Does "the scripture" actually say this at all,.... anywhere?

Author: Stephen

Posts

Read-only
Total: 263
#61
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Yes  I know. here it is again; 
You only posted the question. I posted much more. Stop lying. Its obvious.

It would be bad enough that you're ignorant, but it is inexcusable that you're a liar. 

My professional training covered the lying troll. Even the rare subset of the lying troll who doesn't care that his lies are obvious.

Lies only work if they fool people, obvious lies don't fool anyone, and therefore don't work. So they can be left to die unmolested.

That means you lie out of spite, and not from the logical, but dubious need to support a point. You are the most enjoyable kind of liar to confront.

Your lies are so obvious, I don't have to waste time pointing them out, and can spend all my time tossing you for lolz.

Your compulsion will force you to soon come out with another clunker, and I will burn you again. You will fume as you pretend and lie, and I will toss you like a rhubarb salad, and the Gentle Readers will be entertained.

Why delay the inevitable?
Topic's author
#62
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,322
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5

You only posted the question.

That is correct. The WHOLE FKN purpose of this thread was to ask a question.  And you couldn't answer it. You finally said " it was from a scripture lost to history". Yeh,  as if you'd fkn know, Popoff.  You are full of shite that no one is really interested in only another fawning religious sycophant like yourself.

I posted much more.

You did. Pages of unnecessary and irrelevant bullshit.

I wanted one answer , but you preferred confrontation and argument, one you didn't win because you couldn't tell me where I could find what I was looking for. 



Stop lying. 

No. That will be you, Popoff.   It is all there for anyone who may be interested to see for themselves. I have nothing to lie about and nothing to lose simply by asking questions about religious matters, ones that I know that  - especially YOU -  cannot answer. 

You are the fraud. my old sunshine as you have proven yourself to be time end time again.



#63
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
You only posted the question. 

That is correct.
Then you lied when you claimed that I said nothing else.

I posted much more.

You did. Pages of unnecessary and irrelevant bullshit.
I told you that what you were looking for wasn't in the bible, and that you were dumb to think it was.

That is why you don't include it in your replies, you have to pretend.

...questions about religious matters, ones that I know that  - especially YOU -  cannot answer. 
Lol. I answered you Jasper. But are you actually blaming me for something lost to history? How clueless are you?

You were so dumb, you thought Jesus had made a "false" claim.

It appears that the claim by Jesus appears to be false. 
Lol.
Topic's author
#64
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,322
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
That is correct.
Then you lied when you claimed that I said nothing else.

Your getting more sillier by the post, Popoff. 

You have proven to not know the answer to my honest and genuine question.  But instead chose argument and conflict by posting pages of unnecessary and irrelevant bullshit.. 

It all boils down to one thing , Popoff,  YOU COULDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION.,. You eventually said that it was a scripture "lost to history" , as if you'd fkn know!!!!! You have no evidence for what you say, it is only an opinion, YOUR OPINION, which amounts to absolutely nothing even  on your bullshit scale. 

Your'e a fraud who knows absolute ZERO about the scriptures that you have been indoctrinated with  when you was just a little Popoff.  

You were so dumb, you thought Jesus had made a "false" claim.

I have seen no proof that says otherwise, especially from YOU Popoff. I had a warning for calling you stupid but you can refer to me as dumb, I have to wonder why that is, are you a secret mod?. But you keep going with your little unnecessary spat  that you are continuing when there is absolutely no need for you to do so.. It won't change the fact that you have no answer to my question and the opinion you offered is nothing more than opinion, YOUR OWN baseless, unsubstantiated OPINION.. 



#65
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
You were so dumb, you thought Jesus had made a "false" claim.

I have seen no proof that says otherwise, especially from YOU Popoff.
That is because you stupidly think "scripture" means bible.

Do you know how dumb that is? When Jesus spoke the word, the bible didn't exist, thus, He could not have been saying "scripture" as in bible.

Yet you went looking in the bible, like an ignorant. Now, trying to top your ignorance, you want "proof" that Jesus didn't mean "bible" - when there was no such thing as a bible!

Your ignorance is impressive.

I had a warning for calling you stupid but you can refer to me as dumb, I have to wonder why that is, are you a secret mod?
The mods aren't stupid, and they know when someone tries to manipulate them.

But complaints work better with them if you aren't an abuser yourself. You will find that no one will insult you if you stop insulting others. Try it.
Topic's author
#66
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,322
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2

That is because you stupidly think "scripture" means bible.

No. And that is why I clearly separated the two by asking " which scripture". I knew, and have said that it wasn't in the bible. Your just too slow to keep up.

But non of this matters now Popoff. You failed. You didn't know the answer and instead of just saying 'I don't know' , you stretched this thread out with your pages of unnecessary and irrelevant bullshit just for the hell of it. 

This thread is becoming nothing short of harrasment from you, now. YOU FAILED,  get over it Popoff.


#67
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
That is because you stupidly think "scripture" means bible.

No. 
Yes. That is why you searched the bible, and then stupidly concluded Jesus' claim was in error because you couldn't find it in the bible.

...that is why I clearly separated the two by asking " which scripture".
You meant, which scripture in the bible.

