Religion… What do you think?

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17044

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27601  Edited By Cable_Extreme

@hulkbusterx9: whether or not Jesus or Alexander the Great did or did not exist, that isn’t my concern. My concern is that the supernatural claims remain unsupported, even if existence is determined.

Avatar image for just_sayin
just_sayin

4240

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27602  Edited By just_sayin

@king_saturn said:

1. My issue isn't GOD judging by a person's standard it's that GOD's standard for judging is inconsistent in general. How many times did David sin against GOD yet GOD never punished David directly ? We have been over how David sinned against GOD by taking a Census and yet GOD punished Israel by killing 70,000 people instead of punishing David directly or even GOD punishing the child that David had with Bathsheba for the sin that David had committed. Yet here, we have GOD killing someone for essentially holding the Ark of GOD from falling off of a cart. GOD's standard to punish sin is inconsistent.

It seems like your argument has shifted or I have misunderstood it. If your argument is "God is unjust", I hope I have that right, then let's talk about it.

Let me give you a few more examples to round out the "God is unjust" argument. 1) the wicked prosper, while the just suffer (argument of several Psalms like 73) - think Job. 2) Different outcomes - 11 of the disciples die horrible deaths, but John is only boiled in oil and lives to a ripe old age, 3) Drunk driver goes free while child is hit and killed.

First David does face personal eternal judgment for his sins. Temporal punishments do not supplant eternal ones in Christian doctrine. The basic understanding of Christian theology is "for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Further, "People are destined to die once and then face judgment. In the same way, Christ was also offered once to take on himself the sins of many people. He will appear a second time, not to take away sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him." (Hebrews 9:27-28). The parent who lost a child to a drunk driver can know that even though it appears the drunk driver "got away with it", the truth is that he will not. He will face judgment - though not necessarily during his temporal lifetime.

The one great exception to this in Christian doctrine is the concept of grace. Grace is "not getting what you deserve". It is unmerited favor. The second part of Hebrews 9:27-28 speaks of this. God offers a way of restoring the relationship between us and him that was severed by our sin. The Christian concept is that this is not earned, but offered. It is not about what we do to earn it, but what he did to provide it. It is offered to all, but anyone can reject it.

2. The passage in 2 Samuel 6 states that Uzzah touched the Ark because the Oxen stumbled... if Uzzah's intention was to simply touch the Ark out of the point he saw it was irrelevant then why does the passage clearly give reason as to why Uzzah did touch it ? The Oxen stumbled, causing the cart to rock, causing the Ark to be in a compromising position. I don't see it as disrespect to GOD because the passage does not say Uzzah touched it for any other reason than the Oxen stumbled, which could lead to the conclusion that the Ark was about to stumble on the cart as well.

It would be difficult to believe that Uzzah - who had custody of the ark for about 10 years, would not have known the wealth of warnings and commandments about it. Mistreatment of the ark had been known to kill priests before. That's why they tied a rope around them when they went into the holiest of holies. The word that is used to describe God's anger strongly suggests that it is because of Uzzah's disrespect. The word carries with it that the one has been offended in a disrespected fashion. It appears more is going on than the ark just fell on top of him and killed him.

3. GOD has the ability to judge however he wants to. That's the point. GOD could have taken out David for violating his law dealing with the Census but he choose to punish Israel instead, GOD could have punished David for sleeping with Bathsheba but he punished the Child of the two instead. GOD punishes Uzzah for stopping his Ark from stumbling off a cart and GOD kills him instantly. GOD's standard is inconsistent as GOD at times will show mercy to the violator and at other times will punish the violator straight forward. That is the Problem.

Underlying your third point is what I think is a wrong premise, that "judgment" must occur in this lifetime and the negative consequences of "sin" only affect the "sinner". Not all bad things that happens to you are "judgment" and not every good thing is a "reward". That's kinda the point of Job. We have talked about "corporate" accountability before, where a group suffers or is rewarded - based on what the corporate body or leadership does. However, this is not their eternal judgement.

Suffering from the "sins" of others does not mean that god has imputed "sin" to you. The Christian belief is that we will each stand before God and give an account for our conduct. In Jesus story of the rich man and Lazarus, Lazarus suffered much during his lifetime while the rich man had an easy life, but after their death, it was the rich man who envied Lazarus' final state.

Avatar image for official_chad3
Official_Chad3

112

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The idea about God punishing the child of the adulterer instead of those who are involved in adultery themselves or sometimes set a worse judgement upon can be explained with the prohibition of bastardization or interbreeding with the Edomites, those who are not parts of Adamkind. Sure, a man who defiles his own blood by mixing with demons from the tribe of Cain can be redeemed just like how Adam and Eve were redeemed, but a bastard can never lile his father so God will destroy it.

Avatar image for official_chad3
Official_Chad3

112

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The idea about God punishing the child of the adulterer instead of those who are involved in adultery themselves or sometimes set a worse judgement upon can be explained with the prohibition of bastardization or interbreeding with the Edomites, those who are not parts of Adamkind. Sure, a man who defiles his own blood by mixing with demons from the tribe of Cain can be redeemed just like how Adam and Eve were redeemed, but a bastard can never like his father so God will destroy it. Before anyone would come up against my God and say he isn’t morally just at all, please explain to me what morals even mean because I have never understood the meaning of the damn word, despite the fact that it is being normally interpreted differently by different people with different views.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

5993

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17:

Who do you worship more, Zarathustra or Mithra?

Would you provide some more specifics as to what you're trying to ask? If they compete with Christianity or monotheism then, of course, I wouldn't be worshiping them. I only worship the Holy Trinity (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit).

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8162

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme:

The guy walking on water had phasing technology or mass exchange technology.

The raising the dead thing is being investigated by origin of life researchers who are trying to understand how life can come from non life.

So these things are possible however we are not advanced enough with our education and technology to understand them.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17044

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@spareheadone: okay if he had phasing technology. How could such technology exist in such a primitive time and in such a primitive area?

How can one person craft theoretically advanced technology that is still so far out of reach for us? And thirdly, such technologies would prove non-divinity.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

5993

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#27608  Edited By dshipp17

@cable_extreme:

“if the videos reference scientific articles, then bypass the videos and link us the scientific articles. That would get us a lot further than a video of random people claiming something without linking any scientific evidence.”

If I'd attached a paper to the post, wouldn't you take the steps to read? Just play the clip and notice the references to the scientific papers.

