After many discussions it has become evident to me that those that claim the Bible is Gods word to man rely on prophesy as proof. This raises questions in my mind. Questions like: Does this mean that any prophesy that comes true must surely be from God and worth building a religion around? Would this be the one and only true religion because these prophesies are true? What if these prophesies were merely by (psychic) individuals that had glimpsies of the future?

I understand that some like Edger Cayce and Nostradamus and many others are credited with predictions or prophesies that came true.

Let us consider some of the predictions of the ancient Hopi Indians.
"Before the great purification, they will make metal roads for iron horses [ trains and tracks ] and hang metal ropes[power lines] in the air."
The last danger sign is that "first they will bring back pieces of the moon. Purification will begin shortly after humans build a great house in the sky"[space station]

These are only a few examples of gifted people able to see the future, I am sure others can come up with more examples.

Seems to me that prophesy has little to do with verifing a book, religion, or proof of Godly intervention.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
After many discussions it has become evident to me that those that claim the Bible is Gods word to man rely on prophesy as proof. This raises questions in my mind. Questions like: Does this mean that any prophesy that comes true must surely be from God and worth building a religion around? Would this be the one and only true religion because these prophesies are true? What if these prophesies were merely by (psychic) individuals that had glimpsies of the future?

The reason we have been paying such close attention to the numerous prophecies of the bible is that so many people here have a problem with not having a reason to believe in the bible.
They want proof that the bible is legit, and they get that through the prophecies of the word.

I'm not sure where you got the notion that we think any prophecy that comes true is worth building a religion around. We are specifically talking about the prophocies of the bible. We are showing you current evidence of the bible completing what it said years and years ago.

I understand that some like Edger Cayce and Nostradamus and many others are credited with predictions or prophesies that came true.



Seems to me that prophesy has little to do with verifing a book, religion, or proof of Godly intervention.

Seems to me you are desperately trying to find a way out of clear evidence in the power of the bible.

Everyone keeps saying theres no proof that its legit....well look at the numerous prophecies weve listed. Plenty of proof.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks

Seems to me you are desperately trying to find a way out of clear evidence in the power of the bible.

Everyone keeps saying theres no proof that its legit....well look at the numerous prophecies weve listed. Plenty of proof. [/B]

You have shown no "clear" evidence, Jere. Show me a prophecy that isn't subject to interpretation, and clearly states something that didn't happen in antiquity.

Vile,

I find this to be an example of the same stunt you pulled on stark in another post. When given proof...all you do is say it is false or wrong.

You have not given either claim any evidense to support it.

The fact that Christ completed every prophecy to an exact is proof, the fact that Israel has throughout history and continues to be held protected in the hand of God is proof, and the fact that signs of end times are falling into place such as the rebuilding of the roman empire (european union) and the fall of Baghdad are even further proof.

Honey the end times have been falling into place since time began, which is why such religions as yours have held people to the fear that they better get right with God.

Honey, and starting with Eve, people such as yourself have been easily decieved.

The signs of Christs return are falling into place, rather you care to admit it.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
The signs of Christs return are falling into place, rather you care to admit it.

I just think people see those signs in order to convince themselves that they're right. Same deal with all of those people that keep thinking that they're seeing Jesus' face in taco shells and such things.

The signs of Christs return are falling into place, rather you care to admit it.

People have been saying that forever.

Whatever keeps you in line!

Did it ever occur to you, that the signs have been occuring for a long time?

It shouldnt take the end of the world to make someone stay in line, but sadly people are in nature pathetic.

It shouldnt take the end of the world to make someone stay in line, but sadly people are in nature pathetic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


people who?

people, people.

You, me, everyone else.

Is there another kind of people that I'm not aware of?

Please, speak for yourself when using derogitory terms like "pathetic"

I don't condsider myself pathetic, I could cry and moan about the hand I've been dealt, but nah, I am greatful I have been deemed fit to face challenges on the levels i have.......

"For all have fallen short of the glory of God."

I dont consider you any better than anyone else, nor do I myself.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Vile,

I find this to be an example of the same stunt you pulled on stark in another post. When given proof...all you do is say it is false or wrong.

You have not given either claim any evidense to support it.

Jere, when you make a claim that a prophecy is true, you are the one who should provide evidence to support it. If you make an extraordinary claim that some one can see the future, you'd better have evidence that will stand up to a little scrutiny. If I've said your explanation of prophecy was vague or interpretive it's because the prophecy itself doesn't mention specifics, and so it can be interpreted to pertain to any number of historical events. it is therefore up to the believers in prophecy to make a convincing case, which you have failed to do.

The fact that Christ completed every prophecy to an exact is proof, the fact that Israel has throughout history and continues to be held protected in the hand of God is proof, and the fact that signs of end times are falling into place such as the rebuilding of the roman empire (european union) and the fall of Baghdad are even further proof.

The prophecies concerning Christ, and the whole "messiah" thing, are interesting stories, but it seems silly to rely strictly on the Bible to verify a biblical prophecy.

I think when you write about history as being "his story", and describe the history of Israel using a phrase like "Israel has throughout history and continues to be held protected in the hand of God", that pretty much kills your credibility as a historian, or even a student of history.

The European Union is certainly not the Roman Empire, and the prophecy you posted didn't talk about Baghdad, it mentioned a "great city", or some such.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
After many discussions it has become evident to me that those that claim the Bible is Gods word to man rely on prophesy as proof. This raises questions in my mind. Questions like: Does this mean that any prophesy that comes true must surely be from God and worth building a religion around? Would this be the one and only true religion because these prophesies are true? What if these prophesies were merely by (psychic) individuals that had glimpsies of the future?

You bring up some good points, Dan. However I don't think the fulfilled prophecies in the Bible are the only reasons people believe.

One of the things that convinces me of the veracity of the Bible is that it accurately describes the human condition as woefully sinful, as Jere has pointed out. Then, it goes on to provide a remedy for that condition that makes sense.

People aren't mere animals, as the evolutionary myth would suggest. Nor are they basically good, as humanists and New Agers would like to believe.

Some religions teach that we go through a series of rituals to make ourselves right with God. It makes no sense to me. I cannot cleanse myself enough to keep up with all the times I fall short of the standards of a perfect God. I need help, and I'll rely on the method God provided for me.

The fulfilled prophecies are just icing on the cake.

And, speaking of the end times, did you know that the end times, in effect come each day for approximately 200,000 people? They die, thus fulfilling a prophecy God provided way back in Genesis.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Jere, when you make a claim that a prophecy is true, you are the one who should provide evidence to support it. If you make an extraordinary claim that some one can see the future, you'd better have evidence that will stand up to a little scrutiny. If I've said your explanation of prophecy was vague or interpretive it's because the prophecy itself doesn't mention specifics, and so it can be interpreted to pertain to any number of historical events. it is therefore up to the believers in prophecy to make a convincing case, which you have failed to do.

