This tag does not yet have a description

Total topics: 16

The immortal soul is a pagan concept. Soul comes from a root word which means to bind. Superstitious pagan peoples would bind the hands and feet upon burial to prevent the dead from harming the living. The word evolved into a similar meaning always associated with large bodies of water (the sea) for the same reason. It was thought that the immortal souls were confined in large bodies of water, preventing them from bothering the living.

When translating the Bible from the Hebrew and Greek to English the word soul would be problematic due to it's pagan roots. However, it was the closest word we had. The Hebrew nephesh and the Greek psykhe are the Biblical terms translated into soul. The Hebrew word comes from a root that literally means "breather." The Greek word has a similar meaning. It means life and all that involves. A living being. That can be somewhat complicated by the usual obstacles, like variation in the the use of the word. Greek philosophers or modern day psychiatrists use the Greek word psykhe corresponds to the Hebrew word nephesh (nefesh, etc.)

The soul, according to the Bible, that is, nephesh or psykhe, is mortal, destructible.

Compare translations Ezekiel 18:4: "Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins, he shall die." (WEB)

Compare translations Matthew 10:28: "Don't be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna." (WEB)

Journal of Biblical Literature (Vol. XVI, p. 30): "Soul in English usage at the present time conveys usually a very different meaning from נפש [ne′phesh] in Hebrew, and it is easy for the incautious reader to misinterpret."

The New York Times, October 12, 1962: H. M. Orlinsky of Hebrew Union College states regarding nefesh: "Other translators have interpreted it to mean 'soul,' which is completely inaccurate. The Bible does not say we have a soul. 'Nefesh' is the person himself, his need for food, the very blood in his veins, his being."

New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, V:ol. XIII, p. 467): "Nepes [ne′phesh] is a term of far greater extension than our 'soul,' signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man—man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15, 17; 13.37)."

The New American Bible Glossary of Biblical Theology Terms (pp. 27, 28): "In the New Testament, to 'save one's soul' (Mk 8:35) does not mean to save some 'spiritual' part of man, as opposed to his 'body' (in the Platonic sense) but the whole person with emphasis on the fact that the person is living, desiring, loving and willing, etc., in addition to being concrete and physical."

Koehler and Baumgartner's Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1958, p. 627) on nephesh: "the breathing substance, making man a[nd] animal living beings Gn 1, 20, the soul (strictly distinct from the greek notion of soul) the seat of which is the blood Gn 9, 4f Lv 17, 11 Dt 12, 23: (249 X) . . . soul = living being, individual, person."

New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 449, 450: "There is no dichotomy [division] of body and soul in the O[ld] T[estament]. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he considered men as persons and not as composites. The term nepeš [ne′phesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person. . . . The term [psy‧khe′] is the N[ew] T[estament] word corresponding with nepeš. It can mean the principle of life, life itself, or the living being."

The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976), Macropædia, Vol. 15, p. 152: "The Hebrew term for 'soul' (nefesh, that which breathes) was used by Moses . . . , signifying an 'animated being' and applicable equally to nonhuman beings. . . . New Testament usage of psychē ('soul') was comparable to nefesh."

The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564: "The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture."

New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 452, 454: "The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen [died c. 254 C.E.] in the East and St. Augustine [died 430 C.E.] in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. . . . His [Augustine's] doctrine . . . owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism."

Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de la Bible (Valence, France; 1935), edited by Alexandre Westphal, Vol. 2, p. 557: "The concept of immortality is a product of Greek thinking, whereas the hope of a resurrection belongs to Jewish thought. . . . Following Alexander's conquests Judaism gradually absorbed Greek concepts."

The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., p. 556: "The problem of immortality, we have seen, engaged the serious attention of the Babylonian theologians. . . . Neither the people nor the leaders of religious thought ever faced the possibility of the total annihilation of what once was called into existence. Death was a passage to another kind of life."