I knew, and have said that it wasn't in the bible. 
After you searched for it in ignorance.

you stretched this thread out with your pages of unnecessary and irrelevant bullshit just for the hell of it. 
Lol. That is what being tossed for lolz feels like homer.

You pretend, and I'll burn you.
You lie, and I'll burn you.
And I can keep burning you longer than you can keep posting nonsense.

Try me.
Topic's author
#68
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,322
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
That is why you searched the bible, ......You meant, which scripture in the bible.

 I have already said that I had searched in many scriptures including the bible.

Post 1 What scripture says this? Is it from the Old Testament scripture or from earlier in the New Testament by another one of the gospel writers?

Post 21 "The words  "out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."  are certainly  not from OT and I have not found this verse in any extra biblical material that I have read  in over 40 years".




The Old Testament was the first place I looked simply because the bible is also "scripture" . Are you saying that I shouldn't have even looked to the Old Testament scripture for something that was said by the Christ in the New Testament scripture.? Are you saying I was silly to even have look there in the OT? You are  clutching at straws, Popoff. Anyone with an ounce of sense would have also looked to the Old Testament for the reference Christ makes in the New Testament .

If you believe I was "stupid" to even look there then you keep knocking yourself out over a non starter. The fact remains you didn't fkn know the answer to my question  but instead preferred argument and conflict and are now simply posting even more unnecessary and irrelevant bullshite.
You keep going Popoff. it matters not to me. 



I'll burn you.
You lie, and I'll burn you.
And I can keep burning 

 You couldn't burn a rag doused in petrol. So you burn yourself out trying. Popoff


Topic's author
#69
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,322
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
That is why you searched the bible, ......You meant, which scripture in the bible.

 I have already said that I had searched in many scriptures including the bible.

Post 1 What scripture says this? Is it from the Old Testament scripture or from earlier in the New Testament by another one of the gospel writers?

Post 21 "The words  "out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."  are certainly  not from OT and I have not found this verse in any extra biblical material that I have read  in over 40 years".




The Old Testament was the first place I looked simply because the bible is also "scripture" . Are you saying that I shouldn't have even looked to the Old Testament scripture for something that was said by the Christ in the New Testament scripture.? Are you saying I was silly to even have look there in the OT? You are  clutching at straws, Popoff. Anyone with an ounce of sense would have also looked to the Old Testament for the reference Christ makes in the New Testament .

If you believe I was "stupid" to even look there then you keep knocking yourself out over a non starter. The fact remains you didn't fkn know the answer to my question  but instead preferred argument and conflict and are now simply posting even more unnecessary and irrelevant bullshite.
You keep going Popoff. it matters not to me. 



I'll burn you.
You lie, and I'll burn you.
And I can keep burning 

 You couldn't burn a rag doused in petrol. So you burn yourself out trying. Popoff



#70
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
First, two of every kind or two of every animal? Would you consider a dog a kind or a poodle, a wolf, an Alsatian, Doberman a kind? Second, would the size make a difference to space? If so, the young would reduce space...Second, who is to say what conditions existed that increased longevity or even if God designed that in humanity until the point where He reduced the lifespan. Some, like Henry Morris, have suggested the ultraviolet rays were blocked by the water in the atmosphere since the Bible explains it had not rained until the time of the Flood which could possibly affect their lifespan. Whether it was through supernatural means or natural means that they lived so long, we are not told. But God's existence grants the supernatural. You would try to explain everything through the natural if you did not believe in God. 

I'd ask you how many animals "two of every kind" means in your view, because you'd still be talking well into the thousands, and what they ate, how they didn't blow the boat up with a thousand animal farts, etc, but I've highlighted the problem with your argument: you invoke magic as essentially the most probable explanation. You haven't proven magic exists (in fact you seem pretty sure Harry Potter isn't real). You see, you're essentially getting to an impossible position to hold based on what we know about the world around us, and then saying "Well, magic could be involved, you can't prove it isn't, which means it is likely." You even do it in the next section, where you talk about how god 'shortens' man's lifespan by a factor of 90%. And people live to more than eighty years, so...I guess that part's wrong? Or let me guess, it means "eighty and then whatever else you live to"?

As for animals talking, if God decided to make an animal talk how would that be hard for an almighty God?

Not hard at all, nor is it hard to do it by magic! I'd point out that your position here is unfalsifiable, that we've never seen an animal that communicates in to humans in human language without human training (ASL for apes, etc), but you somehow think that makes your argument stronger, not weaker. If you can't test it, it can be dismissed. Watch, I'll make you do it: "A trillion years ago, Xenu the Great forged the universe from a pile of his own hair." If you can't prove it wrong, it's probably right?


Sure it makes sense. He wanted His people to trust Him and His word. He wanted them to understand His power working in and with them. 
So, making talking animals is super easy and likely happened. Making people trust him and his word requires those people, the ones he wants to understand him as the basis of all law and morality, to commit mass murder. WHY DIDN"T HE JUST MAGIC THEM SOME TRUST AND UNDERSTANDING? 

Prophecy is not evidence, not when it isn't what was prophesized. 
#71
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
First, two of every kind or two of every animal? Would you consider a dog a kind or a poodle, a wolf, an Alsatian, Doberman a kind? Second, would the size make a difference to space? If so, the young would reduce space...Second, who is to say what conditions existed that increased longevity or even if God designed that in humanity until the point where He reduced the lifespan. Some, like Henry Morris, have suggested the ultraviolet rays were blocked by the water in the atmosphere since the Bible explains it had not rained until the time of the Flood which could possibly affect their lifespan. Whether it was through supernatural means or natural means that they lived so long, we are not told. But God's existence grants the supernatural. You would try to explain everything through the natural if you did not believe in God. 

I'd ask you how many animals "two of every kind" means in your view, because you'd still be talking well into the thousands, and what they ate, how they didn't blow the boat up with a thousand animal farts, etc, but I've highlighted the problem with your argument: you invoke magic as essentially the most probable explanation.
That is the biblical revelation - two of every kind, not two of every animal.

I do not believe in magic; I believe in the supernatural God.

The atheist worldview would have a magical aspect to it in why things would begin to exist and out of what? Not only this but out of chaos and disorder comes existence and life, intelligence and purposes. Information is found and followed down the presuppositional chain to the present. Why would you expect to find information and purpose in the purposeless?

The magic ingredient for an atheist is time, billions and billions of years. They form their foundational building blocks around such a presupposition. "Once upon a time, billions and billions of years ago..." 

You haven't proven magic exists (in fact you seem pretty sure Harry Potter isn't real).
There is a difference between magic and the supernatural God. God has the means to alter nature, just like there is a difference between intention and blind random happenstance. What you call magic or the unexplainable Christians see as the biblical God who has revealed the hows and whys. 

You see, you're essentially getting to an impossible position to hold based on what we know about the world around us, and then saying "Well, magic could be involved, you can't prove it isn't, which means it is likely." You even do it in the next section, where you talk about how god 'shortens' man's lifespan by a factor of 90%. And people live to more than eighty years, so...I guess that part's wrong? Or let me guess, it means "eighty and then whatever else you live to"?
Again, the atheistic magical ingredient is time. It supposedly makes the universe possible. 

Seventy and eighty are a generality. That does not mean every person will live no longer than those ages. 

"Worldwide, the average life expectancy at birth was 71 years (70 years for males and 72 years for females) over the period 2010–2015 according to United Nations World Population Prospects 2015 Revision."

As for animals talking, if God decided to make an animal talk how would that be hard for an almighty God?

Not hard at all, nor is it hard to do it by magic! I'd point out that your position here is unfalsifiable, that we've never seen an animal that communicates in to humans in human language without human training (ASL for apes, etc), but you somehow think that makes your argument stronger, not weaker. If you can't test it, it can be dismissed. Watch, I'll make you do it: "A trillion years ago, Xenu the Great forged the universe from a pile of his own hair." If you can't prove it wrong, it's probably right?
Just as your position is unfalsifiable. Yet the biblical evidence forms a reasonable and logical faith, the atheist faith does not.  


Sure it makes sense. He wanted His people to trust Him and His word. He wanted them to understand His power working in and with them. 
So, making talking animals is super easy and likely happened. Making people trust him and his word requires those people, the ones he wants to understand him as the basis of all law and morality, to commit mass murder. WHY DIDN"T HE JUST MAGIC THEM SOME TRUST AND UNDERSTANDING? 

Prophecy is not evidence, not when it isn't what was prophesized. 
First, define evidence and why your definition fits the criteria. Again, you are asserting. Now give some good reasons and let's look at the evidence from both sides of the equation. If I thought you were willing I would set up a webpage to discuss this further, but I'm not going to waste hundreds of hours on a discussion that is all one-sided. I have done that way too many times before.  

I can show you that what was prophecied is most reasonable to believe from the evidence available. Was Jerusalem prophesied to be destroyed once again after the Babylonian destruction? Is there reasonable evidence to believe the OT writings preceded this destruction. Is it reasonable to believe the NT writings preceded the destruction of Jerusalem and that such a man as Jesus existed before the fall? Do the NT writings contain warnings of imminent danger and destruction to that generation? Was the OT Messiah to come before the fall of destruction and the end of the OT age? 

So, the question is which is the more reasonable and logical belief? I claim hands down the Christian position is the one that has the ability to make sense of life's ultimate questions. 
#72
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
The Old Testament was the first place I looked simply because the bible is also "scripture" . Are you saying that I shouldn't have even looked to the Old Testament scripture for something that was said by the Christ in the New Testament scripture.?
I'm saying you were ignorant and didn't know it was not in the OT. And worse, when you found that it wasn't, you stupidly assumed Jesus was "wrong".

Are you saying I was silly to even have look there in the OT?
I'm saying you were ignorant. And even more so when you stupidly assumed Jesus was "wrong" when you didn't find it.

Anyone with an ounce of sense would have also looked to the Old Testament for the reference Christ makes in the New Testament 
No one with an ounce of sense would have concluded Jesus was wrong when they didn't find it, or assumed the quote by Jesus was a "verse".

The fact remains you didn't fkn know the answer to my question but instead preferred argument and conflict and are now simply posting even more unnecessary and irrelevant bullshite
I knew the answer shemp. That's how you now know the answer. I told you. That's why you don't have to now look in the bible or stupidly conclude that Jesus was wrong.

