God did not create the universe, says Hawking

[Phenomanul]

I don't care if you stay or go. You can whine in this thread about this thread as often as you please.



Why are you so concerned about the word bump.

If you post in a thread, it keeps it up.....thus 'bumping it.'



If you continue to whine while bumping this thread I will. It's very funny.

How predictably unoriginal... your m.o. would work if I actually cared... that's what's so funny about it... And lest you forget, I didn't quote you. You quoted me. You've got a thing for me... just admit it. :wakeup


































I'd hate to break it to ya... but I don't swing that way. I could give you a list of Biblical explanations why that is so... but that would just ruffle up your feathers some more... :downspin:

[Sisk]

I think it's funny how leetonidas is so pissed off that people are religious. "religionfag" LOL

You're one pissed off person.

You get so pissed when the religious side wants to say what they believe. But you can't PROVE God DOESN'T exist. You act like you can, and you sure are treating Hawking as your God.

[Fat boy]

Again, either something is true or not. Believing that I'm Abraham Lincoln doesn't make me Abraham Lincoln.

STFU. Don't even put your name in the same sentence as Honest Abe!!! :cuss

[monosylab1k]

I think it's funny how leetonidas is so pissed off that people are religious. "religionfag" LOL

You're one pissed off person.

You get so pissed when the religious side wants to say what they believe. But you can't PROVE God DOESN'T exist. You act like you can, and you sure are treating Hawking as your God.

crofl tbh the funniest thing about Leetonidas is that he'll always wait for a smarter atheist (like redzero) to get into the argument and then he'll just basically cheer that guy on while throwing insults at religious people. He doesn't have the ability to put up an intellectual argument so he lets someone else do the work and then jumps in.

[Blake]

How predictably unoriginal... your m.o. would work if I actually cared...

of course you care. Thats why you keep trying to justify your bumping a thread that's a buzzkill for you.


that's what's so funny about it...


lol


And lest you forget, I didn't quote you. You quoted me. You've got a thing for me... just admit it. :wakeup

Na, no matter who would be posting in a thread they consider to be a buzzkill, I would call out that idiot.

The idiot just happens to be you this time.


I'd hate to break it to ya... but I don't swing that way. I could give you a list of Biblical explanations why that is so... but that would just ruffle up your feathers some more...:downspin:

so now you are homophobic because the Bible tells you so.

Jesus was the "single" guy hanging out with 12 other single dudes all the time. He also had the power to score with any chick in the village, but didn't.

you do the math.

[Blake]

But you can't PROVE God DOESN'T exist.

that didn't take long to pop up again.

[Sisk]

that didn't take long to pop up again.

It's just an obnoxious argument that can be thrown out by either side.

[redzero]

As has been stated multiple times in this thread, one side has the burden of proof, so if lack of proof that disproves the existence of God is sufficient, then theists should also believe in every other deity.

[LoneStarState'sPride]

As has been stated multiple times in this thread, one side has the burden of proof, so if lack of proof that disproves the existence of God is sufficient, then theists should also believe in every other deity.

This is patently incorrect. Monotheists and theists are not the same (though your arguments tend to work better when you lump Christians into simple categories, I know). Christians are monotheists, technically, therefore they do not have to believe in every other deity simply because the existence of one God cannot be empirically proven or disproven.

There is no "burden of proof." As has been stated ad nauseum in this thread, the issue at the end of the day is faith.

Lastly, good grief some of y'all have a ton of time on your hands--you've been here all day for crying out loud, redzero, damn. Is winning a message board argument really that important to you? Sad.

[admiralsnackbar]

How big of a burden of proof is there if the entire basis of a religious person's belief structure is faith, which needs no proof? You're waiting for something that isn't going to happen, redzero.

I agree that as far as proselytizing somebody who demands proof, proof is then necessary... but you seem to be demanding proof of people who are only stating their beliefs.

[Sisk]

As has been stated multiple times in this thread, one side has the burden of proof, so if lack of proof that disproves the existence of God is sufficient, then theists should also believe in every other deity.


In that case what make you think that what Hawking's says or writes is true? Are you not just believing what someone else is telling you is true? Hawking's has no more proof there is no God than believers have there IS a God. In your words, saying there is no God does NOT make it true.



Redzero - if you're trying to say something doesn't exist and insist on evidence of the contrary, you're responsible for providing evidence that backs up your statement.

Both sides can never win a "Does God exist" argument. Period. Anyone who thinks this will ever go anywhere is wasting their time. Everyone ends up getting pissed off at each other (as seen all over this thread) and it's just the same repetitive sentiment from both sides.

Anyways - agree to disagree. No reason to hate anyone who disagrees with you on religion. That goes for Christians and Atheists. For me, I'd consider myself more an Agnostic Theist so I can see where both sides come from.

So, :toast everyone ITT tbh

[redzero]

I do not say that God doesn't exist; I don't believe that God exists, so the one who is making the claim that he exists requires the burden of proof.

And if a theist's best defense is to claim that the existence of God cannot be disproven, they don't really have a reason to not believe in all the other gods, too.

I have yet to see a reason why someone should accept an extraordinary claim without any extraordinary evidence.

[redzero]

How big of a burden of proof is there if the entire basis of a religious person's belief structure is faith, which needs no proof? You're waiting for something that isn't going to happen, redzero.

I agree that as far as proselytizing somebody who demands proof, proof is then necessary... but you seem to be demanding proof of people who are only stating their beliefs.

Faith is just an excuse for believing in something for no logical reason. You know it, I know, and everybody else knows it.

[cool cat]

Truth is not relative, unless one is talking about opinions.

If I believed that red was blue, that doesn't make red blue.

I never thought I would see an atheist argue for absolute truth.

[redzero]

I'm not arguing for absolute truth. Absolute truth is pointless.

[cool cat]

I'm not arguing for absolute truth. Absolute truth is pointless.

Sorry my mistake so if truth is not absolute or relative then what is it?

[TE]

Sorry my mistake so if truth is not absolute or relative then what is it?



The answer.

[TE]

God has not been proven to exist, thus as a scientist its hard to conjecture the existence of a God. Believing in God is just faith, nothing more, nothing less. If someone is to say that God is an entity that is real by proof of evidence, they are plain ignorant to the science behind whatever it is. You can name thousands and thousands and thousands of publications that have been written in the field of astrochemistry, astrophysics, and any other "hard" science tbh, and you won't find a single person who speaks of an unknown variable as being inevitably and completely unknown. Subsequent publications answer questions that were priorly stated--furthering our understanding of a certain phenomenon. Science is insoluble to the conduits of religion (or relationship with a deity), which is why I find this argument and the basis of it useless. It's pointless if one knows (redzero) that something isn't true, yet one continues to attack that foundation of faith. People who hold strong beliefs won't ever allow their faith to elude them, it's a basic concept redzero. You can spend a whole lifetime trying to persuade others using logic, reasoning, and science for the sake of disproving the existence of God...hell you can purposely kill someone medically by heart induced failure, increase electrical resistance in the body, allow residual flow of electricity to travel in the body--eventually reaching the heart for reviving purposes, and ask the one who participated in the activity the question that drives your ignorance/curiosity (which ever it may be), does God exist?
And still, you wouldn't get a credible answer, because it's not you who knows and feels. It's those who have faith, that walk by it, and not by sight.

[phyzik]

Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true. It is the belief and the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared, based on the declarer's authority and truthfulness. (Admittedly quoted from wikipedia, but it serves my purpose).

The sad part about religion is that the bible was written by man..... Unquestionably, undoubtedly.... So.... The real question is.... Do you have faith in the man that wrote the story book thats based off of countless religions before it as being the correct assessment of religion?

What makes that 2000+ year old man/men more correct than the man that started this whole debate thread? (Stephen Hawking). Just because a book is over 2000 years old doesnt make it factual as Christians (or any other religion with any other book) would like to believe it is.

I've used this before in my following arguement and still have not recieved a thoughfull answer....

Lets say we are 100 to 1000 years in the future (take your pick, doesnt matter)... Mankind has been decimated and only a few thousand humans survive in the entire world.... A few hundred years later (after whatever cataclysm struck) a human finds an old book of "Harry Potter".... They inturprit it as a "bible".... Are they wrong in doing so?

Take that same analogy and apply it to today... What about the Aboriginies in Australia or the countless undiscovered tribes in South Africa and South America? Are they damned as well because they have no concept of your religion?

Im not defending Hawking.... I think he is overratted as a scientist and is a quack looking for attention at this point. He wants to be remembered as the Einstein of our age so he spews whatever shit he can to attain that goal.

That doesnt change the fact that his theories have revolutionized and advanced our thinking of the universe from what it was even just 10 years ago.

All I ask is, set aside your faith for a few minutes and really contemplate what religion really means outside of your little circle of belief.... Question it... Really.... What does happen to those people that dont find your particular belief??? Do you label them evil because the "word" of your sermon hasnt reached them? Are they automatically condemned because they are ignorant to the supposed "fact" of your own God even though they live a harmonious life thats closer to the earth than you will ever be?

Sorry, if you are honest with yourself, you will see that religion is nothing more than an orginization, not much better than any government, thats veying for power over people. The promise of an afterlife or continuation after death is a powerfull tool when it comes to getting paid.

[Sisk]

Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true. It is the belief and the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared, based on the declarer's authority and truthfulness. (Admittedly quoted from wikipedia, but it serves my purpose).

The sad part about religion is that the bible was written by man..... Unquestionably, undoubtedly.... So.... The real question is.... Do you have faith in the man that wrote the story book thats based off of countless religions before it as being the correct assessment of religion?

What makes that 2000+ year old man/men more correct than the man that started this whole debate thread? (Stephen Hawking). Just because a book is over 2000 years old doesnt make it factual as Christians (or any other religion with any other book) would like to believe it is.

I've used this before in my following arguement and still have not recieved a thoughfull answer....

Lets say we are 100 to 1000 years in the future (take your pick, doesnt matter)... Mankind has been decimated and only a few thousand humans survive in the entire world.... A few hundred years later (after whatever cataclysm struck) a human finds an old book of "Harry Potter".... They inturprit it as a "bible".... Are they wrong in doing so?

Take that same analogy and apply it to today... What about the Aboriginies in Australia or the countless undiscovered tribes in South Africa and South America? Are they damned as well because they have no concept of your religion?

Im not defending Hawking.... I think he is overratted as a scientist and is a quack looking for attention at this point. He wants to be remembered as the Einstein of our age so he spews whatever shit he can to attain that goal.

That doesnt change the fact that his theories have revolutionized and advanced our thinking of the universe from what it was even just 10 years ago.

All I ask is, set aside your faith for a few minutes and really contemplate what religion really means outside of your little circle of belief.... Question it... Really.... What does happen to those people that dont find your particular belief??? Do you label them evil because the "word" of your sermon hasnt reached them? Are they automatically condemned because they are ignorant to the supposed "fact" of your own God even though they live a harmonious life thats closer to the earth than you will ever be?

Sorry, if you are honest with yourself, you will see that religion is nothing more than an orginization, not much better than any government, thats veying for power over people. The promise of an afterlife or continuation after death is a powerfull tool when it comes to getting paid.

This is the best post of this whole thread IMO. I'm an agnostic theist. I believe there is some power greater than us all that we are all unsure about and we wont ever truly know or understand. However, that has to do with faith in and of itself. Both sides have valid arguments and at the end of the day one wont conquer over another because of "fact" or "proof."

We must learn to coexist in a world in which we have our own choice of what or who to believe in and that's the bottom line.

Great, great post, sir.

[redzero]

Both sides have valid arguments and at the end of the day one wont conquer over another because of "fact" or "proof."

Really? I have yet to see a single valid argument for the belief in a higher power yet.

[BadOdor]

Really? I have yet to see a single valid argument for the belief in a higher power yet.

Some people need a constant threat hanging over their heads in order to behave like decent people.

[redzero]

Some people need a constant threat hanging over their heads in order to behave like decent people.

That's what I find strange. Some Christians can't believe that atheists don't get there morals from a book written over 2000 years ago. They always ask, "What's stopping people from killing each other?" That makes me wonder why they need a god to tell them that killing, raping and stealing is wrong.

[BadOdor]

killing, raping and stealing is wrong.

Tbh the god of the bible seems to kinda approve of these things, imho.

[redzero]

Here's a good way to address the burden of proof argument:

-7PHMWaUbqc


Tbh the god of the bible seems to kinda approve of these things, imho.

Those don't count, remember? God only inspired the good things in the Bible. If one don't agree with it, man was behind it.

[admiralsnackbar]

Faith is just an excuse for believing in something for no logical reason. You know it, I know, and everybody else knows it.

That might be because that's the definition of faith, Captain Tautology :lol

[redzero]

That might be because that's the definition of faith, Captain Tautology :lol

Just admit it.

Copy and post this:

I have no logical reason to believe in God, but I do anyway.

[admiralsnackbar]

Just admit it.

Copy and post this:

I have no logical reason to believe in God, but I do anyway.

"I have no logical reason to believe in God, but I do anyway."

Do you feel better now?

[redzero]

Yes, I do actually. It's nice to see somebody admit it.

[admiralsnackbar]

Yes, I do actually. It's nice to see somebody admit it.

Faith in and of itself isn't as interesting or absurd as the knots people tie themselves into when trying to make their beliefs logically self-consistent. If you really want to be a gadfly, read some Thomas Aquinas :lol

[SAScrub]

Here's a good way to address the burden of proof argument:

-7PHMWaUbqc

I like the way thy guy says "we're not here to disprove it" but he has this whole internet call-in show thing dedicated to disproving it.

[Phenomanul]

I think what is more absurd is the fact that faithless people openly deride the concept of faith without one iota of the capacity to even expain it... you simply don't understand it because unbelief by very definition blinds you from that capability.

"I have no logical reason to believe..." :lol

"it's true cause I say it's true..." :lol

"Absolute truth is pointless..." :lol

Faith was established by GOD as the conduit for grace so that we would enjoy an eternal existence by His side. What would be the reward of having gifted us with the free will to choose Him if He just showed up and said, "worship me, I Am your GOD"??? Absolutely NONE!

Even so... to those demanding proof... it's all around you:

16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

- ROMANS - Chapter 1

Oddly enough, you all have like LoneStarState'sPride mentioned yesterday, deposited faith in yourselves... in your own reasoning... if you don't believe me, just think of all the "crazy" ideas you've nonchalantly accepted as valid, logical arguments to convince yourselves that everything around you could not have been created:

You all believe in abiogenesis. Without GOD in the picture, no matter how you slice it this is what it boils down to. You all believe that the gourds of information stored in our genes are a product of random chance and natural selection even when we know the information therein is degrading and losing genetic robustness. Biological complexity is still a staunch slap-in-the-face to those who would believe that some purposeless 'force' would create the genetic richness we see on earth - if "given enough time."

You all believe in cosmic origin devoid of purpose. The fact that we can ascertain that the Universe had a finite beginning is still a troubling matter for unbelieving astrophysicists... The probability that all the Universal constants would take their current values as the Big Bang unfolded to allow for the coalesced formation of atoms/stars/life is for all practical intents and purposes zero... and yet here were are. Instead we have wackos like your buddy Hawking trying to foment the dogma that multiple universes exist, so that you all can justify the fact that chance probability alone could have formed our own universe when given an infinite amount of chances. But you go ahead and place your faith in that.

