Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
So you are saying then they have actually taken it upon themselves to force this "good news" ideology onto someone that doesn't want it?
No. Its you saying that. You asked why do they have to explain. Explaining is not "forcing "good news" on anyone and is thus not dictatorial.
Where ever did they get such dictatorial idea?
Its your idea. You should know.
And who or what authorised them, ?
No one needs authorization to do what they want or do do what you don't like.
I very rarely start with an argument.
Tell us something we don't know.
I just did .
We already knew you very rarely start with an argument. You very rarely have an argument, but that is a different story.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
I don't think one has to "accept atonement."
I know. But that is odd because you said earlier,...
...how can anyone, man or deity, replace that man and create atonement? Second is whether that being can effect that atonement when the individual does not subscribe to that being's authority, existence or power.
Perhaps you don't believe in atonement at all, or maybe your definition of the word differs from Christianity. But I am getting a whiff of contradiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
The primary underpinning for “accepting Christ” comes from Romans 10:9, which says, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” The former follows the latter—a true belief leads to confession.
It’s important to keep in mind that salvation encompasses what God has done for us, not what we can do for Him. God has taken the initiative in His plan of redemption, reaching out to us through Christ. Hence, the answer regarding the question of salvation as given by Paul and Silas is, “Believe in the Lord Jesus …” (Acts 16:31 NIV). The Greek word translated “believe” in the passage is pisteuo, meaning “to believe, put one’s faith in, trust, with an implication that actions based on that trust may follow.”[2] Belief, then, encompasses more than just knowing about Jesus. One must also act on this knowledge, combining faith and trust and acting on it.
Salvation also entails repentance – a sincere willingness to radically change our behavior (see, for instance Matthew 3:2; 4:17; Mark 6:12; Luke 13:3-5; Acts 2:38). There is a certain degree of humility that is also required on our part in order to submit to Christ and receive salvation
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
You are not a lawyer at all are you?
It most certainly is your profession that bothers him.
Here is a theory. He thinks theists are dumb, and certainly dumber than he. But he finds that belief difficult with you being a theist AND a lawyer. So he soothes his cognitive dissonance by convincing himself that you aren't really a lawyer.
I wonder what he does for a living?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
There are a few things I'm noticing here. The first is that this is about the notion of vicarious atonement -- if a man is responsible for his own actions and pays for his own sins (as some text indicates) then how can anyone, man or deity, replace that man and create atonement?
Vicarious atonement is not a biblical doctrine.
Second is whether that being can effect that atonement when the individual does not subscribe to that being's authority, existence or power.
The Bible says one must accept the atonement. But God's authority, existence, and power does not stem from the agreement of His creation. Everything is subject to Him whether it agrees or not.
Can a person be "cleansed" when he doesn't want to be, think he has to be, or through an agency which he thinks is wrong in doing so?
Nope. But then the bible does not say he can.
...should someone effectively be guilted into that feeling...
Our feelings do not fool God. No one can be tricked, shamed, guilted, scared, or forced into salvation. Salvation is an action done by God on the person, it is not someone anyone does.
So saying "thank you" for a condition admitted to be "worse" doesn't necessarily follow.
Jewish sages do not speak for everyone. I don't think being born was worse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You think its untrue that other people have free will and do not need your "say" to make their own choices?
No I haven't said that. I have said "what is mine is mine". They don't have free will to take what belongs to me.
Nothing was taken from you.
What is mine is mine. Unless of course, you are saying my sins were not mine to begin with?
Your sins are yours, and you will die and pay for them if you reject Jesus' payment for you.
But however can this be true. My sins , according to your own scriptures have been washed away AND paid for with a horrendous torturous and agonising death of a blood sacrifice THAT NO ONE EVEN ASKED FOR.!!!!!!!
That isn't what scripture says. Your sins have not been washed away AND paid for. You still have them.
I don't know if I should laugh at the sheer stupidity of it all or pity him because he may have been mentally ill.
You're here thinking someone has washed away your sins and you think someone else is pitiful?
You will die and pay for them if you reject Jesus' payment for you.
Where in the scriptures does it say that?
If you don't accept scripture what does it matter? Your sins have not been taken away. They still are yours.
Doesn't it bother you at all? That someone has taken the blame for your crimes and has died saving your sorry scraggy worthless arse?
Not at all. I didn't ask Him to.