I have given you evidence.

If the Bible says something it means it. If you cannot find it within yourself to say, you know that seems kind of odd that all the things are happening just like the bible said.


The prophecies concerning Christ, and the whole "messiah" thing, are interesting stories, but it seems silly to rely strictly on the Bible to verify a biblical prophecy.

I think when you write about history as being "his story", and describe the history of Israel using a phrase like "Israel has throughout history and continues to be held protected in the hand of God", that pretty much kills your credibility as a historian, or even a student of history.

The European Union is certainly not the Roman Empire, and the prophecy you posted didn't talk about Baghdad, it mentioned a "great city", or some such.

To have such little faith in the bible, you seem to have an extrodinary faith in coincidence.

Even your so trusted scientists and historians have connected Baghdad and Babylon. The European Union is the beginning of the reformation of the Roman Empire....it will grow larger, wait and see.


There are hundreds upon hundreds upon more hundreds of biblical prophecy. Are you about to tell me that, every single one of them can just be "interpreted" to something that is happening now? Or that they are just eerily similiar?

Like I said earlier, you have an extremely strong faith in coincidence.

Excellent Point Duck.

I agree with everything you posted.

There is so much to the bible. I mean, its everything we need to teach us how to live our lives, both to please God, and to be whitnesses to the lost.

The fact that this whole idea of prophecy as prove as blew up as big as it has, is because a lot of people on here kept saying they wanted to see proof.....and now that they got it.....they act as if its coincidence, or that every single prophecy in the bible can be interpreted to something that has happened.

If the atheists applied the same standard to evolution that they are applying to biblical prophecy, they would've abandoned it long ago.

We could just as easily ask them:

Can you prove that a particular fossil was found where and when the "scientists" say it was?

Can you prove that the fossils were accurately radiometrically dated as the scientists say they were?

Can you prove that the geological layers laid down are accurately dated?

Can you prove that the proconsul skull Blib posted wasn't just a sculpture created by an artist, or the skull of a primate with birth defects that died in the San Diego zoo 2 years ago?

We do know that scientists have resorted to fraud to try to prove evolution in the past (see Piltdown man) How do we know they are being honest with us now? Prove it!

We don't know, for sure, any of these things, yet people in this forum believe in evolution "because the scientists say so" or because the pictures come from a website ending in .edu.

Given all this, it seems silly to blindly accept a timeline of hominids presented on a university website, and then turn around and reject Biblical prophecy.

see the difference is that the bible is only one source, but the findings of scientists are collaberated from many different sources and they line up. No scientist has said "i said so" they say "see!, here is what I found for all to see?"


over and over and over again, the facts are lining up. you choose to diismiss the eveidnce becvasue if firhgtens you and does not line up with you ribilical timeline...........

Originally posted by creetwins
see the difference is that the bible is only one source, but the findings of scientists are collaberated from many different sources and they line up. No scientist has said "i said so" they say "see!, here is what I found for all to see?"
Wrong. The Bible is not a single document. It is a collection of many different documents from many different independent sources. There are actually thousands of different source documents from which our current translations of the Bible are derived.
The scientists present fossils as their evidence for the evolutionary myth. However, they expect us to accept their interpretation of this evidence without question.


over and over and over again, the facts are lining up.
Right! The facts are lining up in support of the Bible.

you choose to diismiss the eveidnce becvasue if firhgtens you and does not line up with you ribilical timeline...........
No. Atheists choose to dismiss the evidence in support of the Bible because they are afraid to be held accountable to an almighty God.

Athiests and religious zealots have exactly the same mindset. They believe only what they want to believe. They discard everything else. And finally, the area in which they are most similar is that they are both wrong. From everything I have seen, heard, or read about in the world, nothing comes from just one source. It comes from a combination of things. Since each only believe in one idea, and since each is so firmly entrenched in that belief they cannot accept that their way is absolutely totally 100% correct.

No. Atheists choose to dismiss the evidence in support of the Bible because they are afraid to be held accountable to an almighty God.


Ya got me.:rolleyes:
First I am not atheist, and second, this statement embodies the attitude of fear held by the thumpers by which I am irritated.

I am not afraid of God, why should I be. You guys are the ones afraid of God, and that is not a jive I want to get with.

I can have science and god. I do not know there is one, but it's nice to think there might be, and hope that he is a nice god.

I agree cree, no need to fear. :)

People fear what's to come after death. That is where all of this stems from. Fear can paralyze a person, and if you just let it go, life becomes more full. All one can know is that it is inevitable.

Life is a game you cannot win but can only have fun playing.

Originally posted by creetwins
First I am not atheist, and second, this statement embodies the attitude of fear held by the thumpers by which I am irritated.
I didn't say you were an atheist. However, there are others in this forum who are atheists, and I'm addressing them as well. I'm sorry that you are irritated by the "thumpers". I can sympathize with you. The truth isn't always pleasant.

I am not afraid of God, why should I be. You guys are the ones afraid of God, and that is not a jive I want to get with.
We should be afraid of God because He has absolute power over us. He demands our perfection and we have not provided it. He gave us life and He has the power to take it away. He does not care whether this is a "jive I want to get with".

However, there is a kernel of truth to what you are saying. Once a person accepts Christ's free gift of salvation and begins serving God, there is no reason to fear death, or anything else.

I can have science and god. I do not know there is one, but it's nice to think there might be, and hope that he is a nice god.
I agree with your first point. I am a big fan of science. That is why I will not blindly accept the evolutionary myth. I know there is a God, and I know who He is, and He's much better than just "nice".
He is glorious, wonderful and magnificent. :)

He does not care whether this is a "jive I want to get with".

Wow, so know you this for sure? Who made you the expert on what God does and does not care for.

See cree, this is where the religious wars, death and prejudice comes in. People deciding what God wants, by inherited information.

The creator of all that is, I believe, demands little of man-kind.
Yet man-kind demands much in religious practices.
If Jesus walked the earth it is obvious by the small amount of preserved sayings of him that he was telling people how simple a good existance was. Be considerate and help one-another thru this life.
I would like to know his total sayings but most probably would not fit men's ideas of religion at the time and date of his life and were simply omitted. Man's attempt to make a controlling religion(as is shown from other religions originating in that geographic area) would not probably fit into the total teachings of an enlightened person. Man in his vain attempt to control the lives of another simply missed the boat on the original teachings.

At least today we are merely called athiests and agnostics.
Hell it wasn't long ago they would yelled heresy and burned us at the stake. Of course in the name of God.