No amount of stupidity now will change that.
#73
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
I do not believe in magic; I believe in the supernatural God.

Explain the difference exactly. To me they're the same: anything that can be explained by "a god did this" is exactly as explicable saying "magic did this," or " a god did this using magic." You touch on it a little further down in your response: "Well, we don't see it as magic, we see it as God and he reveals the answers," to roughly paraphrase. 

You say the magical ingredient is billions and billions of years, like that's magic...but we have evidence that this amount of time has passed. Unlike evidence for a supernatural being living outside of space and time and being totally undetectable. 


Just as your position is unfalsifiable. Yet the biblical evidence forms a reasonable and logical faith, the atheist faith does not.  

So you cannot prove Xenu didn't do this? Must be true then. I'm not going into the weird math conversion you do to make that one prophesy sort of work, we've had a long discussion on that already and you simply don't see it my way, which is based on facts and numbers being numbers, and Idon't see it your way, which is based on some weird conversion chart that isn't in the bible and a bunch of hebrew scholars making a mythological text seem like it worked in retrospect. It's not compelling and never will be. And you never explained why the Astros 2017 prediction was somehow less impressive in spite of being super specific and totally indepedenetly verifable, so I don't think you really have any interest in that discussion. Neither do I.  This one though:

I claim hands down the Christian position is the one that has the ability to make sense of life's ultimate questions. 

I am interested in. Please make sense of one of life's ultimate questions, whatever that is, without saying "because God is here." I have never understood how that 'makes sense' of life's ultimate questions, it just punctuates them and provides no real information. 
#74
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
 "a god did this" is exactly as explicable saying "magic did this," or " a god did this using magic."

No not at all, you're aware of the processes that occur in creation/universe correct? if you are aware of those processes why are you calling them magic?
We are correlating what takes place within the universe with the intelligence of the Creator, no magic needed. Processes are not magic my friend. 

#75
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
...it just punctuates them and provides no real information. 
How do you then explain 2 billion living people and billions more now passed on finding answers in it?

To me they're the same:
So what? To others they aren't the same. Is your subjective experience supposed to be the standard for truth?
#76
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
@EtrnlVw
No not at all, you're aware of the processes that occur in creation/universe correct? if you are aware of those processes why are you calling them magic?
We are correlating what takes place within the universe with the intelligence of the Creator, no magic needed. Processes are not magic my friend.

Yeah, I understand the processes broadly, sure. What I don't understand is if there's a process we can demonstrate in some way, like say the way gravity works on particles to form accretion disks and eventually planets, or stars form, I don't understand where you see the creator, definitively, as in why you're convinced besides "I just am." I'm not. There's no evidence for it. 

How do you then explain 2 billion living people and billions more now passed on finding answers in it?
How do you explain the majority of people alive today not believing in what you believe, and the dozens of billions who've passed on never believing it? Answers to what? Is it 'life's big questions'? Far more people do not find these answers in your faith, dude, and far, far more died believing in some other version entirely. I'd explain it kind of the same way as a baby wants a pacifier when mom's breast isn't available. A baby wants comfort, wants to feel like things are okay. The pacifier sates that section of the child's brain, provided you're not talking about legitimate hunger. You can comfort a child this way, but that doesn't make a pacifier a real breast. Religion tries to answer questions that keep people feeling comfortable, like they're special and they know so much more than everyone else, which is part of our evolutionary success. Basically it's a trick we've played on ourselves. 
Topic's author
#77
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,322
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
The Old Testament was the first place I looked simply because the bible is also "scripture" . Are you saying that I shouldn't have even looked to the Old Testament scripture for something that was said by the Christ in the New Testament scripture.?
I'm saying you were ignorant and didn't know it was not in the OT. 

I don't care what you are saying,  it is irrelevant, Popoff.  I looked in the OT because it was the first and obvious starting point. The reason I didn't know if or not is was in the Old Testament was because I looked and found it not to be there. it is called FUCKING RESEARCH!!!!!!!

If that is all you have then WHOOOPI FKN DOOO!!!! you are correct. The scripture referred to by Jesus is not the OT. How do I know this? BECAUSE I FKN LOOKED !!!!!! Popoff

The Old Testament was the first place I looked simply because the bible is also "scripture" . Are you saying that I shouldn't have even looked to the Old Testament scripture for something that was said by the Christ in the New Testament scripture.? Are you saying I was silly to even have look there in the OT? You are  clutching at straws, Popoff. Anyone with an ounce of sense would have also looked to the Old Testament for the reference Christ makes in the New Testament .

If you believe I was "stupid" to even look there then you keep knocking yourself out over a non starter. The fact remains you didn't fkn know the answer to my question  but instead preferred argument and conflict and are now simply posting even more unnecessary and irrelevant bullshite.
You keep going Popoff. it matters not to me. 




The fact remains you didn't fkn know the answer to my question but instead preferred argument and conflict and are now simply posting even more unnecessary and irrelevant bullshite
I knew the answer shemp.