And that is my point. I didn't either and I wouldn't have been so spineless & cowardly as you appear to be to accept this grievous and deadly offer had I been given a choice, my continence simply wouldn't allow it.
So, don't accept it now and die with your sin. Jesus' payment is not automatic. You must accept it, otherwise, your sins remain yours.
You will die and pay for them if you reject Jesus' payment for you.
Well that`s the point of this thread isn't it, princess. I want to, and am prepared to, take responsibly for my own crimes. But he's already done it and he's dead.
You still have your sin, so be happy. And Jesus isn't dead.
And by all accounts my freedom of choice was taken from me before I had the chance to even object. You are silly and thoughtless sometime aren't you.
Perhaps, but I have reading comprehension.
Here is the original question and you have avoided it four times now. Take it on or please leave the thread.
Who does the bible say is responsible for our crimes/sins?#1
Each person is responsible for their own sin.
Now you can post again saying I didn't answer you. Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You'd probably be surprised at how few people are surprised.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Why have they taken it upon themselves to do this. What business is it of theirs that they should teach to others what you believe are the words of god ?
They wanted to and needed no approval from you.
Just like you are attempting and failing to do on this thread.
It's amazing how many times you claim people are failing while never offering a single logical argument.
I very rarely start with an argument.
Tell us something we don't know.
I start with a question and then an argument ensues and ending with the likes of you not being able to support your own claims.....
Is that your excuse for spamming?
@....such as here >> #39 so when you are ready.
I was born ready.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If you will not address the text what good is your commentary here?
The text says there was no sun, and does not say "sunrise".
If you cannot even accept the text for sake of argument, then step aside and allow the adults who are able to debate use the board for what it was designed to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Like I said, you wouldn't.
So you think that human bodies don't have any physical flaws in them whatsoever?
No, I said there were no faults in the design.
I call trick play. Don't ask me for the purpose of a part of a design. The entire design goes to the purpose. What does a windshield have to do with moving passengers from point A to point B?
The pharynx and accompanying windpipe are as essential to a human as an air intake valve is to a car. Without oxygen, neither the car nor the person would function at all.
Doesn't invalidate my point. There are animals without a pharynx and a windpipe. The point is that the effectiveness of the design is about the car, not a part taken out of the context. Your saying something is a flaw doesn't make it a flaw. I've had homosexual males tell me a vagina is a "flaw".
The value of good designs not only involve benefits or reduced risks, but things like efficient use of space, multi functioning parts, and scalable structures. Everything gained in a design sacrifices some other thing. Want a fast car? You will lose fuel efficiency. Want a spacious car? You will lose aerodynamics. But hubristic armchair creators never have to deal with reality.
Which is probably why their "better" designs never make it past their talk phase.
How would increased spatial efficiency, multifunctionality, and scalability outweigh a greatly increased risk of dying of asphyxiation, for example?
How many people die of choking? It is great that our heads can swivel 180 degrees on our necks. Would we be able to do that if we larger necks? Your argument is, as I said, purely subjective. One armchair creator thinks a heart encased in bone is "better", another thinks being able to bend our midriff is better. So what? Both are just opinions. Each design comes with advantages and disadvantages. Different people place different values on different advantages.
You read about the pharynx and windpipe and because it fit your atheist belief system, you stopped thinking. You never considered that If our pharynx and windpipe were in different tubes, where would the forced air come from to power our speech? So now you need more muscles, or you lose the power of speech. More muscles mean more load on the heart, more complexity, and thus more things to go wrong. More access into the body for pathogens.
And then armchair designers like you would be pontificating that joining the pharynx and accompanying windpipe would be a "better" design.
Is what I said true or false? Has anyone made a single cell?
Ultimately, this point is a red herring. Humans not being able to replicate life wouldn't in any way defeat the point that human anatomy has flaws in it.
It certainly would give your claim of having a better design some credibility. Right now, your armchair designing doesn't impress me.
No it isn't. And even if it was, it would still be based on God's original design.
And tell us, which artificial organ is better designed than the natural one? Hmmm?
Why does it have to be "better designed"?
It does HAVE to be, but you claim you can dream up better designs. Would not organ replacements be a fine time to test out your " better" design abilities?
Artificial organs are designed to replicate the functions of the biological ones that have failed.
But they need not replicate the form of the biological ones that have failed. How come artificial organs always mimic the design of the original?
This alone proves that human bodies are flawed.