Then you have other scientists that have come to the conclusion that our flat universe will forever expand and that it was 'meant' to do so. No reason, no purpose... just PoOoOof!... the Universe appeared ex nihilo (from nothing)... and will expand into nothingness again... what a bleak outlook to wrap yourself around... all for the sake of justifying their unbelief.

BTW anyone who claims they've used science to prove our origins is full of crap. We can speculate. We can postulate. We can theorize and hypothesize all we want. No one... ABSOLUTELY NO ONE! can with complete scientific certainty state that they've proven the naturalistic pathway of origins (i.e. cosmic/biological etc...); that is without having been there to observe, measure and test the event in question. We can't even see into the first "300,000" years after the Big Bang occurred and no one was here to confirm all the theorized assumptions that supposedly gave rise to life on Earth.

Under one of the prevailing theories, the conditions required to create one essential batch of biotic molecules (the sugar-phospate backbone for all genetic material) created pools of this material... what they don't emphasize is that said conditions are destructive to amino acids (the other essential biotic precursor). What to do, what to do...? Oh yeah, postulate that maybe a meteor with an aglomeration of amino acids landed in an ocean full of sugars (what?) or vice versa that a meteor full of sugars landed in a sea of amino acids... Ok? So even if we assume that neither scenario depletes the biotic precursors on entry... What gives the biotic concoction the impetus to keep on multiplying and making more of itself (bear in mind that one of the essential molecules was in limited supply)??? Furthermore, what prevents the products from simply falling apart after forming (from chemical degradation, solar radiation, etc...) as none of the biological systems required to stabilize their formation could have pre-existed before the information itself (i.e. the genetic code that creates those stabilization enzymes). There are hundreds of theories out there but they are all limited by the same fundamental flaw... proving them requires us to step outside of the scientific method... our interaction with the very experiments that are required to validate said theories by definition invalidate the 'naturalistic' pathways we tried to claim as causation.

It's akin to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle... any study that attempts to validate how the first biotic molecules on earth eventually became "life" is invalidated by the fact that the scientists themselves become participant to their experiments. They become "GOD" as they control and modify all the kinetic variables that are required to spur the reactions that would otherwise not proceed on their own. Most people can't even comprend why this would matter... so long as the implications of their results keep justifying their lack of belief.

So yeah, I guess you do understand faith... in GODlessness...

[Phenomanul]

I have to step out... and work. Queue the mockfest....

[rjv]

redszero is essentially reasserting the infamous claim of the logical positivists that the only meaningful statements are those that can be analytically or empirically verified. only he is stating it in the form of:

any statement that lacks a sound conclusion drawn from valid premises is a statement that lacks reasoning and is purely based on faith or conjencture.

the problem with these assertions, however, is that they violate their own rule(s). that is why the logical positivist essentially gave up on their efforts to remove metaphysics from logic. it proved to be a more diificult endeavor than it appears to be on the surface.

[Blake]

Even so... to those demanding proof... it's all around you:



You just quoted from a book full of contradictions.

If proof was all around, then there would be no threads like this for you to whine about.

[silverblk mystix]

Here's a little analogy which could pretty accurately describe two people arguing about god/religion/creation/truth,etc

A man born blind asks you,``what is this thing called green?''

You think to yourself...how do I describe the color green?
You use an analogy and say,``it is like soft music'' ``soothing,soft music''

and he goes away going, ok soft,soothing music...

A second blind man asks you the same question...

you answer, ``it is like soft satin, soothing and soft to the touch'' he goes away saying...ok soft ,soothing satin...

The next day you discover the two blind men are fighting each other, one saying ``it's soft like music''... the other saying, ``no,it's soft like satin''

...and on it goes...

I read that somewhere...sorry if the exact wording is off a bit...

but it struck me pretty heavy when I read it in my college days and it is a very accurate picture of these kinds of arguments...

Neither of them knows what they are talking about because if they did-they would shut up.

We will never know and I, personally, am ok with not knowing.

[admiralsnackbar]

I think what is more absurd is the fact that faithless people openly deride the concept of faith without one iota of the capacity to even expain it... you simply don't understand it because unbelief by very definition blinds you from that capability.

"I have no logical reason to believe..." :lol

"it's true cause I say it's true..." :lol

"Absolute truth is pointless..." :lol

Faith was established by GOD as the conduit for grace so that we would enjoy an eternal existence by His side. What would be the reward of having gifted us with the free will to choose Him if He just showed up and said, "worship me, I Am your GOD"??? Absolutely NONE!

Even so... to those demanding proof... it's all around you:

16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

- ROMANS - Chapter 1

Oddly enough, you all have like LoneStarState'sPride mentioned yesterday, deposited faith in yourselves... in your own reasoning... if you don't believe me, just think of all the "crazy" ideas you've nonchalantly accepted as valid, logical arguments to convince yourselves that everything around you could not have been created:

You all believe in abiogenesis. Without GOD in the picture, no matter how you slice it this is what it boils down to. You all believe that the gourds of information stored in our genes are a product of random chance and natural selection even when we know the information therein is degrading and losing genetic robustness. Biological complexity is still a staunch slap-in-the-face to those who would believe that some purposeless 'force' would create the genetic richness we see on earth - if "given enough time."

You all believe in cosmic origin devoid of purpose. The fact that we can ascertain that the Universe had a finite beginning is still a troubling matter for unbelieving astrophysicists... The probability that all the Universal constants would take their current values as the Big Bang unfolded to allow for the coalesced formation of atoms/stars/life is for all practical intents and purposes zero... and yet here were are. Instead we have wackos like your buddy Hawking trying to foment the dogma that multiple universes exist, so that you all can justify the fact that chance probability alone could have formed our own universe when given an infinite amount of chances. But you go ahead and place your faith in that.

Then you have other scientists that have come to the conclusion that our flat universe will forever expand and that it was 'meant' to do so. No reason, no purpose... just PoOoOof!... the Universe appeared ex nihilo (from nothing)... and will expand into nothingness again... what a bleak outlook to wrap yourself around... all for the sake of justifying their unbelief.

BTW anyone who claims they've used science to prove our origins is full of crap. We can speculate. We can postulate. We can theorize and hypothesize all we want. No one... ABSOLUTELY NO ONE! can with complete scientific certainty state that they've proven the naturalistic pathway of origins (i.e. cosmic/biological etc...); that is without having been there to observe, measure and test the event in question. We can't even see into the first "300,000" years after the Big Bang occurred and no one was here to confirm all the theorized assumptions that supposedly gave rise to life on Earth.

Under one of the prevailing theories, the conditions required to create one essential batch of biotic molecules (the sugar-phospate backbone for all genetic material) created pools of this material... what they don't emphasize is that said conditions are destructive to amino acids (the other essential biotic precursor). What to do, what to do...? Oh yeah, postulate that maybe a meteor with an aglomeration of amino acids landed in an ocean full of sugars (what?) or vice versa that a meteor full of sugars landed in a sea of amino acids... Ok? So even if we assume that neither scenario depletes the biotic precursors on entry... What gives the biotic concoction the impetus to keep on multiplying and making more of itself (bear in mind that one of the essential molecules was in limited supply)??? Furthermore, what prevents the products from simply falling apart after forming (from chemical degradation, solar radiation, etc...) as none of the biological systems required to stabilize their formation could have pre-existed before the information itself (i.e. the genetic code that creates those stabilization enzymes). There are hundreds of theories out there but they are all limited by the same fundamental flaw... proving them requires us to step outside of the scientific method... our interaction with the very experiments that are required to validate said theories by definition invalidate the 'naturalistic' pathways we tried to claim as causation.

It's akin to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle... any study that attempts to validate how the first biotic molecules on earth eventually became "life" is invalidated by the fact that the scientists themselves become participant to their experiments. They become "GOD" as they control and modify all the kinetic variables that are required to spur the reactions that would otherwise not proceed on their own. Most people can't even comprend why this would matter... so long as the implications of their results keep justifying their lack of belief.

So yeah, I guess you do understand faith... in GODlessness...

C'mon, man -- that's not proof, that's dogma parading in proof's clothing. That's great your belief is so strong, but you end up sounding like the Christian version of redzero... that is, completely closed to a different interpretation of reality.

I believe in God, but the alternative isn't simply abiogenesis as you suggest. Life could be as much a property of matter as mass for all we know, and exist in a continuum. And when scientists say our universe had a definite beginning, that doesn't ipso facto mean it was THE BEGINNING of all things, just that our telescopes can only see so far. Considering we still have only theoretical structures to speculate about the more mysterious aspects of astrophysics (like what happens to all the matter that gets sucked into black holes... is it expelled into another dimension? Does it eventually reach a tipping point and explode? Who knows?), characterizing scientists as stumbling over themselves to make the Big Bang inconsistent with scripture is a fabrication. Also, because this universe is all we know, you don't have any basis on for claims about the probability or improbability of matter and life organizing into the shape they have.

I also think it's interesting you make such a point of raising the issue of free will while also citing :


18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

I've always had trouble reconciling that passage with the notion of free will. Those who believe in Him do so because God has made himself plain to them... but what of the others to whom God has not made himself plain? Why would God create beings that are unable to perceive him? Especially when the consequence of not perceiving him will result in eternal damnation?

You will say free will is the operator here, but that doesn't make sense. Would the average person even remotely be tempted by carnal sins if God (and therefore the consequences of disobeying Him) were plain to them? Are people who have never been exposed to the Bible created just to go to hell or limbo? Finally, if God exists and there are people who cannot perceive Him, where do you get off castigating them when they should be the objects of your pity? Would you judge a blind man for not being able to see the way your post shows you judge the non-believers?

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

I should have known Phenomanul would have been in this thread.

[admiralsnackbar]

I have to step out... and work. Queue the mockfest....

Also... WTF is with this statement? I guess this fantasy of superiority you seem to be entrenched in isn't limited to metaphysics? All those who disagree with you merit your sneering not only for their Godlessness, but their supposed unemployment, too? The spirit of Christ is really strong within you, isn't it? :lol

[redzero]

Oddly enough, you all have like LoneStarState'sPride mentioned yesterday, deposited faith in yourselves... in your own reasoning... if you don't believe me, just think of all the "crazy" ideas you've nonchalantly accepted as valid, logical arguments to convince yourselves that everything around you could not have been created:

I don't believe you because you don't make any sense. I don't have to have faith to accept the baseless claim that everything was created.


You all believe in abiogenesis. Without GOD in the picture, no matter how you slice it this is what it boils down to. You all believe that the gourds of information stored in our genes are a product of random chance and natural selection even when we know the information therein is degrading and losing genetic robustness. Biological complexity is still a staunch slap-in-the-face to those who would believe that some purposeless 'force' would create the genetic richness we see on earth - if "given enough time."

Even if that was true, your point? Abiogenesis will always be a better answer than "it was magic."


You all believe in cosmic origin devoid of purpose. The fact that we can ascertain that the Universe had a finite beginning is still a troubling matter for unbelieving astrophysicists...

No, it isn't.


The probability that all the Universal constants would take their current values as the Big Bang unfolded to allow for the coalesced formation of atoms/stars/life is for all practical intents and purposes zero... and yet here were are.

Actually, no, it wasn't zero.


Instead we have wackos like your buddy Hawking trying to foment the dogma that multiple universes exist, so that you all can justify the fact that chance probability alone could have formed our own universe when given an infinite amount of chances. But you go ahead and place your faith in that.

1.) Hawking isn't my buddy.
2.) Accepting the Big Bang Theory has NOTHING to do with faith, no matter how much you claim to the contrary. The theory was formed by investigating the universe. There is no empirical investigation in believing there is a God.

I'm trying to find the video where this example was given, but I can't right now, so I'll just quote a good example why this claim is bogus:


Ever hear impossibly-large numbers quoted as the odds against a cell or a particular DNA molecule having formed “by accident” to create the first living thing? It’s an example of the propensity of creationists to entirely miss the point and set up a specious straw man, ripe for destruction. Ronald Stearns suggests the following to help them see where they are missing the point:
One demonstration that has worked well for me in illustrating the difference between a priori and a posteriori calculations just uses a deck of cards. Give someone a deck of cards, ask him to shuffle it, and then read off the first 26 cards. After your subject does that, jump at him and question his veracity. “You don’t really expect me to believe that sequence is what you pulled up, is it? The odds against getting exactly that sequence is 2 x 10 41-to-1 against!” Then, of course, explain that what the odds were before the exercise is irrelevant, because what is important is that SOME sequence occurred, and that the idea is to understand what that sequence actually was, not what the chances were of obtaining that sequence. If your subject has kept the stack of cards intact, then you can show that you have the evidence. It also looks a lot like a set of geological strata, and you can show that it remains valid even if you take the stack and slide it around, twist it, and fold it a bit, [to provide an analogy for how] geologists really can still unlock the story of geological history, with a lot of work.

http://skepticreport.com/sr/?p=499#cards




Then you have other scientists that have come to the conclusion that our flat universe will forever expand and that it was 'meant' to do so. No reason, no purpose... just PoOoOof!... the Universe appeared ex nihilo (from nothing)... and will expand into nothingness again... what a bleak outlook to wrap yourself around... all for the sake of justifying their unbelief.


1.) Nobody says the universe came from nothing. Stop lying.
2.) Just because you don't like how something sounds doesn't make it untrue. Wanting to have a purpose for your existence doesn't actually give your existence a purpose.

Here's a video to shoot down your absolute certainty nonsense:

MmJQxFoHfLw


BTW anyone who claims they've used science to prove our origins is full of crap. We can speculate. We can postulate. We can theorize and hypothesize all we want. No one... ABSOLUTELY NO ONE! can with complete scientific certainty state that they've proven the naturalistic pathway of origins (i.e. cosmic/biological etc...); that is without having been there to observe, measure and test the event in question. We can't even see into the first "300,000" years after the Big Bang occurred and no one was here to confirm all the theorized assumptions that supposedly gave rise to life on Earth.


Again, what is your point? Just because we can't have absolute certainty that an event occurred doesn't mean that it didn't occur.

So much bullshit in this argument. :lol


Under one of the prevailing theories, the conditions required to create one essential batch of biotic molecules (the sugar-phospate backbone for all genetic material) created pools of this material... what they don't emphasize is that said conditions are destructive to amino acids (the other essential biotic precursor). What to do, what to do...? Oh yeah, postulate that maybe a meteor with an aglomeration of amino acids landed in an ocean full of sugars (what?) or vice versa that a meteor full of sugars landed in a sea of amino acids... Ok? So even if we assume that neither scenario depletes the biotic precursors on entry... What gives the biotic concoction the impetus to keep on multiplying and making more of itself (bear in mind that one of the essential molecules was in limited supply)??? Furthermore, what prevents them from simply falling apart after forming (from chemical degradation, solar radiation, etc...) as none of the biological systems required to stabilize their formation could have pre-existed before the information itself (i.e. the genetic code that creates those stabilization enzymes). There are hundreds of theories out there but they are all limited by the same fundamental flaw... proving them requires us to step outside of the scientific method... our interaction with the very experiments that are required to validate said theories by definition invalidate the 'naturalistic' pathways we tried to claim as causation.


Why do scientists have to step out of the scientific method? Just because you say they do? And saying "God did it" doesn't answer anything.


It's akin to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle... any study that attempts to validate how the first biotic molecules on earth eventually became "life" is invalidated by the fact that the scientists themselves become participant to their experiments. They become "GOD" as they control and modify all the kinetic variables that are required to spur the reactions that would otherwise not proceed on their own. Most people can't even comprend why this would matter... so long as the implications of their results keep justifying their lack of belief.