Plato's "Phaedo," Secs. 64, 105, as published in Great Books of the Western World (1952), edited by R. M. Hutchins, Vol. 7, pp. 223, 245, 246: "Do we believe that there is such a thing as death? . . . Is it not the separation of soul and body? And to be dead is the completion of this; when the soul exists in herself, and is released from the body and the body is released from the soul, what is this but death? . . . And does the soul admit of death? No. Then the soul is immortal? Yes."

Presbyterian Life, May 1, 1970, p. 35: "Immortality of the soul is a Greek notion formed in ancient mystery cults and elaborated by the philosopher Plato."

Phaedo, 80, D, E; 81, A: Plato, quoting Socrates: "The soul, . . . if it departs pure, dragging with it nothing of the body, . . . goes away into that which is like itself, into the invisible, divine, immortal, and wise, and when it arrives there it is happy, freed from error and folly and fear . . . and all the other human ills, and . . . lives in truth through all after time with the gods."

Also see

Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, revised by H. Jones, 1968, pp. 2026, 2027;
Donnegan's New Greek and English Lexicon, 1836, p. 1404

26 4
A Response To The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (SAB): What The Bible Says About The End Of The World

The SAB indicates that, according to the Bible, the end would come within the lifetime of Jesus' listeners. I will demonstrate why this is not the case by explaining the verses they use to conclude this. They mistake the transfiguration, the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus being at the right hand of power, and John's Revelation at Patmos as referring to the end of the world.

Matthew 16:28 - Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Also see Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27)

The Interpreter's Bible says: "The prediction was not fulfilled, and later Christians found it necessary to explain that it was metaphorical."

What believers and skeptics alike seem to have glossed over is the fact that in the very next verse Matthew reveals that just 6 days later this prophecy was fulfilled. Peter, James and John witnessed the transfiguration. (Matthew 17:1-2; Luke 9:27-36; 2 Peter 1:16-18)

Matthew 23:36 - Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. (Also see Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32)

All of the above verses differ from the verses given in consideration of Matthew 16:28. British scholar G. R. Beasley-Murray: "The phrase 'this generation' should cause no difficulty for interpreters. While admittedly genea in earlier Greek meant birth, progeny, and so race, . . . in the [Greek Septuagint] it most frequently translated the Hebrew term dor, meaning age, age of humankind, or generation in the sense of contemporaries. . . . In sayings attributed to Jesus the term appears to have a twofold connotation: on the one hand it always signifies his contemporaries, and on the other hand it always carries an implicit criticism."

So Jesus could have been directing that statement to the Jewish opposition there around him at that time, who, within a generation would see the destruction of Jerusalem in 66 - 70 CE by Titus, the son of Emperor Vespasian where 1,100,000 Jews died and 97,000 were taken captive, most of whom died horrible deaths and the Christians who knew it would come were saved. (Matthew 24:16, 22) And Jesus may have been applying the same to those in opposition in the future as well.

Matthew 26:64 and Mark 14:62 are parallel accounts to one another and you won't have to wait or look far to see them fulfilled. Acts 7:55-56: "But he, being full of holy spirit gazed into heaven and caught sight of God's glory and of Jesus standing at God's right hand, and he said: "Look! I behold the heavens opened up and the Son of man standing at God's right hand." Also see Psalm 110:1; Luke 22:69; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1.

John 21:20-23 is somewhat interesting. Jesus may have been telling Peter that John would live longer than him, and in fact John would live 70 years, but also he might have been referring to the prophetic vision that John was given at the end of his life while in exile on the island of Patmos. As recorded in the book of Revelation John was transported to "the Lords day." (Revelation 1:1, 10; Revelation 22:20)

[SAB] - The end will come within the lifetime of the New Testament authors.