If you replace the organ you call " flawed" with an exact replica, how then is it flawed? Why not use your design chops and put in a "better designed" organ? Your word "flawed" is subjective claptrap. It is simply an expression of your personal preference, not fact.
Your hubris is what causes you not to see that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
On the other hand intuition of God apart from religious claims is a very real possibility for babies, I say that because of my own experience. Intuition occurs without the need for conscious reasoning, it is instinctive.
Which is why theists exist at all, given that babies start out as agnostic. For if everyone is born atheist, where do theists come from?
The bible agrees that men come with an intuition of God. They were created that way. That is why every culture on Earth throughout time has had a God story.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
As evidenced by the fact that there are 2.5 billion people alive right now who consciously choose Christianity.
And you have facts and figures to support that 2.5 billion people actually "consciously choose Christianity" of their own free will do you?
It is literally impossible to be a Christian unless you consciously choose Christianity "of your own free will. That is why gazelles, diamonds and muslims cannot be Christians.
Do you have any evidence of Christians who were forced to be Christians?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
The bible quite literally says that you need to bend your knees to God to beg for forgiveness or be sent to Hell.
Can you post the verse? This is why it's better to actually read the texts than to place your trust in some atheist website.
I'm afraid many people reject Christianity not even knowing what it is. Wouldn't it be horrible to find out you rejected salvation because you didn't believe the fireman telling you the building was on fire, only to find out that it was not a fireman but the ships captain telling you the ship was sinking! You are free to reject Christianity, but don't you think you should know what it says before you reject it??
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Is the argument that there are three options instead of two as it comes to belief in god or gods?1) Atheist2) Theist3) Inanimate Object
I call trick play! The first 2 are beliefs, inanimate objects are not beliefs. You are attempting to conflate apples and babies. The correct 3 options are...
1. Agnostic - having no knowledge of god or gods. (gnosis referring to knowledge)
2. Atheist - Rejecting God or gods
3. Theist - Accepting god or gods
What about you? Are human zygotes "people"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
The only requirement for one to be an atheist is to be a person and to not accept as true (believe) the existence of a god or gods.
Then babies are not atheists because they have not NOT accepted as true (believe) the existence of a god or gods! Even by your revised definition, babies do not qualify.
Trees aren't people.
Are unborn babies "people"?
I bet you believe unborn babies are not people and thus are pro-abortion. So babies are " people" when you want to label them atheists, but not "people" when you want to kill them for your convenience.
The reason that atheists restrict the definition to "people" is because people think. A reasonable restriction. But babies don't think. And neither do trees. So then, why is the definition restricted to people? If not because of thinking, then why?
If the restriction is due to the fact that only people think, then a baby cannot be included. Or perhaps you are saying babies magically become atheists the moment they exit the birth canal?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
They come on here - and offer completely novel and unproven commentary on their own personal doctrines...
Insisting those novel and unproven doctrines are superior to God's tried, tested, and true doctrines.
What do you say to someone who thinks he has a better design than LIFE?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A few thousand years ago, a day was a day, one rotation of the Earth marked by sunrise and sunset. How this period of duration was measured is irrelevant.
Let's unpack this shall we?
...a day was a day, one rotation of the Earth marked by sunrise and sunset.
What if there was "no sun" to mark the day by? Do you know the sun existed long before it became luminescent? How long would a "day" be if it was not marked by sunrise and sunset?
A few thousand years ago, a day was a day,...
Do you mean that a few thousand years ago the word "day" could be used with only one meaning? Here are 3 verses using the word "day". Tell which one signifies a 24 hour period. (Note that all the verses below were written at least 6 thousand years ago.)
Gen 5:1 - This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Deu 34:6 - And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.
Isa 11:16 - And there shall be an highway for the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria; like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt.
How this period of duration was measured is irrelevant.
But what was that period of time? We aren't saying that the period of time changes, but that the meaning of the word used to describe the period of time changes.
The seven "Days" spoken of in the creation account in Genesis could not possibly be 24 hour periods. Atheists just like to insist it was because then that allows them to claim contradiction. The meaning of any word comes from its context. The context here is that the days were not measured by the sun.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Anyone who seriously thinks this is so hubristic he is probably beyond logic.
I don't see what overconfidence or excess pride has to do with stating facts.
Like I said, you wouldn't.