Hold on, attempting to replicate a phenomenon automatically means that a sentient being must have caused it? You keep trying to use


So yeah, I guess you do understand faith... in GODlessness...

No, I don't, actually. Keep saying the same stupid, uneducated bullshit. I didn't become an atheist because I "had faith in GODlessness;" I became an atheist because there is zero evidence to support the claim that God exists. It's like saying that you have faith in Flying Spaghetti Monsterlessness.

And since you like quoting Bible passages, I have to wonder if you are in favor of slavery, stoning unruly children to death, killing homosexuals and nonbelievers.

Also, disproving abiogensis, evolution, or the big bang theory doesn't prove the existence of God. It never will. And watch the YouTube video in this post so you won't make the same mistakes again.

[clambake]

:lmao

I should have known Phenomanul would have been in this thread.

has to. keeps the demons at bay.

[MannyIsGod]

I was referring to page one of the "The Club" forum, not page one of the thread, dufus... the glass on the sidebar was filled before I came into the thread (i.e. the thread was getting many hits/responses well before I entered)... so again, how am I responsible for 'bumping' a thread that's already on front page of the forum? Apparently the snicker of your trite incongruency flew over your head... typical.

And my complaint was more along the lines of, "good grief not again..."

But it seems as though some of the athiest/agnostic campers in this forum need to get their weekly fix of bashing GOD and believers, so be it... I can't change that. Circle jerk amongst yourselves as much as is needed to justify your beliefs, to make yourselves feel better... :sleep

:lmao

Look at this textbook Phenomanul post. Martyr much? The poor internet prosecuted Christians!!!!!!

Its really ironic how apparently atheists are the only ones trying to make themselves feel better about their beliefs. Phenomanul is so secure in his he can never stay away from these threads.

[redzero]

That's great your belief is so strong, but you end up sounding like the Christian version of redzero... that is, completely closed to a different interpretation of reality.

:lmao

I ask for proof and now I'm some close-minded fool.

[admiralsnackbar]

:lmao

I ask for proof and now I'm some close-minded fool.

Because you feel the need to deride those who believe, just as Phenom derides those who do not. You already know the answer to the demand for proof, but you're not content to accept it.

[redzero]

Because you feel the need to deride those who believe, just as Phenom derides those who do not. You already know the answer to the demand for proof, but you're not content to accept it.

The difference is that I have a logical reason not to believe. The same cannot be said for any theist.

[RandomGuy]

Faith was established by GOD as the conduit for grace so that we would enjoy an eternal existence by His side.


Interesting statement.

Let's paraphrase a bit:

"God exists because God created faith in God."

Circular reasoning in its most simple form.

Q. How do you know God exists?

A. Because God created faith in God.

The logical form that I can ferret out of this is:

A therefore A

Interestingly enough, one can also use this logic to conclude that the parody deity the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, because the FSM created the ability to conceive of Its Noodle-y Existance.

[rjv]

The difference is that I have a logical reason not to believe. The same cannot be said for any theist.

but you and the theist are both engaging in metaphysics.

[admiralsnackbar]

but you and the theist are both engaging in metaphysics.

Bingo.

[clambake]

Interesting statement.

Let's paraphrase a bit:

"God exists because God created faith in God."

:lol bingo

[redzero]

Bingo.

But I'm not using the supernatural.

[RandomGuy]

And my complaint was more along the lines of, "good grief not again..."

But it seems as though some of the athiest/agnostic campers in this forum need to get their weekly fix of bashing GOD and believers, so be it... I can't change that. Circle jerk amongst yourselves as much as is needed to justify your beliefs, to make yourselves feel better... :sleep

True. There is a paucity of civility amongst the athiest/agnostic set at times, but one can easily say the same of the believing set as well.

I do find it humorous that someone who probably participates in prayer circles/discussions or weekly church services would describe non-believers as participating in group-think and self congratulatory flagellation.

For the record:

It is human nature to congregate with like-minded people. GO SPURS. :flag:

[Phenomanul]

C'mon, man -- that's not proof, that's dogma parading in proof's clothing. That's great your belief is so strong, but you end up sounding like the Christian version of redzero... that is, completely closed to a different interpretation of reality.

I believe in God, but the alternative isn't simply abiogenesis as you suggest. Life could be as much a property of matter as mass for all we know, and exist in a continuum. And when scientists say our universe had a definite beginning, that doesn't ipso facto mean it was THE BEGINNING of all things, just that our telescopes can only see so far. Considering we still have only theoretical structures to speculate about the more mysterious aspects of astrophysics (like what happens to all the matter that gets sucked into black holes... is it expelled into another dimension? Does it eventually reach a tipping point and explode? Who knows?), characterizing scientists as stumbling over themselves to make the Big Bang inconsistent with scripture is a fabrication.

I also think it's interesting you make such a point of raising the issue of free will while also citing :


18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

I've always had trouble reconciling that passage with the notion of free will. Those who believe in Him do so because God has made himself plain to them... but what of the others to whom God has not made himself plain? Why would God create beings that are unable to perceive him? Especially when the consequence of not perceiving him will result in eternal damnation?

You will say free will is the operator here, but that doesn't make sense. Would the average person even remotely be tempted by carnal sins if God (and therefore the consequences of disobeying him) were plain to them? Are people who have never been exposed to the Bible created just to go to hell or limbo? Finally, if God exists and there are people who cannot perceive Him, where do you get off castigating them when they should be the objects of your pity? Would you judge a blind man for not being able to see the way your post shows you judge the non-believers?

That passage coupled with Psalms 19 actually denotes the limits of General revelation (GOD's existence as manifest by nature)... It doesn't reveal GOD like Special revelation does in the Scriptures themselves...

As for the conundrum surrounding free will and this passage... I too was perplexed by it until I realized it just meant that GOD allowed us to pursue the evil desires of our hearts. He didn't place those desires in us... He just allowed us to do what we wanted knowing that eventually we would reap the consequences for having rejected Him. He doesn't control us... even when He is in control of everything. He has placed that restriction on Himself (self-imposed) to afford us the right to choose.

As for your final question there... it's a philosophical quandry... It isn't that men are blind to GOD... they are so full of themselves that they've displaced whatever room they may have had to receive Him. It's all their own doing though, because we are all born with the void to search for Him.

[Phenomanul]

Also... WTF is with this statement? I guess this fantasy of superiority you seem to be entrenched in isn't limited to metaphysics? All those who disagree with you merit your sneering not only for their Godlessness, but their supposed unemployment, too? The spirit of Christ is really strong within you, isn't it? :lol

So stating I have to work and can't devote my time to following these threads is an act of superiority? ummm ok whatever...

I was stating that because usually what follows is that my silence is misconstrued as concession...

But honestly, it doesn't matter what I or anyone else here says... our beliefs are deeply entrenched with our life experience. Nothing said in this forum can change that... given that premise, my time here (as well as that of others here, believers or not, is still a big waste of time)...

I bother because TRUTH is important... unfortunately this is not an ideal medium, platform or venue for that message... given the belligerent, auto-sufficient, all-knowing nature of the audience...

Caring is my problem...

[RandomGuy]

That passage coupled with Psalms 19 actually denotes the limits of General revelation (GOD's existence as manifest by nature)... It doesn't reveal GOD like Special revelation does in the Scriptures themselves...

As for the conundrum surrounding free will and this passage... I too was perplexed by it until I realized it just meant that GOD allowed us to pursue the evil desires of our hearts. He didn't place those desires in us... He just allowed us to do what we wanted knowing that eventually we would reap the consequences for having rejected Him. He doesn't control us... even when He is in control of everything. He has placed that restriction on Himself (self-imposed) to afford us the right to choose.

As for your final question there... it's a philosophical quandry... It isn't that men are blind to GOD... they are so full of themselves that they've displaced whatever room they may have had to receive Him. It's all their own doing though, because we are all born with the void to search for Him.

God loves us so much he allows evil to exist?

Why allow evil in the first place, when it would be just as easy to create a universe free of evil?

[RandomGuy]

I am just a human being with limited reasoning, but if *I* can conceive of a universe without evil, I can only assume that God did too.

One therefore has to wonder why evil exists, unless God loves evil too?

[Phenomanul]

God loves us so much he allows evil to exist?

Why allow evil in the first place, when it would be just as easy to create a universe free of evil?

HE didn't make us drones... we indulged ourselves in evil at our choosing not His...

like hot and cold... one could describe 'evil' as being devoid of GOD... so naturally it would follow that if He gave us the choice to choose... rejection is inherently and evil act.

GOD will eventually restore balance by vanquishing evil forever...

[clambake]

That passage coupled with Psalms 19 actually denotes the limits of General revelation (GOD's existence as manifest by nature)... It doesn't reveal GOD like Special revelation does in the Scriptures themselves...

As for the conundrum surrounding free will and this passage... I too was perplexed by it until I realized it just meant that GOD allowed us to pursue the evil desires of our hearts. He didn't place those desires in us... He just allowed us to do what we wanted knowing that eventually we would reap the consequences for having rejected Him. He doesn't control us... even when He is in control of everything. He has placed that restriction on Himself (self-imposed) to afford us the right to choose.
you should still be perplexed. it's completely false....this free will garbage.

"thought shall worship no other god"

free will :lol

[Blake]

Also... WTF is with this statement? I guess this fantasy of superiority you seem to be entrenched in isn't limited to metaphysics? All those who disagree with you merit your sneering not only for their Godlessness, but their supposed unemployment, too? The spirit of Christ is really strong within you, isn't it? :lol

:lol

[Phenomanul]

you should still be perplexed. it's completely false....this free will garbage.

"thought shall worship no other god"

free will :lol

Old Covenant =not= New Covenant... but what do you care?

[MannyIsGod]

True. There is a paucity of civility amongst the athiest/agnostic set at times, but one can easily say the same of the believing set as well.

I do find it humorous that someone who probably participates in prayer circles/discussions or weekly church services would describe non-believers as participating in group-think and self congratulatory flagellation.

For the record:

It is human nature to congregate with like-minded people. GO SPURS. :flag:

Indeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed.

[admiralsnackbar]

That passage coupled with Psalms 19 actually denotes the limits of General revelation (GOD's existence as manifest by nature)... It doesn't reveal GOD like Special revelation does in the Scriptures themselves...

As for the conundrum surrounding free will and this passage... I too was perplexed by it until I realized it just meant that GOD allowed us to pursue the evil desires of our hearts. He didn't place those desires in us... He just allowed us to do what we wanted knowing that eventually we would reap the consequences for having rejected Him. He doesn't control us... even when He is in control of everything. He has placed that restriction on Himself (self-imposed) to afford us the right to choose.

As for your final question there... it's a philosophical quandry... It isn't that men are blind to GOD... they are so full of themselves that they've displaced whatever room they may have had to receive Him. It's all their own doing though, because we are all born with the void to search for Him.

I respect you've come to terms with the passage, but for the same reasons I listed earlier, I have not. We have the freedom to pursue the evil in our hearts, but what is the value of this freedom if one cannot see the whole picture? Would any sin be worthwhile if we had the perspicacity to see that it could lead to eternal damnation? I may like sex, but if I know a woman has AIDS, I won't bone her because I don't want to die. Take that scenario and literally multiply it by infinity.

The same thing holds for your second paragraph. If God's existence were so self-evident to all His creatures, there would be no desire to be full of one's self to the exclusion of God. Clearly not everyone can perceive Him.

[clambake]

Old Covenant =not= New Covenant... but what do you care?

out with the old! :lol

[redzero]

Phenomanul, you aren't going to respond to my post?

Also, is slavery evil? Is murder evil? If so, then why does God condone it in the Bible?

[Phenomanul]

Interesting statement.

Let's paraphrase a bit:

"God exists because God created faith in God."

Circular reasoning in its most simple form.

Q. How do you know God exists?

A. Because God created faith in God.

The logical form that I can ferret out of this is:

A therefore A

Interestingly enough, one can also use this logic to conclude that the parody deity the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, because the FSM created the ability to conceive of Its Noodle-y Existance.

For someone so smart... how could you misconstrue the word "conduit"...??

The proper equation should have been:

His existence doesn't depend on our faith... our Salvation does...

[admiralsnackbar]

So stating I have to work and can't devote my time to following these threads is an act of superiority? ummm ok whatever...

I was stating that because usually what follows is that my silence is misconstrued as concession...

But honestly, it doesn't matter what I or anyone else here says... our beliefs are deeply entrenched with our life experience. Nothing said in this forum can change that... given that premise, my time here (as well as that of others here, believers or not, is still a big waste of time)...

I bother because TRUTH is important... unfortunately this is not an ideal medium, platform or venue for that message... given the belligerent, auto-sufficient, all-knowing nature of the audience...

Caring is my problem...

Is that why you used italics? :lol

Perhaps you were just trying to convey the sheer volume and immediacy of the work you had to get to and it just got lost in translation...

[Blake]

As for the conundrum surrounding free will and this passage... I too was perplexed by it until I realized it just meant that GOD allowed us to pursue the evil desires of our hearts. He didn't place those desires in us... He just allowed us to do what we wanted knowing that eventually we would reap the consequences for having rejected Him. He doesn't control us... even when He is in control of everything. He has placed that restriction on Himself (self-imposed) to afford us the right to choose.


So why is free will and the ability to pursue evil desires removed when we get to Heaven?

Heaven sounds boring as hell.

[Blake]

Old Covenant =not= New Covenant... but what do you care?

Because if God is unchanging, then the Bible as a whole is inherently contradictory.

[Phenomanul]

True. There is a paucity of civility amongst the athiest/agnostic set at times, but one can easily say the same of the believing set as well.

I do find it humorous that someone who probably participates in prayer circles/discussions or weekly church services would describe non-believers as participating in group-think and self congratulatory flagellation.

For the record:

It is human nature to congregate with like-minded people. GO SPURS. :flag:

Well... if the shoe fits? Self-agrandizing satisfaction in your own logic, fallible human logic at that...

[Phenomanul]

Because if God is unchanging, then the Bible as a whole is inherently contradictory.

Only the context of our relationship with Him... but not like you would care to understand the technical differences...






















Hello stalker...

[redzero]

Because if God is unchanging, then the Bible as a whole is inherently contradictory.

Yeah, I don't know how a perfect being could have changing morals. If slavery was okay in the Old Testament, it should be okay in the New Testament.

[MannyIsGod]

God created us so we could be saved! I know I love it when my existence boils down to someone else being bored.

For the record, I don't consider myself an atheist in the least - I just find the whole salvation argument fairly odd.

[Phenomanul]

Lunch?

[Blake]

I was stating that because usually what follows is that my silence is misconstrued as concession...


So when someone else has to log out for a while, you declare victory.

Got it.

[LoneStarState'sPride]

Yeah, I don't know how a perfect being could have changing morals. If slavery was okay in the Old Testament, it should be okay in the New Testament.

Dude, we went round n' round the mulberry bush on the whole slavery issue in the other thread, you just didn't want to accept the answer. The slavery the laws of the Bible are referring to were common BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS during that timeframe, not the chattel slavery of the Hebrews and of ignominy in the Americas.

Quit chasing your own tail and rehashing tired old arguments.

[Blake]

Only the context of our relationship with Him... but not like you would care to understand the technical differences...

Please explain the technical differences such as why God commanded Hercules.....err......Samson to grow out long hair in the OT while Paul condemns it in the NT.


Hello stalker...

does God tell you to take messageboard posts personal?