Response: Jesus taught his followers that no one, not even Jesus himself, knew the time of the end of the world. (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32; Acts 1:7)

Also at this point some clarification should be made as to what exactly is the "end of the world." The Bible says that Earth was given to man for him to fill and subdue it, that the meek will inherit the earth and live forever upon it, and that it will last forever. (Genesis 1:28; Psalm 37:29; 115:16; Ecclesiastes 1:4) The end of the world is the end of the present system of things and all that involves. Of Satan's influence and sin, which, when concluding brings much destruction, but when ended, allows peace.

1 Corinthians 1:7-8; 7:29; Philippians 1:10 all convey the importance of the missionary work in the early stages of Christianity. They all had important work to do before the end of their lives. Nowhere in any of these passages is it conveyed that they expected the end of the system of things to occur during that time.

1 Thessalonians 4:17 is often used to support the rapture, but actually it is referring to some who were mourning the death of their fellow Christians. Paul was reminding them as well as faithful Christians in the future of the resurrection hope, some to heaven immediately upon death and some to paradise earth upon resurrection.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 refers to the presence of Jesus Christ. The Greek noun parousia is used. It means "being alongside." In his work on The Parousia, Israel P. Warren, D.D., wrote: "Had our translators done with this technical word 'parousia' as they did with 'baptisma,' - transferring it unchanged, - or if translated using its exact etymological equivalent, presence, and had it been well understood, as it then would have been, that there is no such thing as a 'Second Presence,' I believe that the entire doctrine would have been different from what it now is. The phrases, 'second advent,' and 'second coming,' would never have been heard of. The church would have been taught to speak of The Presence Of The Lord, as that from which its hopes were to be realized, whether in the near future or at the remotest period, - that under which the world was to be made new, a resurrection both spiritual and corporeal should be attained, and justice and everlasting awards administered."

The word occurs 24 times in the Christian Greek scripture: Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39; 1 Corinthians 15:23; 16:17; 2 Corinthians 7:6, 7; 10:10; Philippians 1:26; 2:12; 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 8, 9; James 5:7, 8; 2 Peter 1:16; 3:4, 12; 1 John 2:28.

Pareimi is a related verb with the similar meaning of being present. It also occurs 24 times in the Christian Greek scripture: Matthew 26:50; Luke 13:1; John 7:6; 11:28; Acts 10:21, 33; 12:20; 17:6; 24:19; Acts 12:20; 1 Corinthians 5:3, 3; 2 Corinthians 10:2, 11; 2 Corinthians 11:9; 13:2, 10; Galatians 4:18, 20; Colossians 1:6; Hebrews 12:11; 13:5; 2 Peter 1:9, 12; Revelation 17:8.

The Greek word, eleusis (Latin adventu), which conveys the physical act of coming is different and only occurs once in the Christian Greek scripture, at Acts 7:52. Paul was encouraging those with a heavenly hope to remain blameless until their death, or the conclusion of the system of things and the presence, not the physical presence, of Jesus Christ.

In discussing Hebrews 1:2; 9:26; 1 Peter 1:20; 4:7 it is somewhat difficult to stay on topic of the so called end of the world because the last days that Paul was referring to were not the last days of the present system of things, but rather the last days of the Jewish system of things. Jehovah had given the prophecy of those days 850 years earlier. (Joel 2:28-32; Acts 2:16-21; Hebrews 1:1-2) It was the end of God's favor upon the Jewish congregation and the beginning of his favor for the new Christian congregation.

1 John 2:18 refers to the end of the apostolic period. The work mentioned as important in the scriptures at the beginning of this article were near completion and would conclude upon the death of John shortly after he completed the writing of Revelation.

[SAB] - The end will come soon. (Within a couple thousand years or so)

Response: It is interesting that, as with the case of Philippians 4:5, the Lord that is being referred to isn't Jesus Christ but rather, Jehovah. Codex Sinaiticus, Greek, fourth century CE, Codex Alexandrinus, Greek, fifth century CE, Vatican ms 1209, Greek, fourth century CE, Christian Greek Scriptures in 12 languages, including Hebrew, by Elias Hutter, Nuremberg, 1599, Christian Greek Scriptures, Hebrew, by William Robertson, London, 1661, and the Latin Vulgate, by Jerome, c. 400 CE (Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem) all read Jehovah.

