Originally posted by ~Sal~
So does that mean that gravity didn't exist before it was "scientifically proven"? That is one very slippery slope!
We knew gravity existed long before Newton. It's not hard to prove: observe how the objects in the room you're in don't float off.

And I don't see how my argument is a slippery slope...

Originally posted by BorgHunter
We knew gravity existed long before Newton. It's not hard to prove: observe how the objects in the room you're in don't float off.

And I don't see how my argument is a slippery slope...

Just because something has not been "scientifically proven" does not mean it does not exist. It merely means that it has not yet been "proven" scientifically.

I highly doubt that your average person knew anything about gravity before Newton or even after Newton. One does not have to believe in gravity for the law of physics to affect one. It exists non the less awareness of it is irrelevant. Same with a higher power.

Originally posted by ~Sal~
Just because something has not been "scientifically proven" does not mean it does not exist. It merely means that it has not yet been "proven" scientifically.

I highly doubt that your average person knew anything about gravity before Newton or even after Newton. One does not have to believe in gravity for the law of physics to affect one. It exists non the less awareness of it is irrelevant. Same with a higher power.
Why do people keep ignoring the clause "In the realm of science"?! I keep using it, yet you continue to ignore it and think I mean that until something is proven it does not physically exist! I don't; that's absurd! Read what I am typing, dammit.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Why do people keep ignoring the clause "In the realm of science"?! I keep using it, yet you continue to ignore it and think I mean that until something is proven it does not physically exist! I don't; that's absurd! Read what I am typing, dammit.

~laughing~ becoming a tad frustrated there? If everyone keeps doing it, perhaps that's a clue. In fact scientifically speaking....nah, I won't go there.

sputnik you said:
“stark, you seem to be all talk and little substance. if you're going to say things about god, then back it up. if god exists, then you should be able to PROVE that god exists.”

“…all talk and no substance.” Now that is a slap in the academic face. Fortunately for me the academic side of me is very numb and it didn’t hurt much.
Now, where was I?
Oh, that’s right I was going to suggest that if you want to see what I consider evidence for God, read the thread titled Logic vs. The Bible, other than that my question would be what would you accept for evidence?

Okay, dnamertz, you said:
“Let me further explain what I meant when I said "They (babies) don't even know what self-centered is.” I meant that they don't understand and aren't aware that the adults around them might be busy sleeping or doing something else that gets interrupted when the baby cries. They naturally cry out of instinct,…”

The babies cry to let the parent know that they are hungry, they were made that way. The baby is not saying to itself that it is going to sin, the sin is it’s nature. It’s a sin because, self-centeredness is wrong, a baby is not going to answer for that sin because it is before the age of accountability.
Next you said:
“...its like saying a person in a coma is self-centered because they rely on someone else to feed and care for them.”

A bit of a stretch.
Next you said:
“That’s part of the sin nature, no one can do anything about their nature”

That’s why a baby isn’t accountable for it’s sin, but when we reach that level of understanding where we can chose to sin or not, that is when we are held accountable. Even then we don’t have to pay for our sins, if we don’t want to. because Jesus has already paid for them.
Next you said:
“If you still believe this statement, then answer this...why did God create a world and populate it with people who are ALL sinners?”

God created the world. and He created people with the ability to sin. Why? Because if people didn’t have a choice to reject God and His Law, then their love would be a false love.

Lokideviluk you said:
“…God is narcissitic?”

Well at least you believe in a personal God, that means you’re part way there. Your problem is that you’ve misdiagnosed His personality. What has God said that makes you think He’s narcissistic?

dnamertz I’m back to you with your next post, where you said:
“So what were Jesus's prior "miracles" before coming back from the dead?”

He healed the sick, made the deaf hear, the blind see, and raised the dead. Read the Book of John, it’s there that you can discover Jesus.
Next you said:
“I'll save you the trouble. I didn't fly.”

There, see, I didn’t have to even ponder whether you flew or not.
Next you said:
“Wanna know the obvious way you could have know that? Its because PEOPLE CAN'T FLAP THEIR ARMS AND FLY.”

Let me put it this way; normally, people can’t perform miracles, but aided by God, there is no limit to what people can do. So the question isn’t: are miracles possible? The question is: is there a God?
Next you said:
“like the many people who have claimed to be abducted by some type of aliens or UFO. Most of their accounts a similar so do you believe them because there are so many?”

You seem to have forgotten what I had said about the disciples of Jesus. They, suffered, being whipped, beaten, hated, never gained power or wealth, and eventually died horribly all for the sake of spreading the Gospel. They all claimed that they saw and touch the risen Jesus. The disciples of Jesus weren’t the only ones making this claim, but they are the focus of the Gospels and Acts.
Now how many of those people, abducted by aliens, are living like the disciples of Jesus did?
Next you said:
“If I ever do become convinced that God exists, your statement makes it unlikely that I would ever want to be a part of a God that has a disgracful rule like that. People who are horrible sinners can get into heaven simply by believing and accepting Jesus, but good people do not simply because they don't accept Jesus?”

That’s just it, no one is good. The Bible says that all people have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. Of course some people are much worse sinners then others, but the wonderful thing about God is that at any point of your life, no matter how bad you’ve been, you can still turn to God, and He will welcome you with open arms and a forgiving heart. As for the people who are at least pretty good, they still need to turn to God, because there were at least a few moments when they sinned, and either they or Jesus will be the payment for that sin. Now let’s consider yourself, you stand in a place where God is inviting you to turn to Him through the Lord Jesus Christ, if you are not willing to go that far I invite you to at least pray to Him and ask that He reveal Himself to you, after that find a Bible and read the Book of John. At least give it a try.
Next you said:
“What's the incentive to be a good person and try not to sin with this rule in effect?”

Jesus said that if you love him you will obey him. Obeying Jesus means you will try your best to be good, and treat others with love. Wouldn’t hurt to try.

About the lives of Jesus’ disciples you said:
“People do strange things in the face of fanatacism. 100's of people killed themselves at Jonestown because they believed in something, does that mean what they believed in must have been true? Why did many Germans give thier lives for the beliefs of Hitler? Does that mean his beliefs were the right beliefs?”

Those people from Jonestown killed themselves because they believed what Jim Jones said was true. Jim Jones grew powerful and wealthy and finally killed himself out of fear that it would be taken from him. Germans believed and died for what Hitler claimed was true. Hitler grew powerful and rich ruling an entire country, and finally killed himself when he realized that it was all gone. People followed these people and died because of what they thought was true. The Disciples of Jesus lived in poverty, and suffering, being hated almost everywhere they went, and died at the hands of others who hated their message, not because of what someone else told them was true, but because of what they themselves saw and experienced.
Finally you said:
[B] “There is one other question I would like to know the answer to...At any time before his death, was Jesus proclaimed to be the Son of God?

Read the Gospel of John, before you finish the first chapter you’ll see Jesus proclaimed to be the Son of God.

“to the best of my knowledge, god does not exist. i dont' claim to know the truth, i can only make educated guesses, which is really as good as anyone can do.”

You say you don’t claim to know the truth, so does that mean that it’s possible that the God you don’t know can be discovered in the pages of the Bible?
Next you said:
“yes, stark, god warned them that they would die if they ate the fruit. but they did not know what death was, since it didn't exist at the time. since they had no knowledge and were completely innocent, there was no way they could have known that what the serpent was telling them to do was bad, since they had no knowledge of what "bad" was. they were like little children who could not be held accountable for sin. so i do believe that this was some pretty bad judgement on the part of god, who allowed his creations to come into contact with the serpent, who he knew could set adam and eve on the wrong path. god knew that adam and eve were innocent and had no way of knowing that what god said was good and what the serpent said was bad.

So your saying that God warned them that they would die, but never told them what death was. Hmmmm…they could have very well thought that death was a trip to the circus.
So Satan strolls up, and invites them to eat the forbidden fruit and Adam thinks, “hey I could go for a trip to the circus.” He eats the fruit, and God springs out of the bushes laughing and yelling, “gotcha,” all of creation falls and mankind suffers for the rest of his days on earth. Intriguing. It doesn’t match with the Genesis story, but would be great for the anti-theists.