[redzero]

Dude, we went round n' round the mulberry bush on the whole slavery issue in the other thread, you just didn't want to accept the answer.

No, I won't accept a weak excuse.


The slavery the laws of the Bible are referring to were common BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS during that timeframe, not the chattel slavery of the Hebrews and of ignominy in the Americas.

So it was just indentured servitude (which isn't even legal in the United States)? AND WAS IT OKAY TO BEAT THE INDENTURED SERVANTS TO DEATH?


Quit chasing your own tail and rehashing tired old arguments.

Quit making weak excuses.

[LoneStarState'sPride]

[QUOTE=Blake;4617180]Please explain the technical differences such as why God commanded Hercules.....err......Samson to grow out long hair in the OT while Paul condemns it in the NT.[QUOTE]

It was a symbol of Sampson's obedience to God. These are rather petty semantics you're arguing.

Oh, and I'm with RandomGuy lol--GO SPURS GO! :flag:

[clambake]

paul always felt overshadowed by john.

[LoneStarState'sPride]

No, I won't accept a weak excuse.



So it was just indentured servitude (which isn't even legal in the United States)? AND WAS IT OKAY TO BEAT THE INDENTURED SERVANTS TO DEATH?



Quit making weak excuses.

Just because you say something is weak doesn't make it so. Get off your freaking high horse.

News flash: The USA wasn't around when the Bible was written, therefore comparison is like apples to oranges. Many slaves in Biblical times entered it of their own accord to pay off debts (you can argue morals all you want, but that's just the corporate environment of the day). And I already told you, it was NOT legal or "okay" to beat the servants to death--there are specific Bible passages that state this (that were also covered in the other thread, incidentally), but I've got class in a little bit, so you can do your own homework for a change.

You can throw around the "weak excuses" phrase all you want, but you're really only highlighting either your inability to understand or unwillingness to accept the reality that slavery is not the huge dealbreaking moral issue when it comes to the Bible (and this is coming from a black man, btw. I know my shit when it comes to this, my friend).

[JoeChalupa]

I'm comfortable with my faith and comfortable with those who are not or don't believe. I don't agree with the thought that believers are foolish or ignorant though...but I can live with it.

[MannyIsGod]

The word of god adapts to the social norms of the times. Sounds pretty infallible to me!

[redzero]

News flash: The USA wasn't around when the Bible was written, therefore comparison is like apples to oranges.

Your point? The Bible is supposed to be the word of God--so it should have timeless morals.


Many slaves in Biblical times entered it of their own accord to pay off debts (you can argue morals all you want, but that's just the corporate environment of the day).

That's called indentured servitude, which, as stated before, is viewed as a violation of civil liberties.


And I already told you, it was NOT legal or "okay" to beat the servants to death--there are specific Bible passages that state this (that were also covered in the other thread, incidentally), but I've got class in a little bit, so you can do your own homework for a change.

TRANSLATION: Even though the Bible says it's okay, it wasn't and I won't bother explaining why.


You can throw around the "weak excuses" phrase all you want, but you're really only highlighting either your inability to understand or unwillingness to accept the reality that slavery is not the huge dealbreaking moral issue when it comes to the Bible (and this is coming from a black man, btw. I know my shit when it comes to this, my friend).

Take your pick: slavery, killing nonbelievers, killing homosexuals, killing unruly children, etc.

And I don't care about what your race is; I didn't bring race into the matter.

You just keep brushing off what the Bible says with poor excuses.

[JoeChalupa]

Will RedZero be having a Bible burning anytime soon ya think?

[redzero]

Here are a few passages of the Bible that don't condone beating slaves/indentured servants:


However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)


If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)


When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

:lol at it being all right to sell one's own daughter into slavery.


When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

BUT GOD DOESN'T THINK IT'S OKAY, GUYS! SRS.


Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)


Wow, indentured servants should respect their masters as if they were Christ.


Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)


The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Servants should be punished for not serving their masters.

[TheManFromAcme]

Phenomanul, you aren't going to respond to my post?

Also, is slavery evil? Is murder evil? If so, then why does God condone it in the Bible?


Societies that have rejected Biblical morality in favor of a more "rational" and "scientific" approach to politics (or science for that matter) murdered millions upon millions more than the Crusades or the inquisition ever did. Hello.....Atheists regimes have caused the greatest mass murders in history. The Crusades, the inquisition, the Galileo affair and witch hunts together make up less than 1% of the murders that have occurred during the modern atheist regimes like Stalin, Hitler and Mao.

[clambake]

Societies that have rejected Biblical morality in favor of a more "rational" and "scientific" approach to politics (or science for that matter) murdered millions upon millions more than the Crusades or the inquisition ever did. Hello.....Atheists regimes have caused the greatest mass murders in history. The Crusades, the inquisition, the Galileo affair and witch hunts together make up less than 1% of the murders that have occurred during the modern atheist regimes like Stalin, Hitler and Mao.

:lol "i'll chose "who murdered less" for 400, alex"

[TheManFromAcme]

:lol "i'll chose "who murdered less" for 400, alex"

DAILY DOUBLE! (insert Daily Double chime)...

Yes Alex, "I'll take FUN FACTS ABOUT ATHEISM for 1000"


:tu

[clambake]

DAILY DOUBLE! (insert Daily Double chime)...

Yes Alex, "I'll take FUN FACTS ABOUT ATHEISM for 1000"


:tu

i thought it was funny how you boiled it down to who killed less.

[MannyIsGod]

Come to bible school! We murder LESS!

[MannyIsGod]

I wonder if what the facts would be if the Crusades had happened at a time with a higher population and stronger weapons.

Give King Richard an Abomb and lets see how well he does.

[JoeChalupa]

And the hits just keep on comin'.

[admiralsnackbar]

Societies that have rejected Biblical morality in favor of a more "rational" and "scientific" approach to politics (or science for that matter) murdered millions upon millions more than the Crusades or the inquisition ever did. Hello.....Atheists regimes have caused the greatest mass murders in history. The Crusades, the inquisition, the Galileo affair and witch hunts together make up less than 1% of the murders that have occurred during the modern atheist regimes like Stalin, Hitler and Mao.

Besides being a bad argument in and of itself (Christianity is better, because its human-rights atrocities are smaller than X belief structure) you're putting a tremendous amount of credence in the record-keeping of whomever you're citing.

[clambake]

I wonder if what the facts would be if the Crusades had happened at a time with a higher population and stronger weapons.

Give King Richard an Abomb and lets see how well he does.

fat man and little boy. always dissing the women.

[Phenomanul]

:lmao

Look at this textbook Phenomanul post. Martyr much? The poor internet prosecuted Christians!!!!!!

Its really ironic how apparently atheists are the only ones trying to make themselves feel better about their beliefs. Phenomanul is so secure in his he can never stay away from these threads.

Martyr? Really Manny?

If anything, just look at the barrage of replies I have to produce in response to the heavy opposition created by my stance… I also have to ignore all the one-liner troll-like jabs that are interspersed amongst the sparsely located questions of legitimate worth…

Feeling outnumbered is not imagined, it is the reality of such apologetic discussions…

But of course, you wouldn’t be able to notice the obvious incongruity of your snicker from your lofty perch.

Contempt from you in these matters is expected.

[TheManFromAcme]

i thought it was funny how you boiled it down to who killed less.


I know clam. I am just tickling your ribs just as well :toast

[TheManFromAcme]

Besides being a bad argument in and of itself (Christianity is better, because its human-rights atrocities are smaller than X belief structure) you're putting a tremendous amount of credence in the record-keeping of whomever you're citing.

I am the doing the best that I can sir.
I am the lone bat-boy representing Christianity and if I fail, I'll do down punching or pinching, whichever hurts more. :lol

[admiralsnackbar]

I am the doing the best that I can sir.
I am the lone bat-boy representing Christianity and if I fail, I'll do down punching or pinching, whichever hurts more. :lol

:lol fair enough.

[redzero]

Societies that have rejected Biblical morality in favor of a more "rational" and "scientific" approach to politics (or science for that matter) murdered millions upon millions more than the Crusades or the inquisition ever did. Hello.....Atheists regimes have caused the greatest mass murders in history. The Crusades, the inquisition, the Galileo affair and witch hunts together make up less than 1% of the murders that have occurred during the modern atheist regimes like Stalin, Hitler and Mao.

Stalin, Mao and so on didn't execute people for atheism. Hitler was a Christian.

And two wrongs don't make a right, either way.

Also, you didn't even respond to the passages I quoted. Is slavery okay? None of the Christians here have even bothered to read the passages I quoted.

[LoneStarState'sPride]

Redzero, for the LAST time, slavery (the way we view it today) is not ok. Some of us have other shit to do during the day.

[cool cat]

Yeah so I don't know if this fits are not, but here discuss:

The newest "solution" to design in the universe is a belief in the multi-universe theory. This theory requires one to believe that there are more universes in existence than the number of all the subatomic particles that exist in our universe. Our universe just happened to be one of the few that is able to support life. Here is what a recent article from Science says about this hypothetical "multiverse" spinning off an "infinity" of other universes:

"Uncomfortable with the idea that physical parameters like lambda [cosmological constant] are simply lucky accidents, some cosmologists, including Hawking, have suggested that there have been an infinity of big bangs going off in a larger 'multiverse,' each with different values for these parameters. Only those values that are compatible with life could be observed by beings such as ourselves."9

What scientific evidence exists to support the multiverse model? None! Not only is there no evidence, the physics of our own universe requires that we will never be able to obtain any evidence about any other universe (even if it does exist). Even secular websites admit that such ideas amount to nothing more than unfalsifiable metaphysics:

"Appeals to multiple or "parallel" cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic "Big Bang/Crunch" oscillations as essential elements of proposed mechanisms are not acceptable in submissions due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability. Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature. Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for gravity to reverse continuing cosmic expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite in age."10

According to Paul Davies:

"Whether it is God, or man, who tosses the dice, turns out to depend on whether multiple universes really exist or not….If instead, the other universes are relegated to ghost worlds, we must regard our existence as a miracle of such improbability that it is scarcely credible."

Theistic solution - measurable design
On the other hand, the deist or theist says that God designed the universe with just the right laws of physics. Note that neither the multiverse nor the "God hypothesis" is testable. However, the "God hypothesis" is much simpler. The naturalistic explanation requires the presence of a complicated, unproved super universe that has the capacity to randomly spew out an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics. How does this hypothetical super universe know how to do this? Why would it even want to do this? Ultimately, why should there be any universe at all? None of these questions are logically explained by naturalism. Only an intelligent Being would be motivated and expected to produce any kind of universe such as what we see. If we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon, we would eliminate the super universe/multi-universe explanation in favor of the simpler God-designed universe model. The evidence for design in the universe and biology is so strong that Antony Flew, a long-time proponent of atheism, renounced his atheism in 2004 and now believes that the existence of a Creator is required to explain the universe and life in it. Likewise, Frank Tipler, Professor of the Department of Mathematics at Tulane University, and a former atheist, not only became a theist, but is now a born-again Christian because of the laws of physics.11

Who created God?
A common objection to the "God hypothesis" is the problem of how God came to be. If everything has a cause, why does God get an exception? The problem with such reasoning is that it assumes that time has always existed. In reality, time is a construct of this universe and began at the initiation of the Big Bang.12 A God who exists outside the time constraints of the universe is not subject to cause and effect. So, the idea that God has always existed and is not caused follows logically from the fact that the universe and time itself was created at the Big Bang. The Bible makes these exact claims - that God has always existed13 and that God created time,14 along with the entire universe,15 being described as an expanding universe.16 Why can't the universe be uncaused? Of course, it is possible that the universe is uncaused. However, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that contradicts that idea (see part 1). So, an atheist who claims to live by logic and evidence cannot arbitrarily assign eternity to a universe that is clearly temporal.

[Blake]

It was a symbol of Sampson's obedience to God. These are rather petty semantics you're arguing.



1 Corinthians 11:14 (King James Version)

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

God commanded Sampson to shame himself.

Nothing to argue.

[Blake]

Redzero, for the LAST time, slavery (the way we view it today) is not ok. Some of us have other shit to do during the day.

so redzero is stopping you from doing other shit?

or is God telling you to post in this thread?

either way, your lack of self control is telling.

[redzero]

Redzero, for the LAST time, slavery (the way we view it today) is not ok. Some of us have other shit to do during the day.

Was indentured servitude back then okay? You haven't answered that yet.

[Blake]

Yeah so I don't know if this fits are not, but here discuss:

The newest "solution" to design in the universe is a belief in the multi-universe theory. This theory requires one to believe that there are more universes in existence than the number of all the subatomic particles that exist in our universe. Our universe just happened to be one of the few that is able to support life. Here is what a recent article from Science says about this hypothetical "multiverse" spinning off an "infinity" of other universes:

"Uncomfortable with the idea that physical parameters like lambda [cosmological constant] are simply lucky accidents, some cosmologists, including Hawking, have suggested that there have been an infinity of big bangs going off in a larger 'multiverse,' each with different values for these parameters. Only those values that are compatible with life could be observed by beings such as ourselves."9

What scientific evidence exists to support the multiverse model? None! Not only is there no evidence, the physics of our own universe requires that we will never be able to obtain any evidence about any other universe (even if it does exist). Even secular websites admit that such ideas amount to nothing more than unfalsifiable metaphysics:

"Appeals to multiple or "parallel" cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic "Big Bang/Crunch" oscillations as essential elements of proposed mechanisms are not acceptable in submissions due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability. Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature. Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for gravity to reverse continuing cosmic expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite in age."10

According to Paul Davies:

"Whether it is God, or man, who tosses the dice, turns out to depend on whether multiple universes really exist or not….If instead, the other universes are relegated to ghost worlds, we must regard our existence as a miracle of such improbability that it is scarcely credible."

Theistic solution - measurable design
On the other hand, the deist or theist says that God designed the universe with just the right laws of physics. Note that neither the multiverse nor the "God hypothesis" is testable. However, the "God hypothesis" is much simpler. The naturalistic explanation requires the presence of a complicated, unproved super universe that has the capacity to randomly spew out an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics. How does this hypothetical super universe know how to do this? Why would it even want to do this? Ultimately, why should there be any universe at all? None of these questions are logically explained by naturalism. Only an intelligent Being would be motivated and expected to produce any kind of universe such as what we see. If we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon, we would eliminate the super universe/multi-universe explanation in favor of the simpler God-designed universe model. The evidence for design in the universe and biology is so strong that Antony Flew, a long-time proponent of atheism, renounced his atheism in 2004 and now believes that the existence of a Creator is required to explain the universe and life in it. Likewise, Frank Tipler, Professor of the Department of Mathematics at Tulane University, and a former atheist, not only became a theist, but is now a born-again Christian because of the laws of physics.11

Who created God?
A common objection to the "God hypothesis" is the problem of how God came to be. If everything has a cause, why does God get an exception? The problem with such reasoning is that it assumes that time has always existed. In reality, time is a construct of this universe and began at the initiation of the Big Bang.12 A God who exists outside the time constraints of the universe is not subject to cause and effect. So, the idea that God has always existed and is not caused follows logically from the fact that the universe and time itself was created at the Big Bang. The Bible makes these exact claims - that God has always existed13 and that God created time,14 along with the entire universe,15 being described as an expanding universe.16 Why can't the universe be uncaused? Of course, it is possible that the universe is uncaused. However, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that contradicts that idea (see part 1). So, an atheist who claims to live by logic and evidence cannot arbitrarily assign eternity to a universe that is clearly temporal.

what's the link?