Where did you get the idea that the presenters in these clips are random people, if you never played the clips?

“As far as putting my time towards reaching and learning about your God. I was raised a Christian, I have read the Bible about 16 times now, and have intensively studied biblical and theological theories. Everything from the 3 Abrahamic religions, Deism, Pantheism, poltheyism etc... I have probably already heard and countered most of your current arguments before with other people. ”

Based on what you've written so far, you've demonstrated no actual knowledge of the Bible and views held by Christians. These are just extraordinary claims on display; show me that you even know what I've been implying. Right now, I can't tell. But, I can see where you could have gotten lost, confused, and mixed up, if you in fact did such. But, your knowledge of Christianity is sorely lacking.

But, this has nothing to do with anything. The request was that you put effort towards finding the latest evidence and proof of God as devoted by the group who has interest in defending against these common punchlines from atheistic press, or any of it it, for that matter: the scholarly Christian community. You studied theology, possibly, but, that's the wrong area; look for the science, history, and archaeology said to support Christianity. In those areas, you've clearly put no effort, at all. The thing is, again, as I said to someone else, there is no single overarching piece of evidence for God, there are numerous pieces of evidence for God to be found.

As you're claiming that there is no evidence for God and that God isn't real, I assume, you have to show me that you've made an extraordinary effort towards a search for evidence for God that was exhaustive, total, and complete in nature. As evidence for God even overlays into academia, you have to show me that you can debunk everything that is being taught in colleges and universities about God. You haven't come close to that.

Instead, you're trying to get me to bring evidence to you, which is the evidence that you've already supposedly examined and debunked; if it went in that order, then I'd be helping you with your extraordinary claim that you've debunked every known piece of evidence for the existence of God without a hint that you're capable of such or that you're even aware of any of the evidence in specific areas. You won't even play a video clip with a portion of that available evidence which quite frankly shows me that you can't and you haven't done what you're implying to me that you've been able to do. You think the presenters are random people, where your supposedly exhaustive search should have allowed you to have intimate familiarity with the presenters in the clips, as they are the experts and go-tos in these areas for Christians or people having a genuine and objective interest in looking for the evidence.

And, had you been able to do such, that would have still only been part of the battle, as people also have their personal experiences that they can testify about, soon after becoming Christians; you would have to show that you know the cause of each of their experiences and that you have a non-supernatural explanation that explains their experiences to everyone's satisfaction, or that people have lied about their experiences, soon after becoming Christian; your explanation would even be able to explain away what was documented in the Bible at the time of Jesus; your making light of the walking on water shows that you're totally lacking in this regard, as well. Joking is one thing, but, now, it's time to get serious with convincing evidence of your extraordinary claims about your overarching knowledge that can explain away our beliefs in God.

“The main problems with your view is that there is no evidence that the Bible is true in its claims of the supernatural.”

There is quite a bit of evidence that the Bible is true in its claim of the supernatural and I even provided a clip of it not too long ago in this thread. Here, you're just throwing out a claim based on speculation and hoping that it would stick. You've put yourself in a position that now you have to substantiate your claim that you've done an exhaustive search and you can now convince me, by explaining away the evidence that we have, that I'm mistaking about the evidence; with such exhaustive knowledge, you should just take a swing at it, list some of the commonly known occurrence from the Christian community and the commonly known evidence and explain it away as us having been mistaking about it; you should even be able to explain away the overlap within academia. Clearly, you have nothing even approaching this ability, where it's becoming clear that you're probably lying about the number of times that you've even read the Bible.

I can tell that KingSaturn might have been something close to a pastor at one time, as he claims, as I told him, I had to sometimes check the Bible in order to tell how he's distorting Scripture to his end; and this was long before he made his claim to having possibly having been a pastor; but, on your end, this should be causing me this effort about the things from the video clips that I've been posting; however, I'm getting the sense that you have no awareness of the information, at all; you want to use my knowledge of it and then credit as your own and then say, see, look what I knew. Additionally, you haven't even shown me that I should be skeptical of the Bible and that I should dismiss the Bible out of hand as not credible.

“I have looked into scientific theories of the Big Bang because I have been introduced to those theories. I have asked people who are scientifically literate and they directed me towards those theories, explained the evidence, showed me how to look up data, and how to look up peer reviews from other qualified scientist to determine how trustworthy the source is that I am reading.”

No, I'm afraid not. You showed me, through your willingness to find an alternative to Christianity, that you pursued the knowledge on your own. This wouldn't be how the learning experience in science works. The learning experience in science revolves around making sure that you have pursued all of the necessary prerequisites on your own. Once you've done that, you are then directed towards the theories. During the process, you are exposed to scientifically literate people in this area of academia. But, for this effort to occur, you can't presume that you're talking to random people; you have to presume that they have the credentials that they claim, after having presumed that they were honest and trustworthy. However, you seem to be questioning the honesty of people who's claim to fame is based on their honesty and trustworthiness; where is your support that they should be discredited, particularly, when you have no idea as to who your throwing darts at, after an independent effort to examine?

“Provide me scientific theories that support your world view so I can start learning.”

They have been provided in the video clips. Also, you've implied to me that you've already done an exhaustive and overarching search already and that you've debunked the information. So, your task is to demonstrate and convince me that this is true; right now, you seem too reluctant to just start watching my clips.

Avatar image for hulkbusterx9
HulkBusterx9

2574

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17: No one is going to watch your hour long clips. Provide a link to a study that undeniably confirms his existence.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8162

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme:

Maybe his ability to craft the tech is evidence for his divinity

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8162

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17044

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@spareheadone: yet no evidence that he performed the miracles or possessed tech. Your statement assumes that he actually did achieve these feats and tries to explain it using an unsupported theory.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8162

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme:

"""yet no evidence that he performed the miracles or possessed tech."""

There is eyewitness testimony in the gospels. This is evidence.

"""Your statement assumes that he actually did achieve these feats and tries to explain it using an unsupported theory."""

Lots of areas in science operate this way. When I point them out to people they say "well we have to start somewhere"

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17044

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27614  Edited By Cable_Extreme

@dshipp17:

“If I'd attached a paper to the post, wouldn't you take the steps to read? Just play the clip and notice the references to the scientific papers.

Where did you get the idea that the presenters in these clips are random people, if you never played the clips?”

They are random people spouting religious bias. I don’t care about their opinion, I want cold hard facts before religious people interpret them to support their bias. I want to look at the evidence that you claim you have and see if it leads me to your conclusion. So far, the Bible is used as your baseline.

“Based on what you've written so far, you've demonstrated no actual knowledge of the Bible and views held by Christians. These are just extraordinary claims on display; show me that you even know what I've been implying. Right now, I can't tell. But, I can see where you could have gotten lost, confused, and mixed up, if you in fact did such. But, your knowledge of Christianity is sorely lacking.

But, this has nothing to do with anything. The request was that you put effort towards finding the latest evidence and proof of God as devoted by the group who has interest in defending against these common punchlines from atheistic press, or any of it it, for that matter: the scholarly Christian community. You studied theology, possibly, but, that's the wrong area; look for the science, history, and archaeology said to support Christianity. In those areas, you've clearly put no effort, at all. The thing is, again, as I said to someone else, there is no single overarching piece of evidence for God, there are numerous pieces of evidence for God to be found.

As you're claiming that there is no evidence for God and that God isn't real, I assume, you have to show me that you've made an extraordinary effort towards a search for evidence for God that was exhaustive, total, and complete in nature. As evidence for God even overlays into academia, you have to show me that you can debunk everything that is being taught in colleges and universities about God. You haven't come close to that.

Instead, you're trying to get me to bring evidence to you, which is the evidence that you've already supposedly examined and debunked; if it went in that order, then I'd be helping you with your extraordinary claim that you've debunked every known piece of evidence for the existence of God without a hint that you're capable of such or that you're even aware of any of the evidence in specific areas. You won't even play a video clip with a portion of that available evidence which quite frankly shows me that you can't and you haven't done what you're implying to me that you've been able to do. You think the presenters are random people, where your supposedly exhaustive search should have allowed you to have intimate familiarity with the presenters in the clips, as they are the experts and go-tos in these areas for Christians or people having a genuine and objective interest in looking for the evidence.

And, had you been able to do such, that would have still only been part of the battle, as people also have their personal experiences that they can testify about, soon after becoming Christians; you would have to show that you know the cause of each of their experiences and that you have a non-supernatural explanation that explains their experiences to everyone's satisfaction, or that people have lied about their experiences, soon after becoming Christian; your explanation would even be able to explain away what was documented in the Bible at the time of Jesus; your making light of the walking on water shows that you're totally lacking in this regard, as well. Joking is one thing, but, now, it's time to get serious with convincing evidence of your extraordinary claims about your overarching knowledge that can explain away our beliefs in God.”

You are being very misleading here. I am asking you for evidence for your belief in a Christian God. I have not made my position evident at all. I have not stated I believe there is no god. I simply don’t claim to know, the answers. We all have no clue about the totality of the universe. I just find a problem with people who do claim they have knowledge of the universe, knowledge that they push on others and mislead them, knowledge that was developed by illiterate sheep herders in a scientifically illiterate and superstitious time. I am saying, I do not believe your claims because they go agaisnt science.

A baby born from a virgin? Which is more likely scientifically? A baby really born magically from a virgin? Or Mary had an affair?

Jesus dies on the cross and arose from the dead? Or Jesus died on the cross and had his followers take his body from the tomb?

All of these impossible claims have potential down to earth and realistic explanations. Why assume supernatural explanations instead of simply disbelieving a supernatural claim?

“No, I'm afraid not. You showed me, through your willingness to find an alternative to Christianity, that you pursued the knowledge on your own. This wouldn't be how the learning experience in science works. The learning experience in science revolves around making sure that you have pursued all of the necessary prerequisites on your own. Once you've done that, you are then directed towards the theories. During the process, you are exposed to scientifically literate people in this area of academia. But, for this effort to occur, you can't presume that you're talking to random people; you have to presume that they have the credentials that they claim, after having presumed that they were honest and trustworthy. However, you seem to be questioning the honesty of people who's claim to fame is based on their honesty and trustworthiness; where is your support that they should be discredited, particularly, when you have no idea as to who your throwing darts at, after an independent effort to examine?”

You didn’t say anything in this post but attack my intellect and learning habits. You also didn’t reference a single statement I made or explain how/why it was false.

“They have been provided in the video clips. Also, you've implied to me that you've already done an exhaustive and overarching search already and that you've debunked the information. So, your task is to demonstrate and convince me that this is true; right now, you seem too reluctant to just start watching my clips.”

I already told you, video clips from random sources is not scholarly. It is not supportive to an argument because of the initial bias that the videos accept as true. Provide me the raw sources the you claim the videos reference. I doubt you can

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17044

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@spareheadone: if I am questioning a claim in the Gospel, how in hell could the gospel prove it to be true with another claim from the same source? That’s crazy

Science will not accept a claim that goes against our current understanding without observable and testable evidence.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8162

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme:

"""if I am questioning a claim in the Gospel, how in hell could the gospel prove it to be true with another claim from the same source? That’s crazy"""

Perhaps but it is still evidence.

Additionally f I am questioning a claim made by Mark. I can gather evidence for that claim from Mathew, Luke, John and from the Talmud.

"""Science will not accept a claim that goes against our current understanding without observable and testable evidence"""

Yes they do.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17044

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27617  Edited By Cable_Extreme

@spareheadone:

It can’t be evidence until it is supported. The Bible claiming there were 500 witnesses is not evidence towards proving the bible’s statements about Jesus resurrecting since something can not verify itself, you need something outside to verify it.

“I can say Ktulu died and resurrected, this was witnessed by 1,300 fisherman along the Nile.”

That is a singular statement, the 1,300 fisherman witnesses have to be verified, you cannot use circular logic.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8162

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme:

It is still evidence, unsupported evidence is still evidence.

How you Choose to treat that evidence is up to you.

You said there was no evidence but there is.

Also the Talmud written by people who hate Jesus calls him a sorcerer.

Avatar image for jonjizz
jonjizz

1770

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

No Caption Provided

it's funny cause it's true!

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

5993

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme:

“They are random people spouting religious bias. I don’t care about their opinion, I want cold hard facts before religious people interpret them to support their bias. I want to look at the evidence that you claim you have and see if it leads me to your conclusion. So far, the Bible is used as your baseline.”

Review the video clips for the cold hard facts. I've already told you that they aren't just random people multiple times now; but, you haven't even reviewed the clips to verify if that were correct or not. I'm not going to do your foot work for you, in your endevouer to substantiate your unfounded assertions against Christianity; that's on you. It doesn't matter rather the evidence is on paper or in a clip, as long as it is there for your review.

“I am asking you for evidence for your belief in a Christian God. I have not made my position evident at all. I have not stated I believe there is no god. I simply don’t claim to know, the answers. We all have no clue about the totality of the universe. I just find a problem with people who do claim they have knowledge of the universe, knowledge that they push on others and mislead them, knowledge that was developed by illiterate sheep herders in a scientifically illiterate and superstitious time. I am saying, I do not believe your claims because they go agaisnt science.”

You were provided a portion of the evidence along with an explanation that there is no single overarching piece of evidence for God that would summarize all of the available evidence and information for God. The only issue is that you will not examine the evidence.

You certainly have made your position that there is no evidence for God and that God doesn't exist in your past discussion; you said that you were atheist; and you posture in this exchange has validated this position of yours by the way you've phrased things (e.g. here, you're claiming that everyone who contributed to the Bible were illiterate; this after claiming that you read the Bible so many times; anyone who read the Bible can point to several prominent individuals who were neither illustrate or sheep herders, in both the Old and New Testaments). You're being totally disingenuous here and you're attempting to lie to and mislead the very individual who you last argued your position with, stating that you were atheist, before you set out on your long ComicVine hiatus.

“A baby born from a virgin? Which is more likely scientifically? A baby really born magically from a virgin? Or Mary had an affair?”

Well, this is apart of your ignorance on this topic and your refusal to take the basic steps to explore; this topic is something covered by the scholarly Christian community as well as in a number of the clips that I posted. Clearly, with this statement you demonstrated yourself to be a liar; you claim to need an explanation, but, here, you're showing which way your bias is tilted. Essentially, the answer here is that an extraordinary person requires and extraordinary existence. Had Jesus been born just like anyone else, why treat Him so special as to believe that He's on par with God? This just shows that you've put no effort into studying before spouting out blanket assertions against something that is sacred; eventually, I'm only trying to remain professional without stooping to your level. To someone versed n this topic like me, this question is just ignorant, even though it's a good punchline to the uninformed.

“Jesus dies on the cross and arose from the dead? Or Jesus died on the cross and had his followers take his body from the tomb?”

The context of the Scripture is enough to explain this to you. Under the circumstances, the followers could not have stolen the body, as the thumb was guarded by Roman solders moments after fear was placed into the psyche of Jesus' followers by His death; and, the Scripture itself explains that this was the lie made popular as the explanation for the missing body; this plus more evidence concerning the scene that is outside the Bible and studied by Christian scholars, the place which you had been lead to begin your search for the evidence that you request. You can believe that He was crucified, but nothing else except what verified liars said about the event? Again, you aren't being objective, you're only showing you bias and proving just what I said: that you're trying to misrepresent my knowledge as your knowledge to then build a case for yourself.

“All of these impossible claims have potential down to earth and realistic explanations. Why assume supernatural explanations instead of simply disbelieving a supernatural claim?”

Well, as I said, it's your job to provide them by demonstrating that you undertook an exhaustive search of the evidence on your own; but, not just alternative explanations, but, rather the actual explanation, which would support a position that there is no God and no actual evidence of Him to be found; so far, what you've mentioned is very widely known about Christianity because Christianity is so popular which should tell you something in and of itself about Christianity.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17044

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@spareheadone: to classify something as evidence, it has to be testable or supported. The statements of the supernatural in the Bible are not supported. It takes more than unverified statements to disprove current physics.

The statements in the Bible cannot even be counted as testimony evidence because it was not written by the witnesses. It was passed down for a few hundred years before even written down. Sort of like that telephone game.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8162

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme:

evidence

noun

"""the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."""

Doesn't matter if it's "supported" it's still evidence.

Paul a Christian writes his letter to the Thessalonians 17- 27 years after Jesus death.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17044

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@spareheadone: you aren’t even trying to argue for the validity of such claims. You are trying to point a technicality to make me admit such an absurd claim is evidence that Jesus actually resurrected. The evidence that could be used for is it was written down by someone, the evidence is there. But evidence that he actually resurrected, no it is not evidence for that. To find evidence to support that would require physical or exterior evidence.

You cannot have a claim and try and prove it with another claim from the same source. Can’t prove the Bible’s claims with another claim from the Bible.

Avatar image for just_sayin
just_sayin

4240

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@spareheadone: yet no evidence that he performed the miracles or possessed tech. Your statement assumes that he actually did achieve these feats and tries to explain it using an unsupported theory.

Now I don't know of any "evidence" Jesus possessed tech, but there is a lot of evidence that he lived and was believed to have performed miracles.

You have the actual eye witnesses - Peter ( 1 & 2 Peter, Mark), John Mark (Mark), Matthew (Matthew), Various eye witnesses including Mary - at least according to history (Luke), Jesus' brother (James). Within their texts are references to other witnesses such as Mary Magdalene. It would be unlikely that a female would be credited as the first witness of the resurrection if it was not true. And the other disciples.

I know you think you can dismiss all of this because it is in the Bible, but image a court case where there are dozens of eye witnesses who are not allowed to testify simply because they knew and like the guy they were testifying about. Its a blatant bias to dismiss them out of hand.

Further, you have the changed moral character of the disciples. All of them except John met a grizzly end. James, Jesus' brother is said to have been thrown from the temple mount and then stoned by Josephus - who calls him Jesus' brother. If all you had to do to not be killed was admit that your brother wasn't the messiah, wouldn't you find it easy to deny he was divine? It seems evident that the disciples were convinced of Jesus' resurrection and power. You might give your life for something you think is real, but you would never give your life and the lives of your children for something that you knew was false.

Josephus the Jewish historian wrote about Jesus. As did Roman historians of the day. The Talmud talks about Jesus and says he was a "sorcerer" - ie - he performed miracles. Some even prayed in his name the Talmud claims:

  • Jesus as a sorcerer with disciples (b Sanh 43a–b)
  • Healing in the name of Jesus (Hul 2:22f; AZ 2:22/12; y Shab 124:4/13; QohR 1:8; b AZ 27b)
  • As a Torah teacher (b AZ 17a; Hul 2:24; QohR 1:8)
  • As a son or disciple that turned out badly (Sanh 103a/b; Ber 17b)
  • As a frivolous disciple who practiced magic and turned to idolatry (Sanh 107b; Sot 47a)
  • Jesus' punishment in afterlife (b Git 56b, 57a)
  • Jesus' execution (b Sanh 43a-b)
  • Jesus as the son of Mary (Shab 104b, Sanh 67a)

Tacitus, a Roman historian, mentions Nero burning Rome due to Christians and their Jesus as resurrected in Annals book 15, chapter 44.,

Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome

Roman Pliny the Elder wrote:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food – but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.

Lucian of Samosata (early Greek satirist) wrote of Christians:

It was then that he learned the marvelous wisdom of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And—what else?—in short order he made them look like children, for he was a prophet, cult leader, head of the congregation and everything, all by himself. He interpreted and explained some of their books, and wrote many himself. They revered him as a god, used him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector—to be sure, after that other whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.

For having convinced themselves that they are going to be immortal and live forever, the poor wretches despise death and most even willingly give themselves up. Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshiping that crucified sophist himself and living according to his laws

A few other non-Christian/non-Jewish historical references:

  • Celsus, the Platonist philosopher, considered Jesus to be a magician who made exorbitant claims
  • Mara bar Serapion, a prisoner of war held by the Romans, wrote a letter to his son that described “the wise Jewish king” in a way that seems to indicate Jesus
  • Suetonius - refers to rioting by followers of Christ
  • Phlegon (80- 140 AD) historian said - Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails. - quoted by Origen
  • Celsus - hostile to Christianity (175 AD) wrote:
    • Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god.

There are even references by Roman officials close to Caesar that make the observation that Jesus wasn't a big deal - all he did was heal a few sick folk.

Interesting point - neither the Greeks, Romans, or Jews denied Jesus' existence or that he did miracles. In fact they openly admitted it. They may not have viewed him as the Christ, but nevertheless the denial of Jesus' existence and miracles is a modern invention that has NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER in antiquity.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17044

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@just_sayin: I’ve seen this argument quite a bit. It’s from “The testimony of Evangelist” by Dr. Simon Greenleaf.

There are a few problems with this argument. One if I am questioning the integrity of the Bible and it’s claims of the supernatural, why/how could you try and continue to use claims from the same source to try and continue to prove it? That isn’t logical.

Keep in mind, the accounts of Mathew, Mark, Luke etc... we’re passed down verbally before written. In those days there were many superstitions. People claimed to have seen Zues in the clouds hurling lightning bolts.

I am not questioning the potential existence of a man named Jesus. I am questioning the physics-breaking claims made. I have tons of evidence that it is physically impossible for someone to redirect themselves from the dead after 3 days due to decay, rigor mortis, etc... to believe such a claim is especially hard when we have a much more complex understanding of reality that the people of that time did not have. Lack of scientific literacy leads to gullibility.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8162

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme:

"""you aren’t even trying to argue for the validity of such claims.

You are trying to point a technicality to make me admit such an absurd claim is evidence that Jesus actually resurrected."""

The technicality is important. Your rules are good but the science establishment doesn't obey them so it's unfair to require them from religious people.

Do you believe in the possible existence of beings "higher" than us?

Do you believe in avivogenesis? A man who has all the ingredients for life still in him can't come to life but a few chemicals can? Come on!

"""The evidence that could be used for is it was written down by someone, the evidence is there. But evidence that he actually resurrected, no it is not evidence for that."""

Agreed

"""To find evidence to support that would require physical or exterior evidence."""

Such as?

"""You cannot have a claim and try and prove it with another claim from the same source. Can’t prove the Bible’s claims with another claim from the Bible."""

The bible is made by many authors one author can corroborate another author. Each agreement makes the case stronger.

But as I said, there is a non Christian source that agreed that Jesus did sorcery.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17044

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27627  Edited By Cable_Extreme

@just_sayin: I’ve seen this argument quite a bit. It’s from “The testimony of Evangelist” by Dr. Simon Greenleaf.

There are a few problems with this argument. One if I am questioning the integrity of the Bible and it’s claims of the supernatural, why/how could you try and continue to use claims from the same source to try and continue to prove it? That isn’t logical.

Keep in mind, the accounts of Mathew, Mark, Luke etc... we’re passed down verbally before written. In those days there were many superstitions. People claimed to have seen Zues in the clouds hurling lightning bolts. There were tons of absurd supernatural claims made back then, but as scientific knowledge rose, those claims dropped.

I am not questioning the potential existence of a man named Jesus. I am questioning the physics-breaking claims made. I have tons of evidence that it is physically impossible for someone to resurrect themselves from the dead after 3 days due to decay, rigor mortis, etc... to believe such a claim is especially hard when we have a much more complex understanding of reality than the people of that time had. Lack of scientific literacy leads to gullibility.

Avatar image for just_sayin
just_sayin

4240

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27628  Edited By just_sayin

@just_sayin: I’ve seen this argument quite a bit. It’s from “The testimony of Evangelist” by Dr. Simon Greenleaf.

There are a few problems with this argument. One if I am questioning the integrity of the Bible and it’s claims of the supernatural, why/how could you try and continue to use claims from the same source to try and continue to prove it? That isn’t logical.

Keep in mind, the accounts of Mathew, Mark, Luke etc... we’re passed down verbally before written. In those days there were many superstitions. People claimed to have seen Zues in the clouds hurling lightning bolts.

I am not questioning the potential existence of a man named Jesus. I am questioning the physics-breaking claims made. I have tons of evidence that it is physically impossible for someone to redirect themselves from the dead after 3 days due to decay, rigor mortis, etc... to believe such a claim is especially hard when we have a much more complex understanding of reality that the people of that time did not have. Lack of scientific literacy leads to gullibility.

I don't know who Dr. Simon Greenleaf is. The list of extra biblical sources I quoted is from wikipedia and J Warner Wallace (primarily because he just quotes the sources and it makes it easier to copy paste).

It appears that your contention is not that there isn't evidence from witnesses, but that you think it is unreliable. That's a slight change in your argument. The one big elephant in the room is that the gospels and epistles name names and places. Like Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus - members of the sanhedrin or Zacheus, or Lazarus, etc. Oral traditions are like written traditions where the people who saw the events are still alive - you can go ask them yourself if it was true or not. Whether written or not it can be verified and evidence can be offered to refute it. Do you think no one thought to ask Joseph if Jesus was dead when he put him in his tomb or if Jesus' body was still there? Do you think nobody went over to Lazarus and wanted to know if he had ever died?

No one in antiquity - whether they were friend or foe of Jesus ever doubts that his miracles occurred. They may have ascribed the acts to sorcery or the devil but they don't deny they happened (not talking about the resurrection - just other miracles here). You can make the argument that the people were more prone to believe in the mystical and more gullible, but that is an argument from the absence of the available evidence. The "evidence" from those who were opposed to Christianity and those who embraced it is that Jesus did miraculous things.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17044

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@spareheadone: they can claim he did sorcery all they wish, there is no evidence that sorcery exist. Look at the James Randi spending his life debunking these claims, never finding one case where they person wasn’t intentionally trying to deceive people. People actually believe that these people had telekinetic powers, or were psychic. Why should I accept that Jesus did sorcery instead of deceiving people or having rumors start? The laws of physics have been tested and confirmed to the reality we observe and examine. It takes more than claims from scientifically illiterate and superstitious sheep herders from a relatively insignificant place and point in time to disprove our current understanding of physics.

The Bible is made by people writing down stories that were passed down verbally from a generation or more prior. Such accounts are nothing more than hearsay.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17044

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@just_sayin: you are making a claim. A claim that the statements made about Jesus performing miracles in the Bible actually happened. You do so by believing stories written by people about people who claimed to have witnessed Jesus perform these miracles. This all happened 2000+ years ago and doesn’t differentiate itself from claims of other religions like Egyptian religions, or Greek religions where their Gods have been stated to have interacted with people, the Egyptians themselves assert that the pharaohs were their Gods that performed miracles. Should I believe that all of these miracles were performed in the pass but now for some reason such miracles cannot be reproduced in anyway to verify and test? We can test the laws of physics like gravity, lack of evidence for supernatural abilities. How would someone manipulate gravity to be able to walk on water? Or make themselves buoyant and stable enough to do so without the aid of technology? Our understanding of the human body shows us that there is no way (based on our understanding) that the human body is capable of any of these miracles. Yet the Bible states all followers of Christ can move mountains in his name (the Great Comission). Can you move mountains, heal people of cancer, or even resurrect people? If that claim is not true, then why should I believe others?

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8162

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme:

Abiogenesis/avivogenesis is a belief that defies all evidence and defies the laws of physics. Is this part of your religion?

Avatar image for just_sayin
just_sayin

4240

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme: One thing I would point out to you is that you have set an impossible bar to meet. You will not accept evidence from Jesus' friends because they are his friends, and you will not accept evidence from his foes because they accept his miracles. It seems like the only evidence you would accept would be someone who said he wasn't real and didn't do anything miraculous - but that's not what they believed or said. You have written off all of the witnesses of Jesus' day, friend and foe, because you don't like their acceptance of his miracles which you think don't exist. You have determined that the claim can't be true because you do not believe in the supernatural. How could @dshipp17 ever prove to your satisfaction that Jesus performed miracles when you automatically discard all evidence of miracles?

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17044

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27633  Edited By Cable_Extreme

@spareheadone: my specific belief is that I have no clue exactly how life started or how the universe started. But it seems that science is our best tool to figure out how.

You are the one making claims of absolution, that you KNOW based on what the Bible says. I don’t believe your claims due to the absurdity of believing a supernatural claim made 2000 or so years ago by second-hand heresy, and when modern scientific theory state it is impossible.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8162

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme:

I never made any claims. I just enjoy chatting with you particularly.

Do you believe that life began with no help from another life?

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17044

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27635  Edited By Cable_Extreme

@just_sayin: its not that I won’t accept evidence from Jesus’s friends. I am saying there is no evidence that sorcery or miracles can be performed. James Randi spent his whole life attempting to demonstrate this. Hundred of people claimed to have supernatural powers and other people actually believed them and held them in high regard. Some psychics can make millions from TV shows and donations from gullible people. These people were proven dishonest manipulators who deceived people for personal gain. If you can provide evidence that someone can rise from the dead after being dead for 3 days or can walk on water etc... then the claims made by his followers would be more believable. However those claims as they sit now are impossible. Nothing supports the claims other than the claims themselves. Why believe them and not other claims made by other religions?

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17044

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@spareheadone: I’m not sure, I don’t reject the idea that our life can be a remnant of previous life. Perhaps an advanced alien science project, or abiogenesis, I don’t know. Could it be a God/s? It could be anything really, but I am hesitant to think that people 2000 years ago just happened to have all the right answers to reality while sacrificing goats for their “sins”.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8162

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cable_extreme:

Well I am a Gnostic and Syncretist so I don't think the answers are on the surface reading of any holy book.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17044

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@spareheadone: all religious people are Gnostic or they aren’t truly religious people.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8162

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223504

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_saturn said:

1. My issue isn't GOD judging by a person's standard it's that GOD's standard for judging is inconsistent in general. How many times did David sin against GOD yet GOD never punished David directly ? We have been over how David sinned against GOD by taking a Census and yet GOD punished Israel by killing 70,000 people instead of punishing David directly or even GOD punishing the child that David had with Bathsheba for the sin that David had committed. Yet here, we have GOD killing someone for essentially holding the Ark of GOD from falling off of a cart. GOD's standard to punish sin is inconsistent.

It seems like your argument has shifted or I have misunderstood it. If your argument is "God is unjust", I hope I have that right, then let's talk about it.

Let me give you a few more examples to round out the "God is unjust" argument. 1) the wicked prosper, while the just suffer (argument of several Psalms like 73) - think Job. 2) Different outcomes - 11 of the disciples die horrible deaths, but John is only boiled in oil and lives to a ripe old age, 3) Drunk driver goes free while child is hit and killed.

First David does face personal eternal judgment for his sins. Temporal punishments do not supplant eternal ones in Christian doctrine. The basic understanding of Christian theology is "for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Further, "People are destined to die once and then face judgment. In the same way, Christ was also offered once to take on himself the sins of many people. He will appear a second time, not to take away sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him." (Hebrews 9:27-28). The parent who lost a child to a drunk driver can know that even though it appears the drunk driver "got away with it", the truth is that he will not. He will face judgment - though not necessarily during his temporal lifetime.

The one great exception to this in Christian doctrine is the concept of grace. Grace is "not getting what you deserve". It is unmerited favor. The second part of Hebrews 9:27-28 speaks of this. God offers a way of restoring the relationship between us and him that was severed by our sin. The Christian concept is that this is not earned, but offered. It is not about what we do to earn it, but what he did to provide it. It is offered to all, but anyone can reject it.

2. The passage in 2 Samuel 6 states that Uzzah touched the Ark because the Oxen stumbled... if Uzzah's intention was to simply touch the Ark out of the point he saw it was irrelevant then why does the passage clearly give reason as to why Uzzah did touch it ? The Oxen stumbled, causing the cart to rock, causing the Ark to be in a compromising position. I don't see it as disrespect to GOD because the passage does not say Uzzah touched it for any other reason than the Oxen stumbled, which could lead to the conclusion that the Ark was about to stumble on the cart as well.

It would be difficult to believe that Uzzah - who had custody of the ark for about 10 years, would not have known the wealth of warnings and commandments about it. Mistreatment of the ark had been known to kill priests before. That's why they tied a rope around them when they went into the holiest of holies. The word that is used to describe God's anger strongly suggests that it is because of Uzzah's disrespect. The word carries with it that the one has been offended in a disrespected fashion. It appears more is going on than the ark just fell on top of him and killed him.

3. GOD has the ability to judge however he wants to. That's the point. GOD could have taken out David for violating his law dealing with the Census but he choose to punish Israel instead, GOD could have punished David for sleeping with Bathsheba but he punished the Child of the two instead. GOD punishes Uzzah for stopping his Ark from stumbling off a cart and GOD kills him instantly. GOD's standard is inconsistent as GOD at times will show mercy to the violator and at other times will punish the violator straight forward. That is the Problem.

Underlying your third point is what I think is a wrong premise, that "judgment" must occur in this lifetime and the negative consequences of "sin" only affect the "sinner". Not all bad things that happens to you are "judgment" and not every good thing is a "reward". That's kinda the point of Job. We have talked about "corporate" accountability before, where a group suffers or is rewarded - based on what the corporate body or leadership does. However, this is not their eternal judgement.

Suffering from the "sins" of others does not mean that god has imputed "sin" to you. The Christian belief is that we will each stand before God and give an account for our conduct. In Jesus story of the rich man and Lazarus, Lazarus suffered much during his lifetime while the rich man had an easy life, but after their death, it was the rich man who envied Lazarus' final state.

1. You side stepped my point. My point was that when GOD got mad at Uzzah, he punished him immediately with Death yet when GOD got mad at David, he had mercy on David only to punish others for his own Sin. That by definition is GOD being inconsistent in judgment. You can make any excuse you like to curb the thought that this somehow is justified by David being afflicted with some type of other punishment with David but it still comes out as GOD being unjust. Even consider Cain, Cain kills his brother Abel and GOD deals with Cain's sin totally differently than he does with Uzzah. GOD actually questions Cain and curses him yet when GOD got pissed off at Uzzah for his supposed sin, GOD just kills him.

2. I don't think so. The passage clearly states why Uzzah touched the Ark, he touched it because the Oxen stumbled. Why would the writers of the Bible have this detail in there unless it was important to the situation as to why Uzzah touched the Ark itself ? You are correct, mistreatment of the Ark was known to kill priests but who is killing the priests is it the Ark itself or is it GOD killing them ? The ball is in GOD's court, if GOD wanted to he could have shown mercy to those who touched the Ark or simply cursed them momentarily for their wrongdoing if he wanted to.

3. My underlying point is that GOD's judgment is inconsistent. If GOD can judge one man for Sin and instantly kill him and then in another instance GOD judges a man and simply curses him or bring harm to others associated with him, that shows that GOD's judgment is inconsistent. Job is probably one of the worst books in the Bible. GOD was willing to wager on Job's life with the very same entity that waged war with The Almighty and his Angels in Heaven and had to be kicked out ( Satan ). That never made sense to me.

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223504

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The idea about God punishing the child of the adulterer instead of those who are involved in adultery themselves or sometimes set a worse judgement upon can be explained with the prohibition of bastardization or interbreeding with the Edomites, those who are not parts of Adamkind. Sure, a man who defiles his own blood by mixing with demons from the tribe of Cain can be redeemed just like how Adam and Eve were redeemed, but a bastard can never lile his father so God will destroy it.

The Bible says on multiple occasions that GOD forms Humans while they are in the womb. The Almighty could have not have the child of David and Bathsheba come to be if he wanted to could he not ? Why make the Child suffer with sickness if you don't have to ? The child did nothing to be here, that was in part creation of David's Sin and GOD's apparent willingness to create the child in the womb.

Avatar image for official_chad3
Official_Chad3

112

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_saturn: God only takes credit in forming a child out of his OWN PEOPLE only. Non-Israelites and non-Adamites are corruption and abomination God has warned his creation not to bring forth by interbreeding with Demons, being humans not of God’s origins. Things have consequences. It wasn’t told if he wanted to do it or not but he didn’t stop Esau Edom from being born even though he knew the guy was going to screw everything He did not wish that Cain be born but he let him and so put forth strong hatred between his kind and Adamkind. This is the explanation for another killings of Chidlre.

As for the case of the dead child, he certainly isn’t a kenite or an Edomite because it was the same mother and father that gave birth to Solomon and the Israelites after him but God chose to make David suffer and know the consequences of taking a defiled woman as his own(Bathsheba was with a Hittite). Similar thing happened with Adam and Eve. Their children killed each other and it was Cain, the bad seed, that killed Abel, the good seed.

Avatar image for official_chad3
Official_Chad3

112

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

This as well.

Exodus 34:7

maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”

Israel’s legal system is different from God’s judgement. Men are not allowed to try someone for the sins of their relative alone unless it is commanded but God is not restricted from doing so.

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223504

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_saturn: God only takes credit in forming a child out of his OWN PEOPLE only. Non-Israelites and non-Adamites are corruption and abomination God has warned his creation not to bring forth by interbreeding with Demons, being humans not of God’s origins. Things have consequences. It wasn’t told if he wanted to do it or not but he didn’t stop Esau Edom from being born even though he knew the guy was going to screw everything He did not wish that Cain be born but he let him and so put forth strong hatred between his kind and Adamkind. This is the explanation for another killings of Chidlre.

As for the case of the dead child, he certainly isn’t a kenite or an Edomite because it was the same mother and father that gave birth to Solomon and the Israelites after him but God chose to make David suffer and know the consequences of taking a defiled woman as his own(Bathsheba was with a Hittite). Similar thing happened with Adam and Eve. Their children killed each other and it was Cain, the bad seed, that killed Abel, the good seed.

Isaiah 44:24 says "This is what The LORD says, your Redeemer who formed you in the womb. I am the LORD, The Maker of all things, who stretches out the Heavens, who spreads out the Earth by myself"

How is it that The LORD is only responsible for forming Children in the womb who are of his own people when he clearly says here that he is The Maker of all things ?

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17044

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27645  Edited By Cable_Extreme

@dshipp17:

Review the video clips for the cold hard facts. I've already told you that they aren't just random people multiple times now; but, you haven't even reviewed the clips to verify if that were correct or not. I'm not going to do your foot work for you, in your endevouer to substantiate your unfounded assertions against Christianity; that's on you. It doesn't matter rather the evidence is on paper or in a clip, as long as it is there for your review.

You cannot post research-based articles can you.

You certainly have made your position that there is no evidence for God and that God doesn't exist in your past discussion; you said that you were atheist; and you posture in this exchange has validated this position of yours by the way you've phrased things (e.g. here, you're claiming that everyone who contributed to the Bible were illiterate; this after claiming that you read the Bible so many times; anyone who read the Bible can point to several prominent individuals who were neither illustrate or sheep herders, in both the Old and New Testaments). You're being totally disingenuous here and you're attempting to lie to and mislead the very individual who you last argued your position with, stating that you were atheist, before you set out on your long ComicVine hiatus.

Quote me, I have never held a Gnostic position of Atheism. I am agnostic with no active belief in a God. As in I simply don't know if there is or isn't but I am having trouble believing your claims, and the claims made in the bible. I have entertained the idea of deism outside of religion. So I have not dismissed a possibility of some sort of creator. I think you have the wrong idea.

Well, this is apart of your ignorance on this topic and your refusal to take the basic steps to explore; this topic is something covered by the scholarly Christian community as well as in a number of the clips that I posted. Clearly, with this statement you demonstrated yourself to be a liar; you claim to need an explanation, but, here, you're showing which way your bias is tilted. Essentially, the answer here is that an extraordinary person requires and extraordinary existence. Had Jesus been born just like anyone else, why treat Him so special as to believe that He's on par with God? This just shows that you've put no effort into studying before spouting out blanket assertions against something that is sacred; eventually, I'm only trying to remain professional without stooping to your level. To someone versed n this topic like me, this question is just ignorant, even though it's a good punchline to the uninformed.

You can state I have ignorance in the bible all you want. But you are still dodging every attempt I have in getting you to respond. Why should I believe the bible's claims that Jesus was born of a virgin if it is scientifically impossible by our understanding of science? And there are much more realistic explanations that could explain the outcome if such an event really did occur. Which is more likely? Mary lied due to an affair? Or the laws of physics were suspended? Or a plethora of other potential circumstances that are realistic?

The context of the Scripture is enough to explain this to you. Under the circumstances, the followers could not have stolen the body, as the thumb was guarded by Roman solders moments after fear was placed into the psyche of Jesus' followers by His death; and, the Scripture itself explains that this was the lie made popular as the explanation for the missing body; this plus more evidence concerning the scene that is outside the Bible and studied by Christian scholars, the place which you had been lead to begin your search for the evidence that you request. You can believe that He was crucified, but nothing else except what verified liars said about the event? Again, you aren't being objective, you're only showing you bias and proving just what I said: that you're trying to misrepresent my knowledge as your knowledge to then build a case for yourself.

How did his followers find an empty tomb if the tomb was guarded? If the tomb wasn't guarded at that time, then what stops the body from being taken? I don't even necessarily believe the crucifixion's story. But that isn't significant as it is definitely possible a man named Jesus was crucified. But ressurected? Not likely without proof of the supernatural. Why don't we see followers of Jesus in today's age performing miracles and moving mountains in his name like it was stated in the great commission?

Well, as I said, it's your job to provide them by demonstrating that you undertook an exhaustive search of the evidence on your own; but, not just alternative explanations, but, rather the actual explanation, which would support a position that there is no God and no actual evidence of Him to be found; so far, what you've mentioned is very widely known about Christianity because Christianity is so popular which should tell you something in and of itself about Christianity.

My position is not that there is no god, only that I do not believe the claims you make and the claims the bible make. Appeal to populace is a logical fallacy.

And isn't the path supposed to be narrow? It seems like its the biggest path right now.

Avatar image for official_chad3
Official_Chad3

112

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_saturn: That is a big mistranslation. We know God didn’t create sin and sin was brought into this world by the transgression of his laws in the first place. Even though we can’t say that God was responsible for everything we see nowadays to say that all things were created by him wasn’t wrong because before most of the things were corrupted and turned into something that he wouldn’t want to own, it was all his.

Matthew 15:13 And he said unto them, “Every plant my father has not planted will be uprooted.”

How do you explain this?

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223504

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_saturn: That is a big mistranslation. We know God didn’t create sin and sin was brought into this world by the transgression of his laws in the first place. Even though we can’t say that God was responsible for everything we see nowadays to say that all things were created by him wasn’t wrong because before most of the things were corrupted and turned into something that he wouldn’t want to own, it was all his.

Matthew 15:13 And he said unto them, “Every plant my father has not planted will be uprooted.”

How do you explain this?

Well Sin is an action or lack of action right ? It's not something GOD would create as it's an effect from something that is created. It's like saying GOD created Cold or Hot instead of saying GOD created things that produce Cold or Hot.

Matthew 15:13 may possibly be referring to the fact that we as humans can create our own Hell outside of GOD's will. It is an interesting passage.

Avatar image for hulkbusterx9
HulkBusterx9

2574

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Still no one has the evidence of his existence, as usual.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8162

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for official_chad3
Official_Chad3

112

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_saturn: Your child is your Production yet God still takes credit for creating it. Anything that is involved in transgressing his laws is counted as a transgression or a sin. God is not responsible for the birth of non Adamite, because just like it is the case that we both have brought up, he never intended to have Adamites breeding with the Devil. Devils are products of sins so they are sins. Yes, it is, however it is more likely to be related to the notion that Jesus came to continue the war between the Edomites and the Israelites.