Whether a design is "flawed" or not depends on the designer's purpose. A car is a "flawed" boat to one who thinks sailing off his doomed island is purpose.
So what's the purpose of, say, a pharynx that is used for both ingestion and respiration?
I call trick play. Don't ask me for the purpose of a part of a design. The entire design goes to the purpose. What does a windshield have to do with moving passengers from point A to point B?
What benefit does it grant compared to having separate pathways for food and air (which would drastically decrease, if not outright eliminate the risk of choking)?
The value of good designs not only involve benefits or reduced risks, but things like efficient use of space, multi functioning parts, and scalable structures. Everything gained in a design sacrifices some other thing. Want a fast car? You will lose fuel efficiency. Want a spacious car? You will lose aerodynamics. But hubristic armchair creators never have to deal with reality. Which is probably why their "better" designs never make it past their talk phase.
The people looking at the human bodies and saying it is apparent that there are many flaws have not been able to make a single cell. Not even one.
So... artificial organs aren't a thing? You know... the thing that people get when their biological ones fail?
Is what I said true or false? Has anyone made a single cell? And tell us, which artificial organ is better designed than the natural one? Hmmm?
The hubris on display here makes it difficult to stay civil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
If the bible says very little, then it isn't ambiguous. Learn what the words you want to use mean.
I know what it means,
Not if we consider what you wrote.
...and if these scriptures weren't so ambiguous may be people wouldn't need Christians or the church or Priests or Pastors or Chaplains to try explain them or defend them.
People need Christians or the church or Priests or Pastors or Chaplains to try explain them and defend them because of people like you.
Just like you are attempting and failing to do on this thread.
It's amazing how many times you claim people are failing while never offering a single logical argument. You must think you win by simple self-declaration.
Ambiguous doesn't mean vague.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Debunk these claims or no dice.
When I get the memo that someone died and left you king, I'll think about it.
Wrong answer,...
Keep dreaming you're validating my answers. Eh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
No, because the OD is giving a definition in the "scope" of our society, where thinking people either choose, or reject the IDEA of God or gods. If there isn't even an IDEA of God or gods, then a person cannot be said to be atheist. Babies are just that. A-THEIST makes no sense if there aren't THEISTS.
Taking this definition out of context makes it illogical as it makes everything without a belief in God, an atheist. In the case of reality, babies have no belief in God exactly like trees have no belief in God. And if babies are atheists simply because they lack a belief in God, then there is no logical reason why that definition doesn't equally apply to trees.
So, anyone, why is a baby an atheist, but a tree is not?
Created:
Posted in:
By teaching them that their actions bring consequences whether it be from lying or any other wrong doing. Teaching about hell does not need to be terrifying for them.
As evidenced by the fact that there are 2.5 billion people alive right now who consciously choose Christianity. Billions more who have passed away. This argument is like saying that if people ate warm ice cream, vanilla wouldn't be the most popular.
If you think of Christianity as a religion of rules, than you probably shouldn't be teaching.
If the teachings of Christianity are so terrifying, how come Christianity is the religion of choice? Is anyone forced to be Christian today?
PS. Telling a child that they will burn for eternity if they do not believe a God for which there is no evidence is NOT christian doctrine, it's atheist propaganda.
Created:
Posted in:
MgtowDemon's bad behavior excused no one else's poor behavior. And a mod now making a victory lap thread after his banning is proof that his behavior towards Damon was biased and unprofessional.
No need for reply clique. I know my "body of work" will speak for itself soon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You are attempting to imply a ton of evidence to people whom you know will not read a word of your wall-o-text links. This tells me you don't really know evolution. You go to sites and read what they've prepared for laymen like you. And you laymen swallow hook line and sinker what is laid out for you without a single critical thought.
Pick your best evolution evidence from your wall above and make a thread, and I will do 2 things, first I will show you science saying how faulty your evidence is, and I will show you how little science you actually know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
By "flawed beings", I think Ragnar means in terms of our physical bodies. One quick look into human bodies make it apparent that there are many flaws in the design.
Anyone who seriously thinks this is so hubristic he is probably beyond logic. Whether a design is "flawed" or not depends on the designer's purpose. A car is a "flawed" boat to one who thinks sailing off his doomed island is purpose.
The people looking at the human bodies and saying it is apparent that there are many flaws have not been able to make a single cell. Not even one. Sorry, the "flawed" argument is just plain illogical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
If the bible says very little, then it isn't ambiguous.