[Blake]

Martyr? Really Manny?

If anything, just look at the barrage of replies I have to produce in response to the heavy opposition created by my stance… I also have to ignore all the one-liner troll-like jabs that are interspersed amongst the sparsely located questions of legitimate worth…

Feeling outnumbered is not imagined, it is the reality of such apologetic discussions…

But of course, you wouldn’t be able to notice the obvious incongruity of your snicker from your lofty perch.

Contempt from you in these matters is expected.

yup, textbook.

[redzero]

A God who exists outside the time constraints of the universe is not subject to cause and effect. So, the idea that God has always existed and is not caused follows logically from the fact that the universe and time itself was created at the Big Bang.

So, God, who works outside of time and space, "caused" the Big Bang--a process that occurred within time and space? How can a timeless being start a process of causation?

[Phenomanul]

yup, textbook.

yeah Blake, the textbook stalker.... :lol

Like I said, your uncontrollable urge to respond to all my posts is quite flattering... a little creepy... but the affinity is noted. :wakeup

[Phenomanul]

Stalin, Mao and so on didn't execute people for atheism. Hitler was a Christian.

And two wrongs don't make a right, either way.

Also, you didn't even respond to the passages I quoted. Is slavery okay? None of the Christians here have even bothered to read the passages I quoted.

See… this is why I don’t address your posts redzero… you go around making such claims without an understanding of what the Christian label represents… not everyone who slaps that label on themselves is a Christian...

Hitler was most definitely NOT a Christian…

Question… Which of these were Christians?
A. Mother Teresa
B. Billy Graham
C. Hitler

Me: Based on their lives, both A & B…
redzero: Based on my stubbornness to win meaningless internet arguments, Hitler...

WTH???

“16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. 21 Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven...”

- Matthew 7:16-21

[cool cat]

So, God, who works outside of time and space, "caused" the Big Bang--a process that occurred within time and space? How can a timeless being start a process of causation?

So you are going to limit gods power? If you create time and space why can't you work in that time and space?

[redzero]

So you are going to limit gods power? If you create time and space why can't you work in that time and space?

Why would he work in time and space if he is timeless?

[Blake]

yeah Blake, the textbook stalker.... :lol

Like I said, your uncontrollable urge to respond to all my posts is quite flattering... a little creepy... but the affinity is noted. :wakeup

your urge to post specifically about me is creepy.

Are you really afraid of people responding to your posts? Do you think I'm going to get you in real life?

[redzero]

See… this is why I don’t address your posts redzero… you go around making such claims without an understanding of what the Christian label represents… not everyone who slaps that label on themselves is a Christian...

Hitler was most definitely NOT a Christian…

Question… Which of these were Christians?
A. Mother Teresa
B. Billy Graham
C. Hitler

Me: Based on their lives, both A & B…
redzero: Based on my stubbornness to win meaningless internet arguments, Hitler...

WTH???

“16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. 21 Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven...”

- Matthew 7:16-21

Do you support slavery, and killing homosexuals, unruly children and nonbelievers?

[Blake]

Hitler was most definitely NOT a Christian…

Question… Which of these were Christians?
A. Mother Teresa
B. Billy Graham
C. Hitler

Me: Based on their lives, both A & B…
redzero: Based on my stubbornness to win meaningless internet arguments, Hitler...

How rich is Billy Graham?

[cool cat]

Why would he work in time and space if he is timeless?

Does it matter?

[redzero]

Does it matter?

Absolutely.

[cool cat]

Absolutely.

Why? I thought you were looking for the possibility of god not what his motivations are.

[redzero]

Why? I thought you were looking for the possibility of god not what his motivations are.

What does it have to do with motivation? You say that God is timeless, yet he is confined to working within time. That's a contradiction.

[Phenomanul]

My point stands... (ongoing for years)

The question of origins is plainly a matter of science history—not the domain of applied science... Contrary to the unilateral denials of many unbelievers, one’s worldview does indeed play heavily on one’s interpretation of scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement—the three immutable elements of the scientific method—may be employed...

Hence, when I see people hinging their disbelief in GOD solely on their interpretation of their infallible bastion of "science"... they're not really doing that on proper terms... So while many proponents of evolution and naturalistic cosmic orgin persist in claiming exclusive “scientific” status for their popularized beliefs and heap out-of-hand dismissal and derision upon all doubters... They are doing so without understanding the limits of the scientific toolset.

[cool cat]

What does it have to do with motivation? You say that God is timeless, yet he is confined to working within time. That's a contradiction.

He is not confined to working within time where did you get that idea? Again you are trying to limit his power.

[redzero]

Do you support slavery, and killing homosexuals, unruly children and nonbelievers?

Answer this, Phenomanul. I responded to each of your posts directed at me, yet you haven't responded to half of my posts directed at you.

[admiralsnackbar]

Yeah so I don't know if this fits are not, but here discuss:

The newest "solution" to design in the universe is a belief in the multi-universe theory. This theory requires one to believe that there are more universes in existence than the number of all the subatomic particles that exist in our universe. Our universe just happened to be one of the few that is able to support life. Here is what a recent article from Science says about this hypothetical "multiverse" spinning off an "infinity" of other universes:

"Uncomfortable with the idea that physical parameters like lambda [cosmological constant] are simply lucky accidents, some cosmologists, including Hawking, have suggested that there have been an infinity of big bangs going off in a larger 'multiverse,' each with different values for these parameters. Only those values that are compatible with life could be observed by beings such as ourselves."9

What scientific evidence exists to support the multiverse model? None! Not only is there no evidence, the physics of our own universe requires that we will never be able to obtain any evidence about any other universe (even if it does exist). Even secular websites admit that such ideas amount to nothing more than unfalsifiable metaphysics:

"Appeals to multiple or "parallel" cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic "Big Bang/Crunch" oscillations as essential elements of proposed mechanisms are not acceptable in submissions due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability. Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature. Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for gravity to reverse continuing cosmic expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite in age."10

According to Paul Davies:

"Whether it is God, or man, who tosses the dice, turns out to depend on whether multiple universes really exist or not….If instead, the other universes are relegated to ghost worlds, we must regard our existence as a miracle of such improbability that it is scarcely credible."

Theistic solution - measurable design
On the other hand, the deist or theist says that God designed the universe with just the right laws of physics. Note that neither the multiverse nor the "God hypothesis" is testable. However, the "God hypothesis" is much simpler. The naturalistic explanation requires the presence of a complicated, unproved super universe that has the capacity to randomly spew out an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics. How does this hypothetical super universe know how to do this? Why would it even want to do this? Ultimately, why should there be any universe at all? None of these questions are logically explained by naturalism. Only an intelligent Being would be motivated and expected to produce any kind of universe such as what we see. If we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon, we would eliminate the super universe/multi-universe explanation in favor of the simpler God-designed universe model. The evidence for design in the universe and biology is so strong that Antony Flew, a long-time proponent of atheism, renounced his atheism in 2004 and now believes that the existence of a Creator is required to explain the universe and life in it. Likewise, Frank Tipler, Professor of the Department of Mathematics at Tulane University, and a former atheist, not only became a theist, but is now a born-again Christian because of the laws of physics.11

Who created God?
A common objection to the "God hypothesis" is the problem of how God came to be. If everything has a cause, why does God get an exception? The problem with such reasoning is that it assumes that time has always existed. In reality, time is a construct of this universe and began at the initiation of the Big Bang.12 A God who exists outside the time constraints of the universe is not subject to cause and effect. So, the idea that God has always existed and is not caused follows logically from the fact that the universe and time itself was created at the Big Bang. The Bible makes these exact claims - that God has always existed13 and that God created time,14 along with the entire universe,15 being described as an expanding universe.16 Why can't the universe be uncaused? Of course, it is possible that the universe is uncaused. However, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that contradicts that idea (see part 1). So, an atheist who claims to live by logic and evidence cannot arbitrarily assign eternity to a universe that is clearly temporal.

Interesting. Apparently this person is filtering multiverse theory through Leibniz' Monadology in order to make it jibe with Christian cosmological ideas. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but overall, I can live with it.

[Phenomanul]

How rich is Billy Graham?

Does it matter if he gives over 90% of his annual 'income' away...???

How many tangential red herrings do you have in your lunch box anyways??? :sleep

[Blake]

Hence, when I see people hinging their disbelief in GOD solely on their interpretation of their infallible bastion of "science"...

who here has said that science is infallible?

Phestrawmanul!



they're not really doing that on proper terms... So while many proponents of evolution and naturalistic cosmic orgin persist in claiming exclusive “scientific” status for their popularized beliefs and heap out-of-hand dismissal and derision upon all doubters... They are doing so without understanding the limits of the scientific toolset.

Why do opponents of evolution, such as yourself, dismiss any scientific evidence that supports the theory?

[redzero]

He is not confined to working within time where did you get that idea? Again you are trying to limit his power.

You are the one who said that he was timeless, did you not?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how a timeless being would perform time-reliant acts.

Can God also make a squared circle?

[redzero]

who here has said that science is infallible?

Phestrawmanul!




Why do opponents of evolution, such as yourself, dismiss any scientific evidence that supports the theory?

Phenomanul also tried to use absolutes to show that science is unreliable. If he actually watched the video I posted, he would understand why he should not make that mistake, but he seems to ignore my responses to him.

[Phenomanul]

Answer this, Phenomanul. I responded to each of your posts directed at me, yet you haven't responded to half of my posts directed at you.

Really? You admitted that you labeled Hitler a Christian simply to suit the needs of your argument? I must have missed it... all I saw was another derailment and quick misdirection on your part...

Besides, I know a troll when I see one... people that don't like losing arguments make for bad internet chatter...

they twist people's arguments... put words in people's mouths... overstep their boundaries (for example.. they try and explain GOD's attributes on their terms when they don't even believe in Him - how absurd is that?)... they hold on to strawmen... they insist on being answered, and are pushy about it... etc...

I don't need to deal with more than my share of trolls... I already have one that's been following me around for years... :wakeup

[Phenomanul]

who here has said that science is infallible?

Phestrawmanul!




Why do opponents of evolution, such as yourself, dismiss any scientific evidence that supports the theory?

Ok then...

Blake's disbelief in Supernatural creation is based on ________?

redzero's's disbelief in Supernatural creation is based on ________?

If it's not based on your interpretation of science what else is filling in the blanks?

[redzero]

:lmao

If he can't respond to my posts, that makes me a troll! :lol

Hey, Phenomanul, true Christians support slavery. Do you?

OH WAIT! I'm trolling even though it is in the Bible and I even posted the passages I was talking about.

:rollin

[cool cat]

You are the one who said that he was timeless, did you not?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how a timeless being would perform time-reliant acts.

Can God also make a squared circle?

Recently, an article in America magazine[1] argued that God's options i= n creation were limited: "God could no more make a dynamic, living material world in which bad things do not happen than God could make a square circle= , or a rock too big to lift. It would be just as much a logical and physical contradiction." Without joining the discussion about constrained evolution, here I wish to draw attention to the way our own limited ability to think gets translated into a supposed limitation upon God.

Human limitations creep into language, become customary in thought processes, and gradually become "accepted wisdom", then "ultimate truth." I= t is a commonplace limitation of humans to grasp one manner of thinking, and then assume that is the only possible way of thinking. This error usually arises because of the characteristics of communication via language--hidden assumptions are built in, and these introduce constraints that may be unwarranted. A mathematical illustration is used to convey this point.

Common Sense vs. Mathematics

Can God make a square circle? Not within the constraints of the geometr= y that we usually mean when using the words "square" and "circle". But look carefully at the phrase "...we usually mean..." -- it refers to the body of knowledge classified as common sense. It's important to notice that this phrase state a limitation, and conveys a restriction upon God's action, based entirely upon a human way of thinking. To say that God has to think the same way we do is a very severe limitation - one that most of us would never ascribe to God, once we take note of how limited our own minds are.

Setting aside the differences between various languages, all human beings convey ideas to one another via language, which is rooted in culture and thought, and which has some inherent assumptions. When everyone has the very same set of assumptions lying beneath their processes of thought and language, what is called common sense is subject to the condition known as general bias. As Lonergan[2] has discussed, "Common sense... is incapable o= f analyzing itself, incapable of making the discovery that it too is a specialized development of human knowledge ..." The way out of general bias involves "...confronting human intelligence with the alternative of adoptin= g a higher viewpoint or perishing."[3]

The language of mathematics is particularly well-suited to taking an upward step and adopting a higher viewpoint. In mathematics, assumptions ar= e not hidden but are plainly stated up front. The very fact that it is abstract releases mathematics from the presuppositions of everyday thinking= . The purpose of the example given here is to illustrate how adopting a highe= r viewpoint overcomes the bias that leads us to think God is limited in some way.=20

The question at hand is "How do you make a square circle?" As we usuall= y mean these terms, you can't. But mathematics allows additional meanings, an= d the combination of all those meanings comprises the higher viewpoint.

Changing Coordinates

In the ordinary realm of everyday thought, we customarily live with a perception of nature given by Euclidean Geometry; that is the natural state of our culture, language and thought patterns. If we stay in that realm, then it is impossible to make a circle square. But we can add a new structure of thought, a higher viewpoint: once we step up to the level of Analytic Geometry, then in Cartesian coordinates (x, y) the circle is defined by

R^2 = x^2 + y^2 (1)

where R is a fixed number. Alternately, still within Analytic Geometry, we can convert to cylindrical coordinates (r, =A2), using the transformation x =
r cos=A2 and y = r sin=A2, and write =20 r = R for all values[4] of =A2, -=BC =BE =A2 =BE +=BC (2)

In these drawings, the one on the left is most definitely what we customarily call a circle, because we automatically think in terms of Cartesian coordinates. Implicit in looking at that figure is an x-y coordinate system superimposed upon it. That's simply the way humans think, how we ordinarily understand things. In Analytic Geometry, equation (1) above describes it correctly.

But now consider the drawing on the right [a square], and superimpose upon it a coordinate system in which the horizontal coordinate is the angle =A2, ranging from a limit of -=BC on the left to +=BC on the right; and the vertical coordinate is the radius r. Let r = zero denote the line across th= e bottom and r = R denote the line across the top. Equation (2) states that a circle has r = R for all possible values of =A2 and that's exactly what is shown in the right-hand drawing. With the coordinates labeled in this way (cylindrical coordinates), the drawing on the right most definitely defines[5] a circle.

Of course you will object, "Hey, that's not what I had in mind!" and that is precisely the point. You didn't think of it because of a priori limitations that are part of your customary outlook, your standard condition. Human beings carry around with them all sorts of limitations of thought, culture and language.

Dealing with Limitations

Sometimes, human beings are able to recognize the limitations and constraints built into everyday life by language, culture, and modes of thinking, and then defer to God's superior wisdom. One way that some people have gotten beyond their own limitations is by turning to some authority to learn about God, such as Scripture. Of course, where there is no recognitio= n of a limitation, then there is no motivation to look further, whether via authority, a higher viewpoint, or a combination of the two. The fight between various proponents of either science or religion is often based on disdain for the other person's source of authority.

In mathematics and physics, we frequently defer to authority. For many arcane items, we read a proof or a derivation once, nod in agreement, and then just look it up whenever needed. The interested reader can find an example of this turning-to-authority in the appendix. The point made there is that either adopting a higher viewpoint or resorting to authority gives you the right answer. Of course, you have to have confidence in your authority for that path to work. Similarly, when you step up to a higher viewpoint, your confidence in that transition must be built upon some knowledge base that includes the recognition that your previous viewpoint was insufficient.