Borg you said:
“Even if it turns out that there is a god, your statement still remains scientifically inaccurate. You need evidence of something for it to exist in the realm of science. If there is no evidence of a god, then scientifically, it does not exist until the evidence is shown.”
And you said:
“When arguing theology, or unproven scientific hypotheses. I am absolutely right when I say that the sky is blue, because this is a fact, and it can be proven. The existence of a higher being can be neither proven nor disproven at this point. Scientific theories have to assume that such a thing does not exist; that's how science works”

If the realm of science is the only realm then you may have a point, but the realm of science is only a vehicle to explore the big realm of truth. In other words, truth is still there whether science has discovered it or not.

You say you don’t claim to know the truth, so does that mean that it’s possible that the God you don’t know can be discovered in the pages of the Bible?

just because it's written down somewhere doesn't mean it's true; or that i should believe it. don't believe everything you read.


If the realm of science is the only realm then you may have a point, but the realm of science is only a vehicle to explore the big realm of truth. In other words, truth is still there whether science has discovered it or not.

obviously. but until you can prove that something is the truth, there's no reason why anyone should believe that it is. i could say that our minds are being controlled by alien penguins from jupiter, and i can't prove that any more than you can prove your god-thingy.

STARK, you wrote:
A bit of a stretch.

No more of a stretch than you saying that a baby is self-centered by crying from hunger.

It’s a sin because, self-centeredness is wrong

Your argument seems to be stuck on saying that "self-centeredness" is a sin...I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that these actions by a baby are not self-centered.

The baby is not saying to itself that it is going to sin,

This statement by you is exactly why they are NOT being self-centered. To be self-centered they have to intentionally be putting their needs above their parent's needs, and at this stage a baby is not even aware of its parent's needs. The baby is not saying to itself "I could care less what mom is in the middle of, I want her to feed me no matter how much it interrupts her".

but when we reach that level of understanding where we can chose to sin or not, that is when we are held accountable.


Now this would be the stage where I would call a child self-centered...at the point where they are aware of what they are doing. The age of accountability.

Even then we don’t have to pay for our sins, if we don’t want to. because Jesus has already paid for them.

Like I said before, its pathetic that according to this belief people do not have to pay for their sins. Thank "God" our legal system doesn't work this way!!!!!

but the wonderful thing about God is that at any point of your life, no matter how bad you’ve been, you can still turn to God, and He will welcome you with open arms and a forgiving heart. As for the people who are at least pretty good, they still need to turn to God, because there were at least a few moments when they sinned, and either they or Jesus will be the payment for that sin.

If the above statement is true, then it should be re-phrased to say "but the HORRIBLE thing about God is..." Its horrible that God would treat good people worse than bad people just because you turn to him. Again, good thing our justice system does not work this way.

Obeying Jesus means you will try your best to be good, and treat others with love. Wouldn’t hurt to try.

I already do this and I didn't need the "obeying Jesus" part to convince me...I guess I had good parents. I have no problem with people who get this "treat others with love" attitude from religion, but some of us can get that from other sources.

Read the Gospel of John, before you finish the first chapter you’ll see Jesus proclaimed to be the Son of God.

Well then, that could easily explain why so many people were convinced that he preformed miracles. People can be convinced of a lot of things...like the people in Jonestown. Maybe some people wanted so badly to believe Jesus was the son of God that they convinced themselves he came back from the dead.

Those people from Jonestown killed themselves because they believed what Jim Jones said was true. Jim Jones grew powerful and wealthy and finally killed himself out of fear that it would be taken from him. Germans believed and died for what Hitler claimed was true. Hitler grew powerful and rich ruling an entire country, and finally killed himself when he realized that it was all gone. People followed these people and died because of what they thought was true. The Disciples of Jesus lived in poverty, and suffering, being hated almost everywhere they went, and died at the hands of others who hated their message, not because of what someone else told them was true, but because of what they themselves saw and experienced.

Like I said, when it comes to fanaticism (religious or otherwise), people are so anxious to believe things. They believe they see Jesus's face in a wall, when it looks like a smear, but they swear its there. People believe they hear backwards messages in a song, when to me it sounds like noise, but they swear its there. People are so anxious to believe that aliens will come down on a comet and save them that they voluntarilly live in a gross comune and kill themselves with poisoned cool-aid. People kill themselves and 3,000 others because they believe 70 virgins will be waiting for them in the next life. And people could have easily believed that some preacher teaching a new religion was the son of God and came back to life...especially 2,000 years ago.

Originally posted by sputnik
our minds are being controlled by alien penguins from jupiter
That explains much. Like hardcore ultra-right-wing let's-ban-atheists-and-queers pseudo-Christianity!

sputnik, I had asked you:
“You say you don’t claim to know the truth, so does that mean that it’s possible that the God you don’t know can be discovered in the pages of the Bible?”
And you responded:
“just because it's written down somewhere doesn't mean it's true; or that i should believe it. don't believe everything you read.”

You didn’t really answer my question, I asked if it’s possible that the God of the Bible is the true God? By the way, yes, just because it’s written down doesn’t mean it’s true, for instance Carl Sagan wrote; “the universe is all there is, all there was and all there will ever be.” He was way off. On the other hand, just because it’s written down doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Carl wrote that the universe is all there is, it is written in the Bible that there is a personal God, they both can’t be wrong, and they both can’t be right.
Next you said:
“but until you can prove that something is the truth, there's no reason why anyone should believe that it is.”

Hey, I told you where to find the evidence, read the Logic vs. The Bible thread and refute the evidence.
Finally you said:
“i could say that our minds are being controlled by alien penguins from jupiter, and i can't prove that any more than you can prove your god-thingy.”

Really? Well, read that thread I told you about, see the evidence for God, and then give me all your compiled evidence that points to your alien-penguins-from-Jupiter-mind-control hypothesis, and we’ll see if God is more provable or not.

see the evidence for God, and then give me all your compiled evidence that points to your alien-penguins-from-Jupiter-mind-control hypothesis, and we’ll see if God is more provable or not.

God must be real if he is more believable than the "alien-penguins-from-Jupiter-mind-control hypothesis"...you've convinced me.

You didn’t really answer my question, I asked if it’s possible that the God of the Bible is the true God? By the way, yes, just because it’s written down doesn’t mean it’s true, for instance Carl Sagan wrote; “the universe is all there is, all there was and all there will ever be.” He was way off. On the other hand, just because it’s written down doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Carl wrote that the universe is all there is, it is written in the Bible that there is a personal God, they both can’t be wrong, and they both can’t be right.

1. yeah, sure it's possible. it's also possible that our minds are being controlled by alien penguins from jupiter. so yes, i DID answer you question.
2. and yes, carl sagan and the bible can certianly both be wrong. there could be another explanation that neither you nor i nor carl have ever even thought of. saying that it's either CARL SAGAN or THE BIBLE AND NOTHING ELSE AND ONLY ONE OR THE OTHER doesn't really make much sense. if that is what you're saying. and..why is carl way off? can you prove that? since when do YOU know the origins of the universe, huh?

Hey, I told you where to find the evidence, read the Logic vs. The Bible thread and refute the evidence.

sorry if you said that already, i must have missed it somehow. i'll go read it once i get the chance. which will be soon. as in, a couple hours.

people always want concrete proof when talking about the bible....hey, i dont see people devoting their entire lives to Carl Sagan's quote..but i do see ministers, preists, and pastors being faithful and devoting their lives to the cause. Not to say that there is safety in numbers....but there is definitely something to be said about that.

Originally posted by Decka
people always want concrete proof when talking about the bible....hey, i dont see people devoting their entire lives to Carl Sagan's quote..but i do see ministers, preists, and pastors being faithful and devoting their lives to the cause. Not to say that there is safety in numbers....but there is definitely something to be said about that.
Popularity doesn't mean that the Bible is true. It was a popular view three hundred years ago among the uneducated that blacks were subhuman. We now know, of course, that this is completely false. I don't see us disproving the Bible anytime soon, but the point remains that popularity does not equal truth.

If you go by the popular view - the Bible isn't true

It would be interesting to see a diagram charting the estimated amount of Believers vs non believers across the time periods.

But yes i agree with Drew and borg

stark---

i read the logiv vs. the bible thread (or most of it anyway, it's long), and it seems that your points have already been thoroughly discussed by vilepagan and borg. anything i could say has probably already been said by those two, so i don't know what else i could do over there that wouldn't be rehashing old discussion.

Originally posted by DrewM
If you go by the popular view - the Bible isn't true

On these message boards anyway.

Yes because on the "we love Jesus" message boards its surprisingly one sided go figure

Originally posted by Lokideviluk
Yes because on the "we love Jesus" message boards its surprisingly one sided go figure

Are you kidding me? You dont actually think there is even half the number of believers as nonbelievers do you???

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
On these message boards anyway.

You're kidding right?

There are far more non-christians in the world than christians. Last time I checked - Islam was the biggest religion on the planet in terms of followers.

Then, within the christian faith - you have 98% sensible christians and 2% religious fruitcakes like yourself.

Originally posted by DrewM
You're kidding right?

There are far more non-christians in the world than christians. Last time I checked - Islam was the biggest religion on the planet in terms of followers.

Then, within the christian faith - you have 98% sensible christians and 2% religious fruitcakes like yourself.


Religious Fruitcake? The fact that I love and worship my creator and savior make me a fruitcake?

It's a shame to hear you say that.

here's what makes you a fruitcake

- you ignore the evidence of billions of non christians and think they are all going to hell
- you cannot conceive that anything you believe could be wrong, even though the types of details you believe are frivilous.
- you really believe silly details about things like heaven, taking bible lines literally when they are descriptive to make a point
- you ignore the fact that your realtionship with God experiences are common, and not exclusive to Christians, yet you take them as absolute proof of something

The "The fact that I love and worship my creator and savior make me a fruitcake?" - no, that part doesn't make you a fruitcake.

Okay, dnamertz I left off at your post, and I’ll start where you said:
“Your argument seems to be stuck on saying that "self-centeredness" is a sin...I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that these actions by a baby are not self-centered.”
And you said:
“This statement by you is exactly why they are NOT being self-centered. To be self-centered they have to intentionally be putting their needs above their parent's needs, and at this stage a baby is not even aware of its parent's needs. The baby is not saying to itself "I could care less what mom is in the middle of, I want her to feed me no matter how much it interrupts her".

Sin is not necessarily a conscious willful act of disobedience against God, but sin is always an impurity before God whether it was done willfully or not. The Old Testament demonstrates this in the giving of the Law to the Israel nation. There are sacrifices that the people are to make to cover the sins that they did not know about. Look at the instructions in Numbers 6:9-11 for those who make a Nazirite vow:
"'If someone dies suddenly in his presence, thus defiling the hair he has dedicated, he must shave his head on the day of his cleansing-- the seventh day. Then on the eighth day he must bring two doves or two young pigeons to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. The priest is to offer one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering to make atonement for him because he sinned by being in the presence of the dead body. That same day he is to consecrate his head.”
This is clearly nothing that was willfully done by the Nazirite, but it was still a sin, not by willful action, but because of impurity.
A babies actions are sinful, because self-centeredness is an impurity against God, again the baby is before the age of accountability, and not held accountable for the sin.
Next I had said:
“Even then we don’t have to pay for our sins, if we don’t want to. because Jesus has already paid for them.”
And you responded:
“Like I said before, its pathetic that according to this belief people do not have to pay for their sins. Thank "God" our legal system doesn't work this way!!!!!”

Pathetic or not, that’s between you and God, but it’s wonderful for those who realize their impurity before an all powerful God, and want to turn their life over to God.
Next you said:
“Its horrible that God would treat good people worse than bad people just because you turn to him. Again, good thing our justice system does not work this way.”

Actually, there are no “good” people, Jesus said that only God is good, and Romans 3:23 says “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,”
God allows people their choices, those who want to pay for their own sins can do so. Of course paying for your own sins is an eternity from the presence of God. Now, for those who want to be with God, and God wants all people to love Him, there is already a payment for that sin. John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
Next I had said:
“Obeying Jesus means you will try your best to be good, and treat others with love. Wouldn’t hurt to try.”
And you responded:
“I already do this and I didn't need the "obeying Jesus" part to convince me...I guess I had good parents. I have no problem with people who get this "treat others with love" attitude from religion, but some of us can get that from other sources.”

But, since you don’t do it perfectly, you need Jesus as Lord of your life, and his death on the cross, to pay the penalty for the times you fail.
Next you said:
“People can be convinced of a lot of things...like the people in Jonestown. Maybe some people wanted so badly to believe Jesus was the son of God that they convinced themselves he came back from the dead.”

You’re saying that twelve disciples of Jesus, plus hundreds more, including a skeptic who didn’t believe that Jesus was the Messiah (that would be Jesus’ brother James), all convinced themselves that they saw, touched, and in the case of the disciples, ate with Jesus, not just once, but many times. They were so sure of this great hallucination that they lived, suffered, and died, all for the sake of spreading the good news of Gods forgiveness to the world… wow, I guess you do believe in miracles.
Next you said:
“Like I said, when it comes to fanaticism (religious or otherwise), people are so anxious to believe things. They believe they see Jesus's face in a wall, when it looks like a smear, but they swear its there. People believe they hear backwards messages in a song, when to me it sounds like noise, but they swear its there. People are so anxious to believe that aliens will come down on a comet and save them that they voluntarilly live in a gross comune and kill themselves with poisoned cool-aid. People kill themselves and 3,000 others because they believe 70 virgins will be waiting for them in the next life.”

I totally agree with you here, some people are so fanatical about their hope that there is no God that they will preach across the world that the universe just popped into existence, that life and all it’s complexity came about by chance, or maybe by a real neat episode of Star Trek. If someone suggest that God is the creator, well they may just be labeled a fruitcake or some such thing.
Oh well, everyone needs a religion.
Finally you said:
“And people could have easily believed that some preacher teaching a new religion was the son of God and came back to life...especially 2,000 years ago.”

Yes, especially when this preacher taught not a religion, but a relationship with God, performed miracles, rose from the dead, and himself claimed to be the One and only Son of God, and the one and only way to God.

Borg, you said:
“That explains much. Like hardcore ultra-right-wing let's-ban-atheists-and-queers pseudo-Christianity!”
Interesting, could you name a couple of hardcore ultra-right-wing-let’s-ban-atheists-and -queers- Christians?
Let’s see if I can name someone that could fit that bill, hmmm…how about Joseph Stalin? No, that doesn’t work he wanted to ban (as you say) “queers” but he was fine with atheists. I think he did want to ban someone…oh yes, Christians, he hated Christians. There’s probably a couple of others in world history just like Stalin.

Borg you said:
“It was a popular view three hundred years ago among the uneducated that blacks were subhuman. We now know, of course, that this is completely false.”

Actually that belief came from the educated, Darwin taught it in his book “The Descent of Man”. Scientist sure taught some wrong stuff…

back then.

yea, nobody gives a damn when Christians are slaughtered like they were in history overseas....i just read an interesting story about the lost sons who are the few remaining christians from some third world country....i dont have it right next to me....

it was a really touching story...now they travel around the world witnessing.....

funny how i hadn't heard of christians being slaughtered til now, and only directly from the source...but when jews are slaughtered....oh man i hear about that on the front page of history books

A babies actions are sinful, because self-centeredness is an impurity against God, again the baby is before the age of accountability

Do you understand "accountability"? The baby isn't aware of, or even in control of, his actions. If you place a knife in a babies hand and he lets go and it land in your foot, do you call him "violent"?

You’re saying that twelve disciples of Jesus, plus hundreds more, including a skeptic who didn’t believe that Jesus was the Messiah (that would be Jesus’ brother James), all convinced themselves that they saw, touched, and in the case of the disciples, ate with Jesus, not just once, but many times. They were so sure of this great hallucination that they lived, suffered, and died, all for the sake of spreading the good news of Gods forgiveness to the world…

Yep, like I said (and you agreed with) "when it comes to fanaticism (religious or otherwise), people are so anxious to believe things". Are you saying that hundreds of people ACTUALLY believed that aliens were coming on a comet to save them? They believed so strongly that the killed themselves...so does that mean that what they believed in was true (and by "they" I mean the people in Jonestown AND the believers of Jesus)?

sputnik you said:
“2. and yes, carl sagan and the bible can certianly both be wrong. there could be another explanation that neither you nor i nor carl have ever even thought of.”

Interesting. Your saying that it’s possible that there is no God, and the universe at one time never existed, but then came into existence. It’s completely impossible for the universe to create itself, because it would have to exist and not exist at the same time; that doesn’t work. So how could the universe have popped into existence? Some people say that our universe filtered in from another dimension, but that only pushes the question back to who created that universe. It’s called an eternal regression. I suspect that Sagan decided the universe always existed, because he knew the universe didn’t create itself, and he decided to reject God.
Next you said:
“…why is carl way off? can you prove that? since when do YOU know the origins of the universe, huh?”

I don’t know the origins of the universe, but God does and I believe Him. Carl is way off because an eternally existing universe is illogical, he only espoused the theory because in his mind there could not be a God.

Drew in your list of what makes one a “fruitcake” you said:
“- you ignore the evidence of billions of non christians and think they are all going to hell”

What is some of this evidence from billions of non-Christians, that you mention.
By the way are you saying that when Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” he was wrong?
Next you said:
“- you cannot conceive that anything you believe could be wrong, even though the types of details you believe are frivilous.”

I’m interested in what details of the Christian faith you find frivolous.
Oh, and could you be wrong about what jere believes? If the answer is no then by your own definition your on the way to being a fruitcake, but if your answer is yes you could be wrong, then why come here proselytizing your religion with such vigor. Of course I’m glad you do, it makes these debates interesting, I’m just wondering, why try so hard to destroy jere’s or any other Christian’s faith, if in fact there is a possibility that they may be right?
Next you said:
“- you really believe silly details about things like heaven, taking bible lines literally when they are descriptive to make a point”

What “bible lines” is jere taking literally that you know God intends only to be descriptive?
Next you said:
“- you ignore the fact that your realtionship with God experiences are common, and not exclusive to Christians, yet you take them as absolute proof of something”

I can’t find where jere said that his God experiences are his only absolute proof of the truth of Christianity. He may consider it one of many evidences, but the only one?

Jerejere, maybe I just missed the post where you made that claim. So tell me, is your God experiences the only reason you believe?

dnamertz you said:
“Are you saying that hundreds of people ACTUALLY believed that aliens were coming on a comet to save them? They believed so strongly that the killed themselves...so does that mean that what they believed in was true (and by "they" I mean the people in Jonestown AND the believers of Jesus)?’

Oh, if only you had read what I had written about Jonestown you wouldn’t have had to waste your time asking this question.
Those people of Jonestown, died because they believed what Jim Jones told them, it was the same with the Heavens Gate group, they believed that what Applewhite told them was true. As for Jim Jones and Applewhite they didn’t live in poverty and suffering, going town to town preaching what they witnessed, they gained power and riches lying to people who were desperate for something other then what the Bible teaches.

Remember I never said that belief equals truth.

Carl is way off because an eternally existing universe is illogical,

So is an eternally existing God.

Your saying that it’s possible that there is no God, and the universe at one time never existed, but then came into existence. It’s completely impossible for the universe to create itself, because it would have to exist and not exist at the same time; that doesn’t work.

God also would have had to not exist at one time, but then came into existence. It’s completely impossible for the God to create himself, because he would have to exist and not exist at the same time; that doesn’t work.

Oh, if only you had read what I had written about Jonestown you wouldn’t have had to waste your time asking this question.

I did read, and it failed to disprove my point. The people of Jonestown, and Heavens Gate, and other groups I mentioned, all believed so strongly in something that they were willing to die for it, just like people died for believing Jesus was the son of God. My point, which was hard to miss, was that their belief that he was God's son, no matter how strong, does not make it so. Fanatics believe anything and are willing to die for it.

dnamertz, I had said that an eternally existing universe is impossible and you responded:
“So is an eternally existing God.”
And you said:
“God also would have had to not exist at one time, but then came into existence. It’s completely impossible for the God to create himself, because he would have to exist and not exist at the same time; that doesn’t work.”

First let me say that you are right, it is impossible for God to have created Himself.
But it is not impossible for God to have existed eternally, because God is beyond space and time, and therefore not confined by space and time. Time was created by God, Stephen Hawking himself said that time had a beginning. The Disciple Peter reveals that God is not subject to time by saying in 2nd Peter; “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” Before time, before the universe, God existed.
Next you said:
“My point, which was hard to miss, was that their belief that he was God's son, no matter how strong, does not make it so. Fanatics believe anything and are willing to die for it.”

Once again, you are correct, right belief does not make reality. But in your point you speak of their belief that Jesus is Gods Son, my point is that these people made the claim that they saw, talked to, and touched Jesus, physically, after his death on the cross, which validates everything that Jesus had told them before his death, one of which that he is the Son of God. Remember they didn’t suffer the rest of their lives, and die because they simply believed, without evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, they did it because they personally witnessed it.

Originally posted by dnamertz

God also would have had to not exist at one time, but then came into existence. It’s completely impossible for the God to create himself, because he would have to exist and not exist at the same time; that doesn’t work.


actually....god has always existed, so says the christian philosophy....he has no beginning and no end. I know it doesn't make sense but thats what i beleive....

But it is not impossible for God to have existed eternally, because God is beyond space and time, and therefore not confined by space and time

Its no more impossible than the universe "existing eternally because it is beyond space and time". I'm not arguing in favor of some big bang theory, because I think that is equally as unlikely as a supreme being creating the universe.

Remember they didn’t suffer the rest of their lives, and die because they simply believed, without evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, they did it because they personally witnessed it.

Or they did it because they personally convinced themselves that they witnessed it.

Originally posted by dnamertz

Or they did it because they personally convinced themselves that they witnessed it.

Well i guess we can throw EVERY bit of testimony in history out the window...because how can we know if they saw it or if they "convinced" themselves they saw it?

Well i guess we can throw EVERY bit of testimony in history out the window...because how can we know if they saw it or if they "convinced" themselves they saw it?

Or you can believe EVERY bit of testimony in history is true.

dnamertz I had said:
“But it is not impossible for God to have existed eternally, because God is beyond space and time, and therefore not confined by space and time”
And you responded:
“Its no more impossible than the universe "existing eternally because it is beyond space and time".

Ummm, the universe is space and time, and subject to the laws of space and time.
Next you said:
“I'm not arguing in favor of some big bang theory, because I think that is equally as unlikely as a supreme being creating the universe.”

The big bang is unlikely? Well what can I say, your view contradicts the thinking of the top astronomers and physicists of our day.
Oh wait, a big bang suggests a big banger, the One who caused the whole thing to start. No wonder you don’t believe it happened, because to do so brings you to close to an originator.
Next, about the personal testimonies of the disciples, you said:
“Or they did it because they personally convinced themselves that they witnessed it.”

“They personally convinced themselves,” I wonder how that would work. I suppose that one day, after the brutal death of Jesus the disciples were sitting around when one of them, let’s say Peter, suddenly speaks.
“Say John, I personally think that you and I raced to where Jesus was buried and all we found was an empty tomb, what do you think?”
John scratches his sparse beard, “yeah, I think you’re right, I am kind of sure that I never saw his body in the open tomb.”
At that Cleopas jumps up, “wait, I think it was me and another guy who walked with Jesus on the road to Emmaus. Yeah, it was, and we didn’t know at first that it was him until he revealed himself as he broke the bread and gave thanks. I almost pretty sure this happened to me.”
At this point Thomas takes a pull at the wine skin and says, “don’t you all think it’s possible that Jesus suddenly appeared to us, and because I didn’t believe anyone else in their claim that they saw him, he had me touch his wounds? I’m pretty darned sure that’s the way it happened.”
Matthew chimes in, “yes, I’m almost sure I remember it happened exactly that way. Wait, here comes James the brother of Jesus. Hey James, come here. James Don’t you remember how Jesus really rose physically from the dead?”
James kicks of his dirty sandals, and grabs a seat near Dr. Luke who’s furiously writing all this down. “Actually guys, I always thought that there was something wrong about the claims Jesus made about himself…no wait, yes it’s all true, I’m pretty sure I myself saw him. Come to think about it, I’d bet my paycheck that Peter and a bunch of you guys ate fish on a beach with him.”
Peter pipes back up, “yeah, and wouldn’t it be great if Jesus made me tell him three times that I loved him, and then told me to feed his sheep?” He pauses just a second as he looks at the blank faces staring at him. “Oh, I mean yeah, Jesus did tell me all that stuff… come on everyone let’s go find anyone who has convinced themselves that they saw the resurrected Jesus, and we’ll all go town to town, living in poverty, and being beaten and whipped telling this good news. Don’t worry if we’re lucky we’ll be killed in the process!”

This whole scenario just doesn’t work for me.

Ummm, the universe is space and time, and subject to the laws of space and time.

Ummm, thats your best response? Any God, or any other being, would be subject to the same laws as the universe. A God is just as likely to have "existed before time" as a universe is.

Oh wait, a big bang suggests a big banger, the One who caused the whole thing to start. No wonder you don’t believe it happened, because to do so brings you to close to an originator.

Huh???

This whole scenario just doesn’t work for me.

Don't look at me, its your scenario...but you do have a great imagination.

If you don't think people can be so desperate to believe something (especially something to do with religion) that they think they actually saw something that didn't happen, then I'd have to assume you don't know much about people. Heck, people claimed they saw Elvis long after his death.

If you don't think people can be so desperate to believe something (especially something to do with religion) that they think they actually saw something that didn't happen, then I'd have to assume you don't know much about people. Heck, people claimed they saw Elvis long after his death.

Or maybe they were simply told that if they spread the word that jesus has rised from the dead, even though he didnt, they would please their god and in return get some higher status in heaven or just get guarenteed entry,

Originally posted by DrewM
here's what makes you a fruitcake

- you ignore the evidence of billions of non christians and think they are all going to hell
- you cannot conceive that anything you believe could be wrong, even though the types of details you believe are frivilous.
- you really believe silly details about things like heaven, taking bible lines literally when they are descriptive to make a point
- you ignore the fact that your realtionship with God experiences are common, and not exclusive to Christians, yet you take them as absolute proof of something

The "The fact that I love and worship my creator and savior make me a fruitcake?" - no, that part doesn't make you a fruitcake.

I have not ignored any evidence because there hasnt been anything shown to me that disproves God in any fashion.

I have an open mind and have said so.

I take the Bible literally, because I believe it is the inspirded infalliable word of God.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
I have not ignored any evidence because there hasnt been anything shown to me that disproves God in any fashion.
No, but there's plenty against the infalliability of the Bible.
I have an open mind and have said so.
I take the Bible literally, because I believe it is the inspirded infalliable word of God.
Mutually exclusive statements.

Originally posted by Lokideviluk
Or maybe they were simply told that if they spread the word that jesus has rised from the dead, even though he didnt, they would please their god and in return get some higher status in heaven or just get guarenteed entry,
----------------------------------------------------------------

More than likely, it was to help get a faltering new religion started off on a powerful footing. People had to be attracted away from the Jewish religion. In a day when no real proof of a miraculous happening was needed, past word of mouth, this was all that was necessary.

Borg,

Those are not exclusive statements at all! Do you think its impossible to hold an open mind and hold beliefs at the same time?

Of course they are exclusive, to say you hold an open mind means you dont completely 100% believe in GOD since your openly confessing your partially open to the idea he doesnt exist and its all completely false.

I full heartedly disagree. I have absolute faith in my God, but if it was proved he didnt exist, than I would admit it. I have an open mind to that.

OMG!!!!

Are you soo completely blind to your own words.

Jere if you have complete 100% faith in your god then there cant be at all, never, anywhere, at any time, Proof that God doesnt exist!!!

But you say quite clearly "but if it was proved he didnt exist, than I would admit it" showing that you allow for the possibility that proof exists or will be found.

Meaning you are not 100% convinced of Gods existance and that in the back of your mind you have doubts for you to have said something like that.

You have a unclear meaning of Faith. My faith (my belief) is that there is 100% a God.

I BELIEVE THAT! I have no proof...I just have faith in it. 100%!

Definition guy says

ref : "Brainwashing"

"I BELIEVE THAT! I have no proof...I just have faith in it. 100%!"

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Those are not exclusive statements at all! Do you think its impossible to hold an open mind and hold beliefs at the same time?
Your claim that you have an absolute belief belies your claim that you have an open mind. To have an absolute belief that is not a proven fact demonstrates that you do not have an open mind.

i agree with jere....you can have a beleif in something, and then if its proven wrong, so be it. Thats the big thing though, you cant prove God exists, and you cant disprove God exists....

Thank you Decka! Finally, someone understands.

yeah but there has to be a reason WHY somebody believes in something and there is a whole different level of belief between somebody who says I happen to believe this and it works for me, if I'm wrong so what, and somebody who says - not only do I believe this, I believe that everybody else IS wrong and are condemend - whole nations and beliefs written off as simply decieved. That is all together different. Not only different - it is the exact same thing that has caused countless deaths, wars and tradgedy in history.

Originally posted by DrewM
yeah but there has to be a reason WHY somebody believes in something and there is a whole different level of belief between somebody who says I happen to believe this and it works for me, if I'm wrong so what, and somebody who says - not only do I believe this, I believe that everybody else IS wrong and are condemend - whole nations and beliefs written off as simply decieved. That is all together different. Not only different - it is the exact same thing that has caused countless deaths, wars and tradgedy in history.

Regardless of your oppinion, I am commanded by God to whitness.

I am only serving Christ. If you dont like it, dont read my posts.

As expected. More robotic thinking.

What do you want from me Drew? Can you please get away from your tired repetitive posts and just come out and say it.

I want you discuss issues - I thought that was obvious.

How many times do I got to say that I will discuss whatever you like?

Funny. I only remember restating the same stuff - I don't remember any discussion of valid contradictions

*Deep Sigh*

Let's start all over then... What would you like to discuss, Andrew?

Well you can start by addressing my post above, instead of just saying "Regardless of your oppinion, I am commanded by God to whitness."

dnamertz I’m a tad bit behind so I’ll be covering what you said over on page ten. First you said:
“Any God, or any other being, would be subject to the same laws as the universe.”

Let me change that to; any god, or any other being, that is invented or created by man, would be subject to the same laws as the universe. But the Being who created the universe is not subject to the laws of that universe. He existed before those laws were in affect.
Next you said:
“A God is just as likely to have "existed before time" as a universe is.”

If the universe is present, then time is present. The universe cannot have existed before time.
Next I had said:
“Oh wait, a big bang suggests a big banger, the One who caused the whole thing to start. No wonder you don’t believe it happened, because to do so brings you to close to an originator.”
And you responded:
“Huh???”

Keep working on it, you’ll get it.
I had given you a possible scenario where the Disciples would have convinced themselves that Jesus had risen from the dead, and I told you that the idea of the Disciples convincing themselves that Jesus had risen just didn’t work for me and you said:
“Don't look at me, its your scenario…”

Could you come up with a reasonable scenario, where the Disciples actually do truly convince themselves that they had seen, talked with, walked with, ate with, and touched, even though they really hadn‘t?
Finally you said:
“If you don't think people can be so desperate to believe something (especially something to do with religion) that they think they actually saw something that didn't happen, then I'd have to assume you don't know much about people. Heck,
people claimed they saw Elvis long after his death.”

Highlight where you said: “they think they actually saw something,” and “people claimed they saw Elvis…” these are sightings, nothing concrete, nothing personal. The Disciples and more all claimed personal close contact with the risen Lord, not some “hey I think I just say Jesus walk into the seven eleven?

Loki, about the Disciples testimony that Jesus had risen from the dead, you said:
“Or maybe they were simply told that if they spread the word that jesus has rised from the dead, even though he didnt, they would please their god and in return get some higher status in heaven or just get guarenteed entry,”

That totally contradicts all of the teaching in the Bible, about how to get to heaven, and how to get greater rewards in heaven. Besides that, what authority would have promised the Disciples a higher status in heaven?

Originally posted by stark
[That totally contradicts all of the teaching in the Bible, about how to get to heaven, and how to get greater rewards in heaven. [/B]

Strangely enough, i didnt actually think my statement happened, however the bible wasnt written at the time of them thinking that so they wouldnt have had it to go by now would they


Originally posted by stark
Besides that, what authority would have promised the Disciples a higher status in heaven? [/B]

Jesus? Apparently his word has a fair bit of power in it.

Thing is your gonna rant on about "Oh no, Jesus wouldnt have said such a thing, we know him personally and he would never speak such ill things, in fact look at this book here that has been translated so many times its like a 2000 year old game of chinese whispear but FEAR not! its all completely true because God told me it was"

Originally posted by stark
But the Being who created the universe is not subject to the laws of that universe. He existed before those laws were in affect.


He had the bible written through Man, so at that point his word was subject to the laws of man in the sense that the laws which govern man would have governed how they interepreted God's messages and thus wrote them down.

Originally posted by stark
Highlight where you said: “they think they actually saw something,” and “people claimed they saw Elvis…” these are sightings, nothing concrete, nothing personal. The Disciples and more all claimed personal close contact with the risen Lord, not some “hey I think I just say Jesus walk into the seven eleven?

I think youll find some people in America have had pretty intimate relationships with famous dead people which has all been in their mind.

Imagine these Disciples knowing in the back of their mind that if they see Jesus rise from the dead then that confirms God, the heavens and their place alongside him is true. They would be activelly thinking about it all day every day, thinking they are seeing him everywhere untill they see him.

Did Jesus come to them individually in the bible or did he sit them down all together when he came back from the Dead? (im reading as fast as i can through the bible however im not on that bit, i apologise)

Let me change that to; any god, or any other being, that is invented or created by man, would be subject to the same laws as the universe. But the Being who created the universe is not subject to the laws of that universe. He existed before those laws were in affect.

You're just making up "rules" as you go. Maybe a Big Bang would not be subject to the "laws of the universe" either.

The universe cannot have existed before time.

Neither could a Being. If he created it, then he had to "exist" in some time. Nothing can exist before time.

Could you come up with a reasonable scenario, where the Disciples actually do truly convince themselves that they had seen, talked with, walked with, ate with, and touched, even though they really hadn‘t?

I can come up with many but that won't make them any more true than you scenarios. Maybe they were on drugs...maybe they were fooled by someone pretending to be the reincarnated son of God...maybe they were Punked (Ashton Kutcher's name doesn't come up in the Bible, does it?)

Borg, in one of your responses to jere you said:
“…but there's plenty against the infalliability of the Bible.”

Now, I know this is between you and jere, but what evidence against the infallibility of the Bible do you have. You said there’s plenty, I’d like to look at just one.

Dan, about the reasons that the Disciples claimed a resurrected Savior, you said:
“More than likely, it was to help get a faltering new religion started off on a powerful footing. People had to be attracted away from the Jewish religion. In a day when no real proof of a miraculous happening was needed, past word of mouth, this was all that was necessary.”

I may not understand what you’re saying, are you suggesting that the Disciples were lying about their claim that Jesus had risen from the dead?

Originally posted by stark
Borg, in one of your responses to jere you said:
“…but there's plenty against the infalliability of the Bible.”

Now, I know this is between you and jere, but what evidence against the infallibility of the Bible do you have. You said there’s plenty, I’d like to look at just one.
Beginning at the beginning, there could not have been any Adam and Eve as described in the Bible, considering all the evidence there is for evolution.

are you suggesting that the Disciples were lying about their claim that Jesus had risen from the dead?

People have been known to lie. Remember, we are all sinners...we were born with sin in our heart, so its very possible they lied.

Loki, you know I rarely skip over a post that has a point I’d like to discuss, I almost always like to do them in order, but here I am skipping over all of page 11,( which has a good bit of Drew’s posts that I want to talk over) just to get to your post. Now I don’t want you to think I’m slipping, but your post looked so fun I thought I’d give it a go. Come to think of it, I suspect that because I believe in the God of the Bible, you already think I’m slipping.
Now, about the teaching in the Bible you said:
“however the bible wasnt written at the time of them thinking that so they wouldnt have had it to go by now would they”

By “them” and “they” I’ll assume you meant the disciples of Jesus. Most of the New Testament was written by those who personally saw, and experienced the risen Jesus. What you're suggesting is that Jesus told them one way to get to heaven and how to get greater reward in heaven, but they turn and give a completely different way to the followers of Christ. Could it be that the Disciples taught, just as they had been taught?
Next you said:
“Thing is your gonna rant on about "Oh no, Jesus wouldnt have said such a thing, we know him personally and he would never speak such ill things, in fact look at this book here that has been translated so many times its like a 2000 year old game of chinese whispear but FEAR not! its all completely true because God told me it was"

Interesting, in your description of my “rant” you end up ranting. That’s okay, I love a good rant. What I wanted to focus on is this bit of rant “…look at this book here that has been translated so many times its like a 2000 year old game of chinese whispear…” Now if I understand my Chinese whisper game one person whispers a phrase into the ear of the person next to them, and then that person whispers the same phrase into the ear of the person sitting next to them, this goes on until all the participants have had the phrase whispered to them, and the last person says the phrase out loud. Usually what starts out as something to the effect of; Lokideviluk doesn’t understand Christianity may end up being; looky, that devil stark sure has grown himself quite a beard, nothing like what was originally said. The key for that game is the whispering in the ear, the Gospel of Jesus Christ was not whispered in the ear, it was proclaimed in every city, in the market places, and synagogues, it started riots, and stonings, it was preached to thousand at a time, but whispered? Never.
Finally you said:
“…FEAR not! its all completely true because God told me it was”
Come now, have you heard me ever say that I believe the Bible is true, because “God told me it was”?
But, now that you mention it the Bible promises that if you truly seek God with all your heart He will reveal Himself to you. With in that revelation, you will find The Truth in the pages of God’s Word; the Bible.
Continuing on, why don’t you believe the Bible is true? Did someone tell you, do you just feel that it isn't, or did you go out and study the Bible and discovered through historical and archaeological research that the Bible is wrong?

Look at this, here I am jumping all over the place. Oh well, I’ve already started…
Borg you said, concerning the evidence against, the infallibility of the Bible:
“Beginning at the beginning, there could not have been any Adam and Eve as described in the Bible, considering all the evidence there is for evolution.”

“All” the evidence there is for evolution. Wow…now what evidence is that? Has someone recorded life appearing from non-life? Science once thought they had proof of that until that kill joy Pasteur went and proved that the “spontaneous life” everyone was giggling about was just the maggots from flies. Those Christian scientist just can’t leave well enough alone.
I know, you could give us that from-fish-to-reptile link that proves evolution. I’ve already researched that one and it would be much easier for me to cut and paste the answer.
Well I’ll just leave it up to you.

Originally posted by stark
Has someone recorded life appearing from non-life?
That's a red herring. The theory of evolution never has made any claim about the ultimate origin of life on the planet. We do know, however, that man did not simply spring into existence one day...

Originally posted by stark
Dan,
I may not understand what you’re saying, are you suggesting that the Disciples were lying about their claim that Jesus had risen from the dead?
-------------------------------------------------------
It is a possibility.
It is also interesting that the gospel of St. Thomas(which many people consider to have been written by the Disciple Thomas) would have been omitted from the Bible. His writings list no such thing as a reserection or Jesus's mention of the upcoming event. Surely he (Thomas) would have mentioned such a wonderment.
Well o.k. maybe Thomas did not write it. Then if this is true I have to wonder if the other Disciples actually wrote that which is attributed to each of them. There seems to be no more proof of one than the other. No one even has proof, other than opinion, even when the gospels were written let alone who wrote them.
It is all opinion and faith. I nor anyone else can say for sure.

Originally posted by stark
“All” the evidence there is for evolution. Wow…now what evidence is that?

You know, all the evidence for evolution that you choose to ignore because it threatens to make you think.

Has someone recorded life appearing from non-life?

No...but that's not evolution, that's creationism, and we know it doesn't happen.

Science once thought they had proof of that until that kill joy Pasteur went and proved that the “spontaneous life” everyone was giggling about was just the maggots from flies.

Correct, which proves that complex life isn't simply "created" from nothing as your Bible suggests.

Science also discovered it's mistake and corrected it. It took the Catholic Church 500 years to admit they were wrong when they made Gallileo recant his scientific findings. Did they do it because they had just "discovered" their mistake? No, they did it because they realized that their stubborn refusal to admit their mistake made them look foolish.

Time and science will eventually do the same with all foolish ideas.

and i await that moment with the excitment of a childs vision of christmas. It will be a day of celebration in our house.

STARK wrote:
Now if I understand my Chinese whisper game one person whispers a phrase into the ear of the person next to them, and then that person whispers the same phrase into the ear of the person sitting next to them, this goes on until all the participants have had the phrase whispered to them, and the last person says the phrase out loud. Usually what starts out as something to the effect of; Lokideviluk doesn’t understand Christianity may end up being; looky, that devil stark sure has grown himself quite a beard, nothing like what was originally said. The key for that game is the whispering in the ear, the Gospel of Jesus Christ was not whispered in the ear, it was proclaimed in every city, in the market places, and synagogues, it started riots, and stonings, it was preached to thousand at a time, but whispered? Never.

You did a great job of missing the point of the "Chinese whisper game". It has nothing to do with it being whispered. You can whisper or shout it in every city, the point is that repeating the story from one person to the next can lead to a different story.

I was under the understanding that you could basically commit as much sin as you want and then on your death bed repent, Say sorry and God will let you in!!



Am i wrong???

Originally posted by dnamertz
You did a great job of missing the point of the "Chinese whisper game". It has nothing to do with it being whispered. You can whisper or shout it in every city, the point is that repeating the story from one person to the next can lead to a different story.

Every story that happened a long time ago is added to by who tells it. Its what people do. No matter what volume it is told.

Originally posted by English_Pride
I was under the understanding that you could basically commit as much sin as you want and then on your death bed repent, Say sorry and God will let you in!!



Am i wrong???

You have got to be sincere though. If you just have it planned to become saved on your death...youre probably not going to be very sincere about it.

Loki about God not being subject to the laws of the universe you said:
“He had the bible written through Man, so at that point his word was subject to the laws of man in the sense that the laws which govern man would have governed how they interepreted God's messages and thus wrote them down.”

I was speaking of the physical laws, not mans law, or moral law.
Next you said:
“I think youll find some people in America have had pretty intimate relationships with famous dead people which has all been in their mind.”

Really? Name some.
Next you wrote:
“Imagine these Disciples knowing in the back of their mind that if they see Jesus rise from the dead then that confirms God, the heavens and their place alongside him is true. They would be activelly thinking about it all day every day, thinking they are seeing him everywhere untill they see him.”

Or imagine that the God of the universe Loves you so much that He sent his one of a kind Son to earth to pay the penalty for your sins, and to purchase a place for you in heaven, and all that you have to do is to reach out and accept that Gift.
Next you said:
“Did Jesus come to them individually in the bible or did he sit them down all together when he came back from the Dead? (im reading as fast as i can through the bible however im not on that bit, i apologise)”

Jesus came to the Disciples as they were gathered in groups of two or more, except for Mary, he appeared to her while she was alone.

Dnamertz you said:
“You're just making up "rules" as you go. Maybe a Big Bang would not be subject to the "laws of the universe" either.”

Making up the rules as I go? God and the laws of the universe have been around a bit longer than I have.
Next you said:
“Neither could a Being. If he created it, then he had to "exist" in some time. Nothing can exist before time.”

God would disagree with you. It was God who created the universe, and the movement of the universe, and it is from that movement that time is figured. God exists outside of the universe and outside of time.
Next, about the disciples witnessing the resurrected Jesus, you said:
“Maybe they were on drugs…“

So you’re saying that the bunch of them were hanging around smoking a joint when through the haze they thought they saw Jesus, they thought they talked with him, they thought they touched him, they thought they were fishing one day, saw Jesus on the beach, went in and ate fish with him, and they thought they saw him ascend into heaven with the promise that he would one day return.
Wow, that’s some weed
Next you said:
“…maybe they were fooled by someone pretending to be the reincarnated son of God”

Ah I see, so it wasn’t necessarily some weed, it may have been someone in a rubber Jesus mask, maybe a “Mission Impossible” operation. Tom Cruise comes in, performs a few miracles, says he’s Jesus back from the dead, tells the followers of the real Jesus to go and spread the good news, and then disappears into the sky. I bet that theory would have the coolest theme music.
Finally you said:
“…maybe they were Punked (Ashton Kutcher's name doesn't come up in the Bible, does it?)”

I did a word search for Ashton Kutcher in my Bible program, all I could find was
“Thou shalt not try to find Ashton Kutcher in the Bible.”

dnamertz about the disciples claim that they witnessed the resurrected Jesus, you said:
“People have been known to lie. Remember, we are all sinners...we were born with sin in our heart, so its very possible they lied.”

So the disciple just out right lied. They live in poverty the rest of their lives, going town to town, getting beaten and whipped, being hated, never gaining power, and eventually dying horrible deaths, all for the sake of proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they claimed that they were doing this to spread the news that because of Jesus and his death, men are reconciled with God and saved for eternity. Yet you say they may have lied.
Tell me, why do you think they would lie, to what end?

Borg about evolution and life coming from non-life you said:
“That's a red herring. The theory of evolution never has made any claim about the ultimate origin of life on the planet.”

Really? Are you sure that there is no theory of some primordial soup that one day was struck by lightning, producing the first life?
I must have read it in a comic book…I think the teachers that taught it must have read the same comic book.
Next you said:
“We do know, however, that man did not simply spring into existence one day…”

I suggest that you don’t know, and that many hope that there is not a God that brought man into existence.
By the way, I can name you fifty scientist that believe God created man, do you want the list?

Originally posted by stark
Really? Are you sure that there is no theory of some primordial soup that one day was struck by lightning, producing the first life?
I never said that. I said that those things are separate from the theory of evolution. They are two different entities.
By the way, I can name you fifty scientist that believe God created man, do you want the list?
I can name you fifty scientists who believe the exact opposite. So what?

Making up the rules as I go? God and the laws of the universe have been around a bit longer than I have.

Nice cop out.

God would disagree with you. It was God who created the universe, and the movement of the universe, and it is from that movement that time is figured. God exists outside of the universe and outside of time.

He could disagree all he wants, if he existed. But for now its you who disagrees.

So you’re saying that the bunch of them were hanging around smoking a joint when through the haze they thought they saw Jesus, they thought they talked with him, they thought they touched him, they thought they were fishing one day, saw Jesus on the beach, went in and ate fish with him, and they thought they saw him ascend into heaven with the promise that he would one day return.

Ah I see, so it wasn’t necessarily some weed, it may have been someone in a rubber Jesus mask, maybe a “Mission Impossible” operation. Tom Cruise comes in, performs a few miracles, says he’s Jesus back from the dead, tells the followers of the real Jesus to go and spread the good news, and then disappears into the sky. I bet that theory would have the coolest theme music.


You asked for "possible scenarios" and I mentioned drugs and them being fooled as a couple possible scenario...and there are many more. Seeing the way you take a 2 or 3 word answer and claim I gave these detailed scenarios that you described above, just goes to explain how you take the stories in the Bible and claim they are true.

So the disciple just out right lied. They live in poverty the rest of their lives, going town to town, getting beaten and whipped, being hated, never gaining power, and eventually dying horrible deaths, all for the sake of proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they claimed that they were doing this to spread the news that because of Jesus and his death, men are reconciled with God and saved for eternity. Yet you say they may have lied.

You just gave the reason....to spread the "news" that because of Jesus and his death, men are reconciled with God and saved for eternity....to try and convince others.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/proof.htm

http://www.truthbeknown.com/atheist.htm

Simply because im stupidly tired today and havent got the energy to correctly word my retorts, thus allowing you to pick holes in them. Tomorrow i will however reply however, but for the moment read the above.

Great posts Jere, I am referring to page 10. I haven't been on much but I was just reading that page and thought you deserved a pat on the back.