Why doesn't God just come down from his cloud and just tell us what he wants? Wouldn't it be just a lot easier that way. So people who still dont care can do what they want and people who do will follow him.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
I'm sorry that you are irritated by the "thumpers". I can sympathize with you. The truth isn't always pleasant.

There are many, many different denominations of Christianity, all with their own interpretations of "the truth." For the thumpers to arrive and tell me that my version is wrong and theirs is right with no evidence to back it up is wrong.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck

The scientists present fossils as their evidence for the evolutionary myth. However, they expect us to accept their interpretation of this evidence without question.


Au contraire mon frere...

Scientists publish their findings in peer reviewed publications, where their reasearch is scrutinized by others, and the evidence examined. Scientists invite people to look at the evidence with a skeptical eye, and do NOT expect anyone to accept any findings without question.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Scientists publish there findings in peer reviewed publications, where their reasearch is scrutinized by others, and the evidence examined. Scientists invite people to look at the evidence with a skeptical eye, and do NOT expect anyone to accept any findings without question.

It's a vast conspiracy!

Originally posted by LionelHutz
It's a vast conspiracy!

:D I expected that from Uncool, or Stark or maybe even Jere...but you Lionel?

::collapses in a faint::

Originally posted by Vilepagan
:D I expected that from Uncool, or Stark or maybe even Jere...but you Lionel?

::collapses in a faint::


Atleast there was a small bit of doubt concerning me, lol. :D

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Atleast there was a small bit of doubt concerning me, lol. :D

I wasn't sure if you knew how to spell "conspiracy" :D

Originally posted by creetwins
Who made you the expert on what God does and does not care for.
I'm very flattered that you consider me and expert, but I am not. I'm getting this information out of a book called the Bible.

originally posted by LionelHutz
There are many, many different denominations of Christianity, all with their own interpretations of "the truth." For the thumpers to arrive and tell me that my version is wrong and theirs is right with no evidence to back it up is wrong.
For you to tell the "thumpers" that their version is wrong, with no evidence to back it up is also wrong.

Originally posted by Evil Homer
Why doesn't God just come down from his cloud and just tell us what he wants?
Because he's already written a book explaining this.

Originally posted by Vil
Scientists publish their findings in peer reviewed publications, where their reasearch is scrutinized by others, and the evidence examined. Scientists invite people to look at the evidence with a skeptical eye, and do NOT expect anyone to accept any findings without question.
Generally true, but not always. And those in this forum DO expect us "thumpers" to accept "evidence" of the evolutionary myth without question, as do many teachers in our local schools and universities.

:)

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck

Generally true, but not always. And those in this forum DO expect us "thumpers" to accept "evidence" of the evolutionary myth without question, as do many teachers in our local schools and universities.
:)

I have no problem with people who question scientific findings, but to dismiss them as "myth" based on what you read in a confusing, and contradictory book written 2000 years ago by non-scientists, is an exercise in willful ignorance.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
For you to tell the "thumpers" that their version is wrong, with no evidence to back it up is also wrong.

I'm doing no such thing. All I ask is that I be left alone to worship God in my own way without being told that I'm going to hell.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I have no problem with people who question scientific findings, but to dismiss them as "myth" based on what you read in a confusing, and contradictory book written 2000 years ago by non-scientists, is an exercise in willful ignorance.

I question evolution based on the science. Many scientists do as well. I assume the "book" you're talking about is the Bible, even though many portions of it were written more than 2000 years ago. I agree, it is confusing, however, I've yet to see any "contradiction" presented that wasn't answered. "Willful ignorance" is accepting evolution just because "the scientists say so".

Originally posted by LionelHutz
All I ask is that I be left alone to worship God in my own way without being told that I'm going to hell.
Well, I'm sorry that you have a problem with free speech, Lionel. You have several remedies with this. You can lobby your legislators to support a constitutional amendment repealing the first amendment, or you can move to a country like Canada, France, or Sweden where religious speech is censored. Watch out though, someday you may be the one whose rights are threatened.

By the way, you never heard me tell you that you were going to hell. I don't make those kind of judgments.

Lional - you are wasteing your time. It is my experience that religious people do not want to be confused by facts as they have already made up their minds. Everything in the bible is right, and anything not in the bible is wrong. It is the start all and end all of their existance and they have no comprehension of anything that may in the slightest way contradict their scriptures. They base the entire idea that god exhists on scripture.

Kinda like you and I arguing that the Tin man is real and everything he said is fact because it says so here in this book called the Wizard of Oz.

You can slap them in the face with evidence and they will fall back on their book because they have no evidenc to back up their claims and don't comprehend logic.

Their entire paradym is based on faith and nothing more.

Originally posted by Echo2
Lional - you are wasteing your time. It is my experience that religious people do not want to be confused by facts as they have already made up their minds. Everything in the bible is right, and anything not in the bible is wrong. It is the start all and end all of their existance and they have no comprehension of anything that may in the slightest way contradict their scriptures. They base the entire idea that god exhists on scripture.

Kinda like you and I arguing that the Tin man is real and everything he said is fact because it says so here in this book called the Wizard of Oz.

You can slap them in the face with evidence and they will fall back on their book because they have no evidenc to back up their claims and don't comprehend logic.

Their entire paradym is based on faith and nothing more.
Wrong as usual Echo. First of all, I don't believe that the motivation of most of the people in this forum is to provide any evidence to contradict Christianity. Lionel hasn't provided any, nor have you or creetwins. You just want to use this forum to express your hate towards Christians. Vil and Dan have brought up some objections to the Biblical texts as has Lithorien. I disagree with their objections, but at least they are willing to enter the debate. Blib is the only person that I can recall that has made any serious attempt to provide any evidence supporting evolution.

So, here's your chance, Echo. Slap me in the face with evidence.

Why is Homo Erectus no longer considered an Australopithicine and given that he is not, why should I trust the classifications of the other Australopithicines?

The WSU website, originally posted by Blib claims “The last several years have thus produced several dramatic finds which are likely to modify our view of Hominid evolution significantly when their implications are more fully understood. “ Does this mean that their views of evolution will change in respnse to these dramatic finds? If so, why should I take their current timeline as fact?

Could you explain to me the methodology behind dating fossils based on their locations in geologic layers when we observe similar layers being laid down in pyroclastic flows in a matter of a few hours?

Given this, is the ratio of isotopes used in radiometric dating based upon fossil finds in geologic layers? If so, how can it be accurate given my previous question?

How can I be absolutely sure Australopithecus afarensis is not the next Piltdown Man?

Or the next pro avis?

Come on, Echo, waste a little time on me.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
I question evolution based on the science.