Conclusion

Too often human beings assume that God is subject to the same limitations we have. Because our ability to think is limited and constrained, it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that God is likewise constrained.

Not only can God make a square circle, humans can too. The trick is to adopt a higher viewpoint, to allow your mind to rise above conventional way= s of thinking.=20

The message to be taken away from our mathematical example is this: for very many forms of human endeavor, we are all stuck in a limited and constrained world without "coordinate transforms." We don't have the skills and understanding necessary to see things as God does. Therefore it's best to be deferential, and avoid any notion of God that comes with human limitations.

Appendix: Area

The following mathematics is provided to illustrate the important point about resorting to authority, or adopting a higher viewpoint.

Suppose we wanted to know the area enclosed by a circle. To find the area using Cartesian coordinates, we must integrate over all elements of area: I= I dx dy. That can get tough in a hurry:

1. One way is to draw lots of lines on the paper and add up lots and lot= s of tiny squares, eventually finding out that the answer is =893.14 R^2 =89 R^2.

2. Another way is to a) observe by symmetry that all four quadrants are the same; b) note that the integral over dy ranges over 0 < y < ymax such that=20

x^2 + y(max)^2 = R^2;

then, c) carry out a modest amount of calculus, so that when the integratio= n over dy is finished, the remaining integral over dx has the form

I (R^2 - x^2 )^1/2 dx

with x running from 0 to + R. At this point, d) most people just look it up in a table of integrals. That is resorting to authority, the mathematical equivalent of Scripture.

3. However, if you are able to step up from the use of Cartesian coordinates and adopt cylindrical coordinates, then the area is the integra= l over all r and _, given by =20 IIdr rd=A2 = Irdr Id=A2 = (R^2/2 )(2=BC) = =BCR^2 ,

and we all recognize that result as the area of a circle. Note that this result was achieved easily by working in cylindrical coordinates, *not* in Cartesian coordinates.

Of the three methods sketched above, obviously the simplest way is to transform to cylindrical coordinates and be done in a minute. But what is a human being to do who has no knowledge of such a coordinate transform? He's stuck with either slowly and painfully counting out the answer, never being sure of getting it right, or else resorting to authority. That happens a lo= t outside the field of mathematics, too.

The purpose of this mathematical exercise is to underline how the limitations of human language and thought lead directly to certain strategies in the pursuit of knowledge.

Notes:

1. D.P. Domning, "Evolution, Evil and Original Sin", America (12 Nov 2001) 2. B.J.F. Lonergan, "Insight: A Study of Human Understanding" (Longmans-Green:1958), chapter 7, section 8, p. 226. 3. Lonergan, Ibid., ch. 7, section 8.4, p. 235. 4. When dealing with angles, =B1=BC = =B1180=9A are the extreme values. 5. For math sticklers: it's a circle with an infinitesimally small dot in the middle.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This publication is hosted by Metanexus Online http://www.metanexus.net. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Metanexus or its sponsors.

Metanexus welcomes submissions between 1000 to 3000 words of essays and book reviews that seek to explore and interpret science and religion in original and insightful ways for a general educated audience. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Please send all inquiries and submissions to . Metanexus consists of a number of topically focused forums (Anthropos, Bios, Cogito, Cosmos, Salus, Sophia, and Techne) and periodic HTML enriched composite digests from each of the lists.

[redzero]

redzero's's disbelief in Supernatural creation is based on ________?

The complete lack of evidence of any supernatural ever occurring.

[Phenomanul]

You are the one who said that he was timeless, did you not?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how a timeless being would perform time-reliant acts.

Can God also make a squared circle?

GOD created time... it is only one of many variables that frame the construct of our universe.

Your inability to think outside of that construct is one of the reasons why you haven't been able to fully comprehend GOD's nature. You keep trying to box Him in...

[Phenomanul]

The complete lack of evidence of any supernatural ever occurring.

How do you know? You yourself dismissed absolute truth several pages ago?

[redzero]

GOD created time... it is only one of many variables that frame the construct of our universe.

So, at one point, there was no time, right? And then there was time. That's time right there. God caused time, and causation is based on time.

And you still dodge my questions about slavery.

[Phenomanul]

:lmao

If he can't respond to my posts, that makes me a troll! :lol

Hey, Phenomanul, true Christians support slavery. Do you?

OH WAIT! I'm trolling even though it is in the Bible and I even posted the passages I was talking about.

:rollin

Your snickering attitude is what makes you a troll... see, you've already overstepped the bounds of your comprehension... you assume I can't answer your posts...

There are dead end arguments I'm not going to venture into. By my choice. Who said you get to choose the terms of my responses anyways? Laughable.

[redzero]

How do you know? You yourself dismissed absolute truth several pages ago?

I didn't say that there is absolutely no evidence nor will there ever be of the supernatural. But is that your best excuse you can come up with? If so, why don't you believe in Zeus? There could be evidence that he exists, right?

[Phenomanul]

So, at one point, there was no time, right? And then there was time. That's time right there. God caused time, and causation is based on time.

And you still dodge my questions about slavery.

Causation is merely one way of interpretting time. Silly rabbit. :lol

[redzero]

Your snickering attitude is what makes you a troll... see, you've already overstepped the bounds of your comprehension... you assume I can't answer your posts...

There are dead end arguments I'm not going to venture into. By my choice. Who said you get to choose the terms of my responses anyways? Laughable.

And I see that you still ignore my question about slavery.

Well, since you like saying who is and isn't a Christian, I guess you are an authority on the matter. You call yourself a Christian, and therefore approve of slavery.

That's the only conclusion I can come to, since you kept dodging my questions.

[baseline bum]

See… this is why I don’t address your posts redzero… you go around making such claims without an understanding of what the Christian label represents… not everyone who slaps that label on themselves is a Christian...

Hitler was most definitely NOT a Christian…

Question… Which of these were Christians?
A. Mother Teresa
B. Billy Graham
C. Hitler

Me: Based on their lives, both A & B…
redzero: Based on my stubbornness to win meaningless internet arguments, Hitler...

WTH???



Sounds like the No True Scotsman fallacy... the same one conservatives liked to use when distancing themselves from Bush after his 8-year trainwreck.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."

[Phenomanul]

I didn't say that there is absolutely no evidence nor will there ever be of the supernatural. But is that your best excuse you can come up with? If so, why don't you believe in Zeus? There could be evidence that he exists, right?

Because the benefit of believing in Zeus or Greek mythos for that matter would be?

[redzero]

Causation is merely one way of interpretting time. Silly rabbit. :lol

How is it "merely" one way?

There was nothing.

God caused something.

There was something.

That's time.

[admiralsnackbar]

GOD created time... it is only one of many variables that frame the construct of our universe.

Your inability to think outside of that construct is one of the reasons why you haven't been able to fully comprehend GOD's nature. You keep trying to box Him in...

Should I take this statement to suggest you "fully comprehend God's nature?"

Any discussion of God is an attempt to "box him in." Are you much better given your very clearly fixed interpretation of Him?

[Phenomanul]

Sounds like the No True Scotsman fallacy... the same one conservatives liked to use when distancing themselves from Bush after his 8-year trainwreck.

Call it what you want... Hitler wasn't a Christian...

[redzero]

Because the benefit of believing in Zeus or Greek mythos for that matter would be?

So you are admitting that you don't accept something because it might be true; you accept what you want to be true.

Wow, I didn't expect a Christian to admit that.

[redzero]

Call it what you want... Hitler wasn't a Christian...

Which only makes me wonder what a real Christian is.

Do they follow what is in the Bible (i.e., everything, including the parts about slavery)?

[Phenomanul]

Should I take this statement to suggest you "fully comprehend God's nature?"

Any discussion of God is an attempt to "box him in." Are you much better given your very clearly fixed interpretation of Him?

Understanding GOD's nature is revealed by the Scriptures.

Why is everything you've singled out thus some random attack on the intent of my phrasing..?

I'm simply stating that you one can't venture to state they understand GOD while not believing in Him. This in context to all the different incongruencies redzero keeps attributing to GOD despite the fact that he doesn't even believe in Him...

[redzero]

I'm simply stating that you one can't venture to state they understand GOD while not believing in Him. This in context to all the different incongruencies redzero keeps attributing to GOD despite the fact that he doesn't even believe in Him...

Bullshit.

Now you say that my arguments don't matter because I don't believe (and therefore understand) God.

Weak ad hominem.

[Phenomanul]

Which only makes me wonder what a real Christian is.

Do they follow what is in the Bible (i.e., everything, including the parts about slavery)?

I quoted from scripture what that would entail... you chose to gloss over it.

[cool cat]

Redzero I found an answer for your question on squared circle it's from a guy from MIT. Any comment on it?

[redzero]

Redzero I found an answer for your question on squared circle it's from a guy from MIT. Any comment on it?

I want you to summarize it because I'm not reading all that.

[redzero]

I quoted from scripture what that would entail... you chose to gloss over it.

Should Christians have indentured servants? You keep ignoring my questions.

[MannyIsGod]

Martyr? Really Manny?

If anything, just look at the barrage of replies I have to produce in response to the heavy opposition created by my stance… I also have to ignore all the one-liner troll-like jabs that are interspersed amongst the sparsely located questions of legitimate worth…

Feeling outnumbered is not imagined, it is the reality of such apologetic discussions…

But of course, you wouldn’t be able to notice the obvious incongruity of your snicker from your lofty perch.

Contempt from you in these matters is expected.

How do you sleep at night with the horrors you witness?

[MannyIsGod]

See… this is why I don’t address your posts redzero… you go around making such claims without an understanding of what the Christian label represents… not everyone who slaps that label on themselves is a Christian...

Hitler was most definitely NOT a Christian…

Question… Which of these were Christians?
A. Mother Teresa
B. Billy Graham
C. Hitler

Me: Based on their lives, both A & B…
redzero: Based on my stubbornness to win meaningless internet arguments, Hitler...

WTH???

“16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. 21 Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven...”

- Matthew 7:16-21

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[MannyIsGod]

My point stands... (ongoing for years)

The question of origins is plainly a matter of science history—not the domain of applied science... Contrary to the unilateral denials of many unbelievers, one’s worldview does indeed play heavily on one’s interpretation of scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement—the three immutable elements of the scientific method—may be employed...

Hence, when I see people hinging their disbelief in GOD solely on their interpretation of their infallible bastion of "science"... they're not really doing that on proper terms... So while many proponents of evolution and naturalistic cosmic orgin persist in claiming exclusive “scientific” status for their popularized beliefs and heap out-of-hand dismissal and derision upon all doubters... They are doing so without understanding the limits of the scientific toolset.

:lol

Burden of proof. That is all.

No principle of science requires you to observe, measure, nor repeat that something does not exist.

Science may not be able to explain how everything started but neither can Christianity unless I missed the part of the bible that talks about how God was created.

[Phenomanul]

Bullshit.

Now you say that my arguments don't matter because I don't believe (and therefore understand) God.

Weak ad hominem.

Really?

GOD allows slavery... therefore GOD is evil...

ummm... no.

The context of human servitude in the Hebrew culture is not what they endured under the Egyptians, the Babylonians or the Persians... it was more of a renumeration system of last recourse....

The ad hominem is your unwillingness to accept that...

GOD created marriage between one man and one woman... but people like David and Solomon had many wives... therefore GOD condones polygamy...

ummm... no.

Man sought out multiple wives out of greed and it destroyed him... GOD allowed this to play out (our choices after all) so that the lesson would be learned by future generations...

GOD allowed murder... therefore GOD is evil...

ummm... no.

GOD is HOLY and JUST.... all sin has to be dealt with punishment... since the only punishment is death we should all be dead... instead he sent His Son, JESUS to die for us so that we wouldn't have to... the New Covenant was ushered and we live under GOD's gift of grace...

But yeah go ahead and keep drawing conclusions about GOD's nature... pervert the context all you want...

[cool cat]

I want you to summarize it because I'm not reading all that.

Your the physics/chemistry double major not me. I barley understand it. Your asking questions which don't have a quick answer. I'm trying to give you legit scientific answers but seeing how you are not interested makes me think you are just trolling so I guess it's best to move on.

[Phenomanul]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Does repeating baseline bum's observation make Hitler any more a Christian?

Thought so.

[MannyIsGod]

Sounds like the No True Scotsman fallacy... the same one conservatives liked to use when distancing themselves from Bush after his 8-year trainwreck.

God damn it.

[admiralsnackbar]

Understanding GOD's nature is revealed by the Scriptures.

Why is everything you've singled out thus some random attack on the intent of my phrasing..?

I'm simply stating that you one can't venture to state they understand GOD while not believing in Him. This in context to all the different incongruencies redzero keeps attributing to GOD despite the fact that he doesn't even believe in Him...
I criticized your phrasing what? twice? in I don't know how many posts now? One was for shits, but inthe case of this last one, the greater point I was trying to make is that you don't understand God any better than an atheist who has read the Bible. We both believe in God, but we've come to know Him the same way anybody else would: through interpreting the Book. Are we so different from anybody else who reads it?

If you want to say that you have a steadier bead on God's nature thanks to grace guiding your interpretation, I'm no one to argue the point with you, but I personally would never presume to say as much.

[Blake]

Does it matter if he gives over 90% of his annual 'income' away...???

How many tangential red herrings do you have in your lunch box anyways??? :sleep

It's not a red herring. Jesus said if you want perfection, give all you have and then follow him. It's in the Bible.

And it's also a faulty assumption on your part that Hitler isn't in Heaven.

If he was a professed Christian, he probably knew the rules to get in and repented of his sins at the last second. It was a win-win for him.

[Phenomanul]

How do you sleep at night with the horrors you witness?

How far from your perch must I be to avoid your sneering one-liners?

[redzero]

GOD allows slavery... therefore GOD is evil...

Hold on, an all loving God will allow slavery/indentured servitude? What?


The context of human servitude to the Hebrew culture is not what they endured under the Egyptians, the Babylonians or the Persians...

Which is completely irrelevant. God allows human beings to sell their daughters into slavery and beat slaves. Is that not immoral?


The ad hominem is your unwillingness to accept that...

Actually, no. Every time I post this, Christians say "It wasn't the same slavery" and ignore how indentured servitude is immoral to begin with.


GOD created marriage between one man and one woman... but people like David and Solomon had many wives... therefore GOD condones polygamy...

Did God give polygamy guidelines like he did with slavery?


Man sought out multiple wives out of greed and it destroyed him... GOD allowed this to play out (our choices after all) so that the lesson would be learned by future generations...

God didn't give guidelines on polygamy.


GOD allowed murder... therefore GOD is evil...


Didn't say that.

And I love how you keep ignoring what's in the Bible.

God says that is all right for a person to beat there slave to death, but he's not okay with slavery, right?

Sure.

Do you expect me to believe that God said, "You can do this, this, this, and this to slaves, but I am against it."

[MannyIsGod]

Does repeating baseline bum's observation make Hitler any more a Christian?

Thought so.

Does repeating he's not a Christian make him any less of a Christian? Didn't think so. You know not what was in Hitler's heart as he passed away, I think calling him a non Christian is fairly unChristian of you.

[MannyIsGod]

How far from your perch must I be to avoid your sneering one-liners?

Ask your God to protect you from them, imo.

[Phenomanul]

It's not a red herring. Jesus said if you want perfection, give all you have and then follow him. It's in the Bible.

