Do you have a moment for Jesus?

Debates: 23

Posts: 102

11.09.2023 01:28PM

The issue is that I had already shown you twice "the reasoning" from the bible and the mouth of god, if the BIBLE is to be believed. And you do believe the bible don't you?

Yes, and I havent seen god say he has a sinful nature.

There is nothing wrong or "vague" about the title "son/s of god". And as for "vagueness" the BIBLE is "vague" about many things. It is certainly not a "crystal clear" as some here insist on it being. It is ambiguous and full of half stories and evasiveness .

No, the son/s of god is rather vague, it could refer to alot of different things. Jesus, humans, angels, etc.

Where did the ability for the sons of god to sin come from?

God gave them free will, that also gave them the ability to do good.

Oh please, stop with the apologetics. GOD! himself admits to being the creator evil. Read your bible.

He created the possibility for good & the possibility for evil, that is far divorced from just creating evil, adam & eve created evil, god merely created the possibility for good & as a side effect, evil.

Nice, " all things seen and unseen" and that includes Evil and not just the "Possibility" of evil as you have attempted to water down and relieve god of any blame.

In the context the verse is referring to objects & creatures, etc. Evil isnt really a thing, instead a absence of a thing (good) so it'd be absurd to think god created it, when a human builds a table, I dont think god created that table, similarly when a human/angel does something evil I think that human/angel did something evil, not god.

Well of course they ALL do. Haven't you taken in what I have written above. Why would god create only some with a sinful nature and not all?

Oh I disagree with that, I think god created them with free will, and their pride is what caused them to sin & therefore a sinful nature.

Your are simply once again attempting to relieve your god of any responsibility for the creation of evil. You have to accept it, the GOD of the BIBLE admits to creating EVIL. You really aught to read your bible a little closer if you seriously intend to discuss scripture.

Show me the verse where god says he created evil, there is not one.

I quote the prophet native of Tekoa "shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it"?

Taking it slightly out of context, in context the verse will evil happen in a city without having its sufficient cause in Jehovah’s purpose? That's how most scholars interpret it. Sorta plays back into job.

#32

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,323

11.09.2023 04:20PM

-->

@SethBrown

The issue is that I had already shown you twice "the reasoning" from the bible and the mouth of god, if the BIBLE is to be believed. And you do believe the bible don't you?
Yes, and I havent seen god say he has a sinful nature.

" whom I created,” then goes on to state "for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth". His way ie, gods way.

There is nothing wrong or "vague" about the title "son/s of god". And as for "vagueness" the BIBLE is "vague" about many things. It is certainly not a "crystal clear" as some here insist on it being. It is ambiguous and full of half stories and evasiveness .
No, the son/s of god is rather vague, it could refer to alot of different things. Jesus, humans, angels, etc.

Ok so when god said let us make man, to whom was he talking?

Where did the ability for the sons of god to sin come from?
God gave them free will, that also gave them the ability to do good.

Nice. Now let us see the biblical citation.

Oh please, stop with the apologetics. GOD! himself admits to being the creator evil. Read your bible.
He created the possibility for good & the possibility for evil, that is far divorced from just creating evil, adam & eve created evil, god merely created the possibility for good & as a side effect, evil.

You love your circular arguments, don't you. God admits to creating everything including Evil. The bile says we are created in their image. So man's sinful nature had its origins with god.

Nice, " all things seen and unseen" and that includes Evil and not just the "Possibility" of evil as you have attempted to water down and relieve god of any blame.
In the context the verse is referring to objects & creatures, etc.

Which verse?

Well of course they ALL do. Haven't you taken in what I have written above. Why would god create only some with a sinful nature and not all?
Oh I disagree with that,

Of course you do. You simply want to dissolve god of any blame for the sinful nature of his sons and humans.

I think god created them with free will, and their pride is what caused them to sin & therefore a sinful nature.

Irrelevant. This does not get away from the fact that god created evil, weather or not one chooses to be or practice evil.

Your are simply once again attempting to relieve your god of any responsibility for the creation of evil. You have to accept it, the GOD of the BIBLE admits to creating EVIL. You really aught to read your bible a little closer if you seriously intend to discuss scripture.
Show me the verse where god says he created evil, there is not one.

You have already admitted that god created everything visible and invisible/ seen and unseen when you quoted Colossians 1:16 and there is also gods own admission that he created evil in Isaiah.>> "I make peace, and create evil".

I quote the prophet native of Tekoa "shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it"?
Taking it slightly out of context, in context the verse will evil happen in a city without having its sufficient cause in Jehovah’s purpose? That's how most scholars interpret it. Sorta plays back into job.

Stop it. The verse is in context and clearly refers to anything, including evil has gods fingerprints all over it.

And that old chestnut of "free will" is a very poor excuse for the fact that it was god and god alone had created evil. Mankind didn't inherit sin simply by virtue of having mothers , mankind inherited sin from his creator, god himself. Read your bible.

#33

Debates: 23

Posts: 102

11.09.2023 11:09PM

" whom I created,” then goes on to state "for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth". His way ie, gods way.

I dont think thats what the verse is saying, by "His way" it's referring to the people's way. Genesis 6:12 says "And God saw that the earth was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth." the Hebrew shows it doesn't say "their" or "His" (this is common for sematic languages, we infer based off of what it says already)so its not necessarily inferring god's way. Looking at the translations it seems as if only 4 bibles translate it to "his", so im assuming you looked at the kjv (one of the versions that say that).

Ok so when god said let us make man, to whom was he talking?

Could be referring to the trinity, the Jews say its referring to angels though, although that's not a view I hold.

You love your circular arguments, don't you. God admits to creating everything including Evil.

He created the beings of the earth & the universe, when a man creates a table, I dont think god created that table, same way when a man does something evil, I dont think god created that action.

The bile says we are created in their image. So man's sinful nature had its origins with god.

We were created in their image, but we fall short of that glory (romans 3:23) eve & Adam weren't born with a sinful nature.

Which verse?

Colossians 1:16, I dont think god created a table, when a carpenter makes one. Obviously not, analogously when someone shoots someone I dont think god shoots that person.

Of course you do. You simply want to dissolve god of any blame for the sinful nature of his sons and humans.

I dont think this debunks my claim at all, god created mankind in his image (it's likely angels were as well, although bible doesn't explicitly state it to my knowledge) therefore sinless (I havent seen a good reason to believe god's image is sinful)

Irrelevant. This does not get away from the fact that god created evil, weather or not one chooses to be or practice evil.

The concept of "natural evil" saying that things in creation aren't evil just because they can be bad for humans. And I don't think god created only Adam & eve, I think adam & eve were merely the 1st priests (genesis 1 tells us he created humans then genesis 2 tells us he created adam, then eve) as we know god is good, so god would've picked the best representatives for us.

You have already admitted that god created everything visible and invisible/ seen and unseen when you quoted Colossians 1:16 and there is also gods own admission that he created evil in Isaiah.>> "I make peace, and create evil".

When I make a chair, does god make a chair?

To address Isaiah, its simply expressing how you cant have one and cant have the other, We know what light is, and darkness is merely the absence of light. Once light exists, darkness also exists wherever light isn't. Therefore, by creating light, he created darkness. Analogously, god by creating goodness created the standard for what's bad. Surely its not a bad thing to consequently create the standard for bad by creating a standard for good.

Stop it. The verse is in context and clearly refers to anything, including evil has gods fingerprints all over it.

Go read the context, it's making parallel's. And again do you think god cant be good while still causing things that seem "bad" to us? Even if we grant your premise, which I still disagree with, maybe I cant tell you why, but I can show you it's not necessarily contradictory.

Premise 1: It's not logically contradictory for a good end to come from a bad mean

For example vaccination, it's a good thing but that needle shot causes pain, which is bad.

Conclusion 1: There is a possible world where a good thing can come from a bad thing

Follows logically through modal logic, from premise 1

Given it's not logically contradictory, then god isnt necessarily evil.

And that old chestnut of "free will" is a very poor excuse for the fact that it was god and god alone had created evil. Mankind didn't inherit sin simply by virtue of having mothers , mankind inherited sin from his creator, god himself. Read your bible.

Me and you must be reading different bibles.

#34

Debates: 0

Posts: 390

11.10.2023 01:19AM

-->

@Stephen

@SethBrown

Stephen,

YOUR QUOTE SHOWING SETH BROWN TO BE A BIBLE FOOL: " Oh please, stop with the apologetics. GOD! himself admits to being the creator evil. Read your bible."

Yes, and as shown, Seth Brown RAN AWAY from this biblical axiom of Jesus as God creating EVIL in my post #25: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10047/posts/415198

When Seth Brown gets 25 posts, and then creates a thread regarding his misguided notion of Jesus is from the linage of David through His mother of Mary, he better not be running away when I Bible Slap him Silly®️ on this topic!!!

He is a RUNNER just like Miss Tradesecret, hmmmmm, same syntactical sentence structuring, same Bible dumbness, hmmmmmm.

#35

Debates: 23

Posts: 102

https://i.imgur.com/oWBqQPf.png

11.10.2023 01:36AM

When Seth Brown gets 25 posts, and then creates a thread regarding his misguided notion of Jesus is from the linage of David through His mother of Mary, he better not be running away when I Bible Slap him Silly®️ on this topic!!!

I won't be creating a thread, I sent you a debate challenge, feel free to accept it whenever

He is a RUNNER just like Miss Tradesecret, hmmmmm, same syntactical sentence structuring, same Bible dumbness, hmmmmmm.

Okay, I really dont care if you call someone a runner, ive had the decency to respect your wishes to not debate, but you must recognize the hypocrisy. Im not really sure what im running from either.

#36

Debates: 0

Posts: 390

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI7ni7zL8qU

11.10.2023 02:38AM

-->

@Stephen

@SethBrown

SethBrown,

YOUR RUNAWAY QUOTE FROM YOUR MISCONCEPTION OF JESUS BEING IN THE LINAGE OF DAVID!!!: "I won't be creating a thread, I sent you a debate challenge, feel free to accept it whenever"

What part of this quote of mine didn't you understand: "Now, to not clog up Stephens thread with another topic of your comical assumption that Jesus is from the line of David, then you are to create a new thread about Jesus being the messiah in this respect, where I will literally Bible Slap you Silly®️ in front of the membership at your expense upon this topic! UNDERSTOOD? Jesus' true words and I will be waiting!"

I TOLD YOU THAT I DO NOT DO DEBATES SINCE I HAVE BEEN A MEMBER OF THIS ESTEEMED RELIGION FORUM FOR THE LAST 5 YEARS! ARE YOU NOW TO SCARED TO COMMIT A THREAD IN QUESTION? The membership is watching!

Whereas I take the pitiful pseudo-christians like YOU to the carpet in the Religion Forum Section, where Jesus' true words and I have more room and free reign than a Debate Forum set up, understood Bible fool?

If you do not create this thread in question and "chicken out," then the membership will accuse you of this animal and laugh at you!!!:

#37

Debates: 23

Posts: 102

11.10.2023 03:46AM

-->

@BrotherD.Thomas

Your the one that replied to me, if you want to stop clogging up stephens thread accept my debate challenge.

And I think ive shown to the membership that im not running, your merely being stubborn and not accepting a debate challenge.

#38

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,323

11.10.2023 08:35AM

-->

@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas

@SethBrown

When Seth Brown gets 25 posts, and then creates a thread regarding his misguided notion of Jesus is from the linage of David through His mother of Mary, he better not be running away when I Bible Slap him Silly®️ on this topic!!!
Seth Brown wrote: I won't be creating a thread, I sent you a debate challenge, feel free to accept it whenever

Well I did tell you not to hold your breath Brother D.#25

Here>

Therefore, we will wait for your magic number of 25 posts to be able to find your "big boy pants" and make a thread of yours relative to your misguided notion of Jesus is from the line of David, and where comically your Bible STUPIDITY allows you to say that Mary is also from the line of David! ROFLOL!!!
Stephen wrote: Brother D. Unless you have the lung capacity of a Polynesian pearl diver, do not hold your breath.

Brother D. Every single one of ' SethBrowns' responses have all the hall marks of the Reverend Tradesecret. He's made more comebacks than an Abos' boomerang using other personas, that many in fact I have lost count. What happened to "critical - tim", DavidAZ, tim mid, dim tim and all those other fake names he repeatedly returns under.

His problem is that he doesn't realise or understand human syntax. But I'll play all the same.

If you haven't worked it out Brother D. It the only way The Reverend Tradesecret can communicate with either you or myself after "permanently" blocking us both. We have both shown him to be a bible ignorant clown even with all his alleged theological training in everything from ancient languages to presiding over a congregation of 300 + worshipers and lets not forget his acclaimed miraculous capacity of being able to memorise the bible backward and forward from a very early age.

The reason he will only discuss in the debate forum is simply because there is less likely chance of the wider members of the forum getting to see what a complete and utter bible cretin he really is.

#39

Debates: 23

Posts: 102

11.10.2023 05:18PM

If you haven't worked it out Brother D. It the only way The Reverend Tradesecret can communicate with either you or myself after "permanently" blocking us both. We have both shown him to be a bible ignorant clown even with all his alleged theological training in everything from ancient languages to presiding over a congregation of 300 + worshipers and lets not forget his acclaimed miraculous capacity of being able to memorise the bible backward and forward from a very early age.

I havent seen a good reason to believe the bible is ignorant, if you want to debate I will send a debate offer to you as well.

The reason he will only discuss in the debate forum is simply because there is less likely chance of the wider members of the forum getting to see what a complete and utter bible cretin he really is.

I dont think ive made a bad claim on the bible, ive merely represented the case of the bible.

#40

Debates: 0

Posts: 390

11.10.2023 08:40PM

-->

@Stephen

@SethBrown

Seth Brown, a new member that is vying to be more Bible Stupid than our #1 Bible inept Miss Tradesecret,

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF YOUR BLATANT BIBLE STUPIDITY:

1. You stated that Jesus was the messiah in your post herewith:

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10043/posts/414965

2. I stated that you were a Bible fool because Jesus was NOT the messiah because He was NOT from the line of David as He needed to be herewith: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10043/posts/414980

3. Then in this post of yours your outright Bible stupidity made itself known because you said that Jesus is from the line of David and that Mary was not a Levite!!!: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10043/posts/415037

4. In my post following your comical rendition of Jesus being from the line of David, and that Mary was too, I told you to create a thread relating to your aforementioned Bible stupidity and I will address it as shown in my post herewith: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10043/posts/415086

5. Your EXACT QUOTE in revealing that YOU can't start a thread until you have 25 posts: “Well I can’t make threads, given I haven’t made 25 posts,”
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10043/posts/415095

Pay close attention to logic 101, now that you have created more than 25 posts as shown in your ever so weak biography, therefore you can start a thread relating to your Bible stupidity that Jesus is from the linage of David, and Mary was too! Do you understand simple logic, yes, no? With a "thread" we can have other members included, that if astute, will show you in how comically wrong you truly are to the topic at hand! Understood Bible fool?

Jesus’ true words and I will be waiting, and other members as well, to start said thread!

SETH BROWN, DON'T BE SCARED IN FRONT OF THE MEMBERSHIP, AND DON'T USE ANY MORE LAME CHILD-LIKE EXCUSES LIKE MISS TRADESECRET ALWAYS HAS TO DO WHEN RUNNING AWAY FROM BIBLICAL AXIOMS, OKAY? THEREFORE, BEGIN YOUR THREAD!!!!

#41

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,323

11.10.2023 08:55PM

-->

@SethBrown

if you want to debate I will send a debate offer to you as well.

I have repeatedly explained many times on this forum and to you very recently that I am more than content to discuss, question and criticize the scriptures right here on the open forum. Where members can see , read, judge ,comment on or refute anything that I have written. You don't have to join my threads and neither does anyone else.

Sending me offers to debate is a waste of your time and my own. Especially offers of debate that you have simply lifted from other web pages.

#42

Debates: 23

Posts: 102

11.10.2023 08:58PM

-->

@Stephen

I have repeatedly explained many times on this forum and to you very recently that I am more than content to discuss, question and criticize the scriptures right here on the open forum. Where members can see , read, judge ,comment on or refute anything that I have written. You don't have to join my threads and neither does anyone else. Sending me offers to debate is a waste of your time and my own. Especially offers of debate that you have simply lifted from other web pages.

I prefer to debate on the debates section, it's more personal, formal, and less time consuming. You don't have to accept the debate, im completely fine with that, just don't call someone a runner because they don't want to debate your way, that is simple human decency. (I know you haven't said anything like that, so that's not at you rather it's at brother d)

#43

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,323

11.10.2023 09:10PM

-->

@SethBrown

But you did use the excuse of being prohibited from creating a thread of your own because of your low post count, which implied that you would once you had reached the required amount of posts that allowed you to do so. And the topic was the blood line of Jesus if I recall correctly.

Are you intending to create the aforementioned thread?

#44

Debates: 23

Posts: 102