Then please give a scientific reason why you dispute the Theory of Evolution, not a religious one.

Many scientists do as well.

That's fine...that's how science works. Someone comes up with an explanation for something and this explanation is tested to see if it conforms to the facts. When problems arise the explanation is modified accordingly. Science is not the "truth", it's the best way man has yet devised to discover the truth, and it certainly is more responsible for the advancement of our species than the Bible.

I assume the "book" you're talking about is the Bible, even though many portions of it were written more than 2000 years ago. I agree, it is confusing, however, I've yet to see any "contradiction" presented that wasn't answered.

And I have yet to see any contradiction explained in a satisfactory manner.

"Willful ignorance" is accepting evolution just because "the scientists say so".


Well, I don't think believing in evolution is ignorant, but I would say that you should suspect anyone or any idea that someone asks you to accept unquestioningly, or on "faith". Chances are they are selling something.

BTW, it has been pointed out already that scientists do NOT expect anyone to accept evolution because "the scientists say so", they present evidence to support their assertions.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Wrong as usual Echo. First of all, I don't believe that the motivation of most of the people in this forum is to provide any evidence to contradict Christianity.

You totslly missed the entire point of the post. You were either reading someting else or putting your own interpretation to it.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Because he's already written a book explaining this.

Actually, i believe people wrote the book. They were taking dictation. So it seems since they messed up here and there. So maybe God should give us the revised and edited version with authors notes.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Well, I'm sorry that you have a problem with free speech, Lionel. You have several remedies with this. You can lobby your legislators to support a constitutional amendment repealing the first amendment, or you can move to a country like Canada, France, or Sweden where religious speech is censored. Watch out though, someday you may be the one whose rights are threatened.

Uh huh. Seeing as how I'm not a government entity, I'm not restricting anyone's freedom of speech. I'm just exercising my freedom of speech in asking them to leave me alone.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
By the way, you never heard me tell you that you were going to hell. I don't make those kind of judgments.

Quite true, and I didn't mean to imply that you were.


Originally posted by Echo2
Lional - you are wasteing your time. It is my experience that religious people do not want to be confused by facts as they have already made up their minds. Everything in the bible is right, and anything not in the bible is wrong.

That's the thing, though, I'm a religious person and they don't want to listen to me either because they think their version of Christianity is the only version.

Why is Homo Erectus no longer considered an Australopithicine and given that he is not, why should I trust the classifications of the other Australopithicines?
I was completely unaware that Homo Erectus was ever classified under the Australopithecus genus. Homo habilis has had some issues, since it is far closer to apes than most of the other human species. These clasifications are not set in stone, but they are currently the best we have. Australopithecus is a genus, and has many species under it, just like Homo is a genus with many species, which species falls under which genus can still be debated, since classification of species is entirely based off logical guesses. There are a couple of ways to determine classifications, and scientists still haven't settled on one specific way, it's either the evolutionary line or just by physical similarities. Then again, classification really doesn't matter much in the scheme of things, it's just an organization system, and has no bearing on the evidence other than to just do what it says, classify.

Does this mean that their views of evolution will change in respnse to these dramatic finds? If so, why should I take their current timeline as fact?
Do not take it as fact. It is still the best guess we have, it is based off of scientific evidence, but is not fact. Science doesn't give you facts, it gives you laws and theories, all of which can be proven wrong at a later time. But to disregard it simply because it can be proven wrong is rather stupid and short sighted. The only way we progress is by learning what's out there, and figuring more about it, weither that gives more evidence to it, or begins to disprove it is based off of how life is.

Could you explain to me the methodology behind dating fossils based on their locations in geologic layers when we observe similar layers being laid down in pyroclastic flows in a matter of a few hours?
That form of dating is quite incomplete and is mostly a guess on the scientist's part. Very little specific evidence can be used to date it that way, mostly it is in the field of seeing things in the same layer that would have occured around a time period. Different time periods leave different minerals, different plant remains, other bones, etc.

Given this, is the ratio of isotopes used in radiometric dating based upon fossil finds in geologic layers? If so, how can it be accurate given my previous question?
Carbon-14 dating, now that's how things are accurately dated(not very usable past 50,000 years though). Carbon-14 decays at a constant rate, and the ratio of carbon-14 and carbon-12 in something is constant through it's living life. When it dies, the carbon-14 begins to decay, to calculate the age of something we use this equation: t = [ ln (Nf/No) / (-0.693) ] x t1/2. The amount of carbon-12 will remain the same(carbon-12 is everywhere, and is constantly replaced, however carbon-14 stops being replaced after death), so we use that ratio to calculate the age. See, quite simple actually, and very accurate. If it is too old, other things can be used to date it, since there are other radioactive elements that decay slower.

Uncoolduck, I'm not a hater, and I resent the implication, as I am sure Lionel and Echo do as well.

I am just not like you, and I think we are a different species alltogether.

Believe what you want , as will I.

I feel no need to convince you of anything, because I know that you and others like you are safe and secure and happy to have your bible explain eveything for you, however, there are many many people who would like a little more detail to the scientific ways things work. People's ,minds work in different ways, and some like religion to wrap it all up for them, others would like to explore the truth for themselves. And before you go on about "truth", remember that your truth and my truth and the next guy's truth are all different as well. I am glad you have peace and joy in your religious studies and endeavors. I wish you no ill will. BUt be at peace with the fact that it is not for everyone, and don't dis' the ones who have other interests.

It's also nice to know that my beliefs and opinions matter not to you anyway.

Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

Originally posted by creetwins
Uncoolduck, I'm not a hater, and I resent the implication, as I am sure Lionel and Echo do as well.
At various times, you guys have called me ignorant, a "thumper", a fanatic, and mentally ill. Sounds pretty hateful to me. I'd also like to know what you mean by saying I'm of a "different species alltogether(sic)".

Blib, I thank you for your response to my questions. I'd like to explore that further. I'm considering starting a new thread in the science section where we can discuss this more specifically.

Lionel, I didn't realize you were a religious person. I probably missed that when I was responding to other posts. Sorry about that.

Vil, we've discussed the scientific objections to evolution before. And the "contradictions" you brought up have been answered as well, and you're the one who said you'd just "trust the scientists" when it came to evolution.

Evil Homer, despite the derogatory connotation of your last post, I agree. I think we differ on the extent of where the Bible writers messed up "here and there". I do not believe these mistakes are significant enough to discard the Bible as a whole. Vil may want to make hay out of the fact that a Bible translator misidentified a couple of farm animals 400 years ago, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to throw out the whole text.