And it's also a faulty assumption on your part that Hitler isn't in Heaven.

If he was a professed Christian, he probably knew the rules to get in and repented of his sins at the last second. It was a win-win for him.

Are you suggesting we can fool GOD?

Like I said, your feeble attempts at portraying GOD are too simplistic.

[Blake]

I don't need to deal with more than my share of trolls... I already have one that's been following me around for years... :wakeup

Are you scared I'm going to get you?

[redzero]

Your the physics/chemistry double major not me.

I don't have to be a physics/chemistry double major to know that making squared circles is impossible and that causation is time based.

Contradictions are obvious to anyone who isn't in denial.


I barley understand it.

So you are quoting it without knowing what it means?


Your asking questions which don't have a quick answer.

And yet you choose to believe without knowing the answer.


I'm trying to give you legit scientific answers

How is it a legitimate scientific answer? That's one interpretation by one guy that hasn't been peer reviewed or scrutinized at all.


but seeing how you are not interested makes me think you are just trolling so I guess it's best to move on.

Maybe if you call me a troll more, you won't actually have to back up what you are saying.

[Phenomanul]

Ask your God to protect you from them, imo.

You pose no threat whatsover to my health... that won't be necessary.

[redzero]

So, since no Christian bothered addressing the slavery/indentured servitude matter, I will assume that all Christians support it and find it perfectly acceptable to beat slaves to death because they are property.

[Blake]

Ok then...

Blake's disbelief in Supernatural creation is based on ________?


Phenomanul's poor assumptions are based on __________?

[MannyIsGod]

You pose no threat whatsover to my health... that won't be necessary.

Oh I don't know, judging from this thread your mental health is suffering quite a bit. I don't think thats my doing, however, so I guess you're right.

[Blake]

Your snickering attitude is what makes you a troll... see, you've already overstepped the bounds of your comprehension... you assume I can't answer your posts...

There are dead end arguments I'm not going to venture into. By my choice. Who said you get to choose the terms of my responses anyways? Laughable.

textbook.

[MannyIsGod]

Must be nice to understand God so well because apparently no one else in this thread does. Phenomanul has a lot in common with BigZak.

[redzero]

Must be nice to understand God so well because apparently no one else in this thread does. Phenomanul has a lot in common with BigZak.

I guess a shitload of people are going to hell then.

[Phenomanul]

Does repeating he's not a Christian make him any less of a Christian? Didn't think so. You know not what was in Hitler's heart as he passed away, I think calling him a non Christian is fairly unChristian of you.

Really? When did non-believers develop the spiritual discernment to understand our way of life?

"by their fruit you shall know them..."

while your scenario is possible, it's not very plausible... had Hitler genuinely repented of his actions he would have surrendered to the allied forces to face justice... besidesredzero's implied assertion was that Hitler commited his attrocities under the Christian banner. Which is most definitely not the case... Your smarter than this Manny... :lol

[Phenomanul]

textbook.

stalker.

[Blake]

Call it what you want... Hitler wasn't a Christian...

but there's a possibility he is in Heaven.

[Blake]

stalker.

na. I don't do stalking.

Do my posts frighten you?

[MannyIsGod]

Really? When did non-believers develop the spiritual discernment to understand our way of life?

"by their fruit you shall know them..."


Oh I have to believe in order to understand Christianity? I thought you argue that we have free will. What if I understand but have willfully rejected god? You're so foolish but what makes it so entertaining is your ego on the subject. If anyone knows egos its me, and yours is quite god like.



while your scenario is possible, it's not very plausible...


LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL I thought I asked for the irony on the side.



had Hitler genuinely repented of his actions he would have surrendered to the allied forces to face justice... besidesredzero's implied assertion was that Hitler commited his attrocities under the Christian banner. Which is most definitely not the case... Your smarter than this Manny... :lol


Actually he did not claim that at all. You missed his point completely because he was claiming the opposite of that.

[Phenomanul]

So, since no Christian bothered addressing the slavery/indentured servitude matter, I will assume that all Christians support it and find it perfectly acceptable to beat slaves to death because they are property.

This matter won't get addressed by any of us then... because ultimately no explanation will change how you perceive GOD... you'll just move on to the next perceived incongruence... and so forth... and so forth... you've already closed your heart and your mind to the possibility of GOD's existence... so why bother...

[redzero]

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

God doesn't actually believe that people can be other people's property and that beating a slave to death is okay, God put it in the Bible for no reason.

[redzero]

This matter won't get addressed by any of us then...

It will never be if nobody ever bothers to answer a simple fucking question.


because ultimately no explanation will change how you perceive GOD...

Humor me, because I want to know how God can give human beings guidelines on owning/treating slaves and still not condone slavery.


you'll just move on to the next perceived incongruence... and so forth... and so forth...

How can I when nobody bothers to answer my first question?


you've already closed your heart and your mind to the possibility of GOD's existence... so why bother...

I haven't closed my mind. I am asking for evidence for God's existence, and I haven't gotten any yet.

[Phenomanul]

Oh I have to believe in order to understand Christianity? I thought you argue that we have free will. What if I understand but have willfully rejected god? You're so foolish but what makes it so entertaining is your ego on the subject. If anyone knows egos its me, and yours is quite god like.



LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL I thought I asked for the irony on the side.




Actually he did not claim that at all. You missed his point completely because he was claiming the opposite of that.

Your post doesn't make any sense...

redzero claimed Hitler was a Christian as a counter to someone's claim that some of humanities greatest atrocities were done under a GODless banner... in the case of Stalin and Mao (overt atheism) in the case of others (like Hitler) just a general case of GODlessness...

So either he comitted them in GOD's name... or not.

I think we both know the answer.

[redzero]

Since when did Stalin and Mao commit atrocities for atheism? Did Mao's complete failure to understand agriculture result from not believing in God?

[Phenomanul]

God doesn't actually believe that people can be other people's property and that beating a slave to death is okay, God put it in the Bible for no reason.

Your comprehension of that verse is grotesquely biased... GOD stipulated under the Old Covenant that punishment was on order for those that killed their slaves...




Humor me, because I want to know how God can give human beings guidelines on owning/treating slaves and still not condone slavery.



The answer is quite simple but requires knowledge of doctrine... I alluded to it earlier but you simply scoffed it away... (Old Covenant =not= New Covenant).

GOD gave us Law as a means to protect us from each other. But no man, how ever hard they try is able to keep all of it... Since we can't keep it. We are cursed by it.

GOD then took on a human form in JESUS and as a human managed to keep all of the law... he fullfilled it and by doing so, condemned us all to death. Except that He willingly took our place, such that when we enter heaven GOD doesn't hold our actions against us... He will only see Christ's blood.

The laws therefore were an imperfect system that paved the way for grace.

The law hence, and any mention of slaves, pork, unclean things or other trivial matters are no longer relevant today.

GOD's Justice and Holiness, on the other hand, has been the same forever.

[Blake]

GOD created marriage between one man and one woman... but people like David and Solomon had many wives...


David was a man after God's own heart.


therefore GOD condones polygamy...

ummm... no.


ummm... fail.

2 Samuel 12

7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of 1Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom,

[Blake]

Your comprehension of that verse is grotesquely biased... GOD stipulated under the Old Covenant that punishment was on order for those that killed their slaves...



The answer is quite simple but requires knowledge of doctrine... I alluded to it earlier but you simply scoffed it away... (Old Covenant =not= New Covenant).

GOD gave us Law as a means to protect us from each other. But no man, how ever hard they try is able to keep all of it... Since we can't keep it. We are cursed by it.

GOD then took on a human form in JESUS and as a human managed to keep all of the law... he fullfilled it and by doing so, condemned us all to death. Except that He willingly took our place, such that when we enter heaven GOD doesn't hold our actions against us... He will only see Christ's blood.

The laws therefore were an imperfect system that paved the way for grace.

The law hence, and any mention of slaves, pork, unclean things or other trivial matters are no longer relevant today.

GOD's Justice and Holiness, on the other hand, has been the same forever.

Hence, the possibility of Hitler sitting at the right hand of Jesus.

[Phenomanul]

David was a man after God's own heart.



ummm... fail.

2 Samuel 12

7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of 1Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom,

I'm sure you've read the Septuagint version in Koine greek... you'd be surprised by the lack of plurality...

[Phenomanul]

Hence, the possibility of Hitler sitting at the right hand of Jesus.

Right hand? hyperbole much...?

Besides, I've already told Manny that while possible, the notion that Hitler genuinely repented is not very plausible.

yet another derailing tangent from your lunch box that never stops giving...

[Blake]

I'm sure you've read the Septuagint version in Koine greek... you'd be surprised by the lack of plurality...

so the King James version is not an ordained version?

Are we to only read the Septuagint version in Koine greek?

Why don't they have the Septuagint version in Koine greek in the pews at my parents' Baptist church?

[Blake]

Right hand? hyperbole much...?

Besides, I've already told Manny that while possible, the notion that Hitler genuinely repented is not very plausible.

yet another derailing tangent from your lunch box that never stops giving...

not very plausible, but possible. Right hand because God the father is already sitting at the left......I guess the Holy Spirit is just floating around with no chair to sit in.

meanwhile, the humanitarian donating his/her life to helping feeding/healing/clothing/housing starving kids in Africa is going to hell because of his/her non-belief.

Great God :tu

[admiralsnackbar]

I'm sure you've read the Septuagint version in Koine greek... you'd be surprised by the lack of plurality...

Why would that change anything? If you can take one wife, can't you take the whole lot?

What would be the plural (in English) in this case? A nag of wives? [/rimshot]

[Phenomanul]

so the King James version is not an ordained version?

Are we to only read the Septuagint version in Koine greek?

Why don't they have the Septuagint version in Koine greek in the pews at my parents' Baptist church?

another tangent still...

One should study the Scriptures with as many of the resources available.

but... let me guess... you really don't care. You're bitter that your upbringing failed you... (let me introduce a tangent of my own)... pity.

[redzero]

(Old Covenant =not= New Covenant)

1.) God's morals are supposed to be unchanging, so if it is okay to beat a slave to death in the Old Testament, it should be okay in the New Testament.

Here is something from the New Testament about the Old Testament:


2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever. "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)


Pretty clear there.


GOD gave us Law as a means to protect us from each other.

And he condoned slavery, killing homosexuals, unruly children and nonbelievers.


The laws therefore were an imperfect system that paved the way for grace.

God, who is perfect and therefore unchanging, made those laws. Are you saying that he is imperfect?


The law hence, and any mention of slaves, pork, unclean things or other trivial matters are no longer relevant today.

Bullshit.

Here are passages from the New Testament that tell people NOT to disregard the laws of the Old Testament:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)


"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)


"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)


"Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)


“He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)


“...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35

Please, bullshit your way out of interpreting these passages at face value.

[Blake]

another tangent still...

One should study the Scriptures with as many of the resources available.

but... let me guess... you really don't care. You're bitter that your upbringing failed you... (let me introduce a tangent of my own)... pity.

It's a yes or no question

Is the King James the ordained word of God?

Yes......or......no.

I post because I care.

[Blake]

Please, bullshit your way out of interpreting these passages at face value.

You aren't posting from the Septuagint version in Koine greek.

Pity.

[Phenomanul]

Since when did Stalin and Mao commit atrocities for atheism? Did Mao's complete failure to understand agriculture result from not believing in God?

I'm only stating the obvious...

afterall they ordered the burning of all Christian churches and banned the practice of Christianity (which had roots in Lenin's own philosophical roots)...

My brother-in-law's grandfather escaped from Russia to Istanbul during Stalin's regime...

[Phenomanul]

It's a yes or no question

Is the King James the ordained word of God?

Yes......or......no.

I post because I care.

If you did, you wouldn't push for answers...

Your only interested in going on another strawman journey...

[Blake]

If you did, you wouldn't push for answers...

Your only interested in going on another strawman journey...

I push for answers because I care. If I didn't care I wouldn't be asking questions.

Please show specifically where I posted a strawman argument.

Also, please answer the following simple question:

and it's a yes or no question.

Is the King James the ordained word of God?

[redzero]

I'm only stating the obvious...

afterall they ordered the burning of all Christian churches and banned the practice of Christianity (which had roots in Lenin's own philosophical roots)...

My brother-in-law's grandfather escaped from Russia to Istanbul during Stalin's regime...

And? They didn't do it in the name of atheism.

EDIT: And even if they did, it would be irrelevant. Atheism, by definition, is the lack of belief in gods. Period. There is no dogma. There are no instructions.

[cool cat]

I don't have to be a physics/chemistry double major to know that making squared circles is impossible and that causation is time based.

Contradictions are obvious to anyone who isn't in denial.



So you are quoting it without knowing what it means?



And yet you choose to believe without knowing the answer.



How is it a legitimate scientific answer? That's one interpretation by one guy that hasn't been peer reviewed or scrutinized at all.



Maybe if you call me a troll more, you won't actually have to back up what you are saying.

You didn't even read what I posted so what's the point. I said I understood it, barley. Calling you a troll is because you are trolling and not looking to have a real conversation which is was I was trying to give you.

[Phenomanul]

1.) God's morals are supposed to be unchanging, so if it is okay to beat a slave to death in the Old Testament, it should be okay in the New Testament.

Here is something from the New Testament about the Old Testament:



Pretty clear there.



And he condoned slavery, killing homosexuals, unruly children and nonbelievers.



God, who is perfect and therefore unchanging, made those laws. Are you saying that he is imperfect?



Bullshit.

Here are passages from the New Testament that tell people NOT to disregard the laws of the Old Testament:












Please, bullshit your way out of interpreting these passages at face value.

:rollin :rollin

copying and pasting from atheistic sites... were it not for the order of the scriptures you posted I wouldn't have noticed...

And yes there are explanations that reconcile everything you just posted... but like I said, you honestly aren't searching for the truth... How can you claim you are searching for GOD when you are eager to mock Him at every twist and turn...

[Phenomanul]

And? They didn't do it in the name of atheism.

Attrocities committed outside of GOD's will are done in the name of materialism... if the shoe fits.

Jesus said, "You're either for Me or against Me. And he that is not for Me is against Me."

[Phenomanul]

I push for answers because I care. If I didn't care I wouldn't be asking questions.

Please show specifically where I posted a strawman argument.

Also, please answer the following simple question:

and it's a yes or no question.

Is the King James the ordained word of God?

The strawman is where you are going with this... and.... I don't care to take you there.

[redzero]

opying and pasting from atheistic sites... were it not for the order of the scriptures you posted I wouldn't have noticed...

Those are unaltered passages from the Bible, so who cares where I got them from?


And yes there are explanations that reconcile everything you just posted...

Good, I'm waiting to read them.


but like I said, you honestly aren't searching for the truth...

:lmao Of course, I spent all this time asking for answers but I secretly don't want them.
:lol Christians are trying their hardest not to explain why slavery isn't condoned in the Bible.


How can you claim you are searching for GOD when you are eager to mock Him at every twist and turn...

Shut up and give me your explanations.

I'm tired of hearing, "There is a reason for all of this, but I'm not going to give it to you because you don't want to hear it."

[DarkReign]

These threads are always gold. But I do get surprised by the participants at times.

Personally? I dont really care if religious people think theyre better than me anymore, or worse, actually feel pity on my behalf.

All I know, with 100% certainty, is that if they truly believe, then they are all hypocrites on a range of issues.

[redzero]

Jesus said, "You're either for Me or against Me. And he that is not for Me is against Me."