James 5:7-8 is talking about the presence (parousia) mentioned earlier in this article.

At Hebrews 10:37 Paul quotes Habakkuk 2:2-3 from the Greek Septuagint, which reads "And the Lord answered [me] and said: Write a vision; write it distinctly in a book that the reader may trace these things [may run]; for the vision is for a time yet to come. But it will spring up at last and will not be vain. Though he may tarry, wait for him; for he will assuredly come and will not fail [and will not tarry]."

Revelation 1:1, 3; 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20 may undoubtedly amuse the skeptic, who, of course, is familiar with the Biblical fact that a thousand years are as a watch in the night to God (Psalm 90:4), but to the writers of the Bible, especially John when writing Revelation and who would die shortly afterward, the resurrection hope would follow sleep in death which would seem, upon that resurrection, as the same day as they died, though it actually had been thousands of years.

48 10
The real meaning of the Bible is very simple. It's about the vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus. 

The Bible: Desktop / Mobile Device.
175 11
--> @Stephen

I open this thread in order to put forth an interesting subject for yourconsideration and eventual discussion. This is not by any means a thread todeny the existence of God, Universal Consciousness, Universal Spirit orwhatever you want to call it because as the agnostic I am I don’t know for sureabout it and have no evidence. What I’m trying to convey here is the fact thatthe bible is not a set of books inspired by a divine being but a fascinatingtestimony of an encounter with an alien team that accompanied the ancient Hebrewsto build their civilization as it occurred in many other ancient societies likethose in Mesopotamia, Egypt, America, and many other places. The reasons tobelieve in that are as follows:

1. Literal translation of the bible
I’ve always said that the bible is one of these examples of the “broken telephone” in which the intended message is distorted and as a result the received message is most of the time completely different. The bible has been translated and modified at will by Christian theologians so many times that believers ended up believing in a fairy tale.

Mauro Biglino, a former translator of the Vatican, has been exposing the literal translation of the bible over the last years which left no doubt about what the ancient Hebrews really tried to tell us. Expressions like “the glory of God” or “the spirit of God” means nothing but “an outstanding mass that comes from the sky”, in short, a spacecraft. Moreover, the bible with the correct translation talks about "angels" that seem to be more like human beings: they eat and drink, they talk, they fuck, they kill, they even fight with the people. The story of the aliens gets more evident when we look through the non-official books (also known as the apocryphal books). I strongly suggest to check the work of this Italian.

2. The domesticated human being
I’ve got to tell that I’m not a big fan of the evolutionary theory because it has many flaws and gross holes, as I explained it in a thread that I opened long time ago. I’m sorry but as I don’t believe in fairy tales, I don’t believe in bogus theories either. I’m not saying that the evolution of species cannot occur as Darwin said, but this theory cannot explain how human beings appeared all of a sudden in this planet, I mean the timings and archeological rests just don’t square. I found more acceptable the panspermia theory, but in the light of the recent information, I think the ancient astronauts’ theory is more believable.

Many studies concluded that human beings share the same evolutionary characteristics of the domesticated animals. The scientific hypothesis is that human beings domesticated themselves; I think I don’t need further explanation to show how imbecile this hypothesis sounds. We all know that to domesticate an animal we need a controlled environment and sometimes genetic modifications. The hypothesis of the ancient astronauts says that the controlled environment is the Eden Garden and the genetic modifications were carried out by these aliens using their own genetical information, which explain why we look so similar to them: “Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule…’”, Genesis 1:26. The story of the Eden Garden is obviously a copy from the Mesopotamian civilization which is in more detail, but this story is also present in many cultures which lead us to think that there were several “Gardens”.

Many people think all the aliens are grey, which is partially true because the universe is diverse, but according to the renowned ufologist Sixto Paz Wells, who had several close encounters of the fifth type, the aliens that colonized this planet look very similar to the human beings to the point that they can mingle with us hands down: “Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.”, Hebrews 13:2. In one of these encounters, he realized that the alien that was getting off the spacecraft was actually an acquaintance of him, to be more specific a European entrepreneur that he met years before.

3. The connection with Egypt
Ancient Egypt is without any doubt the main source of evidence for the ancient astronauts’ theory and many ufologists claim that the answer to the biblical quests is in Egypt, including the one related to the figure of Jesus since several biblical stories are almost a copy from the Egyptian myths.

The renowned ufologist JJ Benitez, in his book “The Yahve’s wars”, asserts that the biblical story of Exodus is not only based on a real event but an attempt of the aliens to build a new civilization different to the Egyptian. Why did the aliens get away from Egypt? The answer could be in the reign of Akhenaten, the pharaoh who decreed all of a sudden to worship only one God: the sun-disk Aten. Why did the pharaoh decree such a disruptive measure? Did he have contact with these aliens? Akhenaten is sometimes called the world’s first monotheist that influenced Moses to impose by force the monotheism. The pharaoh closed the temples and destroyed the images of other gods, everything related to these gods, even the unwanted allusions, were removed. He also banned any cult and any attempt to build art for any god, the change was radical. What amazes me is that there was no way to create a monotheist society in any ancient civilization because the measures of Akhenaten didn’t succeed at all and wouldn’t succeed anywhere, he in fact ended up being hated. Is it the reason why the alien team chose Moses and a bunch of people to create another civilization in another place? Did the alien team realize that they fucked Egypt up? It seems so because the Exodus story, if read correctly, is full of spacecrafts guiding Moses and his people to “the promised land”, no matter if they had to kill people to steal their land and no matter if they had to kill those who resist to worship only one God as it is told in the bible. It’s estimated that 1M people were killed by either Yahve or Moses’ people who only obeyed Yahve’s orders, a bloody God for sure. But why the aliens imposed such cruel measures of worshipping one only God and forbidding the images and idols? JJ Benitez thinks that the aliens didn’t want to leave any hint of their existence as it happened in Egypt, so they decided to kill anyone who creates images or sees God’s face: “But, he said, ‘you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.’”, Exodus 33:20.

4. Resemblance between the biblical stories and the testomonies of contactees
This point may be controversial for most of you since it's commonly associated with spiritism and religions, but it's not and it actually can explain some unbelievable stories of the bible. It’s known that even though we look like the aliens, they are far more superior in all aspects, esthetically, physically and MENTALLY. Several contactees have experienced lucid dreams where non-human beings communicate important messages. One of these cases is about a Spanish soldier who found small human footprints in the area he was surveilling. When tracing these footprints, he found weird dark stones on the way, so he decided to bring them home to analyze them. The next day, his daughter said that she dreamt with a group of small people that clearly told her to get rid of these stones his father took the previous day because if not his father will get cancer.

It's really interesting to realize that this kind of communication is present in many stories of the bible, where an "angel" says something important into someone's dreams. Jacob and Joseph received "angelical" messages in dreams. "The angel of God said to me in the dream, ‘Jacob.’ I answered, ‘Here I am.’", Genesis 31:11. "Now after Herod had died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt'", Matthew 2:19. What we have to understand is that the aliens are millions of years ahead, so it’s not far-fetched to think they have full control of their minds. In fact, the ufologist Sixto Paz had contact with the aliens using telepathy several times. As well as him, there are other people that were contacted the same way. If nowadays we can communicate instantly with other people that are on the other side of the world using invisible electromagnetic waves, why couldn’t we think that our minds can do the same? It’s totally possible and could explain many stories of the bible related to extraterrestrial beings doing telepathy and even prophecies.

5. They send the same message
I’ve been hearing a lot of people talking about their communication with the extraterrestrial beings and they coincide with the fact that these aliens want us, above all else, to develop our minds as a vehicle to take to the next level in our evolutionary journey, by means of love, compassion, and care for the others so that we can join the interstellar community. I couldn’t help noticing that part of this message looks similar to that of Jesus, also known as the Christ. What does it mean? Was Jesus part of this alien team? Maybe, and I wouldn’t find the message wrong because it’s what reasonable people, either atheist or theist, want so badly in this fucking world. What it would be wrong is that a minority builds a whole fucking stupid belief system using this simple message just to have control over the gullible people. Whatever it is, we should get used to the fact that these aliens will show up sooner or later because most people are more conscious about it and nobody would dare to deem someone as insane when telling such stories.
150 12
I like to pick somebody's brain on this.
Somebody that's well versed or has a good understanding on the trinity doctrine.

I just have some questions. The way I titled this I put in that order intentionally.

Everybody that knows a thing or two real well about this, participate.

69 8
I’ve been reading lately some books of JJ Benitez who is a recognizedufologist that questions the bible, comparing its content with the roundabout26k testimonies of the contactees he personally interviewed over 50 years,which to me leave no doubt that the bible is not a divinely inspired book, letalone sacred words, but an incredible testimony of the presence of human-like beingswith super high technology during the development of the ancient Hebrewcivilization. There is a lot of controversial information I would like todiscuss though, because this subject is open to many theories, not only the human-likealien beings’ theory but also for example the lost human civilizations’ theory,so I decided to create this initial thread in order to meditate previously onwhy most people, either religious or atheists, keep so obstinate on theirbeliefs despite the plethora of evidence there is out there. This is importantbecause the subject I want to discuss requires open-mindedness.

On the one hand, we have the religious people who stick obstinately totheir beliefs despite the fact that the bible is just a mere set of books withmany errors and contradictions that were written by fallible people who hadlimited understanding of their reality. Those books have been passed downsuffering a lot of modifications and translations with the only intention ofgiving them a "spiritual" meaning which make them even more unreliable.Proof of that is the several works of many bible scholars that studied them inits original language in order to find out its real meaning. The original biblicalinformation (in Hebrew) leads us to think effectively about the existence ofthese more evolved human-like beings I referred to, as it is well explained bythe bible translator Mauro Biglino whose work is very telling.

On the other hand, we have the atheists who are not that different totheir counterparts the religious people. Their God is the human science, theirbible is the scientific books/papers and their saints are the scientists. Iunderstand that science has methods and procedures scientists have to stick to,but I am referring to the attitude most of the scientists hold with controversialsubjects like this one, regarding it with disdain as if they were the owners ofthe truth. NASA took a step forward recognizing that this phenomenon deservesto be studied, but even so, arrogant scientists are still there blocking any attemptto study it because atheists gave them authority and as a consequence they feel empowered to doso. For instance, in the interview I provide (1:15:58), Graham Hancock makes a complaintabout how today’s archeologists dominate the main narrative on ancientcivilizations and avoid considering dissident opinions. What I’m trying to sayis that today’s science is run by fallible people and as such it is perfectlyliable to errors and hence to be questioned. In fact, the possible existence of alien civilizations with better technology entails a great impact not only on religions but also on science, specially on the theory of evolution that atheists have fervent faith in.

Is it difficult to be open minded, at least a little bit? What is it? Dogmatism?Fear of an existential crisis? Stubbornness? Shame?

What do you think?
50 7
This forum is meant to continue the interruptive discussion left off in the forum "Everything about Buddhism," specifically between me and Mr.BrotherD.Thomas.

I would normally post my positive environment guideline below, but since none of the mods are concerned with enforcing site policies for Mr.BrotherD.Thomas (, I can only ask each person is not the root of negativity.

Let me sum this up:

You fail to reconcile your belief with God's direct words from Micah 6:4, rather than choosing to believe in all God's words.

You refuse to admit 2 Peter 1:1 could be interpreted literally as one God who is also Jesus, or two beings, God as God and Jesus as Saviour.

You refuse to admit 2 Peter 1:20 could be interpreted literally as using the word "interpretation" to describe the "origin," or the "reading" of prophecies.

You fail to present any evidence that the 1611 KJV Bible is the closest to God's words, begging the question why?
Side note: God didn't speak in English, so it's an interpretation, which you quote from to paradoxically prove interpretation invalid.

You refuse to provide evidence for a God given dictionary in which to interpret his words, since words lack inherent meaning.
Side note: Failing to use a God given dictionary necessitates a human dictionary to interpret meaning, then quoting said interpretation with human dictionary paradoxically claiming all interpretations invalid, which includes your arguments source.

Finally, you have the audacity to ask me to reply to your comment #49, which bears no question mark, necessitating my interpretation of your words to respond.

106 14
I recently have been introduced to a user by the name of Stephen who has the idea that the God of the Bible is "wicked".  I would like Stephen to come on and describe his view of the Biblical God being wicked.  
216 22
Most of my debates from here on out will be about the Bible or similar content. I created a forum because like the title says, this will be a series of mine with no signs of stopping. 

The forum is also so those interested can contact me ahead of time. Reasons could be: a specific topic for debate, debate alterations, or the like. 

I am not into debates in which the title is in itself a trap. These arguments are made to increase my knowledge of Biblical content and opposing views.

Again, if you are interested and have a specific topic, let me know.

If there is low activity on this forum then I my debates will simply be "Bible Is True" or something like that to give Con the full capability to attack however they like.  
36 9

The faith of any who believes in Jesus Christ stands not in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God.
No one who is a  follower of Jesus Christ will have their faith in Jesus shaken or undone by the logic or cunning or experiences of humanity, nor by strength of reason or philosophy.
but it is tried by life, it is standing firm in the power the miracles, the manifested nature of God's spirit.
faith comes by hearing the word of God
faith stands by power/demonstration of God
faith is built up by praying in the Holy ghost.

therefore, debate and discussion and arguement should never affect the faith of a true Christian. but with the word of God, our faith comes.
life and its trials will test everyone's faith, to show that it is sure, or if it is false.

1 corinthians 3:10-15 10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
47 10
- First of all, anybody I used to know still lurking around here?

- It seems nobody wants to debate me despite my soliciting efforts... I've been away a couple of years, & I've already noticed a huge change of attitudes. Regardless, this is a debate website, so let's get debating. I am Muslim, cultivated in an Islamic Tradition, my primary interest for debate. I realize most here have an aversion towards debating Islam related topics, maybe this post will make it a little bit more compelling. Although I'm interested in debating any Islam related topics (religion, theology, history, law, philosophy...etc), this is an initial list of ideas:

God Is (God, as defined in the Islamic tradition of course)
Islam is true / Muhammed (pbuh) is a true prophet
The Quran is faithfully preserved
The Quran is a true revelation
Islam is a religion of peace
The Hadith tradition is genuine

Christianity vs. Islam:
Tawhid vs. Trinity
Quran vs. Bible preservation
Quran vs. NT preservation
Truth of Quran vs. Bible
Quranic stories vs. Biblical stories
Quranic prophets vs. Biblical prophets
Free Will in Islam vs. Christianity
Salvation in Islam vs. Christianity
Worldview in Islam vs. Christianity
Women's rights in Islam vs. Christianity
Human rights in Islam vs. Christianity
History of Muslims vs. Christians
Science in relation to Islam vs. Christianity
Islamic conquests vs. Christian conquests

Secularism vs. Islam:
Islamic state vs. Secular state
Freedom of religion in Islam vs. Secularism
Islamic education vs. Secular education
Islamic ethics vs. Secular ethics
Islamic history vs. Secular history
Human rights in Islam vs. Secularism
Women's rights in Islam vs. Secularism
Islamic conquests vs. Secular conquests

Hard challenges (for me):
The Quran is better preserved than any other book in history
Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) is the best attested to person in history
Islamic penal law is superior to Secular penal law
History in Islamic tradition is superior to History in the Western tradition
The origin of Common Law is primarily Islamic Law
Eastern Christianity is superior to Western Christianity
The Hijab is a religious duty in all abrahamic religions
The zionist cause of Israel is culpable
Atheism is unattainable 
Darwinian Evolution is more literature than science
Subsaharan Africa adopted civilization before White Europe (non-Mediterranean)
Nicholas Copernicus is a plagerist
Classical Physics is primarily an Islamic invention
The Arab race is the most influential race in history
Democracy is a terrible government system
Erdogan vs. any current European leader
The Islamic world will surpass the Western world by 2050
The Belt & Road project is good
China will surpass the Western world by 2040
The world order will go back to its pre-Western dominion by 2070
China has already surpassed the US
The Chinese communist state is superior to the Western democratic state

- I might think of more to add later... Lemme know if you'd like to chip in, I am open to new topics as well. 
205 21
Every single disciple and person Jesus used his power on to cure was male, correct?

It's as if female attention and loyalty meant absolutely nothing to him.
276 25
Ever heard the song, Killing Me Softly by Roberta Flack?

Parts of the lyrics go...
Telling my whole life with his words

I felt all flushed with fever, embarrassed by the crowd
I felt he'd found my letters and read each one out loud
He sang as if he knew me, in all my dark dispair...

That was the exactly the impression I got reading the Bible. It was so true to my understanding of human nature, so true to what is within me, that I was "flushed and embarrassed". The Bible's authors were telling my whole life with their words.

Is this psychological? For the exact thing seems to have happened to millions of people all of different ethnicities, races, nationalities, genders, and ages.

And no other work of literature has had such a profound, lasting, or universally influential effect on humanity as the Bible has.

How could the human response to the Bible be only psychological?
13 6
I don't understand what he means by that statement. Omega males are basically the very rebellious type who refuse to bow down before the Alpha male, in an overt manner that can at times get them punished, depending on personality clashes and agendas.

Scar in Lion King was a Sigma male while Mufasa was an obvious Alpha. However, a good example of what an Omega Male is, is actually Pumbaa (Timon is more of a beta male). If God is both the rebellious and the man in charge is it true to say God may be Satan himself?

65 9
Both Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1 read, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” 

Some take these verses to mean that atheists are stupid, i.e., lacking intelligence. However, that is not the only meaning of the Hebrew word translated “fool.” In this text, the Hebrew word is nabal, which often refers to an impious person who has no perception of ethical or religious truth. 

The meaning of the text is not “unintelligent people do not believe in God.” Rather, the meaning of the text is “sinful people do not believe in God.” In other words, it is a wicked thing to deny God, and a denial of God is often accompanied by a wicked lifestyle. 

The verse goes on to list some other characteristics of the irreligious: “They are corrupt; their deeds are vile; / there is no one who does good.” Psalm 14 is a study on the universal depravity of mankind.

Many atheists are very intelligent. It is not intelligence, or a lack thereof, that leads a person to reject belief in God. It is a lack of righteousness that leads a person to reject belief in God.

Many people do not object to the idea of a Creator, as long as that Creator minds His own business and leaves them alone. What people reject is the idea of a Creator who demands morality from His creation. Rather than struggle against a guilty conscience, some people reject the idea of God altogether. Psalm 14:1 calls this type of person a “fool.”
127 16
Lucifer is Jesus, if you go back to my threads such as this:



And This:

You will see the dates (especially of the latter 2) completely supercede his own. I have even evolved the theory far more, understanding that Lucifer/Jesus is also Allah and Samael as things progress, if Jesus and Lucifer really existed (so therefore, Islam wouldn't be entirely true but could be part of a true storyline). 

I also notice that Satan is actually God of the Old Testament, something which Stephen fails to do. My theory also explains why Jesus was the enemy of the Devil but God himself/herself/itself is never actually held as the enemy of the Devil, during the New Testament at least.
43 7