No you didn't know anything, you have answered nothing either, stop telling more fkn lies.  You simply told us at post #54 that
"Jesus is referencing scripture that has been lost to history.", which is only your fkn opinion Popoff and you have not a single shred of evidence to support that at all.


That's how you now know the answer. I told you. 

No you didn't know anything, you have answered nothing either. is all you have added to this thread is nothing but lies, bullshit and gobshite so stop telling more fkn lies, Popoff

And I still don't know and neither do you what scripture Jesus was referring to, Popoff.

I'll burn you.
 I'll burn you.
And I can keep burning 

 You couldn't burn a rag doused in petrol. So you burn yourself out trying. Popoff


#78
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
Yeah, I understand the processes broadly, sure. What I don't understand is if there's a process we can demonstrate in some way, like say the way gravity works on particles to form accretion disks and eventually planets, or stars form, I don't understand where you see the creator, definitively, as in why you're convinced besides "I just am." I'm not. There's no evidence for it.

Because you are accepting that inanimate forces create intelligent processes, that is absurd IMO. If you can demonstrate a process, you have to be able to also demonstrate why they occur, not just how. I can show you how a car engine works and how it's put together, but I can also point to the designer or creator of that engine because the engine didn't generate itself into existence alone. You should be looking at why planets form at all not just how, seriously ask yourself why and then look at what a planet is. It's a habitation for conscious beings I mean can we get anymore obvious? look at the arrangement of just our solar system, not to mention everything that takes place after that.

#79
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
you are correct.
Thank you. Welcome amoung those who know.

The scripture referred to by Jesus is not the OT. How do I know this? 
Because I told you in post #16 of this thread.

And I still don't know and neither do you what scripture Jesus was referring to, Popoff.
But now you know that not all scripture is in the bible, that some have been lost to history, and that the bible was not in existence in 33AD.

And that Jesus was not claiming that the scripture He quoted was in the bible, so you saying he was wrong was....well, wrong.

You are a lot less ignorant than when you first started pretending.

You're welcome.
#80
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
How do you explain the majority of people alive today not believing in what you believe,
I only need explain people who take the medicine and are NOT cured, not people who never took it.

..and the dozens of billions who've passed on never believing it?
I did not say more people believed, I said that those who believed found it answered their questions. That counters your solitary claim that it doesn't address the deep questions of life.

I'd explain it kind of the same way as a baby wants a pacifier when mom's breast isn't available. A baby wants comfort, wants to feel like things are okay. The pacifier sates that section of the child's brain, provided you're not talking about legitimate hunger. You can comfort a child this way, but that doesn't make a pacifier a real breast.
Then yours is a poor explanation. For people who try Christianity stick with it, and find it gives them more than just superficial comfort, but sustenance. It is the breast and not the pacifier.
Topic's author
#81
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,322
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
And I still don't know and neither do you what scripture Jesus was referring to, Popoff.
But now you know that not all scripture is in the bible,

I have always known that, Popoff. I have read hundreds if not thousand of extra biblical material. I didn't need a deceitful lying person like you to tell me.  You don't even know or understand your own bible. You have even quoted a bible that contradicts itself from verse to verse hoping that somehow it will win you an argument. This shows your complete and utter lack of theological knowledge concerning your own beliefs and subject matter.

You are a fraud and fake and a utter disgrace to your religion , your church and your god.


you are correct.
Thank you. Welcome amoung those who know
Lets have the above in context shall we. This above ^^^^^ is a version edited by Popoff from post 62

Post 62

You only posted the question.

That is correct. The WHOLE FKN purpose of this thread was to ask a question.  And you couldn't answer it. You finally said " it was from a scripture lost to history". Yeh,  as if you'd fkn know, Popoff.  You are full of shite that no one is really interested in only another fawning religious sycophant like yourself.
I have told you more than once  Popoff, you are far from clever.

I'll burn you.
 and I'll burn you.
And I can keep burning 
You couldn't burn a barn with a blow torch, Popoff


Peter Popoff Exposed as a Evangelical Fraud




#82
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
I do not believe in magic; I believe in the supernatural God.

Explain the difference exactly. To me they're the same: anything that can be explained by "a god did this" is exactly as explicable saying "magic did this," or " a god did this using magic." You touch on it a little further down in your response: "Well, we don't see it as magic, we see it as God and he reveals the answers," to roughly paraphrase. 
They very well could be the same to you since you use the 21st-century meaning but the biblical definition of magic carries with it a negative connotation. Since my worldview is biblical I do not associate what God does as magic but a miracle. Magic is a dark practice often mentioned with sorcery, witchcraft, spells, incantations, and manipulation.


You say the magical ingredient is billions and billions of years, like that's magic...but we have evidence that this amount of time has passed. Unlike evidence for a supernatural being living outside of space and time and being totally undetectable.
That interpretation of the evidence is based an looking at the data through a particular worldview prism that has dominated western thought since the Age of Reason. That interpretation relies on humanity as the measure of all things. That interpretation relies on the present being the key to the past. You assume that the conditions in the past can be accurately interpreted by present information and conditions and the conditions of the past are speculated and conjectured upon. There are many secular worldview models of how the universe began if indeed it began.  

Just as your position is unfalsifiable. Yet the biblical evidence forms a reasonable and logical faith, the atheist faith does not.  

So you cannot prove Xenu didn't do this? Must be true then.
The reason to believe it is flimsy. The evidence does not support such a view.  

I'm not going into the weird math conversion you do to make that one prophesy sort of work, we've had a long discussion on that already and you simply don't see it my way, which is based on facts and numbers being numbers, and Idon't see it your way, which is based on some weird conversion chart that isn't in the bible and a bunch of hebrew scholars making a mythological text seem like it worked in retrospect.
I gave you two different scenarios, one that takes the 490 as literal years and another that looks at it from the perspective of the fulfillment of the prophetic conditions. Either way, the Messiah was to come to a people in covenant relationship with God. That is no longer possible after AD 70. What they agreed to (before God), after AD 70, can no longer be followed.  

It's not compelling and never will be.
It is not compelling to you because you are closed to the reasonableness of the Bible. But the evidence is both reasonable and logical from both biblical positions. You would have to be honest with what is known instead of letting personal bias get in the way. I do not believe you do that. 

And you never explained why the Astros 2017 prediction was somehow less impressive in spite of being super specific and totally indepedenetly verifable, so I don't think you really have any interest in that discussion. Neither do I.  This one though:
It was one claim if I remember correctly. Biblical prophecy includes a number of different issues. It concerns Israel and their relationship with God on many fronts. It includes the Deuteronomy 28 curses, the promised Messiah, the promised new covenant and the inadequacy of the old covenant. The Bible speaks on life's ultimate questions whereas the Astros predictions are mere fluff. It does not speak on such issues that humanity is engrossed in and tries to explain. There are unity and consistency in the Bible. 

I claim hands down the Christian position is the one that has the ability to make sense of life's ultimate questions. 

I am interested in. Please make sense of one of life's ultimate questions, whatever that is, without saying "because God is here." I have never understood how that 'makes sense' of life's ultimate questions, it just punctuates them and provides no real information. 

When you give caveats such as excluding God His existence in explaining anything you act from your personal confirmation bias, not mine. 

Either we are ultimately a creation of a personal God (who in the biblical case has revealed Himself that we can know) or are here because of random mindless chance. Thus, to make sense of life you have to do so using one or the other particular worldview. So, how well do the two different views make sense of anything? 

Go back to the start - origins - and make sense of life by looking at who are we, what are we, why are we here, what difference does it make, and what happens to us when we die as explained and made sense of by the two basic worldviews, one from material naturalism and the other from a personal Creator as to these questions.

Atheism (or a belief that denies a personal God): Who are we? We are physical, biological blobs comprised of atoms that stem from a common ancestor that we do not know how it originated from inorganic matter. We originated by chance happenstance, somehow. There is no reason why our common ancestor or we would exist if life is materialistic and solely naturalistic. Thus, our existence is ultimately meaningless too. There is no ultimate purpose to it yet we invent purpose to give the meaningless meaning. When we die we return to the cosmic void where everything is once again meaningless.

From the meaningless, irrational, chaotic, randomly chanced comes meaningful beings, reasoning being, purposeful beings, uniformity of nature.    

Christianity: Who are we? We are creations of a living, loving, benevolent God comprised of not only the body but mind and spirit. The reason we exist is that God chose to create us, in His likeness, for a purpose to know Him and enjoy Him forever or to reject Him and live apart from Him forevermore. Thus, we have an ultimate purpose and meaningfulness that we can know and enjoy, not only in this lifetime but in eternity to come. 

From a living, loving, logical, reasoning, personal Creator comes other living, loving,  personal, logical, reasoning, creative beings. This is what we witness and experience. We derive our existence and attributes from our parents who are such beings. 

Now, does it make more sense that we come from a necessary Being or from random chance happenstance? Please answer the question.

#83
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
Proverbs 4:23

"Keep your heart with all vigilance,
for from it flow the springs of life."

#84
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Either we are ultimately a creation of a personal God (who in the biblical case has revealed Himself that we can know) or are here because of random mindless chance. Thus, to make sense of life you have to do so using one or the other particular worldview

You haven't gotten from a god / superbeing who's just really into creating universes to biblical god. I know you don't do that by design, you simply shrug your shoulders and say "I presuppose him because everyone presupposes something" which isn't exactly true either. But you don't then "make sense" of life in any of what you state after this. Or maybe I misunderstand what you mean by 'make sense of': I thought you were going to say there was some useful knowledge or some unlocked level or something that only Christians or more broadly only the religious can access. What you seem to be saying in your paragraph about atheism (which doesn't deal with any of the stuff you then pin to it, really it's one answer to one question, and doesn't try to be more) is that since you think God's real, then that's why life is here. Not the PURPOSE of life, more the cause of it. I wouldn't say that's 'making sense' in the way I understood it. I thought you were talking more about the MEANING of life. Not how it got started.

There is no reason why our common ancestor or we would exist if life is materialistic and solely naturalistic. Thus, our existence is ultimately meaningless too. There is no ultimate purpose to it yet we invent purpose to give the meaningless meaning. When we die we return to the cosmic void where everything is once again meaningless. 
This is what we can reasonably conclude, yes. Is it comforting? Not on its face, no. But it makes this life extremely valuable, and it's sure what facts look like. There's no demonstration of any supernatural anything, there's no demonstration that any of this is guided in any way, there's no ultimate meaning to life (you don't have one either, as far as I can see, "Love God" isn't a purpose or a meaning, it's a motto). And when we die, eventually the atoms that make up our bodies will indeed decompose and eventually be returned to the cosmos. You don't refute ANY of this, by the way. You simply seem to say "Loving god makes this better" but don't explain why. 


The reason we exist is that God chose to create us, in His likeness, for a purpose to know Him and enjoy Him forever or to reject Him and live apart from Him forevermore. Thus, we have an ultimate purpose and meaningfulness that we can know and enjoy, not only in this lifetime but in eternity to
come. From a living, loving, logical, reasoning, personal Creator comes other living, loving,  personal, logical, reasoning, creative beings. This is what we witness and experience. We derive our existence and attributes from our parents who are such beings. 

This isn't really a reason for life, though. It would make some sense if everyone was somehow Christian. There's far fewer Christians than there are "others" on earth. According to you then, are those lives meaningless? The meaning of life is to "know God" isn't making sense of anything as I understand the term making sense. It ignores the truly meaningless things that happen all the time, to Christian people especially. I'm glad if this whole notion brings you comfort, but that doesn't make sense of anything. It doesn't make sense of why, for example, bad people have power in many places, can repent on their deathbeds and sail into the party in the sky, while children starve having never heard of Jesus, and thereby burn in hell. I bet your answer is "well, fall of man is why! / Sin is why! / man rejecting god is why," but that doesn't help. The all powerful creator being would be at fault for all of this, all the same, and would know it was going to happen, and would have then created people he knew would burn in hell for all eternity because, again, they never heard of him. Or he left no convincing evidence. That makes LESS sense. 

Now, does it make more sense that we come from a necessary Being or from random chance happenstance?
I'm not sure these are the only options. And I'm not clear on what this being would be 'necessary' other than your defining it as such, and it's certainly not clear what connection this theoretical being would have to the bible. Because there's no demonstration of this being, but there is demonstration of (not PROOF of but a preponderance of evidence for) universal common descent and life replicating itself and making errors in that replication, it would seem more reasonable to believe what can be demonstrated rather than rely entirely on a book of mythology. The elements that life is composed of are plentiful here on earth, and probably elsewhere but we'll never know, and the laws of physics are the same across the universe as far as we can tell. That might make life the inevitable result of physics, but I don't know. Honestly I don't really care, because I'm not sure what affect such knowledge would even have on my life. 

10 days later

#85
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
Either we are ultimately a creation of a personal God (who in the biblical case has revealed Himself that we can know) or are here because of random mindless chance. Thus, to make sense of life you have to do so using one or the other particular worldview

You haven't gotten from a god / superbeing who's just really into creating universes to biblical god.
I intended to establish a starting point for reasoning and claim the biblical God is the One who meets the criterion. I'm curious as to how any other worldview makes sense of starting points or first causes.  

I'm stating that it is an either-or scenario in how we originated.

I'm asking you to look at the reasonableness of these two positions. I also claim the biblical God is a revelation we can make sense of in explaining our existence through. We can know given His existence since the Bible says it is a revelation from Him provided the Bible rings true, which has good supporting evidence that is reasonable and logical. What I'm saying is that your worldview does not give sufficient reason (none when you look at its starting point) when you investigate its nuts and bolts or what holds it together on making sense of anything. What I'm saying is that your worldview is not reasonable or logical if you deny God as the cause. If you think otherwise, then explain. Does your worldview give sufficient reason for existence or why we exist? Most atheists I dialogue with always fail to explain. They usually ignore any pointed questions towards their own worldview while criticizing the Christian worldview. 

Not only that, the culture we live in is stacked against any worldview that is not secular. We are funnelled into this worldview from before we even start school but are indoctrinated into it from that point forward as a likelihood, IMO. It takes real critical thinking to reason your way out of indoctrination and brainwashing. As a largely secular culture, we are bombarded by secular thought and reasons 24/7. Our schools and institutions of higher learning are governed by the gatekeepers of our societies who are again focused on power and control of what you and I think to a large degree.  

I know you don't do that by design, you simply shrug your shoulders and say "I presuppose him because everyone presupposes something" which isn't exactly true either.
I start with a presupposition, just like you do. The difference in our two starting points is my mine is sufficient in making sense of existence, yours is not.  

But you don't then "make sense" of life in any of what you state after this. Or maybe I misunderstand what you mean by 'make sense of': I thought you were going to say there was some useful knowledge or some unlocked level or something that only Christians or more broadly only the religious can access.
Take as a 'for instance' morality. Morality is a mental process. It requires mindful beings for its existence. But how do you, ludofl3x, make sense of morality if there is no objective, absolute, unchanging, eternal, omniscient reference point, a necessary being. You are not that being. Please explain that to me from your moral relativism. Unless you can establish an objective, absolute, unchanging reference point, why is your any BETTER than any other? Again, from an atheistic position, it is not, and I challenge you to establish contrary to this statement. 

Again, how does the atheistic (speaking of naturalistic materialism) account for the whys of life, and even the hows? Natural theology, which does not get into specific revelation, has numerous reasoned arguments for the natural world that spring from God or gods. It is when you get to specifics that not every god is reasonable or believable. Even evolution can be looked at through a theistic view if you take that approach. With origins, we are both speaking in terms of scientism rather than science. You (if you are an atheist) are precisely on the same playing field as the theist.

What you seem to be saying in your paragraph about atheism (which doesn't deal with any of the stuff you then pin to it, really it's one answer to one question, and doesn't try to be more) is that since you think God's real, then that's why life is here.
No, I am stating that God is the only way of making sense of existence. From an atheistic position and worldview, there is no purpose to our existence ultimately. We just invent purposes to cope. We derive our existence from a mindless, meaningless universe that is without purpose and meaning.

Thus, you have to borrow from the Christian worldview to make sense of reality. So, what I am saying is that YOU live inconsistently from your beginning presupposition.   

Not the PURPOSE of life, more the cause of it. I wouldn't say that's 'making sense' in the way I understood it. I thought you were talking more about the MEANING of life. Not how it got started.
The two are interconnected only within the theistic worldview. If there is no purpose for life, it is ultimately meaningless. What is the sufficient reason for the first cause? You don't have one. You can't say why something should exist. All you can say is that it does exist. But, everywhere you look, you see meaning and purpose. So you live by adopting the Christian worldview at the same time denying it. Thus, you operate with a living contradiction. You keep using the Christian worldview to make sense of anything. Inconsistency wreaks of irrationality. 

If the universe is eternal, how do we get to the present (infinity on both sides)? The same for multiverses?

Would you deny the present or say everything is the eternal present? But you had a beginning and therefore a past. 

If the universe is eternal there would be no end to the causes (infinite regress). Unless the cause transcended the universe and/or the universe had a beginning, IMO, an eternal universe or multiverses springing into existence does not make sense. 
#86
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
How can this hole so perfectly fit this puddle? It must be a miracle.
Topic's author
#87
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,322
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
Proverbs 4:23

"Keep your heart with all vigilance,
for from it flow the springs of life."


  You should take that on board yourself ,Mopac. And start reading for yourself.
#88
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
It's the scripture Jesus referenced from the old testament. It is from proverbs.

You know, the topic of this thread.


#89
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
I intended to establish a starting point for reasoning and claim the biblical God is the One who meets the criterion. I'm curious as to how any other worldview makes sense of starting points or first causes.  

We've been through this already (I'm cutting out a bunch of stuff we've reviewed on other threads). Your proposition "God did it" doesn't "make sense" of anything either, and I'm not claiming to have an answer to "how did the universe get here." That has little to do with atheism at all, and honestly I don't care how it got here, that knowledge would in no way illuminate that way I live my life, because there is no evidence I see for any god. I'm ready to change my mind, but I need a reason to do so, and no god has ever given me one. Your insistence that your specific god did it relies on presupposition of such a character (Rather than demonstration of such a character: you are using the story about this character to support its veracity, this is the claim not the evidence, you refuse to understand or acknowledge this), special pleading (everything has a beginning therefore God started it, and god doesn't have a beginning, contradicting your reason for God to begin with) and a bunch of other distractions ("What's your worldiview, mine's truer, how do you make sense of morality, I make sense of the whys of life by adding santa claus to the mix and calling it an answer") from the crux of the matter: there is no demonstration of this character at all. 

We just invent purposes to cope. We derive our existence from a mindless, meaningless universe that is without purpose and meaning.

Clearly this makes you uncomfortable. But this is what makes the most sense, I'm sorry. 

What is the sufficient reason for the first cause? You don't have one. You can't say why something should exist. All you can say is that it does exist. 
I don't have one, nor do I need one. And yes, it exists, it's the one thing we can agree on. That's all I can say, and all I care about. The life I have and what I do with it, it's only my responsibility and I'm not part of some giant plan that no one ever gets to see.

 But, everywhere you look, you see meaning and purpose.
No, I specifically do not. I do not see "meaning" or "purpose" in the vastness of the universe. I see vastness and apparent unimaginable emptiness. I don't then observe that and say "Well, someone must have meant for it to be this way, so it was probably Jesus." I don't see meaning in famines, I don't see purpose in pediatric cancer, I don't see the capital W why in meteor showers. You do, and that reason? Jesus loves us all, so so much, especially the pastor in I think Kenya yesterday who stabbed himself and his wife on the altar of their church, and he loves us so much that he gives us school shootings to remind us. Oh, wait: the bad stuff isn't DIRECTLY done by Jesus even though he'd know they were going to happen, all that stuff, that's MAN doing it because we departed from Jesus...

I'm sorry, but none of that makes any "sense." Maybe I'm off topic here, I don't know. 
Topic's author
#90
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,322
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2

It's the scripture Jesus referenced from the old testament. It is from proverbs.

You know, the topic of this thread.

No my friend. The topic of this particular thread - my thread - as post 1 clearly states is a question >>>>>  Does "the scripture" actually say this at all,.... anywhere?

John 7:38 King James Version has Jesus saying: 

38 "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

and it is from the NEW Testament.