Jesus also said that everything in the Old Testament should be adhered to, but you don't believe that.

[Blake]

The strawman is where you are going with this... and.... I don't care to take you there.

I am absolutely not setting up a strawman so that I can knock it down. You have no clue what a strawman is.

It's a very simple yes or no question.

The King James very, very, very, very, very clearly says wives.

Is the King James the ordained word of God?

Yes or no?

[Blake]

These threads are always gold. But I do get surprised by the participants at times.

Personally? I dont really care if religious people think theyre better than me anymore, or worse, actually feel pity on my behalf.

All I know, with 100% certainty, is that if they truly believe, then they are all hypocrites on a range of issues.

Pretty much.

I hope to learn something new, but in the end, I guess I just like the entertainment value.

[Phenomanul]

1.) God's morals are supposed to be unchanging, so if it is okay to beat a slave to death in the Old Testament, it should be okay in the New Testament.

Here is something from the New Testament about the Old Testament:

Pretty clear there.

And he condoned slavery, killing homosexuals, unruly children and nonbelievers.

God, who is perfect and therefore unchanging, made those laws. Are you saying that he is imperfect?

I'm saying the Law was perfected IN Christ... that's why it was both imperfect and incomplete. And since Jesus' triumphed over death we are perfected in Him... not by the law.



Bullshit.

Here are passages from the New Testament that tell people NOT to disregard the laws of the Old Testament:


Please, bullshit your way out of interpreting these passages at face value.


"Everything is permissible"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"--but not everything is constructive.

And yes, those that live by the law... are still cursed by it. The law however, no longer has power over believers; we've been freed from that bondage. So everything Jesus said in the quotes you highlighted are still perfectly reconciled by the context of the Covenants... those who reject GOD however are bound by the Old Covenant.

[Phenomanul]

I am absolutely not setting up a strawman so that I can knock it down. You have no clue what a strawman is.

It's a very simple yes or no question.

The King James very, very, very, very, very clearly says wives.

Is the King James the ordained word of God?

Yes or no?

Pushy troll...

[Phenomanul]

Jesus also said that everything in the Old Testament should be adhered to, but you don't believe that.

Did you see who he was speaking to? Of course not cause you just copied and pasted it from some website that supposedly alleges the point you've been trying to make...

If you did, you would understand the context.

[Phenomanul]

These threads are always gold. But I do get surprised by the participants at times.

Personally? I dont really care if religious people think theyre better than me anymore, or worse, actually feel pity on my behalf.

All I know, with 100% certainty, is that if they truly believe, then they are all hypocrites on a range of issues.

Did you enter the thread because I used the word pity in reference to one of Blake's posts?

You realize he's been trolling such threads for years... he's just out to get a rise out of folks...

That said, yes... most definitely we're all sinners... We should be living lives of continual repentance... no one here has claimed moral superiority. I'm trying to make the point that outsiders can't set the terms for the understanding of our own scriptures. I'm not suggesting they aren't allowed to understand them... But somehow that elicited their undignified anger....

[redzero]

I'm saying the Law was perfected IN Christ... that's why it was both imperfect and incomplete. And since Jesus' triumphed over death we are perfected in Him... not by the law.

God made the laws and Jesus said to follow them.


And yes, those that live by the law... are still cursed by it.

Well, God made the laws, so those who follow God's own laws will be cursed.

And what about the ten commandments? They were a part of the old covenant.


The law however, no longer has power over believers;


2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever. "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)


Are you saying that this is wrong?


we've been freed from that bondage.

What bondage? The bondage of God's own laws?


So everything Jesus said in the quotes you highlighted are still perfectly reconciled by the context of the Covenants... those who reject GOD are bound by the Old Covenant.

Know they are not, you liar.


“...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35


You are lying and this is sad and pathetic. Jesus said that the old testament laws should be followed FOREVER. PERIOD.


Did you see who he was speaking to?

Oh, the scripture doesn't apply to me. I guess the ten commandments don't apply either.

[redzero]

:lol

The New Testament says that the Old Testament laws should be followed forever, but Phenomenal disagrees with his own holy book.

[Phenomanul]

Oh I don't know, judging from this thread your mental health is suffering quite a bit. I don't think thats my doing, however, so I guess you're right.

Now you can go sit atop your lofty perch again... throw stones, run away while yelling, "you can't act like me... you can't retaliate!.... oooooh how can you call yourself a Christian?". Such mockery and sneering is unbecoming of anyone... but I don't expect any better from some folks in here... :lol

[Phenomanul]

:lol

The New Testament says that the Old Testament laws should be followed forever, but Phenomenal disagrees with his own holy book.

redzero can't understand who Jesus was talking too... all who reject Him are bound by those rules forever...

but... don't let that distinction hit you on the way out... :lol

[redzero]

redzero can't understand who Jesus was talking too... all who reject Him are bound by those rules forever...

but... don't let that distinction hit you on the way out... :lol

Show me the passage that says that only the people who reject him are bound by the rules of the Old Testament.

[admiralsnackbar]

You are lying and this is sad and pathetic. Jesus said that the old testament laws should be followed FOREVER. PERIOD.


If that's so, why did he rebel against the rabbis, extend the Abrahamic covenant to all men, and generally piss off conservative Jews of the era?

[Blake]

I'm saying the Law was perfected IN Christ... that's why it was both imperfect and incomplete. And since Jesus' triumphed over death we are perfected in Him... not by the law.


So God gave imperfect law to his chosen people.

Why did he not perfect it at the start?

Sucks for O.T. people.

[redzero]

If that's so, why did he rebel against the rabbis, extend the Abrahamic covenant to all men, and generally piss off conservative Jews of the era?

Or practice on the Sabbath. Or say that only that which comes out of man will defiles him.

And it's not what I say; it's written in the Bible.

[Blake]

Pushy troll...

I'm not trolling. You made it a distinct point to say God does not condone polygamy.

I pointed out a verse that says he does.

You dismissed the King James version that I posted.

I want to know if you think the King James the ordained word of God?

Yes or no?

Your inability to answer simple questions does not make me a troll.

[redzero]

I'm still waiting on the reason why that which is written in the Old Testament doesn't count.

And I bet my life that Phenomanul thinks the Ten Commandments count even though they were in the Old Testament.

[Phenomanul]

God made the laws and Jesus said to follow them.



Well, God made the laws, so those who follow God's own laws will be cursed.

And what about the ten commandments? They were a part of the old covenant.





Are you saying that this is wrong?



What bondage? The bondage of God's own laws?



Know they are not, you liar.



You are lying and this is sad and pathetic. Jesus said that the old testament laws should be followed FOREVER. PERIOD.



Oh, the scripture doesn't apply to me. I guess the ten commandments don't apply either.

So... you're going to 'dig your heels in' on this one?

Even though by this point it's pretty clear to me you've never studied the Scriptures... What Jesus said most definitely applies to you. And since I'm 100% certain you don't follow the Law of the prophets you will be condemned to an existence apart from GOD. Because unless you've accepted the New Convenant... you are bound by the Old Covenant.

In my case, I know I couldn't keep the law even if I tried... I'm not bound by my works (the law) but by GOD's gift of grace. That is the bridge JESUS came to build.

But again, go ahead and pretend to be the blind man leading the blind.

[Phenomanul]

I'm not trolling. You made it a distinct point to say God does not condone polygamy.

I pointed out a verse that says he does.

You dismissed the King James version that I posted.

I want to know if you think the King James the ordained word of God?

Yes or no?

Your inability to answer simple questions does not make me a troll.

but your insistance on derailment does.

[Blake]

Did you enter the thread because I used the word pity in reference to one of Blake's posts?

You realize he's been trolling such threads for years... he's just out to get a rise out of folks...


No I'm not. I'm not making this personal, you are.

Is the King James the ordained word of God?

Yes or no?

Why are you taking such offense at this question?

[Blake]

Now you can go sit atop your lofty perch again... throw stones, run away while yelling, "you can't act like me... you can't retaliate!.... oooooh how can you call yourself a Christian?". Such mockery and sneering is unbecoming of anyone... but I don't expect any better from some folks in here... :lol

we've come to not expect any better from you.

Is the King James the ordained word of God?

Yes or no?

[Phenomanul]

No I'm not. I'm not making this personal, you are.

Is the King James the ordained word of God?

Yes or no?

Why are you taking such offense at this question?

troll tactic #13

"copy and paste your statements or questions as many times as possible"

[redzero]

So... you're going to 'dig your heels in' on this one?

You're trying to tell me that what is written in the Bible in plain text isn't what God wants, so yeah.


Even though by this point it's pretty clear to me you've never studied the Scriptures...

It's in plain English. I don't know what's so hard to get when Jesus says to follow the Old Testament.


What Jesus said most definitely applies to you. And since I'm 100% certain you don't follow the Law of the prophets you will be condemned to an existence apart from GOD.

Really? So God made those laws for the people who don't believe he exists? :lol

Hilarious.


But again, go ahead and pretend to be the blind man leading the blind.

And you go on pretending that you can't read.

:lmao "Even though The New Testament explicitly states to follow The Old Testament, God didn't actually mean it and I won't tell you why."

[Phenomanul]

Now if you all please... I have to run to the post office before they close.

[redzero]

Learn how to read the English language while you are gone, please. You clearly are lacking.

[admiralsnackbar]

So... you're going to 'dig your heels in' on this one?

Even though by this point it's pretty clear to me you've never studied the Scriptures... What Jesus said most definitely applies to you. And since I'm 100% certain you don't follow the Law of the prophets you will be condemned to an existence apart from GOD. Because unless you've accepted the New Convenant... you are bound by the Old Covenant.

In my case, I know I couldn't keep the law even if I tried... I'm not bound by my works (the law) but by GOD's gift of grace. That is the bridge JESUS came to build.

But again, go ahead and pretend to be the blind man leading the blind.

Trust me when I say I can vouch for Blake being an extremely religious guy once upon a time in the old Spurs Report days. He used to be kinda like you, only without the feelings of victimization.

[Blake]

I'm still waiting on the reason why that which is written in the Old Testament doesn't count.


It only counts when he points out how wrong he thinks homosexuality is.

[Phenomanul]

:lmao "Even though The New Testament explicitly states to follow The Old Testament, God didn't actually mean it and I won't tell you why."

But I did... and in plain english. You just refuse to believe that the Law is Perfected (and fulfilled by Christ)... that's your perogative. Whatever.

[Blake]

troll tactic #13

"copy and paste your statements or questions as many times as possible"

Butthurt tactic #1

"avoid easy questions and make it personal"

[Phenomanul]

Trust me when I say I can vouch for Blake being an extremely religious guy once upon a time in the old Spurs Report days. He used to be kinda like you, only without the feelings of victimization.

we're talking redzero here.

[Blake]

Now if you all please... I have to run to the post office before they close.

Victory!

[Phenomanul]

Butthurt tactic #1

"avoid easy questions and make it personal"

Unoriginal tactic #2

"steal people's prosaic structure, make it your own, and turn it on them"






























you have to admit you do this in every single thread.

[Phenomanul]

Learn how to read the English language while you are gone, please. You clearly are lacking.

Lose the bitterness, while I do so... :wakeup

[clambake]

here's a simple one:

someone explain how god gives man free will......yet clearly states the man shall worship no other god.

[Blake]

but your insistance on derailment does.


I'm not trolling. You made it a distinct point to say God does not condone polygamy.

I pointed out a verse that says he does.

You dismissed the King James version that I posted.

I want to know if you think the King James the ordained word of God?

Yes or no?

Your inability to answer simple questions does not make me a troll.

[LoneStarState'sPride]

Ho. Lee. SHIT.

What do some of y'all do all day? 18-19 pages? Seriously? Some of y'all *cough*redzero*cough have gone around in circles enough times to complete the Daytona 500.

I will boil this thread down once and for all:

Christians/believers/whatever the fuck you wanna call 'em are GOING to adhere to their faith regardless of whatever drivel gets posted on a message board.

Agnostics/nonbelievers/whatever the fuck you wanna call 'em are GOING to continue to question/deny the existence of God/a higher power REGARDLESS of what is posted in this thread, or a similar thread when it pops up again in a few weeks/months.

The mistake that's being made here (and I'm including myself in this since I've obviously done my part to perpetuate this preposterous thread), is either side attempting to convince the other of their views. News flash: no one is going to become a Christian or renounce their beliefs because of what's posted here, sorry to burst some of y'all's bubbles. The agnostics (i'm using the term loosely) are primarily attempting to antagonize the religious posters for entertainment value (as has been admitted by a few posters already), NOT because they're interested in a non-judgmental exchange of ideas. Much of this q/a bullshit could be easily hashed out over PM, but where's the fun in that (again, looking @ you, redzero).

In short, this has become nothing more than a gigantic two-way troll thread--from the OP's sharing of a hot button topic, to the predictable responses of the religious posters, to the equally predictable postings of the agnostic crowd, with mind-boggling stupidity at the center of it all, mocking both sides.

To anyone who wants to have a serious conversation over these issues (and not sling message board-isms back and forth), I'll once again offer you to PM me. I don't promise to have all the answers (who does?), but I can promise a more professional discourse than this thread could possibly allow.

Y'all have fun on this offseason train of madness--this is my stop. Gig 'Em and Godbless.

[redzero]

But I did... and in plain english. You just refuse to believe that the Law is Perfected (and fulfilled by Christ)... that's your perogative. Whatever.

Okay, I'm tired of this bullshit.

It is written in the fucking New Testament to never disregard the laws of the Old Testament, and yet you haven't given a single explanation why that's untrue.

All you have said is that The Old Testament doesn't count, which is makes no sense because (1) God is supposed to be perfect and therefore should make perfect laws, and (2) it's written in the New Testament that it does count.

You are in denial. Really.

Until you provide me with proof that what's in the Old Testament only applies to non-believers (which doesn't even make sense, because a non-believer would not follow laws from somebody he/she thinks does not exist), you need to shut up.

[Blake]

Unoriginal tactic #2

"steal people's prosaic structure, make it your own, and turn it on them"






























you have to admit you do this in every single thread.

I admit it. Why are you trying to derail the subject? This is not about me. This is about what you posted.

I want to know if you think the King James the ordained word of God?

Yes or no?

[admiralsnackbar]

we're talking redzero here.

My bad :lol

[Blake]

Trust me when I say I can vouch for Blake being an extremely religious guy once upon a time in the old Spurs Report days. He used to be kinda like you, only without the feelings of victimization.

somewhere along the line, logic got in the way of the Bible. I'm not discounting the existence of a higher power, but the Bible is a crock of shit, imo.

:lol

I didn't make many friends there either.

[redzero]

Okay, so what I take from this thread is that slavery in Biblical times was okay, because it was more like indentured servitude--which has been illegal in the USA for quite some time now. It is perfectly fine for a father or mother to sell their daughter into indentured servitude; it is perfectly fine to stone unruly children to death; it is perfectly fine to kill homosexuals and non-believers.

I also learned that which is written in the Old Testament doesn't count, even though the New Testament says it does.

[Blake]

here's a simple one:

someone explain how god gives man free will......yet clearly states the man shall worship no other god.

you don't have to worship God......he just demands it.

where people lose their free will is when they get to Heaven.

[koriwhat]

god's gonna fuck you all soon!

[baseline bum]

Jesus said, "You're either for Me or against Me. And he that is not for Me is against Me."

Sounds like Bush.

[baseline bum]

I'm scared of heaven. I bet they only have 3.5% beers and no-touch lap dances.