I was very suprised that you were called a fruitcake by someone who quotes homer simpson. Maybe drew should turn homer off and pick up the bible, then he wouldn't be making these lame comments.

Great another christian whack job

Dan you said:
“It is also interesting that the gospel of St. Thomas(which many people consider to have been written by the Disciple Thomas) would have been omitted from the Bible.”

The Gospel of Thomas was written around 150 A.D. well after the rest of the New Testament was written and well after the Disciple Thomas was killed in India. Besides that The Gospel of Thomas isn’t really a Gospel, but a collection of Jesus’ supposed sayings.
The Gospel of Thomas was left out of the Bible because it contradicts the teaching of Jesus.
Next you wrote:
“His writings list no such thing as a reserection or Jesus's mention of the upcoming event. Surely he (Thomas) would have mentioned such a wonderment.”

The Gospel of Thomas was written by Gnostics who didn’t believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus because in their minds flesh was evil. They didn’t even believe that Jesus was in a body of flesh before he died on the cross. In their writings you’ll find them claiming that Jesus never left any foot prints, because Jesus wasn’t in a body but was a spirit. I suspect that is what John is referring to when he wrote I John 4:2-3 “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.” So the resurrection of Jesus would have been contrary to their teachings.
Next you said:
“Well o.k. maybe Thomas did not write it. Then if this is true I have to wonder if the other Disciples actually wrote that which is attributed to each of them. There seems to be no more proof of one than the other. No one even has proof, other than opinion, even when the gospels were written let alone who wrote them.
It is all opinion and faith. I nor anyone else can say for sure.”

The first century church had no problem with who wrote the books of the New Testament, and they were the ones who originally accepted the books as inspired by God.

Vilepagan, good to see you in the debate. Now about my request for evidence of evolution you said:
“You know, all the evidence for evolution that you choose to ignore because it threatens to make you think.”


You and I have been debating for awhile on other threads can you show me the evidence that I’ve ignored? I myself am not sure, maybe you or someone else brought something up that I didn’t catch. If that’s the case let me know and I’ll talk about it. Now, really do you think I ignore evidence because it threatens to make me think? Are you suggesting after all of our debate I’m not thinking this stuff over?
Next you said:
“No...but that's not evolution, that's creationism, and we know it doesn't happen.”

Okay, but God is convinced that creationism does happen.
Next you said:
“Correct, which proves that complex life isn't simply "created" from nothing as your Bible suggests.”

Actually the Bible says that what is created was created from what is not seen. Here it is in Hebrews 11:3 “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.”
However, the verse you mention that says that life was created from nothing seems like it would be an interesting verse to study, where in the Bible is it found?
Next you said:
“Science also discovered it's mistake and corrected it.”

Sure science always corrects its mistakes, it’s just that until the mistake is discovered it’s considered fact, and to attempt to disprove the “fact” is to bring the scorn of the scientific community down on you. I’ll use Galileo as an example. It wasn’t just the Catholic Church that wasn’t amused with Galileo, the scientific community was extremely angry that Galileo would question their geocentric paradigm. This would be the same scientific community that taught the Catholic Church that the earth was the center of the universe.
Look at me, here I am bringing up the “Catholic” Church all the time, when the Protestant Church bought into it too. The Protestants bought into the scientists teaching, hook line and sinker, threw a Bible verse into it, (one that didn’t have anything to do with the structure of the solar system) and danced with joy, because science had proven the Bible.
Next you said:
“It took the Catholic Church 500 years to admit they were wrong when they made Gallileo recant his scientific findings.”

Sure it did, because after “science” snowed the Pope, he decreed it fact that everything revolved around the sun. Well the problem is; the Pope is infallible, at least in the doctrine of the Catholic Church. I speak a little to quick, the Pope may no longer be considered infallible in the Catholic doctrine, but he used to be. Now where was I…oh, yes, the problem is, if the Pope is infallible, then anyone running around saying that the Pope is wrong, (Galileo) is committing heresy, against the Church.
Finally you said:
“Time and science will eventually do the same with all foolish ideas.”

I agree with you there, eventually, given enough time, science corrects itself, and I think it’s finally catching up and correcting itself over the antiquated religion that there is no God.

dnamertz you said:
“You did a great job of missing the point of the "Chinese whisper game". It has nothing to do with it being whispered. You can whisper or shout it in every city, the point is that repeating the story from one person to the next can lead to a different story.”

I disagree. The point of the Chinese whisper game is that only one person at a time hears the phrase, and then that person has to communicate the phrase correctly, with no one to say; “wait, that’s not what I said.”
The Gospel was spoken to sometimes thousands and at many times hundreds of people, and when it was repeated there were those who were able to say “that’s not what Jesus or Paul said.” There’s doctrine taught in the New Testament that dates back to within 5 years of Christ’s death one of them is found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8.

Borg, about evolution and the primordial soup story, you said:
“I never said that. I said that those things are separate from the theory of evolution. They are two different entities.”

I think I’ll test you on that, I’ll call the local school science teacher and see if they consider the primordial soup story the beginning of evolution.
Next I had said I could name you fifty scientist who believe that God created man, and you replied:
“I can name you fifty scientists who believe the exact opposite. So what?”

That’s perfect, you have demonstrated my point with that simple question. The point is that belief or disbelief in God is not a matter of schooling, intelligence, or ones job. There are atheists that are highly intelligent and atheists that are not thinkers at all, and there are Christians who are highly intelligent, and Christians that are not thinkers at all. It’s a matter of faith, the atheists have faith that there is no God, the Christian has faith that there is a God.

dnamertz I had said that God and the laws of the universe have been around a lot longer then I have and you responded:
“Nice cop out.”

Oh, feel free to explain.

Next I had said that God disagreed with you about creation and you said:
“He could disagree all he wants, if he existed.”

Are you sure that God does not exist?
Next about my drugs and the disciples being fooled scenarios, you said:
“You asked for "possible scenarios" and I mentioned drugs and them being fooled as a couple possible scenario...and there are many more. Seeing the way you take a 2 or 3 word answer and claim I gave these detailed scenarios that you described above, just goes to explain how you take the stories in the Bible and claim they are true.”

You know, I’ve read and reread my post and I can’t seem to find where I said that it was you who gave those detailed scenarios. Hmmm, maybe I’ll go back and read it again…nope I don’t see it. I do see where I put your words in quotes and bold faced them, and then I answered, but I just can’t see where I said that you gave the detailed scenarios. I’ll check again later, sorry about telling everyone that you did that. What I intended to do was to take your simple answers and then try to come up with a possible scenario, you know fill in the blanks. I just can’t believe I would be so inconsiderate as to say you came up with the details. Here, I’ll go and check again.
…No I can’t find it. I do, however, have a problem understanding something that is rather perplexing for me. How does my claiming that it was you who gave the detailed scenarios (which I’m sure I must have) explain how I take the stories in the bible and claim they are true? How does that work?

Originally posted by stark
You and I have been debating for awhile on other threads can you show me the evidence that I’ve ignored? I myself am not sure, maybe you or someone else brought something up that I didn’t catch. If that’s the case let me know and I’ll talk about it. Now, really do you think I ignore evidence because it threatens to make me think? Are you suggesting after all of our debate I’m not thinking this stuff over?


No....I'm suggesting that you are drawing erroneous conclusions from your "thinking" about the evidence.

Okay, but God is convinced that creationism does happen.


I don't believe you are qualified to speak for God, or say what he is "convinced" of.

Actually the Bible says that what is created was created from what is not seen. Here it is in Hebrews 11:3 “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.”


I stand corrected. I must now rethink my views vis-a-vis the scientific accuracy of the Bible. After all the Bible doesn't say the universe was created from "nothing", it says it was created from "invisible stuff".

Sure science always corrects its mistakes, it’s just that until the mistake is discovered it’s considered fact, and to attempt to disprove the “fact” is to bring the scorn of the scientific community down on you.

Of course we all know that the Church invites debate and welcomes opposing viewpoints. At least science deals with "facts" that can be tested, while religion simply wants people to believe their doctrine unquestioningly, no matter how absurd those beliefs might be.

...and I think it’s finally catching up and correcting itself over the antiquated religion that there is no God.

If you truly think this, you are deluding yourself.