Learn what the words you want to use mean.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Doesn't it bother you at all? That someone has taken the blame for your crimes and has died saving your sorry scraggy worthless arse?
Not at all. I didn't ask Him to.
And that is my point. I didn't either and I wouldn't have been so spineless & cowardly as you appear to be to accept this grievous and deadly offer had I been given a choice, my continence simply wouldn't allow it.
Jesus made no offer to me. You can't disallow something that happened 2,000 years before you were born. But I would have been a blazing idiot to have rejected someone paying my bail when I couldn't pay it AND I was guilty as hell of the crime.
He volunteered.
That isn't entirely true, is it. He was sent here. Unless you can show me where the scriptures say he wasn't and came of his own free will?
You really need to read your bible.
talking of which :
Stephen wrote: By all accounts, and after all the claims made by Christians of humans having “free will” someone did take it upon themselves and committed suicide on my behalf and I didn’t have a say in the matter.#1
ethang5, wrote: The other person has free will too, and did not need your "say" to make his own choices.
Well that is only your own thoughtless, selfish, cowardly and spinless opinion, that doesn't hold one single ounce of truth.
You think its untrue that other people have free will and do not need your "say" to make their own choices?
What is mine is mine. Unless of course, you are saying my sins were not mine to begin with?
Your sins are yours, and you will die and pay for them if you reject Jesus' payment for you. That of course is your right, but I myself prefer good sense to stupidity.
Ok, so what exactly is your question?
How many times?
Only once. You spamming the question again is not me asking again.
It is there to read and answer for yourself . It hasn't gone anywhere, And you keep avoiding it?
Yeah, avoiding it must be why I asked. Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Impervious.On a computer.......... yes.But in the real life....... NO.
Divine revelation deb?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Two posts in a row. You must be miffed. And neither on the threads subject. But at least you didn't spam your post #53 again.
It was you that returned to the forum repeatedly speaking on the behalf of "another poster" after your lengthy ban "following a resumed pattern of sexual harassment"
How is your pal dee dee?
Every lame charge you keep regurgitating has been addressed. Make a thread for your new complaints. In this one, address the topic. Or else your lamentations later that someone else derailed the thread will seem like hypocracy.
Hope you are feeling better.
Created:
Posted in:
It doesn't matter. Free Will that is, because according to your own god we don't really "choose" anything. There is a set plan by god and everything will go according to that plan. The bible was the first source of determinism. Lmao
Are you laughing because YOU know this is untrue, or because you think WE know it's untrue?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
Have you wondered why he needs to repeat himself so many times.
He doesn't need to. His post was addressed. He pretends to be obtuse of the reply.
Because SOMEONE clearly isn't absorbing the information.
I don't spam when he pretends not to see my posts. Stephen just enjoys posting hateful stuff about God and Christianity, and often cannot resist his impulse to respam. I aggravate him because I was trained to deal with.... shall we just say,.....posters like him.
For example, this is the 3rd time he's said, "This is the last I am going to say on the matter" and then keeps "saying" on the matter! He won't heed your advice to stop replying, but will later claim that I should "leave him alone."
What you should know about me is that I am impervious to taunts, goad, insults, or peer pressure. I don't get angry, tired, or bored. I never insult first, or simply to hurt someone, and if I cared any less (but for my mom and His Royal Highness, King Jesus) for anyone's opinion of me, I'd be arrested for caring too little.
If you find me aggravating, perhaps you too should heed your own advice.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you knew that someone would misunderstand the truth, would you change the truth?
Did "YHWH" anticipate Abraham's "misunderstanding"?
If you're asking, "Did God know Abraham would think He was asking the child's death?" Then of course God would know. But if you're saying God intended to mislead Abraham, then you aren't making sense. Why would God mislead Abraham? It served no purpose.
Now, you might say God needed Abraham to believe his son would die to see if Abraham would still offer him. But God already knew this. He did not need to test Abraham for the answer. God allowed Abraham's misunderstanding because Abraham himself needed to find out if He would offer his son even if He thought the son would die. God told no lies and did not responsible for what Abraham assumed.
If God intended to mislead Abraham, He simply would have asked for the boys death.
In other words, did "YHWH" intentionally mislead Abraham?
To what end? God told Abraham the truth. He wanted Abraham to be willing to "offer" his son as a sacrifice, and that is what God asked. Do you know any other truthful way God could have asked that would be free of your insinuation?
