions.
Have you like many christians ever prayed to your God to change God given circumstances more to your liking?
Those who truelly trust and believe in God's will be done, Have no reason to send prayers to try and influence Him. You either trust God already has a complete handle on things or you don't.
Anyone praying to God to change what He has already dealt them, is effectively questioning His decisions.
And that is this biggest problem with religious types such as yourself. It is your unwillingness to ask the hard questions, such as does a given claim of a supernatural being meet it's burden of proof. If it does, is this being moral and ethical, and if not, would it be moral and ethical for me to follow it?
I don’t need proof if I have faith.
Thank you! This get right to the heart of the matter I think,at least for me. Some people have faith in a certain set of beliefs,in this instance Christianity, and some don't. The big question that I've been trying to figure out for a long time is if there is a choice to be made to have faith or not. So far I can't really see how there is. The trouble arises when those with faith try to convince those without using evidence, or those without try to convince those with faith that they have evidence to the contrary.
Invariably it seems one side finds the evidence convincing, the other doesn't. Again, I can't see a choice there, it just is what it is. How does one choose to believe what they find unbelievable? How can one stop believing something that they absolutely believe?
I don't really have good answers to these questions, but they are the reason I follow these topics.
And the winner is......because my parents were. - - -
No winner there - you are so very wrong.
People who have had no contact with the bible or Christianity cannot become Christians, that can only happen through conditioning, conversion or people being drawn to the faith once it has been established....missionaries or evangelism at work, etc.
You certainly live in a vacuum. There Muslims who became Christian because Jesus came to them.
And that is this biggest problem with religious types such as yourself. It is your unwillingness to ask the hard questions, such as does a given claim of a supernatural being meet it's burden of proof. If it does, is this being moral and ethical, and if not, would it be moral and ethical for me to follow it?
I don’t need proof if I have faith.
Thank you! This get right to the heart of the matter I think,at least for me. Some people have faith in a certain set of beliefs,in this instance Christianity, and some don't. The big question that I've been trying to figure out for a long time is if there is a choice to be made to have faith or not. So far I can't really see how there is. The trouble arises when those with faith try to convince those without using evidence, or those without try to convince those with faith that they have evidence to the contrary.
Invariably it seems one side finds the evidence convincing, the other doesn't. Again, I can't see a choice there, it just is what it is. How does one choose to believe what they find unbelievable? How can one stop believing something that they absolutely believe?
I don't really have good answers to these questions, but they are the reason I follow these topics.
Every one has faith. They exercise it by believing what they can't know. Some believe, by faith, God is. Others, by faith, believe He is not. At least one can point to information and say it can't happen with out Intelligence. The other uses blind faith and believes nothing made information.
That’s because you nor I have ZERO authority or anything to question God in His decisions.
Have you like many christians ever prayed to your God to change God given circumstances more to your liking?
Those who truelly trust and believe in God's will be done, Have no reason to send prayers to try and influence Him. You either trust God already has a complete handle on things or you don't.
Anyone praying to God to change what He has already dealt them, is effectively questioning His decisions.
look up the book of Isaiah in the Bible where the king Hezekia asked God for more life......and see what God did for him. That changed Gods thoughts on the matter for he was told his would die immediately and his life was prolonged another 15 years. Prayer changes things..
I'm a follower of Christ, been aware of the spiritual part of me and others since I was old enough to have conscious thought. I never understood the 'born again in the spirit' claim by religion, when obviously we are born with the spirit. Anyway Christ's life, teachings, death, resurrection and the Holy spirit all make sense to what I felt at my earliest age.
It also doesn't negate other's spiritual awareness that never knew of Christ or put another name to God.
I'm a follower of Christ but not of religion with all it's exclusiveness, christian usually means a follower of a religion so I don't claim to be one.
Kent
I have what many Christians would consider a warped view of spirituality. So it’s a bit of a comfort to find I am not alone.
I can’t see the things I’ve seen & not be convinced there’s a higher power.
Plus some of the best & most successful men I’ve known have been devout in their faith. Even if you could prove it was just a big fairy tale, there’s power in submitting ourselves to a higher power that guides our thoughts, words & actions
👍🏻 I think there may be a lot more with a like mind than you think.
Why are you unbelievers and atheists SO SO SO obsessed with Christianity?
Not sure if you were talking to me, but I'm not an atheist and I find all kinds of things that humans do and beleive to be fascinating. Religion is very interesting to me,especially when you get to observe numerous different people from different backgrounds and life experiences try to explain why they beleive as they do and rationalize those beliefs. I'm not here to change anyone's mind, or start any fights.
look up the book of Isaiah in the Bible where the king Hezekia asked God for more life......and see what God did for him. That changed Gods thoughts on the matter.. Prayer changes things..
In what ways have your prayers changed God's thoughts or plans?
And that is this biggest problem with religious types such as yourself. It is your unwillingness to ask the hard questions, such as does a given claim of a supernatural being meet it's burden of proof. If it does, is this being moral and ethical, and if not, would it be moral and ethical for me to follow it?
I don’t need proof if I have faith.
Thank you! This get right to the heart of the matter I think,at least for me. Some people have faith in a certain set of beliefs,in this instance Christianity, and some don't. The big question that I've been trying to figure out for a long time is if there is a choice to be made to have faith or not. So far I can't really see how there is. The trouble arises when those with faith try to convince those without using evidence, or those without try to convince those with faith that they have evidence to the contrary.
Invariably it seems one side finds the evidence convincing, the other doesn't. Again, I can't see a choice there, it just is what it is. How does one choose to believe what they find unbelievable? How can one stop believing something that they absolutely believe?
I don't really have good answers to these questions, but they are the reason I follow these topics.
I appreciate these questions. I believe scripture teaches that we are bound by our nature. We don't choose God because our nature is to rebel. We can only repent and believe when we've been given a new nature. That's the spiritual rebirth that Jesus spoke of with Nicademus.
I find this forum format difficult to have a meaningful dialogue. I hope this helps.
Hey Starman, why don’t you start an unbeliever’s thread? Why do you want to dump on the believer’s thread? Why are you so obsessed in our love of Jesus Christ our Lord?
Better yet, why don’t you have the balls to believe in Jesus Christ?
And the winner is......because my parents were. - - -
No winner there - you are so very wrong.
People who have had no contact with the bible or Christianity cannot become Christians, that can only happen through conditioning, conversion or people being drawn to the faith once it has been established....missionaries or evangelism at work, etc.
You certainly live in a vacuum. There Muslims who became Christian because Jesus came to them.
Read the book The Case For Miracles.
I didn't expect you to understand what I said, and you have confirmed my expectation.
Just a hint, it has nothing to do with the fact that some do happen to convert....which is what I said.
Did you consider the fact that there are people who convert to Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, etc? What do you think that means?
Trying to paint me in a corner huh? Even if I gave several examples you would laugh them off and ridicule.
You paint yourself into a corner you goose.
First you admit you don't know how effective your prayers are cause you ain't God.. Next you say you have some (secret) examples that (convinced?) you that your prayers worked.
Trying to paint me in a corner huh? Even if I gave several examples you would laugh them off and ridicule.
You paint yourself into a corner you goose.
First you say you don't know how effective your prayers are cause you ain't God.. Next you say you have some (secret) examples that (convinced?) you that your prayers worked.
See? Talking with you is like talking with a 2 yr old. I’m saying one thing and you are saying another. Calling names tells the audience you have nothing else to add so you delve into insults. Congratulations.
You can come up with nothing better than a 41 verse Red Herring?
If you really thought this through, I think you could do much better, but, I suspect you are not comfortable with where it would lead.
Not a red herring in the least. I don’t care to question the most high God of the universe. The poem illustrates the gall of the man who presumes to question One who is outside time & space.
Debating people who don’t see that as utter foolishness is a waste of time.
As it is written,
“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools”
The book of Job does not paint a nice picture of God or the company He keeps.
Job is a wonderful account of God's grace and mercy..
Job was refined by fire and purified. Job at the end of the book is a better man than when it started. Job was initially said to be a righteous man, but somewhat self righteous. Job thought God was his ace card. When it's over, Job is God's ace card, not the other way around.
The refiner's fire is usually pretty hot. Adversity makes one bitter or better depending on what he brings to the equation.
Some understand it, some don't. Here's why:
1 Corinthians 2:14 (KJV) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
LOL.... Well of course all other ancient Norse, Greek, Persian, Roman, Celtic, Asiatic. Etc etc. Mythology is just that, and accepted by scholars as such.
All Except for your ancient safety blanket cult belief.
TFF.
Originally Posted by WhiteTail48
Your unbelief is a secular myth..
Spoken just like we would expect by a member of any religious cult.
Wouldn't teaching a child to believe in a pagan sect be considered child abuse?
If that child believes in Jesus, it's way beyond child abuse.
Mt 18:6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
Starman, in this thread it looks as though you and your usual tactics have been exposed. Well - uh - I suppose one would say that you have exposed yourself.
And that is this biggest problem with religious types such as yourself. It is your unwillingness to ask the hard questions, such as does a given claim of a supernatural being meet it's burden of proof. If it does, is this being moral and ethical, and if not, would it be moral and ethical for me to follow it?
I don’t need proof if I have faith.
Thank you! This get right to the heart of the matter I think,at least for me. Some people have faith in a certain set of beliefs,in this instance Christianity, and some don't. The big question that I've been trying to figure out for a long time is if there is a choice to be made to have faith or not. So far I can't really see how there is. The trouble arises when those with faith try to convince those without using evidence, or those without try to convince those with faith that they have evidence to the contrary.
Invariably it seems one side finds the evidence convincing, the other doesn't. Again, I can't see a choice there, it just is what it is. How does one choose to believe what they find unbelievable? How can one stop believing something that they absolutely believe?
I don't really have good answers to these questions, but they are the reason I follow these topics.
I appreciate these questions. I believe scripture teaches that we are bound by our nature. We don't choose God because our nature is to rebel. We can only repent and believe when we've been given a new nature. That's the spiritual rebirth that Jesus spoke of with Nicademus.
I find this forum format difficult to have a meaningful dialogue. I hope this helps.
Yes sir, it is hard to discuss something this big and complicated in such a limiting manner, but we try! I appreciate your response.
Wouldn't teaching a child to believe in a pagan sect be considered child abuse?
If that child believes in Jesus, it's way beyond child abuse. .....
Children aren't born with any understanding. They accept what's told to them and aren't necessarily capable of the logic to determine fact from fiction. They believe in Santa for a good many years. Wonder how many are "Clayton" believers who don't really believe and go through the motions to keep their family happy, and avoid being dis-owned by them. Religion breeds fear and actually existis because of it. Lucky for me I was born and raised in a non-believing family and had the commense sense, and experiences, to recognise the believers as the nutcases they really are (the blaspheming, child abusing, angery catholics down the road helped forge my understanding).
And the winner is......because my parents were. - - -
No winner there - you are so very wrong.
People who have had no contact with the bible or Christianity cannot become Christians, that can only happen through conditioning, conversion or people being drawn to the faith once it has been established....missionaries or evangelism at work, etc.
You certainly live in a vacuum. There Muslims who became Christian because Jesus came to them.
Read the book The Case For Miracles.
What about the other 1.2 Billion Muslims?
What about all the Christians who converted to Islam?
And that is this biggest problem with religious types such as yourself. It is your unwillingness to ask the hard questions, such as does a given claim of a supernatural being meet it's burden of proof. If it does, is this being moral and ethical, and if not, would it be moral and ethical for me to follow it?
I don’t need proof if I have faith.
Thank you! This get right to the heart of the matter I think,at least for me. Some people have faith in a certain set of beliefs,in this instance Christianity, and some don't. The big question that I've been trying to figure out for a long time is if there is a choice to be made to have faith or not. So far I can't really see how there is. The trouble arises when those with faith try to convince those without using evidence, or those without try to convince those with faith that they have evidence to the contrary.
Invariably it seems one side finds the evidence convincing, the other doesn't. Again, I can't see a choice there, it just is what it is. How does one choose to believe what they find unbelievable? How can one stop believing something that they absolutely believe?
I don't really have good answers to these questions, but they are the reason I follow these topics.
Every one has faith. They exercise it by believing what they can't know. Some believe, by faith, God is. Others, by faith, believe He is not. At least one can point to information and say it can't happen with out Intelligence. The other uses blind faith and believes nothing made information.
You don't even understand the difference between information and a chemical reaction.
Hey Starman, why don’t you start an unbeliever’s thread? Why do you want to dump on the believer’s thread? Why are you so obsessed in our love of Jesus Christ our Lord?
Better yet, why don’t you have the balls to believe in Jesus Christ?
It's interesting to me how many Christians claim to believe due to a fear of hell, or a fear of no after life. So who is it that lacks balls?
Same reason not to believe in any other supernatural being, lack of sufficient evidence.
I have no fear of hell....totally wrong assessment in my case. I love my God. I want to please Him and make Him proud of me. If He still sends me to Hell then if there is a chance that I could still love Him in hell I would still love Him with all that is in me.
The book of Job does not paint a nice picture of God or the company He keeps.
Job is a wonderful account of God's grace and mercy..
Job was refined by fire and purified. Job at the end of the book is a better man than when it started. Job was initially said to be a righteous man, but somewhat self righteous. Job thought God was his ace card. When it's over, Job is God's ace card, not the other way around.
The refiner's fire is usually pretty hot. Adversity makes one bitter or better depending on what he brings to the equation.
Some understand it, some don't. Here's why:
1 Corinthians 2:14 (KJV) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
DF
Not to worry about his family, servants and livestock, killed by God to prove a point that he himself raised, knowing the outcome from the beginning. A fine display of mercy and justice, haha.
Trying to paint me in a corner huh? Even if I gave several examples you would laugh them off and ridicule.
Sounds like an admission to the weak nature of your examples.
Lol.
Let this cat be the pied piper of his “logic and reason”, marching over the hill to his land of bliss. Be done with this dude. There are sooooooo many places and people that you can spend your efforts on. I’d move on to better ground.
You can come up with nothing better than a 41 verse Red Herring?
If you really thought this through, I think you could do much better, but, I suspect you are not comfortable with where it would lead.
Not a red herring in the least. I don’t care to question the most high God of the universe. The poem illustrates the gall of the man who presumes to question One who is outside time & space.
Debating people who don’t see that as utter foolishness is a waste of time.
As it is written,
“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools”
Your argument presupposed a lot, that your God exists, and that he's the "Most High God of the Universe". If that was the case, it should be self evident from the writings, morals, ethics, and values attributed to him. I just don't see that as being the case, so as a skeptic, it is my to question these writing as ask if they are relevant or outdated, necessary or arbitrary, helpful or oppressive.
Wouldn't teaching a child to believe in a pagan sect be considered child abuse?
If that child believes in Jesus, it's way beyond child abuse.
Mt 18:6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
Morals do exist outside of organized religion, and the ‘morality’ taught by many of these archaic systems is often outdated, sexist, racist, and teaches intolerance and inequality. When a parent forces a child into a religion, the parent is effectively handicapping his or her own offspring by limiting the abilities of the child to question the world around him or her and make informed decisions. Children raised under these conditions will mature believing that their religion is the only correct one, and, in the case of Christianity, they will believe that all who doubt their religion’s validity will suffer eternal damnation. This environment is one that often breeds hate, ignorance, and ‘justified’ violence.” ― David G. McAfee
Trying to paint me in a corner huh? Even if I gave several examples you would laugh them off and ridicule.
Sounds like an admission to the weak nature of your examples.
Lol.
Let this cat be the pied piper of his “logic and reason”, marching over the hill to his land of bliss. Be done with this dude. There are sooooooo many places and people that you can spend your efforts on. I’d move on to better ground.
So you are suggestion he move on to someone more gullible?
Trying to paint me in a corner huh? Even if I gave several examples you would laugh them off and ridicule.
Sounds like an admission to the weak nature of your examples.
Lol.
Let this cat be the pied piper of his “logic and reason”, marching over the hill to his land of bliss. Be done with this dude. There are sooooooo many places and people that you can spend your efforts on. I’d move on to better ground.
So you are suggestion he move on to someone more gullible?
Laffin.....You know EXACTLY what I mean. There is no gray area here, and you know it!
It’s not a threat. It’s what’s written in The Bible. I’m just repeating what it says. Not my word.
Of course it's a threat.
You're like the mafia enforcer.....nice life you have here, it would be a shame if something happened to it. I'm not threatening you, I'm just relaying a message from The Boss.
A threat delivered on behalf of someone else, even a mythical creature, is still a threat.
It's a ruthless Boss who throws people into Hell for their beliefs or their lack of conviction. Reason would say: convince the person, not torture them.
Antelope -sniper is like the rich man that fared sumptuously everyday, then died. One day, he’ll lift up his eyes, being in Hell, and beg for a single drop of water.
He is lost and has rejected God. My guess is he has crossed that line, so be done with him. Don’t argue, don’t explain....he has made his decision, let him die with it. You can pray for him, but not much else.
Why are you unbelievers and atheists SO SO SO obsessed with Christianity?
I don't see the unbelievers starting up these threads. I have largely stayed out of them in the past but do you all really need to pass out your Watchtower magazines every week?
Antelope -sniper is like the rich man that fared sumptuously everyday, then died. One day, he’ll lift up his eyes, being in Hell, and beg for a single drop of water.
He is lost and has rejected God. My guess is he has crossed that line, so be done with him. Don’t argue, don’t explain....he has made his decision, let him die with it. You can pray for him, but not much else.
Bristecd,
I see no good evidence for the existence of your hell.
Take a look at the arguments made tonight. They fall into three categories,
Faith: the excuse one used when they have no evidence, or in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Threats: The immoral proposition that your god sends everyone to hell for his failure to provide sufficient evidence,
Bible verses: Which are totally irrelevant until there's sufficient evidence to believe in your mythos.
My minds open to being changed when provided with sufficient evidence, your side just doesn't have any good evidence, let alone anything approaching extraordinary evidence to support your extraordinary claims.
Do Christians believe that the other 3/4 of the world are going to hell?
No its far more than that, even if you are of The 'wrong' denomination of rival christian you won't receive the same grace of God.
For some believers the club is even smaller, with only 144,000 Jew's being admitted to heaven, all who are virgins and never told a single lie. And this appears in the New Testament.
Revelation 7:3–8: ... saying: "Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, until after we have sealed the servants of God on their foreheads." And I heard the number of the sealed, a hundred and forty-four thousand, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel: 12,000 from the tribe of Judah were sealed, 12,000 from the tribe of Reuben, 12,000 from the tribe of Gad, 12,000 from the tribe of Asher, 12,000 from the tribe of Naphtali, 12,000 from the tribe of Manasseh, 12,000 from the tribe of Simeon, 12,000 from the tribe of Levi, 12,000 from the tribe of Issachar, 12,000 from the tribe of Zebulun, 12,000 from the tribe of Joseph, 12,000 from the tribe of Benjamin were sealed.[1]
Revelation 14:1: Then I looked, and behold, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads.[2]
Revelation 14:3–5: And they were singing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. For it is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins. It is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These have been redeemed from mankind as firstfruits for God and the Lamb, and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are blameless.[3]
That makes for a very small heaven, and a very crowded Hell.
You are the one who admitted you have no good evidence to present, just Faith.
AS,
Please know that it is not a Christian duty or responsibility to convince you about the reality of God and the reality of Jesus and the gift. Folks such as I can point the way ..... explain little or much depending upon the “ears” that hear us....hold you up in prayer before the Father... so on and so forth ...But, it is the Holy Spirit of God .... not me or others.....that shows the clear and weighty truth to the honest seeker of God.
God will not hold me responsible for your eternal destiny. That is between you and God.
Those that have ears to hear, will indeed hear. Those that “stick their own fingers in their ears” ..... for whatever reason they do.... those are the ones that will not hear and not believe and who have not yet received the gift.
Also....There has been much talk about evidence or “proof.” There is proof. As, I have previously related, God spoke to me..... God proved Himself to me. I related that experience on this Forum.
I have proof and you don’t. Our differences may be as simple as that. Seek the proof.... it is there.
Btw....regarding “threat” ....... when one recognizes an “indication of impending.....whatever.....trouble, risk or danger....”...... a responsible caring person might warn the one who is at risk. With that thought in mind, yes, I fear for you and am trying to warn you. Others have as well. Kinda like warning someone of a runaway horse headed their way.....”Watch Out!”
Not to say that preaching hellfire is of no value, but it seems to me that simply threatening some one with hellfire will do little good. Sometimes yes, but why would they be afraid of hellfire from a God they place no stock in? Seems that something specific from the Holy Spirit has to have been communicated first. Anyway, that is a digression.
This is your life and a hand has been dealt to you..... play it wisely.
You are the one who admitted you have no good evidence to present, just Faith.
AS,
Please know that it is not a Christian duty or responsibility to convince you about the reality of God and the reality of Jesus and the gift. Folks such as I can point the way ..... explain little or much depending upon the “ears” that hear us....hold you up in prayer before the Father... so on and so forth ...But, it is the Holy Spirit of God .... not me or others.....that shows the clear and weighty truth to the honest seeker of God.
God will not hold me responsible for your eternal destiny. That is between you and God.
Those that have ears to hear, will indeed hear. Those that “stick their own fingers in their ears” ..... for whatever reason they do.... those are the ones that will not hear and not believe and who have not yet received the gift.
Also....There has been much talk about evidence or “proof.” There is proof. As, I have previously related, God spoke to me..... God proved Himself to me. I related that experience on this Forum.
I have proof and you don’t. Our differences may be as simple as that. Seek the proof.... it is there.
Btw....regarding “threat” ....... when one recognizes an “indication of impending.....whatever.....trouble, risk or danger....”...... a responsible caring person might warn the one who is at risk. With that thought in mind, yes, I fear for you and am trying to warn you. Others have as well. Kinda like warning someone of a runaway horse headed their way.....”Watch Out!”
Not to say that preaching hellfire is of no value, but it seems to me that simply threatening some one with hellfire will do little good. Sometimes yes, but why would they be afraid of hellfire from a God they place no stock in? Seems that something specific from the Holy Spirit has to have been communicated first. Anyway, that is a digression.
This is your life and a hand has been dealt to you..... play it wisely.
ATB,
TF
Proof is a body of information that anyone can access and evaluate and draw a similar conclusion. Personal experience is subjective.
We seem to under a counter attack, I think we can stand up to it.
Just not with logic and reason.
Logic and reason are some of the processes developed by humans - apparently in the quest to gain understanding of whatever intellectual, moral, etc. itches beset them from time to time. These can be very significant processes and quite important to certain types of humans involved with inquisition - possibly some of the best exercises of human talent and capability. Yet - human and limited by human nature - not capable of explaining/validating/justifying everything in life, and certainly not the Creator. Not by works alone, - - -
And that is this biggest problem with religious types such as yourself. It is your unwillingness to ask the hard questions, such as does a given claim of a supernatural being meet it's burden of proof. If it does, is this being moral and ethical, and if not, would it be moral and ethical for me to follow it?
I don’t need proof if I have faith.
Thank you! This get right to the heart of the matter I think,at least for me. Some people have faith in a certain set of beliefs,in this instance Christianity, and some don't. The big question that I've been trying to figure out for a long time is if there is a choice to be made to have faith or not. So far I can't really see how there is. The trouble arises when those with faith try to convince those without using evidence, or those without try to convince those with faith that they have evidence to the contrary. Invariably it seems one side finds the evidence convincing, the other doesn't. Again, I can't see a choice there, it just is what it is. How does one choose to believe what they find unbelievable? How can one stop believing something that they absolutely believe? I don't really have good answers to these questions, but they are the reason I follow these topics.
Every one has faith. They exercise it by believing what they can't know. Some believe, by faith, God is. Others, by faith, believe He is not. At least one can point to information and say it can't happen with out Intelligence. The other uses blind faith and believes nothing made information.
You don't even understand the difference between information and a chemical reaction.
It's a ruthless Boss who throws people into Hell for their beliefs or their lack of conviction. Reason would say: convince the person, not torture them.
Yes, among other important qualities - ruthless - you got it. Whose reason? Human reason, or the reason of the Almighty?
It's a ruthless Boss who throws people into Hell for their beliefs or their lack of conviction. Reason would say: convince the person, not torture them.
Yes, among other important qualities - ruthless - you got it. Whose reason? Human reason, or the reason of the Almighty?
Reason is determined by information. If the 'Almighty' is said to have given a set of values, and is said to embody this set of values, yet is described acting contrary to the very same set of values....we have a problem, we are presented with a contradiction.
It's a ruthless Boss who throws people into Hell for their beliefs or their lack of conviction. Reason would say: convince the person, not torture them.
Yes, among other important qualities - ruthless - you got it. Whose reason? Human reason, or the reason of the Almighty?
Reason is determined by information. If the 'Almighty' is said to have given a set of values, and is said to embody this set of values, yet is described acting contrary to the very same set of values....we have a problem, we are presented with a contradiction.
Information seems to be only one of the determinants in human reasoning. You say "We have a problem, we are presented with a contradiction". Who is "we"? For whom is a contradiction a problem, and why?
The OP asked, "Why are you a Christian," DBT. Do you not have the IQ to deduce you werent spoken to? Oh, I know, you have your freedom, and like a punk with your rights in an inner city school, you gets ta talk all you wants to.
One of the reasons I'm a Christian is because I prefer civilization as opposed to your uncivilized Babylonian babble.
You, by your very nature prove the existence of Lucifer. You're one of the broken spokes in the wheel of civil society.
You butt in where and when you wish, uninvited, as did your hero in the Garden of Eden, seeking to upset the apple cart, probably unaware of yourself being used as a tool, much like stupid, lieberal fools.
The OP asked, "Why are you a Christian," DBT. Do you not have the IQ to deduce you werent spoken to?
If you had actually noticed, I had made no reply until the thread took the turn it did, after which it makes no difference, the course of the thread was set..
The question is, why are you so sad about it?
Quote
Oh, I know, you have your freedom, and like a punk with your rights in an inner city school, you gets ta talk all you wants to.
Your the one with the punk like bad attitude, trying to make it personal whenever placed under question, whining and moaning at how unfair it all is.
Can't you tolerate questioning of beliefs?
You should welcome it in the spirit of discovery and learning. It should be standard practice.
It's a ruthless Boss who throws people into Hell for their beliefs or their lack of conviction. Reason would say: convince the person, not torture them.
Yes, among other important qualities - ruthless - you got it. Whose reason? Human reason, or the reason of the Almighty?
Reason is determined by information. If the 'Almighty' is said to have given a set of values, and is said to embody this set of values, yet is described acting contrary to the very same set of values....we have a problem, we are presented with a contradiction.
Information seems to be only one of the determinants in human reasoning. You say "We have a problem, we are presented with a contradiction". Who is "we"? For whom is a contradiction a problem, and why?
'We' means us the readers. The text doesn't change. It remains the same for all readers/observers. The problems begin with interpretation. Some try to convert what the text clearly says and clearly means into something it clearly does not say or mean. Why? Because the actual meaning does not suit the needs of the faith of the believer. The believer is not looking at it objectively. The filter of faith screens whatever does not suit.
A right royal set up to fail in the full knowledge of what would happen....then blame and punish the two naive innocents for their inevitable failure, a failure planned from the beginning.
You should welcome it in the spirit of discovery and learning..
Discovery?. Learning?... But that means giving up primitive superstitions and the victim status mindset they proudly carry.
Take that away and what are they left with?
Basically we are dealing with Dark Ages tribal mentalities, who miss the pitchforks & torches and village mob comradery in going after witches and heretics.
The OP asked, "Why are you a Christian," DBT. Do you not have the IQ to deduce you werent spoken to?
If you had actually noticed, I had made no reply until the thread took the turn it did, after which it makes no difference, the course of the thread was set..
The question is, why are you so sad about it?
Quote
Oh, I know, you have your freedom, and like a punk with your rights in an inner city school, you gets ta talk all you wants to.
Your the one with the punk like bad attitude, trying to make it personal whenever placed under question, whining and moaning at how unfair it all is.
Can't you tolerate questioning of beliefs?
You should welcome it in the spirit of discovery and learning. It should be standard practice.
I discovered what you are long ago. The snake holds no attraction to me.
The book of Job does not paint a nice picture of God or the company He keeps.
Job is a wonderful account of God's grace and mercy..
Job was refined by fire and purified. Job at the end of the book is a better man than when it started. Job was initially said to be a righteous man, but somewhat self righteous. Job thought God was his ace card. When it's over, Job is God's ace card, not the other way around.
The refiner's fire is usually pretty hot. Adversity makes one bitter or better depending on what he brings to the equation.
Some understand it, some don't. Here's why:
1 Corinthians 2:14 (KJV) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
DF
You bring up a very good example. Job's battle was not with humans (flesh and blood), but we Christians and believers wrestle with other humans leaving the gate wide open. It is the church organization that teaches us to do so claiming that is God's way. Many of the scriptures teach the very opposite. Division among the ranks is the reason we keep losing the battle. Our lack of knowledge is another reason. It could even be said that our lack of knowledge of God is the biggest reason we stay divided. Scripture that we should read, research, take to heart, and act upon is: "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
A right royal set up to fail in the full knowledge of what would happen....then blame and punish the two naive innocents for their inevitable failure, a failure planned from the beginning.
Set the whole thing up so He could send His Son to a time and place where asses were wiped with bare hands, there were no antibiotics or indoor plumbing, so that He could suffer for those who hated Him & die a humiliating and excruciating death for sins He did not commit.
Dang God sure pulled one over on us with this Christianity thing.
You have every right to point out how ridiculous our religious claims are. I have no issue with that I’d sooner die than see it otherwise. But please... do so in the context of the whole story.
I just contextualized it. You don’t have to believe the story, but that is the whole story.
And the winner is......because my parents were. - - -
No winner there - you are so very wrong.
People who have had no contact with the bible or Christianity cannot become Christians, that can only happen through conditioning, conversion or people being drawn to the faith once it has been established....missionaries or evangelism at work, etc.
You certainly live in a vacuum. There Muslims who became Christian because Jesus came to them.
Read the book The Case For Miracles.
I didn't expect you to understand what I said, and you have confirmed my expectation.
Just a hint, it has nothing to do with the fact that some do happen to convert....which is what I said.
Did you consider the fact that there are people who convert to Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, etc? What do you think that means?
God sends a deluding influence one those who wish to believe a lie. Read the book The Case For Miracle.
The book of Job does not paint a nice picture of God or the company He keeps.
Job is a wonderful account of God's grace and mercy..
Job was refined by fire and purified. Job at the end of the book is a better man than when it started. Job was initially said to be a righteous man, but somewhat self righteous. DF
There is not even a hint of Job being self righteous in the beginning, the middle or the end of the book of Job. God gave him an "A" in both Job 1 and Job 2. You should not add to God's Word.
The OP asked, "Why are you a Christian," DBT. Do you not have the IQ to deduce you werent spoken to?
If you had actually noticed, I had made no reply until the thread took the turn it did, after which it makes no difference, the course of the thread was set..
The question is, why are you so sad about it?
Quote
Oh, I know, you have your freedom, and like a punk with your rights in an inner city school, you gets ta talk all you wants to.
Your the one with the punk like bad attitude, trying to make it personal whenever placed under question, whining and moaning at how unfair it all is.
Can't you tolerate questioning of beliefs?
You should welcome it in the spirit of discovery and learning. It should be standard practice.
I discovered what you are long ago. The snake holds no attraction to men.
You see the world through the filter of your faith...consequently what you believe you know and what you say follows like night and day. Nothing surprising.
Proof is a body of information that anyone can access and evaluate and draw a similar conclusion. Personal experience is subjective.
Is that why two scientists can look at the exact same evidence and come up with opposing interpretations? Both take this same evidence and use it to "prove" their view.
God “stacked the deck”? Are you suggesting He is a trickster?
If one reads the interaction between the serpent & Eve you can see that human kinds’ tendency to doubt God’s word existed before the serpent even came along. The father of lies coaxed along a tendency already existent.
God, however, has always been about the business of redemption from the beginning. He is, by definition, the One who is in control of the universe and owes man nothing. The post enlightenment worship of individual autonomy is today isogeted into the texts to support our notion that we are in control even of Gods redemptive plan for His people.
Being omniscient He would have known it was happening in real time, would have known it was coming, would have known what would happen...
Not to mention it was all by His Creation. He’s in charge of all of it...
Originally Posted by Rock Chuck
Originally Posted by xxclaro
Originally Posted by Rock Chuck
Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
There it is in a nutshell. You believe or you don't. You're saved or you're not. There's no other option.
Seems simple enough, but what about God calling only those who he knows will answer, and not bothering with the others?
It's your choice. That fact that God already knows what it will be doesn't affect anything. It's still your choice.
Seems to me there’s not really any choice about it
There were choices to be made, but the humans in the garden failed at them all.
The book of Job does not paint a nice picture of God or the company He keeps.
Job is a wonderful account of God's grace and mercy..
Job was refined by fire and purified. Job at the end of the book is a better man than when it started. Job was initially said to be a righteous man, but somewhat self righteous. Job thought God was his ace card. When it's over, Job is God's ace card, not the other way around.
The refiner's fire is usually pretty hot. Adversity makes one bitter or better depending on what he brings to the equation.
Some understand it, some don't. Here's why:
1 Corinthians 2:14 (KJV) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
DF
Not to worry about his family, servants and livestock, killed by God to prove a point that he himself raised, knowing the outcome from the beginning. A fine display of mercy and justice, haha.
The Spiritually blind can only perceive darkness, the Light is not in them.
The OP asked, "Why are you a Christian," DBT. Do you not have the IQ to deduce you werent spoken to? Oh, I know, you have your freedom, and like a punk with your rights in an inner city school, you gets ta talk all you wants to.
One of the reasons I'm a Christian is because I prefer civilization as opposed to your uncivilized Babylonian babble.
You, by your very nature prove the existence of Lucifer. You're one of the broken spokes in the wheel of civil society.
You butt in where and when you wish, uninvited, as did your hero in the Garden of Eden, seeking to upset the apple cart, probably unaware of yourself being used as a tool, much like stupid, lieberal fools.
'We' means us the readers. The text doesn't change. It remains the same for all readers/observers. The problems begin with interpretation. Some try to convert what the text clearly says and clearly means into something it clearly does not say or mean. Why? Because the actual meaning does not suit the needs of the faith of the believer. The believer is not looking at it objectively. The filter of faith screens whatever does not suit.
This reminds me of evidence. It does not change. t remains the same for all readers/observers. The problems begin with interpretation. Some try to convert what the evidence clearly shows and say it is something it clearly does not show. Why? Because the actual meaning does not suit the needs of the faith of the believer. The believer is not looking at it objectively. The filter of their brainwashing screens whatever does not suit.
A right royal set up to fail in the full knowledge of what would happen....then blame and punish the two naive innocents for their inevitable failure, a failure planned from the beginning.
God's Word tells us Jesus was crucified from the foundation of the world. Sin was not an intrusion into God's plan. He created Satan with full knowledge. Perhaps He looked forward to the curse with glee; or perhaps with sadness. We finites cannot know because His way are higher than ours.
We are closer to a being a dirt clod than we are to being like God.
Do you think you would be a Christian if you were born in Saudi Arabia? Or India? Or Japan? Or Nepal?
And not one direct answer to my questions.
Do Christians believe that the other 3/4 of the world are going to hell?
Someone already did answer gave you a direct answer with a simple, "Yes."
The Scripture is quite clear. Jesus is the only way to the Father.
God sends a deluding influence on those who wish to believe a lie.
Little kids can be saved by Jesus Christ.
The fact that if you believe and confess with your mouth you are surely saved does not mean that is the only way, it means that is the SURE way.
Jesus Christ can take those to the Father HE deems fit, whether they have heard the word and confessed their sins or not. Those who have heard the good news are the ones who have to choose or reject it.
You are the one who admitted you have no good evidence to present, just Faith.
AS, Yes, it is by faith that we believe. But you have faith as well - your faith tells you there is no God. Faith is just belief and trust (or assurance). I’m just as sure there is a God as you are sure there isn’t. I’m not trying to convince you, that’s not my responsibility. I’m just saying there is danger ahead. You can proceed at your own risk. Should you continue on, at least you have no one to blame but yourself because it’s your decision alone.
I believe and follow Jesus's teachings. These posts always bring in the naysayers, it is where they are at but I always sense a distinct lack of peace in their language. Jesus offers a lasting peace to his followers, inexplicable to the doubters, indescribable to many Christian's. That is up to the individual to investigate, hard selling the teachings doesn't work. , tv evangelizing, pulpit pounding etc does not work , imo. It is pretty easy to do for yourself , sit on a stump , look at the mountaintops and give thanks.
God “stacked the deck”? Are you suggesting He is a trickster?
If one reads the interaction between the serpent & Eve you can see that human kinds’ tendency to doubt God’s word existed before the serpent even came along. The father of lies coaxed along a tendency already existent.
God, however, has always been about the business of redemption from the beginning. He is, by definition, the One who is in control of the universe and owes man nothing. The post enlightenment worship of individual autonomy is today isogeted into the texts to support our notion that we are in control even of Gods redemptive plan for His people.
Being omniscient He would have known it was happening in real time, would have known it was coming, would have known what would happen...
Not to mention it was all by His Creation. He’s in charge of all of it...
Originally Posted by Rock Chuck
Originally Posted by xxclaro
Originally Posted by Rock Chuck
Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
There it is in a nutshell. You believe or you don't. You're saved or you're not. There's no other option.
Seems simple enough, but what about God calling only those who he knows will answer, and not bothering with the others?
It's your choice. That fact that God already knows what it will be doesn't affect anything. It's still your choice.
Seems to me there’s not really any choice about it
There were choices to be made, but the humans in the garden failed at them all.
As the story goes, they were not mentally equipped to make them. It was only after the fact that they understood.
Just as God planned would happen and knew what would happen because it was his set up.
The OP asked, "Why are you a Christian," DBT. Do you not have the IQ to deduce you werent spoken to? Oh, I know, you have your freedom, and like a punk with your rights in an inner city school, you gets ta talk all you wants to.
One of the reasons I'm a Christian is because I prefer civilization as opposed to your uncivilized Babylonian babble.
You, by your very nature prove the existence of Lucifer. You're one of the broken spokes in the wheel of civil society.
You butt in where and when you wish, uninvited, as did your hero in the Garden of Eden, seeking to upset the apple cart, probably unaware of yourself being used as a tool, much like stupid, lieberal fools.
What a fun post to read.
He puts ignorance, intolerance and bigotry on display like a badge of honour. All the while believing himself to be a good Christian, so if not fun, it is kind of amusing.
A right royal set up to fail in the full knowledge of what would happen....then blame and punish the two naive innocents for their inevitable failure, a failure planned from the beginning.
Set the whole thing up so He could send His Son to a time and place where asses were wiped with bare hands, there were no antibiotics or indoor plumbing, so that He could suffer for those who hated Him & die a humiliating and excruciating death for sins He did not commit.
Dang God sure pulled one over on us with this Christianity thing.
You have every right to point out how ridiculous our religious claims are. I have no issue with that I’d sooner die than see it otherwise. But please... do so in the context of the whole story.
I just contextualized it. You don’t have to believe the story, but that is the whole story.
Your context is false. You fail to take so many things into account that it's ridiculous. I'll just say that this hypothetical, omniscient/omnipotent God could have done a better job of it from the beginning. And please, don't appeal to free will.....you know very well that children cannot make reliable life choices for a reason.....think about it.
Your context is false. You fail to take so many things into account that it's ridiculous. I'll just say that this hypothetical, omniscient/omnipotent God could have done a better job of it from the beginning. And please, don't appeal to free will.....you know very well that children cannot make reliable life choices for a reason.....think about it.
It was your context that was off; I was merely asking you to consider your comments from inside the system you criticize just for the sake of intellectual honesty.
Again I have no problem with your questioning and criticizing I don’t take it personally. You do seem rather angry about the assertions of something you consider a fairytale tho?
I’m not a guy to appeal to free will. Your willingness to question an Almighty Transcendent God is an example of where I’d be were it for free will of the autonomous sort most people speak.
A right royal set up to fail in the full knowledge of what would happen...
Set the whole thing up so He could send His Son to a time and place where asses were wiped with bare hands, there were no antibiotics or indoor plumbing,.
Greeks and Romans in the time the Jesus story is set, did not wipe their ass with bare hands. and the Romans did have a form of plumbing for their toilets.
It took such pagans to teach dopey jews and christians about better hygiene.
Those tribal folk who recognized what was good had the sense to adopt the Greek and Roman ways.
Originally Posted by efw
so that He could suffer for those who hated Him & die a humiliating and excruciating death for sins He did not commit. .
the character of JC was far from first or last to suffer terrible punishment for crimes one did not commit.
So It is in large part a hugely beat up mythical story by religious cult fanatics, for in such times folks in general would not actually make a lot of fuss about such an incident, considering all the things that could and did befall people in such times.
probably be a good idea for christians to actually do some quality indepth reading on relevant ancient history rather that just relying on disparate, simplistic religious spin merchant extended parable accounts in Bible.
but i suspect most will out of fear, just stay in their safe space enslavement to subjective narrative primitive mythology.
God's Word tells us Jesus was crucified from the foundation of the world. Sin was not an intrusion into God's plan. He created Satan with full knowledge. Perhaps He looked forward to the curse with glee ; or perhaps with sadness... We finites cannot know ...
or total indifference.
however we do know the Lord gets peronal pleasure out of destroying as expressed in Deuteronomy 28:63.
A right royal set up to fail in the full knowledge of what would happen....then blame and punish the two naive innocents for their inevitable failure, a failure planned from the beginning.
Set the whole thing up so He could send His Son to a time and place where asses were wiped with bare hands, there were no antibiotics or indoor plumbing, so that He could suffer for those who hated Him & die a humiliating and excruciating death for sins He did not commit.
Dang God sure pulled one over on us with this Christianity thing.
You have every right to point out how ridiculous our religious claims are. I have no issue with that I’d sooner die than see it otherwise. But please... do so in the context of the whole story.
I just contextualized it. You don’t have to believe the story, but that is the whole story.
Your context is false. You fail to take so many things into account that it's ridiculous. I'll just say that this hypothetical, omniscient/omnipotent God could have done a better job of it from the beginning. And please, don't appeal to free will.....you know very well that children cannot make reliable life choices for a reason.....think about it.
Truly you are an arrogant individual. You couldn't create a multi-billion dollar business and live for 200 years and yet you think you can do a better job for all of history. You are special!
And the winner is......because my parents were. - - -
No winner there - you are so very wrong.
People who have had no contact with the bible or Christianity cannot become Christians, that can only happen through conditioning, conversion or people being drawn to the faith once it has been established....missionaries or evangelism at work, etc.
You certainly live in a vacuum. There Muslims who became Christian because Jesus came to them.
Read the book The Case For Miracles.
I didn't expect you to understand what I said, and you have confirmed my expectation.
Just a hint, it has nothing to do with the fact that some do happen to convert....which is what I said.
Did you consider the fact that there are people who convert to Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, etc? What do you think that means?
God sends a deluding influence one those who wish to believe a lie. Read the book The Case For Miracle.
I've read that in the Bible, but I find it a bit confusing. I've heard from a lot of Christians that the way they came to believe was by some life changing event that left them convinced that God had spoken to them. Many of them were not seeking at all, and perhaps didn't even want to believe. The Apostle Paul might even fit that description, I don't know. It just seems like that statement doesn't always hold true. It seems like you need to believe in order to understand, but you also need to understand before you can believe, if that makes sense.
Why does Strobel not make mention of catholic miracles considering they are some of the most documented?
could it be his Evangelical Protestant bias perhaps?
Originally Posted by efw
God “stacked the deck”? Are you suggesting He is a trickster?
God most certainly deployed the best trickster in the business for the task.
and since his son was pre-destined for sacrfice (before the foundation of the world), then he couldnt risk Adam/Eve making a different choice, ..so yes, the deck was stacked.
People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive. - Blaise Pascal
And then they go looking for reasons to substantiate their belief.
This likely applies to one’s ‘rejection of’ the existence of God...as well as one’s ‘belief in’ the existence of God.
Thomas Nagel is a professor at New York University who teaches philosophy and law, and he’s an atheist. And as an atheist he makes an extraordinary confession...he didn’t just come to the conclusion based on the data...he said:
“I ‘want’ atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.” - Thomas Nagel
“It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, ‘hope’ that I’m right in my belief. I don’t ‘want’ there to be a God; I don’t ‘want’ the universe to be like that.” - Thomas Nagel
There’s clearly a difference between “I *don’t* believe it” and “I don’t *want* to believe it”.
People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive. - Blaise Pascal
And then they go looking for reasons to substantiate their belief.
This likely applies to one’s ‘rejection of’ the existence of God...as well as one’s ‘belief in’ the existence of God.
Thomas Nagel is a professor at New York University who teaches philosophy and law, and he’s an atheist. And as an atheist he makes an extraordinary confession...he didn’t just come to the conclusion based on the data...he said:
“I ‘want’ atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.” - Thomas Nagel
“It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, ‘hope’ that I’m right in my belief. I don’t ‘want’ there to be a God; I don’t ‘want’ the universe to be like that.” - Thomas Nagel
There’s clearly a difference between “I *don’t* believe it” and “I don’t *want* to believe it”.
A right royal set up to fail in the full knowledge of what would happen....then blame and punish the two naive innocents for their inevitable failure, a failure planned from the beginning.
Set the whole thing up so He could send His Son to a time and place where asses were wiped with bare hands, there were no antibiotics or indoor plumbing, so that He could suffer for those who hated Him & die a humiliating and excruciating death for sins He did not commit.
Dang God sure pulled one over on us with this Christianity thing.
You have every right to point out how ridiculous our religious claims are. I have no issue with that I’d sooner die than see it otherwise. But please... do so in the context of the whole story.
I just contextualized it. You don’t have to believe the story, but that is the whole story.
Your context is false. You fail to take so many things into account that it's ridiculous. I'll just say that this hypothetical, omniscient/omnipotent God could have done a better job of it from the beginning. And please, don't appeal to free will.....you know very well that children cannot make reliable life choices for a reason.....think about it.
Truly you are an arrogant individual. You couldn't create a multi-billion dollar business and live for 200 years and yet you think you can do a better job for all of history. You are special!
I'm not the arrogant one abusing others because they question beliefs and point out problems, in other words, discussing the issues and not attacking an opponent. That is you and your group.
The context was wrong because the context described in genesis tells us that God placed two naive individuals, not having knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, in the garden with a cunning Serpent in the full knowledge of what would happen....and it was only upon eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they knew what they had done.
That clearly is the context because that is the story line.
People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive. - Blaise Pascal
And then they go looking for reasons to substantiate their belief.
This likely applies to one’s ‘rejection of’ the existence of God...as well as one’s ‘belief in’ the existence of God.
Thomas Nagel is a professor at New York University who teaches philosophy and law, and he’s an atheist. And as an atheist he makes an extraordinary confession...he didn’t just come to the conclusion based on the data...he said:
“I ‘want’ atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.” - Thomas Nagel
“It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, ‘hope’ that I’m right in my belief. I don’t ‘want’ there to be a God; I don’t ‘want’ the universe [quote=antlers]People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive. - Blaise Pascal
And then they go looking for reasons to substantiate their belief.
This likely applies to one’s ‘rejection of’ the existence of God...as well as one’s ‘belief in’ the existence of God.
Thomas Nagel is a professor at New York University who teaches philosophy and law, and he’s an atheist. And as an atheist he makes an extraordinary confession...he didn’t just come to the conclusion based on the data...he said:
“I ‘want’ atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.” - Thomas Nagel
“It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, ‘hope’ that I’m right in my belief. I don’t ‘want’ there to be a God; I don’t ‘want’ the universe to be like that.” - Thomas Nagel
There’s clearly a difference between “I *don’t* believe it” and “I don’t *want* to believe it”.
Atheism is not a belief, it's a lack of conviction based on insufficient evidence to form a conviction.
Just like most people are not convinced in the existence of Zeus or Odin and all the gods that people once believed in.
You are the arrogant one. You're too gutless to start your own thread, "Why are you not Christian", because you are afraid we, who you call arrogant, wouldn't be arrogant asswholes, like you, and we wouldnt show up to crap on your BS and you would thus prove you're a liar and we arent arrogant.
Go ahead. Try it.
There are plenty of unbelievers on the Fire, yet only a few of you arrogant asswholes show your ass on a believers thread.
You're no better than the commie liebs who show up at public forums to prevent event scheduled conservatives from being able to speak.
A right royal set up to fail in the full knowledge of what would happen....then blame and punish the two naive innocents for their inevitable failure, a failure planned from the beginning.
Set the whole thing up so He could send His Son to a time and place where asses were wiped with bare hands, there were no antibiotics or indoor plumbing, so that He could suffer for those who hated Him & die a humiliating and excruciating death for sins He did not commit.
Dang God sure pulled one over on us with this Christianity thing.
You have every right to point out how ridiculous our religious claims are. I have no issue with that I’d sooner die than see it otherwise. But please... do so in the context of the whole story.
I just contextualized it. You don’t have to believe the story, but that is the whole story.
Your context is false. You fail to take so many things into account that it's ridiculous. I'll just say that this hypothetical, omniscient/omnipotent God could have done a better job of it from the beginning. And please, don't appeal to free will.....you know very well that children cannot make reliable life choices for a reason.....think about it.
Truly you are an arrogant individual. You couldn't create a multi-billion dollar business and live for 200 years and yet you think you can do a better job for all of history. You are special!
I'm not the arrogant one abusing others because they question beliefs and point out problems, in other words, discussing the issues and not attacking an opponent. That is you and your group.
The context was wrong because the context described in genesis tells us that God placed two naive individuals, not having knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, in the garden with a cunning Serpent in the full knowledge of what would happen....and it was only upon eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they knew what they had done.
That clearly is the context because that is the story line.
But it gets worse.
This is the "Original Sin", that could only be washed away by the blood sacrifice, where God comes to the earth as human, to sacrifice himself, to himself, to create a loop hole for the sin he placed upon all human when he tricked them before they possessed the knowledge of good and evil.
One of the reasons I'm a Christian is because I prefer civilization as opposed to your uncivilized Babylonian babble.
That's rich.....considering your continuous uncivilized Babylonian babble:
Originally Posted by jaguartx
You are the arrogant one. You're too gutless to start your own thread, "Why are you not Christian", because you are afraid we, who you call arrogant, wouldn't be arrogant asswholes, like you, and we wouldnt show up to crap on your BS and you would thus prove you're a liar and we arent arrogant.
Go ahead. Try it.
There are plenty of unbelievers on the Fire, yet only a few of you arrogant asswholes show your ass on a believers thread.
You're no better than the commie liebs who show up at public forums to prevent event scheduled conservatives from being able to speak.
You are the most uncivilized creature participating in this discussion.
People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive. - Blaise Pascal
There’s clearly a difference between “I *don’t* believe it” and “I don’t *want* to believe it”.
I can agree with this. But, it has to do both ways doesn't it? Some don't want to believe, but some do want to. Definitely some people don't want there to be a God, for whatever reason, but definitely some people do want there to be one, mostly as a hope for afterlife and advantages in this life. I do believe that there are also those who do want to believe and can't, and those who wish they didn't but they do. I just wonder how much of it you really get to decide.
The trouble is that in a nutshell religion has a core of arrogance and leads to bad things (hatred, discrimination etc). Non believers are offended by the arrogance and jump on the religious postings - life is short - don't poo in the pool because god said it'll save your soul
One of the reasons I'm a Christian is because I prefer civilization as opposed to your uncivilized Babylonian babble.
That's rich.....considering your continuous uncivilized Babylonian babble:
Originally Posted by jaguartx
You are the arrogant one. You're too gutless to start your own thread, "Why are you not Christian", because you are afraid we, who you call arrogant, wouldn't be arrogant asswholes, like you, and we wouldnt show up to crap on your BS and you would thus prove you're a liar and we arent arrogant.
Go ahead. Try it.
There are plenty of unbelievers on the Fire, yet only a few of you arrogant asswholes show your ass on a believers thread.
You're no better than the commie liebs who show up at public forums to prevent event scheduled conservatives from being able to speak.
You are the most uncivilized creature participating in this discussion.
I, and other believers, were asked why we believe. I was invited into this thread. What's your excuse?
Oh, yes, doing the christian thing and enlightening us with the bad news. God bless you. You're so benevolent.
One of the reasons I'm a Christian is because I prefer civilization as opposed to your uncivilized Babylonian babble.
That's rich.....considering your continuous uncivilized Babylonian babble:
Originally Posted by jaguartx
You are the arrogant one. You're too gutless to start your own thread, "Why are you not Christian", because you are afraid we, who you call arrogant, wouldn't be arrogant asswholes, like you, and we wouldnt show up to crap on your BS and you would thus prove you're a liar and we arent arrogant.
Go ahead. Try it.
There are plenty of unbelievers on the Fire, yet only a few of you arrogant asswholes show your ass on a believers thread.
You're no better than the commie liebs who show up at public forums to prevent event scheduled conservatives from being able to speak.
You are the most uncivilized creature participating in this discussion.
I, and other believers, were asked why we believe. I was invited into this thread. What's your excuse?
Oh, yes, doing the christian thing and enlightening us with the bad news. God bless you. You're so benevolent.
Is this how you are trying to excuse your bad behavior?
Everything goes to the same place - we die and that's it. Make the most of life, don't waste time on an insurance policy that doesn't exist - you'll be a better person for it.
Is this how you are trying to excuse your bad behavior?
It is the duty of christians to pull into line fellow church members like jX who are off the rails...yet the CF christians don't seem the least bit interested or just too cowardly.
I'm not the arrogant one abusing others because they question beliefs and point out problems, in other words, discussing the issues and not attacking an opponent. That is you and your group.
The context was wrong because the context described in genesis tells us that God placed two naive individuals, not having knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, in the garden with a cunning Serpent in the full knowledge of what would happen....and it was only upon eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they knew what they had done.
That clearly is the context because that is the story line.
I haven’t been arrogant; I hope I haven’t come across as such.
As a matter of fact if there were a few I could share a camp with from the fire here as I have some Antelope Sniper would be toward the top of the list.
The problem with your “context was wrong” comment was that I never even tried to dispute your interpretation of the Genesis narrative. All I did was complete the story showing Gods gracious plan.
It's a ruthless Boss who throws people into Hell for their beliefs or their lack of conviction. Reason would say: convince the person, not torture them.
Yes, among other important qualities - ruthless - you got it. Whose reason? Human reason, or the reason of the Almighty?
Evening CCCC, I hope you are holding up well against the high NM winter and your crazy state legislature.
As for human vs. supernatural reasoning, we known human reasoning exists, and so far, none of the theist here have prevented sufficient evidence supporting a position regarding the existence of a supernatural being capable of reasoning. Until such time, the only reasoning we know to have at our disposal is the human kind. Sure it's not perfect, but it's the best we have.
Everything goes to the same place - we die and that's it. Make the most of life, don't waste time on an insurance policy that doesn't exist - you'll be a better person for it.
Never wasted time.
Not an insurance policy.
I am a better person for believing what I believe both here & in eternity.
A right royal set up to fail in the full knowledge of what would happen....then blame and punish the two naive innocents for their inevitable failure, a failure planned from the beginning.
Set the whole thing up so He could send His Son to a time and place where asses were wiped with bare hands, there were no antibiotics or indoor plumbing, so that He could suffer for those who hated Him & die a humiliating and excruciating death for sins He did not commit.
Dang God sure pulled one over on us with this Christianity thing.
You have every right to point out how ridiculous our religious claims are. I have no issue with that I’d sooner die than see it otherwise. But please... do so in the context of the whole story.
I just contextualized it. You don’t have to believe the story, but that is the whole story.
Your context is false. You fail to take so many things into account that it's ridiculous. I'll just say that this hypothetical, omniscient/omnipotent God could have done a better job of it from the beginning. And please, don't appeal to free will.....you know very well that children cannot make reliable life choices for a reason.....think about it.
Truly you are an arrogant individual. You couldn't create a multi-billion dollar business and live for 200 years and yet you think you can do a better job for all of history. You are special!
I'm not the arrogant one abusing others because they question beliefs and point out problems, in other words, discussing the issues and not attacking an opponent. That is you and your group.
The context was wrong because the context described in genesis tells us that God placed two naive individuals, not having knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, in the garden with a cunning Serpent in the full knowledge of what would happen....and it was only upon eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they knew what they had done.
That clearly is the context because that is the story line.
You still claimed God made a mistake. That is thinking you know more than The Creator. If you read the rest of the Bible you discover only one was naive.
You are among the most naive people. You think nothing made everything, not realizing nothing is, well, nothing and does nothing.
Yeah, efw, the great AS, who lyingly said God was wrong when HE said Tyre would never rise from the sea again and knowingly tried disingenuously to point out a different city nearby and blasphemed God to try and prove there either is no God or that he was a liar?
I wouldnt mind if he had merely been mistaken, but hes two faced as proven by that incident and others from Christian threads years ago.
I have some atheist friends I hunt and fish with. No deceivers.
Everything goes to the same place - we die and that's it. Make the most of life, don't waste time on an insurance policy that doesn't exist - you'll be a better person for it.
I'm not the arrogant one abusing others because they question beliefs and point out problems, in other words, discussing the issues and not attacking an opponent. That is you and your group.
The context was wrong because the context described in genesis tells us that God placed two naive individuals, not having knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, in the garden with a cunning Serpent in the full knowledge of what would happen....and it was only upon eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they knew what they had done.
That clearly is the context because that is the story line.
I haven’t been arrogant; I hope I haven’t come across as such.
As a matter of fact if there were a few I could share a camp with from the fire here as I have some Antelope Sniper would be toward the top of the list.
The problem with your “context was wrong” comment was that I never even tried to dispute your interpretation of the Genesis narrative. All I did was complete the story showing Gods gracious plan.
If you ever expect to find yourself in the Denver area, let me know.
Everything goes to the same place - we die and that's it. Make the most of life, don't waste time on an insurance policy that doesn't exist - you'll be a better person for it.
Your faith in the unknown is LUCIFERIAN. .
FIXT.
That's why our theaving traitorus govt has the US in the shape it's in today, going under, if not for a believer, Trump.
Mouthers "if it feels good do it" luciferian philosophy devoid of morals and patriotic responsibility and submission to the ephemeral flesh is that of the progressive left and of stalin's plan to destroy us.
Everything goes to the same place - we die and that's it. Make the most of life, don't waste time on an insurance policy that doesn't exist - you'll be a better person for it.
Your faith in the unknown is admirable.
That's why our thriving govt has the US in the shape it's in today, going under, if not for a believer, Trump.
Mouthers "if it feels good do it" luciferian philosophy devoid of morals and patriotic responsibility and submission to the ephemeral flesh is that of the progressive left and of stalin's plan to destroy us.
Nothing in this post in any way represents my personal philosophy.
Why are you atheists so bent out of shape over a “Being” that to you doesn’t exist?
If our God is fictional, why are you and your atheist buds treating Him as real? You’re giving lots of time and attention to malign our very real sovereign God, who to you doesn’t even exist.
Your philosophy is unchristian and contradictory to the principles of or country as founded and of the founders. This country was dedicated to GOD and Christian principles and is the reason it became the greatest nation on the face of the earth as promised ages previously by GOD to Ephrim and Manessah.
For many decades, to serve in govt, leaders had to profess a belief in God.
Get a clue. The inalienable rights given us by our Creator.
And now it's being saved, at least temporarily, by the hand of GOD Almighty by HIS servant Trump, just as King Cyrus saved the tribe of Judah, from Babylon, as prophecied 400 years before in the Bible.
Had your fellow heathen Hillary been elected, we would already be history.
BS she doesnt share your values. The constitution and 2A are small points in comparison to kicking GOD out of school and general principles of a decent nation.
Your philosophy is no better than that of the babble of the fallen Babylonian Empire, Rome, and has been leading us to the same destruction.
Abortion, then post partum abortion. Look around and see what the hell this country has degenerated to.
Queers kissing and marrying and kids having two mommy's and no daddies and a corksucker and commie and lying injun running to ruin the US.
The communist plan, get rid of God and the family and morals and the shining city on the hill is ours.
We dont shine very bright anymore, and it's because we've turned from GOD.
Why are you atheists so bent out of shape over a “Being” that to you doesn’t exist?
If our God is fictional, why are you and your atheist buds treating Him as real? You’re giving lots of time and attention to malign our very real sovereign God, who to you doesn’t even exist.
How do these untrue beliefs affect the actions of the believers in this world and lead to sub-optimal outcomes?
You are the arrogant one. You're too gutless to start your own thread, "Why are you not Christian", because you are afraid we, who you call arrogant, wouldn't be arrogant asswholes, like you, and we wouldnt show up to crap on your BS and you would thus prove you're a liar and we arent arrogant.
Go ahead. Try it.
There are plenty of unbelievers on the Fire, yet only a few of you arrogant asswholes show your ass on a believers thread.
You're no better than the commie liebs who show up at public forums to prevent event scheduled conservatives from being able to speak.
Perhaps a good cry might make you feel better? Don't forget to get your mummy to dry your face, sweetie.
Your philosophy is unchristian and contradictory to the principles of or country as founded and of the founders. This country was dedicated to GOD and Christian principles and is the reason it became the greatest nation on the face of the earth as promised ages previously by GOD to Ephrim and Manessah.
For many decades, to serve in govt, leaders had to profess a belief in God.
Get a clue. The inalienable rights given us by our Creator.
And now it's being saved, at least temporarily, by the hand of GOD Almighty by HIS servant Trump, just as King Cyrus saved the tribe of Judah, from Babylon, as prophecied 400 years before in the Bible.
Had your fellow heathen Hillary been elected, we would already be history.
BS she doesnt share your values. The constitution and 2A are small points in comparison to kicking GOD out of school and general principles of a decent nation.
Your philosophy is no better than that of the babble of the fallen Babylonian Empire, Rome, and has been leading us to the same destruction.
Abortion, then post partum abortion. Look around and see what the hell this country has degenerated to.
Queers kissing and marrying and kids having two mommy's and no daddies and a corksucker and commie and lying injun running to ruin the US.
The communist plan, get rid of God and the family and morals and the shining city on the hill is ours.
We dont shine very bright anymore, and it's because we've turned from GOD.
Thanks for doing your part.
You really should preach less and listen, and think more.
Is this how you are trying to excuse your bad behavior?
It is the duty of christians to pull into line fellow church members like jX who are off the rails...yet the CF christians don't seem the least bit interested or just too cowardly.
It's just Jag and couple of others that get hysterical and out of line.
On a serious note. Do you have any idea just how unhinged you've become?
Dead serious. You need to walk away from the social media, youtube and everything in your life causing you this unhealthy level of bitterness and angst and seek some professional help.
Mentally, you do not seem to be in a good place right now.
I'm not the arrogant one abusing others because they question beliefs and point out problems, in other words, discussing the issues and not attacking an opponent. That is you and your group.
The context was wrong because the context described in genesis tells us that God placed two naive individuals, not having knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, in the garden with a cunning Serpent in the full knowledge of what would happen....and it was only upon eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they knew what they had done.
That clearly is the context because that is the story line.
I haven’t been arrogant; I hope I haven’t come across as such.
As a matter of fact if there were a few I could share a camp with from the fire here as I have some Antelope Sniper would be toward the top of the list.
The problem with your “context was wrong” comment was that I never even tried to dispute your interpretation of the Genesis narrative. All I did was complete the story showing Gods gracious plan.
Fair enough....but I would question the idea that it is a gracious plan to set up a naive couple to fail, knowing that they would fail, blaming them for their inadequacy and failure, then punishing not only them but the whole world for it.
How this could be described as gracious is a mystery to me.
Why are you atheists so bent out of shape over a “Being” that to you doesn’t exist?
If our God is fictional, why are you and your atheist buds treating Him as real? You’re giving lots of time and attention to malign our very real sovereign God, who to you doesn’t even exist.
How do these untrue beliefs affect the actions of the believers in this world and lead to sub-optimal outcomes?
I'm not the arrogant one abusing others because they question beliefs and point out problems, in other words, discussing the issues and not attacking an opponent. That is you and your group.
The context was wrong because the context described in genesis tells us that God placed two naive individuals, not having knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, in the garden with a cunning Serpent in the full knowledge of what would happen....and it was only upon eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they knew what they had done.
That clearly is the context because that is the story line.
I haven’t been arrogant; I hope I haven’t come across as such.
As a matter of fact if there were a few I could share a camp with from the fire here as I have some Antelope Sniper would be toward the top of the list.
The problem with your “context was wrong” comment was that I never even tried to dispute your interpretation of the Genesis narrative. All I did was complete the story showing Gods gracious plan.
Fair enough....but I would question the idea that it is a gracious plan to set up a naive couple to fail, knowing that they would fail, blaming them for their inadequacy and failure, then punishing not only them but the whole world for it.
How this could be described as gracious is a mystery to me.
In His grace He did not kill them and start over. I am sure they would agree.
It's not what I say, the bible tells us that God regretted creating the world, which implies a mistake...just before He is said to have drowned the whole world, guilty and innocent alike.
This New World was dedicated to God by Queen Isabella of Spain and set it on its course of greatness and Christianized it for GOD.,
But GOD had prophesied it ages before in addressing Ephraim and Manessah when HE made a covenant with them that would only be broken by their heirs by turning away from HIM.
One was promised his people would become the largest nation on the earth, that the sun would not set on its shores. Great Britain, contraction of Great Birth Nation (referring to its Tribes of Israel history) would fulfill that prophecy with the British Empire including Australia, China, India, New Zeland.
The other promised his heirs would become the strongest nation on the face of the earth, and promised it would control the gates of its enemies. And we did, from the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, and more.
It's not what I say, the bible tells us that God regretted creating the world, which implies a mistake...just before He is said to have drowned the whole world, guilty and innocent alike.
Liar. I would explain how and why He saved us with that flood, but not to a stone.
Any believers who wish to know may feel free to PM me. PS, it's pretty well spelled out in the Bible, but your eyes are covered with scales for a reason.
If you ever wish to have them removed, talk to HIM. It's not my business to do.
Why are you atheists so bent out of shape over a “Being” that to you doesn’t exist?
If our God is fictional, why are you and your atheist buds treating Him as real? You’re giving lots of time and attention to malign our very real sovereign God, who to you doesn’t even exist.
How do these untrue beliefs affect the actions of the believers in this world and lead to sub-optimal outcomes?
Prove they’re untrue. Where’s your evidence?
How about you prove vampires, werewolves, leprechauns, unicorns, pegasi, orcs, trolls, and 12 headed hydra's don't exist?
By your standard, you MUST believe all of these exist until you can PROVE they don't.
This is why in logic, the burden of proof belongs to the party making the positive claim.
You claim some supernatural being exists. Define it, and lets see what you have for evidence.
I'm not the arrogant one abusing others because they question beliefs and point out problems, in other words, discussing the issues and not attacking an opponent. That is you and your group.
The context was wrong because the context described in genesis tells us that God placed two naive individuals, not having knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, in the garden with a cunning Serpent in the full knowledge of what would happen....and it was only upon eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they knew what they had done.
That clearly is the context because that is the story line.
I haven’t been arrogant; I hope I haven’t come across as such.
As a matter of fact if there were a few I could share a camp with from the fire here as I have some Antelope Sniper would be toward the top of the list.
The problem with your “context was wrong” comment was that I never even tried to dispute your interpretation of the Genesis narrative. All I did was complete the story showing Gods gracious plan.
Fair enough....but I would question the idea that it is a gracious plan to set up a naive couple to fail, knowing that they would fail, blaming them for their inadequacy and failure, then punishing not only them but the whole world for it.
How this could be described as gracious is a mystery to me.
And I have to imagine that a God as great as EFW contends would have produced a much better plan.
Why are you atheists so bent out of shape over a “Being” that to you doesn’t exist?
If our God is fictional, why are you and your atheist buds treating Him as real? You’re giving lots of time and attention to malign our very real sovereign God, who to you doesn’t even exist.
How do these untrue beliefs affect the actions of the believers in this world and lead to sub-optimal outcomes?
Your defense has a hallow ring. There have been plenty of suboptimal outcomes by atheists who favored a godless universe.
You cleverly focus on the worst in belief in God and cleverly ignore the worst in disbelief of God. Hollow rhetoric.
You are still treating God as real, but your hatred of Him bleeds through your tiring rhetoric.
I'm not the arrogant one abusing others because they question beliefs and point out problems, in other words, discussing the issues and not attacking an opponent. That is you and your group.
The context was wrong because the context described in genesis tells us that God placed two naive individuals, not having knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, in the garden with a cunning Serpent in the full knowledge of what would happen....and it was only upon eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they knew what they had done.
That clearly is the context because that is the story line.
I haven’t been arrogant; I hope I haven’t come across as such.
As a matter of fact if there were a few I could share a camp with from the fire here as I have some Antelope Sniper would be toward the top of the list.
The problem with your “context was wrong” comment was that I never even tried to dispute your interpretation of the Genesis narrative. All I did was complete the story showing Gods gracious plan.
Fair enough....but I would question the idea that it is a gracious plan to set up a naive couple to fail, knowing that they would fail, blaming them for their inadequacy and failure, then punishing not only them but the whole world for it.
How this could be described as gracious is a mystery to me.
In His grace He did not kill them and start over. I am sure they would agree.
No, According your bible, he just flooded the entire world, murdering every human, except eight, so in this portrayal, he's not exactly gracious.
I'm not the arrogant one abusing others because they question beliefs and point out problems, in other words, discussing the issues and not attacking an opponent. That is you and your group.
The context was wrong because the context described in genesis tells us that God placed two naive individuals, not having knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, in the garden with a cunning Serpent in the full knowledge of what would happen....and it was only upon eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they knew what they had done.
That clearly is the context because that is the story line.
I haven’t been arrogant; I hope I haven’t come across as such.
As a matter of fact if there were a few I could share a camp with from the fire here as I have some Antelope Sniper would be toward the top of the list.
The problem with your “context was wrong” comment was that I never even tried to dispute your interpretation of the Genesis narrative. All I did was complete the story showing Gods gracious plan.
Fair enough....but I would question the idea that it is a gracious plan to set up a naive couple to fail, knowing that they would fail, blaming them for their inadequacy and failure, then punishing not only them but the whole world for it.
How this could be described as gracious is a mystery to me.
In His grace He did not kill them and start over. I am sure they would agree.
Kill them on top of setting them up to fail and laying the blame on them?
The latter is bad enough.
There is no grace to be seen any way you look at it....unless some special definition of 'grace' is being used?
This and more is why the Gnostics relegated the bible god to evil demiurge status
I'm not the arrogant one abusing others because they question beliefs and point out problems, in other words, discussing the issues and not attacking an opponent. That is you and your group.
The context was wrong because the context described in genesis tells us that God placed two naive individuals, not having knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, in the garden with a cunning Serpent in the full knowledge of what would happen....and it was only upon eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they knew what they had done.
That clearly is the context because that is the story line.
I haven’t been arrogant; I hope I haven’t come across as such.
As a matter of fact if there were a few I could share a camp with from the fire here as I have some Antelope Sniper would be toward the top of the list.
The problem with your “context was wrong” comment was that I never even tried to dispute your interpretation of the Genesis narrative. All I did was complete the story showing Gods gracious plan.
Fair enough....but I would question the idea that it is a gracious plan to set up a naive couple to fail, knowing that they would fail, blaming them for their inadequacy and failure, then punishing not only them but the whole world for it.
How this could be described as gracious is a mystery to me.
And I have to imagine that a God as great as EFW contends would have produced a much better plan.
Yer right. Darn. Ifin He had jus Ben near smart as u.
Why are you atheists so bent out of shape over a “Being” that to you doesn’t exist?
If our God is fictional, why are you and your atheist buds treating Him as real? You’re giving lots of time and attention to malign our very real sovereign God, who to you doesn’t even exist.
How do these untrue beliefs affect the actions of the believers in this world and lead to sub-optimal outcomes?
Your defense has a hallow ring. There have been plenty of suboptimal outcomes by atheists who favored a godless universe.
You cleverly focus on the worst in belief in God and cleverly ignore the worst in disbelief of God. Hollow rhetoric.
You are still treating God as real, but your hatred of Him bleeds through your tiring rhetoric.
And I regular speak out against the evils of Mao, Stalin and the Post-Modern Marxist and political left. There is much in their beliefs that's untrue adn prdouces "sub-optimal" outcomes.
Just because someone holds true believes on the subject of the supernatural, that doesn't mean their beliefs are harmless in other aspects.
I'm not the arrogant one abusing others because they question beliefs and point out problems, in other words, discussing the issues and not attacking an opponent. That is you and your group.
The context was wrong because the context described in genesis tells us that God placed two naive individuals, not having knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, in the garden with a cunning Serpent in the full knowledge of what would happen....and it was only upon eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they knew what they had done.
That clearly is the context because that is the story line.
I haven’t been arrogant; I hope I haven’t come across as such.
As a matter of fact if there were a few I could share a camp with from the fire here as I have some Antelope Sniper would be toward the top of the list.
The problem with your “context was wrong” comment was that I never even tried to dispute your interpretation of the Genesis narrative. All I did was complete the story showing Gods gracious plan.
Fair enough....but I would question the idea that it is a gracious plan to set up a naive couple to fail, knowing that they would fail, blaming them for their inadequacy and failure, then punishing not only them but the whole world for it.
How this could be described as gracious is a mystery to me.
In His grace He did not kill them and start over. I am sure they would agree.
Kill them on top of setting them up to fail and laying the blame on them?
The latter is bad enough.
There is no grace to be seen any way you look at it....unless some special definition of 'grace' is being used?
This and more is why the Gnostics relegated the bible god to evil demiurge status
Yep.
It's why Marcion believed Jesus couldn't possibly be an extension of the god of the OT, but was a completely different being.
It's not what I say, the bible tells us that God regretted creating the world, which implies a mistake...just before He is said to have drowned the whole world, guilty and innocent alike.
Liar. I would explain how and why He saved us with that flood, but not to a stone.
Any believers who wish to know may feel free to PM me. PS, it's pretty well spelled out in the Bible, but your eyes are covered with scales for a reason.
If you ever wish to have them removed, talk to HIM. It's not my business to do.
Please seek help. Your manner of response suggests that there are serious underlying emotional issues. I'm being serious.
Why are you atheists so bent out of shape over a “Being” that to you doesn’t exist?
If our God is fictional, why are you and your atheist buds treating Him as real? You’re giving lots of time and attention to malign our very real sovereign God, who to you doesn’t even exist.
How do these untrue beliefs affect the actions of the believers in this world and lead to sub-optimal outcomes?
Prove they’re untrue. Where’s your evidence?
How about you prove vampires, werewolves, leprechauns, unicorns, pegasi, orcs, trolls, and 12 headed hydra's don't exist?
By your standard, you MUST believe all of these exist until you can PROVE they don't.
This is why in logic, the burden of proof belongs to the party making the positive claim.
You claim some supernatural being exists. Define it, and lets see what you have for evidence.
Evidence doesn’t make it self-evident. Evidence depends upon interpretation and predisposition of evidence. We have predisposed dispositions that enable us to trust our cognitive abilities as sources of evidence.
Parroting “not enough evidence” is a sham.
You have been given plenty of evidence from the world God created. The world reflects the glory of God. Because of your smug intellectual arrogance, you have chosen to morally suppress that evidence.
“The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them. For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are CLEARLY seen, being understood by the things that are made, even this eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” Romans 1:18-20
Scripture says there are no real atheists, but atheists say there is no real God.
Why are you atheists so bent out of shape over a “Being” that to you doesn’t exist?
If our God is fictional, why are you and your atheist buds treating Him as real? You’re giving lots of time and attention to malign our very real sovereign God, who to you doesn’t even exist.
How do these untrue beliefs affect the actions of the believers in this world and lead to sub-optimal outcomes?
Prove they’re untrue. Where’s your evidence?
How about you prove vampires, werewolves, leprechauns, unicorns, pegasi, orcs, trolls, and 12 headed hydra's don't exist?
By your standard, you MUST believe all of these exist until you can PROVE they don't.
This is why in logic, the burden of proof belongs to the party making the positive claim.
You claim some supernatural being exists. Define it, and lets see what you have for evidence.
Evidence doesn’t make it self-evident. Evidence depends upon interpretation and predisposition of evidence. We have predisposed dispositions that enable us to trust our cognitive abilities as sources of evidence.
Parroting “not enough evidence” is a sham.
You have been given plenty of evidence from the world God created. The world reflects the glory of God. Because of your smug intellectual arrogance, you have chosen to morally suppress that evidence.
“The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them. For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are CLEARLY seen, being understood by the things that are made, even this eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” Romans 1:18-20
Scripture says there are no real atheists, but atheists say there is no real God.
Quoting the Bible to prove the Bible is called "Circular Reasoning". It's a logical fallacy. Claiming "The world reflect the glory of God", while providing no support for the claim is called a Bald Assertion, another logical fallacy.
Requiring extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims is not a "sham", it's a proper application of practical Skepticism.
Now I ask you again to prove vampires, werewolves, leprechauns, unicorns, pegasi, orcs, trolls, and 12 headed hydra's don't exist.
Why are you atheists so bent out of shape over a “Being” that to you doesn’t exist?
If our God is fictional, why are you and your atheist buds treating Him as real? You’re giving lots of time and attention to malign our very real sovereign God, who to you doesn’t even exist.
How do these untrue beliefs affect the actions of the believers in this world and lead to sub-optimal outcomes?
Prove they’re untrue. Where’s your evidence?
How about you prove vampires, werewolves, leprechauns, unicorns, pegasi, orcs, trolls, and 12 headed hydra's don't exist?
By your standard, you MUST believe all of these exist until you can PROVE they don't.
This is why in logic, the burden of proof belongs to the party making the positive claim.
You claim some supernatural being exists. Define it, and lets see what you have for evidence.
Evidence doesn’t make it self-evident. Evidence depends upon interpretation and predisposition of evidence. We have predisposed dispositions that enable us to trust our cognitive abilities as sources of evidence.
Parroting “not enough evidence” is a sham.
You have been given plenty of evidence from the world God created. The world reflects the glory of God. Because of your smug intellectual arrogance, you have chosen to morally suppress that evidence.
“The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them. For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are CLEARLY seen, being understood by the things that are made, even this eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” Romans 1:18-20
Scripture says there are no real atheists, but atheists say there is no real God.
Quoting the Bible to prove the Bible is called "Circular Reasoning". It's a logical fallacy. Claiming "The world reflect the glory of God", while providing no support for the claim is called a Bald Assertion, another logical fallacy.
Requiring extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims is not a "sham", it's a proper application of practical Skepticism.
Now I ask you again to prove vampires, werewolves, leprechauns, unicorns, pegasi, orcs, trolls, and 12 headed hydra's don't exist.
The thread was about Christian's, not skeptics, dumbass.
How many christians have we thrown to the lions by now?
I get a kick when someone asks, "What would happen if we all stopped responding to the trolls?" then these threads go on forever, fighting about something non-believers don't have the tools (the Holy Spirit) to understand. No offense intended to the non-believers, but you simply don't know what you don't know, nor can you until it is revealed to you, through your own earnest desire to know the truth, which you lack.
What are my 'usual tactics'..? go ahead expose me!..
No need - it's already hanging out fully exposed all to see. And, who is laughing?
Hmmm dont know, who's laughing?Is it one of your favorite story book characters...? seen lots of empty word blowhard Catholics in my time - you catholic by any chance?
hmmmm - you said that YOU were laughing. Check your post. Laugh on - you may be laughing alone.
And, you are fishing again with that question. If I were Roman Catholic, it would make no material difference in your case - same old, same old for you.
It's a ruthless Boss who throws people into Hell for their beliefs or their lack of conviction. Reason would say: convince the person, not torture them.
Yes, among other important qualities - ruthless - you got it. Whose reason? Human reason, or the reason of the Almighty?
Evening CCCC, I hope you are holding up well against the high NM winter and your crazy state legislature. As for human vs. supernatural reasoning, we known human reasoning exists, and so far, none of the theist here have prevented sufficient evidence supporting a position regarding the existence of a supernatural being capable of reasoning. Until such time, the only reasoning we know to have at our disposal is the human kind. Sure it's not perfect, but it's the best we have.
Thanks for the nice greeting and good wishes, Even with high altitude storms, the worst thing about NM winter weather is the meeting of the legislature.
AS, you posit that reasoning should be employed and that HUMAN reasoning says "convince the person, not torture them" as if those are the only alternatives/behaviors that may be involved/possible in such a matter.. Not at all the case. And, kindly explain, if you will, the reasons the behavior of the Almighty should or would be at all influenced by human reasoning. Could be seen as a ruthless question.
I'm not the arrogant one abusing others because they question beliefs and point out problems, in other words, discussing the issues and not attacking an opponent. That is you and your group.
The context was wrong because the context described in genesis tells us that God placed two naive individuals, not having knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, in the garden with a cunning Serpent in the full knowledge of what would happen....and it was only upon eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they knew what they had done.
That clearly is the context because that is the story line.
I haven’t been arrogant; I hope I haven’t come across as such.
As a matter of fact if there were a few I could share a camp with from the fire here as I have some Antelope Sniper would be toward the top of the list.
The problem with your “context was wrong” comment was that I never even tried to dispute your interpretation of the Genesis narrative. All I did was complete the story showing Gods gracious plan.
Fair enough....but I would question the idea that it is a gracious plan to set up a naive couple to fail, knowing that they would fail, blaming them for their inadequacy and failure, then punishing not only them but the whole world for it.
How this could be described as gracious is a mystery to me.
In His grace He did not kill them and start over. I am sure they would agree.
No, According your bible, he just flooded the entire world, murdering every human, except eight, so in this portrayal, he's not exactly gracious.
Why are you atheists so bent out of shape over a “Being” that to you doesn’t exist?
If our God is fictional, why are you and your atheist buds treating Him as real? You’re giving lots of time and attention to malign our very real sovereign God, who to you doesn’t even exist.
How do these untrue beliefs affect the actions of the believers in this world and lead to sub-optimal outcomes?
Prove they’re untrue. Where’s your evidence?
How about you prove vampires, werewolves, leprechauns, unicorns, pegasi, orcs, trolls, and 12 headed hydra's don't exist?
By your standard, you MUST believe all of these exist until you can PROVE they don't.
This is why in logic, the burden of proof belongs to the party making the positive claim.
You claim some supernatural being exists. Define it, and lets see what you have for evidence.
Evidence doesn’t make it self-evident. Evidence depends upon interpretation and predisposition of evidence. We have predisposed dispositions that enable us to trust our cognitive abilities as sources of evidence.
Parroting “not enough evidence” is a sham.
You have been given plenty of evidence from the world God created. The world reflects the glory of God. Because of your smug intellectual arrogance, you have chosen to morally suppress that evidence.
“The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them. For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are CLEARLY seen, being understood by the things that are made, even this eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” Romans 1:18-20
Scripture says there are no real atheists, but atheists say there is no real God.
Quoting the Bible to prove the Bible is called "Circular Reasoning". It's a logical fallacy. Claiming "The world reflect the glory of God", while providing no support for the claim is called a Bald Assertion, another logical fallacy.
Requiring extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims is not a "sham", it's a proper application of practical Skepticism.
Now I ask you again to prove vampires, werewolves, leprechauns, unicorns, pegasi, orcs, trolls, and 12 headed hydra's don't exist.
Nice deflection, but your position is intellectually indefensible. Disproving evidence for God is not proof there is no God.
You claim there is no God, but there is no evidence (that there is no God); therefore, you believe that by faith (like believers).
There is no proof of God’s nonexistence, thank God.
Demanding proof of God would require that a person know all evidence of the existence of God and know ALL things. One would have to be in all places of our huge universe. If you could do that, A Sniper, YOU would be God.
Even IF you had good, hard evidence, your scientism and intellectual ego would not allow you to accept it.
Plus, your existing presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of our glorious supreme God.
In order for you to accept ANY evidence, you have to change your presuppositional base that there is no God. And therein lies the problems with atheists. Quite the sad conundrum it is for you folks.
You would need a major shift in your belief system and remove your presuppositional hostility and arrogance to any evidence for the existence of our Almighty God.
The only true god in an atheist’s world is the atheist.
P.S. You really must work on that smug intellectual arrogance. It gives atheists a bad rap.
Why did god give me nipples? I'm a guy and don't really need them
So you would ask high IQ questions. Yep, you're right. HE wasted them on you.
So what do you use yours for?
Hint: It's a link to evolution. Did god give us an appendix for purpose of destruction as he sees fit? He didn't get me because the doctors removed mine before peritonitis could set in.
Why are you atheists so bent out of shape over a “Being” that to you doesn’t exist? .
Your concern should be more about why Christians feel the need to Bend and mold a God into convenient versions of their own personal liking.
One has to wonder how many Christians, on here and elsewhere, need or should attend to a person telling them what they should be concerned about with regard to their beliefs. How does one manage to arrogate to himself (or herself) the authority to dictate the concerns of a Christian? Is that a special quality held by non-Christians?
What are my 'usual tactics'..? go ahead expose me!..
No need - it's already hanging out fully exposed all to see. And, who is laughing?
Hmmm dont know, who's laughing?Is it one of your favorite story book characters...? seen lots of empty word blowhard Catholics in my time - you catholic by any chance?
hmmmm - you said that YOU were laughing. Check your post. Laugh on - you may be laughing alone.
And, you are fishing again with that question. If I were Roman Catholic, it would make no material difference in your case - same old, same old for you.
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by CCCC
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by CCCC
Originally Posted by DBT
It's a ruthless Boss who throws people into Hell for their beliefs or their lack of conviction. Reason would say: convince the person, not torture them.
Yes, among other important qualities - ruthless - you got it. Whose reason? Human reason, or the reason of the Almighty?
Reason is determined by information. If the 'Almighty' is said to have given a set of values, and is said to embody this set of values, yet is described acting contrary to the very same set of values....we have a problem, we are presented with a contradiction.
Information seems to be only one of the determinants in human reasoning. You say "We have a problem, we are presented with a contradiction". Who is "we"? For whom is a contradiction a problem, and why?
'We' means us the readers. The text doesn't change. It remains the same for all readers/observers. The problems begin with interpretation. Some try to convert what the text clearly says and clearly means into something it clearly does not say or mean. Why? Because the actual meaning does not suit the needs of the faith of the believer. The believer is not looking at it objectively. The filter of faith screens whatever does not suit.
Methinks you are way overly presumptuous with your sweeping definition of "we" - you simply don't get to sweep all others here into your leaky thinking/reasoning bucket. Me also thinks that in speaking for"we", you simply must have a mouse in your pocket.
. One has to wonder how many Christians, on here and elsewhere, need or should attend to a person telling them what they should be concerned about with regard to their beliefs.
Christians make it their business to be God botherers the world over, Going about telling non christians that their Gods are false and that they need to find Jesus.
Why are you atheists so bent out of shape over a “Being” that to you doesn’t exist?
If our God is fictional, why are you and your atheist buds treating Him as real? You’re giving lots of time and attention to malign our very real sovereign God, who to you doesn’t even exist.
How do these untrue beliefs affect the actions of the believers in this world and lead to sub-optimal outcomes?
Prove they’re untrue. Where’s your evidence?
How about you prove vampires, werewolves, leprechauns, unicorns, pegasi, orcs, trolls, and 12 headed hydra's don't exist?
By your standard, you MUST believe all of these exist until you can PROVE they don't.
This is why in logic, the burden of proof belongs to the party making the positive claim.
You claim some supernatural being exists. Define it, and lets see what you have for evidence.
Evidence doesn’t make it self-evident. Evidence depends upon interpretation and predisposition of evidence. We have predisposed dispositions that enable us to trust our cognitive abilities as sources of evidence.
Parroting “not enough evidence” is a sham.
You have been given plenty of evidence from the world God created. The world reflects the glory of God. Because of your smug intellectual arrogance, you have chosen to morally suppress that evidence.
“The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them. For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are CLEARLY seen, being understood by the things that are made, even this eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” Romans 1:18-20
Scripture says there are no real atheists, but atheists say there is no real God.
Quoting the Bible to prove the Bible is called "Circular Reasoning". It's a logical fallacy. Claiming "The world reflect the glory of God", while providing no support for the claim is called a Bald Assertion, another logical fallacy.
Requiring extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims is not a "sham", it's a proper application of practical Skepticism.
Now I ask you again to prove vampires, werewolves, leprechauns, unicorns, pegasi, orcs, trolls, and 12 headed hydra's don't exist.
Nice deflection, but your position is intellectually indefensible. Disproving evidence for God is not proof there is no God.
You claim there is no God, but there is no evidence (that there is no God); therefore, you believe that by faith (like believers).
There is no proof of God’s nonexistence, thank God.
Demanding proof of God would require that a person know all evidence of the existence of God and know ALL things. One would have to be in all places of our huge universe. If you could do that, A Sniper, YOU would be God.
Even IF you had good, hard evidence, your scientism and intellectual ego would not allow you to accept it.
Plus, your existing presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of our glorious supreme God.
In order for you to accept ANY evidence, you have to change your presuppositional base that there is no God. And therein lies the problems with atheists. Quite the sad conundrum it is for you folks.
You would need a major shift in your belief system and remove your presuppositional hostility and arrogance to any evidence for the existence of our Almighty God.
The only true god in an atheist’s world is the atheist.
P.S. You really must work on that smug intellectual arrogance. It gives atheists a bad rap.
Nope.
I claim that no theist has met their burden of proof.
That's not the same think and claiming there is no god.
Additionally, read my posts more carefully. I don't ask for proof. I ask for good evidence.
Asking for "proof" can in and of itself be a "Red Herring" fallacy, because it's often used in a way that implies "proof beyond doubt".
Heck even Richard Dawkins doesn't claim to know there is not god(s) beyond a shadow of a doubt. On a scale of 1 to 7 he claims to be 6.5 on his level of certainty that no god(s) exist.
There's also a few dishonest tactics theist tend to use in conjunction with to what you are trying to do, i.e. "shifting the burden of proof". Next they will "move the goal posts", by changing their definition of god(s). Consequently it's important to carefully define any god before one can take up the anti-theist position that a specific god does not exist.
As for the initial state of my presuppositions, once again you are totally wrong. My Journey began with 1st Peter 3:15:
3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in you hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
Unfortunately I could find no evidence that met scrutiny. I was promised much but in the end, those who claimed to have evidence abandoned their claims of evidence and plead their case on the basis of Faith, which we see in this thread as well.
But if you have some real evidence (notice I did not say "proof") let's here it. I'm open to hear what you believe and why you belief it, and why you belief your claims meet their burden of proof.
The thread was about Christian's, not skeptics, dumbass.
Such a good Christian response. You are such a good representation of the results of believing in your god.
Matthew 5:22 ......Whosoever shall say, Thou fool shall be in danger of hellfire. Straight from the mouth of Yeshua. The thing that strikes me most about this thread is how the prophet's followers and friends have been giving him a bad name for centuries. Or at least casting him a bad light that he doesn't deserve. I have friends that take issue when I say I believe Yeshua was who he said he was and that his message was true. My tactic is to not alienate them or tell them they are stupid. Any"Christian" would just about have to admit that the nominal Christian church has created enough mayhem and depravity to strip it completely of respectability.
Why are you atheists so bent out of shape over a “Being” that to you doesn’t exist? .
Your concern should be more about why Christians feel the need to Bend and mold a God into convenient versions of their own personal liking.
One has to wonder how many Christians, on here and elsewhere, need or should attend to a person telling them what they should be concerned about with regard to their beliefs. How does one manage to arrogate to himself (or herself) the authority to dictate the concerns of a Christian? Is that a special quality held by non-Christians?
Why are you atheists so bent out of shape over a “Being” that to you doesn’t exist? .
Your concern should be more about why Christians feel the need to Bend and mold a God into convenient versions of their own personal liking.
One has to wonder how many Christians, on here and elsewhere, need or should attend to a person telling them what they should be concerned about with regard to their beliefs. How does one manage to arrogate to himself (or herself) the authority to dictate the concerns of a Christian? Is that a special quality held by non-Christians?
Not in this country. That's covered under "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The only power anyone should have over your deeply held foundational beliefs is that of their reason.
. One has to wonder how many Christians, on here and elsewhere, need or should attend to a person telling them what they should be concerned about with regard to their beliefs.
Christians find it their business to be God botherers the world over, Going about telling non christians that their Gods are false and that they need to find Jesus.
I hope this does not surprise you. It is every true Christians desire that everyone will find Christ
. One has to wonder how many Christians, on here and elsewhere, need or should attend to a person telling them what they should be concerned about with regard to their beliefs.
Christians find it their business to be God botherers the world over, Going about telling non christians that their Gods are false and that they need to find Jesus.
I hope this does not surprise you. It is every true Christians desire that everyone will find Christ
And it's every true Muslims desire that everyone will find Muhammad.
Why are you atheists so bent out of shape over a “Being” that to you doesn’t exist?
If our God is fictional, why are you and your atheist buds treating Him as real? You’re giving lots of time and attention to malign our very real sovereign God, who to you doesn’t even exist.
How do these untrue beliefs affect the actions of the believers in this world and lead to sub-optimal outcomes?
Prove they’re untrue. Where’s your evidence?
How about you prove vampires, werewolves, leprechauns, unicorns, pegasi, orcs, trolls, and 12 headed hydra's don't exist?
By your standard, you MUST believe all of these exist until you can PROVE they don't.
This is why in logic, the burden of proof belongs to the party making the positive claim.
You claim some supernatural being exists. Define it, and lets see what you have for evidence.
Evidence doesn’t make it self-evident. Evidence depends upon interpretation and predisposition of evidence. We have predisposed dispositions that enable us to trust our cognitive abilities as sources of evidence.
Parroting “not enough evidence” is a sham.
You have been given plenty of evidence from the world God created. The world reflects the glory of God. Because of your smug intellectual arrogance, you have chosen to morally suppress that evidence.
“The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them. For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are CLEARLY seen, being understood by the things that are made, even this eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” Romans 1:18-20
Scripture says there are no real atheists, but atheists say there is no real God.
Nobody questions the existence of the Sun, Moon, Planets, trees, houses, rivers, lakes, etc, etc, because there is ample evidence for these things.
Our cognitive abilities are being constantly tested against the external objective world....whether you believe or do not believe that there is a tree in your path won't change the fact of the existence of the tree.....you can believe that you can walk through the tree, or that its not there, but you'll come up hard against it regardless of your belief.
The same cannot be said for the gods. If they exist, they hide their reality so well that it's exactly like they don't exist.
Why are you atheists so bent out of shape over a “Being” that to you doesn’t exist?
If our God is fictional, why are you and your atheist buds treating Him as real? You’re giving lots of time and attention to malign our very real sovereign God, who to you doesn’t even exist.
How do these untrue beliefs affect the actions of the believers in this world and lead to sub-optimal outcomes?
Prove they’re untrue. Where’s your evidence?
How about you prove vampires, werewolves, leprechauns, unicorns, pegasi, orcs, trolls, and 12 headed hydra's don't exist?
By your standard, you MUST believe all of these exist until you can PROVE they don't.
This is why in logic, the burden of proof belongs to the party making the positive claim.
You claim some supernatural being exists. Define it, and lets see what you have for evidence.
Evidence doesn’t make it self-evident. Evidence depends upon interpretation and predisposition of evidence. We have predisposed dispositions that enable us to trust our cognitive abilities as sources of evidence.
Parroting “not enough evidence” is a sham.
You have been given plenty of evidence from the world God created. The world reflects the glory of God. Because of your smug intellectual arrogance, you have chosen to morally suppress that evidence.
“The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them. For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are CLEARLY seen, being understood by the things that are made, even this eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” Romans 1:18-20
Scripture says there are no real atheists, but atheists say there is no real God.
Quoting the Bible to prove the Bible is called "Circular Reasoning". It's a logical fallacy. Claiming "The world reflect the glory of God", while providing no support for the claim is called a Bald Assertion, another logical fallacy.
Requiring extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims is not a "sham", it's a proper application of practical Skepticism.
Now I ask you again to prove vampires, werewolves, leprechauns, unicorns, pegasi, orcs, trolls, and 12 headed hydra's don't exist.
Nice deflection, but your position is intellectually indefensible. Disproving evidence for God is not proof there is no God.
You claim there is no God, but there is no evidence (that there is no God); therefore, you believe that by faith (like believers).
There is no proof of God’s nonexistence, thank God.
Demanding proof of God would require that a person know all evidence of the existence of God and know ALL things. One would have to be in all places of our huge universe. If you could do that, A Sniper, YOU would be God.
Even IF you had good, hard evidence, your scientism and intellectual ego would not allow you to accept it.
Plus, your existing presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of our glorious supreme God.
In order for you to accept ANY evidence, you have to change your presuppositional base that there is no God. And therein lies the problems with atheists. Quite the sad conundrum it is for you folks.
You would need a major shift in your belief system and remove your presuppositional hostility and arrogance to any evidence for the existence of our Almighty God.
The only true god in an atheist’s world is the atheist.
P.S. You really must work on that smug intellectual arrogance. It gives atheists a bad rap.
Nope.
I claim that no theist has met their burden of proof.
That's not the same think and claiming there is no god.
Additionally, read my posts more carefully. I don't ask for proof. I ask for good evidence.
Asking for "proof" can in and of itself be a "Red Herring" fallacy, because it's often used in a way that implies "proof beyond doubt".
Heck even Richard Dawkins doesn't claim to know there is not god(s) beyond a shadow of a doubt. On a scale of 1 to 7 he claims to be 6.5 on his level of certainty that no god(s) exist.
There's also a few dishonest tactics theist tend to use in conjunction with to what you are trying to do, i.e. "shifting the burden of proof". Next they will "move the goal posts", by changing their definition of god(s). Consequently it's important to carefully define any god before one can take up the anti-theist position that a specific god does not exist.
As for the initial state of my presuppositions, once again you are totally wrong. My Journey began with 1st Peter 3:15:
3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in you hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
Unfortunately I could find no evidence that met scrutiny. I was promised much but in the end, those who claimed to have evidence abandoned their claims of evidence and plead their case on the basis of Faith, which we see in this thread as well.
But if you have some real evidence (notice I did not say "proof") let's here it. I'm open to hear what you believe and why you belief it, and why you belief your claims meet their burden of proof.
No, the “theist” has no burden of proof. See my post of a couple of days ago. We are called to witness. We cannot “prove” or “convince” you of,the truth of God. The Holy Spirit is the one who calls..... but, you can indeed refuse the gift.
You are accountable to God and God alone. As I said, God will not hold me accountable for “failing to convince you.”
There are those who will stand before the Lord. Could be that He then tells you of all the times he called but you refused to answer.
Please know that it is not a Christian duty or responsibility to convince you about the reality of God and the reality of Jesus and the gift. Folks such as I can point the way ..... explain little or much depending upon the “ears” that hear us....hold you up in prayer before the Father... so on and so forth ...But, it is the Holy Spirit of God .... not me or others.....that shows the clear and weighty truth to the honest seeker of God.
God will not hold me responsible for your eternal destiny. That is between you and God.
Those that have ears to hear, will indeed hear. Those that “stick their own fingers in their ears” ..... for whatever reason they do.... those are the ones that will not hear and not believe and who have not yet received the gift.
Also....There has been much talk about evidence or “proof.” There is proof. As, I have previously related, God spoke to me..... God proved Himself to me. I related that experience on this Forum.
I have proof and you don’t. Our differences may be as simple as that. Seek the proof.... it is there.
Btw....regarding “threat” ....... when one recognizes an “indication of impending.....whatever.....trouble, risk or danger....”...... a responsible caring person might warn the one who is at risk. With that thought in mind, yes, I fear for you and am trying to warn you. Others have as well. Kinda like warning someone of a runaway horse headed their way.....”Watch Out!”
Not to say that preaching hellfire is of no value, but it seems to me that simply threatening some one with hellfire will do little good. Sometimes yes, but why would they be afraid of hellfire from a God they place no stock in? Seems that something specific from the Holy Spirit has to have been communicated first. Anyway, that is a digression.
This is your life and a hand has been dealt to you..... play it wisely.
Subjective experience is not evidence. Nobody has access to someone else's experience to be able to verify that it was an interaction with an actual god.
It may have been a lucid dream or vision generated by the brain, and given that these experiences are not that uncommon, it most likely was.
[quote=WhiteTail48]Why are you atheists so bent out of shape over a “Being” that to you doesn’t exist?
If our God is fictional, why are you and your atheist buds treating Him as real? You’re giving lots of time and attention to malign our very real sovereign God, who to you doesn’t even exist.
How do these untrue beliefs affect the actions of the believers in this world and lead to sub-optimal outcomes?
Prove they’re untrue. Where’s your evidence?
How about you prove vampires, werewolves, leprechauns, unicorns, pegasi, orcs, trolls, and 12 headed hydra's don't exist?
By your standard, you MUST believe all of these exist until you can PROVE they don't.
This is why in logic, the burden of proof belongs to the party making the positive claim.
You claim some supernatural being exists. Define it, and lets see what you have for evidence.
Evidence doesn’t make it self-evident. Evidence depends upon interpretation and predisposition of evidence. We have predisposed dispositions that enable us to trust our cognitive abilities as sources of evidence.
Parroting “not enough evidence” is a sham.
You have been given plenty of evidence from the world God created. The world reflects the glory of God. Because of your smug intellectual arrogance, you have chosen to morally suppress that evidence.
“The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them. For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are CLEARLY seen, being understood by the things that are made, even this eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” Romans 1:18-20
Scripture says there are no real atheists, but atheists say there is no real God.
Quoting the Bible to prove the Bible is called "Circular Reasoning". It's a logical fallacy. Claiming "The world reflect the glory of God", while providing no support for the claim is called a Bald Assertion, another logical fallacy.
Requiring extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims is not a "sham", it's a proper application of practical Skepticism.
Now I ask you again to prove vampires, werewolves, leprechauns, unicorns, pegasi, orcs, trolls, and 12 headed hydra's don't exist.
Nice deflection, but your position is intellectually indefensible. Disproving evidence for God is not proof there is no God.
You claim there is no God, but there is no evidence (that there is no God); therefore, you believe that by faith (like believers).
There is no proof of God’s nonexistence, thank God.
Demanding proof of God would require that a person know all evidence of the existence of God and know ALL things. One would have to be in all places of our huge universe. If you could do that, A Sniper, YOU would be God.
Even IF you had good, hard evidence, your scientism and intellectual ego would not allow you to accept it.
Plus, your existing presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of our glorious supreme God.
In order for you to accept ANY evidence, you have to change your presuppositional base that there is no God. And therein lies the problems with atheists. Quite the sad conundrum it is for you folks.
You would need a major shift in your belief system and remove your presuppositional hostility and arrogance to any evidence for the existence of our Almighty God.
The only true god in an atheist’s world is the atheist.
P.S. You really must work on that smug intellectual arrogance. It gives atheists a bad rap.
There are those who will stand before the Lord. Could be that He then tells you of all the times he called but you refused to answer.
.. Nobody has access to someone else's experience to be able to verify that it was an interaction with an actual god.
Well consider, Christians are immensely gullible to the extent A person can fabricate a story telling the CF they love the Lord, Have the Holy Spirit, and that their prayers work...
And they will believe it hook line and sinker. Which begs the question;
What insecurities drive such gullible persons of faith to the Extent that they so willingly find pleasure & comfort in being a Fool..?
He is the one lashing out, and not because anyone is treating him badly. He just cannot tolerate having his beliefs questioned.
Its plain to see jX harbors a schitt load of insecurities and finds it very difficult to cope.
But to then think adopting some primitive mythology is going to solve such issues shows how chronic the problems are in many people...Jumping from the fryingpan into the Fire in such manner is pure misguided folly.
I’ll ask again... do animals other than humans go to heaven or hell? Are they judged the same as humans to go to either, being they are as well gods creatures, and clearly have conscious?
My dog knows when shes done wrong by her obvious reaction when she realizes I witnessed her do something wrong...
So again.... do animals other than humans go to heaven or hell?
I’ll ask again... do animals other than humans go to heaven or hell? Are they judged the same as humans to go to either, being they are as well gods creatures, and clearly have conscious?
My dog knows when shes done wrong by her obvious reaction when she realizes I witnessed her do something wrong...
So again.... do animals other than humans go to heaven or hell?
The thread was about Christian's, not skeptics, dumbass.
Such a good Christian response. You are such a good representation of the results of believing in your god.
Matthew 5:22 ......Whosoever shall say, Thou fool shall be in danger of hellfire. Straight from the mouth of Yeshua. The thing that strikes me most about this thread is how the prophet's followers and friends have been giving him a bad name for centuries. Or at least casting him a bad light that he doesn't deserve. I have friends that take issue when I say I believe Yeshua was who he said he was and that his message was true. My tactic is to not alienate them or tell them they are stupid. Any"Christian" would just about have to admit that the nominal Christian church has created enough mayhem and depravity to strip it completely of respectability.
I find this to be a great answer, in particular these 2 sentences.................."My tactic is to not alienate them or tell them they are stupid. Any"Christian" would just about have to admit that the nominal Christian church has created enough mayhem and depravity to strip it completely of respectability."
I’ll ask again... do animals other than humans go to heaven or hell? Are they judged the same as humans to go to either, being they are as well gods creatures, and clearly have conscious?
My dog knows when shes done wrong by her obvious reaction when she realizes I witnessed her do something wrong...
So again.... do animals other than humans go to heaven or hell?
Simplified answer..........yes.
What are the defining qualities that decipher which animal goes to which place? What sins does an animal do that sends them to hell...
The bible references serpents frequently when discussing satan.... however is a snake not gods creation? Why is a snake different than a lion or tiger or any other predator?
The thread was about Christian's, not skeptics, dumbass.
Such a good Christian response. You are such a good representation of the results of believing in your god.
Matthew 5:22 ......Whosoever shall say, Thou fool shall be in danger of hellfire. Straight from the mouth of Yeshua. The thing that strikes me most about this thread is how the prophet's followers and friends have been giving him a bad name for centuries. Or at least casting him a bad light that he doesn't deserve. I have friends that take issue when I say I believe Yeshua was who he said he was and that his message was true. My tactic is to not alienate them or tell them they are stupid. Any"Christian" would just about have to admit that the nominal Christian church has created enough mayhem and depravity to strip it completely of respectability.
I find this to be a great answer, in particular these 2 sentences.................."My tactic is to not alienate them or tell them they are stupid. Any"Christian" would just about have to admit that the nominal Christian church has created enough mayhem and depravity to strip it completely of respectability."
I’ll ask again... do animals other than humans go to heaven or hell? Are they judged the same as humans to go to either, being they are as well gods creatures, and clearly have conscious?
My dog knows when shes done wrong by her obvious reaction when she realizes I witnessed her do something wrong...
So again.... do animals other than humans go to heaven or hell?
Simplified answer..........yes.
What are the defining qualities that decipher which animal goes to which place? What sins does an animal do that sends them to hell...
The bible references serpents frequently when discussing satan.... however is a snake not gods creation? Why is a snake different than a lion or tiger or any other predator?
I’ll ask again... do animals other than humans go to heaven or hell? Are they judged the same as humans to go to either, being they are as well gods creatures, and clearly have conscious?
My dog knows when shes done wrong by her obvious reaction when she realizes I witnessed her do something wrong...
So again.... do animals other than humans go to heaven or hell?
Saw this post as "Why DO you believe " - not tell us why you think you are smarter than those who do. Atheist are forever proselytizing.
I mean, would Creedmoor owners feel a need to chime in on "Tell me why you love your 270"?....ok bad analogy but.....hope you get my drift. This thread was for believers to share a commonality of deep joy. Why not just let campfire brothers enjoy it?
If seeking affirmation from other non-believers, why not start a thread for it? I will respect it.
If wanting to have a debate - start a thread with that intent in the title. I would hope Christians who respond could do it in the way as preached.
I know I am about to be flamed but- seriously, don't mean any disrespect to any member here.
I’ll ask again... do animals other than humans go to heaven or hell? Are they judged the same as humans to go to either, being they are as well gods creatures, and clearly have conscious?
My dog knows when shes done wrong by her obvious reaction when she realizes I witnessed her do something wrong...
So again.... do animals other than humans go to heaven or hell?
The lion lay down with the lamb.
Good thing you actually brought up the lion... it was my next point.. so of the lion lays with the lamb....
Lions kill other lions all the time.. even some of their own pride.
Why would the lion lay with the lamb when they commit the ultimate sin, but a human wouldnt...
Yeshua "Judge not". Ben Franklin " tart words make no friends". Yeshua "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your father in heaven". While I think it really bad to publicize your acts of charity I believe letting your light shine would accomplish way more than all this arguing and name calling of non-believers.
Yeshua "Judge not". Ben Franklin " tart words make no friends". Yeshua "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your father in heaven". While I think it really bad to publicize your acts of charity I believe letting your light shine would accomplish way more than all this arguing and name calling of non-believers.
Take a look at Yeshua's name calling. Or John the Baptist's. I decided to read the name calling by Jesus and His disciples and was quite stunned. You could start by reading Matthew 23.
I was reading my Bible. This year in April marks my 38th trip around the sun as a saved man, and I still love that old black backed 66 calibre way more than I love the Campfire even.
Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised, in the city of our God, in the mountain of his holiness. Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion on the sides of the north, the city of the great king. (Psalm 48)
Thank you, Lord Jesus, for doing for me what I could never do for myself.
Well said good brother. It might be a while before you feed me moose again.
And now I live in the middle of the Canadian flat lands. I shouldn't have given you a rough time about your farming. No moose for me from now on. Plenty of deer though.
minus 30 today with a wind chill of minus 43. Yikes!
. One has to wonder how many Christians, on here and elsewhere, need or should attend to a person telling them what they should be concerned about with regard to their beliefs.
Christians make it their business to be God botherers the world over, Going about telling non christians that their Gods are false and that they need to find Jesus.
How would you know about such"business" in any definitive manner - really? Are you a working Christian? And, given your positions regarding God, how would you begin to know whether or not God were to be "bothered"? Rather than speaking from a position of inside knowledge, you seem to be vaguely flailing in the atmosphere, hoping to score an insult. One would hope that you will be able to find some peace.
It seems there are several different kinds of people who don’t believe in God: A. Those who just don’t believe. B. Those who don’t believe but want to believe. C. And those who just don’t ‘want’ to believe. Again, there is a big difference between “I don’t believe it” and “I don’t ‘want’ to believe it.” “I don’t ‘want’ to believe it” has to do with will....and want. Did ‘these’ folks decide to not believe because faith got to be inconvenient...? And then, after they decided to not believe, they needed to develop some support for their unbelief. Did their decision to not believe precede the data they’ve collected to support their unbelief...? If their unbelief is around will and want...information will never suffice. Could it be that the real reason they choose to not believe isn’t perhaps the reasons that they give...isn’t perhaps their presenting facts and arguments ...could it be something else...? If they admit God, they’ve got to submit to God..if there’s a God that’s going to hold them accountable, then suddenly they are accountable. Their arguments aren’t arguments, for or against anything...they’re responses. Their resistance and reluctance to acknowledge God...is not an argument...it’s just a response. It explains why they’ve developed their arsenal of arguments. And their arguments against the existence of God came after their decision to not want God. Their intellectual arguments against the existence of God didn’t come first...they came second. For whatever reason...they don’t want God to ‘be’. They don’t want to feel what they might feel. The real issue is their personal resistance, ‘not’ Gods existence. This isn’t about Gods existence, this isn’t about science...this is about their personal resistance. Humanity has struggled with the submission to God since the beginning of humanity. ‘If’ God...then there’s forgiveness. Our rebellion, our sin, our ‘mistakes’, our wrongdoings...become a platform for God to demonstrate His love for us. He says that He “demonstrates” His own love for us in this...that while we were still sinners, Jesus died for us. God wanted to enter into a relationship with mankind. You can not have a loving relationship with someone you do not sacrifice for; if you do not sacrifice for them - they do not know that you love them. ‘If’ God...then there’s relationship.
Why are you atheists so bent out of shape over a “Being” that to you doesn’t exist? .
Your concern should be more about why Christians feel the need to Bend and mold a God into convenient versions of their own personal liking.
One has to wonder how many Christians, on here and elsewhere, need or should attend to a person telling them what they should be concerned about with regard to their beliefs. How does one manage to arrogate to himself (or herself) the authority to dictate the concerns of a Christian? Is that a special quality held by non-Christians?
Not in this country. That's covered under "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The only power anyone should have over your deeply held foundational beliefs is that of their reason.
And, pray tell, why should ANYONE have such power over another persons "deeply held foundational beliefs"?? One piece of strong evidence will be sufficient for a start.
Yeshua "Judge not". Ben Franklin " tart words make no friends". Yeshua "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your father in heaven". While I think it really bad to publicize your acts of charity I believe letting your light shine would accomplish way more than all this arguing and name calling of non-believers.
Take a look at Yeshua's name calling. Or John the Baptist's. I decided to read the name calling by Jesus and His disciples and was quite stunned. You could start by reading Matthew 23.
Yes sir: Just now read the whole chapter. Jesus and John were bona fide prophets. I am not, and probably neither are you. I'm not going to take the position of berating someone about their beliefs. I don't mind pointing them to Jesus or explaining my beliefs. I will sometimes take issue with one who I think distorts or outright lies about Jesus as I often do with Paul.
Although most in this thread have done well in keeping the discussion polite and not jabbing back very hard at those who are prone to attack their beliefs and behaviors as Christians, some seem to have injured the feelings of Starman because he is becoming more and more strident in his nasty speculation about Christians.- to the point of some ad hominum attacks. Can we not rectify this in some way so that he/she is not so aggravated?
A lot of people dont want to believe because they dont want to quit living in their sins and they try to shrug off guilt and fear of the consequences if HE does exist.
There are many who dont want to go to hell alone. Misery loves company.
Yeshua "Judge not". Ben Franklin " tart words make no friends". Yeshua "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your father in heaven". While I think it really bad to publicize your acts of charity I believe letting your light shine would accomplish way more than all this arguing and name calling of non-believers.
Yeah,
Don't tell me what a good Christian you are, show me.
And Hastings post lines right up with Math 23............" Any"Christian" would just about have to admit that the nominal Christian church has created enough mayhem and depravity to strip it completely of respectability." I wonder who we think Jesus's words were directed at??? I'm sure it couldn't be the Church I attend or the Preacher I follow or have followed, nor any of what I was taught growing up. Nope, it has to be........."they" or "them"......whoever "they/them" are.
I don't know if Hastings was referring to Math. 23 or not, but much of the Christian church corporation teaching falls right into Math. 23. and Jeremiah 23 scriptures.
I already addressed that. Go back and read it if you are interested.
You expect me to search through all your posts to find something relevant? I may not even recognize what you consider to be "God calling out."
No, I don’t expect very much from you at all.
The feeling is mutual.
I know that God, assuming existence, does not call openly and honestly for all to see and hear, that it is only the believer who feels through interpretation of events, signs or 'hearing' subjective voices in the head, that God is calling to them.
It is all about the experience of the believer, how they see things, and not some actual 'God.'
I already addressed that. Go back and read it if you are interested.
You expect me to search through all your posts to find something relevant? I may not even recognize what you consider to be "God calling out."
No, I don’t expect very much from you at all.
The feeling is mutual.
I know that God, assuming existence, does not call openly and honestly for all to see and hear, that it is only the believer who feels through interpretation of events, signs or 'hearing' subjective voices in the head, that God is calling to them.
It is all about the experience of the believer, how they see things, and not some actual 'God.'
I would surmise that the reason you show up on these threads is that you desperately desire God.... but you don’t have God in your life ....you want God on your terms and only on your terms.
Perhaps you want God to come to you and do your bidding.... you want Him to be who and what you want Him to be.... kinda like a spoiled child demanding something from a parent.. ..... you don’t have a God to serve you like you want.... so, you reject.
Maybe you denigrate believers because they have what you desire but don’t have.
Although most in this thread have done well in keeping the discussion polite and not jabbing back very hard at those who are prone to attack their beliefs and behaviors as Christians, some seem to have injured the feelings of Starman because he is becoming more and more strident in his nasty speculation about Christians.- to the point of some ad hominum attacks. Can we not rectify this in some way so that he/she is not so aggravated?
Originally Posted by wabigoon
I just got tried of starman, I put him on ignore.
What Wabigoon said a long long time ago when he was here under the screen name Rob Jordan.
I already addressed that. Go back and read it if you are interested.
You expect me to search through all your posts to find something relevant? I may not even recognize what you consider to be "God calling out."
No, I don’t expect very much from you at all.
The feeling is mutual.
I know that God, assuming existence, does not call openly and honestly for all to see and hear, that it is only the believer who feels through interpretation of events, signs or 'hearing' subjective voices in the head, that God is calling to them.
It is all about the experience of the believer, how they see things, and not some actual 'God.'
I would surmise that the reason you show up on these threads is that you desperately desire God.... but you don’t have God in your life ....you want God on your terms and only on your terms.
Perhaps you want God to come to you and do your bidding.... you want Him to be who and what you want Him to be.... kinda like a spoiled child demanding something from a parent.. ..... you don’t have a God to serve you like you want.... so, you reject.
Maybe you denigrate believers because they have what you desire but don’t have.
Classic “sour grapes.”
efw says it well.
I'm not the one who's concerned about who turns up in these threads, or any threads. As that appears to worry you, not me, the sour grapes are yours....but you thought it would be clever to try to turn tables in the hope that nobody would notice.
The fact is, discussion and questiong involves different points of view, so if you don't like that, bad luck.
I'd bet that not all Christians here agree on all points of Christian belief.
I already addressed that. Go back and read it if you are interested.
You expect me to search through all your posts to find something relevant? I may not even recognize what you consider to be "God calling out."
No, I don’t expect very much from you at all.
The feeling is mutual.
I know that God, assuming existence, does not call openly and honestly for all to see and hear, that it is only the believer who feels through interpretation of events, signs or 'hearing' subjective voices in the head, that God is calling to them.
It is all about the experience of the believer, how they see things, and not some actual 'God.'
How do you explain Muslims, who don't know Jesus, claiming Jesus came to them?
Although most in this thread have done well in keeping the discussion polite and not jabbing back very hard at those who are prone to attack their beliefs and behaviors as Christians, some seem to have injured the feelings of Starman because he is becoming more and more strident in his nasty speculation about Christians.- to the point of some ad hominum attacks. Can we not rectify this in some way so that he/she is not so aggravated?
Originally Posted by wabigoon
I just got tried of starman, I put him on ignore.
What Wabigoon said a long long time ago when he was here under the screen name Rob Jordan.
Starman can have his say regardless of being on ignore. Being on ignore is not a punishment. Maybe it just shows a level of intolerance in the poster who cannot bear to see dissent.
I already addressed that. Go back and read it if you are interested.
You expect me to search through all your posts to find something relevant? I may not even recognize what you consider to be "God calling out."
No, I don’t expect very much from you at all.
The feeling is mutual.
I know that God, assuming existence, does not call openly and honestly for all to see and hear, that it is only the believer who feels through interpretation of events, signs or 'hearing' subjective voices in the head, that God is calling to them.
It is all about the experience of the believer, how they see things, and not some actual 'God.'
I would surmise that the reason you show up on these threads is that you desperately desire God.... but you don’t have God in your life ....you want God on your terms and only on your terms.
Perhaps you want God to come to you and do your bidding.... you want Him to be who and what you want Him to be.... kinda like a spoiled child demanding something from a parent.. ..... you don’t have a God to serve you like you want.... so, you reject.
Maybe you denigrate believers because they have what you desire but don’t have.
Classic “sour grapes.”
efw says it well.
I'm not the one who's concerned about who turns up in these threads, or any threads. As that appears to worry you, not me, the sour grapes are yours....but you thought it would be clever to try to turn tables in the hope that nobody would notice.
The fact is, discussion and questiong involves different points of view, so if you don't like that, bad luck.
I'd bet that not all Christians here agree on all points of Christian belief.
It was a simple question. Why are you a Christian? No point was made for discussion of if there is GOD or not.
Your crew hijacked the thread, as usual.
Start your on thread on whatever you wish. You wont because you wont be able to crap on others.
Try it. See if we believers crap on your thread. Yes, you are the arrogant ones.
That is one side of the coin....the flip side is God killing people for very little reason, gathering sticks on a Sabbath, etc, which is not a demonstration of Love.
That is one side of the coin....the flip side is God killing people for very little reason, gathering sticks on a Sabbath, etc, which is not a demonstration of Love.
You still don't get it. God,in His love, force them to take a day off so they didn't work all the time.
I already addressed that. Go back and read it if you are interested.
You expect me to search through all your posts to find something relevant? I may not even recognize what you consider to be "God calling out."
No, I don’t expect very much from you at all.
The feeling is mutual.
I know that God, assuming existence, does not call openly and honestly for all to see and hear, that it is only the believer who feels through interpretation of events, signs or 'hearing' subjective voices in the head, that God is calling to them.
It is all about the experience of the believer, how they see things, and not some actual 'God.'
I would surmise that the reason you show up on these threads is that you desperately desire God.... but you don’t have God in your life ....you want God on your terms and only on your terms.
Perhaps you want God to come to you and do your bidding.... you want Him to be who and what you want Him to be.... kinda like a spoiled child demanding something from a parent.. ..... you don’t have a God to serve you like you want.... so, you reject.
Maybe you denigrate believers because they have what you desire but don’t have.
Classic “sour grapes.”
efw says it well.
I'm not the one who's concerned about who turns up in these threads, or any threads. As that appears to worry you, not me, the sour grapes are yours....but you thought it would be clever to try to turn tables in the hope that nobody would notice.
The fact is, discussion and questiong involves different points of view, so if you don't like that, bad luck.
I'd bet that not all Christians here agree on all points of Christian belief.
It was a simple question. Why are you a Christian? No point was made for discussion of if there is GOD or not.
Your crew hijacked the thread, as usual.
Start your on thread on whatever you wish. You wont because you wont be able to crap on others.
Try it. See if we believers crap on your thread. Yes, you are the arrogant ones.
You are right....but people want to have their say. And if you check, the rot set in well before I and some of the regulars joined in. The horse had bolted long before I came in.
That is one side of the coin....the flip side is God killing people for very little reason, gathering sticks on a Sabbath, etc, which is not a demonstration of Love.
You still don't get it. God,in His love, force them to take a day off so they didn't work all the time.
The God of Love forces people to have a day of rest....and if they don't he kills them? This is a display of Love and Tender Mercy?
Someone else's dog crapped in your neighbor's lawn first, so that makes it OK. Right. The morals of atheists? ?
It's not immoral to question. It is a virtue and a public service. You should be thanking those who who challenge your beliefs in the spirit of inquiry and truth.
That is one side of the coin....the flip side is God killing people for very little reason, gathering sticks on a Sabbath, etc, which is not a demonstration of Love.
You still don't get it. God,in His love, force them to take a day off so they didn't work all the time.
The God of Love forces people to have a day of rest....and if they don't he kills them? This is a display of Love and Tender Mercy?
True, I don't get it.
You don't get it because you don't want to. God made an example of one and that took care of that.
But there's a little thing you seem to forget. Just like I told you about the boss you didn't get the idea the Boss is not subject to the rules. Those who don't cooperate are rejects. I used to burn the rejects.
That is one side of the coin....the flip side is God killing people for very little reason, gathering sticks on a Sabbath, etc, which is not a demonstration of Love.
You still don't get it. God,in His love, force them to take a day off so they didn't work all the time.
The God of Love forces people to have a day of rest....and if they don't he kills them? This is a display of Love and Tender Mercy?
True, I don't get it.
You don't get it because you don't want to. God made an example of one and that took care of that.
But there's a little thing you seem to forget. Just like I told you about the boss you didn't get the idea the Boss is not subject to the rules. Those who don't cooperate are rejects. I used to burn the rejects.
It's the nature of the 'example to others' and the underlying attitude it embodies that is the problem.
His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire."
Starman can have his say regardless of being on ignore. Being on ignore is not a punishment. Maybe it just shows a level of intolerance in the poster who cannot bear to see dissent.
Yep he can have his say; I never said otherwise.
I obviously don’t mind dissent I’ve been engaging with you. I find Starman to be obtuse unwilling to have the give and take we know as a conversation so I don’t engage.
Starman can have his say regardless of being on ignore. Being on ignore is not a punishment. Maybe it just shows a level of intolerance in the poster who cannot bear to see dissent.
Yep he can have his say; I never said otherwise.
I obviously don’t mind dissent I’ve been engaging with you. I find Starman to be obtuse Andy willing to have the give and take we know as a conversation so I don’t engage.
If others see it differently that’s fine with me.
No problem, I didn't have you or most other posters in mind when I made the comment. I'm sure we all know who I meant.
How do you explain Muslims, who don't know Jesus, claiming Jesus came to them?
That has happened. I have good friends who are missionaries, have started churches in Israel.
The Messianic Jewish couple who are their associates over there report a real awakening among the Arabs. They've had Arabs come to their home requesting that they tell them about Jesus. Asked how they heard about Jesus, they hear stories of Him showing up and healing people. Now, that's a pretty good segway into sharing the Gospel.
The hard core religious Jews are more resistant to the Gospel because of the "spirit of religion". It was actually the spirit of religion that crucified the Lord. If Satan can't beat'em, he'll join'em. The spirit of religion is Satan himself; the High Priest, Pharasees, crowds etc. were actually functioning as his minions at the crucifixion..
And what do I mean by spirit of religion. It's that spirit of control that permeates organized religion to squelsh the Spirit of the Lord.
Now, we see a lot of that today.. One has to be born again and Spirit filled to see the difference, lest deception blind him to the Light.
How do you explain Muslims, who don't know Jesus, claiming Jesus came to them?
That has happened. I have good friends who are missionaries, have started churches in Israel.
The Mesianic Jewish couple who are their associates over there report a real awakening among the Arabs. They've had Arabs come to their home requesting that they tell them about Jesus. Asked how they heard about Jesus, they hear stories of Him showing up and healing people. Now, that's a pretty good segway into sharing the Gospel.
The hard core religious Jews are more resistant to the Gospel because of the "spirit of religion". It was actually the spirit of religion that crucified the Lord. If Satan can't beat'em, he'll join'em. The spirit of religion is Satan himself; the High Priest, Pharasees, crowds etc. were actually functioning as his minions at the crucifixion..
DF
And those were the ones who stoned those who broke the religious rules of the day. It wasnt GOD.
There are a lot of hard core religious today who take control of GODs words for their benefit, and call other morals father and claim other groups of believers in Christ hell bound.
How do you explain Muslims, who don't know Jesus, claiming Jesus came to them?
That has happened. I have good friends who are missionaries, have started churches in Israel.
The Mesianic Jewish couple who are their associates over there report a real awakening among the Arabs. They've had Arabs come to their home requesting that they tell them about Jesus. Asked how they heard about Jesus, they hear stories of Him showing up and healing people. Now, that's a pretty good segway into sharing the Gospel.
The hard core religious Jews are more resistant to the Gospel because of the "spirit of religion". It was actually the spirit of religion that crucified the Lord. If Satan can't beat'em, he'll join'em. The spirit of religion is Satan himself; the High Priest, Pharasees, crowds etc. were actually functioning as his minions at the crucifixion..
DF
And those were the ones who stoned those who broke the religious rules of the day. It wasnt GOD.
And those were the ones who stoned those who broke the religious rules of the day. It wasnt GOD.
They got their orders from God.
By rights the Jews could have arrested and killed Jesus for uplifting the tables in Temple, which was a very serious capitol punishment offence.
but it shows they gave him a free pass...which makes the Bible narrative highly improbable if not absurd.
Jesus preached in the Temple and caused an unforgettable major incident (as above) in the Temple...so surely many people by this time already knew the man and could easily positively identify him. ...but apparently the pharisees had to go to the trouble to pay a Judas to identify him...???
just another absurd/highly improbable Bible narrative example.
When he overturned the tables in the temple, the Jews had turned the house of prayer into a den of thieves, Theirs was the offence, not the Lord Jesus Christ's. And contrary to popular misinformation, He was just an average looking Jew of his day, so not everybody recognized him, well except the ones with high speed modems and search engines.
He was just an average looking Jew of his day, so not everybody recognized him
You turn over the tables in a Temple of all places (where you also preach in), and they wont forget who you are.
Re: "average looking jew" ...how do you know this?
Chinese largely 'all look the same' to anglo folk, but Chinese people know how to identify their own individuals of particular interest. Im confident the Jews could do the same with their own tribal Jews.
For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
or more precisely: Isaiah 53: “He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to Him, nothing in His appearance that we should desire Him.”
that does not mean they could not easily identify a person who preached in the temple and caused a major capitol offense scene in the Temple..drawing great attention to himself.
That is one side of the coin....the flip side is God killing people for very little reason, gathering sticks on a Sabbath, etc, which is not a demonstration of Love.
You still don't get it. God,in His love, force them to take a day off so they didn't work all the time.
The God of Love forces people to have a day of rest....and if they don't he kills them? This is a display of Love and Tender Mercy?
True, I don't get it.
You don't get it because you don't want to. God made an example of one and that took care of that.
But there's a little thing you seem to forget. Just like I told you about the boss you didn't get the idea the Boss is not subject to the rules. Those who don't cooperate are rejects. I used to burn the rejects.
It's the nature of the 'example to others' and the underlying attitude it embodies that is the problem.
You still don't get the idea the Creator is not bound by anything. There's almost nothing we can do like God. Some, like you, can not fathom the concept we humans have value only because the Creator says we do.
My experience is that God calls to those with open minds and hearts who know they’re deeply flawed and want to know Him.
I’ve met many people who didn’t believe but didn’t NOT believe and who asked God to show Himself to them and none were ignored.
But in the interest of fairness, if you’d prefer to shake your fist or wave your bird at Him instead you’ll also get the answer you seek.
That was not my experience. I tried. The more I learned about it, about the Bible, about science, about religions in general and about the world the less it made sense. I could lie to everyone else of course but if He is real then I figured I wasn't fooling Him. You reckon he'd be more pissed at trying to pull one over on Him or not pretending to be faithful?
That is one side of the coin....the flip side is God killing people for very little reason, gathering sticks on a Sabbath, etc, which is not a demonstration of Love.
You still don't get it. God,in His love, force them to take a day off so they didn't work all the time.
The God of Love forces people to have a day of rest....and if they don't he kills them? This is a display of Love and Tender Mercy?
True, I don't get it.
You don't get it because you don't want to. God made an example of one and that took care of that.
But there's a little thing you seem to forget. Just like I told you about the boss you didn't get the idea the Boss is not subject to the rules. Those who don't cooperate are rejects. I used to burn the rejects.
It's the nature of the 'example to others' and the underlying attitude it embodies that is the problem.
You still don't get the idea the Creator is not bound by anything. There's almost nothing we can do like God. Some, like you, can not fathom the concept we humans have value only because the Creator says we do.
The bible defines its creator, giving descriptions of his values and actions....
If we accept omniscience and omnipotence then I start to get a little irritated. Stacking the deck against me and knowing how it was gonna play out all along and all the while having the power to intervene... thanks Bruh
But then again if we accept that and then look at the system, it falls apart pretty quickly
My experience is that God calls to those with open minds and hearts who know they’re deeply flawed and want to know Him.
I’ve met many people who didn’t believe but didn’t NOT believe and who asked God to show Himself to them and none were ignored.
But in the interest of fairness, if you’d prefer to shake your fist or wave your bird at Him instead you’ll also get the answer you seek.
That was not my experience. I tried. The more I learned about it, about the Bible, about science, about religions in general and about the world the less it made sense. I could lie to everyone else of course but if He is real then I figured I wasn't fooling Him. You reckon he'd be more pissed at trying to pull one over on Him or not pretending to be faithful?
Well, you were right in not fooling Him. Now, learning science, the apparent contradictions in the Bible, about other religions and then making your "intelligent" deduction and thus relying on your own understanding rather than having faith is a losing proposition.
How many years did you ask Him in prayer to give you faith and help you overcome your unbelief, not saying I'm an expert or good example or very well versed in this.
Please know that it is not a Christian duty or responsibility to convince you about the reality of God and the reality of Jesus and the gift. Folks such as I can point the way ..... explain little or much depending upon the “ears” that hear us....hold you up in prayer before the Father... so on and so forth ...But, it is the Holy Spirit of God .... not me or others.....that shows the clear and weighty truth to the honest seeker of God.
God will not hold me responsible for your eternal destiny. That is between you and God.
Those that have ears to hear, will indeed hear. Those that “stick their own fingers in their ears” ..... for whatever reason they do.... those are the ones that will not hear and not believe and who have not yet received the gift.
Also....There has been much talk about evidence or “proof.” There is proof. As, I have previously related, God spoke to me..... God proved Himself to me. I related that experience on this Forum.
I have proof and you don’t. Our differences may be as simple as that. Seek the proof.... it is there.
Btw....regarding “threat” ....... when one recognizes an “indication of impending.....whatever.....trouble, risk or danger....”...... a responsible caring person might warn the one who is at risk. With that thought in mind, yes, I fear for you and am trying to warn you. Others have as well. Kinda like warning someone of a runaway horse headed their way.....”Watch Out!”
Not to say that preaching hellfire is of no value, but it seems to me that simply threatening some one with hellfire will do little good. Sometimes yes, but why would they be afraid of hellfire from a God they place no stock in? Seems that something specific from the Holy Spirit has to have been communicated first. Anyway, that is a digression.
This is your life and a hand has been dealt to you..... play it wisely.
ATB,
TF
TF,
I do not seek a specific god or specific outcome, what I seek is the truth. I do my best to carefully examine and minimize my presuppositions, base my beliefs on objective evidence, and accept when insufficient evidence to accept a given proposition.
I'm open to sound idea's supported by sufficient evidence of the appropriate quality given the nature of the claim.
What I see in your post is an emotional appeal. Yes, I believe it's a well intentioned, heart felt emotional appeal, but none the less still, just an emotional appeal related to an outcome for which I've been presented with no good evidence, and much contra-indicated evidence.
Yes, this is my life, and I'm living it the best way I know how based upon best evidence available to me.
In return, it is my hope that your irrationally based beliefs do not lead you to bad outcomes.
May the random variances of the universe favor you.
I was reading my Bible. This year in April marks my 38th trip around the sun as a saved man, and I still love that old black backed 66 calibre way more than I love the Campfire even.
Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised, in the city of our God, in the mountain of his holiness. Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion on the sides of the north, the city of the great king. (Psalm 48)
Thank you, Lord Jesus, for doing for me what I could never do for myself.
Since I see no good evidence for Jesus. I would argue you ARE doing it yourself and should give yourself credit for your.
It seems there are several different kinds of people who don’t believe in God: A. Those who just don’t believe. B. Those who don’t believe but want to believe. C. And those who just don’t ‘want’ to believe. Again, there is a big difference between “I don’t believe it” and “I don’t ‘want’ to believe it.” “I don’t ‘want’ to believe it” has to do with will....and want. Did ‘these’ folks decide to not believe because faith got to be inconvenient...? And then, after they decided to not believe, they needed to develop some support for their unbelief. Did their decision to not believe precede the data they’ve collected to support their unbelief...? If their unbelief is around will and want...information will never suffice. Could it be that the real reason they choose to not believe isn’t perhaps the reasons that they give...isn’t perhaps their presenting facts and arguments ...could it be something else...? If they admit God, they’ve got to submit to God..if there’s a God that’s going to hold them accountable, then suddenly they are accountable. Their arguments aren’t arguments, for or against anything...they’re responses. Their resistance and reluctance to acknowledge God...is not an argument...it’s just a response. It explains why they’ve developed their arsenal of arguments. And their arguments against the existence of God came after their decision to not want God. Their intellectual arguments against the existence of God didn’t come first...they came second. For whatever reason...they don’t want God to ‘be’. They don’t want to feel what they might feel. The real issue is their personal resistance, ‘not’ Gods existence. This isn’t about Gods existence, this isn’t about science...this is about their personal resistance. Humanity has struggled with the submission to God since the beginning of humanity. ‘If’ God...then there’s forgiveness. Our rebellion, our sin, our ‘mistakes’, our wrongdoings...become a platform for God to demonstrate His love for us. He says that He “demonstrates” His own love for us in this...that while we were still sinners, Jesus died for us. God wanted to enter into a relationship with mankind. You can not have a loving relationship with someone you do not sacrifice for; if you do not sacrifice for them - they do not know that you love them. ‘If’ God...then there’s relationship.
Antlers,
What a finely constructed strawman you have erected only to batter it down.
I suspect you could benefit from actually knowing, and actually listening to some atheist.
A lot of Atheist deconverted by reading the Bible.
Why are you atheists so bent out of shape over a “Being” that to you doesn’t exist? .
Your concern should be more about why Christians feel the need to Bend and mold a God into convenient versions of their own personal liking.
One has to wonder how many Christians, on here and elsewhere, need or should attend to a person telling them what they should be concerned about with regard to their beliefs. How does one manage to arrogate to himself (or herself) the authority to dictate the concerns of a Christian? Is that a special quality held by non-Christians?
Not in this country. That's covered under "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The only power anyone should have over your deeply held foundational beliefs is that of their reason.
And, pray tell, why should ANYONE have such power over another persons "deeply held foundational beliefs"?? One piece of strong evidence will be sufficient for a start.
Did you fail to understand my point, or are you now against reasoned debate?
Religion would otherwise say the same, oh, and where did god come from?
If God exists He has no beginning being Infinite, Intelligent, Energy. It might be a cute question to foolish people but it like asking, "To whom is the bachelor married?"
Originally Posted by DBT
Nobody is claiming that we came from nothing.
Apparently you don't understand the theory of evolution. You ever hear of The Big Bang? Nothing became something and that something became intelligent people.
And Hastings post lines right up with Math 23............" Any"Christian" would just about have to admit that the nominal Christian church has created enough mayhem and depravity to strip it completely of respectability." I wonder who we think Jesus's words were directed at??? I'm sure it couldn't be the Church I attend or the Preacher I follow or have followed, nor any of what I was taught growing up. Nope, it has to be........."they" or "them"......whoever "they/them" are.
I don't know if Hastings was referring to Math. 23 or not, but much of the Christian church corporation teaching falls right into Math. 23. and Jeremiah 23 scriptures.
The letters of "Paul" were directed at other Christian Churches.......just saying....
Although most in this thread have done well in keeping the discussion polite and not jabbing back very hard at those who are prone to attack their beliefs and behaviors as Christians, some seem to have injured the feelings of Starman because he is becoming more and more strident in his nasty speculation about Christians.- to the point of some ad hominum attacks. Can we not rectify this in some way so that he/she is not so aggravated?
Originally Posted by wabigoon
I just got tried of starman, I put him on ignore.
What Wabigoon said a long long time ago when he was here under the screen name Rob Jordan.
I already addressed that. Go back and read it if you are interested.
You expect me to search through all your posts to find something relevant? I may not even recognize what you consider to be "God calling out."
No, I don’t expect very much from you at all.
The feeling is mutual.
I know that God, assuming existence, does not call openly and honestly for all to see and hear, that it is only the believer who feels through interpretation of events, signs or 'hearing' subjective voices in the head, that God is calling to them.
It is all about the experience of the believer, how they see things, and not some actual 'God.'
How do you explain Muslims, who don't know Jesus, claiming Jesus came to them?
How do you explain 1.2 Billion Muslims, and Christians who convert to Islam, or deconvert to athism?
Religion would otherwise say the same, oh, and where did god come from?
If God exists He has no beginning being Infinite, Intelligent, Energy. It might be a cute question to foolish people but it like asking, "To whom is the bachelor married?"
Originally Posted by DBT
Nobody is claiming that we came from nothing.
Apparently you don't understand the theory of evolution. You ever hear of The Big Bang? Nothing became something and that something became intelligent people.
All of this has been explained to you numerous times...did you not read what was said? Perhaps you didn't understand?
Does it have to be repeated....only to have the same fallacies raised?
Although most in this thread have done well in keeping the discussion polite and not jabbing back very hard at those who are prone to attack their beliefs and behaviors as Christians, some seem to have injured the feelings of Starman because he is becoming more and more strident in his nasty speculation about Christians.- to the point of some ad hominum attacks. Can we not rectify this in some way so that he/she is not so aggravated?
Originally Posted by wabigoon
I just got tried of starman, I put him on ignore.
What Wabigoon said a long long time ago when he was here under the screen name Rob Jordan.
Starman can have his say regardless of being on ignore. Being on ignore is not a punishment. Maybe it just shows a level of intolerance in the poster who cannot bear to see dissent.
Much of the complaining and ignoring by Christians come from their need to eliminate the cognitive dissonance they experience when reading Starman's post's. For many believer's it's really difficult to handle, so they make up stories about Atheist being "haters" or "In league with Satin", or "they just want to sin", as opposed to addressing the real issues.
A lot of Atheist deconverted by reading the Bible.
Jesus’ most devout first century followers never owned a Bible, never read a Bible...because there was no Bible to be had or read. But these men and women turned the world upside down; they’re the reason that people worship Jesus today; and they never held a Bible because there was no Bible until the fourth century.
It seems there are several different kinds of people who don’t believe in God: A. Those who just don’t believe. B. Those who don’t believe but want to believe. C. And those who just don’t ‘want’ to believe. Again, there is a big difference between “I don’t believe it” and “I don’t ‘want’ to believe it.” “I don’t ‘want’ to believe it” has to do with will....and want. Did ‘these’ folks decide to not believe because faith got to be inconvenient...? And then, after they decided to not believe, they needed to develop some support for their unbelief. Did their decision to not believe precede the data they’ve collected to support their unbelief...? If their unbelief is around will and want...information will never suffice. Could it be that the real reason they choose to not believe isn’t perhaps the reasons that they give...isn’t perhaps their presenting facts and arguments ...could it be something else...? If they admit God, they’ve got to submit to God..if there’s a God that’s going to hold them accountable, then suddenly they are accountable. Their arguments aren’t arguments, for or against anything...they’re responses. Their resistance and reluctance to acknowledge God...is not an argument...it’s just a response. It explains why they’ve developed their arsenal of arguments. And their arguments against the existence of God came after their decision to not want God. Their intellectual arguments against the existence of God didn’t come first...they came second. For whatever reason...they don’t want God to ‘be’. They don’t want to feel what they might feel. The real issue is their personal resistance, ‘not’ Gods existence. This isn’t about Gods existence, this isn’t about science...this is about their personal resistance. Humanity has struggled with the submission to God since the beginning of humanity. ‘If’ God...then there’s forgiveness. Our rebellion, our sin, our ‘mistakes’, our wrongdoings...become a platform for God to demonstrate His love for us. He says that He “demonstrates” His own love for us in this...that while we were still sinners, Jesus died for us. God wanted to enter into a relationship with mankind. You can not have a loving relationship with someone you do not sacrifice for; if you do not sacrifice for them - they do not know that you love them. ‘If’ God...then there’s relationship.
I think much of that is true, but I would narrow it down a bit more. It's not so much that people object to the idea of God, but more that they object to the particular version they are familiar with. If you believe in a God of some sort, you don't necessarily have to believe that we know anything at all about that God, or what he/it might desire. You can certainly understand why certain gods that were widely believed in long ago would be quite unpopular today, and people would be quick to closely examine their mythology and try to determine if they were actually real or not. I don't necessarily think that makes someone a bad person, it seems like the natural thing to do actually.
For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
A lot of Atheist deconverted by reading the Bible.
Jesus’ most devout first century followers never owned a Bible, never read a Bible...because there was no Bible to be had or read. But these men and women turned the world upside down; they’re the reason that people worship Jesus today; and they never held a Bible because there was no Bible until the fourth century.
Not really, Christianity most likely would have remained a small cult had it not been for Paul's promotional work and Constantine adopting Christianity as his state religion.
Religion would otherwise say the same, oh, and where did god come from?
If God exists He has no beginning being Infinite, Intelligent, Energy. It might be a cute question to foolish people but it like asking, "To whom is the bachelor married?"
Originally Posted by DBT
Nobody is claiming that we came from nothing.
Apparently you don't understand the theory of evolution. You ever hear of The Big Bang? Nothing became something and that something became intelligent people.
No.
The question is designed to demonstrate your "special pleading".
If actually quite funny. You belief the universe is too complex that it MUST have a creator, then imagine a more complex creator, who didn't require one, so alleged existence would violate your first premise.
In other words, it's a self contradictory argument.
My experience is that God calls to those with open minds and hearts who know they’re deeply flawed and want to know Him.
I’ve met many people who didn’t believe but didn’t NOT believe and who asked God to show Himself to them and none were ignored.
But in the interest of fairness, if you’d prefer to shake your fist or wave your bird at Him instead you’ll also get the answer you seek.
That was not my experience. I tried. The more I learned about it, about the Bible, about science, about religions in general and about the world the less it made sense. I could lie to everyone else of course but if He is real then I figured I wasn't fooling Him. You reckon he'd be more pissed at trying to pull one over on Him or not pretending to be faithful?
Well, you were right in not fooling Him. Now, learning science, the apparent contradictions in the Bible, about other religions and then making your "intelligent" deduction and thus relying on your own understanding rather than having faith is a losing proposition.
How many years did you ask Him in prayer to give you faith and help you overcome your unbelief, not saying I'm an expert or good example or very well versed in this.
Numerous years, off and on. And I wasn’t asking to overcome unbelief, I was asking for asking for conviction on what I assumed must be true but had never felt truly and didn’t figure He would appreciate me lying about it to Him
A lot of Atheist deconverted by reading the Bible.
Jesus’ most devout first century followers never owned a Bible, never read a Bible...because there was no Bible to be had or read. But these men and women turned the world upside down; they’re the reason that people worship Jesus today; and they never held a Bible because there was no Bible until the fourth century.
Not really, Christianity most likely would have remained a small cult had it not been for Paul's promotional work and Constantine adopting Christianity as his state religion.
Yes really. “These men and women” that I mentioned above actually saw Jesus die, and later they saw Him alive. They witnessed the very event upon which Christianity is founded. And ‘that’ event is what sparked the movement (the Church) that brought us the Bible.
I've been gone from home all day. Has this issue been settled? One side convinced the others? Jesus' simple message of salvation through repentance evidenced by a changed life and good works sure has gotten twisted up by some of those who claim to be his best friends. By the way, Jesus message wasn't anything new. He was just pointing out that those of his day who claimed to be God's representatives had run off the rails. If he came back preaching the same message today's church would not let him live three years.
A lot of Atheist deconverted by reading the Bible.
Jesus’ most devout first century followers never owned a Bible, never read a Bible...because there was no Bible to be had or read. But these men and women turned the world upside down; they’re the reason that people worship Jesus today; and they never held a Bible because there was no Bible until the fourth century.
Parts of the old Testament date to around 500 BCE and most of it predated the early Christians and proto-christians so they had religious texts reflective of at least parts of the OT.
If your do not believe The Bible is at least the "inspired word of God", than yours is a minority position among Christians. Marcion allegedly put together the first cannon sometime in the second century, which supposedly included six of the original letter of "Paul" and a variant of Luke. It's still debate if Marcion's luke was a proto-Luke or an abridged version of Luke.
It's true, the variouis pre-christian sects didn't have any of the modern cannons, but they did have texts, of and were very skilled at forging new ones. Heck, there was at least 60 gospels that we know.....
A lot of Atheist deconverted by reading the Bible.
Jesus’ most devout first century followers never owned a Bible, never read a Bible...because there was no Bible to be had or read. But these men and women turned the world upside down; they’re the reason that people worship Jesus today; and they never held a Bible because there was no Bible until the fourth century.
Not really, Christianity most likely would have remained a small cult had it not been for Paul's promotional work and Constantine adopting Christianity as his state religion.
Yes really. “These men and women” that I mentioned above actually saw Jesus die, and later they saw Him alive. They witnessed the very event upon which Christianity is founded. And ‘that’ event is what sparked the movement (the Church) that brought us the Bible.
Religion would otherwise say the same, oh, and where did god come from?
If God exists He has no beginning being Infinite, Intelligent, Energy. It might be a cute question to foolish people but it like asking, "To whom is the bachelor married?"
Originally Posted by DBT
Nobody is claiming that we came from nothing.
Apparently you don't understand the theory of evolution. You ever hear of The Big Bang? Nothing became something and that something became intelligent people.
All of this has been explained to you numerous times...did you not read what was said? Perhaps you didn't understand?
Does it have to be repeated....only to have the same fallacies raised?
Please explain the fallacies of the Big Bang.
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by antlers
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
A lot of Atheist deconverted by reading the Bible.
Jesus’ most devout first century followers never owned a Bible, never read a Bible...because there was no Bible to be had or read. But these men and women turned the world upside down; they’re the reason that people worship Jesus today; and they never held a Bible because there was no Bible until the fourth century.
Not really, Christianity most likely would have remained a small cult had it not been for Paul's promotional work and Constantine adopting Christianity as his state religion.
I guess you never heard about the other disciples who went out and taught others to go out.
“These men and women” that I mentioned above actually saw Jesus die, and later they saw Him alive.
How many verifiably saw such? A ballpark figure will do, and how you arrived at such figure.
Originally Posted by Ringman
Originally Posted by DBT
Christianity most likely would have remained a small cult had it not been for Paul's promotional work and Constantine adopting Christianity as his state religion.
I guess you never heard about the other disciples who went out and taught others to go out.
You sound unaware of the pivotal role Roman emperors sympathetic to Christianity, played in the spread of Christianity. Scholarly books on the Romans usually have A good solid chapter on religion\Christianity from which you can gain better understanding.
A lot of Atheist deconverted by reading the Bible.
Jesus’ most devout first century followers never owned a Bible, never read a Bible...because there was no Bible to be had or read. But these men and women turned the world upside down; they’re the reason that people worship Jesus today; and they never held a Bible because there was no Bible until the fourth century.
Not really, Christianity most likely would have remained a small cult had it not been for Paul's promotional work and Constantine adopting Christianity as his state religion.
Yes really. “These men and women” that I mentioned above actually saw Jesus die, and later they saw Him alive. They witnessed the very event upon which Christianity is founded. And ‘that’ event is what sparked the movement (the Church) that brought us the Bible.
And upon what do you base this claim?
Are you denying it...? Are you claiming it didn’t happen...?
I guess you never heard about the other disciples who went out and taught others to go out.
You sound unaware of the pivotal role Roman emperors sympathetic to Christianity, played in the spread of Christianity. Scholarly books on the Romans usually have a good solid chapter on religion\Christianity.
You attributed the above quote to me...a quote I clearly did not make.
A lot of Atheist deconverted by reading the Bible.
Jesus’ most devout first century followers never owned a Bible, never read a Bible...because there was no Bible to be had or read. But these men and women turned the world upside down; they’re the reason that people worship Jesus today; and they never held a Bible because there was no Bible until the fourth century.
Not really, Christianity most likely would have remained a small cult had it not been for Paul's promotional work and Constantine adopting Christianity as his state religion.
Yes really. “These men and women” that I mentioned above actually saw Jesus die, and later they saw Him alive. They witnessed the very event upon which Christianity is founded. And ‘that’ event is what sparked the movement (the Church) that brought us the Bible.
And upon what do you base this claim?
Are you denying it...? Are you claiming it didn’t happen...?
Do you not believe that sources matter? Are you afraid to have that discussion?
A lot of Atheist deconverted by reading the Bible.
Jesus’ most devout first century followers never owned a Bible, never read a Bible...because there was no Bible to be had or read. But these men and women turned the world upside down; they’re the reason that people worship Jesus today; and they never held a Bible because there was no Bible until the fourth century.
Not really, Christianity most likely would have remained a small cult had it not been for Paul's promotional work and Constantine adopting Christianity as his state religion.
Yes really. “These men and women” that I mentioned above actually saw Jesus die, and later they saw Him alive. They witnessed the very event upon which Christianity is founded. And ‘that’ event is what sparked the movement (the Church) that brought us the Bible.
We don't have eyewitnesses telling us what they saw. What we have is anonymous authors giving their accounts on the basis of hearsay decades after the described events with copying a high degree of copying, Mark as the earlier version, etc
A lot of Atheist deconverted by reading the Bible.
Jesus’ most devout first century followers never owned a Bible, never read a Bible...because there was no Bible to be had or read. But these men and women turned the world upside down; they’re the reason that people worship Jesus today; and they never held a Bible because there was no Bible until the fourth century.
Not really, Christianity most likely would have remained a small cult had it not been for Paul's promotional work and Constantine adopting Christianity as his state religion.
Yes really. “These men and women” that I mentioned above actually saw Jesus die, and later they saw Him alive. They witnessed the very event upon which Christianity is founded. And ‘that’ event is what sparked the movement (the Church) that brought us the Bible.
We don't have eyewitnesses telling us what they saw. What we have is anonymous authors giving their accounts on the basis of hearsay decades after the described events with copying a high degree of copying, Mark as the earlier version, etc
What?
The Gospels are anonymous copies of copies of copies of copies of copies, with our earliest version put to parchment centuries later?
Really?
Say it isn't so!!
I wonder if that's why Antlers doesn't want to discuss sources, especially after making such a big deal about no {mostly) bibles existing until 400 years after the alleged events?
The Gospels are anonymous copies of copies of copies of copies of copies, with our earliest version put to parchment centuries later?
Really?
Say it isn't so!!
I wonder if that's why Antlers doesn't want to discuss sources, especially after making such a big deal about no {mostly) bibles existing until 400 years after the alleged events?
Whats your understanding on my positions on God? can you be more specific? ...( b.t.w. still waiting for you to detail my 'usual tactics') what makes you so fearful of releasing whats rolling around in your mind? - - - -
I only know what you have posted on this forum and your positions speak for themselves. But - I don't claim to understand them. So, not possible to be more specific.
A world where fact can be stranger than fiction, But where verifiable facts concerning christian claims elude us all.
Why put all this effort into this thread if you are a nonbeliever? Must be that you are a piece of garbage. You really are, dude. Just a piece of garbage.
A world where fact can be stranger than fiction, But where verifiable facts concerning christian claims elude us all.
Why put all this effort into this thread if you are a nonbeliever? Must be that you are a piece of garbage. You really are, dude. Just a piece of garbage.
Nice Christian attitude, tolerance doesn't seem to be the way.....?
It's not about tolerance or love of your fellow human being, it's about saving one's own azz in the after life - I'm on my way to see Jesus so just get outta my way
We don't have eyewitnesses telling us what they saw. What we have is anonymous authors giving their accounts on the basis of hearsay decades after..
PAUL also cannot be relied on as a before/after Witness for theres no real indication he knew Jesus before his post-ascention revelation.
Re:Matthew, Oddly such gospel is the only of the four that mentions the Roman guard at the tomb [appointed by Pontius Pilate himself.]. Such is no trivial detailed event considering he was paralyzed by God and later officially reported such incident. ...Yet the other Gospels place no significance on such.
A lot of Atheist deconverted by reading the Bible.
Jesus’ most devout first century followers never owned a Bible, never read a Bible...because there was no Bible to be had or read. But these men and women turned the world upside down; they’re the reason that people worship Jesus today; and they never held a Bible because there was no Bible until the fourth century.
Parts of the old Testament date to around 500 BCE and most of it predated the early Christians and proto-christians so they had religious texts reflective of at least parts of the OT.
So, they “deconverted” because of a book that didn’t even exist when Christianity began.
A world where fact can be stranger than fiction, But where verifiable facts concerning christian claims elude us all.
Why put all this effort into this thread if you are a nonbeliever? Must be that you are a piece of garbage. You really are, dude. Just a piece of garbage.
Nice Christian attitude, tolerance doesn't seem to be the way.....?
Give up. You are turning people against Jesus. If I didn't already believe in his message his "friends" on this thread might turn me against him. There is nothing being accomplished and you are being mocked.
A world where fact can be stranger than fiction, But where verifiable facts concerning christian claims elude us all.
Why put all this effort into this thread if you are a nonbeliever? Must be that you are a piece of garbage. You really are, dude. Just a piece of garbage.
Nice Christian attitude, tolerance doesn't seem to be the way.....?
The question still stands.
The question has been answered many times....yet the question keeps getting asked over and over regardless.
And you still havent answered wilkeshunters question.
Is it too hard for you? Do you not understand it? Are you too chicken to answer it? Do you not know the answer?
I think you really dont know why you are driven, uncontrollably, run your mouth on Christian threads. You just cant help it- like a moth to a flame, yet you try to justify doing so. Your unbelief is no reason to be driven to try and prove you are right. Millions are unbelievers and arent driven to respond.
Yes, somehow you have a vested interest or are driven by your god, Lucifer. A vested interest would be that you prayed to HIM for something and werent answered the way you wanted and decided to make HIM pay. Or, you lost someone or something and decided to make HIM pay.
You're driven by Lucifer or you're still shaking your fist in HIS face over something.
This goes for AS also.
Too chicken to answer wilkeshunters question so you think you cunningly misdirect back on to the questioner.
A stupid and ineffectual low IQ ploy is your refuge.
I only know what you have posted on this forum and your positions speak for themselves.
So you are saying my position is obvious.
Originally Posted by CCCC
But - I don't claim to understand them...
So your claim about my "usual tactics" has no substance for you can't actually detail such. good work Sherlock...
I like to do good work, and am suggesting that you step back and get a grip on reality. Do you understand the difference between your stating a certain position as compared with your actual and repeated behavior in these threads? It is not easy, or even possible, to decipher and understand some of your positions - as in this case - because of the incoherent/inconsistent content. It has been altogether possible to observe your repeated behaviors and understand your disingenuous attack tactics. Please try to get a grip.
Why put all this effort into this thread if you are a nonbeliever? Must be that you are a piece of garbage.
1/. I already pointed out to your fellow brothers here that [supposed] christians provide me Light entertainment with their claptrap waffle.
2/ I notice you attempt to project onto me what your O. T. God expressed about you, [ie:] wicked garbage only worthy of destruction.
Thus if you deludedly think you are any better than me you are sorely mistaken.
As a nonbeliever, this thread wasn’t even meant for you. Yet you come on here and pollute the thread with your garbage. This thread is an opportunity for Christians to discuss and celebrate our Christianity. Start your own “anti” thread, and I promise to stay far away from it, as you should do here.
And you still havent answered wilkeshunters question.
Is it too hard for you? Do you not understand it? Are you too chicken to answer it? Do you not know the answer?
I think you really dont know why you are driven, uncontrollably, run your mouth on Christian threads. You just cant help it- like a moth to a flame, yet you try to justify doing so. Your unbelief is no reason to be driven to try and prove you are right. Millions are unbelievers and arent driven to respond.
Yes, somehow you have a vested interest or are driven by your god, Lucifer. A vested interest would be that you prayed to HIM for something and werent answered the way you wanted and decided to make HIM pay. Or, you lost someone or something and decided to make HIM pay.
You're driven by Lucifer or you're still shaking your fist in HIS face over something.
This goes for AS also.
Too chicken to answer wilkeshunters question so you think you cunningly misdirect back on to the questioner.
A stupid and ineffectual low IQ ploy is your refuge.
Still playing the tough internet warrior, hurling insults from the security of your anonymity, something that you would never dare in person.
Which demonstrates your cowardly nature and poor character quite clearly, your arrogance and rudeness flies into action whenever anyone questions your precious faith....Which you cling to like a petulant child.
Why put all this effort into this thread if you are a nonbeliever? Must be that you are a piece of garbage.
1/. I already pointed out to your fellow brothers here that [supposed] christians provide me Light entertainment with their claptrap waffle.
2/ I notice you attempt to project onto me what your O. T. God expressed about you, [ie:] wicked garbage only worthy of destruction.
Thus if you deludedly think you are any better than me you are sorely mistaken.
As a nonbeliever, this thread wasn’t even meant for you. Yet you come on here and pollute the thread with your garbage. This thread is an opportunity for Christians to discuss and celebrate our Christianity. Start your own “anti” thread, and I promise to stay far away from it, as you should do here.
Yet your lot are happy enough to pile into the other thread - "Why you not a Christian" - Hypocrytes crying and wailing at being questioned. Can't handle reality without clinging to the fantasy of ancient myths promising immortality to childish minds.
.. am suggesting that you step back and get a grip on reality.
you are brainwashed and controlled by primitive mythology but tell others to get a grip.
Originally Posted by CCCC
It is not easy, or even possible, to decipher and understand some of your positions -
Your personal difficulty and struggle is your problem..dont blame others for your own lack and limitations. Others here understand and decipher my posts just fine.
better to work on improving yourself rather merely complaining. If you dont know how , then best seek help for your problems.
Originally Posted by CCCC
It has been altogether possible to observe your repeated behaviors and understand your disingenuous attack tactics.
If you dropped your inherent christian victim status attitude , you may view my posts somewhat differently.
you like a few fragile others, take offense to rational enquiry and discussion that doesnt suite your own personal deluded ideology.....thats your choice and your struggle- of your own making.
Originally Posted by CCCC
I like to do good work,
whats good and whats not can be subjective, and I dont rate personal agenda driven interfering 'do-gooders' very highly.
I dont trust cognitive mental and emotional debilitated types such as yourself to have good understanding and sound rational judgement...faith in mythology does not make up for such shortfallings.
Why put all this effort into this thread if you are a nonbeliever? Must be that you are a piece of garbage.
1/. I already pointed out to your fellow brothers here that [supposed] christians provide me Light entertainment with their claptrap waffle.
2/ I notice you attempt to project onto me what your O. T. God expressed about you, [ie:] wicked garbage only worthy of destruction.
Thus if you deludedly think you are any better than me you are sorely mistaken.
As a nonbeliever, this thread wasn’t even meant for you. Yet you come on here and pollute the thread with your garbage. This thread is an opportunity for Christians to discuss and celebrate our Christianity. Start your own “anti” thread, and I promise to stay far away from it, as you should do here.
This is the 24 Hour Campfire. People are free to post what they want, where they want, and are not afraid to call out incorrect beliefs in all their forms.
If you need a safe space I suggest you find yourself a nice knitting forum.
Why put all this effort into this thread if you are a nonbeliever? Must be that you are a piece of garbage.
1/. I already pointed out to your fellow brothers here that [supposed] christians provide me Light entertainment with their claptrap waffle.
2/ I notice you attempt to project onto me what your O. T. God expressed about you, [ie:] wicked garbage only worthy of destruction.
Thus if you deludedly think you are any better than me you are sorely mistaken.
As a nonLGBQT this thread wasn’t even meant for you. Yet you come on here and pollute the thread with your garbage. This thread is an opportunity for Homos to discuss and celebrate our Sexuality. Start your own “anti” thread, and I promise to stay far away from it, as you should do here.
Everytime a thread starts with God stuff in the title, possessive control freak wackos treat it like its their own private exclusive use chapel.
Hell's gonna be hot, partner. I sure hope you change your mind. If not, I did my part.
Come on Greg.
If you are going to threaten us with Hell, can you at least make an effort to provide good evidence for it's existence before claiming we are all headed there?
The primary reason we don't believe is lack of good evidence supporting theistic claims.
Everytime a thread starts with God stuff in the title, possessive control freak wackos treat it like its their own private exclusive use chapel.
Hell's gonna be hot, partner. I sure hope you change your mind. If not, I did my part.
Come on Greg.
If you are going to threaten us with Hell, can you at least make an effort to provide good evidence for it's existence before claiming we are all headed there?
The primary reason we don't believe is lack of good evidence supporting theistic claims.
Mister, I'm in no way threatening you. It is only a warning. You are a grown man, and can make your own choice. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." All I can do is profess my faith. I cannot provide anything you can lay your hands on. You'll have to find your own faith.
Everytime a thread starts with God stuff in the title, possessive control freak wackos treat it like its their own private exclusive use chapel.
Hell's gonna be hot, partner. I sure hope you change your mind. If not, I did my part.
Pure wild ass speculation on your part.
Not at all.
Greg,
Seems to me you already admitted you have no good evidence to offer.
Originally Posted by gregintenn
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by gregintenn
Originally Posted by Starman
Everytime a thread starts with God stuff in the title, possessive control freak wackos treat it like its their own private exclusive use chapel.
Hell's gonna be hot, partner. I sure hope you change your mind. If not, I did my part.
Come on Greg.
If you are going to threaten us with Hell, can you at least make an effort to provide good evidence for it's existence before claiming we are all headed there?
The primary reason we don't believe is lack of good evidence supporting theistic claims.
Mister, I'm in no way threatening you. It is only a warning. You are a grown man, and can make your own choice. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." All I can do is profess my faith. I cannot provide anything you can lay your hands on. You'll have to find your own faith.
So you have no evidence and just expect us to take your word for it?
Do you take the same approach regarding emails from Nigerian Princes?
Everytime a thread starts with God stuff in the title, possessive control freak wackos treat it like its their own private exclusive use chapel.
Hell's gonna be hot, partner. I sure hope you change your mind. If not, I did my part.
Pure wild ass speculation on your part.
Not at all.
Originally Posted by gregintenn
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by gregintenn
Originally Posted by Starman
Everytime a thread starts with God stuff in the title, possessive control freak wackos treat it like its their own private exclusive use chapel.
Hell's gonna be hot, partner. I sure hope you change your mind. If not, I did my part.
Come on Greg.
If you are going to threaten us with Hell, can you at least make an effort to provide good evidence for it's existence before claiming we are all headed there?
The primary reason we don't believe is lack of good evidence supporting theistic claims.
Mister, I'm in no way threatening you. It is only a warning. You are a grown man, and can make your own choice. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." All I can do is profess my faith. I cannot provide anything you can lay your hands on. You'll have to find your own faith.
So you have no evidence and just expect us to take your word for it?
Do you take the same approach regarding emails from Nigerian Princes?
Why put all this effort into this thread if you are a nonbeliever? Must be that you are a piece of garbage.
1/. I already pointed out to your fellow brothers here that [supposed] christians provide me Light entertainment with their claptrap waffle.
2/ I notice you attempt to project onto me what your O. T. God expressed about you, [ie:] wicked garbage only worthy of destruction.
Thus if you deludedly think you are any better than me you are sorely mistaken.
As a nonbeliever, this thread wasn’t even meant for you. Yet you come on here and pollute the thread with your garbage. This thread is an opportunity for Christians to discuss and celebrate our Christianity. Start your own “anti” thread, and I promise to stay far away from it, as you should do here.
This is the 24 Hour Campfire. People are free to post what they want, where they want, and are not afraid to call out incorrect beliefs in all their forms.
If you need a safe space I suggest you find yourself a nice knitting forum.
Yep. You’re right. You are free to post where you want to. Being classy/respectful, and not doing so, is another matter.
Why put all this effort into this thread if you are a nonbeliever? Must be that you are a piece of garbage.
1/. I already pointed out to your fellow brothers here that [supposed] christians provide me Light entertainment with their claptrap waffle.
2/ I notice you attempt to project onto me what your O. T. God expressed about you, [ie:] wicked garbage only worthy of destruction.
Thus if you deludedly think you are any better than me you are sorely mistaken.
As a nonbeliever, this thread wasn’t even meant for you. Yet you come on here and pollute the thread with your garbage. This thread is an opportunity for Christians to discuss and celebrate our Christianity. Start your own “anti” thread, and I promise to stay far away from it, as you should do here.
This is the 24 Hour Campfire. People are free to post what they want, where they want, and are not afraid to call out incorrect beliefs in all their forms.
If you need a safe space I suggest you find yourself a nice knitting forum.
Yep. You’re right. You are free to post where you want to. Being classy/respectful, and not doing so, is another matter.
Yes my mistake on that(and corrected) but there's still this...
Originally Posted by antlers
“These men and women” that I mentioned above actually saw Jesus die, and later they saw Him alive.
How many verifiably saw such? A ballpark figure will do, and how you arrived at such figure.
500. Because the Bible says so. That, and thousands of believers would rather die in the arena torn apart by beasts or nailed to a burning cross than deny Jesus Christ.
500. Because the Bible says so. That, and thousands of believers would rather die in the arena torn apart by beasts or nailed to a burning cross than deny Jesus Christ.
Re: ascension, Luke/Acts mention only the apostles. [Luke 24:49-53 & Acts 1:2-9]
now given that news of Jesusʼ resurrection appearances would have been circulating, why were only the apostles present (per Luke/Acts) at the ascension? Surely many others would have been desperate to catch a glimpse of raised Jesus follow him through Jerusalem out to Bethany to see him rise up into the sky?
ie] 500 saw a miraculous resurrected Jesus then just yawned it off / didnt follow up on him?
Yep. You’re right. You are free to post where you want to. Being classy/respectful, and not doing so, is another matter.
I don't always see a whole lot of class or respect when Christians are questioned on their faith. Some are reasonable, some are mild in their way, saying that you'll go to hell..... but there are too many that get belligerent and abusive.
"Evidence" seems an important and even pivotal matter for some posters and, interestingly, there is very telling evidence in this thread. Some of it is saddening.
I was fortunate enuff to have awesome godly parents that introduced me to the lord at a young age.
We only had catholicism, but family was wise and worldly enough to stand back and treat such with due caution.
They knew how to responsibly met out Toxins like wine, beer and religion to young minds.
They didn't force feed us or ardently tell us what to believe... And my own innate good sense BS meter was going off each time a priest or brother spun their crap,.. And why the same kind of crap is dead easy to spot on the CF... Experience taught me well.
Everytime a thread starts with God stuff in the title, possessive control freak wackos treat it like its their own private exclusive use chapel.
Hell's gonna be hot, partner. I sure hope you change your mind. If not, I did my part.
Hell? For open and honest inquiry and debate? What kind of Monstrous God do you believe in?
Infinite! You don't understand. Infinite does not start at neutral and go towards nice. When Infinite is bad by our perception He's terrible. And He's the Being with Whom we must deal.
Evidence is the only means we have for sorting fact from fiction. Faith can't do it. Hopes desires or fears can't do it.
Does your evidence include radiometric dating? All rocks of known age come up with WRONG dates. Why do evolutionist believe dates on rocks of unknown age. That, my friend, would fall squarely into the realm of faith. And while you're answering this question maybe you could tell us why scientists use the space rock Allende to date the earth instead of a rock originating right here on earth.
Evidence is the only means we have for sorting fact from fiction. Faith can't do it. Hopes desires or fears can't do it.
Does your evidence include radiometric dating? All rocks of known age come up with WRONG dates. Why do evolutionist believe dates on rocks of unknown age. That, my friend, would fall squarely into the realm of faith. And while you're answering this question maybe you could tell us why scientists use the space rock Allende to date the earth instead of a rock originating right here on earth.
So says the Young Earth Creationist.
Ringman, we've been over this before. You shouldn't get your "science" from dishonest quacks who intentionally misapply techniques in a game of "gotcha".
500. Because the Bible says so. That, and thousands of believers would rather die in the arena torn apart by beasts or nailed to a burning cross than deny Jesus Christ.
the same Bible that has talking donkeys.
So I take it you believe in talking donkeys.
Starman,
Ricky's a full fledged Young Earth Creationist.
As in everything, you are totally wrong again. Very much like the demoncrap lieberals, everything you know just isn't so.
I believe there are hundreds of millions of years between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
Everytime a thread starts with God stuff in the title, possessive control freak wackos treat it like its their own private exclusive use chapel.
Hell's gonna be hot, partner. I sure hope you change your mind. If not, I did my part.
Hell? For open and honest inquiry and debate? What kind of Monstrous God do you believe in?
Infinite! You don't understand. Infinite does not start at neutral and go towards nice. When Infinite is bad by our perception He's terrible. And He's the Being with Whom we must deal.
That doesn't explain a thing. It doesn't even make sense.
Evidence is the only means we have for sorting fact from fiction. Faith can't do it. Hopes desires or fears can't do it.
Does your evidence include radiometric dating? All rocks of known age come up with WRONG dates. Why do evolutionist believe dates on rocks of unknown age. That, my friend, would fall squarely into the realm of faith. And while you're answering this question maybe you could tell us why scientists use the space rock Allende to date the earth instead of a rock originating right here on earth.
You still appear to be getting your information from creationist sites.
They are not being honest.
Their purpose is make it appear like they have answers in order to maintain the biblical world view and keep believers happy.
Just scratch the surface a bit by studying actual science and it all falls apart.
Evidence is the only means we have for sorting fact from fiction.
Yet the beliefs held by atheists regarding their claim of the nonexistence of God are without any supporting evidence. Atheists believe that God does not exist, citing that there is no absolute proof that He does exist. Yet atheists have no actual evidence that He does not exist. I have no problem with their beliefs, or with the faith that they have in their beliefs. But there’s no reciprocity from their side. They clearly ‘do’ have a problem with what others believe, and with the faith that others have in their beliefs.
Evidence is the only means we have for sorting fact from fiction.
Yet the beliefs held by atheists regarding their claim of the nonexistence of God are without any supporting evidence. Atheists believe that God does not exist, citing that there is no absolute proof that He does exist. Yet atheists have no actual evidence that He does not exist. I have no problem with their beliefs, or with the faith that they have in their beliefs. But there’s no reciprocity from their side. They clearly ‘do’ have a problem with what others believe, and with the faith that others have in their beliefs.
Justification has been explained numerous times.....sufficient evidence justifies conviction as does an absence of evidence where evidence should be found.
You believe that you had a bottle of milk in the fridge, but upon opening the fridge door and searching for the milk you find that there is no milk in the fridge.
There is no evidence of milk in the fridge.
What then?
Do you feel that you are justified to believe that there is milk in the fridge, regardless of the absence of evidence for its presence?
And yes, the universe is vast and there may be a hidden God or a bunch of gods, but until evidence comes along to show they exist, it is not justified to believe that they do in fact exist.
Everytime a thread starts with God stuff in the title, possessive control freak wackos treat it like its their own private exclusive use chapel.
Hell's gonna be hot, partner. I sure hope you change your mind. If not, I did my part.
Hell? For open and honest inquiry and debate? What kind of Monstrous God do you believe in?
Infinite! You don't understand. Infinite does not start at neutral and go towards nice. When Infinite is bad by our perception He's terrible. And He's the Being with Whom we must deal.
That doesn't explain a thing. It doesn't even make sense.
It makes no sense because you choose to ignore the concept of God.
Everytime a thread starts with God stuff in the title, possessive control freak wackos treat it like its their own private exclusive use chapel.
Hell's gonna be hot, partner. I sure hope you change your mind. If not, I did my part.
Hell? For open and honest inquiry and debate? What kind of Monstrous God do you believe in?
Infinite! You don't understand. Infinite does not start at neutral and go towards nice. When Infinite is bad by our perception He's terrible. And He's the Being with Whom we must deal.
That doesn't explain a thing. It doesn't even make sense.
It makes no sense because you choose to ignore the concept of God.
How do I ignore the concept of God? The issue is the question of the reality of God.
concept [Def.] /ˈkɒnsɛpt/ noun - an abstract idea.
"an idea or invention to help sell or publicize a commodity."
Yes, he got the God as a concept right.
How do you know?
Because we have no direct access to any version of God or gods that people have believed in throughout history.....now if an actual God came forward openly and honestly just like people deal with each other in daily life, that would be a different story. At that point God would not be a concept, but a reality.
You've posted over a thousand times, all in a lame attempt to refute the existence of God.
And you've failed miserably, as would be expected.
You cut and paste from the internet, arguments that are way over your head.
You are forced to attempt to frame the argument to put the burden of proving the existence of God on the other side, because you're not intelligent enough to produce an argument that God doesn't exist.
You're completely impotent, all of your efforts, over a thousand posts, and you've not changed one opinion.
You've posted over a thousand times, all in a lame attempt to refute the existence of God.
And you've failed miserably, as would be expected.
You cut and paste from the internet, arguments that are way over your head.
You are forced to attempt to frame the argument to put the burden of proving the existence of God on the other side, because you're not intelligent enough to produce an argument that God doesn't exist.
You're completely impotent, all of your efforts, over a thousand posts, and you've not changed one opinion.
Your 'fire career is a complete waste of time.
You are offering your own opinion, which is neither an argument or, given a standard definition of justification being ignored or misunderstood, intelligent.
And typical of your type of Christian, you become abusive when your faith is put to question....another coward who insults from the security of online anonymity.
500. Because the Bible says so. That, and thousands of believers would rather die in the arena torn apart by beasts or nailed to a burning cross than deny Jesus Christ.
the same Bible that has talking donkeys.
So I take it you believe in talking donkeys.
Starman,
Ricky's a full fledged Young Earth Creationist.
As in everything, you are totally wrong again. Very much like the demoncrap lieberals, everything you know just isn't so.
I believe there are hundreds of millions of years between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
You've posted over a thousand times, all in a lame attempt to refute the existence of God.
And you've failed miserably, as would be expected.
You cut and paste from the internet, arguments that are way over your head.
You are forced to attempt to frame the argument to put the burden of proving the existence of God on the other side, because you're not intelligent enough to produce an argument that God doesn't exist.
You're completely impotent, all of your efforts, over a thousand posts, and you've not changed one opinion.
Your 'fire career is a complete waste of time.
You are offering your own opinion, which is neither an argument or, given a standard definition of justification being ignored or misunderstood, intelligent.
And typical of your type of Christian, you become abusive when your faith is put to question....another coward who insults from the security of online anonymity.
I've put forth an observation, based upon analysis of the lame stupidity you post in an attempt to deride the faith of others.
You, as always, lack the capacity to intelligently respond to the observations posted.
You try and drag the subject down into a debate about definitions, because you can't intelligently respond to the substance of the arguments made.
Then, you exhibit your insecurity and lack of capacity by claiming any criticism of your stupidity is a personal attack.
No one accused you of being stupid. The argument was that the things you post are stupid, lacking in intellect.
Pointing out that you lack the capacity to put forth an intelligent argument isn't abusive, yet you run and hide behind a claim of victimhood, rather than engage on the merits.
It will certainly amaze you that things posted on the internet are posted anonymously, to a certain extent.
But to a certain extent, they're not.
Your posting history exposes your incapacities, so your posts are not anonymous.
When your handle appears by a post, the certainty that the post will be defective is a given.
The only use that can be derived from the crap you post, is the fun in speculating what could possibly drive such a moron to keep exposing its stupidity, in full view on an internet forum.
But at least you're not cluttering up some other fora with your stupidity.
.. we have no direct access to any version of God or gods that people have believed in throughout history.....now if an actual God came forward openly and honestly.. God would not be a concept, but a reality.
TV Evangelists don't won't a God coming forward, that would cut out the lucrative middleman and take away the abstract commodity value of such a God.
selling the ambiguous concept to satisfy a high market Demand for such, is where the money is at.
You've posted over a thousand times, all in a lame attempt to refute the existence of God.
And you've failed miserably, as would be expected.
You cut and paste from the internet, arguments that are way over your head.
You are forced to attempt to frame the argument to put the burden of proving the existence of God on the other side, because you're not intelligent enough to produce an argument that God doesn't exist.
You're completely impotent, all of your efforts, over a thousand posts, and you've not changed one opinion.
Your 'fire career is a complete waste of time.
You are offering your own opinion, which is neither an argument or, given a standard definition of justification being ignored or misunderstood, intelligent.
And typical of your type of Christian, you become abusive when your faith is put to question....another coward who insults from the security of online anonymity.
I've put forth an observation, based upon analysis of the lame stupidity you post in an attempt to deride the faith of others.
You, as always, lack the capacity to intelligently respond to the observations posted.
You try and drag the subject down into a debate about definitions, because you can't intelligently respond to the substance of the arguments made.
Then, you exhibit your insecurity and lack of capacity by claiming any criticism of your stupidity is a personal attack.
No one accused you of being stupid. The argument was that the things you post are stupid, lacking in intellect.
Pointing out that you lack the capacity to put forth an intelligent argument isn't abusive, yet you run and hide behind a claim of victimhood, rather than engage on the merits.
It will certainly amaze you that things posted on the internet are posted anonymously, to a certain extent.
But to a certain extent, they're not.
Your posting history exposes your incapacities, so your posts are not anonymous.
When your handle appears by a post, the certainty that the post will be defective is a given.
The only use that can be derived from the crap you post, is the fun in speculating what could possibly drive such a moron to keep exposing its stupidity, in full view on an internet forum.
But at least you're not cluttering up some other fora with your stupidity.
Just more cowardly vitriol. Your so called observation come not from logic or reason, but the feeling of threat to your faith, not from derision but impartial inquiry into the nature of faith and the problems with it.
Which you clearly cannot tolerate or handle in a reasonable manner, instead responding like a child, resorting to cowardly attacks.
You've posted over a thousand times, all in a lame attempt to refute the existence of God.
And you've failed miserably, as would be expected.
You cut and paste from the internet, arguments that are way over your head.
You are forced to attempt to frame the argument to put the burden of proving the existence of God on the other side, because you're not intelligent enough to produce an argument that God doesn't exist.
You're completely impotent, all of your efforts, over a thousand posts, and you've not changed one opinion.
Your 'fire career is a complete waste of time.
You are offering your own opinion, which is neither an argument or, given a standard definition of justification being ignored or misunderstood, intelligent.
And typical of your type of Christian, you become abusive when your faith is put to question....another coward who insults from the security of online anonymity.
I've put forth an observation, based upon analysis of the lame stupidity you post in an attempt to deride the faith of others.
You, as always, lack the capacity to intelligently respond to the observations posted.
You try and drag the subject down into a debate about definitions, because you can't intelligently respond to the substance of the arguments made.
Then, you exhibit your insecurity and lack of capacity by claiming any criticism of your stupidity is a personal attack.
No one accused you of being stupid. The argument was that the things you post are stupid, lacking in intellect.
Pointing out that you lack the capacity to put forth an intelligent argument isn't abusive, yet you run and hide behind a claim of victimhood, rather than engage on the merits.
It will certainly amaze you that things posted on the internet are posted anonymously, to a certain extent.
But to a certain extent, they're not.
Your posting history exposes your incapacities, so your posts are not anonymous.
When your handle appears by a post, the certainty that the post will be defective is a given.
The only use that can be derived from the crap you post, is the fun in speculating what could possibly drive such a moron to keep exposing its stupidity, in full view on an internet forum.
But at least you're not cluttering up some other fora with your stupidity.
Just more cowardly vitriol. Your so called observation come not from logic or reason, but the feeling of threat to your faith, not from derision but impartial inquiry into the nature of faith and the problems with it.
Which you clearly cannot tolerate or handle in a reasonable manner, instead responding like a child, resorting to cowardly attacks.
You have no capacity to respond to my observations, so you hide behind a claim of victimhood, like any good little SJW.
Your next reply will be lame as always, so let's have some fun with the possibilities.
It's a given that you won't post anything intelligent.
You've posted over a thousand times, all in a lame attempt to refute the existence of God.
And you've failed miserably, as would be expected.
You cut and paste from the internet, arguments that are way over your head.
You are forced to attempt to frame the argument to put the burden of proving the existence of God on the other side, because you're not intelligent enough to produce an argument that God doesn't exist.
You're completely impotent, all of your efforts, over a thousand posts, and you've not changed one opinion.
Your 'fire career is a complete waste of time.
Hang on a minute. You can't prove a negative. It's up to you to prove an existence of god. That's now how this works. You are lacking of capacity for any kind of argument.
You've posted over a thousand times, all in a lame attempt to refute the existence of God.
And you've failed miserably, as would be expected.
You cut and paste from the internet, arguments that are way over your head.
You are forced to attempt to frame the argument to put the burden of proving the existence of God on the other side, because you're not intelligent enough to produce an argument that God doesn't exist.
You're completely impotent, all of your efforts, over a thousand posts, and you've not changed one opinion.
Your 'fire career is a complete waste of time.
Hang on a minute. You can't prove a negative. It's up to you to prove an existence of god. That's now how this works. You are lacking of capacity for any kind of argument.
The weak-minded would certainly hide behind such a canard.
If you want to chime in and claim God doesn't exist, the burden is on you.
The weak-minded would certainly hide behind such a canard.
If you want to chime in and claim God doesn't exist, the burden is on you.
Works both ways.
But yes, you can't prove God doesn't exist.
I haven't chimed in and claimed that. See how you fail at logic and reasoning?
The weak minded would hide behind logic and reason? If that's your position that explains your makeup entirely, and why you'll simply believe anything.
You've posted over a thousand times, all in a lame attempt to refute the existence of God.
And you've failed miserably, as would be expected.
You cut and paste from the internet, arguments that are way over your head.
You are forced to attempt to frame the argument to put the burden of proving the existence of God on the other side, because you're not intelligent enough to produce an argument that God doesn't exist.
You're completely impotent, all of your efforts, over a thousand posts, and you've not changed one opinion.
Your 'fire career is a complete waste of time.
Hang on a minute. You can't prove a negative. It's up to you to prove an existence of god. That's now how this works. You are lacking of capacity for any kind of argument.
The weak-minded would certainly hide behind such a canard.
If you want to chime in and claim God doesn't exist, the burden is on you.
Works both ways.
But yes, you can't prove God doesn't exist.
You see, by saying that you demonstrate that you don't understand the argument. It is the theist who makes a claim for the existence of their God, Allah, Brahman, Yahweh or whatever, and it is the atheist who asks for evidence to show that any of these gods exist. Nobody has evidence for the negative, we can only point out that there is no evidence to support a justified belief in the existence of a God or gods.
You've posted over a thousand times, all in a lame attempt to refute the existence of God.
And you've failed miserably, as would be expected.
You cut and paste from the internet, arguments that are way over your head.
You are forced to attempt to frame the argument to put the burden of proving the existence of God on the other side, because you're not intelligent enough to produce an argument that God doesn't exist.
You're completely impotent, all of your efforts, over a thousand posts, and you've not changed one opinion.
Your 'fire career is a complete waste of time.
You are offering your own opinion, which is neither an argument or, given a standard definition of justification being ignored or misunderstood, intelligent.
And typical of your type of Christian, you become abusive when your faith is put to question....another coward who insults from the security of online anonymity.
I've put forth an observation, based upon analysis of the lame stupidity you post in an attempt to deride the faith of others.
You, as always, lack the capacity to intelligently respond to the observations posted.
You try and drag the subject down into a debate about definitions, because you can't intelligently respond to the substance of the arguments made.
Then, you exhibit your insecurity and lack of capacity by claiming any criticism of your stupidity is a personal attack.
No one accused you of being stupid. The argument was that the things you post are stupid, lacking in intellect.
Pointing out that you lack the capacity to put forth an intelligent argument isn't abusive, yet you run and hide behind a claim of victimhood, rather than engage on the merits.
It will certainly amaze you that things posted on the internet are posted anonymously, to a certain extent.
But to a certain extent, they're not.
Your posting history exposes your incapacities, so your posts are not anonymous.
When your handle appears by a post, the certainty that the post will be defective is a given.
The only use that can be derived from the crap you post, is the fun in speculating what could possibly drive such a moron to keep exposing its stupidity, in full view on an internet forum.
But at least you're not cluttering up some other fora with your stupidity.
Just more cowardly vitriol. Your so called observation come not from logic or reason, but the feeling of threat to your faith, not from derision but impartial inquiry into the nature of faith and the problems with it.
Which you clearly cannot tolerate or handle in a reasonable manner, instead responding like a child, resorting to cowardly attacks.
You have no capacity to respond to my observations, so you hide behind a claim of victimhood, like any good little SJW.
Your next reply will be lame as always, so let's have some fun with the possibilities.
It's a given that you won't post anything intelligent.
So, what's your next move?
Claim I called ya the N-word?
Invaded your safe space?
Triggered a memory of childhood conflict?
Abused my white privilege?
No just an observation that you don't appear to understand rational debate, or the argument, which is why you lash out in a cowardly and childish manner. Cheers.
You've posted over a thousand times, all in a lame attempt to refute the existence of God.
And you've failed miserably, as would be expected.
You cut and paste from the internet, arguments that are way over your head.
You are forced to attempt to frame the argument to put the burden of proving the existence of God on the other side, because you're not intelligent enough to produce an argument that God doesn't exist.
You're completely impotent, all of your efforts, over a thousand posts, and you've not changed one opinion.
Your 'fire career is a complete waste of time.
Hang on a minute. You can't prove a negative. It's up to you to prove an existence of god. That's now how this works. You are lacking of capacity for any kind of argument.
The weak-minded would certainly hide behind such a canard.
If you want to chime in and claim God doesn't exist, the burden is on you.
Works both ways.
But yes, you can't prove God doesn't exist.
You see, by saying that you demonstrate that you don't understand the argument. It is the theist who makes a claim for the existence of their God, Allah, Brahman, Yahweh or whatever, and it is the atheist who asks for evidence to show that any of these gods exist. Nobody has evidence for the negative, we can only point out that there is no evidence to support a justified belief in the existence of a God or gods.
Got to the truth faster than I thought.
No, you can't prove that God doesn't exist.
You lack the capacity.
That being the case, it's obvious that your entire raison d' etre in posting is simply to attempt to deride the faith of others.
Certainly a lowly existence.
But no surprise.
Pathetic to be unable to allow others to exchange ideas, without the SJW tention ho kickin in.
Easiest thing inna world ta do, STFU.
But you just can't.
What drives a psychopath, to compel em to post on internet threads?
How is it, that you just can't let things be?
Weird.
But, at least you suffer from a harmless compulsion.
Of course, it is.You lack the capacity for intelligent argument.You've posted over a thousand times, all in a lame attempt to refute the existence of God.And you've failed miserably, as would be expected.You cut and paste from the internet, arguments that are way over your head.You are forced to attempt to frame the argument to put the burden of proving the existence of God on the other side, because you're not intelligent enough to produce an argument that God doesn't exist.You're completely impotent, all of your efforts, over a thousand posts, and you've not changed one opinion.Your 'fire career is a complete waste of time.
You are offering your own opinion, which is neither an argument or, given a standard definition of justification being ignored or misunderstood, intelligent.And typical of your type of Christian, you become abusive when your faith is put to question....another coward who insults from the security of online anonymity.
I've put forth an observation, based upon analysis of the lame stupidity you post in an attempt to deride the faith of others.You, as always, lack the capacity to intelligently respond to the observations posted.You try and drag the subject down into a debate about definitions, because you can't intelligently respond to the substance of the arguments made.Then, you exhibit your insecurity and lack of capacity by claiming any criticism of your stupidity is a personal attack.No one accused you of being stupid. The argument was that the things you post are stupid, lacking in intellect.Pointing out that you lack the capacity to put forth an intelligent argument isn't abusive, yet you run and hide behind a claim of victimhood, rather than engage on the merits.It will certainly amaze you that things posted on the internet are posted anonymously, to a certain extent.But to a certain extent, they're not.Your posting history exposes your incapacities, so your posts are not anonymous.When your handle appears by a post, the certainty that the post will be defective is a given.The only use that can be derived from the crap you post, is the fun in speculating what could possibly drive such a moron to keep exposing its stupidity, in full view on an internet forum.But at least you're not cluttering up some other fora with your stupidity.
Quote Jesus Matthew 5:22 "whosoever shall say 'thou fool' shall be in danger of hell fire". I think I would be careful not to call a brother you are trying to save impotent, stupid, moron, etc. It does nothing to convince him and puts you in danger.
Of course, it is.You lack the capacity for intelligent argument.You've posted over a thousand times, all in a lame attempt to refute the existence of God.And you've failed miserably, as would be expected.You cut and paste from the internet, arguments that are way over your head.You are forced to attempt to frame the argument to put the burden of proving the existence of God on the other side, because you're not intelligent enough to produce an argument that God doesn't exist.You're completely impotent, all of your efforts, over a thousand posts, and you've not changed one opinion.Your 'fire career is a complete waste of time.
You are offering your own opinion, which is neither an argument or, given a standard definition of justification being ignored or misunderstood, intelligent.And typical of your type of Christian, you become abusive when your faith is put to question....another coward who insults from the security of online anonymity.
I've put forth an observation, based upon analysis of the lame stupidity you post in an attempt to deride the faith of others.You, as always, lack the capacity to intelligently respond to the observations posted.You try and drag the subject down into a debate about definitions, because you can't intelligently respond to the substance of the arguments made.Then, you exhibit your insecurity and lack of capacity by claiming any criticism of your stupidity is a personal attack.No one accused you of being stupid. The argument was that the things you post are stupid, lacking in intellect.Pointing out that you lack the capacity to put forth an intelligent argument isn't abusive, yet you run and hide behind a claim of victimhood, rather than engage on the merits.It will certainly amaze you that things posted on the internet are posted anonymously, to a certain extent.But to a certain extent, they're not.Your posting history exposes your incapacities, so your posts are not anonymous.When your handle appears by a post, the certainty that the post will be defective is a given.The only use that can be derived from the crap you post, is the fun in speculating what could possibly drive such a moron to keep exposing its stupidity, in full view on an internet forum.But at least you're not cluttering up some other fora with your stupidity.
Quote Jesus Matthew 5:22 "whosoever shall say 'thou fool' shall be in danger of hell fire". I think I would be careful not to call a brother you are trying to save impotent, stupid, moron, etc. It does nothing to convince him and puts you in danger.
Many faithful believe it is their duty to try and convert those that lack faith.
I'm a little more selective.
Did a person arrive with an open mind and genuine curiosity regarding faith, they'd get alla the information I could provide, to help them reach their own decision.
Did a snake arrive in the garden, for the purpose of trying to divert the faithful from the path, that snake gets stepped on.
Best I can recall, even Jesus threw a few tables around, in the temple.
You've posted over a thousand times, all in a lame attempt to refute the existence of God.
And you've failed miserably, as would be expected.
You cut and paste from the internet, arguments that are way over your head.
You are forced to attempt to frame the argument to put the burden of proving the existence of God on the other side, because you're not intelligent enough to produce an argument that God doesn't exist.
You're completely impotent, all of your efforts, over a thousand posts, and you've not changed one opinion.
Your 'fire career is a complete waste of time.
Hang on a minute. You can't prove a negative. It's up to you to prove an existence of god. That's now how this works. You are lacking of capacity for any kind of argument.
The weak-minded would certainly hide behind such a canard.
If you want to chime in and claim God doesn't exist, the burden is on you.
Works both ways.
But yes, you can't prove God doesn't exist.
You see, by saying that you demonstrate that you don't understand the argument. It is the theist who makes a claim for the existence of their God, Allah, Brahman, Yahweh or whatever, and it is the atheist who asks for evidence to show that any of these gods exist. Nobody has evidence for the negative, we can only point out that there is no evidence to support a justified belief in the existence of a God or gods.
Got to the truth faster than I thought.
No, you can't prove that God doesn't exist.
You lack the capacity.
That being the case, it's obvious that your entire raison d' etre in posting is simply to attempt to deride the faith of others.
Certainly a lowly existence.
But no surprise.
Pathetic to be unable to allow others to exchange ideas, without the SJW tention ho kickin in.
Easiest thing inna world ta do, STFU.
But you just can't.
What drives a psychopath, to compel em to post on internet threads?
How is it, that you just can't let things be?
Weird.
But, at least you suffer from a harmless compulsion.
You've never changed a single person's beliefs.
You still don't understand what was said about the nature of justification and burden of proof, the nature of evidence or the implications of its absence....then you attempt to hide your inability to understand with your normal cowardly childish manner.
If you are a representative of Christianity, there is no hope for that religion. No better than the radical Muslims.
Non believers have a point when they point out the fact that you almost always can't prove a negative, hence relieving them of the need to prove there is no God. The best we can do as believers in some cases is to "let your light so shine (a most important obligation) before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven". I have a cousin very close to me in age and friendship. He was as atheist in his younger days as anyone I've known. Through some personal experiences and association and observation of truly Christian friends that behaved as Christians he is now a lay preacher, a student of scripture, and I believe he has truly found salvation. This name calling of non believers and doubters isn't winning any converts and if I read Jesus words correctly puts the insulting name caller in danger of destruction. Their presence on this thread may be sticking their toe in the water so to speak and their comments may be an attempt to get you to "show me what you've got" and sadly they are given a judgmental diatribe calling them stupid. Nobody is going to ever respond well to "thou fool".
Non believers have a point when they point out the fact that you almost always can't prove a negative, hence relieving them of the need to prove there is no God. The best we can do as believers in some cases is to "let your light so shine (a most important obligation) before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven". I have a cousin very close to me in age and friendship. He was as atheist in his younger days as anyone I've known. Through some personal experiences and association and observation of truly Christian friends that behaved as Christians he is now a lay preacher, a student of scripture, and I believe he has truly found salvation. This name calling of non believers and doubters isn't winning any converts and if I read Jesus words correctly puts the insulting name caller in danger of destruction. Their presence on this thread may be sticking their toe in the water so to speak and their comments may be an attempt to get you to "show me what you've got" and sadly they are given a judgmental diatribe calling them stupid. Nobody is going to ever respond well to "thou fool".
Yes. It is understandable though. They feel under attack then lash out in the best way they can. What results is not a good look for them or Christianity. But of course, sadly, they can't see that.
You've posted over a thousand times, all in a lame attempt to refute the existence of God.
And you've failed miserably, as would be expected.
You cut and paste from the internet, arguments that are way over your head.
You are forced to attempt to frame the argument to put the burden of proving the existence of God on the other side, because you're not intelligent enough to produce an argument that God doesn't exist.
You're completely impotent, all of your efforts, over a thousand posts, and you've not changed one opinion.
Your 'fire career is a complete waste of time.
Hang on a minute. You can't prove a negative. It's up to you to prove an existence of god. That's now how this works. You are lacking of capacity for any kind of argument.
The weak-minded would certainly hide behind such a canard.
If you want to chime in and claim God doesn't exist, the burden is on you.
Works both ways.
But yes, you can't prove God doesn't exist.
You see, by saying that you demonstrate that you don't understand the argument. It is the theist who makes a claim for the existence of their God, Allah, Brahman, Yahweh or whatever, and it is the atheist who asks for evidence to show that any of these gods exist. Nobody has evidence for the negative, we can only point out that there is no evidence to support a justified belief in the existence of a God or gods.
Got to the truth faster than I thought.
No, you can't prove that God doesn't exist.
You lack the capacity.
That being the case, it's obvious that your entire raison d' etre in posting is simply to attempt to deride the faith of others.
Certainly a lowly existence.
But no surprise.
Pathetic to be unable to allow others to exchange ideas, without the SJW tention ho kickin in.
Easiest thing inna world ta do, STFU.
But you just can't.
What drives a psychopath, to compel em to post on internet threads?
How is it, that you just can't let things be?
Weird.
But, at least you suffer from a harmless compulsion.
You've never changed a single person's beliefs.
You still don't understand what was said about the nature of justification and burden of proof, the nature of evidence or the implications of its absence....then you attempt to hide your inability to understand with your normal cowardly childish manner.
If you are a representative of Christianity, there is no hope for that religion. No better than the radical Muslims.
You understand the nature of a troll, from experience.
And I understand perfectly, the burden of proof.
If your admission that the negative can't be proven was legitimate, you'd not be posting in threads like this one.
But you do.
In every faith based thread on the fire.
Which proves that your objective is simply to deride the faith of others.
You never add to the discussion, or further the knowledge base.
You hide behind the fallacy that it's everyone else's burden to try and convince you of God's existence.
Which demonstrates your arrogance.
You hide behind the fallacy that the burden is on everyone else, because you realize your own lack of intelligence.
If you're going to challenge the faith of others, the burden shifts to you to demonstrate the non-existence of God, whether you like it or not.
And you're not intelligent enough to play that game, which is why you attempt to shift the burden, and play the victim with anyone that points out what an @sshole you are.
Tryin to understand a troll like you.
Why?
Why can't you just let others engage in their common interest, without attempting to derail it?
John Wayne Gacy had his compulsions.
Dahmer, Bundy, Berkowitz.
They just couldn't stop.
And, you just can't stop trying to demean the faith of others.
Proving that SJW insanity is right up there, with the biggest nutcases in the world.
Hilarious, sittin here knowin you can't keep from replyin.
You'll start ta twitch.
Probably the eyelids, but maybe a facial tick.
Sweat.
Rock back and forth.
But you can't help but get back on a religion thread.
Might as well give in, you can't take it for long.
If I was a non believer I might say to myself "if these are Jesus' friends I don't want to get mixed up in that" To non believers I would ask that you give the book of Matthew a good thorough reading and ponder the miracle of the return of the Jewish nation in 1947. Isaiah 66:8 "Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once?" The Jewish people are a miracle, a world power militarily, and financially and something big is happening.
... What results is not a good look for them or Christianity. But of course, sadly, they can't see that.
Im inclined to say some can see it, but dont give a damn about how Jesus wants them to represent him.
Then on top of that, Fubi comparing himself to Jesus in the temple is just so absurd.. LoL
Don’t look to any of us, or any of you, for perfection. You all draw first blood and then cry when we fight back. I am surrounded by many fine Christian people that exhaust themselves to help others. You attack them and I’m gonna attack you. Simple as that. One of my faults, for sure. Nonetheless, many of us, including myself, will fight back.
By " a decent life" it's evident you mean being an ever loyal minion of Lucifer.
Snakes of a feather.....
Lucifer is definitely another interesting "god", but it predates christianity. Fascinating stories of how sumarian gods and greek gods were absorbed into judaism and christianity.
It ties back into the bible later describing how stars can fall to the earth (a direct rip off of previous religions) making it the obvious work of man at a time when little was understood. Oh well, one only has to look up into the sky to see that Lucifer never fell to the earth, nor was Lucifer a star.
... What results is not a good look for them or Christianity. But of course, sadly, they can't see that.
Im inclined to say some can see it, but dont give a damn about how Jesus wants them to represent him.
Then on top of that, Fubi comparing himself to Jesus in the temple is just so absurd.. LoL
Don’t look to any of us, or any of you, for perfection. You all draw first blood and then cry when we fight back. I am surrounded by many fine Christian people that exhaust themselves to help others. You attack them and I’m gonna attack you. Simple as that. One of my faults, for sure. Nonetheless, many of us, including myself, will fight back.
I don't see how asking questions is attacking. Besides religion and republican politics, it's not considered attacking any where else that I'm aware of.
With that said, what was your criteria that you used to rule out all other religions?
Don’t look to any of us, or any of you, for perfection. You all draw first blood and then cry when we fight back. I am surrounded by many fine Christian people that exhaust themselves to help others. You attack them and I’m gonna attack you. Simple as that. One of my faults, for sure. Nonetheless, many of us, including myself, will fight back.
Christians failed Jesus in his time of need and they still fail him.
cause your too busy fighting for your sinner friends.
Don’t look to any of us, or any of you, for perfection. You all draw first blood and then cry when we fight back. I am surrounded by many fine Christian people that exhaust themselves to help others. You attack them and I’m gonna attack you. Simple as that. One of my faults, for sure. Nonetheless, many of us, including myself, will fight back.
Christians failed Jesus in his time of need and they still fail him.
cause your too busy fighting for your sinner friends.
bravo.
No doubt, we do. Thankfully, he never fails us. We do have our victories, and we will continue to. Again, don’t look to us for perfection.
... What results is not a good look for them or Christianity. But of course, sadly, they can't see that.
Im inclined to say some can see it, but dont give a damn about how Jesus wants them to represent him.
Then on top of that, Fubi comparing himself to Jesus in the temple is just so absurd.. LoL
Don’t look to any of us, or any of you, for perfection. You all draw first blood and then cry when we fight back. I am surrounded by many fine Christian people that exhaust themselves to help others. You attack them and I’m gonna attack you. Simple as that. One of my faults, for sure. Nonetheless, many of us, including myself, will fight back.
I don't see how asking questions is attacking. Besides religion and republican politics, it's not considered attacking any where else that I'm aware of.
With that said, what was your criteria that you used to rule out all other religions?
Exactly, By his standards he MUST accept every other religion, since they cannot be proven false.
Fubarski,
Since you can't disprove Mohammad, how's your new religion, Islam working out for you?
If I was a non believer I might say to myself "if these are Jesus' friends I don't want to get mixed up in that" To non believers I would ask that you give the book of Matthew a good thorough reading and ponder the miracle of the return of the Jewish nation in 1947. Isaiah 66:8 "Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once?" The Jewish people are a miracle, a world power militarily, and financially and something big is happening.
Hastings,
I appreciate you trying to return some civility to this thread.
Enough of this Fussing and Fighting, let's have a sing along and a group hug. There is more that unites us than divides us (so they say). Don't cheat, you must listen to the whole thing!
... What results is not a good look for them or Christianity. But of course, sadly, they can't see that.
Im inclined to say some can see it, but dont give a damn about how Jesus wants them to represent him.
Then on top of that, Fubi comparing himself to Jesus in the temple is just so absurd.. LoL
Don’t look to any of us, or any of you, for perfection. You all draw first blood and then cry when we fight back. I am surrounded by many fine Christian people that exhaust themselves to help others. You attack them and I’m gonna attack you. Simple as that. One of my faults, for sure. Nonetheless, many of us, including myself, will fight back.
I never aim comments at a poster unless they become insulting first. The issue is that there are a few Christians on the forum who quickly resort to cowardly insults and flaming whenever anyone questions faith. They show complete intolerance to reasonable and open inquiry.
... What results is not a good look for them or Christianity. But of course, sadly, they can't see that.
Im inclined to say some can see it, but dont give a damn about how Jesus wants them to represent him.
Then on top of that, Fubi comparing himself to Jesus in the temple is just so absurd.. LoL
Don’t look to any of us, or any of you, for perfection. You all draw first blood and then cry when we fight back. I am surrounded by many fine Christian people that exhaust themselves to help others. You attack them and I’m gonna attack you. Simple as that. One of my faults, for sure. Nonetheless, many of us, including myself, will fight back.
I don't see how asking questions is attacking. Besides religion and republican politics, it's not considered attacking any where else that I'm aware of.
With that said, what was your criteria that you used to rule out all other religions?
Exactly, By his standards he MUST accept every other religion, since they cannot be proven false.
Fubarski,
Since you can't disprove Mohammad, how's your new religion, Islam working out for you?
It appears that misery does indeed love company. Dang, I’d hate to wake up in your world. Seriously now, I’m not trying to be mean, not at all. Just sayin. Must be a west of the Mississippi thing? Somethings wrong out there.
... What results is not a good look for them or Christianity. But of course, sadly, they can't see that.
Im inclined to say some can see it, but dont give a damn about how Jesus wants them to represent him.
Then on top of that, Fubi comparing himself to Jesus in the temple is just so absurd.. LoL
Don’t look to any of us, or any of you, for perfection. You all draw first blood and then cry when we fight back. I am surrounded by many fine Christian people that exhaust themselves to help others. You attack them and I’m gonna attack you. Simple as that. One of my faults, for sure. Nonetheless, many of us, including myself, will fight back.
I don't see how asking questions is attacking. Besides religion and republican politics, it's not considered attacking any where else that I'm aware of.
With that said, what was your criteria that you used to rule out all other religions?
Exactly, By his standards he MUST accept every other religion, since they cannot be proven false.
Fubarski,
Since you can't disprove Mohammad, how's your new religion, Islam working out for you?
It appears that misery does indeed love company. Dang, I’d hate to wake up in your world. Seriously now, I’m not trying to be mean, not at all. Just sayin. Must be a west of the Mississippi thing? Somethings wrong out there.
Would you like to address the argument I made, or do you have nothing constructive to add?
... What results is not a good look for them or Christianity. But of course, sadly, they can't see that.
Im inclined to say some can see it, but dont give a damn about how Jesus wants them to represent him.
Then on top of that, Fubi comparing himself to Jesus in the temple is just so absurd.. LoL
Don’t look to any of us, or any of you, for perfection. You all draw first blood and then cry when we fight back. I am surrounded by many fine Christian people that exhaust themselves to help others. You attack them and I’m gonna attack you. Simple as that. One of my faults, for sure. Nonetheless, many of us, including myself, will fight back.
I never aim comments at a poster unless they become insulting first. The issue is that there are a few Christians on the forum who quickly resort to cowardly insults and flaming whenever anyone questions faith. They show complete intolerance to reasonable and open inquiry.
I certainly don’t, or at least I shouldn’t get aggravated over mere questions. No doubt....but the dialogue needs to be kept respectful. To say that your side can be insulting is an understatement. Some of the comments are off the chain. And directed at some of the finest people on this earth, that are trying to make a difference in the world. That is complete bs. Are you all not aware of the efforts that are being made to help others in need? Perhaps that is not going on in your neck of the woods? It certainly is here, and on a grand scale. Again, I’ll push back when we are pushed first.
... What results is not a good look for them or Christianity. But of course, sadly, they can't see that.
Im inclined to say some can see it, but dont give a damn about how Jesus wants them to represent him.
Then on top of that, Fubi comparing himself to Jesus in the temple is just so absurd.. LoL
Don’t look to any of us, or any of you, for perfection. You all draw first blood and then cry when we fight back. I am surrounded by many fine Christian people that exhaust themselves to help others. You attack them and I’m gonna attack you. Simple as that. One of my faults, for sure. Nonetheless, many of us, including myself, will fight back.
I never aim comments at a poster unless they become insulting first. The issue is that there are a few Christians on the forum who quickly resort to cowardly insults and flaming whenever anyone questions faith. They show complete intolerance to reasonable and open inquiry.
I certainly don’t, or at least I shouldn’t get aggravated over mere questions. No doubt....but the dialogue needs to be kept respectful. To say that your side can be insulting is an understatement. Some of the comments are off the chain. And directed at some of the finest people on this earth, that are trying to make a difference in the world. That is complete bs. Are you all not aware of the efforts that are being made to help others in need? Perhaps that is not going on in your neck of the woods? It certainly is here, and on a grand scale. Again, I’ll push back when we are pushed first.
There is sniping from both sides, but as I said, I never direct comments at poster unless they attack first, and then I point out what they are doing. I stick to the issues with faith as I see it until that point.
I don't doubt that many of the posters are fine people, but some in fact do appear to forget their manners and their sense of tolerance to other points of view when their faith is questioned, no matter how reasonably or respectfully.
It is the mere challenge to faith that sets them off. And once set off, they do not appear to be the fine people that they normally are.
That is the problem. The Jekyll and Hyde transformation when challenged.
... What results is not a good look for them or Christianity. But of course, sadly, they can't see that.
Im inclined to say some can see it, but dont give a damn about how Jesus wants them to represent him.
Then on top of that, Fubi comparing himself to Jesus in the temple is just so absurd.. LoL
Don’t look to any of us, or any of you, for perfection. You all draw first blood and then cry when we fight back. I am surrounded by many fine Christian people that exhaust themselves to help others. You attack them and I’m gonna attack you. Simple as that. One of my faults, for sure. Nonetheless, many of us, including myself, will fight back.
I never aim comments at a poster unless they become insulting first. The issue is that there are a few Christians on the forum who quickly resort to cowardly insults and flaming whenever anyone questions faith. They show complete intolerance to reasonable and open inquiry.
I certainly don’t, or at least I shouldn’t get aggravated over mere questions. No doubt....but the dialogue needs to be kept respectful. To say that your side can be insulting is an understatement. Some of the comments are off the chain. And directed at some of the finest people on this earth, that are trying to make a difference in the world. That is complete bs. Are you all not aware of the efforts that are being made to help others in need? Perhaps that is not going on in your neck of the woods? It certainly is here, and on a grand scale. Again, I’ll push back when we are pushed first.
There is sniping from both sides, but as I said, I never direct comments at poster unless they attack first, and then I point out what they are doing. I stick to the issues with faith as I see it until that point.
I don't doubt that many of the posters are fine people, but some in fact do appear to forget their manners and their sense of tolerance to other points of view when their faith is questioned, no matter how reasonably or respectfully.
It is the mere challenge to faith that sets them off. And once set off, they do not appear to be the fine people that they normally are.
That is the problem. The Jekyll and Hyde transformation when challenged.
That reminds me of the behavior of a former, prominent member. He's a very experiences hunter and shooter, so he experienced a great level of deference from members. used to people just taking his work for things. He was pretty miffed when the same tactic didn't work in the religious threads and people would actually ask him for evidence, and expect him to meet a burden of proof. He became right down haughty, and indigent. It was sad but humorous all at the same time.
... What results is not a good look for them or Christianity. But of course, sadly, they can't see that.
Im inclined to say some can see it, but dont give a damn about how Jesus wants them to represent him.
Then on top of that, Fubi comparing himself to Jesus in the temple is just so absurd.. LoL
Don’t look to any of us, or any of you, for perfection. You all draw first blood and then cry when we fight back. I am surrounded by many fine Christian people that exhaust themselves to help others. You attack them and I’m gonna attack you. Simple as that. One of my faults, for sure. Nonetheless, many of us, including myself, will fight back.
I don't see how asking questions is attacking. Besides religion and republican politics, it's not considered attacking any where else that I'm aware of.
With that said, what was your criteria that you used to rule out all other religions?
Exactly, By his standards he MUST accept every other religion, since they cannot be proven false.
Fubarski,
Since you can't disprove Mohammad, how's your new religion, Islam working out for you?
Typical moronic strawman by a religion thread troll.
Did I see a thread of fire brothers postin bout Mo, I'd just pass it by.
Because I'm not a self-centered tention ho troll, like you.
I wouldn't jump in the thread with lame posts deridin the guy, just to piss off the people tryin ta have an intelligent discussion.
Because I'm not a self-centered tention ho troll, like you.
And if for some reason, I *did* decide to engage in the thread, I wouldn't be demandin that everbody there cater to a lack of intellect by claimin that Mo's existence hasta be proved to me, to my satisfaction.
Because I'm not a self-centered tention ho troll, like you.
But 99.9% of the time, I'd just let it pass, and let the OP and the participants share their ideas without disturbin em.
Because I'm not a self-centered tention ho troll, like you.
You and the other religiotrolls just can't resist insertin their stupidity to try and derail a legitimate discussion.
Either the subject scares the crap outta ya, for some unknown reason, or ya got a compulsion, like EBT.
Its just ad homs and innuendo from beginning to end.
So, what stage did ya get to, fore ya gave up and posted?
Start ta twitch?
facial tick?
Sweat?
Then all ya can do is whine cause somebody pointed out what as @sshole you are.
And that's not an ad hominem argument. It's just a simple observation describing your posts on the thread. No different than pointin out ya got two eyes. Just a description of a characteristic.
... What results is not a good look for them or Christianity. But of course, sadly, they can't see that.
Im inclined to say some can see it, but dont give a damn about how Jesus wants them to represent him.
Then on top of that, Fubi comparing himself to Jesus in the temple is just so absurd.. LoL
Don’t look to any of us, or any of you, for perfection. You all draw first blood and then cry when we fight back. I am surrounded by many fine Christian people that exhaust themselves to help others. You attack them and I’m gonna attack you. Simple as that. One of my faults, for sure. Nonetheless, many of us, including myself, will fight back.
I don't see how asking questions is attacking. Besides religion and republican politics, it's not considered attacking any where else that I'm aware of.
With that said, what was your criteria that you used to rule out all other religions?
Exactly, By his standards he MUST accept every other religion, since they cannot be proven false.
Fubarski,
Since you can't disprove Mohammad, how's your new religion, Islam working out for you?
Typical moronic strawman by a religion thread troll.
Did I see a thread of fire brothers postin bout Mo, I'd just pass it by.
Because I'm not a self-centered tention ho troll, like you.
I wouldn't jump in the thread with lame posts deridin the guy, just to piss off the people tryin ta have an intelligent discussion.
Because I'm not a self-centered tention ho troll, like you.
And if for some reason, I *did* decide to engage in the thread, I wouldn't be demandin that everbody there cater to a lack of intellect by claimin that Mo's existence hasta be proved to me, to my satisfaction.
Because I'm not a self-centered tention ho troll, like you.
But 99.9% of the time, I'd just let it pass, and let the OP and the participants share their ideas without disturbin em.
Because I'm not a self-centered tention ho troll, like you.
You and the other religiotrolls just can't resist insertin their stupidity to try and derail a legitimate discussion.
Either the subject scares the crap outta ya, for some unknown reason, or ya got a compulsion, like EBT.
Pathetic.
Fubarski my Muslim friend,
It's not a straw-man, It's a simple demonstration of why the burden of proof is on the positive claim. If we apply your line of reasoning to Islam, you MUST accept it until you can prove it's false.
If you want to have a rational discussion with out all the insults and name calling, we can do that, but it seems you are unable to. Looking through your posts in this thread all I see is insults and outrage.
Enjoy your new religion, it seems much more aligned with your personality.
I believe Jesus even though the accounts of his life and teachings have been edited, redacted, and even interpreted by an "apostle" who by his own account seems to have never met Jesus except in visions. I believe there was enough got by the censors that I know his message and teachings. I wish some of my fellow believers would read their own posts and beliefs and see if they come away feeling harmony with Jesus' teachings. Try the site Jesuswordsonly.
It's a simple demonstration of why the burden of proof is on the positive claim.
If you want to have a rational discussion with out all the insults and name calling, we can do that, but it seems you are unable to. Looking through your posts in this thread all I see is insults and outrage.
Simpleton.
If you're going to troll a thread disparaging the beliefs of others, the burden shifts to you.
Least you know your limitations. You can't, and never will, be able to produce an argument proving that the sincere beliefs of fire members aren't accurate.
So you have no legitimate purpose in the threads, except to stir shat like any tention ho.
Pointing out your constant trollery is no more ad hominem than pointing out that the sky is blue.
Your claims of victimhood when exposed for the troll you are, are the natural progression of the SJW shtick, which you follow religiously.
Don't like bein called oout as a troll, don't be a troll.
It's a simple demonstration of why the burden of proof is on the positive claim.
If you want to have a rational discussion with out all the insults and name calling, we can do that, but it seems you are unable to. Looking through your posts in this thread all I see is insults and outrage.
Simpleton.
If you're going to troll a thread disparaging the beliefs of others, the burden shifts to you.
Least you know your limitations. You can't, and never will, be able to produce an argument proving that the sincere beliefs of fire members aren't accurate.
So you have no legitimate purpose in the threads, except to stir shat like any tention ho.
Pointing out your constant trollery is no more ad hominem than pointing out that the sky is blue.
Your claims of victimhood when exposed for the troll you are, are the natural progression of the SJW shtick, which you follow religiously.
Don't like bein called oout as a troll, don't be a troll.
If you had a sound evidence base for your beliefs, you could just point toward your good evidence. But since you don't have any, you can't and instead, we get posts from you like the one above. I suggest you take a few minutes to review your "contribution" to this thread. A lot of insults, offense and outrage, but no thoughtful contributions.
You keep tryin for Socratic, but end up lookin moronic.
Fubarski,
If you'd been paying attention you would know I don't see good evidence for any supernatural beings. The thousands of gods, including your, just happen to fall into category.
Beyond your God, what other supernatural beings, do you believe in?
I don't see good evidence for any supernatural beings.
Then there's no need for you to post in threads discussing supernatural beings.
All ya gotta do is STFU, easiest thing in the world ta do.
But you can't.
Because you're a SJW tention ho troll, don't matter which, tryin ta save the world from people of faith, or gettin jollies from people who respond on the net.
Maybe someday you get enough attention at home, you won't feel the need ta troll the fire.
... What results is not a good look for them or Christianity. But of course, sadly, they can't see that.
Im inclined to say some can see it, but dont give a damn about how Jesus wants them to represent him.
Then on top of that, Fubi comparing himself to Jesus in the temple is just so absurd.. LoL
Don’t look to any of us, or any of you, for perfection. You all draw first blood and then cry when we fight back. I am surrounded by many fine Christian people that exhaust themselves to help others. You attack them and I’m gonna attack you. Simple as that. One of my faults, for sure. Nonetheless, many of us, including myself, will fight back.
I don't see how asking questions is attacking. Besides religion and republican politics, it's not considered attacking any where else that I'm aware of.
With that said, what was your criteria that you used to rule out all other religions?
Exactly, By his standards he MUST accept every other religion, since they cannot be proven false.
Fubarski,
Since you can't disprove Mohammad, how's your new religion, Islam working out for you?
Typical moronic strawman by a religion thread troll.
Did I see a thread of fire brothers postin bout Mo, I'd just pass it by.
Because I'm not a self-centered tention ho troll, like you.
I wouldn't jump in the thread with lame posts deridin the guy, just to piss off the people tryin ta have an intelligent discussion.
Because I'm not a self-centered tention ho troll, like you.
And if for some reason, I *did* decide to engage in the thread, I wouldn't be demandin that everbody there cater to a lack of intellect by claimin that Mo's existence hasta be proved to me, to my satisfaction.
Because I'm not a self-centered tention ho troll, like you.
But 99.9% of the time, I'd just let it pass, and let the OP and the participants share their ideas without disturbin em.
Because I'm not a self-centered tention ho troll, like you.
You and the other religiotrolls just can't resist insertin their stupidity to try and derail a legitimate discussion.
Either the subject scares the crap outta ya, for some unknown reason, or ya got a compulsion, like EBT.
Pathetic.
Fubarski my Muslim friend,
It's not a straw-man, It's a simple demonstration of why the burden of proof is on the positive claim. If we apply your line of reasoning to Islam, you MUST accept it until you can prove it's false.
If you want to have a rational discussion with out all the insults and name calling, we can do that, but it seems you are unable to. Looking through your posts in this thread all I see is insults and outrage.
Enjoy your new religion, it seems much more aligned with your personality.
Nope, the Christian has no burden of proof. We have a responsibility to witness and tell. The proof is the responsibility of the Holy Spirit.
As,I have said many times, God will not hold me accountable for “failing to prove Jesus” to anybody.
But, there is no pass. I expect that at judgment, God may indeed “roll the videotape” so-to-speak and clearly show the unbeliever all the times that God showed Himself.
You can indeed chose to believe what you like. You really do have that choice and you really can reject the truth about Jesus.
But, prove it? Who is better at communicating to you..... me or God?
Remember, one’s pride can get in the way and they can willfully stick your fingers in their ears.... and they can continue to say that “God hasn’t proven himself to me.”
I don't see good evidence for any supernatural beings.
Then there's no need for you to post in threads discussing supernatural beings.
All ya gotta do is STFU, easiest thing in the world ta do.
But you can't.
Because you're a SJW tention ho troll, don't matter which, tryin ta save the world from people of faith, or gettin jollies from people who respond on the net.
Maybe someday you get enough attention at home, you won't feel the need ta troll the fire.
That doesn't mean I don't see value in there debates.
If the cognitive dissonance is too much for you to handle, you don't have to click on these threads.
... What results is not a good look for them or Christianity. But of course, sadly, they can't see that.
Im inclined to say some can see it, but dont give a damn about how Jesus wants them to represent him.
Then on top of that, Fubi comparing himself to Jesus in the temple is just so absurd.. LoL
Don’t look to any of us, or any of you, for perfection. You all draw first blood and then cry when we fight back. I am surrounded by many fine Christian people that exhaust themselves to help others. You attack them and I’m gonna attack you. Simple as that. One of my faults, for sure. Nonetheless, many of us, including myself, will fight back.
I don't see how asking questions is attacking. Besides religion and republican politics, it's not considered attacking any where else that I'm aware of.
With that said, what was your criteria that you used to rule out all other religions?
Exactly, By his standards he MUST accept every other religion, since they cannot be proven false.
Fubarski,
Since you can't disprove Mohammad, how's your new religion, Islam working out for you?
Typical moronic strawman by a religion thread troll.
Did I see a thread of fire brothers postin bout Mo, I'd just pass it by.
Because I'm not a self-centered tention ho troll, like you.
I wouldn't jump in the thread with lame posts deridin the guy, just to piss off the people tryin ta have an intelligent discussion.
Because I'm not a self-centered tention ho troll, like you.
And if for some reason, I *did* decide to engage in the thread, I wouldn't be demandin that everbody there cater to a lack of intellect by claimin that Mo's existence hasta be proved to me, to my satisfaction.
Because I'm not a self-centered tention ho troll, like you.
But 99.9% of the time, I'd just let it pass, and let the OP and the participants share their ideas without disturbin em.
Because I'm not a self-centered tention ho troll, like you.
You and the other religiotrolls just can't resist insertin their stupidity to try and derail a legitimate discussion.
Either the subject scares the crap outta ya, for some unknown reason, or ya got a compulsion, like EBT.
Pathetic.
Fubarski my Muslim friend,
It's not a straw-man, It's a simple demonstration of why the burden of proof is on the positive claim. If we apply your line of reasoning to Islam, you MUST accept it until you can prove it's false.
If you want to have a rational discussion with out all the insults and name calling, we can do that, but it seems you are unable to. Looking through your posts in this thread all I see is insults and outrage.
Enjoy your new religion, it seems much more aligned with your personality.
Nope, the Christian has no burden of proof. We have a responsibility to witness and tell. The proof is the responsibility of the Holy Spirit.
As,I have said many times, God will not hold me accountable for “failing to prove Jesus” to anybody.
But, there is no pass. I expect that at judgment, God may indeed “roll the videotape” so-to-speak and clearly show the unbeliever all the times that God showed Himself.
You can indeed chose to believe what you like. You really do have that choice and you really can reject the truth about Jesus.
But, prove it? Who is better at communicating to you..... me or God?
Remember, one’s pride can get in the way and they can willfully stick your fingers in their ears.... and they can continue to say that “God hasn’t proven himself to me.”
Won’t work.....
TF,
Null Hypothesis. Positive claims. This is very basic stuff. You're well educated, so I have good reason to believe you understand the concepts, and probably apply them everyday in your professional life.
As I explained to Fubarski, by asserting religions should be accepted until they are disproven, you should convert to Islam, and Buddhism, and Shintoism, and Hinduism, since they too are un-falsifiable.
Of course this is an absurd position, but again, it demonstrates the absurdity of position as it relates to burden of proof, and why it rests with positive supernatural claim.
Sniper is far from being the nastiest poster here. I'll hear him out.
Thank You Wabigoon.
You are one of many fine Christian Gentleman here on The Fire. You share your Christianity in a positive light without the intend to disparage others.
Yes your Christianity's very important to your life, but in some respects you are what I call (and I mean this as a compliment), practical atheist, meaning, although you are a Christian, I don't see it leading you to bad decisions, nor using it to justify bad behavior, or the derision of others. For me, it's an important distinctions. Not all Christians, nor are all religions, equal in the outcomes they produce for their followers.
Other then you spending your Sundays with your adopted Christian family, and me spending mine with my wife and kids, there's not a much real difference in our politics, how you and I live our lives, and the outcomes we want for others.
Tell Pastor Missy "Hi" for me.
May you enjoy the richness she brings to your life.
You've posted over a thousand times, all in a lame attempt to refute the existence of God.
And you've failed miserably, as would be expected.
You cut and paste from the internet, arguments that are way over your head.
You are forced to attempt to frame the argument to put the burden of proving the existence of God on the other side, because you're not intelligent enough to produce an argument that God doesn't exist.
You're completely impotent, all of your efforts, over a thousand posts, and you've not changed one opinion.
Your 'fire career is a complete waste of time.
Hang on a minute. You can't prove a negative. It's up to you to prove an existence of god. That's now how this works. You are lacking of capacity for any kind of argument.
"You can't prove a negative" - a statement based entirely upon human opinion/rationalization - one aspect of the human-made evidence and argumentation construct. It may work just fine for humans who need rules for their intellectual games, but it has no relationship to the existence, presence and power of God. These mere human tools are not applicable to faith based beliefs. Simply wrenches for the human domain.
If you're going to troll a thread disparaging the beliefs of others, the burden shifts to you.
CHRISTIANS consider all other gods false thus you would not then dispute the burden rests on them to prove such disparaging claim.
emotional outbursts or cowering in your foxholes behind your faith, are not objective evidence or proof, Neither is fallible Bible with known forged content.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
By his standards he MUST accept every other religion, since they cannot be proven false.
such is the conundrum ardent christians create for themselves.
Painting themselves into a corner from which they cannot extracate themselves.
There is no conundrum there, whatsoever. God has not charged Christians, his children, with any burden to prove God's existence, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc. to those who do not so believe. Yes, God has commanded Christians to do some things and to follow certain tenets, but has not given them the responsibility to stoop to the level of trying to PROVE anything about God to the non-believer. There is a separate and essential concept at work. Non-believers do not exhibit the capacity to grasp and employ that concept.
... What results is not a good look for them or Christianity. But of course, sadly, they can't see that.
Im inclined to say some can see it, but dont give a damn about how Jesus wants them to represent him.
Then on top of that, Fubi comparing himself to Jesus in the temple is just so absurd.. LoL
Don’t look to any of us, or any of you, for perfection. You all draw first blood and then cry when we fight back. I am surrounded by many fine Christian people that exhaust themselves to help others. You attack them and I’m gonna attack you. Simple as that. One of my faults, for sure. Nonetheless, many of us, including myself, will fight back.
I never aim comments at a poster unless they become insulting first. The issue is that there are a few Christians on the forum who quickly resort to cowardly insults and flaming whenever anyone questions faith. They show complete intolerance to reasonable and open inquiry.
I certainly don’t, or at least I shouldn’t get aggravated over mere questions. No doubt....but the dialogue needs to be kept respectful. To say that your side can be insulting is an understatement. Some of the comments are off the chain. And directed at some of the finest people on this earth, that are trying to make a difference in the world. That is complete bs. Are you all not aware of the efforts that are being made to help others in need? Perhaps that is not going on in your neck of the woods? It certainly is here, and on a grand scale. Again, I’ll push back when we are pushed first.
There is sniping from both sides, but as I said, I never direct comments at poster unless they attack first, and then I point out what they are doing. I stick to the issues with faith as I see it until that point.
I don't doubt that many of the posters are fine people, but some in fact do appear to forget their manners and their sense of tolerance to other points of view when their faith is questioned, no matter how reasonably or respectfully.
It is the mere challenge to faith that sets them off. And once set off, they do not appear to be the fine people that they normally are.
That is the problem. The Jekyll and Hyde transformation when challenged.
That reminds me of the behavior of a former, prominent member. He's a very experiences hunter and shooter, so he experienced a great level of deference from members. used to people just taking his work for things. He was pretty miffed when the same tactic didn't work in the religious threads and people would actually ask him for evidence, and expect him to meet a burden of proof. He became right down haughty, and indigent. It was sad but humorous all at the same time.
And so much angst over a simple thing such as the burden of proof lies with the claimant, not the one asking for evidence or pointing out that there doesn't appear to be any....that if the gods do in fact exist, they keep their existence hidden from us.
You've posted over a thousand times, all in a lame attempt to refute the existence of God.
And you've failed miserably, as would be expected.
You cut and paste from the internet, arguments that are way over your head.
You are forced to attempt to frame the argument to put the burden of proving the existence of God on the other side, because you're not intelligent enough to produce an argument that God doesn't exist.
You're completely impotent, all of your efforts, over a thousand posts, and you've not changed one opinion.
Your 'fire career is a complete waste of time.
Hang on a minute. You can't prove a negative. It's up to you to prove an existence of god. That's now how this works. You are lacking of capacity for any kind of argument.
"You can't prove a negative" - a statement based entirely upon human opinion/rationalization - one aspect of the human-made evidence and argumentation construct. It may work just fine for humans who need rules for their intellectual games, but it has no relationship to the existence, presence and power of God. These mere human tools are not applicable to faith based beliefs. Simply wrenches for the human domain.
An absence of evidence where evidence should be found is evidence for the negative.
There is no conundrum there, whatsoever. God has not charged Christians, his children, with any burden to prove God's existence, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc. to those who do not so believe. Yes, God has commanded Christians to do some things and to follow certain tenets, but has not given them the responsibility to stoop to the level of trying to PROVE anything about God to the non-believer. There is a separate and essential concept at work. Non-believers do not exhibit the capacity to grasp and employ that concept.
An absence of evidence where evidence should be found is evidence for the negative.
The thing that you’re ignoring here is the fact that there are many highly intelligent people down through the ages who registered “evidence” beyond numbering.
An absence of evidence where evidence should be found is evidence for the negative.
The thing that you’re ignoring here is the fact that there are many highly intelligent people down through the ages who registered “evidence” beyond numbering.
A lot of highly intelligent people throughout history have been wrong. They have been wrong because they did not have the necessary information or the prevailing beliefs prevented them from seeing what was there.
...you can't stand to see someone believe in a higher power.
Nailed it, plain and simple. Period.
No, it's still about evidence and justification, always was and always will be.
Christian inquisitors knew all about justification. one only had to have a different view of the same God and it meant torture and death.... For six centuries!
A lot of highly intelligent people throughout history have been wrong. They have been wrong because they did not have the necessary information or the prevailing beliefs prevented them from seeing what was there.
That’s as much an argument against your position as it is mine.
A lot of highly intelligent people throughout history have been wrong. They have been wrong because they did not have the necessary information or the prevailing beliefs prevented them from seeing what was there.
That’s as much an argument against your position as it is mine.
A lot of highly intelligent people throughout history have been wrong. They have been wrong because they did not have the necessary information or the prevailing beliefs prevented them from seeing what was there.
That’s as much an argument against your position as it is mine.
It was a comment on knowledge being based on verifiable, testable, falsifiable information, not faith. If it can't be tested, how do you know it's true?
What it says in the bible, quran , gita, etc, cannot be tested. It must be taken on faith.
Some people believe in UFO's, but will not believe in an a Creator.
And CF christians have ridiculed Bigfoot believers.
I’ll enjoy running right over you as I head into church tomorrow. . Sunday School too!!!!! Hey.......and we will even discuss missions and how to help folks in need!!!!
I've avoided this thread because I knew it would be a chit show. I read like 5 replies on different pages.
I am a Christian because it makes me feel good to believe in God and that Jesus Christ is our Savior. At your darkest moments, who else do you have to turn to?
...you can't stand to see someone believe in a higher power.
Nailed it, plain and simple. Period.
No, it's still about evidence and justification, always was and always will be.
For you, maybe quite the case - but that "all about" is a personal human need - or possibly some avoidance behavior. In the course of this thread, some non-believers have attributed a variety of beliefs and behaviors to Christians as a category - and much of that as negative. That behavior has been ineffective. Really, after all, these disagreements are not disagreements between and among humans - the disagreements are clear when one compares what God says with that which is said by non-believing humans. Of course, this cleft is nothing new - it is, at least, centuries old. God endures - the human does not.
...you can't stand to see someone believe in a higher power.
Nailed it, plain and simple. Period.
No, it's still about evidence and justification, always was and always will be.
For you, maybe quite the case - but that "all about" is a personal human need - or possibly some avoidance behavior. In the course of this thread, some non-believers have attributed a variety of beliefs and behaviors to Christians as a category - and much of that as negative. That behavior has been ineffective. Really, after all, these disagreements are not disagreements between and among humans - the disagreements are clear when one compares what God says with that which is said by non-believing humans. Of course, this cleft is nothing new - it is, at least, centuries old. God endures - the human does not.
Before a god can say anything he must exist, for which I see no good evidence.
I see plenty of people, such as yourself, claiming to speak for god(s), so, yea, this is between people.
...you can't stand to see someone believe in a higher power.
Nailed it, plain and simple. Period.
No, it's still about evidence and justification, always was and always will be.
For you, maybe quite the case - but that "all about" is a personal human need - or possibly some avoidance behavior. In the course of this thread, some non-believers have attributed a variety of beliefs and behaviors to Christians as a category - and much of that as negative. That behavior has been ineffective. Really, after all, these disagreements are not disagreements between and among humans - the disagreements are clear when one compares what God says with that which is said by non-believing humans. Of course, this cleft is nothing new - it is, at least, centuries old. God endures - the human does not.
Human need? It is undeniable that we as humans have needs and wants.
However, no matter how much you may need or want something, that need or want does not alter the reality of the world is or how it works.
Not wanting natural evolution to be true won't change the fact that this is how the world works, life evolves to meet the challenges of the environment.
No matter how much we have a need for a God, our need does not make God a reality.
It is undeniable that we as humans have needs and wants.
However, no matter how much you may need or want something, that need or want does not alter the reality of the world is or how it works. .
Clueless christians needed to find a reason for the viking raid on Lindisfarne 793, so they put it down to 'God's wrath'
Christians again clueless, needed to find reason for the devastating Great Plague,... 'God's wrath'. Oh btw; they also blamed the jews, so they then massacred communities of such; man, woman and child.
I really have an issue with something coming from nothing and willingly admit there's a huge huge bunch I cannot fathom. I can see that living things adapt to their environment and the survivors keep evolving to the constant change. But that doesn't refute a first creative power that we have no capacity to understand. I'm not sure why a creator would put us in this vale of tears to struggle and suffer but I don't understand a lot of other things either. I believe creation happened eons ago and could easily have been a huge explosive reaction to the concentration of all matter that flung material in unfathomable directions and distance. And now an infinitesimal speck has become spaceship earth and evolved and rearranged itself and its mix of gas liquid and solid into a pretty good self contained unit capable of feeding a large diverse population of flora and fauna. I chose to believe some force did this and would like for his creation to live in harmony and care for and respect the creator and our fellow humans. I don't find it implausible at all that he sent prophets and messengers including The latest and greatest (Jesus) to remind, instruct, and sometimes threaten us, as I'm sure that our behavior could easily become an unbearable stink. A non believer would have to admit that in his unbelief there are lots of things unexplained. I'm sticking with Jesus and mostly ignoring the blather of the Christian church.
I really have an issue with something coming from nothing and willingly admit there's a huge huge bunch I cannot fathom. I can see that living things adapt to their environment and the survivors keep evolving to the constant change. But that doesn't refute a first creative power that we have no capacity to understand. I'm not sure why a creator would put us in this vale of tears to struggle and suffer but I don't understand a lot of other things either. I believe creation happened eons ago and could easily have been a huge explosive reaction to the concentration of all matter that flung material in unfathomable directions and distance. And now an infinitesimal speck has become spaceship earth and evolved and rearranged itself and its mix of gas liquid and solid into a pretty good self contained unit capable of feeding a large diverse population of flora and fauna. I chose to believe some force did this and would like for his creation to live in harmony and care for and respect the creator and our fellow humans. I don't find it implausible at all that he sent prophets and messengers including The latest and greatest (Jesus) to remind, instruct, and sometimes threaten us, as I'm sure that our behavior could easily become an unbearable stink. A non believer would have to admit that in his unbelief there are lots of things unexplained. I'm sticking with Jesus and mostly ignoring the blather of the Christian church.
What you believe doesn't change reality. What you can't prove is going to be unconvincing to others.
Certainly you're free to choose to believe stuff based on zero evidence. What I find particularly interesting is that you do sort of follow a set of logical progressions, but you miss a step when arguing that one particular religion is true over all others and the criteria you used to rule them out.
Perhaps you didn't have criteria - then you're belief has zero predictive power or usefulness in the real world. I may as well pull a random religion out of a hat.
I don't believe something came from nothing either. Just doesn't make sense. Which is why most people and most secular people do not believe that either. Our best evidence to date is that it takes more energy for nothing to exist than for something to exist. Matter and energy like to fall into their lowest energy states, and "nothing" is not their lowest energy state.
A non believer would have to admit that in his unbelief there are lots of things unexplained.
That's a more honest approach than making up a myth so you can claim you do know.
Originally Posted by Hastings
I really have an issue with something coming from nothing and willingly admit there's a huge huge bunch I cannot fathom...
Therefore:
...I'm sticking with Jesus....
This is called an argument from personal incredulity.
Just because something's difficult for you to believe, that doesn't mean it's not so. Additionally, solving the difficult to believe by adding an additional even more unbelievable layer on top of it solves nothing.
Saying "god(s) did it doesn't explain the origin of god(s), and to claim only they need no explanation is just another logical fallacy called "Special Pleading".
Why not explain what we understand, admit there is much we don't understand, but continue to explore it?
As for a Universe for the current scientific understanding of "nothing", here's a video of what's probably the leading hypothesis at this time from an real scientist:
............. I may as well pull a random religion out of a hat
That will work for me. I ended up at sea with a very well read Hindu native to India. He knew the Hebrew bible inside and out and the New Testament. He was more a believer in the message of the bible and Jesus than most Baptist deacons. I'm not sure why we are here and what purpose all this accomplishes but the tiny Jewish nation's survival and their status as a world military and dominant financial power tells me the Hebrew Prophets were on to something. You will probably live to see it.
Antelope Sniper: Not ignoring the video but I'll have to watch tomorrow when I have time to give it proper attention. If I stay up listening to that my wife might feel ignored and think I don't love her. I listen to what others have to offer and I'm positive your no dummy. May or may not accept it but I like studying all sides. Thanks
............. I may as well pull a random religion out of a hat
That will work for me. I ended up at sea with a very well read Hindu native to India. He knew the Hebrew bible inside and out and the New Testament. He was more a believer in the message of the bible and Jesus than most Baptist deacons. I'm not sure why we are here and what purpose all this accomplishes but the tiny Jewish nation's survival and their status as a world military and dominant financial power tells me the Hebrew Prophets were on to something. You will probably live to see it.
Or it might have a little something to do with their IQ:
...you can't stand to see someone believe in a higher power.
Nailed it, plain and simple. Period.
No, it's still about evidence and justification, always was and always will be.
For you, maybe quite the case - but that "all about" is a personal human need - or possibly some avoidance behavior. In the course of this thread, some non-believers have attributed a variety of beliefs and behaviors to Christians as a category - and much of that as negative. That behavior has been ineffective. Really, after all, these disagreements are not disagreements between and among humans - the disagreements are clear when one compares what God says with that which is said by non-believing humans. Of course, this cleft is nothing new - it is, at least, centuries old. God endures - the human does not.
Before a god can say anything he must exist, for which I see no good evidence. I see plenty of people, such as yourself, claiming to speak for god(s), so, yea, this is between people.
Your ophthalmologist may already have told you such but, in my case, your eyesight is quite poor. I make zero claim about speaking for God - none - although, at times, I will state what I personally see in His commandments and directions. Clearly, you do not see what I see. We are humans and, thus, incapable of seeing and knowing all that God has been, is, and will be. And, our human capabilities differ - we do not all "see" the same. If, by chance, I were to opine that God is not interested in the futile human process and search for evidence about God, and not interested in what evidence humans do or do not find, what would you express in response?
...you can't stand to see someone believe in a higher power.
Nailed it, plain and simple. Period.
No, it's still about evidence and justification, always was and always will be.
For you, maybe quite the case - but that "all about" is a personal human need - or possibly some avoidance behavior. In the course of this thread, some non-believers have attributed a variety of beliefs and behaviors to Christians as a category - and much of that as negative. That behavior has been ineffective. Really, after all, these disagreements are not disagreements between and among humans - the disagreements are clear when one compares what God says with that which is said by non-believing humans. Of course, this cleft is nothing new - it is, at least, centuries old. God endures - the human does not.
Human need? It is undeniable that we as humans have needs and wants. However, no matter how much you may need or want something, that need or want does not alter the reality of the world is or how it works. Not wanting natural evolution to be true won't change the fact that this is how the world works, life evolves to meet the challenges of the environment. No matter how much we have a need for a God, our need does not make God a reality.
I tend to agree with much of what you just said above. And, no matter how great our need for such evidence, we may never find it on earth as humans.
So, to AS, it's about evidence. To GOD, it's about Faith. Now, AS requires me to live by evidence. Who the hell are you, AS, to demand I live as you? You're an asswhole, plain and simple and would be a dictator if you could have your way.
I dont tell you that you have to live by faith. F you. If you are having a conversation with others who feel as you, I dont try to force you to live as i do, or by my rules. AFAIC you can go to hell.
You're like protesters who interrupt a Trump rally by throwing their temper tantrum.
No, you dont know as much as you think you do. You dont know what I've heard or seen. You're deaf, too. I hear GOD talk to me. It's called a conscience and you dont have one. If you did you wouldnt demand others live by YOUR rules
Sometimes HE gives me a premonition or causes me to slow down a bit just before a car runs a stop sign just ahead of me or causes me to do something that is beneficial to me. Some on this earth are aware of a guardian angel. Some dont have one or are too stupid to realize they do.
GOD tells us we can see the evidence of HIM by looking at the universe. I saw HIS handiwork while quail hunting last week. 3 times I saw blue quail running on the ground a good ways out there. A couple of guys never spotted a covey to hunt and they were younger than me and in the front vehicle. They and you cant see worth a crap.
HE knows you cant make a silk purse out of a sows ear or an ass.
I thank GOD HE was smart enough to design a plan to exclude people like you from Heaven. Well, if HE had let people like you in, Heaven wouldnt be Heavenly.
God said to Moses, “I will show kindness to anyone to whom I want to show kindness, and I will show mercy to anyone to whom I want to show mercy.”[h] 16 So God will choose the one to whom he decides to show mercy; his choice does not depend on what people want or try to do. 17 The Scripture says to the king of Egypt: “I made you king for this reason: to show my power in you so that my name will be talked about in all the earth.”[i] 18 So God shows mercy where he wants to show mercy, and he makes stubborn the people he wants to make stubborn.
God, if He exists, sure has an awful lot of wrath. Especially for a God of Love and Tender Mercy.
To quote some unknown (to me) person - "How does one know smooth if one does not know rough"?
One need only simply observe loving attentive mothers with their new infants and what makes the baby smile.. theres no need whatsover to show wrath to that infant for it to recognize care and kindness and repond accordingly.
thus adults who needs to be shown the rough end of the stick to know the smooth, are special kind of moron.
Originally Posted by CCCC
. Clearly, you do not see what I see... - we do not all "see" the same,
evidently you are blind to the everyday wordly obvious and rely on subjective vivid imagination to fill in the blanks...bad enough on itself before adding your cognitive impairment.
jX is confusing hell/sheol/hades with the Lake of fire.
sheol/hell is the temporary place of the dead (or holding yard) with no mention of flames and which JC dropped in on during the 3 days he was dead.
As often is the case, christians dont really know scripture.
hence why its so funny when jX claims he is 'an enlightened one guiding folks to God'
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Jesus didn't believe in hell either - his christian mate descendants molested the bible to include it,
Indeed christians adopted a new 'firey' kind of hell -- in all likelyhood taken in part from both Judaism and Zoroastrianism.....ie] Zor. has a hell like place that is the residence of Ahriman, the demons, and the druzes, -- where all atmospheric calamities are associated with it: snow, cold, hail, rain, burning heat, and so forth..
According to Zoroastrian beliefs, when a person dies, his or her spirit leaves the body, but remains in its vicinity for three days and nights.
more than mere coincidence the christian narrative has Jesus dead for 3 days/nights.
I'm sure you and other minions of Lucifer may not sweat and find it quite comfortable. I'm sorry to have thought you could make the connection to a figure of speech. They are actually quite common in our language and most understand them without going off half cocked.
Do you want to sit by a big fire with me to see if you sweat?
And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Jesus didn't believe in hell either - his christian mate descendants molested the bible to include it, helped to draw the masses in I believe
You can go to hell for lying. It is written: I am not in a liar.
Jesus talked about hell more than any other person in the Bible. In Luke 16, he describes a great chasm over which “none may cross from there to us.” In Matthew 25, Jesus tells of a time when people will be separated into two groups, one entering into his presence, the other banished to “eternal fire.”
Jesus talks about hell more than he talks about heaven, and describes it more vividly. There’s no denying that Jesus knew, believed, and warned against the absolute reality of hell.
Jesus doesn’t only reference hell, he describes it in great detail. He says it is a place of eternal torment
(Luke 16:23), of unquenchable fire (Mark 9:43), where the worm does not die (Mark 9:48), where people
will gnash their teeth in anguish and regret (Matt. 13:42), and from which there is no return, even to warn
loved ones (Luke 16:19–31). He calls hell a place of “outer darkness” (Matt. 25:30), comparing it to
“Gehenna” (Matt. 10:28), which was a trash dump outside the walls of Jerusalem where rubbish was
burned and maggots abounded. Jesus talks about hell more than he talks about heaven,
The mutiple editors of the bible never really got together to collaberate a coherent story so that's why it's the dog's breakfast that it is. Parable writing method tries to smother over the inconsistencies I guess but fails upon closer scrutiny and application of logic and historic findings.
Scripture fails a lot tests, that I can accept all things considered.
but nonsense goes to a new level when people then attempt to usewhat is already ambiguous, subjective and unverifiable, and spin / twist it in all kinds of irrational if not absurd ways.
I think it's great you can quote a book, but why should I believe your particular book and not someone else's?
What empirical evidence do you have that your book is for real and every other book is false -- I need this criteria before I can accept you are correct.
This is serious business because according to you I'm going to burn for eternity. Surely there is a substantial amount of criteria to determine fairy tale from reality, right?
I think it's great you can quote a book, but why should I believe your particular book and not someone else's?
What empirical evidence do you have that your book is for real and every other book is false -- I need this criteria before I can accept you are correct.
This is serious business because according to you I'm going to burn for eternity. Surely there is a substantial amount of criteria to determine fairy tale from reality, right?
I think it's great you can quote a book, but why should I believe your particular book and not someone else's?
What empirical evidence do you have that your book is for real and every other book is false -- I need this criteria before I can accept you are correct.
This is serious business because according to you I'm going to burn for eternity. Surely there is a substantial amount of criteria to determine fairy tale from reality, right?
You shouldn't.
You should prolly go muzzy. 72 virgins, you know.
Too closely related to Christianity for my taste. So why do you believe when you have no facts or evidence? More importantly why do you believe in a particular thing?
The mutiple editors of the bible never really got together to collaberate a coherent story so that's why it's the dog's breakfast that it is. Parable writing method tries to smother over the inconsistencies I guess but fails upon closer scrutiny and application of logic and historic findings.
Try again why Jesus used parables. He says if He did not people would understand and He would have to save them. Read Mark 4.
I think it's great you can quote a book, but why should I believe your particular book and not someone else's?
What empirical evidence do you have that your book is for real and every other book is false -- I need this criteria before I can accept you are correct.
This is serious business because according to you I'm going to burn for eternity. Surely there is a substantial amount of criteria to determine fairy tale from reality, right?
The most documented legal historical evidence prior to the printing press is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Do some research.
What empirical evidence do you have that your book is for real and every other book is false --
Fubarski is one the most logical Intel. Christians here Not even he could present a sound case that proves all other God's false.
Originally Posted by antlers
I see no good evidence that He doesn’t exist.
Nor good evidence others gods don't also exist.
.... lest you can surprise us
You and alla the other members a the atheist circle jerk keep runnin that mantra bout the burden a proof, as if postin it a million times will cause it to magically become true.
The books that have been given humanity provide enough evidence for a person to have faith in a supreme being.
Be too easy if it was just proved up.
Would let anybody wanna believe.
But bein faithful ain't easy, nor supposed ta be.
Takes intelligence, effort, and a little grace throwed in.
That's why you atheists can't measure up.
And you never will, unless you quit playin your troll games, and open your minds.
Alla the atheist trolls here do is puke stupidity at each other in ever religion thread, all those wasted posts showin how desperate they are ta try and convince themselves they're not just gonna be dust when it's over.
But the trolls gotta keep postin, cause that fear don't go away.
I think it's great you can quote a book, but why should I believe your particular book and not someone else's?
What empirical evidence do you have that your book is for real and every other book is false -- I need this criteria before I can accept you are correct.
This is serious business because according to you I'm going to burn for eternity. Surely there is a substantial amount of criteria to determine fairy tale from reality, right?
The most documented legal historical evidence prior to the printing press is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Do some research.
For the sake of argument, let's say we accept your statement face value even though you failed to prove it.
The bible has plenty of incorrect historical "facts" in it. Does popularity determine truth? For being the most documented thing before the printing press, you'd think the authors wouldn't be anonymous right?
The most documented legal historical evidence prior to the printing press is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Do some research.
Flavius Josephus wrote in 93 AD, what would he know first hand of a Jesus?... and what little he did write is disputable.
Some 20 yr later we then have Roman politician dudes Pliny and Tacitus, but if you study scholarly Roman empire history, which often references them, we find their accounts of significant Roman empire details at times vague, sketchy, incomplete, innaccurate, and in conflict with others accounts.
They are not an absolute or always reliable source on The Romans themselves, far less so for scant details on a much more vague and far less relevant Jesus character.
>> Which ancient non-religious sources of scholarly repute of such period give account of a Jesus doing miracles, resurrecting, and dissapearing in the sky?
What empirical evidence do you have that your book is for real and every other book is false --
Fubarski is one the most logical Intel. Christians here Not even he could present a sound case that proves all other God's false.
Originally Posted by antlers
I see no good evidence that He doesn’t exist.
Nor good evidence others gods don't also exist.
.... lest you can surprise us
You and alla the other members a the atheist circle jerk keep runnin that mantra bout the burden a proof, as if postin it a million times will cause it to magically become true.
The books that have been given humanity provide enough evidence for a person to have faith in a supreme being.
Be too easy if it was just proved up.
Would let anybody wanna believe.
But bein faithful ain't easy, nor supposed ta be.
Takes intelligence, effort, and a little grace throwed in.
That's why you atheists can't measure up.
And you never will, unless you quit playin your troll games, and open your minds.
Alla the atheist trolls here do is puke stupidity at each other in ever religion thread, all those wasted posts showin how desperate they are ta try and convince themselves they're not just gonna be dust when it's over.
But the trolls gotta keep postin, cause that fear don't go away.
And it won't ever go away.
Burden of proof is factually true until you can prove it is not, you're simply illogical. If you do not value things based on facts, evidence and truth, then the things you value aren't valuable.
Which books and which supreme being?
Believing in something without proving it is much easier. I'm sure when you were in school and someone asked you what 2 + 3 is, you didn't say 18. No, you probably added it up and proved it was 5 -- much harder than just making up a number and believing it on faith and expecting the teacher to do so as well.
I'm fine with being dust when it's over.... why would I fear that? The universe was here billions of years before I was born, and hey, I was just fine with that. It'll be fine without me too.
.. For being the most documented thing before the printing press, you'd think the authors wouldn't be anonymous right?
Folks for the large part were still widely illiterate for some centuries after the printing press of the 15th century.
Ah.... so many of the stories must have been passed down orally. Ever play that game where you get in a circle and whisper the same sentence person to person and see what comes out the other side?
The multiply it by 1500 years! ;-) No wonder no one knows who the original authors are..... but I'm speaking to the choir!
Who said GOD wanted to touch you? You may have plenty of time to remember what I said while sweating in Hell after you're dead.
"Judge not lest YE (that's you) be judged" said Jesus. I think I would give up this line of attack. It's counterproductive. "Let your light shine". I've had cows you couldn't drive anywhere but they could be led with a bucket if I showed them I had something they wanted.
And what happens if you apply your same standard to the gods of Hinduism, Islam, and Buddhism, and a thousand other religions?
I've said before that there's a lot of overlap and Jesus' message wasn't all that new. Mostly reiterated a message that was being given lip service or outright ignored by the religious hierarchy of the Jews. And true to form they killed him for pointing it out.
Before a god can say anything he must exist, for which I see no good evidence.
I see no good evidence that He doesn’t exist.
And what happens if you apply your same standard to the gods of Hinduism, Islam, and Buddhism, and a thousand other religions?
I don’t. Atheism requires a God for you not to believe in. You rail against theists while using the same fervor that religious zealots use when making their claims against a secular society and for the existence of God. You are extremely religious about your disbelief.
I've never read the bible, but that sounds like a cruel excuse. How do you know which bits Jesus was supposed to have written?
Even Christians admit he didn't write any of it.
Not one word. Not one jot, nor a single tittle.
So what does it mean that HE didnt write it. Does Trump write down his message to his people, or tell them? Do you not have a secretary or scribe?
HE didnt need to write it. HE had it written. HE has inspired better men than you. He doesnt need to tell the sun to come up tomorrow. HE told it to come up every day ages ago. HE is even using you to fulfill HIS scripture: Most importantly, I want to remind you that in the last days scoffers will come, mocking the truth and following their own desires.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, REBUKING, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
I think it's great you can quote a book, but why should I believe your particular book and not someone else's?
What empirical evidence do you have that your book is for real and every other book is false -- I need this criteria before I can accept you are correct.
This is serious business because according to you I'm going to burn for eternity. Surely there is a substantial amount of criteria to determine fairy tale from reality, right?
The most documented legal historical evidence prior to the printing press is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Do some research.
For the sake of argument, let's say we accept your statement face value even though you failed to prove it.
The bible has plenty of incorrect historical "facts" in it. Does popularity determine truth? For being the most documented thing before the printing press, you'd think the authors wouldn't be anonymous right?
You are amazing. You are the antagonist. I gave you a heads-up for you to check. There are whole books on the subject by protagonists and antagonists.
.. For being the most documented thing before the printing press, you'd think the authors wouldn't be anonymous right?
Folks for the large part were still widely illiterate for some centuries after the printing press of the 15th century.
Ah.... so many of the stories must have been passed down orally. Ever play that game where you get in a circle and whisper the same sentence person to person and see what comes out the other side?
The multiply it by 1500 years! ;-) No wonder no one knows who the original authors are..... but I'm speaking to the choir!
The authors are known. All you have to do is a little reading to discover who they are.
Before a god can say anything he must exist, for which I see no good evidence.
I see no good evidence that He doesn’t exist.
And what happens if you apply your same standard to the gods of Hinduism, Islam, and Buddhism, and a thousand other religions?
I don’t. Atheism requires a God for you not to believe in. You rail against theists while using the same fervor that religious zealots use when making their claims against a secular society and for the existence of God. You are extremely religious about your disbelief.
Atheism only requires people who believe in the gods, claiming they exist. Claims made and claims examined.
.. For being the most documented thing before the printing press, you'd think the authors wouldn't be anonymous right?
Folks for the large part were still widely illiterate for some centuries after the printing press of the 15th century.
Ah.... so many of the stories must have been passed down orally. Ever play that game where you get in a circle and whisper the same sentence person to person and see what comes out the other side?
The multiply it by 1500 years! ;-) No wonder no one knows who the original authors are..... but I'm speaking to the choir!
The authors are known. All you have to do is a little reading to discover who they are.
Before a god can say anything he must exist, for which I see no good evidence.
I see no good evidence that He doesn’t exist.
And what happens if you apply your same standard to the gods of Hinduism, Islam, and Buddhism, and a thousand other religions?
I don’t. Atheism requires a God for you not to believe in. You rail against theists while using the same fervor that religious zealots use when making their claims against a secular society and for the existence of God. You are extremely religious about your disbelief.
Ok, but what happens when you do? Try it.
So a lack of belief in the easter bunny requires an easter bunny to exist? Do you see the logic?
.. For being the most documented thing before the printing press, you'd think the authors wouldn't be anonymous right?
Folks for the large part were still widely illiterate for some centuries after the printing press of the 15th century.
Ah.... so many of the stories must have been passed down orally. Ever play that game where you get in a circle and whisper the same sentence person to person and see what comes out the other side?
The multiply it by 1500 years! ;-) No wonder no one knows who the original authors are..... but I'm speaking to the choir!
The authors are known. All you have to do is a little reading to discover who they are.
The issue of authorship is debatable.
And that's exactly my point. It is debatable. There should be no question.
So a lack of belief in the easter bunny requires an easter bunny to exist? Do you see the logic?
First you brought up Santa, then you bring up the Easter Bunny. And ‘you’re’ bringing up ‘logic’ now...? Have ‘either’ of these had the historicity of the God of Christianity...or the influence upon Western Civilization that the God of Christianity has had...? For ultra-rationalists, you atheists sound downright emotional. You atheists defend your claims with an intense religious zeal. Embrace your religiosity.
.. For being the most documented thing before the printing press, you'd think the authors wouldn't be anonymous right?
Folks for the large part were still widely illiterate for some centuries after the printing press of the 15th century.
Ah.... so many of the stories must have been passed down orally. Ever play that game where you get in a circle and whisper the same sentence person to person and see what comes out the other side?
The multiply it by 1500 years! ;-) No wonder no one knows who the original authors are..... but I'm speaking to the choir!
The authors are known. All you have to do is a little reading to discover who they are.
The issue of authorship is debatable.
And that's exactly my point. It is debatable. There should be no question.
The question was why you are Christian, not "can you debate Christianity". Sheesh. And you think you are perceptive enough to intellectually answer a question not asked?
I am not a Christian. I stopped believing in stuff like the Easter bunny, god and unicorns when I was about 7 years old. Spoiler alert: this life doesn’t end in heaven or hell. It just ends.
Sorting fact from fiction is more a matter of the head than the heart.
The universe is a far, far greater mystery than the ancients could have imagined....and that remains true for us. It's just that now we are beginning to understand the true scope and scale of the universe...
So a lack of belief in the easter bunny requires an easter bunny to exist? Do you see the logic?
First you brought up Santa, then you bring up the Easter Bunny. And ‘you’re’ bringing up ‘logic’ now...? Have ‘either’ of these had the historicity of the God of Christianity...or the influence upon Western Civilization that the God of Christianity has had...? For ultra-rationalists, you atheists sound downright emotional. You atheists defend your claims with an intense religious zeal. Embrace your religiosity.
I'll take that as a "no". It's obvious you realize it's a problem, hence only distracting away from the statement I've been there... it's cognitive dissonance and it's difficult.
You made the claim -- that "Atheism requires a God for you not to believe in." I just followed your logic to show you how illogical that statement is. If you don't like the easter bunny then about how about ghosts. "Lack of belief in ghosts requires ghosts for you not to believe in." Obviously it absolutely doesn't.
Now you fall back on the argument that popularity gives credence to truth. Well, the Harry Potter series was immensely popular, but it's still fiction. What do you believe this argument proves? If you don't like that argument -- then obviously other religions have had a similar amount of influence. Are those religions true?
You're still pretending you have a criteria to truth, but you cannot clearly state it because you yourself know it not to be true.
Dude, you’re ’trying’ to make points with Santa, the Easter Bunny, ghosts, and now popularity..! And, despite your ‘claim’ that “other religions have had a similar amount of influence”...NONE have even come close to the role that Christianity has had in the history and formation of Western Civilization.
Dude, you’re ’trying’ to make points with Santa, the Easter Bunny, ghosts, and now popularity..! And, despite your ‘claim’ that “other religions have had a similar amount of influence”...NONE have even come close to the role that Christianity has had in the history and formation of Western Civilization.
The influence of religion is not limited to Western Civilization.
Besides, considering how much American spends on Christmas, I'm not so sure Santa doesn't have the greater influence today.
...you can't stand to see someone believe in a higher power.
Nailed it, plain and simple. Period.
No, it's still about evidence and justification, always was and always will be.
For you, maybe quite the case - but that "all about" is a personal human need - or possibly some avoidance behavior. In the course of this thread, some non-believers have attributed a variety of beliefs and behaviors to Christians as a category - and much of that as negative. That behavior has been ineffective. Really, after all, these disagreements are not disagreements between and among humans - the disagreements are clear when one compares what God says with that which is said by non-believing humans. Of course, this cleft is nothing new - it is, at least, centuries old. God endures - the human does not.
Before a god can say anything he must exist, for which I see no good evidence. I see plenty of people, such as yourself, claiming to speak for god(s), so, yea, this is between people.
Your ophthalmologist may already have told you such but, in my case, your eyesight is quite poor. I make zero claim about speaking for God - none - although, at times, I will state what I personally see in His commandments and directions. Clearly, you do not see what I see. We are humans and, thus, incapable of seeing and knowing all that God has been, is, and will be. And, our human capabilities differ - we do not all "see" the same. If, by chance, I were to opine that God is not interested in the futile human process and search for evidence about God, and not interested in what evidence humans do or do not find, what would you express in response?
Instead of weasel worded hypotheticals about what your position might be, why won't you just plainly state it.
Dude, you’re ’trying’ to make points with Santa, the Easter Bunny, ghosts, and now popularity..! And, despite your ‘claim’ that “other religions have had a similar amount of influence”...NONE have even come close to the role that Christianity has had in the history and formation of Western Civilization.
The influence of religion is not limited to Western Civilization.
lol But Christianity’s influence on Western Civilization was what I referred to initially with the other atheist poster (while he was referencing Santa and the Easter Bunny)...and subsequently...with the other atheist poster (while he was additionally referencing Harry Potter and ghosts). lol some more
Dude, you’re ’trying’ to make points with Santa, the Easter Bunny, ghosts, and now popularity..! And, despite your ‘claim’ that “other religions have had a similar amount of influence”...NONE have even come close to the role that Christianity has had in the history and formation of Western Civilization.
The influence of religion is not limited to Western Civilization.
lol But Christianity’s influence on Western Civilization was what I referred to initially with the other atheist poster (while he was referencing Santa and the Easter Bunny)...and subsequently...with the other atheist poster (while he was additionally referencing Harry Potter and ghosts). lol some more
And the same can be said for Hinduism in India, Confucianism in China, Shinto/Buddism in Japan, and Islam for 1.2 Billion people.
Man, you are the epitome of “tunnel vision.” *You clearly don’t WANT to believe*...no matter what. *You clearly don’t WANT there to be a God*...no matter what. Your unbelief has nothing to do with evidence...it has to do with WILL and WANT. And it clearly eats you up that others have the audacity to believe in a higher being when you don’t WANT them to. I’m OK with that...whatever. But you’re clearly pretending that it’s something other than what it is.
Man, you are the epitome of “tunnel vision.” *You clearly don’t WANT to believe*...no matter what. *You clearly don’t WANT there to be a God*...no matter what. Your unbelief has nothing to do with evidence...it has to do with WILL and WANT. And it clearly eats you up that others have the audacity to believe in a higher being when you don’t WANT them to. I’m OK with that...whatever. But you’re clearly pretending that it’s something other than what it is.
Want has nothing to do with it. The evidence is the evidence, or in this case, it's the lack there of....
Go back and re-read this thread. The emotional gnashing of teeth is not coming from the non-believers.
Dude, you’re ’trying’ to make points with Santa, the Easter Bunny, ghosts, and now popularity..! And, despite your ‘claim’ that “other religions have had a similar amount of influence”...NONE have even come close to the role that Christianity has had in the history and formation of Western Civilization.
The influence of religion is not limited to Western Civilization.
lol But Christianity’s influence on Western Civilization was what I referred to initially with the other atheist poster (while he was referencing Santa and the Easter Bunny)...and subsequently...with the other atheist poster (while he was additionally referencing Harry Potter and ghosts). lol some more
Western civilization began long before Christianity.
Why attack the poster? The argument should be addressed. Name calling and insults is bad form.
In the case of Jaguartx, that's all he has left. He used to try and argue evidence, but I chewed up all of his evidence based arguments long ago. Heck, I even took the anti-theist position for him, and he did all my work for me by giving a self contradictory definition of his god. Back then, at least he could sting together a coherent pair of sentences, but since then he's gone completely off the rails, spiraling into the world of conspiracy theory fueled hate.
I'd like to see him get some help, but I imagine he things psychiatrists are part of some Satanic Jewish Conspiracy sanctioned by the Warren Commission.
Tell us, when things are the darkest, where do you turn?
Do you carry a gun in church, or are you armed only with prayers?
He cowers in his internet foxhole when things get the slightest challenging..
I wouldnt bank on him being much worth in a real deal CQs exchange of fire.
Laffin....Pretty funny with this coming from pooh boy.
WH,
Let us know when you have something beyond your presuppositionalist apologetics, perhaps something actually resembling some real evidence. .
C’mon dude. I’m just calling out your bud for his innuendo regarding wabigoon. No reason for it. wabigoon has been MORE than fair with you. One would think that you would put your boy on a leash when he acts out. Just punching back a bit on the punk. Nothing more.
Western civilization began long before Christianity.
And...? Regardless...are you denying the positive impact of Christianity upon Western Civilization...?
Obama had impacts upon America. Perhaps some were even positive. That doesn't mean there was no opportunity costs nor exclude the probability that he stood in the way of greater, more positive influences.
Western civilization began long before Christianity.
And...? Regardless...are you denying the positive impact of Christianity upon Western Civilization...?
The church went a long way in ushering in the dark ages, suppressing progress. And yeah, I know the Irish Monks did their bit in preserving manuscripts from the classical era, but that's not the point. Rather than the church hierarchy or christian doctrine that brought on the enlightenment, it was the inquiring minds of gifted thinkers who thought outside of the teachings of the church.
Tell us, when things are the darkest, where do you turn?
Do you carry a gun in church, or are you armed only with prayers?
He cowers in his internet foxhole when things get the slightest challenging..
I wouldnt bank on him being much worth in a real deal CQs exchange of fire.
Laffin....Pretty funny with this coming from pooh boy.
WH,
Let us know when you have something beyond your presuppositionalist apologetics, perhaps something actually resembling some real evidence. .
C’mon dude. I’m just calling out your bud for his innuendo regarding wabigoon. No reason for it. wabigoon has been MORE than fair with you. One would think that you would put your boy on a leash when he acts out. Just punching back a bit on the punk. Nothing more.
I like Wabigoon. Notice my comments above.
I was just calling you out for your.....presuppositionalist apolegtics.....
The Founding Fathers relied on among other things their education/understanding and respect for classical era pagan phylosophy, system of law and rights, etc ..and the enlightenment.
they were not soley influenced by the idea of montheistic diety.
Tell us, when things are the darkest, where do you turn?
Do you carry a gun in church, or are you armed only with prayers?
He cowers in his internet foxhole when things get the slightest challenging..
I wouldnt bank on him being much worth in a real deal CQs exchange of fire.
Laffin....Pretty funny with this coming from pooh boy.
WH,
Let us know when you have something beyond your presuppositionalist apologetics, perhaps something actually resembling some real evidence. .
C’mon dude. I’m just calling out your bud for his innuendo regarding wabigoon. No reason for it. wabigoon has been MORE than fair with you. One would think that you would put your boy on a leash when he acts out. Just punching back a bit on the punk. Nothing more.
I like Wabigoon. Notice my comments above.
I was just calling you out for your.....presuppositionalist apolegtics.....
Want has nothing to do with it. The evidence is the evidence, or in this case, it's the lack there of....
Your WANT, and WILL, clearly has everything to do with it. You’re pretending it’s about evidence, and/or lack of it.
Originally Posted by antelope _sniper
Go back and re-read this thread. The emotional gnashing of teeth is not coming from the non-believers.
There is clearly plenty of intense emotional zeal coming from a few of you guys. My belief is that God exists...and your disbelief is about the non-existence of God...either way, God is still at the center of the debates ‘aboutness’. And again, you clearly can’t stand it that others have the gall to believe in God when you don’t WANT them to. Stop ‘acting’ like a pretendaholic dude.
Want has nothing to do with it. The evidence is the evidence, or in this case, it's the lack there of....
Your WANT, and WILL, clearly has everything to do with it. You’re pretending it’s about evidence, and/or lack of it.
Originally Posted by antelope _sniper
Go back and re-read this thread. The emotional gnashing of teeth is not coming from the non-believers.
There is clearly plenty of intense emotional zeal coming from a few of you guys. My belief is that God exists...and your disbelief is about the non-existence of God...either way, God is still at the center of the debates ‘aboutness’. And again, you clearly can’t stand it that others have the gall to believe in God when you don’t WANT them to. Stop ‘acting’ like a pretendaholic dude.
You're just wrong.
But such are the challenges of this low context medium.
The church went a long way in ushering in the dark ages, suppressing progress. And yeah, I know the Irish Monks did their bit in preserving manuscripts from the classical era, but that's not the point. Rather than the church hierarchy or christian doctrine that brought on the enlightenment, it was the inquiring minds of gifted thinkers who thought outside of the teachings of the church.
You completely ignored the positive influence of Christianity upon medical care and schooling, the founding of universities and hospitals, the positive influence upon philosophy and political thought and Human Rights, the role it played in ending infanticide and human sacrifice, etc..
Why does my supposed failure require that you to go after wabigoon, a guy that is good to everyone?
Nobody is good except your God remember?
And defending a no good sinner is no excuse for failing your Jesus.
Get with the picture Christians preach.
Oh, I certainly fail, and quite often. Nonetheless, I don’t answer to you. You are certainly able to beat your drum without the bs. I reckon you like the attention? Weird, huh?
The church went a long way in ushering in the dark ages, suppressing progress. And yeah, I know the Irish Monks did their bit in preserving manuscripts from the classical era, but that's not the point. Rather than the church hierarchy or christian doctrine that brought on the enlightenment, it was the inquiring minds of gifted thinkers who thought outside of the teachings of the church.
You completely ignored the positive influence of Christianity upon medical care and schooling, the founding of universities and hospitals, the positive influence upon philosophy and political thought and Human Rights, the role it played in ending infanticide and human sacrifice, etc..
Shocker.
During the dark ages, which the church ushered in? You need to be more specific by referencing time and place. Nobody is arguing against improvements in the church during and after enlightenment, reformation, etc. You seem to be mishmashing the history of the church.
Oh, I certainly fail, and quite often. Nonetheless, I don’t answer to you. You are certainly able to beat your drum without the bs. I reckon you like the attention? Weird, huh?
I AIN'T anywhere near as weird or backward as those that believe in primitive TALES
and nothing beats the attention grabbing tactics of easy bruising christians claiming victim status.
You completely ignored the positive influence of Christianity upon medical care and schooling, the founding of universities and hospitals, the positive influence upon philosophy and political thought and Human Rights, the role it played in ending infanticide and human sacrifice, etc.. .
Romans outlawed human sacrifice about 100 BC. Today's modern medical symbol (caduceus: two serpents entwined around a winged staff) stems from pagan God Hermes... Hippocrates (460-371 BC) was a Greek philosopher-physician who has been called 'the father of medicine'. He and his followers dismissed the idea that illness was simply caused or cured by superstitions, spirits or gods. Greco-Roman society were into universities [The Platonic Academy, est. by Plato: 387] thus four centuries before Christianity even became a gnat on the radar screen.
When did Christianity actually grow up and get its act together to make contribution of any notable significance?
The church went a long way in ushering in the dark ages, suppressing progress. And yeah, I know the Irish Monks did their bit in preserving manuscripts from the classical era, but that's not the point. Rather than the church hierarchy or christian doctrine that brought on the enlightenment, it was the inquiring minds of gifted thinkers who thought outside of the teachings of the church.
You completely ignored the positive influence of Christianity upon medical care and schooling, the founding of universities and hospitals, the positive influence upon philosophy and political thought and Human Rights, the role it played in ending infanticide and human sacrifice, etc..
Shocker.
During the dark ages, which the church ushered in? You need to be more specific by referencing time and place. Nobody is arguing against improvements in the church during and after enlightenment, reformation, etc. You seem to be mishmashing the history of the church.
”...are you denying the POSITIVE impact of Christianity upon Western Civilization...?” That’s a crystal clear question, and ‘you’ responded with your “dark ages” answer... clearly and intentionally ignoring what I said you did. And the “improvements” were to Western Civilization itself, not just “in the church”. It is ‘you’ who are “mismashing”...clearly and intentionally ‘trying’ to practice intellectual dishonesty to make your point...and it’s duly noted. If you’re argument is so good and so strong, then why do you intentionally resort to such weak tactics...? It’s telling.
The church went a long way in ushering in the dark ages, suppressing progress. And yeah, I know the Irish Monks did their bit in preserving manuscripts from the classical era, but that's not the point. Rather than the church hierarchy or christian doctrine that brought on the enlightenment, it was the inquiring minds of gifted thinkers who thought outside of the teachings of the church.
You completely ignored the positive influence of Christianity upon medical care and schooling, the founding of universities and hospitals, the positive influence upon philosophy and political thought and Human Rights, the role it played in ending infanticide and human sacrifice, etc..
Shocker.
During the dark ages, which the church ushered in? You need to be more specific by referencing time and place. Nobody is arguing against improvements in the church during and after enlightenment, reformation, etc. You seem to be mishmashing the history of the church.
”...are you denying the POSITIVE impact of Christianity upon Western Civilization...?” That’s a crystal clear question, and ‘you’ responded with your “dark ages” answer... clearly and intentionally ignoring what I said you did. And the “improvements” were to Western Civilization itself, not just “in the church”. It is ‘you’ who are “mismashing”...clearly and intentionally ‘trying’ to practice intellectual dishonesty to make your point...and it’s duly noted. If you’re argument is so good and so strong, then why do you intentionally resort to such weak tactics...? It’s telling.
There are positive aspects to religion, Christianity has positive aspects. The question is whether the benefits outweigh the negatives in the long run.
You completely ignored the positive influence of Christianity upon medical care and schooling, the founding of universities and hospitals, the positive influence upon philosophy and political thought and Human Rights, the role it played in ending infanticide and human sacrifice, etc.. .
Romans outlawed human sacrifice about 100 BC. Today's modern medical symbol (caduceus: two serpents entwined around a winged staff) stems from pagan God Hermes... Hippocrates (460-371 BC) was a Greek philosopher-physician who has been called 'the father of medicine'. He and his followers dismissed the idea that illness was simply caused or cured by superstitions, spirits or gods. Greco-Roman society were into universities [The Platonic Academy, est. by Plato: 387] thus four centuries before Christianity even became a gnat on the radar screen.
NONE of which negates the positive role of Christianity upon the history and formation of Western Civilization.
Originally Posted by Starman
When did Christianity actually grow up and get its act together to make contribution of any notable significance?
Jesus Himself called on followers to act without violence or prejudice and care for the sick, hungry and poor. Throughout its looong history...*many centuries*...Christianity (using Jesus’ teachings) has positivity influenced Western Civilization in the ways mentioned above, and more.
Want has nothing to do with it. The evidence is the evidence, or in this case, it's the lack there of....
Your WANT, and WILL, clearly has everything to do with it. You’re pretending it’s about evidence, and/or lack of it.
Originally Posted by antelope _sniper
Go back and re-read this thread. The emotional gnashing of teeth is not coming from the non-believers.
There is clearly plenty of intense emotional zeal coming from a few of you guys. My belief is that God exists...and your disbelief is about the non-existence of God...either way, God is still at the center of the debates ‘aboutness’. And again, you clearly can’t stand it that others have the gall to believe in God when you don’t WANT them to. Stop ‘acting’ like a pretendaholic dude.
You're just wrong.
But such are the challenges of this low context medium.
Oh, I certainly fail, and quite often. Nonetheless, I don’t answer to you. You are certainly able to beat your drum without the bs. I reckon you like the attention? Weird, huh?
I AIN'T anywhere near as weird or backward as those that believe in primitive TALES
and nothing beats the attention grabbing tactics of easy bruising christians claiming victim status.
We think you're pretty weird. Is there a law against being backward? We know it grates on you. You grate on us. I tell you what, if you dont talk to us, we wont talk to you. Deal?
Western civilization began long before Christianity.
And...? Regardless...are you denying the positive impact of Christianity upon Western Civilization...?
The church went a long way in ushering in the dark ages, suppressing progress. And yeah, I know the Irish Monks did their bit in preserving manuscripts from the classical era, but that's not the point. Rather than the church hierarchy or christian doctrine that brought on the enlightenment, it was the inquiring minds of gifted thinkers who thought outside of the teachings of the church.
Your prejudice is amazing. The Creationists Christians are the ones who brought us out of the dark ages. Stop reading atheist's propaganda, man.
You completely ignored the positive influence of Christianity upon medical care and schooling, the founding of universities and hospitals, the positive influence upon philosophy and political thought and Human Rights, the role it played in ending infanticide and human sacrifice, etc.. .
Romans outlawed human sacrifice about 100 BC. Today's modern medical symbol (caduceus: two serpents entwined around a winged staff) stems from pagan God Hermes... Hippocrates (460-371 BC) was a Greek philosopher-physician who has been called 'the father of medicine'. He and his followers dismissed the idea that illness was simply caused or cured by superstitions, spirits or gods. Greco-Roman society were into universities [The Platonic Academy, est. by Plato: 387] thus four centuries before Christianity even became a gnat on the radar screen.
NONE of which negates the positive role of Christianity upon the history and formation of Western Civilization.
Originally Posted by Starman
When did Christianity actually grow up and get its act together to make contribution of any notable significance?
Jesus Himself called on followers to act without violence or prejudice and care for the sick, hungry and poor. Throughout its looong history...*many centuries*...Christianity (using Jesus’ teachings) has positivity influenced Western Civilization in the ways mentioned above, and more.
But you likely already knew that.
I find it interesting how you are no longer arguing for the truth of your proposition, and retreated to "but it has benefits", but so do most religions.
Even Hezbollah has a charitable arm, but I doubt you would argue that as evidence for the truth of Islam.
Western civilization began long before Christianity.
And...? Regardless...are you denying the positive impact of Christianity upon Western Civilization...?
The church went a long way in ushering in the dark ages, suppressing progress. And yeah, I know the Irish Monks did their bit in preserving manuscripts from the classical era, but that's not the point. Rather than the church hierarchy or christian doctrine that brought on the enlightenment, it was the inquiring minds of gifted thinkers who thought outside of the teachings of the church.
Your prejudice is amazing. The Creationists Christians are the ones who brought us out of the dark ages. Stop reading atheist's propaganda, man.
You are not even close. We recovered in spite of, not because of theocratic dogma.
Want has nothing to do with it. The evidence is the evidence, or in this case, it's the lack there of....
Your WANT, and WILL, clearly has everything to do with it. You’re pretending it’s about evidence, and/or lack of it.
Originally Posted by antelope _sniper
Go back and re-read this thread. The emotional gnashing of teeth is not coming from the non-believers.
There is clearly plenty of intense emotional zeal coming from a few of you guys. My belief is that God exists...and your disbelief is about the non-existence of God...either way, God is still at the center of the debates ‘aboutness’. And again, you clearly can’t stand it that others have the gall to believe in God when you don’t WANT them to. Stop ‘acting’ like a pretendaholic dude.
You're just wrong.
But such are the challenges of this low context medium.
Is there a law against being wrong.
I don't recall making a legal argument against your position, but I suppose it depends upon how being wrong informs you actions.
Besides, not everything that can result in sub-optimum outcomes is against the law.
Want has nothing to do with it. The evidence is the evidence, or in this case, it's the lack there of....
Your WANT, and WILL, clearly has everything to do with it. You’re pretending it’s about evidence, and/or lack of it.
Originally Posted by antelope _sniper
Go back and re-read this thread. The emotional gnashing of teeth is not coming from the non-believers.
There is clearly plenty of intense emotional zeal coming from a few of you guys. My belief is that God exists...and your disbelief is about the non-existence of God...either way, God is still at the center of the debates ‘aboutness’. And again, you clearly can’t stand it that others have the gall to believe in God when you don’t WANT them to. Stop ‘acting’ like a pretendaholic dude.
You're just wrong.
But such are the challenges of this low context medium.
Is there a law against being wrong.
That depends upon how it affects your actions.
Typical deflection. Duh, does us believing cause us to break laws? Now, get that devious brain cranked up again. Sheesh. You're like arguing with a worm. It depends on the meaning of what is is. Birds of a feather.
I find it interesting how you are no longer arguing for the truth of your proposition, and retreated to "but it has benefits", but so do most religions.
I simply answered questions that I was asked during a discussion. You ‘would’ find something wrong with that. Still ‘sore’ aren’t ya’...? When you have to flat out lie and resort to weak tactics like the intellectual dishonesty that you’re known for when discussing God, it just shows that ‘your’ position is as weak as your tactics are. Must be hard to be so bothered that so many people believe in a God when you clearly don’t WANT them to. laffin’ and smh
You are not even close. We recovered in spite of, not because of theocratic dogma. [/quote] Any recovering this nation is going through is because of God, Trump and mainly other believers who got off their asses and voted him in.
...you can't stand to see someone believe in a higher power.
Nailed it, plain and simple. Period.
No, it's still about evidence and justification, always was and always will be.
For you, maybe quite the case - but that "all about" is a personal human need - or possibly some avoidance behavior. In the course of this thread, some non-believers have attributed a variety of beliefs and behaviors to Christians as a category - and much of that as negative. That behavior has been ineffective. Really, after all, these disagreements are not disagreements between and among humans - the disagreements are clear when one compares what God says with that which is said by non-believing humans. Of course, this cleft is nothing new - it is, at least, centuries old. God endures - the human does not.
Before a god can say anything he must exist, for which I see no good evidence. I see plenty of people, such as yourself, claiming to speak for god(s), so, yea, this is between people.
Your ophthalmologist may already have told you such but, in my case, your eyesight is quite poor. I make zero claim about speaking for God - none - although, at times, I will state what I personally see in His commandments and directions. Clearly, you do not see what I see. We are humans and, thus, incapable of seeing and knowing all that God has been, is, and will be. And, our human capabilities differ - we do not all "see" the same. If, by chance, I were to opine that God is not interested in the futile human process and search for evidence about God, and not interested in what evidence humans do or do not find, what would you express in response?
Instead of weasel worded hypotheticals about what your position might be, why won't you just plainly state it.
It looks as though you don't grasp the potentially exquisite subtleties of the subjunctive case. Too bad. So, as you suggest, here it is in your face. How do you respond to a position such as this:-"God is not interested in the futile human process and search for evidence about God, and not interested in what evidence humans do or do not find."
We think you're pretty weird. Is there a law against being backward? We know it grates on you. You grate on us. I tell you what, if you dont talk to us, we wont talk to you. Deal?
Evidently he is MIA. Good. He must have taken me up on the deal. Hes not talking to us.
He needs us. We dont need him. Amazing, he has been the one in need of believers to pick it. Believers don't need him.
I find it interesting how you are no longer arguing for the truth of your proposition, and retreated to "but it has benefits", but so do most religions.
That’s rich comin’ from you, an atheist, who responded to...and has spent so much time on...a thread titled “Why are you a Christian...?”
1 Corinthians 1:21-25 “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.”
Christianity offers peace, not worldly goods, or documentarable modern textbook evidence. Jesus offers a contentment that exceeds your expectations. You just must be ready for a more Peaceful life to begin . People are just plain old flawed, no exceptions, but we can seek a Peace in our lives amid the turmoil.
Someone new just reading here might think the idea was to drive non believers away.
Sir, respectfully, you start a great many of these threads...knowing ahead of time that once the resident atheists show up...it’s gonna become what it often does. Unfortunately. It’d be no different if one started a thread titled ‘Why are you a Conservative’ and then when the resident liberals showed up it’d turn into the same kinda mess.
Thanks Antlers, I'm just trying to say we should act decent to everyone.
I tend to agree. But I seem to lack tact. Right after I retired I was hired as a consultant in another town. While talking with the superintendent I mentioned I was trying to be more tactful as I age. He quickly responded, "Well, you're failing." I guess the world is not ready for the blunt truth.
Someone new just reading here might think the idea was to drive non believers away.
Sir, respectfully, you start a great many of these threads...knowing ahead of time that once the resident atheists show up...it’s gonna become what it often does. Unfortunately. It’d be no different if one started a thread titled ‘Why are you a Conservative’ and then when the resident liberals showed up it’d turn into the same kinda mess.
Yes, the attacking posts are now as predictable as a summer sunrise, However, I'm not at all certain that the attackers are actually "atheists" as such. To call them that might be giving them more credence than deserved. Obviously, they are seeking to bait Christians and stir animosity - possibly simply because they cannot stand for fellow humans to be secure in such rewarding beliefs when they, themselves, cannot reach that state or condition. Predictable, but maybe not easily understood.
Maybe subversives in disguise pushing the communist step of destroying our religion as one page of the communist plan? They sure are "driven" for having no dog in the fight? Surely there wouldnt be money involved.
Someone new just reading here might think the idea was to drive non believers away.
Sir, respectfully, you start a great many of these threads...knowing ahead of time that once the resident atheists show up...it’s gonna become what it often does. Unfortunately. It’d be no different if one started a thread titled ‘Why are you a Conservative’ and then when the resident liberals showed up it’d turn into the same kinda mess.
Yes, the attacking posts are now as predictable as a summer sunrise, However, I'm not at all certain that the attackers are actually "atheists" as such. To call them that might be giving them more credence than deserved. Obviously, they are seeking to bait Christians and stir animosity - possibly simply because they cannot stand for fellow humans to be secure in such rewarding beliefs when they, themselves, cannot reach that state or condition. Predictable, but maybe not easily understood.
If you started threads with titles like "Why are you an Atheist?" or "Why are you a liberal?" Would they NOT turn into identical messes? You should try it.
Someone new just reading here might think the idea was to drive non believers away.
Sir, respectfully, you start a great many of these threads...knowing ahead of time that once the resident atheists show up...it’s gonna become what it often does. Unfortunately. It’d be no different if one started a thread titled ‘Why are you a Conservative’ and then when the resident liberals showed up it’d turn into the same kinda mess.
Yes, the attacking posts are now as predictable as a summer sunrise, However, I'm not at all certain that the attackers are actually "atheists" as such. To call them that might be giving them more credence than deserved. Obviously, they are seeking to bait Christians and stir animosity - possibly simply because they cannot stand for fellow humans to be secure in such rewarding beliefs when they, themselves, cannot reach that state or condition. Predictable, but maybe not easily understood.
If you started threads with titles like "Why are you an Atheist?" or "Why are you a liberal?" Would they NOT turn into identical messes? You should try it.
Most typically, I do not start threads of any type - have only started a few over a period of about 12 years, and not one about Christianity (assuming that my aged memory is still sharp). So, why should I start one about atheists, or Christian-baiters, etc.? OK, OK, OK - LeroyBeans, why are you an atheist
Western civilization began long before Christianity.
And...? Regardless...are you denying the positive impact of Christianity upon Western Civilization...?
The church went a long way in ushering in the dark ages, suppressing progress. And yeah, I know the Irish Monks did their bit in preserving manuscripts from the classical era, but that's not the point. Rather than the church hierarchy or christian doctrine that brought on the enlightenment, it was the inquiring minds of gifted thinkers who thought outside of the teachings of the church.
Your prejudice is amazing. The Creationists Christians are the ones who brought us out of the dark ages. Stop reading atheist's propaganda, man.
The point was, that rather than it being religious thinking that brought on the enlightenment, it was free thought and rationalism that brought progress, enlightened minds.
Newton, at al, were theists because belief in a higher power was a part of their culture, but it was their inquiring minds that made discoveries outside of the box of religious faith, not because of it.....as I already said, which was apparently misconstrued.
Progress was made not because of religious belief, but in spite of it...think of the trouble Darwin had with evolution in a time when special creation was taken as gospel.
Western civilization began long before Christianity.
And...? Regardless...are you denying the positive impact of Christianity upon Western Civilization...?
The church went a long way in ushering in the dark ages, suppressing progress. And yeah, I know the Irish Monks did their bit in preserving manuscripts from the classical era, but that's not the point. Rather than the church hierarchy or christian doctrine that brought on the enlightenment, it was the inquiring minds of gifted thinkers who thought outside of the teachings of the church.
Your prejudice is amazing. The Creationists Christians are the ones who brought us out of the dark ages. Stop reading atheist's propaganda, man.
You are not even close. We recovered in spite of, not because of theocratic dogma.
Spiritual people are a lot different than Religious people. Walking in Faith, listening to the leading of the Holy Spirit is about as free thinking as it gets. God often chooses people that are far from the Norm to deliver His message.
Thanks Antlers, I'm just trying to say we should act decent to everyone.
I tend to agree. But I seem to lack tact. Right after I retired I was hired as a consultant in another town. While talking with the superintendent I mentioned I was trying to be more tactful as I age. He quickly responded, "Well, you're failing." I guess the world is not ready for the blunt truth.
Some tend to assume that their own belief is blunt truth. Then get upset at being questioned.
Christianity offers peace, not worldly goods, or documentarable modern textbook evidence. Jesus offers a contentment that exceeds your expectations. You just must be ready for a more Peaceful life to begin . People are just plain old flawed, no exceptions, but we can seek a Peace in our lives amid the turmoil.
Maybe subversives in disguise pushing the communist step of destroying our religion as one page of the communist plan? They sure are "driven" for having no dog in the fight? Surely there wouldnt be money involved.
Atheism has nothing to do with politics. A capitalist can be an atheist, as can a socialist, communist or someone with an aversion to politics. It is simply a matter of not being convinced in the existence of a God or gods.
When did Christianity actually grow up and get its act together to make contribution of any notable significance?
Jesus Himself called on followers to act without violence or prejudice and care for the sick, hungry and poor. Throughout its looong history...*many centuries*...Christianity (using Jesus’ teachings) has positivity influenced Western Civilization in the ways mentioned above, and more.
again, cite the historical period/s when christianity had any signficant verifiable positive impact.
simply saying 'Jesus teachings applied over many centuries' is feeble-insipidly vague.
When did Christianity actually grow up and get its act together to make contribution of any notable significance?
Jesus Himself called on followers to act without violence or prejudice and care for the sick, hungry and poor. Throughout its looong history...*many centuries*...Christianity (using Jesus’ teachings) has positivity influenced Western Civilization in the ways mentioned above, and more.
again, cite the historical period/s when christianity had any signficant verifiable positive impact. simply saying 'Jesus teachings applied over many centuries' is feeble-insipidly vague.
The answer is accurate. You don’t like it. Tough. Tons of ‘detailed’ info is readily available...look it up yourself.
.again, cite the historical period/s when christianity had any signficant verifiable positive impact. simply saying 'Jesus teachings applied over many centuries' is feeble-insipidly vague.
The answer is accurate. You don’t like it. Tough. Tons of ‘detailed’ info is readily available...look it up yourself.
lol...so you have no peer-reviewed historical scholarly sources to back your claim,
just more of the same feeble-insipid vagueness you have become known for.
When did Christianity actually grow up and get its act together to make contribution of any notable significance?
Jesus Himself called on followers to act without violence or prejudice and care for the sick, hungry and poor. Throughout its looong history...*many centuries*...Christianity (using Jesus’ teachings) has positivity influenced Western Civilization in the ways mentioned above, and more.
again, cite the historical period/s when christianity had any signficant verifiable positive impact. simply saying 'Jesus teachings applied over many centuries' is feeble-insipidly vague.
The answer is accurate. You don’t like it. Tough. Tons of ‘detailed’ info is readily available...look it up yourself.
lol...so you have no peer-reviewed historical scholarly sources to back your claim, just more of the same feeble-insipid vagueness you have become known for.
Atheism... It is simply a matter of not being convinced in the existence of a God or gods.
With you it is clearly much more than that.
Originally Posted by antlers
Originally Posted by Fubarski
...you can't stand to see someone believe in a higher power.
Nailed it, plain and simple. Period.
Atheism is nothing more to me than a lack of conviction in the the existence of a God or gods....just as it is with you in relation to all the versions of God or gods that humankind believes in....barring one, your own. That is an observation.
Maybe you trolls could give up postin in religion threads, for Lent.
Trolls? Just because some don't happen to agree with your beliefs doesn't make them trolls. That accusation is designed to discourage questioning. Healthy scepticism and questioning is a good thing, a positive thing.
Maybe you trolls could give up postin in religion threads, for Lent.
Trolls? Just because some don't happen to agree with your beliefs doesn't make them trolls. That accusation is designed to discourage questioning. Healthy scepticism and questioning is a good thing, a positive thing.
Your answer assumes you speak for alla the trolls.
Atheism... It is simply a matter of not being convinced in the existence of a God or gods.
With you it is clearly much more than that.
Originally Posted by antlers
Originally Posted by Fubarski
...you can't stand to see someone believe in a higher power.
Nailed it, plain and simple. Period.
Atheism is nothing more to me than a lack of conviction in the the existence of a God or gods.
lol It is clearly WAY more to you than ‘just’ that. You can’t stand it that other folks believe in God when you don’t WANT them to, and it eats you up. Fubarski...in all of his posts on this thread directed at you...has you pegged to a tee. He is deadly accurate regarding his posts to you.
Western civilization began long before Christianity.
And...? Regardless...are you denying the positive impact of Christianity upon Western Civilization...?
The church went a long way in ushering in the dark ages, suppressing progress. And yeah, I know the Irish Monks did their bit in preserving manuscripts from the classical era, but that's not the point. Rather than the church hierarchy or christian doctrine that brought on the enlightenment, it was the inquiring minds of gifted thinkers who thought outside of the teachings of the church.
Your prejudice is amazing. The Creationists Christians are the ones who brought us out of the dark ages. Stop reading atheist's propaganda, man.
The point was, that rather than it being religious thinking that brought on the enlightenment, it was free thought and rationalism that brought progress, enlightened minds.
Newton, at al, were theists because belief in a higher power was a part of their culture, but it was their inquiring minds that made discoveries outside of the box of religious faith, not because of it.....as I already said, which was apparently misconstrued.
Progress was made not because of religious belief, but in spite of it...think of the trouble Darwin had with evolution in a time when special creation was taken as gospel.
This is history.
Newton wrote more about the Bible than he did about science. All the greats were Christians first and then scientists trying to think God's thoughts after him. That's why they made so many discoveries. Today scientists copy nature to improve things. Things don't make themselves.
I am no longer prejudice. I am informed. When I was twenty-five my favorite evolutionist was proven wrong by another evolutionist who had facts instead of prejudice. I read a lot of books and discovered ALL evolutionists are discredited by other evolutionists. Very sad state of affairs for a devout evolutionist. I was convinced religious people had warped minds and didn't want any of the neighbors taking my kids to Sunday School.
If you actually did serious investigation you would become a creationist.
Maybe you trolls could give up postin in religion threads, for Lent.
Trolls? Just because some don't happen to agree with your beliefs doesn't make them trolls. That accusation is designed to discourage questioning. Healthy scepticism and questioning is a good thing, a positive thing.
Your answer assumes you speak for alla the trolls.
Trolls of all persuasions exist, but that wasn't what I was referring to.
Maybe subversives in disguise pushing the communist step of destroying our religion as one page of the communist plan? They sure are "driven" for having no dog in the fight? Surely there wouldnt be money involved.
Atheism has nothing to do with politics. A capitalist can be an atheist, as can a socialist, communist or someone with an aversion to politics. It is simply a matter of not being convinced in the existence of a God or gods.
I think you stated that incorrectly. A true atheist is convinced there is no God. Someone not convinced is more agnostic.
I am no longer prejudice. I am informed. When I was twenty-five my favorite evolutionist was proven wrong by another evolutionist who had facts instead of prejudice. I read a lot of books and discovered ALL evolutionists are discredited by other evolutionists. Very sad state of affairs for a devout evolutionist. I was convinced religious people had warped minds and didn't want any of the neighbors taking my kids to Sunday School.
If you actually did serious investigation you would become a creationist.
You assume that I have not done a 'serious' investigation because you don't agree with what I say. If you looked at religion and its foundations objectively, you would become an atheist or an agnostic.
. I read a lot of books and discovered ALL evolutionists are discredited by other evolutionists. ...Very sad state of affairs for a devout evolutionist. I was convinced religious people had warped minds
you failed to mention many theists discredit other theist interpretations of just one book.
a very sad state of affairs for any devout theists....no?
Maybe subversives in disguise pushing the communist step of destroying our religion as one page of the communist plan? They sure are "driven" for having no dog in the fight? Surely there wouldnt be money involved.
Atheism has nothing to do with politics. A capitalist can be an atheist, as can a socialist, communist or someone with an aversion to politics. It is simply a matter of not being convinced in the existence of a God or gods.
I think you stated that incorrectly. A true atheist is convinced there is no God. Someone not convinced is more agnostic.
Atheism comes in layers, strong atheism, weak atheism, etc, look it up.
Strong atheism goes too far, tipping into ideology. Weak atheism overlaps with agnosticism to a degree. I am not a strong atheist.
I am no longer prejudice. I am informed. When I was twenty-five my favorite evolutionist was proven wrong by another evolutionist who had facts instead of prejudice. I read a lot of books and discovered ALL evolutionists are discredited by other evolutionists. Very sad state of affairs for a devout evolutionist. I was convinced religious people had warped minds and didn't want any of the neighbors taking my kids to Sunday School.
If you actually did serious investigation you would become a creationist.
You assume that I have not done a 'serious' investigation because you don't agree with what I say. If you looked at religion and its foundations objectively, you would become an atheist or an agnostic.
Like I said, If you actually did serious investigation you would become a creationist. It took years before I became a Christian after I became a creationist. So I did the work and have read many books since. You might do well to read the book "Jesus and Mohamad". The guy was an Islam IMAM by age twenty or so. He was second in a class of 6,000 from Cairo University. He now has a Ph.D. in world religions and became a Christian. I don't think you could convince him he needs to do more study. He and I are more convinced than you.
Atheism... It is simply a matter of not being convinced in the existence of a God or gods.
With you it is clearly much more than that.
Originally Posted by antlers
Originally Posted by Fubarski
...you can't stand to see someone believe in a higher power.
Nailed it, plain and simple. Period.
Atheism is nothing more to me than a lack of conviction in the the existence of a God or gods.
lol It is clearly WAY more to you than ‘just’ that. You can’t stand it that other folks believe in God when you don’t WANT them to, and it eats you up. Fubarski...in all of his posts on this thread directed at you...has you pegged to a tee. He is deadly accurate regarding his posts to you.
Some can take atheism too far -Strong Atheism - but that's not what the term means....which is literally a - theism: without a God or a theology. I would argue against the ideology of Strong Atheism.
I am no longer prejudice. I am informed. When I was twenty-five my favorite evolutionist was proven wrong by another evolutionist who had facts instead of prejudice. I read a lot of books and discovered ALL evolutionists are discredited by other evolutionists. Very sad state of affairs for a devout evolutionist. I was convinced religious people had warped minds and didn't want any of the neighbors taking my kids to Sunday School.
If you actually did serious investigation you would become a creationist.
You assume that I have not done a 'serious' investigation because you don't agree with what I say. If you looked at religion and its foundations objectively, you would become an atheist or an agnostic.
Like I said, If you actually did serious investigation you would become a creationist. It took years before I became a Christian after I became a creationist. So I did the work and have read many books since. You might do well to read the book "Jesus and Mohamad". The guy was an Islam IMAM by age twenty or so. He was second in a class of 6,000 from Cairo University. He now has a Ph.D. in world religions and became a Christian. I don't think you could convince him he needs to do more study. He and I are more convinced than you.
Not to mention the countless numbers of people who put in the study time and become atheists as a result. Many becoming atheists because of their study of the bible.
Would you become a Muslim if you studied the Quran? Would you become a Hindu if you studied the Gita?
I am no longer prejudice. I am informed. When I was twenty-five my favorite evolutionist was proven wrong by another evolutionist who had facts instead of prejudice. I read a lot of books and discovered ALL evolutionists are discredited by other evolutionists. Very sad state of affairs for a devout evolutionist. I was convinced religious people had warped minds and didn't want any of the neighbors taking my kids to Sunday School.
If you actually did serious investigation you would become a creationist.
You assume that I have not done a 'serious' investigation because you don't agree with what I say. If you looked at religion and its foundations objectively, you would become an atheist or an agnostic.
Like I said, If you actually did serious investigation you would become a creationist. It took years before I became a Christian after I became a creationist. So I did the work and have read many books since. You might do well to read the book "Jesus and Mohamad". The guy was an Islam IMAM by age twenty or so. He was second in a class of 6,000 from Cairo University. He now has a Ph.D. in world religions and became a Christian. I don't think you could convince him he needs to do more study. He and I are more convinced than you.
Not to mention the countless numbers of people who put in the study time and become atheists as a result. Many becoming atheists because of their study of the bible.
Would you become a Muslim if you studied the Quran? Would you become a Hindu if you studied the Gita?
No more than you. They don't have legal historical evidence of a living Savior. Christians do.
Atheism... It is simply a matter of not being convinced in the existence of a God or gods.
With you it is clearly much more than that.
Originally Posted by antlers
Originally Posted by Fubarski
...you can't stand to see someone believe in a higher power.
Nailed it, plain and simple. Period.
Atheism is nothing more to me than a lack of conviction in the the existence of a God or gods....just as it is with you in relation to all the versions of God or gods that humankind believes in....barring one, your own. That is an observation.
Then what drives you to push your lack of conviction on those who are convinced? Since you are unconvinced they are dumbasses because they are convinced? BS. Liar.
Oh, I certainly fail, and quite often. Nonetheless, I don’t answer to you. You are certainly able to beat your drum without the bs. I reckon you like the attention? Weird, huh?
I AIN'T anywhere near as weird or backward as those that believe in primitive TALES
and nothing beats the attention grabbing tactics of easy bruising christians claiming victim status.
We think you're pretty weird. Is there a law against being backward? We know it grates on you. You grate on us. I tell you what, if you dont talk to us, we wont talk to you. Deal?
Not to mention the countless numbers of people who put in the study time and become atheists as a result. Many becoming atheists because of their study of the bible.
I believe you believe this. I don't. They have not studied Christian Apologetics. There's just too much supported available information for the serious student to reject Christianity.
I am no longer prejudice. I am informed. When I was twenty-five my favorite evolutionist was proven wrong by another evolutionist who had facts instead of prejudice. I read a lot of books and discovered ALL evolutionists are discredited by other evolutionists. Very sad state of affairs for a devout evolutionist. I was convinced religious people had warped minds and didn't want any of the neighbors taking my kids to Sunday School.
If you actually did serious investigation you would become a creationist.
You assume that I have not done a 'serious' investigation because you don't agree with what I say. If you looked at religion and its foundations objectively, you would become an atheist or an agnostic.
Like I said, If you actually did serious investigation you would become a creationist. It took years before I became a Christian after I became a creationist. So I did the work and have read many books since. You might do well to read the book "Jesus and Mohamad". The guy was an Islam IMAM by age twenty or so. He was second in a class of 6,000 from Cairo University. He now has a Ph.D. in world religions and became a Christian. I don't think you could convince him he needs to do more study. He and I are more convinced than you.
Not to mention the countless numbers of people who put in the study time and become atheists as a result. Many becoming atheists because of their study of the bible.
Would you become a Muslim if you studied the Quran? Would you become a Hindu if you studied the Gita?
No more than you. They don't have legal historical evidence of a living Savior. Christians do.
Christianity is based on the words of the gospel authors who wrote about what they heard, and Paul based on his subjective conversion experience.
Atheism... It is simply a matter of not being convinced in the existence of a God or gods.
With you it is clearly much more than that.
Originally Posted by antlers
Originally Posted by Fubarski
...you can't stand to see someone believe in a higher power.
Nailed it, plain and simple. Period.
Atheism is nothing more to me than a lack of conviction in the the existence of a God or gods....just as it is with you in relation to all the versions of God or gods that humankind believes in....barring one, your own. That is an observation.
Then what drives you to push your lack of conviction on those who are convinced? Since you are unconvinced they are dumbasses because they are convinced? BS. Liar.
Cowardly words hurled from the security of your anonymity. Which makes you a coward.
I argue because I see unfounded claims being made and the divisive nature of faith, which sows conflict and strife in the world.
Look at your own response, lowdown and dirty, insulting and cowardly.
Is that representative of faith and Christianity? If so, it should be argued against.
Look at your own response, lowdown and dirty, insulting and cowardly.
Let's point out cowardly.
You steal the password of a legit 2004 account in 2016, so your troll BS will seem legit.
Then you do nothin but troll religion threads constantly, though claimin ta be an atheist, who would not be interested in such threads, less that atheist was a lyin POS.
Contribute absolutely nothing to the forum.
Is that representative of religion thread trolls? If so, it should be argued against.
Christianity is based on the words of the gospel authors who wrote about what they heard, and Paul based on his subjective conversion experience.
Christianity is based on legal historical evidence of a risen Jesus Christ. Both protagonists and antagonists wrote about Him. I remember one Caesar claimed Jesus tricked people into believing He had been killed and raised. The problem with that is there were Roman government eye witnesses who saw Jesus dead; and in frustration stabbed Him with a spear. That's why the early manuscripts spread so much. They were read by someone who was a witness or knew someone who was a reliable witness.
Look at your own response, lowdown and dirty, insulting and cowardly.
Let's point out cowardly.
You steal the password of a legit 2004 account in 2016, so your troll BS will seem legit.
Then you do nothin but troll religion threads constantly, though claimin ta be an atheist, who would not be interested in such threads, less that atheist was a lyin POS.
Contribute absolutely nothing to the forum.
Is that representative of religion thread trolls? If so, it should be argued against.
That comes across as delusional.
I don't steal passwords or accounts.
You are off the rails.
Didn't you accuse Starman of doing that?
Or perhaps you imagine only one antagonist who 'stole' multiple accounts?
That's what you call paranoia. Utterly delusional. Please seek professional help.
Christianity is based on the words of the gospel authors who wrote about what they heard, and Paul based on his subjective conversion experience.
Christianity is based on legal historical evidence of a risen Jesus Christ. Both protagonists and antagonists wrote about Him. I remember one Caesar claimed Jesus tricked people into believing He had been killed and raised. The problem with that is there were Roman government eye witnesses who saw Jesus dead; and in frustration stabbed Him with a spear. That's why the early manuscripts spread so much. They were read by someone who was a witness or knew someone who was a reliable witness.
I think you may be defining 'legal' somewhat loosely, to put it mildly.
Nobody would define the new testament as a legal document.
Someone new just reading here might think the idea was to drive non believers away.
Sir, respectfully, you start a great many of these threads...knowing ahead of time that once the resident atheists show up...it’s gonna become what it often does. Unfortunately. It’d be no different if one started a thread titled ‘Why are you a Conservative’ and then when the resident liberals showed up it’d turn into the same kinda mess.
Yes, the attacking posts are now as predictable as a summer sunrise, However, I'm not at all certain that the attackers are actually "atheists" as such. To call them that might be giving them more credence than deserved. Obviously, they are seeking to bait Christians and stir animosity - possibly simply because they cannot stand for fellow humans to be secure in such rewarding beliefs when they, themselves, cannot reach that state or condition. Predictable, but maybe not easily understood.
If you started threads with titles like "Why are you an Atheist?" or "Why are you a liberal?" Would they NOT turn into identical messes? You should try it.
Someone new just reading here might think the idea was to drive non believers away.
Sir, respectfully, you start a great many of these threads...knowing ahead of time that once the resident atheists show up...it’s gonna become what it often does. Unfortunately. It’d be no different if one started a thread titled ‘Why are you a Conservative’ and then when the resident liberals showed up it’d turn into the same kinda mess.
Yes, the attacking posts are now as predictable as a summer sunrise, However, I'm not at all certain that the attackers are actually "atheists" as such. To call them that might be giving them more credence than deserved. Obviously, they are seeking to bait Christians and stir animosity - possibly simply because they cannot stand for fellow humans to be secure in such rewarding beliefs when they, themselves, cannot reach that state or condition. Predictable, but maybe not easily understood.
If you started threads with titles like "Why are you an Atheist?" or "Why are you a liberal?" Would they NOT turn into identical messes? You should try it.
We've already ran that experiment.
Second poster was Jax.... Kind of Ironic....
Jax, who complained bitterly about the morality of atheists posting on Christian threads.
Someone new just reading here might think the idea was to drive non believers away.
Sir, respectfully, you start a great many of these threads...knowing ahead of time that once the resident atheists show up...it’s gonna become what it often does. Unfortunately. It’d be no different if one started a thread titled ‘Why are you a Conservative’ and then when the resident liberals showed up it’d turn into the same kinda mess.
Yes, the attacking posts are now as predictable as a summer sunrise, However, I'm not at all certain that the attackers are actually "atheists" as such. To call them that might be giving them more credence than deserved. Obviously, they are seeking to bait Christians and stir animosity - possibly simply because they cannot stand for fellow humans to be secure in such rewarding beliefs when they, themselves, cannot reach that state or condition. Predictable, but maybe not easily understood.
If you started threads with titles like "Why are you an Atheist?" or "Why are you a liberal?" Would they NOT turn into identical messes? You should try it.
We've already ran that experiment.
Second poster was Jax.... Kind of Ironic....
Jax, who complained bitterly about the morality of atheists posting on Christian threads.
One side is trying to shut down debate. One isn't.
Western civilization began long before Christianity.
And...? Regardless...are you denying the positive impact of Christianity upon Western Civilization...?
The church went a long way in ushering in the dark ages, suppressing progress. And yeah, I know the Irish Monks did their bit in preserving manuscripts from the classical era, but that's not the point. Rather than the church hierarchy or christian doctrine that brought on the enlightenment, it was the inquiring minds of gifted thinkers who thought outside of the teachings of the church.
Your prejudice is amazing. The Creationists Christians are the ones who brought us out of the dark ages. Stop reading atheist's propaganda, man.
You are not even close. We recovered in spite of, not because of theocratic dogma.
Look at your own response, lowdown and dirty, insulting and cowardly.
Let's point out cowardly.
You steal the password of a legit 2004 account in 2016, so your troll BS will seem legit.
Then you do nothin but troll religion threads constantly, though claimin ta be an atheist, who would not be interested in such threads, less that atheist was a lyin POS.
Contribute absolutely nothing to the forum.
Is that representative of religion thread trolls? If so, it should be argued against.
That comes across as delusional.
I don't steal passwords or accounts.
You are off the rails.
Didn't you accuse Starman of doing that?
Or perhaps you imagine only one antagonist who 'stole' multiple accounts?
That's what you call paranoia. Utterly delusional. Please seek professional help.
Starfister's a troll that doesn't try ta hide it, like you do. Least he's? honest bout bein a troll.
Your handle's history is easy for anybody on the fire ta see.
End a 2016, you hacked the account and trolled on nothin but religion threads since.
You seem to forget the Inquisition and Conquistadors.
Neither exactly brought peace, unless you count the peace of the dead....But Christians believe there is not peace in the afterlife for their victims, but eternal torment.....
Someone new just reading here might think the idea was to drive non believers away.
Sir, respectfully, you start a great many of these threads...knowing ahead of time that once the resident atheists show up...it’s gonna become what it often does. Unfortunately. It’d be no different if one started a thread titled ‘Why are you a Conservative’ and then when the resident liberals showed up it’d turn into the same kinda mess.
Yes, the attacking posts are now as predictable as a summer sunrise, However, I'm not at all certain that the attackers are actually "atheists" as such. To call them that might be giving them more credence than deserved. Obviously, they are seeking to bait Christians and stir animosity - possibly simply because they cannot stand for fellow humans to be secure in such rewarding beliefs when they, themselves, cannot reach that state or condition. Predictable, but maybe not easily understood.
If you started threads with titles like "Why are you an Atheist?" or "Why are you a liberal?" Would they NOT turn into identical messes? You should try it.
We've already ran that experiment.
Second poster was Jax.... Kind of Ironic....
Jax, who complained bitterly about the morality of atheists posting on Christian threads.
makes my point. People want to complain, no matter what. If all the atheists and "trolls" and "liberals" disappeared from this site overnight, the whining would still go on unabated from the same people.
makes my point. People want to complain, no matter what. If all the atheists and "trolls" and "liberals" disappeared from this site overnight, the whining would still go on unabated from the same people.
Look at your own response, lowdown and dirty, insulting and cowardly.
Let's point out cowardly.
You steal the password of a legit 2004 account in 2016, so your troll BS will seem legit.
Then you do nothin but troll religion threads constantly, though claimin ta be an atheist, who would not be interested in such threads, less that atheist was a lyin POS.
Contribute absolutely nothing to the forum.
Is that representative of religion thread trolls? If so, it should be argued against.
That comes across as delusional.
I don't steal passwords or accounts.
You are off the rails.
Didn't you accuse Starman of doing that?
Or perhaps you imagine only one antagonist who 'stole' multiple accounts?
That's what you call paranoia. Utterly delusional. Please seek professional help.
Starfister's a troll that doesn't try ta hide it, like you do. Least he's? honest bout bein a troll.
Your handle's history is easy for anybody on the fire ta see.
End a 2016, you hacked the account and trolled on nothin but religion threads since.
There for everbody ta see.
You're a sick bastard.
Completely and utterly delusional. Considering your false accusations I'm going to report your post.
Someone new just reading here might think the idea was to drive non believers away.
Sir, respectfully, you start a great many of these threads...knowing ahead of time that once the resident atheists show up...it’s gonna become what it often does. Unfortunately. It’d be no different if one started a thread titled ‘Why are you a Conservative’ and then when the resident liberals showed up it’d turn into the same kinda mess.
Yes, the attacking posts are now as predictable as a summer sunrise, However, I'm not at all certain that the attackers are actually "atheists" as such. To call them that might be giving them more credence than deserved. Obviously, they are seeking to bait Christians and stir animosity - possibly simply because they cannot stand for fellow humans to be secure in such rewarding beliefs when they, themselves, cannot reach that state or condition. Predictable, but maybe not easily understood.
If you started threads with titles like "Why are you an Atheist?" or "Why are you a liberal?" Would they NOT turn into identical messes? You should try it.
We've already ran that experiment.
Second poster was Jax.... Kind of Ironic....
Jax, who complained bitterly about the morality of atheists posting on Christian threads.
One side is trying to shut down debate. One isn't.
You seem to forget the Inquisition and Conquistadors.
Neither exactly brought peace, unless you count the peace of the dead....But Christians believe there is not peace in the afterlife for their victims, but eternal torment.....
You'll never know the peace he's referring to, without changing your ways or HIM opening your eyes, which is why you can't rest without injecting your poison onto Christian threads like a pissant stinging an elephant. You sure are changing a lot of believers minds.
Christianity is based on the words of the gospel authors who wrote about what they heard, and Paul based on his subjective conversion experience.
Christianity is based on legal historical evidence of a risen Jesus Christ. Both protagonists and antagonists wrote about Him. I remember one Caesar claimed Jesus tricked people into believing He had been killed and raised. The problem with that is there were Roman government eye witnesses who saw Jesus dead; and in frustration stabbed Him with a spear. That's why the early manuscripts spread so much. They were read by someone who was a witness or knew someone who was a reliable witness.
I think you may be defining 'legal' somewhat loosely, to put it mildly.
Nobody would define the new testament as a legal document.
You are showing ignorant prejudice here. Do a little reading about Simon Greenleaf. He wrote the rules for evidence that are still being used in courts.
makes my point. People want to complain, no matter what. If all the atheists and "trolls" and "liberals" disappeared from this site overnight, the whining would still go on unabated from the same people.
Let's use the scientific method.
GTFO, and we'll see what happens.
Yup, you just completed the experiment. Hypothesis upheld, null defeated.
makes my point. People want to complain, no matter what. If all the atheists and "trolls" and "liberals" disappeared from this site overnight, the whining would still go on unabated from the same people.
Let's use the scientific method.
GTFO, and we'll see what happens.
Yup, you just completed the experiment. Hypothesis upheld, null defeated.
Some where it is written, "They shall know we are Christians by our love." How about letting that show some?
Not here. Here it is wirtten "They shall show they are campfire citizens by their hate." And so it is.
Based on the response of a few posters on this forum, I get the impression that some Christians embody hate and intolerance.
HE hated Essau. Now I can see why.
Why not start your own thread and see if we interfere? You're too gutless. You'd be embarrassed the haters didnt show up to party. Then, we would know who the haters really are.
Someone new just reading here might think the idea was to drive non believers away.
Sir, respectfully, you start a great many of these threads...knowing ahead of time that once the resident atheists show up...it’s gonna become what it often does. Unfortunately. It’d be no different if one started a thread titled ‘Why are you a Conservative’ and then when the resident liberals showed up it’d turn into the same kinda mess.
Yes, the attacking posts are now as predictable as a summer sunrise, However, I'm not at all certain that the attackers are actually "atheists" as such. To call them that might be giving them more credence than deserved. Obviously, they are seeking to bait Christians and stir animosity - possibly simply because they cannot stand for fellow humans to be secure in such rewarding beliefs when they, themselves, cannot reach that state or condition. Predictable, but maybe not easily understood.
If you started threads with titles like "Why are you an Atheist?" or "Why are you a liberal?" Would they NOT turn into identical messes? You should try it.
We've already ran that experiment.
Second poster was Jax.... Kind of Ironic....
Jax, who complained bitterly about the morality of atheists posting on Christian threads.
One side is trying to shut down debate. One isn't.
Christianity is based on the words of the gospel authors who wrote about what they heard, and Paul based on his subjective conversion experience.
Christianity is based on legal historical evidence of a risen Jesus Christ. Both protagonists and antagonists wrote about Him. I remember one Caesar claimed Jesus tricked people into believing He had been killed and raised. The problem with that is there were Roman government eye witnesses who saw Jesus dead; and in frustration stabbed Him with a spear. That's why the early manuscripts spread so much. They were read by someone who was a witness or knew someone who was a reliable witness.
I think you may be defining 'legal' somewhat loosely, to put it mildly.
Nobody would define the new testament as a legal document.
You are showing ignorant prejudice here. Do a little reading about Simon Greenleaf. He wrote the rules for evidence that are still being used in courts.
Testimony is a form of evidence, but witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Which is why independent corroboration and physical evidence is indispensable, otherwise it's one person's word against another with no way to determine what actually happened.
We don't even have eyewitness accounts in the gospels, nor was Paul aware of some of the gospel stories about Jesus, apparently being later additions.
makes my point. People want to complain, no matter what. If all the atheists and "trolls" and "liberals" disappeared from this site overnight, the whining would still go on unabated from the same people.
Let's use the scientific method.
GTFO, and we'll see what happens.
Yup, you just completed the experiment. Hypothesis upheld, null defeated.
Can't happen, til your troll ass is outta here.
Give peace a chance.
They dont want peace. The babbles of Babylon love misery and strife. They are living proof, misery loves company.
Some where it is written, "They shall know we are Christians by our love." How about letting that show some?
Not here. Here it is wirtten "They shall show they are campfire citizens by their hate." And so it is.
Based on the response of a few posters on this forum, I get the impression that some Christians embody hate and intolerance.
HE hated Essau. Now I can see why.
Why not start your own thread and see if we interfere? You're too gutless. You'd be embarrassed the haters didnt show up to party. Then, we would know who the haters really are.
One was started, and you were the second person to post.
Some where it is written, "They shall know we are Christians by our love." How about letting that show some?
Not here. Here it is wirtten "They shall show they are campfire citizens by their hate." And so it is.
Based on the response of a few posters on this forum, I get the impression that some Christians embody hate and intolerance.
HE hated Essau. Now I can see why.
Why not start your own thread and see if we interfere? You're too gutless. You'd be embarrassed the haters didnt show up to party. Then, we would know who the haters really are.
You were one of the first to respond to the 'why you are not a Christian' thread. That's what you call hypocrisy.
[They dont want peace. The babbles of Babylon love misery and strife. They are living proof, misery loves company.
True, and it's especially pathetic that they have to take advantage of the good nature of Christians to even get civil responses to their trolling.
Like Safariman connin old people outta their money.
They posted in any other type of thread, their bullshit trollin would be called out an exposed in minutes.
But the kindler, gentler nature of Christians, and the good nature of those ready to try and pass along the knowledge that brought belief and contentment to them, allows these trolls to pull that crap.
Pathetic.
But all ya can do is point out the loser trolls for what they are.
Fu, it is written: He is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions.
They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness.
Drive out a scoffer, and strife will go out, and quarreling and abuse will cease.
Whoever loves transgression loves strife; he who makes his door high seeks destruction
makes my point. People want to complain, no matter what. If all the atheists and "trolls" and "liberals" disappeared from this site overnight, the whining would still go on unabated from the same people.
Let's use the scientific method.
GTFO, and we'll see what happens.
Yup, you just completed the experiment. Hypothesis upheld, null defeated.
Can't happen, til your troll ass is outta here.
Give peace a chance.
They dont want peace. The babbles of Babylon love misery and strife. They are living proof, misery loves company.
You and a few others are the one's who seek to shut down discourse with the use of ad Homs and insults. That is your stock in trade, all the while maintaining the pretense of being innocent victims.
You and a few others are the one's who seek to shut down discourse with the use of ad Homs and insults. That is your stock in trade, all the while maintaining the pretense of being innocent victims.
Isn't that what happened when you posted that I was delusional and you were gonna report me for pointin out you are a troll?
You are showing ignorant prejudice here. Do a little reading about Simon Greenleaf. He wrote the rules for evidence that are still being used in courts.
Greenleaf wrote a treatise [on the Law of Evidence] , but his evidence based argument for the resurrection was not tested in a court of law.
ie: Greenleaf applied the evidentiary rules of his day to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and concluded himself, that the admissible evidence emitted thereby was sufficient to prove in any fair court of law that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was indeed fact—not hoax, myth or fiction.
Should we all take the word of one lawyer and and consider nothing else?
How many other lawyers and/or judges have peer reviewed his case for the resurrection offering their independent assessment?
You are showing ignorant prejudice here. Do a little reading about Simon Greenleaf. He wrote the rules for evidence that are still being used in courts.
Greenleaf wrote a treatise, his evidence based argument for the resurrection was not tested in a court of law.
What good did a court of mans law do Jesus? You best worry about purveying your crap in the court of HIS law.
Here's your problem Jag: you're a foul mouthed bigot who tries to pass himself off as a believing Christian. You can't reconcile the contradiction. In other words, you're a fake.
If you believed that, liar, you'd start your on thread and If i tried to derail it you could prove you werent a liar, DBT.
You pricks would crash a birthday party and accuse the hosts of being unfriendly for kicking your low life asses out.
Start your own party. What's wrong with that? No one would show up for you luciferian purveyors of strife to discourse (argue) with.
Except the part where you already did......
You have a memory like Joe Biden.
Can you read? The question was, Why are you a Christian? Of course, Lucifer's minions can crap on anything and get their brownie points for it. Then they can avoid accepting responsibility for their audacity and blame others for their incivility.
We don't even have eyewitness accounts in the gospels, nor was Paul aware of some of the gospel stories about Jesus, apparently being later additions.
Ross Clifford, a former barrister, theologian and affirms the case for the resurrection of Jesus. he has a book "Leading Lawyers' Case for the Resurrection" where he devoted a brief chapter on Greenleaf.
He raises a technical question about the ancient documents rule and suggested that hypothetically a court could admit the gospels as ancient documents, but that does not mean that their specific contents are automatically acknowledged as facts (p. 141).
In Cliffords other book:"Clifford John Warwick Montgomery's Legal Apologetic" ....Clifford states:
"The 'Ancient Documents' rule at common law has traditionally related more to the authentication of the document than with the admissibility of its contents. It does not automatically lead to admission of the substance of the document irrespective of its credibility. The question as to whether the authentication of the gospels under the 'Ancient Documents' rule leads to receiving their substance into evidence is contentious. It could be strongly pleaded there is justification for doing so. Yet, it should be noted such pleading would be met by the adverse party's strong rejoinder" (pp. 60-61 & 63).
Greenleaf argues that in several places there are discrepancies between accounts of Matthew and Mark, as sufficient evidence to destroy the probability that the latter copied from the former. ...But when it comes to the striking coincidences between them,( in style, words, and things in other places) he does not like to attribute such as evidence for the probabilty of one copying the other.
The topic in question (Why are you a Christian?) is in an open forum – nice concise logical question. Non-believers are also entitled to view the postings and are interested in the responses.
Similar to most threads involving religion, somewhere along the line a believer will make comment that their faith is based on proven facts. Non-believers politely ask them to substantiate this statement and basis of their information, out of interest. If a response is provided, the non-believers will point out that these are indeed not facts, with logical reasoning of contradictory information in cases, the more vocal believers get angry, make idle threats, and the scheissefest begins.
Why do those of “faith” argue it to be “fact” when clearly it isn’t – it’s called faith for a reason. Simple guide to the definitions: “Faith” has no proof. Facts can be proved.
I think there’s a lot of brainwashing going on – monkeys believing in ghosts teaching other monkeys to believe in ghosts.
You and a few others are the one's who seek to shut down discourse with the use of ad Homs and insults. That is your stock in trade, all the while maintaining the pretense of being innocent victims.
Isn't that what happened when you posted that I was delusional and you were gonna report me for pointin out you are a troll?
To accuse me of hacking accounts is both false and delusional. Or maybe you are just a plain and simple Idiot. The result is the same whatever the case, you make false accusations.
So either produce the evidence to back your accusations or shut your yap.
The topic in question (Why are you a Christian?) is in an open forum – nice concise logical question. Non-believers are also entitled to view the postings and DERAIL THEM.
Why do those of “faith” argue it to be “fact” when clearly it isn’t – it’s called faith for a reason. Simple guide to the definitions: “Faith” has no proof. Facts can be proved. WHO SAID IT WAS PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT. ARE YOU LYING?
I think there’s a lot of brainwashing going on – monkeys believing in ghosts teaching other monkeys to believe in ghosts.
FIXT. Well, then, start your own thread and see if us monkeys try to convince you of ghosts, liar.
Be easy to prove, just start right up, liar.
I guess you're afraid of us monkeys brain washing you, right? Afraid you're too weak minded to resist and afraid to take the chance? Sure you are. I would be too if I were as half brained as you.
We don't even have eyewitness accounts in the gospels, nor was Paul aware of some of the gospel stories about Jesus, apparently being later additions.
Ross Clifford, a former barrister, theologian and affirms the case for the resurrection of Jesus. he has a book "Leading Lawyers' Case for the Resurrection" where he devoted a brief chapter on Greenleaf.
He raises a technical question about the ancient documents rule and suggested that hypothetically a court could admit the gospels as ancient documents, but that does not mean that their specific contents are automatically acknowledged as facts (p. 141).
In Cliffords other book:"Clifford John Warwick Montgomery's Legal Apologetic" ....Clifford states:
"The 'Ancient Documents' rule at common law has traditionally related more to the authentication of the document than with the admissibility of its contents. It does not automatically lead to admission of the substance of the document irrespective of its credibility. The question as to whether the authentication of the gospels under the 'Ancient Documents' rule leads to receiving their substance into evidence is contentious. It could be strongly pleaded there is justification for doing so. Yet, it should be noted such pleading would be met by the adverse party's strong rejoinder" (pp. 60-61 & 63).
Greenleaf argues that in several places there are discrepancies between accounts of Matthew and Mark, sufficient to destroy the probability that the latter copied from the former..But when it comes to the striking coincidences between them,( in style, words, and things in other places) he does not like to attribute such to one copying the other.
Yes, indeed, but I doubt if our theist friends read the actual wording. Just a word here and there and jump to a conclusion. The mere presence of the term 'legal document' is enough to get them excited.
You and a few others are the one's who seek to shut down discourse with the use of ad Homs and insults. That is your stock in trade, all the while maintaining the pretense of being innocent victims.
Isn't that what happened when you posted that I was delusional and you were gonna report me for pointin out you are a troll?
To accuse me of hacking accounts is both false and delusional. Or maybe you are just a plain and simple Idiot. The result is the same whatever the case, you make false accusations.
So either produce the evidence to back your accusations or shut your yap.
I'm not going to read this Campfire thread. It's like the Bible, we know how it ends.
All the God haters are calling the christians hypocrits and yelling as loud as they can to try to shut them up.
Isn't it ironic how bad they want to post on a Why are you a christian thread?
You are only seeing things from your side, turning a blind eye to the antics of some of the Christians who respond to normal rational questioning in a cowardly abusive manner. Take a good look at the behavior of Jag or Furb and tell me that this is a good example of Christianity
I'm not going to read this Campfire thread. It's like the Bible, we know how it ends.
All the God haters are calling the christians hypocrits and yelling as loud as they can to try to shut them up.
Isn't it ironic how bad they want to post on a Why are you a christian thread?
You are only seeing things from your side, turning a blind eye to the antics of some of the Christians who respond to normal rational questioning in a cowardly abusive manner. Take a good look at the behavior of Jag or Furb and tell me that this is a good example of Christianity
I'm not reading the thread. I already know how it ends. It's always been this way on the campfire.
You and a few others are the one's who seek to shut down discourse with the use of ad Homs and insults. That is your stock in trade, all the while maintaining the pretense of being innocent victims.
Isn't that what happened when you posted that I was delusional and you were gonna report me for pointin out you are a troll?
To accuse me of hacking accounts is both false and delusional. Or maybe you are just a plain and simple Idiot. The result is the same whatever the case, you make false accusations.
So either produce the evidence to back your accusations or shut your yap.
All anybody hasta do is view your post history.
It's there for everbody ta see.
You're a troll.
That's not evidence that I hacked an account to use for trolling. Both accusations are false. The simple fact is that people like you are intolerant when it comes to questioning beliefs.
Either present evidence for your accusations or shut your yap and your childish whining.
Jaq, you are embarrassing yourself. All you've got is name-calling. No arguments, no logic, no facts. Oh, and did I mention that as a Christian you're a fake and a fraud?
The topic in question (Why are you a Christian?) is in an open forum – nice concise logical question. Non-believers are also entitled to view the postings and are interested in the responses.
Similar to most threads involving religion, somewhere along the line a believer will make comment that their faith is based on proven facts. Non-believers politely ask them to substantiate this statement and basis of their information, out of interest. If a response is provided, the non-believers will point out that these are indeed not facts, with logical reasoning of contradictory information in cases, the more vocal believers get angry, make idle threats, and the scheissefest begins.
Why do those of “faith” argue it to be “fact” when clearly it isn’t – it’s called faith for a reason. Simple guide to the definitions: “Faith” has no proof. Facts can be proved.
I think there’s a lot of brainwashing going on – monkeys believing in ghosts teaching other monkeys to believe in ghosts.
But atheism is grounded in faith every bit as much as theism.
I'm not going to read this Campfire thread. It's like the Bible, we know how it ends.
All the God haters are calling the christians hypocrits and yelling as loud as they can to try to shut them up.
Isn't it ironic how bad they want to post on a Why are you a christian thread?
You are only seeing things from your side, turning a blind eye to the antics of some of the Christians who respond to normal rational questioning in a cowardly abusive manner. Take a good look at the behavior of Jag or Furb and tell me that this is a good example of Christianity
Why do you insist we see things from you side? Just because your smarter, more enlightened, more happy, gonna live longer, gonna get more whores? What? Tell us why we must? Why is it required in your feeble mind which cant even understand the OPs thread title? Is the law coming for us? Oh, I'm sure they would if you had your way. You and AS are just like the liebs who vote dimocrap. They cant leave others alone either. It's not enough that they dont want guns. They dont want us having them or polluting cars either.
You're like la Roye and Rollin Blunder and Gayghost. They want us to vote dimocommie. They just know it's the right thing to do. The in thing. They are too stupid to be able to tell us why. They cant tell us why open borders are better, or why muzzy immigration is great, but it is, and they just know it, and they cant standbys choosing a different way.
These antis are doing God’s work without even knowing it. The disgusting nature of this thread motivated me to push a bit harder on a mission that we are working on. I made a couple nice gains on this project today. Thanks guys!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not going to read this Campfire thread. It's like the Bible, we know how it ends.
All the God haters are calling the christians hypocrits and yelling as loud as they can to try to shut them up.
Isn't it ironic how bad they want to post on a Why are you a christian thread?
You are only seeing things from your side, turning a blind eye to the antics of some of the Christians who respond to normal rational questioning in a cowardly abusive manner. Take a good look at the behavior of Jag or Furb and tell me that this is a good example of Christianity
Why do you insist we see things from you side? Just because your smarter, more enlightened, more happy, gonna live longer, gonna get more whores? What? Tell us why we must? Why is it required in your feeble mind which cant even understand the OPs thread title? Is the law coming for us? Oh, I'm sure they would if you had your way. You and AS are just like the liebs who vote dimocrap. They cant leave others alone either. It's not enough that they dont want guns. They dont want us having them or polluting cars either.
You're like la Roye and Rollin Blunder and Gayghost. They want us to vote dimocommie. They just know it's the right thing to do. The in thing. They are too stupid to be able to tell us why. They cant tell us why open borders are better, or why muzzy immigration is great, but it is, and they just know it, and they cant standbys choosing a different way.
Sheesh, you're a dumbass.
Originally Posted by Tarquin
Jaq, you are embarrassing yourself. All you've got is name-calling. No arguments, no logic, no facts. Oh, and did I mention that as a Christian you're a fake and a fraud?
You and a few others are the one's who seek to shut down discourse with the use of ad Homs and insults. That is your stock in trade, all the while maintaining the pretense of being innocent victims.
Isn't that what happened when you posted that I was delusional and you were gonna report me for pointin out you are a troll?
To accuse me of hacking accounts is both false and delusional. Or maybe you are just a plain and simple Idiot. The result is the same whatever the case, you make false accusations.
So either produce the evidence to back your accusations or shut your yap.
All anybody hasta do is view your post history.
It's there for everbody ta see.
You're a troll.
That's not evidence that I hacked an account to use for trolling. Both accusations are false. The simple fact is that people like you are intolerant when it comes to questioning beliefs.
Either present evidence for your accusations or shut your yap and your childish whining.
You're repeatin your whinin.
It's easy ta see.
Since December of 16, 68 pages a nothin but trollin religion threads.
I'm not going to read this Campfire thread. It's like the Bible, we know how it ends.
All the God haters are calling the christians hypocrits and yelling as loud as they can to try to shut them up.
Isn't it ironic how bad they want to post on a Why are you a christian thread?
You are only seeing things from your side, turning a blind eye to the antics of some of the Christians who respond to normal rational questioning in a cowardly abusive manner. Take a good look at the behavior of Jag or Furb and tell me that this is a good example of Christianity
Why do you insist we see things from you side? Just because your smarter, more enlightened, more happy, gonna live longer, gonna get more whores? What? Tell us why we must? Why is it required in your feeble mind which cant even understand the OPs thread title? Is the law coming for us? Oh, I'm sure they would if you had your way. You and AS are just like the liebs who vote dimocrap. They cant leave others alone either. It's not enough that they dont want guns. They dont want us having them or polluting cars either.
You're like la Roye and Rollin Blunder and Gayghost. They want us to vote dimocommie. They just know it's the right thing to do. The in thing. They are too stupid to be able to tell us why. They cant tell us why open borders are better, or why muzzy immigration is great, but it is, and they just know it, and they cant standbys choosing a different way.
Sheesh, you're a dumbass.
What is true has no sides. The world doesn't care for sides. Either that is understood or it is not. The world doesn't cater to anyone's beliefs.....especially not beliefs that are as mixed up and irrational as yours. What you say is a mess.
You and a few others are the one's who seek to shut down discourse with the use of ad Homs and insults. That is your stock in trade, all the while maintaining the pretense of being innocent victims.
Isn't that what happened when you posted that I was delusional and you were gonna report me for pointin out you are a troll?
To accuse me of hacking accounts is both false and delusional. Or maybe you are just a plain and simple Idiot. The result is the same whatever the case, you make false accusations.
So either produce the evidence to back your accusations or shut your yap.
All anybody hasta do is view your post history.
It's there for everbody ta see.
You're a troll.
That's not evidence that I hacked an account to use for trolling. Both accusations are false. The simple fact is that people like you are intolerant when it comes to questioning beliefs.
Either present evidence for your accusations or shut your yap and your childish whining.
You're repeatin your whinin.
It's easy ta see.
Since December of 16, 68 pages a nothin but trollin religion threads.
Sick bastard.
The sick one is the one making accusations they cannot justify. Delusional stories of hacking accounts that have no basis in reality because they are only cooked up in a childish mind. A mind that's only capable of hurling insults and making up false stories.
Jaq, you are embarrassing yourself. All you've got is name-calling. No arguments, no logic, no facts. Oh, and did I mention that as a Christian you're a fake and a fraud?
I'm accusing you of trashing a thread you werent invited into. Of course, that's ok.
Questioning is not trashing. You are doing the trashing. Yet you are totally blind to your own antics. In your eyes, everyone else is to blame. No doubt believing yourself to be a good Christian.
Some where it is written, "They shall know we are Christians by our love." How about letting that show some?
Not here. Here it is wirtten "They shall show they are campfire citizens by their hate." And so it is.
Based on the response of a few posters on this forum, I get the impression that some Christians embody hate and intolerance.
HE hated Essau. Now I can see why.
Why not start your own thread and see if we interfere? You're too gutless. You'd be embarrassed the haters didnt show up to party. Then, we would know who the haters really are.
You were one of the first to respond to the 'why you are not a Christian' thread. That's what you call hypocrisy.
You atheists didnt start it. I just helped get it going for you. You guys were too chicken to post on it.
Jaq, you are embarrassing yourself. All you've got is name-calling. No arguments, no logic, no facts. Oh, and did I mention that as a Christian you're a fake and a fraud?
Judge not least....
I think that just blew out every irony meter on the Planet.
Some where it is written, "They shall know we are Christians by our love." How about letting that show some?
Not here. Here it is wirtten "They shall show they are campfire citizens by their hate." And so it is.
Based on the response of a few posters on this forum, I get the impression that some Christians embody hate and intolerance.
HE hated Essau. Now I can see why.
Why not start your own thread and see if we interfere? You're too gutless. You'd be embarrassed the haters didnt show up to party. Then, we would know who the haters really are.
You were one of the first to respond to the 'why you are not a Christian' thread. That's what you call hypocrisy.
You atheists didnt start it. I just helped get it going for you. You guys were too chicken to post on it.
Can you read the title? It doesn't matter who started it, nor does it matter who participates....that is the point. It is your hypocrisy that's the issue.
I'm not going to read this Campfire thread. It's like the Bible, we know how it ends.
All the God haters are calling the christians hypocrits and yelling as loud as they can to try to shut them up.
Isn't it ironic how bad they want to post on a Why are you a christian thread?
You are only seeing things from your side, turning a blind eye to the antics of some of the Christians who respond to normal rational questioning in a cowardly abusive manner. Take a good look at the behavior of Jag or Furb and tell me that this is a good example of Christianity
As if being a good example would be of any help for you. All you pukes want is to be able to run your shame uninhibited.
You and a few others are the one's who seek to shut down discourse with the use of ad Homs and insults. That is your stock in trade, all the while maintaining the pretense of being innocent victims.
Isn't that what happened when you posted that I was delusional and you were gonna report me for pointin out you are a troll?
To accuse me of hacking accounts is both false and delusional. Or maybe you are just a plain and simple Idiot. The result is the same whatever the case, you make false accusations.
So either produce the evidence to back your accusations or shut your yap.
All anybody hasta do is view your post history.
It's there for everbody ta see.
You're a troll.
That's not evidence that I hacked an account to use for trolling. Both accusations are false. The simple fact is that people like you are intolerant when it comes to questioning beliefs.
Either present evidence for your accusations or shut your yap and your childish whining.
You're repeatin your whinin.
It's easy ta see.
Since December of 16, 68 pages a nothin but trollin religion threads.
Sick bastard.
Yep. Pretty ridiculous. Yea yea, I know... You can post when and where you want to. Whatever.
The sick one is the one making accusations they cannot justify. Delusional stories of hacking accounts...
They cant prove a resurrection, nor can they prove any alleged account hacking.
but they sure do manage to piss everywhere but in the bowl.
He accused me of hacking someones account. I suspect that he might have been thinking of you because he has made that accusation against you.....perhaps he can't tell the difference, it's all just one person to him....or he just gets easily confused, poor child.
After the hack, and page 61, so I don't hafta repeat the insanity any more than necessary:
All the proof needed.
Sick bastard.
For the sake of explaining the obvious to the idiot, at first I was doubtful of posting on religious threads because of the vitriol and hate displayed by Christians on the forum and the lack of moderation....but after a while against my better judgement I decided to jump in the deep end.
Simple as that. Any moderator or website administrator can check the IP address.
What a moron you are Furbarski, and that's putting it mildly.
Instead of weasel worded hypotheticals about what your position might be, why won't you just plainly state it.
It looks as though you don't grasp the potentially exquisite subtleties of the subjunctive case. Too bad. So, as you suggest, here it is in your face. How do you respond to a position such as this:-"God is not interested in the futile human process and search for evidence about God, and not interested in what evidence humans do or do not find."
After the hack, and page 61, so I don't hafta repeat the insanity any more than necessary:
All the proof needed.
Sick bastard.
For the sake of explaining the obvious to the idiot, at first I was doubtful of posting on religious threads because of the vitriol and hate displayed by Christians on the forum and the lack of moderation....but after a while against my better judgement I decided to jump in the deep end.
Simple as that. Any moderator or website administrator can check the IP address.
What a moron you are Furbarski, and that's putting it mildly.
After the hack, and page 61, so I don't hafta repeat the insanity any more than necessary:
All the proof needed.
Sick bastard.
For the sake of explaining the obvious to the idiot, at first I was doubtful of posting on religious threads because of the vitriol and hate displayed by Christians on the forum and the lack of moderation....but after a while against my better judgement I decided to jump in the deep end.
Simple as that. Any moderator or website administrator can check the IP address.
What a moron you are Furbarski, and that's putting it mildly.
Well, that post confirms you're a liar.
Coming from a coward and a cretin, your opinion is less than worthless. It doesnt look like either of you have a clue about what is or isn't evidence. Just because I avoided religious threads at the start is not evidence that I hacked someone's account.
...at first I was doubtful of posting on religious threads because of the vitriol and hate displayed by Christians on the forum...
Originally Posted by DBT
Idiot.
Originally Posted by DBT
Grow a brain.
Originally Posted by DBT
What a moron you are...
Originally Posted by DBT
Coming from a coward and a cretin...
Originally Posted by DBT
For the sake of explaining the obvious to the idiot...
Originally Posted by DBT
...your opinion is less than worthless...
Originally Posted by DBT
A genuine La La Land, padded room candidate.
laffin’
What can you do, they are making false accusations, accepting no explanations...which means they are A Grade Idiots. Half a brain should tell them that IP address can be checked, and if I had hacked someone's account they could report it to the forum administrators to deal with....but they don't have half a functional brain to share between them.
As for you, you think that your side hurling insults and false accusations is fine, but if I or someone happens to retaliate, well, that's unacceptable. A double standard. The hypocrisy of some Christians knows no bounds.
...at first I was doubtful of posting on religious threads because of the vitriol and hate displayed by Christians on the forum...
Originally Posted by DBT
Idiot.
Originally Posted by DBT
Grow a brain.
Originally Posted by DBT
What a moron you are...
Originally Posted by DBT
Coming from a coward and a cretin...
Originally Posted by DBT
For the sake of explaining the obvious to the idiot...
Originally Posted by DBT
...your opinion is less than worthless...
Originally Posted by DBT
A genuine La La Land, padded room candidate.
laffin’
What can you do, they are making false accusations, accepting no explanations...which means they are A Grade Idiots. Half a brain should tell them that IP address can be checked, and if I had hacked someone's account they could report it to the forum administrators to deal with....but they don't have half a functional brain to share between them.
As for you, you think that your side hurling insults and false accusations is fine, but if I or someone happens to retaliate, well, that's unacceptable. A double standard. The hypocrisy of some Christians knows no bounds.
That's all they can do now - their feeble brains can't fathom logic in a reasonable discussion so this is what they have to resort to.
Some where it is written, "They shall know we are Christians by our love." How about letting that show some?
Not here. Here it is wirtten "They shall show they are campfire citizens by their hate." And so it is.
Based on the response of a few posters on this forum, I get the impression that some Christians embody hate and intolerance.
I had a friend who was a fanatical Christian. She claimed she could see auras around people. She said the nice people had white or light colors and she knew they would be nice to be around. She also went on to tell me the place where she saw the black and brown auras were in churches.
Christianity is based on the words of the gospel authors who wrote about what they heard, and Paul based on his subjective conversion experience.
Christianity is based on legal historical evidence of a risen Jesus Christ. Both protagonists and antagonists wrote about Him. I remember one Caesar claimed Jesus tricked people into believing He had been killed and raised. The problem with that is there were Roman government eye witnesses who saw Jesus dead; and in frustration stabbed Him with a spear. That's why the early manuscripts spread so much. They were read by someone who was a witness or knew someone who was a reliable witness.
I think you may be defining 'legal' somewhat loosely, to put it mildly.
Nobody would define the new testament as a legal document.
You are showing ignorant prejudice here. Do a little reading about Simon Greenleaf. He wrote the rules for evidence that are still being used in courts.
Testimony is a form of evidence, but witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Which is why independent corroboration and physical evidence is indispensable, otherwise it's one person's word against another with no way to determine what actually happened.
We don't even have eyewitness accounts in the gospels, nor was Paul aware of some of the gospel stories about Jesus, apparently being later additions.
You apparently never read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They are filled with eyewitness testimony. According to William F. Albright the entire New Testament was finished prior to the year 70. He was not a Christian. So, again you are mistaken.
Some where it is written, "They shall know we are Christians by our love." How about letting that show some?
Not here. Here it is wirtten "They shall show they are campfire citizens by their hate." And so it is.
Based on the response of a few posters on this forum, I get the impression that some Christians embody hate and intolerance.
I had a friend who was a fanatical Christian. She claimed she could see auras around people. She said the nice people had white or light colors and she knew they would be nice to be around. She also went on to tell me the place where she saw the black and brown auras were in churches.
Do you have an independent verification of her claims that you can provide?
Christianity is based on the words of the gospel authors who wrote about what they heard, and Paul based on his subjective conversion experience.
Christianity is based on legal historical evidence of a risen Jesus Christ. Both protagonists and antagonists wrote about Him. I remember one Caesar claimed Jesus tricked people into believing He had been killed and raised. The problem with that is there were Roman government eye witnesses who saw Jesus dead; and in frustration stabbed Him with a spear. That's why the early manuscripts spread so much. They were read by someone who was a witness or knew someone who was a reliable witness.
I think you may be defining 'legal' somewhat loosely, to put it mildly.
Nobody would define the new testament as a legal document.
You are showing ignorant prejudice here. Do a little reading about Simon Greenleaf. He wrote the rules for evidence that are still being used in courts.
Testimony is a form of evidence, but witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Which is why independent corroboration and physical evidence is indispensable, otherwise it's one person's word against another with no way to determine what actually happened.
We don't even have eyewitness accounts in the gospels, nor was Paul aware of some of the gospel stories about Jesus, apparently being later additions.
You apparently never read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They are filled with eyewitness testimony. According to William F. Albright the entire New Testament was finished prior to the year 70. He was not a Christian. So, again you are mistaken.
Except the Gospels are all anonymous, written in the third person, and none claim to be eyewitness accounts.
A true atheist would not care at all if someone else believed in a non-existent god.
I do not know or care about things that I have no interest in at all, and I don't try to make laws and rules to keep other people from dealing with them. If I don't believe in Irish Leprechauns I would not go out of my way to criminalize other people who like the idea, even if they truly believed in them. I would not care at all because I truly don't believe in them.
However many atheists do try to force their "lack of belief" on others in every way they can, which suggests to me that actually Do believe in God and the simply hate Him. They claim to not believe in a righteous God, but the truth is they do believe in Him at their core --- and they hate Him deeply.
A true artiest would not believe in god at all and there fore would not be moved at all by the nonexistence of something... but would also realize that a belief in a god of righteousness would be a very good thing for a society to believe in.
Many 'atheists' say they are “educated” and that’s because they may have read a few “collage level books”, (also written by atheists) but ignore the fact that most of the book written in the past 6 centuries for college level studies were not written by atheists at all.
We should look at true history and see where such a godless belief system always leads.
Hitler was an atheist Mao Zedong was too So was Stalin. Pol Pot was an atheist.
And many many more.
Some will state that their parents taught you the difference between right and wrong.
How do we know they were right----- and Hitler was wrong?
If there is no god, there is no such thing as “wrong"! Survival of the Fittest means simply means “might makes right”
What we are told in school about the so called "law of nature" says it's not only not wrong for the cat to eat the mouse, it's expected and it's right. And I would agree with that statement. But I also believe that man is NOT just another evolved animal and the atheist does. I believe mankind was made in the image of God.
You may not murder someone for $10, but another atheist may, and he may want to make you that victim. And if he has the power to do it he therefore has the right to do it according to the belief of “Might makes Right.” Which is the core of atheism no matter what lies the atheist tries to use to cover that fact up. Not all atheists will murder but atheism is the idea that it's fine to murder if you can get away with it and there in NO arguing with that fact. Murder, lying theft, adultery, selfishness and harming others for fun are all protected under atheism as long as the one doing them can get away with them.
And what what’s “wrong’ with any of that, according to pure atheism?
If the argument is that summed up that right and wrong come from the consensus of opinion, and that killing someone to get paid $10 from your boss is wrong, then is killing many people while wearing a uniform for big money and to obtain land for your boss right? Why is it not OK to kill one man for $10, but it is ok to kill thousands because "they are in the way of "progress" OK? Hey, you and your kind have guns and guns in the hands of common citizens may prevent an easy communist take-over, so there is nothing wrong with killing you all.................if that is what is "needed' by the "leaders" You that embrace atheism as is your right, seem to be too uneducated to see the facts or too proud and dishonest to admit that thousands of years of history many be right and you may be wrong. The atheist squirms and lies at this point, but there is no logical way for him to counter this point, so at this point he attacks his opponent. (stand by in the coming posts to see this as it certainly will)
So is argument for atheism; "If he or she can get away with it, it would not be wrong, because it’s not wrong for a lion to kill a deer and to only eat the liver. It's nature. You are just an evolved animal." Right? Or Wrong?
Or could there be more…………????????????
Dear reader, Do you know everything?
I’d bet you are honest enough to say you don’t know everything. OK…………………………………...do you know ½ of everything?
If you don’t possess ½ of ALL the knowledge in the whole universe, it’s then possible God may exist in the other half. Right?
My point is this; Learn a bit about this issue as you would any field of study that will make a difference in your life before you make a judgment. If you were going into electronic engineering I am SURE you’d want to learn about electricity first. Right?
We should learn a bit about the topic first before voicing an opinion based in nothing but feelings. This is just wise council and good advice.
I was never an atheist, but I used to be somewhere between an agnostic and a deist.
When I got serious enough to devote only about 4 hours to the study of the facts, I became a Christian.
I have never been sorry.
Maybe you..dear reader are smarter then these folks and maybe you know 100% of everything. So I leave you to be that smart.
But for anyone else, it may be worth your time to learn a bit more. Try these few little videos and try to see another prospective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xou0JGUYIjg >>> Q&A This one is the longest and is outstanding for those that need answers ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
They believe God exists and hate Him for some reason or another and to spite Him they try to turn his believers against Him, just as Lucifer does, though he believes in God also.
When I remarked that they were doing no good in changing any believers mind about their belief, which one said he thought he was? Proof their business is to spite God who they profess doesnt exist.
I’d bet you are honest enough to say you don’t know everything. OK…………………………………...do you know ½ of everything?
I one time had a boss who told me he knew a lot and never made a mistake. I walked over to the wall about eight or ten feet away and put a dot on the grinding room wall with my pen. Then I stepped back and asked, "Can you see the dot?" "No," he responded. "That dot represents your knowledge. The whole wall represents available knowledge. You know nothing at all."
I got fired. Sometimes I wonder just how smart I am.
They believe God exists and hate Him for some reason or another and to spite Him they try to turn his believers against Him, just as Lucifer does, though he believes in God also.
When I remarked that they were doing no good in changing any believers mind about their belief, which one said he thought he was? Proof their business is to spite God who they profess doesnt exist.
Is not that the unforgivable sin of blasphemy.
fixt
So, now I pose a question, since these guys have APPARENTLY committed blasphemy, can their eyes be opened and they still be saved?
I wonder, was Paul just a Christian persecutor or was he a blasphemer?
I don't mean to be argumentative but Hitler was a Catholic, not an atheist. He said so many times. And he just didn't murder all those people by himself. He had a lot of help, mostly from various Christians, if they even knew what Christianity was.
Here's the stuff I don't understand.
If God was an all-powerful god, creator of all the universe, etc., why would he torture his own son to death to remove the sins of he world anyway. Seems very evil and cruel. He just could have snapped his fingers instead. Ok, ok, "God moves in mysterious ways." If that's true, why does anyone call God a loving god?
And if the crucifixion is such a big deal, what about the tens of thousands of other people that the Romans crucified and otherwise murdered? Why was that?
And if the purpose was to "take away the sin of the world," why did the sins apparently go on just as much as before? Consider, for example, the sack of Rome in 1527 AD and torturing civilians to death. The German Landsknecht (Protestants) teamed up with Catholics from Spain to do that.
And why did the authors of the New Testament (Acts, etc.) repeatedly claim that the second coming would be in their own lifetimes? It wasn't, so the Bible cannot be entirely inerrant.
Not accusing anyone of hacking or trying to dis your beliefs, but these inconsistencies bother me about Christian theology. Can anyone explain them?
I’m curious why you figure that anyone who sees the hypocrisy of ‘some’ (note some) of the more outspoken’christians’ here and speaks up is an atheist?
Hello again antelope_sniper, did your eyesight fail again - did you miss this reply and inquiry? Or, are you avoiding it?
Originally Posted by CCCC
Originally Posted by CCCC
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Instead of weasel worded hypotheticals about what your position might be, why won't you just plainly state it.
It looks as though you don't grasp the potentially exquisite subtleties of the subjunctive case. Too bad. So, as you suggest, here it is in your face. How do you respond to a position such as this:-"God is not interested in the futile human process and search for evidence about God, and not interested in what evidence humans do or do not find."
I’m curious why you figure that anyone who sees the hypocrisy of ‘some’ (note some) of the more outspoken’christians’ here and speaks up is an atheist?
Hello again antelope_sniper, did your eyesight fail again - did you miss this reply and inquiry? Or, are you avoiding it?
Originally Posted by CCCC
Originally Posted by CCCC
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Instead of weasel worded hypotheticals about what your position might be, why won't you just plainly state it.
It looks as though you don't grasp the potentially exquisite subtleties of the subjunctive case. Too bad. So, as you suggest, here it is in your face. How do you respond to a position such as this:-"God is not interested in the futile human process and search for evidence about God, and not interested in what evidence humans do or do not find."
I missed nothing.
I called you out for the game you were playing, what you call the "exquisite subtleties" where you attempt to state a position, but claim it's not really your position, so you can play gotcha games later on.
Let me know when you are done with that tactic, and we can continue your discussion.
Absolutely not. It does, however, lend itself to how much credibility I give to the individual in question. I don’t mind a guy like TLee (notice how he isn’t around much anymore) or Dogszapper or Wabi taking me to task on certain moral issues. I’m damn sure not going to listen to a whole bunch of other folks on this thread.
...so the Bible cannot be entirely inerrant... Can anyone explain...
Good afternoon. My thoughts on the above... I do not believe that Jesus is bound by the covers of a book. Nor do I believe that following Jesus requires an inerrant Bible. The Bible is ‘not’ the foundation of the Christian faith. It wasn’t for early first century Christians (when the Bible didn’t even exist), and it’s not now. The Bible exists ‘because of’ Christianity, Christianity does ‘not’ exist ‘because of’ the Bible. *Jesus’ Resurrection is ‘the’ foundation of the Christian faith.* Christianity would ‘still’ be true even if there were no Bibles and no manuscripts. Jesus’ most devout first century followers never owned a Bible, never read a Bible...because there was no Bible to be had or read. And they never held a Bible because there was no Bible until the fourth century.
...so the Bible cannot be entirely inerrant... Can anyone explain...
Good afternoon. My thoughts on the above... I do not believe that Jesus is bound by the covers of a book. Nor do I believe that following Jesus requires an inerrant Bible. The Bible is ‘not’ the foundation of the Christian faith. It wasn’t for early first century Christians (when the Bible didn’t even exist), and it’s not now. The Bible exists ‘because of’ Christianity, Christianity does ‘not’ exist ‘because of’ the Bible. *Jesus’ Resurrection is ‘the’ foundation of the Christian faith.* Christianity would ‘still’ be true even if there were no Bibles and no manuscripts. Jesus’ most devout first century followers never owned a Bible, never read a Bible...because there was no Bible to be had or read. And they never held a Bible because there was no Bible until the fourth century.
In your view was the Crucifixion and Resurrection a literal historical event on this Earth, or does it matter if it wasn't?
IndyCA35 - I ‘do’ believe that the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus are literal historical events on this Earth. And to me, the faith of Christianity is anchored to, and based upon, the ‘event’ of the Resurrection.
I don't mean to be argumentative but Hitler was a Catholic, not an atheist. He said so many times. And he just didn't murder all those people by himself. He had a lot of help, mostly from various Christians, if they even knew what Christianity was.
Here's the stuff I don't understand.
If God was an all-powerful god, creator of all the universe, etc., why would he torture his own son to death to remove the sins of he world anyway. Seems very evil and cruel. He just could have snapped his fingers instead. Ok, ok, "God moves in mysterious ways." If that's true, why does anyone call God a loving god?
And if the crucifixion is such a big deal, what about the tens of thousands of other people that the Romans crucified and otherwise murdered? Why was that?
And if the purpose was to "take away the sin of the world," why did the sins apparently go on just as much as before? Consider, for example, the sack of Rome in 1527 AD and torturing civilians to death. The German Landsknecht (Protestants) teamed up with Catholics from Spain to do that.
And why did the authors of the New Testament (Acts, etc.) repeatedly claim that the second coming would be in their own lifetimes? It wasn't, so the Bible cannot be entirely inerrant.
Not accusing anyone of hacking or trying to dis your beliefs, but these inconsistencies bother me about Christian theology. Can anyone explain them?
I can try. Christians worship a Triune God. That means He is made up of 3 parts: God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There was a huge amount of sin in the world , always has been and always will be until He returns and it will be dealt with then. So God needed a way to cover up the sin by giving people something simple to believe in. In the past with the Jews, God allowed them to cover their sin with sacrifices. Different sins required different sacrifices with the most serious ones requiring a blood offering from doves, lambs and bulls, to name a few. They had to be without spot or blemish. Jesus had no sin, and He would be the sacrifice. Believing in Him earned Grace from the Father and the sin was covered. Some people find that belief hard, others don't. One thing is, is free. So God the Son became flesh. Flesh He would surrender to the cross and show those what He was prepared to do to win our salvation from sin. The evil and cruel was not due to God but to mankind who put Christ on that cross. God loved us so much He was ready to suffer and die as a total innocent, so we might live with Him forever. Sorry I couldn't handle that one with a few words. I've pared it down about as much as I could. There are many things worth knowing to understand how God laid this all out.
As to why the Romans crucified people, it was the worst death they knew of and did that to keep people in line. Humans are evil when left to do whatever they will.
It was to take away the sins of the world, but the way it was done was to blot them out. God knew humans were incapable of never sinning again. But by believing in Jesus and His sacrifice on the cross as the blood covering for your sins and you can go through life essentially sinless as far as God is concerned. You will still sin. We all do and will, but the blood of Christ covers that sin so it can no longer been seen by God.
The Apostles, authors of the New Testament, believed Jesus was coming quickly because Jesus said he was. Thing was, they operated from the standpoint of time in this world and He operated in Eternity in Heaven.
In your view was the Crucifixion and Resurrection a literal historical event on this Earth, or does it matter if it wasn't?
most scholars agree the cross symbol was not used by early christians. so raises the question did such event happen as described.
Originally Posted by antlers
The Bible exists ‘because of’ Christianity, Christianity does ‘not’ exist ‘because of’ the Bible... ...Jesus’ most devout first century followers never owned a Bible, never read a Bible...
To people that never witnessed such a Jesus, he became real/implanted in their minds only because of oral tradition and creeds, some which found way into Bible.
Originally Posted by RickyD
As to why the Romans crucified people, it was the worst death they knew of and did that to keep people in line.
As you do with others things Roman, You lack proper knowledge and give poor explanation of why Romans crucified.
Unlike Roman citizens, the status of an ordinary Jew in a Roman province was rather low. Crucifxion woud be meted out to non-Romans rather commonly and with relative ease.- basically -- those without civil rights; be it a slave, criminal, political or religious agitator, pirate, ...could qualify for crucifixion
JC received the legal punishment for capital offenses against the state by a non-citizen. ie: had he been born to a Roman citizen, Christians woud have needed a different narrative as to his fate.
Thinking today about the two thieves on either side of Jesus, one asked Jesus to remember him when He came into His kingdom. Even at that last moment, just asking while believing was enough for Jesus to promise the thief Paradise.
I'll pray for all the we are living with Our Lord in Paradise when the day comes.
You apparently never read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They are filled with eyewitness testimony. According to William F. Albright the entire New Testament was finished prior to the year 70.
Except the Gospels are all anonymous, written in the third person, and none claim to be eyewitness accounts.
Ringo also needs to consider average life expectancy in 1st century Judea. and how old any such puported witnesses were at the time of alleged events.
No christian seems able to come up with an impartial reliable source detailing how many actual verifiable witnesses there were of worthwhile repute.
Further; Romans were constantly very watchful of events in insurrection prone Judea and they were meticulous record keepers...iF a man that had been killed by crucifixion was then found/widely reported to be walking around the province for 40 days after his death , surely it would arouse much interest and investigation by the Romans?
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by Ringman
I had a friend who was a fanatical Christian. She claimed she could see auras around people.
Do you have an independent verification of her claims that you can provide?
We well know what 'fanatical' grade CF christians claim to see and hear.
You apparently never read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They are filled with eyewitness testimony. According to William F. Albright the entire New Testament was finished prior to the year 70.
Except the Gospels are all anonymous, written in the third person, and none claim to be eyewitness accounts.
Ringo also needs to consider average life expectancy in 1st century Judea. and how old any such puported witnesses were at the time of alleged events.
No christian seems able to come up with an impartial reliable source detailing how many actual verifiable witnesses there were of worthwhile repute.
Further; Romans were constantly very watchful of events in insurrection prone Judea and they were meticulous record keepers....iF a man that had killed through crucifixion was then found/widely reported to be walking around the province for 40 days after his death , surely it would arouse much interest and investigation by the Romans?
Josephus records the trials and tribulations of several Jewish Messianic figures of the time. It's interesting to note that several of alleged Gospel accounts see to be lifted from these accounts in Josephus.
...so the Bible cannot be entirely inerrant... Can anyone explain...
Good afternoon. My thoughts on the above... I do not believe that Jesus is bound by the covers of a book. Nor do I believe that following Jesus requires an inerrant Bible. The Bible is ‘not’ the foundation of the Christian faith. It wasn’t for early first century Christians (when the Bible didn’t even exist), and it’s not now. The Bible exists ‘because of’ Christianity, Christianity does ‘not’ exist ‘because of’ the Bible. *Jesus’ Resurrection is ‘the’ foundation of the Christian faith.* Christianity would ‘still’ be true even if there were no Bibles and no manuscripts. Jesus’ most devout first century followers never owned a Bible, never read a Bible...because there was no Bible to be had or read. And they never held a Bible because there was no Bible until the fourth century.
Originally Posted by antlers
IndyCA35 - I ‘do’ believe that the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus are literal historical events on this Earth. And to me, the faith of Christianity is anchored to, and based upon, the ‘event’ of the Resurrection.
Antlers,
I will give you this. Yours is an uncommon understanding of Christianity. You're skeptical enough of the recorded human claims that you are willing to question moral proclamations that see silly, or overly self serving to the authors. This is a good bulwark against you blindly following your religion down an immoral path. Additionally, I don't think you can be accused of blindly following some religious leader, since I'm now aware of any preaching your personal brand of your Faith.
Josephus records the trials and tribulations of several Jewish Messianic figures of the time. It's interesting to note that several of alleged Gospel accounts see to be lifted from these accounts in Josephus.
Josephus wrote in 75 and 93-94 AD, but Ringo claims the entire N.T. to be completed prior 70 AD.
Josephus has the death of James being by stoning Acts 12:2 has the death of James being by sword 2nd-century church chronicler Hegesippus,..has James being clubbed to death.
...at first I was doubtful of posting on religious threads because of the vitriol and hate displayed by Christians on the forum...
Originally Posted by DBT
Idiot.
Originally Posted by DBT
Grow a brain.
Originally Posted by DBT
What a moron you are...
Originally Posted by DBT
Coming from a coward and a cretin...
Originally Posted by DBT
For the sake of explaining the obvious to the idiot...
Originally Posted by DBT
...your opinion is less than worthless...
Originally Posted by DBT
A genuine La La Land, padded room candidate.
Originally Posted by DBT
...they are A Grade Idiots.
Originally Posted by DBT
The hypocrisy of some Christians knows no bounds.
’still laffin’ and smh
So in your book the aggressor is the innocent one...and anyone retaliating in self defense is the guilty party?
Good Christians are always the hard done by innocent victim regardless of how reprehensible they act, obnoxious, spewing hate, but innocent and pure as little lambs.....God forbid that anyone calls them an idiot.
Christianity is based on the words of the gospel authors who wrote about what they heard, and Paul based on his subjective conversion experience.
Christianity is based on legal historical evidence of a risen Jesus Christ. Both protagonists and antagonists wrote about Him. I remember one Caesar claimed Jesus tricked people into believing He had been killed and raised. The problem with that is there were Roman government eye witnesses who saw Jesus dead; and in frustration stabbed Him with a spear. That's why the early manuscripts spread so much. They were read by someone who was a witness or knew someone who was a reliable witness.
I think you may be defining 'legal' somewhat loosely, to put it mildly.
Nobody would define the new testament as a legal document.
You are showing ignorant prejudice here. Do a little reading about Simon Greenleaf. He wrote the rules for evidence that are still being used in courts.
Testimony is a form of evidence, but witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Which is why independent corroboration and physical evidence is indispensable, otherwise it's one person's word against another with no way to determine what actually happened.
We don't even have eyewitness accounts in the gospels, nor was Paul aware of some of the gospel stories about Jesus, apparently being later additions.
You apparently never read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They are filled with eyewitness testimony. According to William F. Albright the entire New Testament was finished prior to the year 70. He was not a Christian. So, again you are mistaken.
Actually they are not....the authors are not eyewitnesses, they simply write about the things they were told.
Christianity is based on the words of the gospel authors who wrote about what they heard, and Paul based on his subjective conversion experience.
Christianity is based on legal historical evidence of a risen Jesus Christ. Both protagonists and antagonists wrote about Him. I remember one Caesar claimed Jesus tricked people into believing He had been killed and raised. The problem with that is there were Roman government eye witnesses who saw Jesus dead; and in frustration stabbed Him with a spear. That's why the early manuscripts spread so much. They were read by someone who was a witness or knew someone who was a reliable witness.
I think you may be defining 'legal' somewhat loosely, to put it mildly.
Nobody would define the new testament as a legal document.
You are showing ignorant prejudice here. Do a little reading about Simon Greenleaf. He wrote the rules for evidence that are still being used in courts.
Testimony is a form of evidence, but witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Which is why independent corroboration and physical evidence is indispensable, otherwise it's one person's word against another with no way to determine what actually happened.
We don't even have eyewitness accounts in the gospels, nor was Paul aware of some of the gospel stories about Jesus, apparently being later additions.
You apparently never read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They are filled with eyewitness testimony. According to William F. Albright the entire New Testament was finished prior to the year 70. He was not a Christian. So, again you are mistaken.
Actually they are not....the authors are not eyewitnesses, they simply write about the things they were told.
Pray tell, how do you know this? You read this from someone who was knew those guys? Your blind faith is most impressive!
Christianity is based on the words of the gospel authors who wrote about what they heard, and Paul based on his subjective conversion experience.
Christianity is based on legal historical evidence of a risen Jesus Christ. Both protagonists and antagonists wrote about Him. I remember one Caesar claimed Jesus tricked people into believing He had been killed and raised. The problem with that is there were Roman government eye witnesses who saw Jesus dead; and in frustration stabbed Him with a spear. That's why the early manuscripts spread so much. They were read by someone who was a witness or knew someone who was a reliable witness.
I think you may be defining 'legal' somewhat loosely, to put it mildly.
Nobody would define the new testament as a legal document.
You are showing ignorant prejudice here. Do a little reading about Simon Greenleaf. He wrote the rules for evidence that are still being used in courts.
Testimony is a form of evidence, but witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Which is why independent corroboration and physical evidence is indispensable, otherwise it's one person's word against another with no way to determine what actually happened.
We don't even have eyewitness accounts in the gospels, nor was Paul aware of some of the gospel stories about Jesus, apparently being later additions.
You apparently never read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They are filled with eyewitness testimony. According to William F. Albright the entire New Testament was finished prior to the year 70. He was not a Christian. So, again you are mistaken.
Actually they are not....the authors are not eyewitnesses, they simply write about the things they were told.
Pray tell, how do you know this? You read this from someone who was knew those guys? Your blind faith is most impressive!
I read the history of the gospels from reputable academic sources. You should try it.
Hello again antelope_sniper, did your eyesight fail again - did you miss this reply and inquiry? Or, are you avoiding it?
Originally Posted by CCCC
Originally Posted by CCCC
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Instead of weasel worded hypotheticals about what your position might be, why won't you just plainly state it.
It looks as though you don't grasp the potentially exquisite subtleties of the subjunctive case. Too bad. So, as you suggest, here it is in your face. How do you respond to a position such as this:-"God is not interested in the futile human process and search for evidence about God, and not interested in what evidence humans do or do not find."
I missed nothing. I called you out for the game you were playing, what you call the "exquisite subtleties" where you attempt to state a position, but claim it's not really your position, so you can play gotcha games later on. Let me know when you are done with that tactic, and we can continue your discussion.
Hey AS - no "attempt" - it is right there - directly above in bold - and still you are dodging. Muster some courage.
"How do you respond to a position such as this:-"God is not interested in the futile human process and search for evidence about God, and not interested in what evidence humans do or do not find."
It sounds like religious followers trying to shut down debate and discourage people from asking questions they can't answer. In doing so, they are claiming to know his mind, and speak for the alleged god.
In order for a god to care, it must first exist, so unless the followers can produce sufficient evidence for their alleged god, why should anyone care about their self serving claims?
I don't mean to be argumentative but Hitler was a Catholic, not an atheist. He said so many times. And he just didn't murder all those people by himself. He had a lot of help, mostly from various Christians, if they even knew what Christianity was.
Here's the stuff I don't understand.
If God was an all-powerful god, creator of all the universe, etc., why would he torture his own son to death to remove the sins of he world anyway. Seems very evil and cruel. He just could have snapped his fingers instead. Ok, ok, "God moves in mysterious ways." If that's true, why does anyone call God a loving god?
And if the crucifixion is such a big deal, what about the tens of thousands of other people that the Romans crucified and otherwise murdered? Why was that?
And if the purpose was to "take away the sin of the world," why did the sins apparently go on just as much as before? Consider, for example, the sack of Rome in 1527 AD and torturing civilians to death. The German Landsknecht (Protestants) teamed up with Catholics from Spain to do that.
And why did the authors of the New Testament (Acts, etc.) repeatedly claim that the second coming would be in their own lifetimes? It wasn't, so the Bible cannot be entirely inerrant.
Not accusing anyone of hacking or trying to dis your beliefs, but these inconsistencies bother me about Christian theology. Can anyone explain them?
I can try. Christians worship a Triune God. That means He is made up of 3 parts: God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There was a huge amount of sin in the world , always has been and always will be until He returns and it will be dealt with then. So God needed a way to cover up the sin by giving people something simple to believe in. In the past with the Jews, God allowed them to cover their sin with sacrifices. Different sins required different sacrifices with the most serious ones requiring a blood offering from doves, lambs and bulls, to name a few. They had to be without spot or blemish. Jesus had no sin, and He would be the sacrifice. Believing in Him earned Grace from the Father and the sin was covered. Some people find that belief hard, others don't. One thing is, is free. So God the Son became flesh. Flesh He would surrender to the cross and show those what He was prepared to do to win our salvation from sin. The evil and cruel was not due to God but to mankind who put Christ on that cross. God loved us so much He was ready to suffer and die as a total innocent, so we might live with Him forever. Sorry I couldn't handle that one with a few words. I've pared it down about as much as I could. There are many things worth knowing to understand how God laid this all out.
As to why the Romans crucified people, it was the worst death they knew of and did that to keep people in line. Humans are evil when left to do whatever they will.
It was to take away the sins of the world, but the way it was done was to blot them out. God knew humans were incapable of never sinning again. But by believing in Jesus and His sacrifice on the cross as the blood covering for your sins and you can go through life essentially sinless as far as God is concerned. You will still sin. We all do and will, but the blood of Christ covers that sin so it can no longer been seen by God.
The Apostles, authors of the New Testament, believed Jesus was coming quickly because Jesus said he was. Thing was, they operated from the standpoint of time in this world and He operated in Eternity in Heaven.
The Apostles were not the authors of the gospels. The Gospels clearly state that Jesus promised to return in power in order to usher in the kingdom of god on earth and judge mankind within the lifetime of the first generation of Christians.
Maybe there's a witch hunt in progress for hackers, anyone who argues against the accepted teachings is a hacker, apparently. The hunt for hackers is in full swing, look out hackers.
If its clearly stated, how come no one can see it but you?
Ok, I'll play:
''But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.“ (Matthew 24: 25-34)
“Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven. Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place…“ (Mark 13:26-30)
If its clearly stated, how come no one can see it but you?
Ok, I'll play:
''But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.“ (Matthew 24: 25-34)
“Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven. Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place…“ (Mark 13:26-30)
You have a tough time with context. The generation that experiences the tribulation will not pass before Jesus returns.
If its clearly stated, how come no one can see it but you?
Ok, I'll play:
''But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.“ (Matthew 24: 25-34)
“Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven. Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place…“ (Mark 13:26-30)
You have a tough time with context. The generation that experiences the tribulation will not pass before Jesus returns.
Rich,
That's perhaps your most absurd apologetic to date.
"How do you respond to a position such as this:-"God is not interested in the futile human process and search for evidence about God, and not interested in what evidence humans do or do not find."It sounds like religious followers trying to shut down debate and discourage people from asking questions they can't answer. In doing so, they are claiming to know his mind, and speak for the alleged god. In order for a god to care, it must first exist, so unless the followers can produce sufficient evidence for their alleged god, why should anyone care about their self serving claims?
Well, good that you finally responded in that it can be helpful to understand what that condition "sounds like" to a person of your position - how a person like you thinks. It is telling that you immediately ascribe that very viable concept to a conscious negative agenda on the part of '"religious followers" - acting as if you know what those followers are thinking, claiming and trying to do - where you have absolutely no evidence of that - zero evidence. And, this by the guy/gal who preaches the alleged sacredness of evidence as the basis for "knowing". Is this glaring inconsistency a hallmark of your logic system?. Some would call this a "laffin" moment if it were not so sad. Since you act as if you can read minds (and maybe souls) over the internet, why not state your guess on what "religious followers" are thinking about your behavior there? I would guess that God is not interested in or concerned with such feeble human behaviors.
If its clearly stated, how come no one can see it but you?
Ok, I'll play:
''But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.“ (Matthew 24: 25-34)
“Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven. Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place…“ (Mark 13:26-30)
If its clearly stated, how come no one can see it but you?
Ok, I'll play:
''But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.“ (Matthew 24: 25-34)
“Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven. Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place…“ (Mark 13:26-30)
You have a tough time with context. The generation that experiences the tribulation will not pass before Jesus returns.
That is a rather inventive interpretation, given that the words clearly state that this generation, some of those standing before Jesus, will be alive to witness the promised return in power as described. Which is precisely what the first generation of Christians believed.
If its clearly stated, how come no one can see it but you?
Ok, I'll play:
''But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.“ (Matthew 24: 25-34)
“Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven. Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place…“ (Mark 13:26-30)
You have a tough time with context. The generation that experiences the tribulation will not pass before Jesus returns.
Rich,
That's perhaps your most absurd apologetic to date.
I don't think that rather than reading what the words actually say,, he is seeing what he wants the words to say.
If its clearly stated, how come no one can see it but you?
Ok, I'll play:
''But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.“ (Matthew 24: 25-34)
“Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven. Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place…“ (Mark 13:26-30)
You have a tough time with context. The generation that experiences the tribulation will not pass before Jesus returns.
That is a rather inventive interpretation, given that the words clearly state that this generation, some of those standing before Jesus, will be alive to witness the promised return in power as described. Which is precisely what the first generation of Christians believed.
Because they didn't get it any better than you does not make your interpretation correct.
If its clearly stated, how come no one can see it but you?
Ok, I'll play:
''But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.“ (Matthew 24: 25-34)
“Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven. Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place…“ (Mark 13:26-30)
You have a tough time with context. The generation that experiences the tribulation will not pass before Jesus returns.
That is a rather inventive interpretation, given that the words clearly state that this generation, some of those standing before Jesus, will be alive to witness the promised return in power as described. Which is precisely what the first generation of Christians believed.
Because they didn't get it any better than you does not make your interpretation correct.
It's not my interpretation. It is what the words and verses say. The verses describe an event and give the timeline for when that event is to happen.....within the lifetime of those standing there.
Simple as that. An event is described and a timeline given.
I don't mean to be argumentative but Hitler was a Catholic, not an atheist. He said so many times. And he just didn't murder all those people by himself. He had a lot of help, mostly from various Christians, if they even knew what Christianity was.
Here's the stuff I don't understand.
If God was an all-powerful god, creator of all the universe, etc., why would he torture his own son to death to remove the sins of he world anyway. Seems very evil and cruel. He just could have snapped his fingers instead. Ok, ok, "God moves in mysterious ways." If that's true, why does anyone call God a loving god?
And if the crucifixion is such a big deal, what about the tens of thousands of other people that the Romans crucified and otherwise murdered? Why was that?
And if the purpose was to "take away the sin of the world," why did the sins apparently go on just as much as before? Consider, for example, the sack of Rome in 1527 AD and torturing civilians to death. The German Landsknecht (Protestants) teamed up with Catholics from Spain to do that.
And why did the authors of the New Testament (Acts, etc.) repeatedly claim that the second coming would be in their own lifetimes? It wasn't, so the Bible cannot be entirely inerrant.
Not accusing anyone of hacking or trying to dis your beliefs, but these inconsistencies bother me about Christian theology. Can anyone explain them?
I can try. Christians worship a Triune God. That means He is made up of 3 parts: God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There was a huge amount of sin in the world , always has been and always will be until He returns and it will be dealt with then. So God needed a way to cover up the sin by giving people something simple to believe in. In the past with the Jews, God allowed them to cover their sin with sacrifices. Different sins required different sacrifices with the most serious ones requiring a blood offering from doves, lambs and bulls, to name a few. They had to be without spot or blemish. Jesus had no sin, and He would be the sacrifice. Believing in Him earned Grace from the Father and the sin was covered. Some people find that belief hard, others don't. One thing is, is free. So God the Son became flesh. Flesh He would surrender to the cross and show those what He was prepared to do to win our salvation from sin. The evil and cruel was not due to God but to mankind who put Christ on that cross. God loved us so much He was ready to suffer and die as a total innocent, so we might live with Him forever. Sorry I couldn't handle that one with a few words. I've pared it down about as much as I could. There are many things worth knowing to understand how God laid this all out.
As to why the Romans crucified people, it was the worst death they knew of and did that to keep people in line. Humans are evil when left to do whatever they will.
It was to take away the sins of the world, but the way it was done was to blot them out. God knew humans were incapable of never sinning again. But by believing in Jesus and His sacrifice on the cross as the blood covering for your sins and you can go through life essentially sinless as far as God is concerned. You will still sin. We all do and will, but the blood of Christ covers that sin so it can no longer been seen by God.
The Apostles, authors of the New Testament, believed Jesus was coming quickly because Jesus said he was. Thing was, they operated from the standpoint of time in this world and He operated in Eternity in Heaven.
Pretty well stated Brother Rick. Amen! For once, I have nothing substantial to add.
If its clearly stated, how come no one can see it but you?
Oh thats easy, DBT has simply demonstrated a complete outsider can crack the Bible code. A capability supposedly only meant for innitiation process spirit channeling pesher cult christians... which really takes the shine off the marketing hype/ facade of a christian being exclusive part of an inner circle arcane knowledge brotherhood.
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by Ringman
...
rather than reading what the words actually say,, he is seeing what he wants the words to say.
rather sure Ringo has since read and understood the peer review of Mr.Greenleafs 'Gospels as legal evidence' by a fellow theologian lawyer. .. A subject Ringo seems not to want to talk about anymore.
The are ethical problems with heaven and hell theology.
There are bigger problems with calling into question the means of a sovereign & righteous God too, but since you think it all an inane fairytale it’s baffling why you’d continue the conversation.
The are ethical problems with heaven and hell theology.
There are bigger problems with calling into question the means of a sovereign & righteous God too, but since you think it all an inane fairytale it’s baffling why you’d continue the conversation.
Me thinks you doth protest too much...
Yet you are the one doing the protesting. As for calling into question the righteousness or sovereignty of God...It first has to be established that a God exists.
In regard to righteousness of the God of the bible, that can be examined by reading what the bible says about its God.
[/quote] As for calling into question the righteousness or sovereignty of God...It first has to be established that a God exists. In regard to righteousness of the God of the bible, that can be examined by reading what the bible says about its God.[/quote]
God exist?....it's a fifty fifty chance....either God is or God is not...I do believe God does exist because when I die and then find out there really is something on the other side of the grave, whew, glory to God, as I tried to do the best I could all my life.
God exist?....it's a fifty fifty chance....either God is or God is not...I do believe God does exist because when I die and then find out there really is something on the other side of the grave, whew, glory to God, as I tried to do the best I could all my life.
How do you calculate 50/50 chance? And why the God of the bible rather than Brahman the creative principle of Hinduism, for example?
Isn't it 50/50 between those two options without even considering any number of other possibilities?
If its clearly stated, how come no one can see it but you?
Ok, I'll play:
''But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.“ (Matthew 24: 25-34)
“Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven. Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place…“ (Mark 13:26-30)
You have a tough time with context. The generation that experiences the tribulation will not pass before Jesus returns.
That is a rather inventive interpretation, given that the words clearly state that this generation, some of those standing before Jesus, will be alive to witness the promised return in power as described. Which is precisely what the first generation of Christians believed.
Because they didn't get it any better than you does not make your interpretation correct.
It's not my interpretation. It is what the words and verses say. The verses describe an event and give the timeline for when that event is to happen.....within the lifetime of those standing there.
Simple as that. An event is described and a timeline given.
You are like pre-tribulation rapture folks. You want It to say something It doesn't and stick with it.
As for calling into question the righteousness or sovereignty of God...It first has to be established that a God exists. In regard to righteousness of the God of the bible, that can be examined by reading what the bible says about its God.
God exist?....it's a fifty fifty chance....either God is or God is not...I do believe God does exist because when I die and then find out there really is something on the other side of the grave, whew, glory to God, as I tried to do the best I could all my life.[/quote]
Doing good to impress God is of absolutely now value. One need to accept God's Gift of His Son. Jesus says, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except by Me."
Uncovering actual history requires rigorous investigation, faith does not. Faith allows one to believe whatever happens to be appealing.
You show us daily your faith in non-rigorous investigation.
You make daily affirmations of your faith without regard to what is being said. Always focussing on the poster while studiously avoiding debate on the topic.
"How do you respond to a position such as this:-"God is not interested in the futile human process and search for evidence about God, and not interested in what evidence humans do or do not find."It sounds like religious followers trying to shut down debate and discourage people from asking questions they can't answer. In doing so, they are claiming to know his mind, and speak for the alleged god. In order for a god to care, it must first exist, so unless the followers can produce sufficient evidence for their alleged god, why should anyone care about their self serving claims?
Well, good that you finally responded in that it can be helpful to understand what that condition "sounds like" to a person of your position - how a person like you thinks. It is telling that you immediately ascribe that very viable concept to a conscious negative agenda on the part of '"religious followers" - acting as if you know what those followers are thinking, claiming and trying to do - where you have absolutely no evidence of that - zero evidence. And, this by the guy/gal who preaches the alleged sacredness of evidence as the basis for "knowing". Is this glaring inconsistency a hallmark of your logic system?. Some would call this a "laffin" moment if it were not so sad. Since you act as if you can read minds (and maybe souls) over the internet, why not state your guess on what "religious followers" are thinking about your behavior there? I would guess that God is not interested in or concerned with such feeble human behaviors.
The whole premise of your argument is that no one is allowed to question your presupposition that your god exists, because he doesn't' want us to. It's a sophisticated version of "shut the phhuck up, theist don't care about your logic'. As such, it demonstrates the desperate nature of your argument.
As for calling into question the righteousness or sovereignty of God...It first has to be established that a God exists. In regard to righteousness of the God of the bible, that can be examined by reading what the bible says about its God.
God exist?....it's a fifty fifty chance....either God is or God is not...I do believe God does exist because when I die and then find out there really is something on the other side of the grave, whew, glory to God, as I tried to do the best I could all my life.
Doing good to impress God is of absolutely now value. One need to accept God's Gift of His Son. Jesus says, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except by Me." [/quote] I'm not trying to impress Him....I do absolutely believe in His gift to us...it just took time for me in starting out believing there is a God....it was the fifty fifty chance there was a God that initially drew me in and now I am ALL in.....
As for calling into question the righteousness or sovereignty of God...It first has to be established that a God exists. In regard to righteousness of the God of the bible, that can be examined by reading what the bible says about its God.
God exist?....it's a fifty fifty chance....either God is or God is not...I do believe God does exist because when I die and then find out there really is something on the other side of the grave, whew, glory to God, as I tried to do the best I could all my life.
Doing good to impress God is of absolutely now value. One need to accept God's Gift of His Son. Jesus says, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except by Me."
I'm not trying to impress Him....I do absolutely believe in His gift to us...it just took time for me in starting out believing there is a God....it was the fifty fifty chance there was a God that initially drew me in and now I am ALL in..... [/quote]
I believe 100% that God wants us to serve others, and serve I will.
God exist?....it's a fifty fifty chance....either God is or God is not...I do believe God does exist because when I die and then find out there really is something on the other side of the grave, whew, glory to God, as I tried to do the best I could all my life.
How do you calculate 50/50 chance? And why the God of the bible rather than Brahman the creative principle of Hinduism, for example?
Isn't it 50/50 between those two options without even considering any number of other possibilities?
Imagine a 6 sided die with an X on one side and the rest blank.
The only two possible results are X or blank, but the odd of getting an X are not 50/50, they are 1 in 6.
Bayesian analysis isn't just a combination of 50/50 outcomes.
God exist?....it's a fifty fifty chance....either God is or God is not...I do believe God does exist because when I die and then find out there really is something on the other side of the grave, whew, glory to God, as I tried to do the best I could all my life.
How do you calculate 50/50 chance? And why the God of the bible rather than Brahman the creative principle of Hinduism, for example?
Isn't it 50/50 between those two options without even considering any number of other possibilities?
Imagine a 6 sided die with an X on one side and the rest blank.
The only two possible results are X or blank, but the odd of getting an X are not 50/50, they are 1 in 6.
Bayesian analysis isn't just a combination of 50/50 outcomes.
Sorry...I don't get it....either there is or there is not a God...seems like that is 50/50 to me....
God exist?....it's a fifty fifty chance....either God is or God is not...I do believe God does exist because when I die and then find out there really is something on the other side of the grave, whew, glory to God, as I tried to do the best I could all my life.
How do you calculate 50/50 chance? And why the God of the bible rather than Brahman the creative principle of Hinduism, for example?
Isn't it 50/50 between those two options without even considering any number of other possibilities?
Imagine a 6 sided die with an X on one side and the rest blank.
The only two possible results are X or blank, but the odd of getting an X are not 50/50, they are 1 in 6.
Bayesian analysis isn't just a combination of 50/50 outcomes.
Sorry...I don't get it....either there is or there is not a God...seems like that is 50/50 to me....
Either there is, or there is not a billion dollars in my bank account.
By your reasoning, because this is a binary choice, by chances of being a billionaire are 50/50.
However, there's only about 2,500 billionaires in a world of 7.5 billion people, so the odds are actually 1 in 3 million.
This is just one example of how a binary choice doesn't necessarily translate to even odds.
God exist?....it's a fifty fifty chance....either God is or God is not...I do believe God does exist because when I die and then find out there really is something on the other side of the grave, whew, glory to God, as I tried to do the best I could all my life.
How do you calculate 50/50 chance? And why the God of the bible rather than Brahman the creative principle of Hinduism, for example?
Isn't it 50/50 between those two options without even considering any number of other possibilities?
Imagine a 6 sided die with an X on one side and the rest blank.
The only two possible results are X or blank, but the odd of getting an X are not 50/50, they are 1 in 6.
Bayesian analysis isn't just a combination of 50/50 outcomes.
Sorry...I don't get it....either there is or there is not a God...seems like that is 50/50 to me....
If a god, which god? There are many versions to choose from. Plus, there are multiple possibilities that do not involve a God....countless quantum simulated 'universes' being generated by super advanced civilizations, for example.
God exist?....it's a fifty fifty chance....either God is or God is not...I do believe God does exist because when I die and then find out there really is something on the other side of the grave, whew, glory to God, as I tried to do the best I could all my life.
How do you calculate 50/50 chance? And why the God of the bible rather than Brahman the creative principle of Hinduism, for example?
Isn't it 50/50 between those two options without even considering any number of other possibilities?
Imagine a 6 sided die with an X on one side and the rest blank.
The only two possible results are X or blank, but the odd of getting an X are not 50/50, they are 1 in 6.
Bayesian analysis isn't just a combination of 50/50 outcomes.
Sorry...I don't get it....either there is or there is not a God...seems like that is 50/50 to me....
If a god, which god? There are many versions to choose from. Plus, there are multiple possibilities that do not involve a God....countless quantum simulated 'universes' being generated by super advanced civilizations, for example.
God is God....you fill in the blank as to who what you call Him....
God exist?....it's a fifty fifty chance....either God is or God is not...I do believe God does exist because when I die and then find out there really is something on the other side of the grave, whew, glory to God, as I tried to do the best I could all my life.
How do you calculate 50/50 chance? And why the God of the bible rather than Brahman the creative principle of Hinduism, for example?
Isn't it 50/50 between those two options without even considering any number of other possibilities?
Imagine a 6 sided die with an X on one side and the rest blank.
The only two possible results are X or blank, but the odd of getting an X are not 50/50, they are 1 in 6.
Bayesian analysis isn't just a combination of 50/50 outcomes.
Sorry...I don't get it....either there is or there is not a God...seems like that is 50/50 to me....
If a god, which god? There are many versions to choose from. Plus, there are multiple possibilities that do not involve a God....countless quantum simulated 'universes' being generated by super advanced civilizations, for example.
God is God....you fill in the blank as to who what you call Him....
It's not that simple.
The vast majority of Theistic systems are mutually exclusive. As an example Muslims and Christians each believe the other is going to Hell, as do Mormons and Catholics.
There's over 4,000 religions, with many subdivision. Christianity has over 30,000 sects. If all the other 4k religions were as fractionated as Christianity, your looking at 120,000,000 million, mostly mutually exclusive variants of potential afterlives.
So, by that math, your chances of choosing correctly are 1 in 120 million, not 1 in 2.
So you better hurry up and convert to Hinduism so you don't end up in Naraka.
Thank you Doc. I hope, and pray we can do some good works as we are told to do. The non believers on this forum can't be any tougher than cannibals in dark Africa.
Do we have a tally of how many members have given their life to Christ since this thread started? Someone other than the Lord all Mighty has to be keeping track, no?
Thank you Doc. I hope, and pray we can do some good works as we are told to do. The non believers on this forum can't be any tougher than cannibals in dark Africa.
Wabigoon,
If you know the history of the Belgium Christians in the Congo and the millions they killed, you wouldn't be using that example.
Thank you Doc. I hope, and pray we can do some good works as we are told to do. The non believers on this forum can't be any tougher than cannibals in dark Africa.
Wabigoon,
If you know the history of the Belgium Christians in the Congo and the millions they killed, you wouldn't be using that example.
AS, indulge me a little on this...I find history very interesting 😎
You make daily affirmations of your faith without regard to what is being said. Always focussing on the poster while studiously avoiding debate on the topic.
You and I are exactly the same. You believe what you read is factual. I have been on both side and know I am right.
Wabi, remember that HE came to bring peace to the hearts of believers only, and not for the earth.
33But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven. 34Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.…
God exist?....it's a fifty fifty chance....either God is or God is not...I do believe God does exist because when I die and then find out there really is something on the other side of the grave, whew, glory to God, as I tried to do the best I could all my life.
How do you calculate 50/50 chance? And why the God of the bible rather than Brahman the creative principle of Hinduism, for example?
Isn't it 50/50 between those two options without even considering any number of other possibilities?
Imagine a 6 sided die with an X on one side and the rest blank.
The only two possible results are X or blank, but the odd of getting an X are not 50/50, they are 1 in 6.
Bayesian analysis isn't just a combination of 50/50 outcomes.
Sorry...I don't get it....either there is or there is not a God...seems like that is 50/50 to me....
If a god, which god? There are many versions to choose from. Plus, there are multiple possibilities that do not involve a God....countless quantum simulated 'universes' being generated by super advanced civilizations, for example.
God is God....you fill in the blank as to who what you call Him....
It's not that simple.
The vast majority of Theistic systems are mutually exclusive. As an example Muslims and Christians each believe the other is going to Hell, as do Mormons and Catholics.
There's over 4,000 religions, with many subdivision. Christianity has over 30,000 sects. If all the other 4k religions were as fractionated as Christianity, your looking at 120,000,000 million, mostly mutually exclusive variants of potential afterlives.
So, by that math, your chances of choosing correctly are 1 in 120 million, not 1 in 2.
So you better hurry up and convert to Hinduism so you don't end up in Naraka.
As I said before God is God no matter what label you put on Him...it is still ...there is or there is not....50/50
You may well be correct Doc, I recall something bout being fishers of men. I say often, I ain;t so smart.
Spreading the good news to those with no knowledge other than innate, not to save the minions of Satan. God has not revealed Himself to them, as He didnt to Pharaoh.
God is God....you fill in the blank as to who what you call Him....
Not really. God is just a word to which people apply their own ideas. The God of Hinduism, Brahman, is nothing like the God of the bible. The two descriptions, the bible and the Gita, are not compatible.
Thank you Doc. I hope, and pray we can do some good works as we are told to do. The non believers on this forum can't be any tougher than cannibals in dark Africa.
Wabigoon,
If you know the history of the Belgium Christians in the Congo and the millions they killed, you wouldn't be using that example.
AS, indulge me a little on this...I find history very interesting 😎
You make daily affirmations of your faith without regard to what is being said. Always focussing on the poster while studiously avoiding debate on the topic.
You and I are exactly the same. You believe what you read is factual. I have been on both side and know I am right.
I have no belief about how the universe came to be. I am questioning those who do claim to know. The two are not the same. You are equivocating.
Albert Einstein although Jewish attended a catholic school. He came to conclusion that Judeo/Christianity is just a load of primitive superstitious hogwash.
Even christians have described him to be one of smartest persons ever.... but Ringo obviously thinks he's got something over Einstein.
"How do you respond to a position such as this:-"God is not interested in the futile human process and search for evidence about God, and not interested in what evidence humans do or do not find."It sounds like religious followers trying to shut down debate and discourage people from asking questions they can't answer. In doing so, they are claiming to know his mind, and speak for the alleged god. In order for a god to care, it must first exist, so unless the followers can produce sufficient evidence for their alleged god, why should anyone care about their self serving claims?
Well, good that you finally responded in that it can be helpful to understand what that condition "sounds like" to a person of your position - how a person like you thinks. It is telling that you immediately ascribe that very viable concept to a conscious negative agenda on the part of '"religious followers" - acting as if you know what those followers are thinking, claiming and trying to do - where you have absolutely no evidence of that - zero evidence. And, this by the guy/gal who preaches the alleged sacredness of evidence as the basis for "knowing". Is this glaring inconsistency a hallmark of your logic system?. Some would call this a "laffin" moment if it were not so sad. Since you act as if you can read minds (and maybe souls) over the internet, why not state your guess on what "religious followers" are thinking about your behavior there? I would guess that God is not interested in or concerned with such feeble human behaviors.
The whole premise of your argument is that no one is allowed to question your presupposition that your god exists, because he doesn't' want us to. It's a sophisticated version of "shut the phhuck up, theist don't care about your logic'. As such, it demonstrates the desperate nature of your argument.
Indeed. you exhibit a sad case. You are still trying to pretend that you can dictate the thoughts and intent of another person in order to create some straw man against which you might argue. You attempt to tell someone else what they are trying to do and why, yet you do this without a shred of the precious "evidence" that is so key to your positioning. That is lame, and your description of my alleged "premise" is dead wrong. I have and make no argument here and you cannot identify any such argument. My purpose has been to ask cogent questions and to expose your posturing. Furthermore, you now have stooped to posting base vulgarity. Is this frankness frustrating?
Albert Einstein although Jewish attended a catholic school. He came to conclusion that Judeo/Christianity is just a load of primitive superstitious hogwash.
Even christians have described him to be one of smartest persons ever.... but Ringo obviously thinks he's got something over Einstein.
So when Al said, "God does not play dice with the universe" he was tacitly expressing his belief in a deity or was wrong in his concept of quantum mechanics. Brilliant.
Albert Einstein although Jewish attended a catholic school. He came to conclusion that Judeo/Christianity is just a load of primitive superstitious hogwash.
Even christians have described him to be one of smartest persons ever.... but Ringo obviously thinks he's got something over Einstein.
So when Al said, "God does not play dice with the universe" he was tacitly expressing his belief in a deity or was wrong in his concept of quantum mechanics. Brilliant.
Einstein was good when he stayed in his lane.
The god of Einstein is not the God of Christianity;
''Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood. Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza. He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve.''
'' Einstein did have views about God, but he was a physicist, not a moral philosopher, and, along with a tendency to make gnomic utterances—“God does not play dice with the universe” is his best-known aperçu on the topic—he seems to have held a standard belief for a scientist of his generation. He regarded organized religion as a superstition, but he believed that, by means of scientific inquiry, a person might gain an insight into the exquisite rationality of the world’s structure...”
The atheists have tried hard to promote “their religion” in this thread and have shown much truth to this scripture:
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 6:12)
I started reading this discussion believing that Yeshua (Jesus) was who he said he was, son of man , prophet, rabbi (teacher), savior. And that Paul was a fraud corrupting Jesus' teachings and directing people through the wide gate down the broad path to destruction. Jesus' purported friends accepting and promoting Paul's teachings do great damage. Paul and Jesus cannot be reconciled. Without Paul the "Christain" church would never have been able to justify its atrocities and power over the secular affairs of government. I'm still where I was in my original beliefs but I don't blame non believers for not accepting the Jesus represented here.
God is God....you fill in the blank as to who what you call Him....
Not really. God is just a word to which people apply their own ideas. The God of Hinduism, Brahman, is nothing like the God of the bible. The two descriptions, the bible and the Gita, are not compatible.
You make daily affirmations of your faith without regard to what is being said. Always focussing on the poster while studiously avoiding debate on the topic.
You and I are exactly the same. You believe what you read is factual. I have been on both side and know I am right.
I have no belief about how the universe came to be. I am questioning those who do claim to know. The two are not the same. You are equivocating.
I don't believe you. Or your are insane. You come here and argue against Christians because you don't have a belief. You need help.
God is God....you fill in the blank as to who what you call Him....
Not really. God is just a word to which people apply their own ideas. The God of Hinduism, Brahman, is nothing like the God of the bible. The two descriptions, the bible and the Gita, are not compatible.
That is true but god is still what people call "their God or entity", their name of their entity as to how they were raised to believe....I was raised as Catholic...i believe in God and in Jesus Christ....that's all I meant.
Hey, fellow believers, all who want us to jump onto an atheist or Satanic worshipping or witchcraft website so we can derail their internet conversations and tell them how they are all going to hell, say I.
I started reading this discussion believing that Yeshua (Jesus) was who he said he was, son of man , prophet, rabbi (teacher), savior. And that Paul was a fraud corrupting Jesus' teachings and directing people through the wide gate down the broad path to destruction. Jesus' purported friends accepting and promoting Paul's teachings do great damage. Paul and Jesus cannot be reconciled. Without Paul the "Christain" church would never have been able to justify its atrocities and power over the secular affairs of government. I'm still where I was in my original beliefs but I don't blame non believers for not accepting the Jesus represented here.
Hastings,
Consider this. Of the Canonical writings, best we can tell, those of Paul were written first. The Gospels can later, the simplest version with the most geographical and cultural mistakes, and simplest Jesus, Mark came first, followed by the later, more embellished versions.
By this measure, the "authentic" writing of "Paul" are more foundations to Christianity then the Gospels.
We also have later forgeries attributed to "Paul" which attempted to "correct: some of "Paul's" earlier writing, such as he egalitarian views of women.
And yes, there's much between the two versions of Christianity that cannot be reconciled. Paul was way more Gnostic than most Modern Christians realize.
The atheists have tried hard to promote “their religion” in this thread and have shown much truth to this scripture:
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 6:12)
You are equating us with "against the rulers of the darkness of this age", and "spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places"?
"How do you respond to a position such as this:-"God is not interested in the futile human process and search for evidence about God, and not interested in what evidence humans do or do not find."It sounds like religious followers trying to shut down debate and discourage people from asking questions they can't answer. In doing so, they are claiming to know his mind, and speak for the alleged god. In order for a god to care, it must first exist, so unless the followers can produce sufficient evidence for their alleged god, why should anyone care about their self serving claims?
Well, good that you finally responded in that it can be helpful to understand what that condition "sounds like" to a person of your position - how a person like you thinks. It is telling that you immediately ascribe that very viable concept to a conscious negative agenda on the part of '"religious followers" - acting as if you know what those followers are thinking, claiming and trying to do - where you have absolutely no evidence of that - zero evidence. And, this by the guy/gal who preaches the alleged sacredness of evidence as the basis for "knowing". Is this glaring inconsistency a hallmark of your logic system?. Some would call this a "laffin" moment if it were not so sad. Since you act as if you can read minds (and maybe souls) over the internet, why not state your guess on what "religious followers" are thinking about your behavior there? I would guess that God is not interested in or concerned with such feeble human behaviors.
The whole premise of your argument is that no one is allowed to question your presupposition that your god exists, because he doesn't' want us to. It's a sophisticated version of "shut the phhuck up, theist don't care about your logic'. As such, it demonstrates the desperate nature of your argument.
Indeed. you exhibit a sad case. You are still trying to pretend that you can dictate the thoughts and intent of another person in order to create some straw man against which you might argue. You attempt to tell someone else what they are trying to do and why, yet you do this without a shred of the precious "evidence" that is so key to your positioning. That is lame, and your description of my alleged "premise" is dead wrong. I have and make no argument here and you cannot identify any such argument. My purpose has been to ask cogent questions and to expose your posturing. Furthermore, you now have stooped to posting base vulgarity. Is this frankness frustrating?
CCCC,
Let's convert your argument into the form of a syllogism.
Premise one: God exists.
Premise two: God is not interested in the futile human process and search for evidence about God, and not interested in what evidence humans do or do not find.
Conclusion: Therefore, humans should not apply the principles of reason and logic to Christian God claims and just accept that The Christian God exists.
This is your argument.
At best, it's a completely illogical circular argument, at worst, it's exactly what I called it. A dishonest attempt by Christians to prevent the asking of questions they cannot answer.
"On February 13, 1633, Italian philosopher, astronomer and mathematician Galileo Galilei arrives in Rome to face charges of heresy for advocating Copernican theory, which holds that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Galileo officially faced the Roman Inquisition in April of that same year and agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence. Put under house arrest indefinitely by Pope Urban VIII, Galileo spent the rest of his days at his villa in Arcetri, near Florence, before dying on January 8, 1642."
"How do you respond to a position such as this:-"God is not interested in the futile human process and search for evidence about God, and not interested in what evidence humans do or do not find."It sounds like religious followers trying to shut down debate and discourage people from asking questions they can't answer. In doing so, they are claiming to know his mind, and speak for the alleged god. In order for a god to care, it must first exist, so unless the followers can produce sufficient evidence for their alleged god, why should anyone care about their self serving claims?
Well, good that you finally responded in that it can be helpful to understand what that condition "sounds like" to a person of your position - how a person like you thinks. It is telling that you immediately ascribe that very viable concept to a conscious negative agenda on the part of '"religious followers" - acting as if you know what those followers are thinking, claiming and trying to do - where you have absolutely no evidence of that - zero evidence. And, this by the guy/gal who preaches the alleged sacredness of evidence as the basis for "knowing". Is this glaring inconsistency a hallmark of your logic system?. Some would call this a "laffin" moment if it were not so sad. Since you act as if you can read minds (and maybe souls) over the internet, why not state your guess on what "religious followers" are thinking about your behavior there? I would guess that God is not interested in or concerned with such feeble human behaviors.
The whole premise of your argument is that no one is allowed to question your presupposition that your god exists, because he doesn't' want us to. It's a sophisticated version of "shut the phhuck up, theist don't care about your logic'. As such, it demonstrates the desperate nature of your argument.
Indeed. you exhibit a sad case. You are still trying to pretend that you can dictate the thoughts and intent of another person in order to create some straw man against which you might argue. You attempt to tell someone else what they are trying to do and why, yet you do this without a shred of the precious "evidence" that is so key to your positioning. That is lame, and your description of my alleged "premise" is dead wrong. I have and make no argument here and you cannot identify any such argument. My purpose has been to ask cogent questions and to expose your posturing. Furthermore, you now have stooped to posting base vulgarity. Is this frankness frustrating?
CCCC, Let's convert your argument into the form of a syllogism. Premise one: God exists.Premise two: God is not interested in the futile human process and search for evidence about God, and not interested in what evidence humans do or do not find.Conclusion: Therefore, humans should not apply the principles of reason and logic to Christian God claims and just accept that The Christian God exists. This is your argument. At best, it's a completely illogical circular argument, at worst, it's exactly what I called it. A dishonest attempt by Christians to prevent the asking of questions they cannot answer.
AS - let's not, because it would be dumb to waste more time and effort on your phony game. You assume and try to state "my argument" even though I HAVE MADE NO ARGUMENT - for you need to stage an argument of your liking (a straw man) so that you can work your methods. No argument -I merely stated a condition and asked your response - thinking that you might try to reply based on "evidence" - your stated coin of the realm for your position and beliefs. Nope - no evidence came back from "Mr. Evidence" - just merely your own assumptions and assignations about "religious followers with no evidence to support your assertions about them. You are exposed. You abandoned your base. There is no point in one trying to have an honest discussion with a pretender. I don't know what or if God thinks about human efforts to prove or disprove His existence, and my ignorance of that does not bother me. Phonies trying to game others regarding God are not even entertaining, and certainly not worth my simple human time. Done here.
"How do you respond to a position such as this:-"God is not interested in the futile human process and search for evidence about God, and not interested in what evidence humans do or do not find."It sounds like religious followers trying to shut down debate and discourage people from asking questions they can't answer. In doing so, they are claiming to know his mind, and speak for the alleged god. In order for a god to care, it must first exist, so unless the followers can produce sufficient evidence for their alleged god, why should anyone care about their self serving claims?
Well, good that you finally responded in that it can be helpful to understand what that condition "sounds like" to a person of your position - how a person like you thinks. It is telling that you immediately ascribe that very viable concept to a conscious negative agenda on the part of '"religious followers" - acting as if you know what those followers are thinking, claiming and trying to do - where you have absolutely no evidence of that - zero evidence. And, this by the guy/gal who preaches the alleged sacredness of evidence as the basis for "knowing". Is this glaring inconsistency a hallmark of your logic system?. Some would call this a "laffin" moment if it were not so sad. Since you act as if you can read minds (and maybe souls) over the internet, why not state your guess on what "religious followers" are thinking about your behavior there? I would guess that God is not interested in or concerned with such feeble human behaviors.
The whole premise of your argument is that no one is allowed to question your presupposition that your god exists, because he doesn't' want us to. It's a sophisticated version of "shut the phhuck up, theist don't care about your logic'. As such, it demonstrates the desperate nature of your argument.
Indeed. you exhibit a sad case. You are still trying to pretend that you can dictate the thoughts and intent of another person in order to create some straw man against which you might argue. You attempt to tell someone else what they are trying to do and why, yet you do this without a shred of the precious "evidence" that is so key to your positioning. That is lame, and your description of my alleged "premise" is dead wrong. I have and make no argument here and you cannot identify any such argument. My purpose has been to ask cogent questions and to expose your posturing. Furthermore, you now have stooped to posting base vulgarity. Is this frankness frustrating?
CCCC, Let's convert your argument into the form of a syllogism. Premise one: God exists.Premise two: God is not interested in the futile human process and search for evidence about God, and not interested in what evidence humans do or do not find.Conclusion: Therefore, humans should not apply the principles of reason and logic to Christian God claims and just accept that The Christian God exists. This is your argument. At best, it's a completely illogical circular argument, at worst, it's exactly what I called it. A dishonest attempt by Christians to prevent the asking of questions they cannot answer.
AS - let's not, because it would be dumb to waste more time and effort on your phony game. You assume and try to state "my argument" even though I HAVE MADE NO ARGUMENT - for you need to stage an argument of your liking (a straw man) so that you can work your methods. No argument -I merely stated a condition and asked your response - thinking that you might try to reply based on "evidence" - your stated coin of the realm for your position and beliefs. Nope - no evidence came back from "Mr. Evidence" - just merely your own assumptions and assignations about "religious followers with no evidence to support your assertions about them. You are exposed. You abandoned your base. There is no point in one trying to have an honest discussion with a pretender. I don't know what or if God thinks about human efforts to prove or disprove His existence, and my ignorance of that does not bother me. Phonies trying to game others regarding God are not even entertaining, and certainly not worth my simple human time. Done here.
Now you are just being dishonest.
I expect better from you.
I believe you are a better man than what you've displayed in this thread.
Please come back when you what to have an honest discussion.
I started reading this discussion believing that Yeshua (Jesus) was who he said he was, son of man , prophet, rabbi (teacher), savior. And that Paul was a fraud corrupting Jesus' teachings and directing people through the wide gate down the broad path to destruction. Jesus' purported friends accepting and promoting Paul's teachings do great damage. Paul and Jesus cannot be reconciled. Without Paul the "Christain" church would never have been able to justify its atrocities and power over the secular affairs of government. I'm still where I was in my original beliefs but I don't blame non believers for not accepting the Jesus represented here.
Understood - and did you so "blame" them before reading these discussions?
"On February 13, 1633, Italian philosopher, astronomer and mathematician Galileo Galilei arrives in Rome to face charges of heresy for advocating Copernican theory, which holds that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Galileo officially faced the Roman Inquisition in April of that same year and agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence. Put under house arrest indefinitely by Pope Urban VIII, Galileo spent the rest of his days at his villa in Arcetri, near Florence, before dying on January 8, 1642."
Notice how we've come full circle back to Galileo's time: anyone who questions materialism or Neo-Darwinism is virtually driven from the academic public square---and this in a Nation whose Constitution defines that liberty which is good for you as a "blessing"---something good in the eyes of God and whose founding charter (the Declaration of Independence) appeals to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". A famous Chinese paleontologist remarked a few years back "In China, you cannot question the government. In America, you cannot question Darwin." Sad but true. Truly, we are right back where Galileo started.
"On February 13, 1633, Italian philosopher, astronomer and mathematician Galileo Galilei arrives in Rome to face charges of heresy for advocating Copernican theory, which holds that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Galileo officially faced the Roman Inquisition in April of that same year and agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence. Put under house arrest indefinitely by Pope Urban VIII, Galileo spent the rest of his days at his villa in Arcetri, near Florence, before dying on January 8, 1642."
Notice how we've come full circle back to Galileo's time: anyone who questions materialism or Neo-Darwinism is virtually driven from the academic public square---and this in a Nation whose Constitution defines that liberty which is good for you as a "blessing"---something good in the eyes of God and whose founding charter (the Declaration of Independence) appeals to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". A famous Chinese paleontologist remarked a few years back "In China, you cannot question the government. In America, you cannot question Darwin." Sad but true. Truly, we are right back where Galileo started.
Do you not see the parallels between theistic denials of Heliocentric Theory and The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?
"On February 13, 1633, Italian philosopher, astronomer and mathematician Galileo Galilei arrives in Rome to face charges of heresy for advocating Copernican theory, which holds that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Galileo officially faced the Roman Inquisition in April of that same year and agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence. Put under house arrest indefinitely by Pope Urban VIII, Galileo spent the rest of his days at his villa in Arcetri, near Florence, before dying on January 8, 1642."
Notice how we've come full circle back to Galileo's time: anyone who questions materialism or Neo-Darwinism is virtually driven from the academic public square---and this in a Nation whose Constitution defines that liberty which is good for you as a "blessing"---something good in the eyes of God and whose founding charter (the Declaration of Independence) appeals to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". A famous Chinese paleontologist remarked a few years back "In China, you cannot question the government. In America, you cannot question Darwin." Sad but true. Truly, we are right back where Galileo started.
Do you not see the parallels between theistic denials of Heliocentric Theory and The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?
You'e kidding right? You cannot possibly be that stupid.
"On February 13, 1633, Italian philosopher, astronomer and mathematician Galileo Galilei arrives in Rome to face charges of heresy for advocating Copernican theory, which holds that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Galileo officially faced the Roman Inquisition in April of that same year and agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence. Put under house arrest indefinitely by Pope Urban VIII, Galileo spent the rest of his days at his villa in Arcetri, near Florence, before dying on January 8, 1642."
Notice how we've come full circle back to Galileo's time: anyone who questions materialism or Neo-Darwinism is virtually driven from the academic public square---and this in a Nation whose Constitution defines that liberty which is good for you as a "blessing"---something good in the eyes of God and whose founding charter (the Declaration of Independence) appeals to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". A famous Chinese paleontologist remarked a few years back "In China, you cannot question the government. In America, you cannot question Darwin." Sad but true. Truly, we are right back where Galileo started.
Do you not see the parallels between theistic denials of Heliocentric Theory and The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?
You'e kidding right? You cannot possibly be that stupid.
You have that backwards.
And yes, in a modern academic setting people who deny The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection are considered just as misguided as those why deny Heliocentric Theory.
"On February 13, 1633, Italian philosopher, astronomer and mathematician Galileo Galilei arrives in Rome to face charges of heresy for advocating Copernican theory, which holds that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Galileo officially faced the Roman Inquisition in April of that same year and agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence. Put under house arrest indefinitely by Pope Urban VIII, Galileo spent the rest of his days at his villa in Arcetri, near Florence, before dying on January 8, 1642."
Notice how we've come full circle back to Galileo's time: anyone who questions materialism or Neo-Darwinism is virtually driven from the academic public square---and this in a Nation whose Constitution defines that liberty which is good for you as a "blessing"---something good in the eyes of God and whose founding charter (the Declaration of Independence) appeals to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". A famous Chinese paleontologist remarked a few years back "In China, you cannot question the government. In America, you cannot question Darwin." Sad but true. Truly, we are right back where Galileo started.
Do you not see the parallels between theistic denials of Heliocentric Theory and The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?
You'e kidding right? You cannot possibly be that stupid.
You have that backwards.
And yes, in a modern academic setting people who deny The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection are considered just as misguided as those why deny Heliocentric Theory.
The movement of the earth around the sun is an observable fact of present day reality. Neo-Darwinism is a deduction from an a priori philosophical premise which is held primarily on the basis of faith. The evidence for Neo-Darwinism is contradictory at best. This was the theme of a remarkably candid lecture lecture given by Colin Patterson at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981. Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and the author of that museum’s general text on evolution, compared creationism (not creation-science) with evolution, and characterized both as scientifically vacuous concepts which are held primarily on the basis of faith. Many of the specific points in the lecture are technical, but two are of particular importance. First, Patterson asked his audience of experts a question which reflected his own doubts about much of what has been thought to be secure knowledge about evolution: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing . . . that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.” Patterson suggested that both evolution and creation are forms of pseudo-knowledge, concepts which seem to imply information but do not. One point of comparison was particularly striking. A common objection to creationism in pre-Darwinian times was that no one could say anything about the mechanism of creation. Creationists simply pointed to the “fact” of creation and conceded ignorance of the means. But now, according to Patterson, Darwin’s theory of natural selection is under fire and scientists are no longer sure of its general validity. Evolutionists increasingly talk like creationists in that they point to a fact but cannot provide an explanation of the means.
"On February 13, 1633, Italian philosopher, astronomer and mathematician Galileo Galilei arrives in Rome to face charges of heresy for advocating Copernican theory, which holds that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Galileo officially faced the Roman Inquisition in April of that same year and agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence. Put under house arrest indefinitely by Pope Urban VIII, Galileo spent the rest of his days at his villa in Arcetri, near Florence, before dying on January 8, 1642."
Notice how we've come full circle back to Galileo's time: anyone who questions materialism or Neo-Darwinism is virtually driven from the academic public square---and this in a Nation whose Constitution defines that liberty which is good for you as a "blessing"---something good in the eyes of God and whose founding charter (the Declaration of Independence) appeals to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". A famous Chinese paleontologist remarked a few years back "In China, you cannot question the government. In America, you cannot question Darwin." Sad but true. Truly, we are right back where Galileo started.
Do you not see the parallels between theistic denials of Heliocentric Theory and The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?
You'e kidding right? You cannot possibly be that stupid.
You have that backwards.
And yes, in a modern academic setting people who deny The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection are considered just as misguided as those why deny Heliocentric Theory.
The movement of the earth around the sun is an observable fact of present day reality. Neo-Darwinism is a deduction from an a priori philosophical premise which is held primarily on the basis of faith. The evidence for Neo-Darwinism is contradictory at best. This was the theme of a remarkably candid lecture lecture given by Colin Patterson at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981. Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and the author of that museum’s general text on evolution, compared creationism (not creation-science) with evolution, and characterized both as scientifically vacuous concepts which are held primarily on the basis of faith. Many of the specific points in the lecture are technical, but two are of particular importance. First, Patterson asked his audience of experts a question which reflected his own doubts about much of what has been thought to be secure knowledge about evolution: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing . . . that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.” Patterson suggested that both evolution and creation are forms of pseudo-knowledge, concepts which seem to imply information but do not. One point of comparison was particularly striking. A common objection to creationism in pre-Darwinian times was that no one could say anything about the mechanism of creation. Creationists simply pointed to the “fact” of creation and conceded ignorance of the means. But now, according to Patterson, Darwin’s theory of natural selection is under fire and scientists are no longer sure of its general validity. Evolutionists increasingly talk like creationists in that they point to a fact but cannot provide an explanation of the means.
The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is not "under fire" in the scientific community. Not one bit. Nada, nill, zip.....
Even your alleged source Colin Patterson disagrees with your out of context "quote mining":
Patterson did not support creationism, but his work has been cited by creationists with claims that it provides evidence of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.[8][9] In the second edition of Evolution (1999), Patterson stated that his remarks had been taken out of context:
Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth ... a world-wide flood ... or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. ... I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context.[10]
"On February 13, 1633, Italian philosopher, astronomer and mathematician Galileo Galilei arrives in Rome to face charges of heresy for advocating Copernican theory, which holds that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Galileo officially faced the Roman Inquisition in April of that same year and agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence. Put under house arrest indefinitely by Pope Urban VIII, Galileo spent the rest of his days at his villa in Arcetri, near Florence, before dying on January 8, 1642."
Notice how we've come full circle back to Galileo's time: anyone who questions materialism or Neo-Darwinism is virtually driven from the academic public square---and this in a Nation whose Constitution defines that liberty which is good for you as a "blessing"---something good in the eyes of God and whose founding charter (the Declaration of Independence) appeals to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". A famous Chinese paleontologist remarked a few years back "In China, you cannot question the government. In America, you cannot question Darwin." Sad but true. Truly, we are right back where Galileo started.
Do you not see the parallels between theistic denials of Heliocentric Theory and The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?
You'e kidding right? You cannot possibly be that stupid.
You have that backwards.
And yes, in a modern academic setting people who deny The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection are considered just as misguided as those why deny Heliocentric Theory.
The movement of the earth around the sun is an observable fact of present day reality. Neo-Darwinism is a deduction from an a priori philosophical premise which is held primarily on the basis of faith. The evidence for Neo-Darwinism is contradictory at best. This was the theme of a remarkably candid lecture lecture given by Colin Patterson at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981. Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and the author of that museum’s general text on evolution, compared creationism (not creation-science) with evolution, and characterized both as scientifically vacuous concepts which are held primarily on the basis of faith. Many of the specific points in the lecture are technical, but two are of particular importance. First, Patterson asked his audience of experts a question which reflected his own doubts about much of what has been thought to be secure knowledge about evolution: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing . . . that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.” Patterson suggested that both evolution and creation are forms of pseudo-knowledge, concepts which seem to imply information but do not. One point of comparison was particularly striking. A common objection to creationism in pre-Darwinian times was that no one could say anything about the mechanism of creation. Creationists simply pointed to the “fact” of creation and conceded ignorance of the means. But now, according to Patterson, Darwin’s theory of natural selection is under fire and scientists are no longer sure of its general validity. Evolutionists increasingly talk like creationists in that they point to a fact but cannot provide an explanation of the means.
The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is not "under fire" in the scientific community. Not one bit. Nada, nill, zip.....
Even your alleged source Colin Patterson disagrees with your out of context "quote mining":
Patterson did not support creationism, but his work has been cited by creationists with claims that it provides evidence of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.[8][9] In the second edition of Evolution (1999), Patterson stated that his remarks had been taken out of context:
Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth ... a world-wide flood ... or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. ... I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context.[10]
I never said Patterson supported creationism. Patterson backed off his critical statements after he was besieged by Darwinists, but the fact remains he said what he said. The original question was whether Neo-Darwinism is akin to the heliocentric view of the universe. You've not responded to my point about that at all. And notice the conflating caricature (critics of evolution are young earth creationists who can't explain their own theory). That Darwinists have to use such dishonest tactics (including burden shifting) speaks volumes....
"On February 13, 1633, Italian philosopher, astronomer and mathematician Galileo Galilei arrives in Rome to face charges of heresy for advocating Copernican theory, which holds that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Galileo officially faced the Roman Inquisition in April of that same year and agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence. Put under house arrest indefinitely by Pope Urban VIII, Galileo spent the rest of his days at his villa in Arcetri, near Florence, before dying on January 8, 1642."
Notice how we've come full circle back to Galileo's time: anyone who questions materialism or Neo-Darwinism is virtually driven from the academic public square---and this in a Nation whose Constitution defines that liberty which is good for you as a "blessing"---something good in the eyes of God and whose founding charter (the Declaration of Independence) appeals to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". A famous Chinese paleontologist remarked a few years back "In China, you cannot question the government. In America, you cannot question Darwin." Sad but true. Truly, we are right back where Galileo started.
Do you not see the parallels between theistic denials of Heliocentric Theory and The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?
You'e kidding right? You cannot possibly be that stupid.
You have that backwards.
And yes, in a modern academic setting people who deny The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection are considered just as misguided as those why deny Heliocentric Theory.
The movement of the earth around the sun is an observable fact of present day reality. Neo-Darwinism is a deduction from an a priori philosophical premise which is held primarily on the basis of faith. The evidence for Neo-Darwinism is contradictory at best. This was the theme of a remarkably candid lecture lecture given by Colin Patterson at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981. Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and the author of that museum’s general text on evolution, compared creationism (not creation-science) with evolution, and characterized both as scientifically vacuous concepts which are held primarily on the basis of faith. Many of the specific points in the lecture are technical, but two are of particular importance. First, Patterson asked his audience of experts a question which reflected his own doubts about much of what has been thought to be secure knowledge about evolution: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing . . . that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.” Patterson suggested that both evolution and creation are forms of pseudo-knowledge, concepts which seem to imply information but do not. One point of comparison was particularly striking. A common objection to creationism in pre-Darwinian times was that no one could say anything about the mechanism of creation. Creationists simply pointed to the “fact” of creation and conceded ignorance of the means. But now, according to Patterson, Darwin’s theory of natural selection is under fire and scientists are no longer sure of its general validity. Evolutionists increasingly talk like creationists in that they point to a fact but cannot provide an explanation of the means.
The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is not "under fire" in the scientific community. Not one bit. Nada, nill, zip.....
Even your alleged source Colin Patterson disagrees with your out of context "quote mining":
Patterson did not support creationism, but his work has been cited by creationists with claims that it provides evidence of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.[8][9] In the second edition of Evolution (1999), Patterson stated that his remarks had been taken out of context:
Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth ... a world-wide flood ... or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. ... I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context.[10]
I never said Patterson supported creationism. Patterson backed off his critical statements after he was besieged by Darwinists, but the fact remains he said what he said. The original question was whether Neo-Darwinism is akin to the heliocentric view of the universe. You've not responded to my point about that at all. And notice the conflating caricature (critics of evolution are young earth creationists who can't explain their own theory). That Darwinists have to use such dishonest tactics (including burden shifting) speaks volumes....
You made no point.
What was made was a bald assertion supported by quote mining a respected scientist who's objected to Creationist like you dishonestly misrepresenting his position.
If you want a more detailed response, here's one for you:
You said there was a parallel between heliocentrism and Neo-Darwinism. I pointed out why they were not comparable: the movement of the earth around the sun is an observation of present day reality whereas Neo-Darwinism is a deduction from an a priori metaphysical premise. From you we heard "crickets". I then added evidence for the larger point by quoting Colin Patterson. You accused me of quote mining but the fact remains Patterson said what he said. The pattern is always the same: a noted thinker criticizes Neo-Darwinism in a moment of brutal honesty but is bullied into a retraction by the "scientific" establishment. The same thing occurred with Karl Popper, but Popper had plenty of reasons for his criticism of Neo-Darwinism as essentially vacuous and Popper affirmed his original criticism toward the end of his life.
We're not distinguishing evidence you dumb [bleep], we're on the topic of logic---the logical difference between the validity of heliocentrism and Neo-Darwinism as analogies (parallels). One is an observation of present day reality. The other is not an observation of present day reality (micro-evolution is not what we're talking about) but a deduction from an a priori philosophical premise in which the evidence is dredged up from the distant past. Stop being willfully obtuse.
Chrome 2? Very weak stuff: Apes and humans are similar---each has two arms, two legs, a head and a torso. They are also very different in important respects. Humans only have 46 chromosomes while apes have 48. It is a scientific fact that chromosomes can fuse together to form one big chromosome, so to explain away the difference in our chromosome counts, Darwinists take a leap of faith. They believe two chromosomes fused together in an unknown primate ancestor to form human chromosome 2. Then they claim this faith-based belief as their great proof for Darwinism. But multiple studies have revealed that sheep which have multiple chromosome fusions are indistinguishable from sheep which do not have the fused chromosomes. What this means is that such fusions do not create new and beneficial genetic information that causes one kind of critter, like an ape, to evolve into another kind, like a human. Science shows that human chromosome 2 contains complex genetic information that is not found in apes, including many protein coding genes. Likewise, scientists have never shown how such complex genetic information could come about by natural processes. It is the genetic data that is the big difference between ape and man – not the number of chromosomes holding the data. After all, tobacco plants, like apes, also have 48 chromosomes yet no one is claiming that they are close relatives! In other words, even if human chromosome 2 was the result of a fusion event it would be best explained as the fusion of two human chromosomes, not from a fusion that occurred, once upon a time, in some non-observed primate ancestor. So what does human chromosome 2 have to do with Darwinism? Absolutely nothing! The bottom line is that people must be careful to distinguish real science from biased Darwinian conjecture because claiming that Human Chromosome 2 is proof of goo-to-the-zoo-to-you evolutionism is nothing more than propaganda.
Co-founder of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.
nuff said.
Once again you betray the weakness of your position by the invocation of an ad hominem fallacy to avoid responding to the actual points raised by Johnson. In logic this is known as a capitulation, a concession. You've just admitted your impotence do defend your pet theory for everyone on this board (who has at least a 3rd grade education) to see. Why are you so afraid?
Co-founder of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.
nuff said.
Once again you betray the weakness of your position by the invocation of an ad hominem fallacy to avoid responding to the actual points raised by Johnson. In logic this is known as a capitulation, a concession. You've just admitted your impotence do defend your pet theory for everyone on this board (who has at least a 3rd grade education) to see. Why are you so afraid?
Nope.
Again, you understand so little about the modern scientific method, you are too ignorant to understand why the Discovery Institute, and similar creationist entities do not follow the scientific method. It's due to this lack of proper rigor that their ideas are excluded from serious consideration.
There's a well defined path for their ideas to gain scientific acceptance, however they are too absurd to make it to the starting gate, let alone pass peer review with reputable journals.
When Johnson is published in a reputable biological journal such as Nature, I'll take notice of his claims, the supporting evidence, and the review process.
In contrast, lets see what the National Academy of Sciences has to say about Evolution:
Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.
One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.
In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
Please note, even the National Academy of Sciences compare the certainty of Heliocentric Theory with that of The Theory of Evolution.
You make daily affirmations of your faith without regard to what is being said. Always focussing on the poster while studiously avoiding debate on the topic.
You and I are exactly the same. You believe what you read is factual. I have been on both side and know I am right.
I have no belief about how the universe came to be. I am questioning those who do claim to know. The two are not the same. You are equivocating.
I don't believe you. Or your are insane. You come here and argue against Christians because you don't have a belief. You need help.
You just demonstrate that that you don't understand what is being said. It is the theist who claims knowledge where no knowledge exists, that the universe is created by a God.. .and it is the atheist who points out that this is an unjustified belief, that in fact nobody knows the ultimate nature of the universe, how it came about, whether it's cyclic, part of a greater system, etc...nobody knows, but some pretend to know...hence the argument.
The name of the institution is irrelevant: it is the quality of their argument that counts. You just don't get that and so you double down on the same logical fallacy. When Einstein advanced a controversial aspect of his theory of relativity Hitler responded by trotting out 50 of his best scientists to say Einstein was wrong. But Einstein responded (quite correctly) "it only takes one to prove me wrong". Proponents of AGW employ the same fallacies as you (fallacies designed to convince others to not look at the evidence) to wit, 97% of scientists (or mainstream science) agree that global warming is human caused and will be disastrous if we don't restrict fossil fuel use. But science does not proceed by way of consensus. Something is true or correct (or likely so) not because everyone agrees that it is, but because the evidence fits the theory. You are afraid to respond to arguments showing the evidence does not fit the theory as evidenced by your constant invocation of consensus and the prestige of the proponents of your pet theory. But scientific consensus has often been spectacularly wrong. Defenders of the neo-Darwinian synthesis employ the same tired fallacies, but the gig is up because intelligent people are taking notice that the invocation of fallacies (like peer review for example) are really admissions of theoretical or evidentiary weakness. Don't be afraid DBT and AS, open your eyes and learn!
The name of the institution is irrelevant: it is the quality of their argument that counts.
Exactly.
And 100% of the arguments from the Discovery Institute are of the worst possible scientific quality.
You're embarrassing yourself. You're simply arguing by assertion, which is no argument at all. Prove your point! Start with Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer, which first rate atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel praised effusively. Debunk that one for us. And while you're at it, explain why, if anything from the Discovery Institute is suspect, the evidence convinced Antony Flew that evolution cannot possibly explain the origin of life. (Hint: the evidence convincing Flew did not come from the Discovery Institute). What is it that explains why bio-chemist James Tour (one of the top 50 scientists in this country) thinks evolution is bunk. (Its not anything he read from the Discovery Institute).
The name of the institution is irrelevant: it is the quality of their argument that counts.
Exactly.
And 100% of the arguments from the Discovery Institute are of the worst possible scientific quality.
Demonstrate it. Start with Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer, which first rate atheist philosopher praised effusively. And while you're at it, explain why the evidence convinced Antony Flew that evolution cannot possibly explain the origin of life.
Tell me about the Peer Review process for Stephen Meyer's "Signature in the Cell"??
Here's a convent index to many of your most absurd religiously motivated beliefs and why they are wrong.
The name of the institution is irrelevant: it is the quality of their argument that counts.
Exactly.
And 100% of the arguments from the Discovery Institute are of the worst possible scientific quality.
Demonstrate it. Start with Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer, which first rate atheist philosopher praised effusively. And while you're at it, explain why the evidence convinced Antony Flew that evolution cannot possibly explain the origin of life.
Tell me about the Peer Review process for Stephen Meyer's "Signature in the Cell"??
Here's a convent index to many of your most absurd religiously motivated beliefs and why they are wrong.
The name of the institution is irrelevant: it is the quality of their argument that counts.
Exactly.
And 100% of the arguments from the Discovery Institute are of the worst possible scientific quality.
Demonstrate it. Start with Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer, which first rate atheist philosopher praised effusively. And while you're at it, explain why the evidence convinced Antony Flew that evolution cannot possibly explain the origin of life.
Tell me about the Peer Review process for Stephen Meyer's "Signature in the Cell"??
Here's a convent index to many of your most absurd religiously motivated beliefs and why they are wrong.
The name of the institution is irrelevant: it is the quality of their argument that counts.
Exactly.
And 100% of the arguments from the Discovery Institute are of the worst possible scientific quality.
Demonstrate it. Start with Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer, which first rate atheist philosopher praised effusively. And while you're at it, explain why the evidence convinced Antony Flew that evolution cannot possibly explain the origin of life.
Tell me about the Peer Review process for Stephen Meyer's "Signature in the Cell"??
Here's a convent index to many of your most absurd religiously motivated beliefs and why they are wrong.
So in other words, it wasn't peer reviewed and was unable to pass any level of scrutiny.
Thanks you!!!
If Meyer's what to make scientific claims, it might help if he actually did some science, and followed the scientific method.
You continue to embarrass yourself. Apparently you can't read either. Meyer's book was favorably peer reviewed and Sternberg lost his job over it because the unwritten rule is that anything scientific tending to favor ID must not be permitted a hearing EVER! This allows "science" to keep dissent from being peer reviewed then arguing "see, I told you its worthless. It hasn't been peer reviewed!" In other words, "heads I win, tails you lose". What is "science:" afraid of? Phillip Johnson once remarked that it was the way Neo-Darwinists defended their position that convinced him their enterprise was essentially intellectually and empirically bankrupt. It took about a year and half for any Neo-Darwinists to respond to "Darwin on Trial" and when Stephen J. Gould finally deigned to write a review it was little more than a thinly disguised hit-and-run ad hominem attack. Johnson was elated because it was then he knew for certain he was onto something: if the Darwinists had a real response to his arguments, they would have made it (instead of a hit-and-run ad hominem attack). Likewise, if they were secure in their theory they would permit criticism of it instead of conspiring to violate the norms of scientific inquiry to protect their theory from criticism.
Meyer's book was favorably peer reviewed and Sternberg lost his job over it because the unwritten rule is that anything scientific tending to favor ID must not be permitted a hearing EVER!
The book has been well received by some within the conservative, intelligent design and evangelical communities.[2][3][4][5] It was not reviewed by scientific journals or popular science magazines.[6]
[6] Hoppe, Richard B. (24 April 2010). "Two analyses of Meyer's 'Signature in the Cell'". The Panda's Thumb. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
''Stephen_C._MeyerStephen C. Meyer (born 1958), a philosopher of science, advocates for intelligent design. He helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI), which is the main organisation behind the intelligent-design movement.
Meyer has written the books:
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (2009) Darwin's Doubt: the Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (2013), "a masterwork of pseudoscience"[1] The Return of the God Hypothesis: Compelling Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God (2020)
Doctor Meyer has absolutely no qualifications within the fields of biology, cosmology, or chemistry; he does hold a Bachelor of Science in geology and physics, but his Ph.D is in the philosophy of science[2] which has no relevance to evolutionary biology. ''
Then you should have no difficulty proving him wrong! So have at it! Once again, you show a complete lack of the grasp of simple logic because what his degrees are or are not utterly begs the question of whether his analysis is correct! For what its worth he matriculated at Oxford.
''Stephen_C._MeyerStephen C. Meyer (born 1958), a philosopher of science, advocates for intelligent design. He helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI), which is the main organisation behind the intelligent-design movement.
Meyer has written the books:
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (2009) Darwin's Doubt: the Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (2013), "a masterwork of pseudoscience"[1] The Return of the God Hypothesis: Compelling Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God (2020)
Doctor Meyer has absolutely no qualifications within the fields of biology, cosmology, or chemistry; he does hold a Bachelor of Science in geology and physics, but his Ph.D is in the philosophy of science[2] which has no relevance to evolutionary biology. ''
He's another aspect of Meyer's claims lost on Tarquin.
His claims are so absurd and non-scientific, real scientist don't see them worthy of a reasoned response. That only happens after a few years later after they get tired of hearing his non-sense continuously repeated by the ignorant.
You are making a laughing-stock of yourself. Real scientists have found them worthy of response because they have both responded and debated Meyer. But what if some "real scientists" don't debate him because they are afraid to? In any event, here is Meyer debating Oxford chemist Peter Atkins. Does he count as a real scientist?
Then you should have no difficulty proving him wrong! So have at it! Once again, you show a complete lack of the grasp of simple logic because what his degrees are or are not utterly begs the question of whether his analysis is correct! For what its worth he matriculated at Oxford.
Intelligent design was proven wrong by those who are qualified in the field when both sides put their case before a court of law.
The reasons why ID failed is freely available. I could quote the relevant material, but I doubt that it would even even be considered.
Then you should have no difficulty proving him wrong! So have at it! Once again, you show a complete lack of the grasp of simple logic because what his degrees are or are not utterly begs the question of whether his analysis is correct! For what its worth he matriculated at Oxford.
Intelligent design was proven wrong by those who are qualified in the field when both sides put their case before a court of law.
The reasons why ID failed is freely available. I could quote the relevant material, but I doubt that it would even even be considered.
Yep:
It's interesting to note why Stephen Meyer wasn't a witness for this case. The plaintiffs decided that having the Discovery Institute was a bad idea, and would actually hurt their case.
So even in the world of creationist, they are known to have credibility issues.
You are an embarrassment to intelligent discourse and simple logic. Scientific truth is now decided in a court of law? Id was proven wrong because a Judge said so? Since when does the scientific proof for a proposition get refereed by a judge? Did it ever occur to you that courts often get it wrong? A jury acquitted OJ Simpson. Recently the US Supreme Court found that when the framers of the 14th Amendment attempted to outlaw discrimination based on race that they intended to legalize same-sex marriage not withstanding that the justification of the 14th Amendment is grounded in "the law of nature and of nature's god" which utterly denies the morality of homosexuality.
Here is a good critique of why Dover is a poorly reasoned decision.
So when Al said, "God does not play dice with the universe" he was tacitly expressing his belief in a deity or was wrong in his concept of quantum mechanics. Brilliant.
Einstein was good when he stayed in his lane.
The god of Einstein is not the God of Christianity;
''Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood. Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza. He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve.''
I purposely left out mentioning Spinoza, highly suspecting some clueless xtian would then put their foot in it...lol
quote]....
Baruch Spinoza (1632 –1677) Dutch philosopher of Portuguese Sephardi origin. One of the early thinkers of the Enlightenment and modern biblical criticism,..came to be considered one of the great rationalists of 17th-century philosophy.
Then you should have no difficulty proving him wrong! So have at it! Once again, you show a complete lack of the grasp of simple logic because what his degrees are or are not utterly begs the question of whether his analysis is correct! For what its worth he matriculated at Oxford.
Intelligent design was proven wrong by those who are qualified in the field when both sides put their case before a court of law.
The reasons why ID failed is freely available. I could quote the relevant material, but I doubt that it would even even be considered.
Yep:
It's interesting to note why Stephen Meyer wasn't a witness for this case. The plaintiffs decided that having the Discovery Institute was a bad idea, and would actually hurt their case.
So even in the world of creationist, they are known to have credibility issues.
No. They chose not to participate because they knew the fix was in; they knew Dover was not the right venue and they didn't like the plaintiff's case
In 2008 Fuller's book on the intelligent design controversy, Dissent Over Descent: Intelligent Design's Challenge to Darwinism was published. Steven Poole of The Guardian wrote: "book is an epoch-hopping parade of straw men, incompetent reasoning and outright gibberish, as when evolution is argued to share with astrology a commitment to "action at a distance", except that the distance is in time rather than space. It's intellectual quackery like this that gives philosophy of science a bad name."[45] Michael Ruse, Philosopher of Science at Florida State University wrote in the journal Science that Fuller's book "is completely wrong and is backed by no sound scholarship whatsoever. In at least one case, Fuller makes his case by an egregious misreading—of something I wrote about the role of genetic drift in Sewall Wright's shifting balance theory. For the record, Charles Darwin set out to provide a cause, what he called—following his mentors like William Whewell (who in turn referred back to Newton)—a true cause or vera causa. Darwin felt, and historians and philosophers of science as well as practicing evolutionary biologists still feel, that he succeeded…"[46] In a "book of the week" review by retired Divinity Professor Keith Ward in the Times Higher Education Supplement, the book was praised for providing often overlooked information and provocative interpretations, but was criticised for a number of inaccuracies and misrepresentations.[47]
A. C. Grayling, in New Humanist, wrote that the book contains a "mark of ignorance and historical short-sightedness on Fuller's part".[48] In response, Fuller wrote an online response saying "if Grayling's grasp of the history of science went beyond head-banging standards, he would realise that our current level of scientific achievement would never have been reached, and more importantly that we would not be striving to achieve more, had chance-based explanations dominated over the design-based ones in our thinking about reality."[49] To which Grayling wrote: "Steve Fuller complains, as do all authors whose books are panned, that I did not read his book properly (or at all)."[50] He continued, "I'll take on Fuller any day regarding the history and theology of the various versions of Christianity with which humanity has been burdened. […] The same applies to the history of science."[50]
You make daily affirmations of your faith without regard to what is being said. Always focussing on the poster while studiously avoiding debate on the topic.
You and I are exactly the same. You believe what you read is factual. I have been on both side and know I am right.
I have no belief about how the universe came to be. I am questioning those who do claim to know. The two are not the same. You are equivocating.
I don't believe you. Or your are insane. You come here and argue against Christians because you don't have a belief. You need help.
He's searching for help, in proving his logic is wrong or right. He needs ratification of his belief.
Like the man on the roof of his flooding riverbottom house who refused all manner of help offered as beneath him until he drowned. He asked God why He didnt answer his prayers for help and stop the flood. HE said HE gave him help but he refused to accept it as it wasnt on his terms.
You make daily affirmations of your faith without regard to what is being said. Always focussing on the poster while studiously avoiding debate on the topic.
You and I are exactly the same. You believe what you read is factual. I have been on both side and know I am right.
I have no belief about how the universe came to be. I am questioning those who do claim to know. The two are not the same. You are equivocating.
I don't believe you. Or your are insane. You come here and argue against Christians because you don't have a belief. You need help.
He's searching for help, in proving his logic is wrong or right. He needs ratification of his belief.
Like the man on the roof of his flooding riverbottom house who refused all manner of help offered as beneath him until he drowned. He asked God why He didnt answer his prayers for help and stop the flood. HE said HE gave him help but he refused to accept it as it wasnt on his terms.
You still miss the point of justification through evidence, or the lack of it.
If there is no evidence for someone having committed a crime, it is not justified to be convinced that they in fact committed the crime.
You may or may not have grounds to suspect them of committing a crime, but that is not the same thing. You may pursue your suspicion but without evidence you have no case, or justification.
I think these unbelievers have blasphemed the Creator and committed the unpardonable sin.
They have no choice now but to hope they are right as they cant make it back to shore in their leaky boat. They are grasping for ratification of their disbelief, for it is their only hope they arent headed for hell. They keep returning to these threads to try to build a bit of comfomfort, even if it means they listen to their own preaching.
Too bad they cant pray to believe their unbelief is correct. Realization of their error and acceptance will only come when they bend their knee.
One thing about these threads, you can depend on the unbelievers to faithfully proselytize their “faith”. They’re not timid or cautious about their encroachment either
But, WHY do they try (albeit unsuccessfully) to diminish our faith in Jesus? At least our faith brings hope.
Who is their inspiration? Mine is Jesus Christ.
What arrogance it takes to TRY to dominate a Christian discussion and try to minimize our faith and our God.
It takes a good bit of faith to actually believe there is NO God. What hubris!
It also takes faith to believe the Bible is untrue.
If unbelievers and/or atheists are only bags of particles or sand or stardust after the Big Bang, they have no moral compass foundation.
But, WHY do they try (albeit unsuccessfully) to diminish our faith in Jesus?
Nobody is attempting to interfere with your personal faith....but when christians present what they allege as Proof or evidence, it deserves and attracts scrutiny by both Christian and non christian alike.
Definitive in the eyes of the Discovery Institute doesn't count. They and their supporters suffer from an acute case of confirmation bias.
Then is should be easily refuted, so have at it.
I can only repeat what has been done and why ID failed. One reason being their case for irreducible complexity fell when it was shown that simpler versions, such as the flagellum, does have benefits for organism.
So, essentially, there is no clear point of irreducible complexity.
One thing about these threads, you can depend on the unbelievers to faithfully proselytize their “faith”. They’re not timid or cautious about their encroachment either
But, WHY do they try (albeit unsuccessfully) to diminish our faith in Jesus? At least our faith brings hope.
Who is their inspiration? Mine is Jesus Christ.
What arrogance it takes to TRY to dominate a Christian discussion and try to minimize our faith and our God.
It takes a good bit of faith to actually believe there is NO God. What hubris!
It also takes faith to believe the Bible is untrue.
If unbelievers and/or atheists are only bags of particles or sand or stardust after the Big Bang, they have no moral compass foundation.
So you need a lot of faith when you yourself dismiss the existence of the gods of Hinduism or the ancient Greeks?
Thank you Doc. I hope, and pray we can do some good works as we are told to do. The non believers on this forum can't be any tougher than cannibals in dark Africa.
Wabigoon,
If you know the history of the Belgium Christians in the Congo and the millions they killed, you wouldn't be using that example.
AS, indulge me a little on this...I find history very interesting 😎
There will be many more than that who suffer eternal death. That you say He is cruel does not prove He isnt the Creator, GOD. Those in Hell will say HE is cruel. There will probably be many in Hell say HE is cruel, but they will not say there is no HE.
One reason being their case for irreducible complexity fell when it was shown that simpler versions, such as the flagellum, does have benefits for organism.
So, essentially, there is no clear point of irreducible complexity.
Thank you Doc. I hope, and pray we can do some good works as we are told to do. The non believers on this forum can't be any tougher than cannibals in dark Africa.
Wabigoon,
If you know the history of the Belgium Christians in the Congo and the millions they killed, you wouldn't be using that example.
AS, indulge me a little on this...I find history very interesting 😎
There will be many more than that who suffer eternal death. That you say He is cruel does not prove He isnt the Creator, GOD. Those in Hell will say HE is cruel. There will probably be many in Hell say HE is cruel, but they will not say there is no HE.
Thank you Doc. I hope, and pray we can do some good works as we are told to do. The non believers on this forum can't be any tougher than cannibals in dark Africa.
Wabigoon,
If you know the history of the Belgium Christians in the Congo and the millions they killed, you wouldn't be using that example.
AS, indulge me a little on this...I find history very interesting 😎
There will be many more than that who suffer eternal death. That you say He is cruel does not prove He isnt the Creator, GOD. Those in Hell will say HE is cruel. There will probably be many in Hell say HE is cruel, but they will not say there is no HE.
The bible tells us two opposing things, one that God is a cruel, intolerant and vindictive tyrant, and the other that God is love, keeping no record of wrongs, forgiving transgressions......
One thing about these threads, you can depend on the unbelievers to faithfully proselytize their “faith”. They’re not timid or cautious about their encroachment either
But, WHY do they try (albeit unsuccessfully) to diminish our faith in Jesus? At least our faith brings hope.
Who is their inspiration? Mine is Jesus Christ.
What arrogance it takes to TRY to dominate a Christian discussion and try to minimize our faith and our God.
It takes a good bit of faith to actually believe there is NO God. What hubris!
It also takes faith to believe the Bible is untrue.
If unbelievers and/or atheists are only bags of particles or sand or stardust after the Big Bang, they have no moral compass foundation.
So you need a lot of faith when you yourself dismiss the existence of the gods of Hinduism or the ancient Greeks?
Surely you are making this stuff up. You can’t be serious. Unbelievable!
Thank you Doc. I hope, and pray we can do some good works as we are told to do. The non believers on this forum can't be any tougher than cannibals in dark Africa.
Wabigoon,
If you know the history of the Belgium Christians in the Congo and the millions they killed, you wouldn't be using that example.
AS, indulge me a little on this...I find history very interesting 😎
There will be many more than that who suffer eternal death. That you say He is cruel does not prove He isnt the Creator, GOD. Those in Hell will say HE is cruel. There will probably be many in Hell say HE is cruel, but they will not say there is no HE.
The bible tells us two opposing things, one that God is a cruel, intolerant and vindictive tyrant, and the other that God is love, keeping no record of wrongs, forgiving transgressions.....which is a contradiction.
One thing about these threads, you can depend on the unbelievers to faithfully proselytize their “faith”. They’re not timid or cautious about their encroachment either
But, WHY do they try (albeit unsuccessfully) to diminish our faith in Jesus? At least our faith brings hope.
Who is their inspiration? Mine is Jesus Christ.
What arrogance it takes to TRY to dominate a Christian discussion and try to minimize our faith and our God.
It takes a good bit of faith to actually believe there is NO God. What hubris!
It also takes faith to believe the Bible is untrue.
If unbelievers and/or atheists are only bags of particles or sand or stardust after the Big Bang, they have no moral compass foundation.
So you need a lot of faith when you yourself dismiss the existence of the gods of Hinduism or the ancient Greeks?
Surely you are making this stuff up. You can’t be serious. Unbelievable!
Maybe you didn't understand what I said? Or the comment I responding to? The part about 'atheists needing a lot of faith not to believe in God'
One thing about these threads, you can depend on the unbelievers to faithfully proselytize their “faith”. They’re not timid or cautious about their encroachment either
But, WHY do they try (albeit unsuccessfully) to diminish our faith in Jesus? At least our faith brings hope.
Who is their inspiration? Mine is Jesus Christ.
What arrogance it takes to TRY to dominate a Christian discussion and try to minimize our faith and our God.
It takes a good bit of faith to actually believe there is NO God. What hubris!
It also takes faith to believe the Bible is untrue.
If unbelievers and/or atheists are only bags of particles or sand or stardust after the Big Bang, they have no moral compass foundation.
So you need a lot of faith when you yourself dismiss the existence of the gods of Hinduism or the ancient Greeks?
Where did the stuff come from that exploded to start the spark of life, DBT? Was the spark of life in less than a living, single cell? How did it replicate or evolution into a single cell. So an explosion had to result in a single cell? Right? It had billions of different proteins and polysaccharides comprising the DNA, cell walls, ribosomes, mitochondria, cytoplasm, etc arranged perfectly?
Where did the spark come from or was there spontaneous combustion? What caused the change in temperature that caused the spontaneous combustion.
One thing about these threads, you can depend on the unbelievers to faithfully proselytize their “faith”. They’re not timid or cautious about their encroachment either
But, WHY do they try (albeit unsuccessfully) to diminish our faith in Jesus? At least our faith brings hope.
Who is their inspiration? Mine is Jesus Christ.
What arrogance it takes to TRY to dominate a Christian discussion and try to minimize our faith and our God.
It takes a good bit of faith to actually believe there is NO God. What hubris!
It also takes faith to believe the Bible is untrue.
If unbelievers and/or atheists are only bags of particles or sand or stardust after the Big Bang, they have no moral compass foundation.
So you need a lot of faith when you yourself dismiss the existence of the gods of Hinduism or the ancient Greeks?
Where did the stuff come from that exploded to start the spark of life. Was the spark of life in less than a living, single cell? How did it replicate or evolution into a single cell. So an explosion had to result in a single cell? Right? It had billions of different proteins and polysaccharides comprising the DNA, cell walls, ribosomes, mitochondria, cytoplasm, etc arranged perfectly?
Doc,
The "Big Bang", was neither big, nor was it a bang. In other words, it wasn't an "explosion".
There will be many more than that who suffer eternal death. That you say He is cruel does not prove He isnt the Creator, GOD. Those in Hell will say HE is cruel. There will probably be many in Hell say HE is cruel, but they will not say there is no HE.
For years I maintained, for those who love the Lord there will be more reason to love Him in eternality. For those who don't love the Lord there will be more reason not to love the Lord in eternity.
One thing about these threads, you can depend on the unbelievers to faithfully proselytize their “faith”. They’re not timid or cautious about their encroachment either
But, WHY do they try (albeit unsuccessfully) to diminish our faith in Jesus? At least our faith brings hope.
Who is their inspiration? Mine is Jesus Christ.
What arrogance it takes to TRY to dominate a Christian discussion and try to minimize our faith and our God.
It takes a good bit of faith to actually believe there is NO God. What hubris!
It also takes faith to believe the Bible is untrue.
If unbelievers and/or atheists are only bags of particles or sand or stardust after the Big Bang, they have no moral compass foundation.
So you need a lot of faith when you yourself dismiss the existence of the gods of Hinduism or the ancient Greeks?
Where did the stuff come from that exploded to start the spark of life. Was the spark of life in less than a living, single cell? How did it replicate or evolution into a single cell. So an explosion had to result in a single cell? Right? It had billions of different proteins and polysaccharides comprising the DNA, cell walls, ribosomes, mitochondria, cytoplasm, etc arranged perfectly?
Maybe you should roll up your sleeves, get a pile of textbooks on biology, cosmology, physics, evolution, etc, and get to work. It's a big field on any of these subjects, so chop, chop, times a wasting, get to it.
Oh, just avoid your creationist versions, your Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis.....they are biased.
Thank you Doc. I hope, and pray we can do some good works as we are told to do. The non believers on this forum can't be any tougher than cannibals in dark Africa.
Wabigoon,
If you know the history of the Belgium Christians in the Congo and the millions they killed, you wouldn't be using that example.
AS, indulge me a little on this...I find history very interesting 😎
There will be many more than that who suffer eternal death. That you say He is cruel does not prove He isnt the Creator, GOD. Those in Hell will say HE is cruel. There will probably be many in Hell say HE is cruel, but they will not say there is no HE.
The bible tells us two opposing things, one that God is a cruel, intolerant and vindictive tyrant, and the other that God is love, keeping no record of wrongs, forgiving transgressions......
Kind of like how kids often feel about their parents at times, huh?
Do we ever have any bad days where we are always loving to our kids no matter what they do? Maybe He has bad days.
Sounds as if we are maybe kind of made in His image.
There will be many more than that who suffer eternal death. That you say He is cruel does not prove He isnt the Creator, GOD. Those in Hell will say HE is cruel. There will probably be many in Hell say HE is cruel, but they will not say there is no HE.
For years I maintained, for those who love the Lord there will be more reason to love Him in eternality. For those who don't love the Lord there will be more reason not to love the Lord in eternity.
There are going to be plenty who love the Lord burning for eternity side-by-side with the rest based on their actions.
One thing about these threads, you can depend on the unbelievers to faithfully proselytize their “faith”. They’re not timid or cautious about their encroachment either
But, WHY do they try (albeit unsuccessfully) to diminish our faith in Jesus? At least our faith brings hope.
Who is their inspiration? Mine is Jesus Christ.
What arrogance it takes to TRY to dominate a Christian discussion and try to minimize our faith and our God.
It takes a good bit of faith to actually believe there is NO God. What hubris!
It also takes faith to believe the Bible is untrue.
If unbelievers and/or atheists are only bags of particles or sand or stardust after the Big Bang, they have no moral compass foundation.
So you need a lot of faith when you yourself dismiss the existence of the gods of Hinduism or the ancient Greeks?
Where did the stuff come from that exploded to start the spark of life. Was the spark of life in less than a living, single cell? How did it replicate or evolution into a single cell. So an explosion had to result in a single cell? Right? It had billions of different proteins and polysaccharides comprising the DNA, cell walls, ribosomes, mitochondria, cytoplasm, etc arranged perfectly?
Maybe you should roll up your sleeves, get a pile of textbooks on biology, cosmology, physics, evolution, etc, and get to work. It's a big field on any of these subjects, so chop, chop, times a wasting, get to it.
Oh, just avoid your creationist versions, your Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis.....they are biased.
Ah yes, let's be our own little go d and study up to be as smart as HE. Let me know when you can show me the smartest crew on earth who can make an eyelash.
How many ages came and went for humans could figure out what comprised a popcorn fart?
Maybe we should do as HE said and be like a little child having faith in a parent.
There will be many more than that who suffer eternal death. That you say He is cruel does not prove He isnt the Creator, GOD. Those in Hell will say HE is cruel. There will probably be many in Hell say HE is cruel, but they will not say there is no HE.
For years I maintained, for those who love the Lord there will be more reason to love Him in eternality. For those who don't love the Lord there will be more reason not to love the Lord in eternity.
There are going to be plenty who love the Lord burning for eternity side-by-side with the rest based on their actions.
There will be many more than that who suffer eternal death. That you say He is cruel does not prove He isnt the Creator, GOD. Those in Hell will say HE is cruel. There will probably be many in Hell say HE is cruel, but they will not say there is no HE.
For years I maintained, for those who love the Lord there will be more reason to love Him in eternality. For those who don't love the Lord there will be more reason not to love the Lord in eternity.
There are going to be plenty who love the Lord burning for eternity side-by-side with the rest based on their actions.
Its faith, not actions.
I may not be anywhere near the best Christian around, but I'm pretty sure that I/you/whoever can have all the faith in the world, but will also be judged on our deeds/works on earth.
That does go to my earlier point, though. Plenty with faith don't walk the talk.............hypocrisy.
There will be many more than that who suffer eternal death. That you say He is cruel does not prove He isnt the Creator, GOD. Those in Hell will say HE is cruel. There will probably be many in Hell say HE is cruel, but they will not say there is no HE.
For years I maintained, for those who love the Lord there will be more reason to love Him in eternality. For those who don't love the Lord there will be more reason not to love the Lord in eternity.
There are going to be plenty who love the Lord burning for eternity side-by-side with the rest based on their actions.
Its faith, not actions.
Yep. Although we are still called to serve others.
Thank you Doc. I hope, and pray we can do some good works as we are told to do. The non believers on this forum can't be any tougher than cannibals in dark Africa.
Wabigoon,
If you know the history of the Belgium Christians in the Congo and the millions they killed, you wouldn't be using that example.
AS, indulge me a little on this...I find history very interesting 😎
He's cruel in your eyes, because He gave men free will. So shake your fist in His face and hate Him.
Ha. You are your own go d. You can judge HIM, but woe be unto HE who would judge you, right? You own your own self. Yeah, you are a go d. Keep telling yourself that. Oh. btw, let me know when you build an eyelash, or create a cell with life that can replicate.
Chrome 2? Very weak stuff: Apes and humans are similar---each has two arms, two legs, a head and a torso. They are also very different in important respects. Humans only have 46 chromosomes while apes have 48. It is a scientific fact that chromosomes can fuse together to form one big chromosome, so to explain away the difference in our chromosome counts, Darwinists take a leap of faith. They believe two chromosomes fused together in an unknown primate ancestor to form human chromosome 2. Then they claim this faith-based belief as their great proof for Darwinism. But multiple studies have revealed that sheep which have multiple chromosome fusions are indistinguishable from sheep which do not have the fused chromosomes. What this means is that such fusions do not create new and beneficial genetic information that causes one kind of critter, like an ape, to evolve into another kind, like a human. Science shows that human chromosome 2 contains complex genetic information that is not found in apes, including many protein coding genes. Likewise, scientists have never shown how such complex genetic information could come about by natural processes. It is the genetic data that is the big difference between ape and man – not the number of chromosomes holding the data. After all, tobacco plants, like apes, also have 48 chromosomes yet no one is claiming that they are close relatives! In other words, even if human chromosome 2 was the result of a fusion event it would be best explained as the fusion of two human chromosomes, not from a fusion that occurred, once upon a time, in some non-observed primate ancestor. So what does human chromosome 2 have to do with Darwinism? Absolutely nothing! The bottom line is that people must be careful to distinguish real science from biased Darwinian conjecture because claiming that Human Chromosome 2 is proof of goo-to-the-zoo-to-you evolutionism is nothing more than propaganda.
Great post, and thanks for it and the time it took.
Thank you Doc. I hope, and pray we can do some good works as we are told to do. The non believers on this forum can't be any tougher than cannibals in dark Africa.
Wabigoon,
If you know the history of the Belgium Christians in the Congo and the millions they killed, you wouldn't be using that example.
AS, indulge me a little on this...I find history very interesting 😎
He's cruel in your eyes, because He gave men free will. So shake your fist in His face and hate Him.
Ha. You are your own go d. You can judge HIM, but woe be unto HE who would judge you, right? You own your own self. Yeah, you are a go d. Keep telling yourself that. Oh. btw, let me know when you build an eyelash, or create a cell with life that can replicate.
When have I ever claims to be a god, or have any supernatural powers?
How does not believing in a god make me one?
So since you don't believe in leprechauns, that makes you a leprechaun??
You folks have scarily come up for air, let alone noticed that I gave up on this thread I ain't even a voice crying in the wilderness for now. Let me know who wins.
Thank you Doc. I hope, and pray we can do some good works as we are told to do. The non believers on this forum can't be any tougher than cannibals in dark Africa.
Wabigoon,
If you know the history of the Belgium Christians in the Congo and the millions they killed, you wouldn't be using that example.
AS, indulge me a little on this...I find history very interesting 😎
There will be many more than that who suffer eternal death. That you say He is cruel does not prove He isnt the Creator, GOD. Those in Hell will say HE is cruel. There will probably be many in Hell say HE is cruel, but they will not say there is no HE.
The bible tells us two opposing things, one that God is a cruel, intolerant and vindictive tyrant, and the other that God is love, keeping no record of wrongs, forgiving transgressions......
Kind of like how kids often feel about their parents at times, huh?
Do we ever have any bad days where we are always loving to our kids no matter what they do? Maybe He has bad days.
Sounds as if we are maybe kind of made in His image.
There will be many more than that who suffer eternal death. That you say He is cruel does not prove He isnt the Creator, GOD. Those in Hell will say HE is cruel. There will probably be many in Hell say HE is cruel, but they will not say there is no HE.
For years I maintained, for those who love the Lord there will be more reason to love Him in eternality. For those who don't love the Lord there will be more reason not to love the Lord in eternity.
There are going to be plenty who love the Lord burning for eternity side-by-side with the rest based on their actions.
You may want to study up a bit.... Great White Throne Judgment and Bema Seat......
In conjunction with this..... When Jesus speaks of the separation of the sheep and goats.... He says “.... depart from me, I never knew you....“
He does not send them away because they were “bad sinners.”
I may not be anywhere near the best Christian around, but I'm pretty sure that I/you/whoever can have all the faith in the world, but will also be judged on our deeds/works on earth.
That does go to my earlier point, though. Plenty with faith don't walk the talk.............hypocrisy.
A little support:
"And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which I of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds Revelation 20:12
I started reading this discussion believing that Yeshua (Jesus) was who he said he was, son of man , prophet, rabbi (teacher), savior. And that Paul was a fraud corrupting Jesus' teachings and directing people through the wide gate down the broad path to destruction. Jesus' purported friends accepting and promoting Paul's teachings do great damage. Paul and Jesus cannot be reconciled. Without Paul the "Christain" church would never have been able to justify its atrocities and power over the secular affairs of government. I'm still where I was in my original beliefs but I don't blame non believers for not accepting the Jesus represented here.
Hastings,
Consider this. Of the Canonical writings, best we can tell, those of Paul were written first. The Gospels can later, the simplest version with the most geographical and cultural mistakes, and simplest Jesus, Mark came first, followed by the later, more embellished versions.
By this measure, the "authentic" writing of "Paul" are more foundations to Christianity then the Gospels.
We also have later forgeries attributed to "Paul" which attempted to "correct: some of "Paul's" earlier writing, such as he egalitarian views of women.
And yes, there's much between the two versions of Christianity that cannot be reconciled. Paul was way more Gnostic than most Modern Christians realize.
At least the gospels are versions of Jesus' life and teachings although admittedly with lots of gaps and omissions. But a central message of salvation through repentance and good works exemplified by your relationship with others managed to come through. He pointed out very harshly the Hebrew leaders complete failure of following God's law and they killed him for it. I know a lot was edited or added to scripture for all kinds of evil reasons although the editors failed to obliterate Jesus message. Paul on the other hand came up with a screwball formula that Jesus never endorsed. No matter whose version came out first I don't think either writers read the other side's version with the exception of most likely the book of James being almost clearly in opposition to Paul.
But, WHY do they try (albeit unsuccessfully) to diminish our faith in Jesus?
Nobody is attempting to interfere with your personal faith....but when christians present what they allege as Proof or evidence, it deserves and attracts scrutiny by both Christian and non christian alike.
That proves you are a liar. We dont submit scientific "evidence" of proof, though we do submit evidence of truths to ourselves.
We present the disciples stories as evidence for us to believe, not scientific proofs, as we know they are ment not to be and for our benefit, but lie again, you heathen hypocrite.
Chrome 2? Very weak stuff: Apes and humans are similar---each has two arms, two legs, a head and a torso. They are also very different in important respects. Humans only have 46 chromosomes while apes have 48. It is a scientific fact that chromosomes can fuse together to form one big chromosome, so to explain away the difference in our chromosome counts, Darwinists take a leap of faith. They believe two chromosomes fused together in an unknown primate ancestor to form human chromosome 2. Then they claim this faith-based belief as their great proof for Darwinism. But multiple studies have revealed that sheep which have multiple chromosome fusions are indistinguishable from sheep which do not have the fused chromosomes. What this means is that such fusions do not create new and beneficial genetic information that causes one kind of critter, like an ape, to evolve into another kind, like a human. Science shows that human chromosome 2 contains complex genetic information that is not found in apes, including many protein coding genes. Likewise, scientists have never shown how such complex genetic information could come about by natural processes. It is the genetic data that is the big difference between ape and man – not the number of chromosomes holding the data. After all, tobacco plants, like apes, also have 48 chromosomes yet no one is claiming that they are close relatives! In other words, even if human chromosome 2 was the result of a fusion event it would be best explained as the fusion of two human chromosomes, not from a fusion that occurred, once upon a time, in some non-observed primate ancestor. So what does human chromosome 2 have to do with Darwinism? Absolutely nothing! The bottom line is that people must be careful to distinguish real science from biased Darwinian conjecture because claiming that Human Chromosome 2 is proof of goo-to-the-zoo-to-you evolutionism is nothing more than propaganda.
You know that you should cite when quoting material from other sources.
It's dishonest to weave other people's work into your narrative as if you wrote it yourself....unless you are the author of the article? Be honest about what you copy
Word for word from the article:
A quote from creation ministries article: ''It is a scientific fact that chromosomes can fuse together to form one big chromosome, so to explain away the difference in our chromosome counts, Darwinists take a leap of faith. They believe two chromosomes fused together in an unknown primate ancestor to form human chromosome 2. Then they claim this faith-based belief as their great proof for Darwinism.''
Copy and paste is not your friend, unless you cite your sources. You have not done that. That is dishonest.
Did you write the creation ministries article or not?
''Since the mid-1800s, biologists have generally shared the belief that all living things descended from a single common ancestor. Based on fossil evidence and comparative anatomy, Charles Darwin proposed that humans and great apes–which include [bleep], gorillas, and orangutans–share a common ancestor that lived several million years ago. More recent research has propped up Darwin's theory of common descent (also called common ancestry): genome analysis reveals the genetic difference between humans and [bleep] to be less than 2 percent. In other words, humans and [bleep] have DNA sequences that are greater than 98 percent similar.
While the genetic similarity between human and ape strengthened Darwin's theory, a significant, unexplained discrepancy remained. While great apes all have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs), humans have only 46 (23 pairs). If humans and apes shared a common ancestor, shouldn't both have the same number of chromosomes in their cells?
The phases through which chromosomes replicate, divide, shuffle, and recombine are imperfect, as DNA is subject to random mutations. Mutations do not always produce harmful outcomes. In fact, many mutations are thought to be neutral, and some even give rise to beneficial traits. To corroborate Darwin's theory, scientists would need to find a valid explanation for why a chromosome pair is missing in humans that is present in apes.
A fundamental part of the process by which science is done involves developing a testable prediction, also known as a hypothesis. Scientists offered two possible explanations for the discrepancy: Either the common ancestor had 24 pairs, and humans carry a fused chromosome; or the ancestor had 23 pairs, and apes carry a split chromosome. Their focused research led them to find a mutation on one human chromosome that explained what had happened.
In 2005, a peer-reviewed scientific journal published results of the tests. It turns out that chromosome 2, which is unique to the human lineage of evolution, emerged as a result of the head-to-head fusion of two ancestral chromosomes that remain separate in other primates. Three genetic indicators provide strong, if not conclusive, evidence of fusion. First, the banding (or dye pattern) of human chromosome 2 closely matches that of two separate chromosomes found in apes ([bleep] chromosome 2 and an extra chromosome that does not match any other human chromosome). Second, a chromosome normally has one centromere, or central point at which a chromosome's two identical strands are joined. Yet remnants of a second, presumably inactive centromere can be found on human chromosome 2. And third, whereas a normal chromosome has readily identifiable, repeating DNA sequences called telomeres at both ends, chromosome 2 also has telomere sequences not only at both ends but also in the middle.''