Originally posted by Echo2
You totslly missed the entire point of the post. You were either reading someting else or putting your own interpretation to it.
Well, Echo, I thought that the point of your post was: "It is my experience that religious people do not want to be confused by facts as they have already made up their minds." That is a direct quote from your post. I provided you an opportunity to confuse with me with some facts. I notice that you took a pass.

At various times, you guys have called me ignorant, a "thumper", a fanatic, and mentally ill. Sounds pretty hateful to me. I'd also like to know what you mean by saying I'm of a "different species alltogether(sic)".

Yes I have loosely compared you to the thumpers that irritate me, but as for the other terms, I didn't use those comparisons for y ou. I didn't know thumper was considered a hateful term.

Disagreeing with someone and questioning their views is not hating in my book. I'm sorry you feel that I am a hater.

As for the comment about being different species, I do not mean that one is better over the other, it just means that we are wired differently. Nothing wrong with that as it takes all kinds to turn the world.

Labling people that do not follow your line of thought as haters is not an accurate observation. It's okay to disagree and still be civil...

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck

Vil, we've discussed the scientific objections to evolution before. And the "contradictions" you brought up have been answered as well, and you're the one who said you'd just "trust the scientists" when it came to evolution.

I trust the scientists more than I trust the theologians for several reasons. First and foremost, because they provide evidence to back up their claims, and invite others to criticize and improve upon their work, something which is not common among the religiously inclined.

Second, they have no vested interest to protect, so I'm more inclined to suspect they have no reason to lie about their findings.

Third, they don't ask me for money when they tell me what conclusions they've arrived at.

Lastly, the study of science is aimed at the betterment of mankind, and it is constantly changing as we learn new things, while religion is set in intellectual concrete. Religion may be interested in the betterment of mankind, but only while keeping the best interests of their particular sect protected. It took the Catholic Church 500 years to admit they were wrong for persecuting Galileo, and even today we have religious people who object to birth control, and even life saving surgery, all based on biblical teachings. Those ideas belong back in the Middle Ages.

Vil may want to make hay out of the fact that a Bible translator misidentified a couple of farm animals 400 years ago, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to throw out the whole text.

I never suggested that the Bible should be discarded in its entirety. I have posted previously that I believe the Bible contains much wisdom, and some beautiful poetry. What I can't abide, nor understand, is how anyone can believe that the Bible is scientifically, historically, and archaeologically accurate when it has been shown not to be. Likewise, anyone who believes that the Bible contains no inaccuracies whatever, because it was inspired by God, is deluding themselves. The Bible was clearly written by men, and as such it contains the same errors, opinions, and prejudices that you would expect.

Originally posted by creetwins
Yes I have loosely compared you to the thumpers that irritate me, but as for the other terms, I didn't use those comparisons for y ou. I didn't know thumper was considered a hateful term.
Yeah. Right. :rolleyes: What did you mean when you told me "ignorance is bliss"? Is that not an indication that you thought I was ignorant.

As for the comment about being different species, I do not mean that one is better over the other, it just means that we are wired differently. Nothing wrong with that as it takes all kinds to turn the world.
I'd still like to know what species you think I am. Is telling someone they are not human not a hateful statement?

Labling people that do not follow your line of thought as haters is not an accurate observation.
Exactly. That's why I don't do that.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I trust the scientists more than I trust the theologians for several reasons. First and foremost, because they provide evidence to back up their claims, and invite others to criticize and improve upon their work, something which is not common among the religiously inclined.
Not always true. There are plenty of scientists who do not allow their views to be questioned. There are also those who are “religiously inclined” who invite others to improve upon their work.

Second, they have no vested interest to protect, so I'm more inclined to suspect they have no reason to lie about their findings.
Wrong. Many scientists are vitally interested in protecting their reputation and their grant money. They want to be the first to make a new “find”. They have to “publish or perish”. They sometimes overstate their case to survive in a competitive environment. The scientific community is not so lily white as you present it.

Third, they don't ask me for money when they tell me what conclusions they've arrived at.
No, they ask for money beforehand, which makes them more suspect because they have a motive to “prove” something to justify their grant money.

I’m not saying that religion has been perfect and all science is corrupt, but you’re making it sound as if there are no redeeming qualities in Christianity while the scientific community is some altruistic entity that just wants to discover the truth to better mankind. Not true. Scientists are no more, or less honorable than any of the rest of us. You should view them with the same skepticism as you do Christians.


What I can't abide, nor understand, is how anyone can believe that the Bible is scientifically, historically, and archaeologically accurate when it has been shown not to be.
To the extent that it addresses those topics, the Bible has not been demonstrated to be inaccurate.

Likewise, anyone who believes that the Bible contains no inaccuracies whatever, because it was inspired by God, is deluding themselves. The Bible was clearly written by men, and as such it contains the same errors, opinions, and prejudices that you would expect.
I can agree with this as it applies to the copying and translation of the Bible. I believe that the Bible, as originally handed down to men by God, had no inaccuracies. However, inaccuracies crept in as it was copied over and over, and translated into different language. I believe these inaccuracies are exceedingly minor. Perhaps the dates of a king’s reign are off by a year or two. Maybe some farm animals were misidentified. Maybe an overzealous monk entered a line of text here, or a paragraph there. (Or maybe someone else removed them) These do not alter the central message of the Bible in any way. And if I’m deluding myself in this, please educate me.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Not always true. There are plenty of scientists who do not allow their views to be questioned. There are also those who are “religiously inclined” who invite others to improve upon their work.

Agreed to a point. I disagree with the use of the word "plenty", since scientific findings are always subject to review before being published in reputable scientific journals, and it is expected that other scientists will question your work.

Wrong. Many scientists are vitally interested in protecting their reputation and their grant money. They want to be the first to make a new “find”. They have to “publish or perish”. They sometimes overstate their case to survive in a competitive environment. The scientific community is not so lily white as you present it.

Agreed, and I didn't intend to assert that science was "lily-white" or free from error, or even outright fraud. The beauty of science is that it is a self-correcting system. Frauds rarely, if ever, go undetected for a great length of time, and when science makes a discovery that puts to rest an old erroneous belief, science is advanced.

No, they ask for money beforehand, which makes them more suspect because they have a motive to “prove” something to justify their grant money.

Well, this isn't really an indictment of science as much as the system we have in place to fund it, and you are right, that system can lend itself to abuse.

I’m not saying that religion has been perfect and all science is corrupt, but you’re making it sound as if there are no redeeming qualities in Christianity while the scientific community is some altruistic entity that just wants to discover the truth to better mankind.

On the contrary I have repeatedly posted that I see many redeeming qualities about religion.

Not true. Scientists are no more, or less honorable than any of the rest of us.

Agreed. We are all human.

You should view them with the same skepticism as you do Christians.

To be frank Uncool, I'm not the one who needs a healthy dose of skepticism.

To the extent that it addresses those topics, the Bible has not been demonstrated to be inaccurate.

Of course it has. In a previous post I I included the bible's cure for leprosy. Do you believe that it is a "scientifically accurate" cure?

I can agree with this as it applies to the copying and translation of the Bible. I believe that the Bible, as originally handed down to men by God, had no inaccuracies. However, inaccuracies crept in as it was copied over and over, and translated into different language. I believe these inaccuracies are exceedingly minor. Perhaps the dates of a king’s reign are off by a year or two. Maybe some farm animals were misidentified. Maybe an overzealous monk entered a line of text here, or a paragraph there. (Or maybe someone else removed them)

I would contend that the way these inaccuracies "crept in" to the Bible is irrelevant. They remain inaccuracies. I would also point out that if you cannot document exactly how these inaccuraies found there way into the Bible, your contention that the original was free from inaccuracy is pure speculation.

These do not alter the central message of the Bible in any way. And if I’m deluding myself in this, please educate me.

I have absolutely no problem with the central message of the Bible, which as I see it, is that we should all learn how to live in harmony with one another. I think the whole resurrection story is just that, a story.

I'd still like to know what species you think I am. Is telling someone they are not human not a hateful statement?

Dude get off it already. It's figuratively stated. I told you that it is not a bad thing, one is not better than the other. I expliained that you and I are not wired the same, I didn't imply that you were not human. Again I have no ill will toward you, so please stop trying to insist that I hate you or people like you. You are the same animal I am, only a different breed.

And as for the ignorance is bliss comment, I mean that you are satisfied with the text in the bible to explain everything for you without question.

Please, get over it. Your playing the victim now.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Evil Homer, despite the derogatory connotation of your last post, I agree. I think we differ on the extent of where the Bible writers messed up "here and there". I do not believe these mistakes are significant enough to discard the Bible as a whole. Vil may want to make hay out of the fact that a Bible translator misidentified a couple of farm animals 400 years ago, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to throw out the whole text.


It is to my great pain that my keyboard cannot express the connotation of what I say. So I shall spell it out. Im a joker. I don't really care all that much either way. I just like adding to the mix with odd/funny/weird/offensive comments. I do it, because it keeps me interested in what im discussing. So don't take much of what I say too seriously. Look beyond my words and straight to the thought.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
To be frank Uncool, I'm not the one who needs a healthy dose of skepticism.
Well, I'm sure that you are implying that I am. I can only tell you two things. First, I am very skeptical about a lot of things, but I don't discuss that much here, because this is a place where a lot of people are engaged in a wholesale attack on Christianity. I also think that a lot of people confuse skepticism with cynicism. I am not a cynic.

I will allow for supernatural occurences, though. Therefore I do believe in, for example, the Biblical cure for leprosy at that specific time, unless it is shown that the ceremonial cleansing did not actually work at that time.

I would contend that the way these inaccuracies "crept in" to the Bible is irrelevant. They remain inaccuracies. I would also point out that if you cannot document exactly how these inaccuraies found there way into the Bible, your contention that the original was free from inaccuracy is pure speculation.
Many of these "inaccuracies" can be documented. To be sure, there is an element of speculation in my contention that the original is free of inaccuracy, but it is not "pure" speculation. It is based on the evidence of the remarkable harmony that does still exist between the families of texts. It is also based on the wisdom and beauty of the Bible that you mentioned before. Again here, I prefer to believe it, and risk being proven wrong later, than the reverse.


I have absolutely no problem with the central message of the Bible, which as I see it, is that we should all learn how to live in harmony with one another. I think the whole resurrection story is just that, a story.

I'd be curious to know what, exactly do you believe about Jesus? Do you believe He even existed?

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck

I'd be curious to know what, exactly do you believe about Jesus? Do you believe He even existed?

I believe there is not enough evidence to draw a definitive conclusion one way or the other, as to Jesus' existence. The fact that he has been and perhaps is, the most well known individual in history might indicate that he did exist, but I do find it very curious that there are no non-biblical contemporary writings still in existence that mention him.

Originally posted by creetwins
And as for the ignorance is bliss comment, I mean that you are satisfied with the text in the bible to explain everything for you without question.
Okay, that being the case, I'll simply inform you that you're wrong.

Your playing the victim now.
You're right. I was hoping Echo would come back and tell me how much she pitied me.

[i]Originally posted by Evil Homer[i]
It is to my great pain that my keyboard cannot express the connotation of what I say. So I shall spell it out. Im a joker. I don't really care all that much either way. I just like adding to the mix with odd/funny/weird/offensive comments. I do it, because it keeps me interested in what im discussing. So don't take much of what I say too seriously. Look beyond my words and straight to the thought.


;)

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I believe there is not enough evidence to draw a definitive conclusion one way or the other, as to Jesus' existence. The fact that he has been and perhaps is, the most well known individual in history might indicate that he did exist, but I do find it very curious that there are no non-biblical contemporary writings still in existence that mention him.

Before I even begin to post, I must say upfront that I cannot find a link to this online, but I did see a documentry on TLC about some Roman doctrine that mention a king of jews, who was called Jesus of Nazerth.

Also, there is that stone coffin that was recentally found in Isreal which read on the top, James, Brother of Jesus, son of Joseph.

Okay, that being the case, I'll simply inform you that you're wrong.

Ok, that's cool. It's a bit of a relief to tell you the truth, I noticed the new science thread, and you seem like a smart fella willing to explore, so let's carry on over there, what do you say?

I don't think I really have anymore to say on this matter here, and would like to keep the discussion lively and friendly, so let's say, shall we move on?

I am back and I have some comment on this topic. In other topics I mentioned proof of prophesy, if it is done without the help of much dependence on faith, being perhaps potentially the strongest argument for the bible. Exactly what about the bible it argues for I was not being explicit enough. Here is my thought on that:

It shows that, loosely, the words of the bible were likely uttered by someone with the power of a god, or at least the prophetic power of a god, where the definition of god is presumed.

We must note that this does not prevent the skeptics, or indeed anyone, from questioning whether the writer was the god, or whether subsequent statements made in the bible are uttered honestly. The only thing, again, that would be without question would be, and read each word carefully here--the prophetic power of the writer of the bible. It in itself is of course quite impressive, the ability to foretell future events. But from that point onward faith is still required for the acceptance of any of a given number of statements or assumptions.

So you have faith in prophetical writers but doubt God?...

I dont understand.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks

Also, there is that stone coffin that was recentally found in Isreal which read on the top, James, Brother of Jesus, son of Joseph.

It was an ossuary, a small box used to keep the bones of dead person in after they had been left outside exposed to the elements.

An interesting find, but since James, Joseph, and Jesus, were supposedly common names at that time, there is really no way to tell if it was the Jesus mentioned in the Bible.

mere coincidence, or course. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Dio Seijuro
faith is still required for the acceptance of any of a given number of statements or assumptions.

I agree with this Dio. There is an element of faith in everything we do. I have faith that when I type this message and click on "Submit Reply" it will be accurately transferred to the server. I have faith that someone will read it. I have faith that VilePagan will criticize Christians for having faith.

And there will always be skeptics who will be able to provide a certain degree of uncertainty about anything. In the above case, a skeptic might argue that the allforums server might be down, or that a moderator will delete this message, or that VilePagan will be hanging out at morons.org and decide never to visit this forum again.

I object to the usage of the term "blind faith" when it comes to Christians. We believe in the Bible based upon certain evidence. Some may emphasize the prophecies. Some will emphasize their own personal experiences. Some will emphasize the preservation of the textual evidence. Some will emphasize the logic of the Bible's plan of redemption. Some will emphasize the accuracy of the Bible's commentary on the human condition.

Since none of these evidences is absolute, a skeptic will be able to, if he chooses, provide examples of the incompleteness of the evidence and choose not to believe on that basis. And this is fine with me. I just do not like the derogatory terms levelled at Christians just because they choose to believe in the evidence.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
I have faith that VilePagan will criticize Christians for having faith.

I have never intended to criticize anyone's religious faith since I have seen evidence that such faith can be very comforting in times of emotional distress.

I do have a problem when people seem to allow their faith to subsume their ability to reason, or when people discard all skepticism in favor of a rapturous belief in the innerrancy of a book that was certainly written by men.

I object to the usage of the term "blind faith" when it comes to Christians. We believe in the Bible based upon certain evidence. Some may emphasize the prophecies. Some will emphasize their own personal experiences. Some will emphasize the preservation of the textual evidence. Some will emphasize the logic of the Bible's plan of redemption. Some will emphasize the accuracy of the Bible's commentary on the human condition.

And some will simply believe unquestioningly because they have been taught to believe so. They will not entertain any ideas that call into question any biblical scripture, and speak as though they have a special insight into the mind of God. These are the Christians that earn my contempt, because they do practice "blind faith".

Since none of these evidences is absolute, a skeptic will be able to, if he chooses, provide examples of the incompleteness of the evidence and choose not to believe on that basis. And this is fine with me. I just do not like the derogatory terms levelled at Christians just because they choose to believe in the evidence.

I have no problem with someone who wishes to believe in the "evidence", as long as they do not pick and choose parts of the evidence to believe in.

An example:

Just recently in this thread Jere mentioned that a burial box was found with the inscription "James, brother of Jesus, son of Joseph" on it. True.

I pointed out that according to what I had read, these three names were very common at the time and that it certainly couldn't be proved that this was the Jesus referred to in the Bible. Let's assume for the sake of this discussion that this is also true.

Jere responded:

mere coincidence, or course. :rolleyes:

Now given the evidence, if in fact these three names were very common at the time, it is highly probable that this is not the ossuary of the brother of the man mentioned in the Bible. despite this statistical likelihood, jere wants to believe that this is proof of Jesus' existence, and therefore he does. This is not a reasonable conclusion, and therefore he is allowing his faith to cloud his reason.

I can't prove that this is not Jesus's brothers ossuary, and I'm willing to admit that it could be and I might be wrong. This is the main difference between reason and "blind faith". An ability or willingness to admit you might be in error.

Im willing to admit it not be the same Jesus we know, however, my question to you is this:

If there were a document mentioning Jesus of Nazerth...would you say there were just a lot of Jesus's in Nazerth?

Is there any proof hard enough to change your mind?

I don't really disagree with your last post, Vil. Personally, I present my opinions pretty directly, but I'm willing to consider the contrary evidence and change my mind, if necessary. For example, I'm currently examining the evidence concerning the timeline of hominids.

As far as the ossuary you mentioned, Jere looked at that inscription and saw it as evidence confirming Biblical scripture. You chose to disregard it because of the commonality of the names inscribed. Both of you acted on faith, because it cannot be proven either way.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Im willing to admit it not be the same Jesus we know, however, my question to you is this:

If there were a document mentioning Jesus of Nazerth...would you say there were just a lot of Jesus's in Nazerth?

I would try to do research to confirm the authenticity of the document, and find out just how many other Jesus' there may have been in Nazareth at that time before drawing any conclusions. At any rate, the best you could do with a document like that, if it mentioned only his name, is assign a statistical probability to the chance that it is the Jesus mentioned in the Bible.

Is there any proof hard enough to change your mind?

I'm not sure...change my mind about the document? Or Jesus?

Let me ask that question is two ways.

What kind of hard proof would it take you to believe in:

Jesus As A Person:

and

Jesus As The Savior and Lord Of All:

Ummmm, for him to come down and speak to me directly.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
What kind of hard proof would it take you to believe in:

Jesus As A Person:
I already believe Jesus as a person existed. I find it hard to believe all this could be written about a guy who never existed...
Jesus As The Savior and Lord Of All
Gimme proof that Jesus was resurrected and that should be enough, I think. Being resurrected certainly takes godlike powers...

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Let me ask that question is two ways.

What kind of hard proof would it take you to believe in:

Jesus As A Person:

and

Jesus As The Savior and Lord Of All:

Jesus as a person I would accept if there were some contemporary writers who spoke about him. By contemporary I mean someone who was actually alive at the same time and was travelling through Judea at that time. Or maybe even one of the Romans who was in Judea when he was crucified.

Jesus as the Savior and Lord of All...hmmm...I suspect that if he exists as that, I'll have to wait just like everyone else to find out the truth of that....or maybe if I got a date with Brad Pitt :D

So theres nothing that would make you want to be saved by Christ unless, say you are alive to see his return?

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
So theres nothing that would make you want to be saved by Christ unless, say you are alive to see his return?

Well...I'm not seduced by the promise of eternal paradise, nor frightened by the threat of eternal damnation if that's what you're asking...

Since you phrased the question rather oddly, I would say that if somehow you convinced me that the story in the Bible is true, then I'd say yes, I'd want to be saved.

Tell me jere, do you believe Christ is going to return to Earth in your lifetime?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Well...I'm not seduced by the promise of eternal paradise, nor frightened by the threat of eternal damnation if that's what you're asking...

Why is this?

Are you so confident in yourself that you cant honestly say you would regret saying that comment if you were actually sufering an eternal damnation?

Since you phrased the question rather oddly, I would say that if somehow you convinced me that the story in the Bible is true, then I'd say yes, I'd want to be saved.

Thats what I'm trying to dig at. What would convince you that you should be saved.

Tell me jere, do you believe Christ is going to return to Earth in your lifetime?

Of course, I cant say for sure. I do believe the time is nearing more and more close each day. I believe there is a huge chance that he may.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks

Thats what I'm trying to dig at. What would convince you that you should be saved.
[/B]

That depends. The way I understand it, since no one is perfect, and everyone has sinned, it is neccessary for you to accept Jesus as your savior before you die to be "saved". I also understand that any amount of sin will be forgiven provided you accept Jesus sometime before you expire. This is the major problem I have with the belief of some Christians. It seems to me that since I have not committed any really major sins in my life, e.g. I haven't killed anyone or anything like that, it would mean that there is less to forgive me for than say, Charles Manson. Yet according to the doctrine believed by some Christians, if Charlie accepts Jesus just before he dies, he will go to heaven, and if I omit this seemingly innocuous acknowledgement, I will burn forever in eternal torment. To my mind, this is a doctrine that has promulgated by the Church in order to frighten people into believing, and has no basis in logic, morality, or if you believe, reality. Simply put, it makes no sense whatever.

I guess what I believe, is that if I'm wrong, and there is a God who will judge me at my death, he will find that the sins I have committed during my life are of the everyday mundane sort, and he will shake his head and chuckle, and pass me on to whatever fate awaits those who have transgressed in some minor way.

The problem I have with this is that I don't think God considers it a minor thing to refuse to worship Him, or to refuse to deny his existence.

The first commandment is to have no other gods before Him. The greatest commandment is to love Him with all your heart, mind, etc. I believe He will take it very seriously when someone refuses to do this.

I believe there will be degrees of punishment, based on how people have lived their lives, but I don't believe someone who has denied Christ, but has basically lived a good life according to human terms will get off scott free.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
The problem I have with this is that I don't think God considers it a minor thing to refuse to worship Him, or to refuse to deny his existence.

This seems...petty.

The first commandment is to have no other gods before Him.

I don't.

The greatest commandment is to love Him with all your heart, mind, etc.

I know that doesn't appear in "The Ten Commandments"...can you quote scripture?

I believe He will take it very seriously when someone refuses to do this.

I believe there will be degrees of punishment, based on how people have lived their lives, but I don't believe someone who has denied Christ, but has basically lived a good life according to human terms will get off scott free.

Ok...but why would God want to punish me for being skeptical, since if he created me, he created a skeptical guy?

Matthew 22:35-37
Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

That's the verse I was referring to. It may seem petty that God would punish us for not believing in Him, but that's just our opinion. According to the Bible, He takes it seriously.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
That's the verse I was referring to. It may seem petty that God would punish us for not believing in Him, but that's just our opinion. According to the Bible, He takes it seriously.

How do I know that wasn't just intended for the lawyers? :D

Originally posted by Vilepagan
How do I know that wasn't just intended for the lawyers? :D

Sometimes, I wish it was!;)

Originally posted by Vilepagan


I don't. [have any Gods before him]




Yes you do.

You are placing your logic and yourself above God. Therefore, you do have a God before him.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Yes you do.

You are placing your logic and yourself above God. Therefore, you do have a God before him.

No I don't, unless you think logic, or I, am a God.

You are placing your logic and yourself above God. Therefore, you do have a God before him.

This is a very "interpretive" statement.

It is this same type of misconception that lead the church to believe that the native animal helpers, are gods that they worship, when in actuality they are merely guides.

I guess since I'd rather shop then go to church, shoes are my false god?

Then I must have a million false gods, because I can think of that many things I'd rather do then sit in a church......

Your missing or perhaps looking past the point. If you put anything before God, you are putting that idol before you, therefore yourself, making it your God. When you put your logic, reason, and self doubt infront of your faith, you are having a God before THE God.

Your missing or perhaps looking past the point. If you put anything before God, you are putting that idol before you, therefore yourself, making it your God. When you put your logic, reason, and self doubt infront of your faith, you are having a God before THE God.

Says who?

What do you mean?

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Your missing or perhaps looking past the point. If you put anything before God, you are putting that idol before you, therefore yourself, making it your God. When you put your logic, reason, and self doubt infront of your faith, you are having a God before THE God.

Horsehockey.

Jere, are you worshiping God or the Bible?
I hear more about what the Bible says. Can you seperate the two? You can say the Bible is the Word. Do you worship the Word? Could you burn a Bible? If not is it an Idol to you?

Jere, these are just questions,not to offend, but carry the question of idol worship to a new level. Could a person have an idol that they never realized as such? Mainly by putting a greater importance on it than they were aware.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Horsehockey.
Horses play hockey? Must be hard to get the ice skates on them...

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Horsehockey.

Nice argument:rolleyes:....anything else?

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
Jere, are you worshiping God or the Bible?

We are to worship God, however his word as well as himself are explained to us through the Bible.


I hear more about what the Bible says. Can you seperate the two? You can say the Bible is the Word. Do you worship the Word? Could you burn a Bible? If not is it an Idol to you?

You can seperate God and the bible by one thing. God is much greater than any words can explain or describe. The Bible is all we need to learn from and about God, however there is much more to him, than any book can describe.



Jere, these are just questions,not to offend, but carry the question of idol worship to a new level. Could a person have an idol that they never realized as such? Mainly by putting a greater importance on it than they were aware.

Absolutely.

And you seen an example of it with Pagan not accepting that his self confident logic was being placed before God, and clouding his mind from Faith.

The Devil will make you feel and think in ways that make you put God on the backburner, or to not believe in him at all.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks

Absolutely.

And you seen an example of it with Pagan not accepting that his self confident logic was being placed before God, and clouding his mind from Faith.

The Devil will make you feel and think in ways that make you put God on the backburner, or to not believe in him at all. [/B]

Jere, are you saying here that logic is the Devil?

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
Jere, are you saying here that logic is the Devil?

No, Dan, I'm not.

However, I am saying that the devil can make you put things, such as your mind and logic, before God. Remember he is the Lord of Lies.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
No, Dan, I'm not.

However, I am saying that the devil can make you put things, such as your mind and logic, before God. Remember he is the Lord of Lies.

Then he may be a politician! :)

Obviously a very good one.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Nice argument:rolleyes:....anything else?

Sure...your assertion is false, utterly without merit, and absurd in the extreme. The commandment says that you should have no other "gods" before God, not that you should put everything else in your life second to God.

Remember he is the Lord of Lies.
Lies? When has Satan lied in the bible? The priest at the church I go to always said Satan tempts you with immoral truth.