Another answer is from pure logic. An omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being never has a reason to lie. So unless someone is positing that God is lying for no reason, and just for the hell of it, then his argument makes no logical sense given the nature of God.
Now if that someone says God may not be omniscient, omnipotent, or eternal, then it isn't God and all bets are off. For if the atheist would change the nature of God, then all questions about His behavior in the bible become incoherent, as the bible is referring to an omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal God.
A lying God is an oxymoron. A logical contradiction. It is an incoherent idea.
Created:
Posted in:
"flawed beings"
Flawed beings is so subjective it has no meaning and can thus be applied to any being no matter what it's form and function consists. Atheists even call God a "flawed being". The argument is illogical gibberish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
When you burn Stephen and he has run out of intelligent things to say, he posts the exact same response to multiple conversations in multiple threads. He even tells us that his post 83 is spam of post his 53. Post 53 was addressed, he ignores my response to post 53 and spams post 53 again in post 83.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Ok, so what exactly is your question?
Its there to read and answer to it for yourself . It hasn't gone anywhere, #1
It certainly hasn't gone to your post.
That idea isn't in the bible.
I know. That is why I find it so appallingly and shockingly sick
Lol. You find it sick that a disgusting idea ISN'T in the bible?
OK Einstein.
Doesn't it bother you at all? That someone has taken the blame for your crimes and has died saving your sorry scraggy worthless arse?
Not at all. I didn't ask Him to. He volunteered.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Did "YHWH" lie when they told some guy they wanted him to take his son to the top of a hill and kill them?
He didn't tell Abraham he wanted him to "kill" his son. He said He wanted Abraham to "offer" His son. Abraham incorrectly assumed God wanted the boys death.
After Abraham had offered his son, God was satisfied and stopped Abraham from killing the boy. No lies were told.
From the things Abraham said before offering his son, I suspect he did not believe God would require the boys death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Same here Jane. Hope you had a good holiday.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Darwinian evolution is false because it is impossible.
Correct. Thank you Jane.
It has nothing to do with the Bible.
Again correct. Yet the atheists will insist that atheism is ONLY a lack of belief in God or gods. How come every atheist here also believes evolution? Not even all scientists believe evolution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I get it Thang.
I doubt it deb.
These measurements of time , numbers and other pretty important things ain't what they appear to be becauseeeeeeeeee.
The bible has no measurements of time on the age of the universe or of the Earth.
If God didn't do that book for you guys my arguments would be well , a lot better.
Actually your point fails even without that book.
Of corse evolution contridicts the bible. The bible say god created the universe.
Evolution says nothing about creation, of the Earth, or of the universe, therefore, the bible saying that God created the universe could not possibly contradict evolution.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
...the fact remains that in all those cases, God itself is preventing truth from being known - or - more succinctly - God lies.
I take it then that this is your definition of "lie"? Preventing truth from being known?
First, the two verses in Jeremiah is not God lying, but the prophet lamenting that God had deceived him. Unless you are like liberal democrats, allegations are not facts. God has not lied every time someone feels they have been deceived.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:11, God sends them a delusion, but who tells the lie that they believe? Not God, though you seem to believe God is the one who lied. That makes God the liar for a lie told by another!
In none of the cases you mention does God lie. Lies were told, but not by God.
Now I KNOW you have not read the story in 1 Kings 22. Want to know how I know? Because here is what happens.
The King of Israel is going to war and wants to know from the prophet if he will be victorious.
He wants the prophet to swear that he will prophesy good news. The prophet, seeing the desperation of the king, at first says the king will defeat his enemies.
The King doesn't believe the prophet has given him the actual words of God and insists that the prophet tell the truth. So the prophet tells the King that he will be defeated if he goes to war. He further tells the King that his false prophets are liars. For telling the truth the prophet gets slapped by the false prophets who are offended that the prophet called them liars.
The King becomes angry and imprisons the prophet and goes on to ask his own false prophets if he will be successful. They, of course, lie to him.
Cut to the scene in Heaven earlier. One spirit volunteers to feed nonsense to the false prophets. God tells him to go ahead.
But God has already told the King....
1. He will lose the battle
2. His false prophets will lie to him.
The kings response is to put the prophet in prison for telling the truth, and goes on to listen to the lies of his false prophets.
Now, what lie did God tell? God sent a lying spirit to the false prophets you say? Well God TOLD the king that He had put a lying spirit into ALL his false prophets!! What lie then did God tell??
You got this from an atheist website and you didn't know the actual story. God told the King the truth, and told the king about the lying spirit. What lie then is God responsible for if the King chooses to disregard God and believe what he has been told by God are lies?
Now why did God allow the lying spirit? Because He wanted the Kings only option for access to God's word to come from God's true prophet. So God informs the King of the truth (he will lose the war, AND that his false prophets have been rendered liars.
I bet you will not see the unfairness in your judgement that God lied. You say that God was preventing truth from being known, when in fact God told the entire truth, and tried to stop the king from listening to other sources by telling the king that He had rendered those other sources to be liars.
What truth did God prevent? Not that the King would lose the war. The king was told.
Not that his false prophets would lie, the king was told the false prophets had been sent lying spirits by God.
What truth then did God prevent 3RU7AL?
You will write something so ignorant and false about my God, adding insult to injury by referring to Him as an "it". And here we see you are wholly clueless of what actually transpired. God did not prevent any truth. God did not lie.
And I bet you see yourself as a moral person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
By removing the "audience" from the equation, you automatically get a much more honest discussion and exploration of opposing ideas.
All true. But you are assuming that everyone considers a much more honest discussion and exploration of opposing ideas to be paramount. You assume this because you are logical and therefore think others on a debate site would be too.
This site isn't that way. What most want here are ELO's and bragging rights. You would think the mids could let you (or someone interested) create a parallel debate system as you suggest, but if that system succeeded, it would necessarily destroy the old rigged system, exactly what they do not want. So rationalizations will be found for why it isn't feasible/possible/practical/necessary.
Would what you suggest increase your participation in debates?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
And the idea that I would ask or want anyone to suffer for my crimes or sins is abhorrent and it appals me.
That idea isn't in the bible.
I know. That is why I find it so appalling.
Lol. OK then.
No one did ask him to do it.
Heroes aren't asked. They selflessly volunteer.
I still haven't found a single bible reference where anyone asked him to do this on their behalf.
Why are you looking for it?
And what's more, not a single one of his disciples appear to have had a clue that this was his mission here on earth.
Lol. Jesus told them several times. Perhaps this is like your Lot story where you thought the 2 angels had not lifted a finger.
Not a thing there about dying for someones responsibilities.
Why should there be? Jesus didn't die for anyone's responsibilities. You're upset that the bible DOESN'T say what DID NOT happen??
It is also odd that we are ONLY informed of these so called " heroics of selflessness" years after...
If you read scripture carefully, you'll see it.
...he was dead, ...
He's not dead.
...by Christians like me , that had never met him.
When did you become a Christian?
" follow up's" in those cases were only noticed by their absence, their absences were not hard to ignore.
OK. They are there and the Gentle Readers can see them so there is no point in embarrassing you.
...there were only four humans on the planet at the time...
Who told you that?
I'll take it that you were guessing off the top of your head.
...you have ignored the question entirely...
You ramble. Ok, so what exactly is your question?
...try explain away...
Try to explain what away? Why what Jesus didn't do (die for our responsibilities) isn't mentioned in the bible?? Really?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Just a heads up, you're spamming the exact thing over and over. Maybe you don't know that you're doing it. But if you're spamming deliberately, then never mind and carry on.
I hope you feel better soon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
His pal Jesus should have warned him.
Indeed. This was shocking and he being a man of clothe too that teaches and preaches in universities.
I didn't know dee dee preached in a university. Why would a university need preaching?
I am sorry. I was under the impression that you were showing us how Tradsecrete had made a complete imbecile of himself twice with your encouragement on this thread
No Need to be. That obsessed people often hallucinate is a well known fact.
The rest of your post was more obsessed prattle about TS so I'll just skip it. I think indulging your obsessive behavior is bad for your mental health. But the apology was nice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
He found out they were using language AI to tell if it was him under a fake alt, so he's doing a dee dee to fool it. Just my wild guess anyway. I could be wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
...the earth and the universe are the same age ?
No. The bible says nothing about the age of the Earth or the universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
The bible doesn't say or imply that the age of the Earth is 10,000 years old max.
Created:
-->
@Barney
Thanks
Created:
-->
@Barney
How is post #20 a CoC violation?
Created: