 |
|
|
|
|
June 3rd, 2014
01:02 PM ET
Inside Manhattan's most hipster-y megachurch(CNN) - While some churches are struggling to attract younger members, 20 and 30-something-year-olds are waiting in long lines to get into Hillsong's services. Pastor Carl Lentz is the main attraction. He spoke to CNN's Poppy Harlow about the church's success and where he stands on several major issues. Watch Anderson Cooper 360° weeknights 8pm ET. For the latest from AC360° click here.
Next entry »Does Islam really condemn converts to death?
« Previous entryChina's latest crackdown target: religion
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
| Part of 
Why God doesn't have a Ph.D.
--------------------------–
1) He had only one major publication.
2) It was in Hebrew.
3) It had no references.
4) It wasn't published in a referreed journal.
5) Some even doubt he wrote it by himself.
6) It may be true that he created the world, but what has he done since then?
7) His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.
8) The scientific community has had a hard time replicating his results.
9) He never applied to the ethics board for permission to use human subjects.
10) When one experiment went awry he tried to cover it up by drowning his
subjects.
11) When subjects didn't behave as predicted, he deleted them from the sample.
12) Some say he had his son teach the class.
13) He expelled his first two students for learning.
14) He rarely came to class, and he just told students to read the book.
15) Although there were only 10 requirements, most of his students failed his
tests.
16) His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountaintop.
“Shall the one who contends with the Almighty correct Him? He who rebukes God, let him answer it.” – Job 40:2, NKJV
Might makes right is the logic of a bully.
During the tests of Job... Satan was the good guy and god was the prick. What was the lesson again?
Now the Lord blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning; for he had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, one thousand yoke of oxen, and one thousand female donkeys. He also had seven sons and three daughters. And he called the name of the first Jemimah, the name of the second Keziah, and the name of the third Keren-Happuch. In all the land were found no women so beautiful as the daughters of Job; and their father gave them an inheritance among their brothers. After this Job lived one hundred and forty years, and saw his children and grandchildren for four generations. So Job died, old and full of days. – Job 42:12-17
So say the con-men who wrote the bible!
And the good, wise king and the most beautiful princesses lived happily ever after. The End. Get real, man.
(ooops, too bad for the first Mrs. Job and her 10 children!)
"Do you know, I always thought unicorns were fabulous monsters, too? I never saw one alive before!"
Well, now that we have seen each other," said the unicorn, "if you'll believe in me, I'll believe in you.”
― Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland And Through The Looking Glass
See scot, it is really easy to quote from the fictional works of men...easy but pointless. Do you have anything to say that was NOT written by other men?
And he name of Job lived third Kere the latter daughter generations. He also beginning; foundren and seven four generations andchildred and weren sons. After the camels, one had sheep, six the name of the Lord blessed and sheep, six their for he second weren-Happuch. In and female days Now theritance among the their brothe Lord blessed one theritance among theritance all of the name of three days Now this beautiful as thousand ful as thousand weren also beautifull of daughters of oxen, an inheritanc
Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said:
2 “Who is this who darkens counsel
By words without knowledge?
3 Now prepare yourself like a man;
I will question you, and you shall answer Me.
4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy? Job 38:1-7
“Or who shut in the sea with doors,
When it burst forth and issued from the womb;
9 When I made the clouds its garment,
And thick darkness its swaddling band;
10 When I fixed My limit for it,
And set bars and doors;
11 When I said,
‘This far you may come, but no farther,
And here your proud waves must stop!’ Job 38:8-11
“Have you commanded the morning since your days began,
And caused the dawn to know its place,
13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth,
And the wicked be shaken out of it?
14 It takes on form like clay under a seal,
And stands out like a garment.
15 From the wicked their light is withheld,
And the upraised arm is broken. – Job 38:12-15
“Have you entered the springs of the sea?
Or have you walked in search of the depths?
17 Have the gates of death been revealed to you?
Or have you seen the doors of the shadow of death?
18 Have you comprehended the breadth of the earth?
Tell Me, if you know all this. Job 38:16-18
“Where is the way to the dwelling of light?
And darkness, where is its place,
20 That you may take it to its territory,
That you may know the paths to its home?
21 Do you know it, because you were born then,
Or because the number of your days is great?
22 “Have you entered the treasury of snow,
Or have you seen the treasury of hail,
23 Which I have reserved for the time of trouble,
For the day of battle and war?
24 By what way is light diffused,
Or the east wind scattered over the earth? Job 38:19-24
God allows the slaughter of Job's ten children in order to win a bet, but after he wins the bet, God makes it all better by giving Job ten new children.
Poor Job's wife, though, it wasn't much of a "win" for her.
“Who has divided a channel for the overflowing water,
Or a path for the thunderbolt,
26 To cause it to rain on a land where there is no one,
A wilderness in which there is no man;
27 To satisfy the desolate waste,
And cause to spring forth the growth of tender grass?
28 Has the rain a father?
Or who has begotten the drops of dew?
29 From whose womb comes the ice?
And the frost of heaven, who gives it birth?
30 The waters harden like stone,
And the surface of the deep is frozen. Job 38:25-30
“Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades,
Or loose the belt of Orion?
32 Can you bring out Mazzaroth[a] in its season?
Or can you guide the Great Bear with its cubs?
33 Do you know the ordinances of the heavens?
Can you set their dominion over the earth? Job 38:31-33
“Can you lift up your voice to the clouds,
That an abundance of water may cover you?
35 Can you send out lightnings, that they may go,
And say to you, ‘Here we are!’?
36 Who has put wisdom in the mind?[b]
Or who has given understanding to the heart?
37 Who can number the clouds by wisdom?
Or who can pour out the bottles of heaven,
38 When the dust hardens in clumps,
And the clods cling together? Job 38:34-38
I think the real question is, Would you, could you, in the rain?
And we know based on scripture that,
I would not, could not, in the rain.
Not in the dark. Not on a train,
Not in a car, Not in a tree.
I do not like them, Sam, you see.
Not in a house. Not in a box.
Not with a mouse. Not with a fox.
I will not eat them here or there.
I do not like them anywhere!
And I know what you're going to say next awonderingscot: Ok, that makes sense I guess, but Would you, could you,
on a boat?
Again, turning to the great book, we can see that
I could not, would not, on a boat.
I will not, will not, with a goat.
I will not eat them in the rain.
I will not eat them on a train.
Not in the dark! Not in a tree!
Not in a car! You let me be!
I do not like them in a box.
I do not like them with a fox.
I will not eat them in a house.
I do not like them with a mouse.
I do not like them here or there.
I do not like them ANYWHERE!
you're very welcome! isn't it the most beautiful verse you've ever heard? let us praise our Almighty God
scot
Here is a way to save yourself a lot of time
"The Bible"
There, that pretty much covers it. Now if you have anything to say that other men didn't say, by all means, we have the bible covered.
So Scot, everything makes sense right? But hang on – this is going to blow your mind. If you will let me be,
I will try them.
You will see.
Say!
I like green eggs and ham!
I do!! I like them, Sam-I-am!
And I would eat them in a boat!
And I would eat them with a goat...
And I will eat them in the rain.
And in the dark. And on a train.
And in a car. And in a tree.
They are so good so good you see!
The story of Job is a good picture of the viciousness, violence and general spoiled brattiness of the Abrahamic god.
He is sooo wonderful, it's amazing to me that He still loves you!
That's a scary thought, he's a vicious brute to those he "loves".
He is merciful and is giving you time to repent...
Or he'll torture me forever, got it. He's big on torture and killing his children because he loves us so much.
There is nothing good nor moral about slaughtering an entire extended family in order to prove a man's loyalty. It sounds like something a drug lord would do, not a "loving god".
now don't be like that! just because you don't understand Him? Job did and he continued to love and worship the Lord. are you angry with Job as well?
Oh, good grief, I don't even believe the stupid story. I'm just pointing out that a loving father wouldn't use the killing of children to win a bet.
"Job did and he continued to love and worship the Lord. are you angry with Job as well?"
No – Job didn't. Job feared god and it was only when god had taken everything from him (on a WHIM) that he finally railed against god. And what was god's answer? Essentially – "Because I said so".
Niiiice...
"now don't be like that! just because you don't understand Him?"
What's to understand? He was testing Job's faith, correct? and exactly why was that necessary? God playing games with his creations..... that is pure sickness!!
Job proclaimed his own righteousness, he never once railed against the Lord. i'm not sure re-reading it will help you but it's worth a try.
It was Satan who approached the throne of God and all of the heavenly host. it was a challenge by the evil one. it's exactly the opposite of your premise that 'might makes right'. God is sovereign and almighty and could have simply destroyed Satan right then and there, but then with all the heavenly host in observance might not they have said that perhaps Satan was right and creation only worships the Lord out of fear? Job, the righteous man that he was proved Satan wrong and demonstrated his love and devotion to the Lord. The Lord blessed Job even more after this. the Lord in His omniscience knew beforehand that Job would stand the test, but all of creation could not know this. Once again the Lord is vindicated.
Doesn't explain how killing children to prove a point is moral or loving.
Of course, when all is said and done, we know the bible is nothing more than mythology.... fiction...
R'amen!
That's a hoot, lunch.
So they have to keep coming up with new gimmicks to get people to attend. I remember how cool I thought guitar masses were. Maybe hire a magician or a clown.
Isn't a clown what they have leading these meetings? After all anyone foolish enough to believe the garbage spewed from the pulpit in the 21st century is not exactly an intellect and what they're spewing is humorous.
spewing your hatred again "truth" ?
Hate? Not at all...I see you don't understand sarcasm and humor-just two more things to the miles long list of things you don't comprehend...not surprising really.
Hey Scot NO more forcing the children to sing the BLUES eh ? – Separation of Church and state. No god(s) required to graduate from public schools in the USA.
ACLU of VA: Students can’t be forced to sing ‘Til We Meet Again at Jesus’ Feet’ at graduation
By Scott Kaufman
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 10:43 EDT
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/04/aclu-of-va-students-cant-be-forced-to-sing-til-we-meet-again-at-jesus-feet-at-graduation/
no one is "forced" to sing or do anything, atheists are haters who are intolerant of others who differ with them.
awanderingscot – "no one is "forced" to sing or do anything, atheists are haters who are intolerant of others who differ with them."
And just how tolerant would you be if the song they were singing was about Mohammed and Allah instead?
Wow scot and the talking snake (serpent) said what ?
well James i would be tolerant of them since one never knows if someone will invite the Lord into their heart or not. there is hope for you as well. God holds out an olive branch to you and of course i hope you will accept it and stop rebelling. no preacher nor all the preachers in the world can bring someone to Christ if they have hardened their hearts to him. but we hope for everyone to come to Him.
"atheists are haters who are intolerant of others who differ with them."
I would find this statement extremely funny if it wasn't just so sad.
It's like saying "Those people who believe the world is round are such haters and intolerant of those of us who believe in a flat earth!"
No one hates you, you just hate yourselves for not having any evidence to support your position, and the more and more research we do keeps refuting your basic premise so your only refuge is denial.
Churches like this may be good for introducing people to Jesus. But living in Christ means using our minds renewed by God to know and grow closer to Him each day, not prioritizing temporary emotional pulses of good vibrations and stimulating human senses.
This piece didn't get very deep into Lentz's shaky theology and doctrine, but my biggest complaint here is when about halfway through the video the hipster Lentz equates his crowds to the throngs that followed Jesus. The main motivation of the crowds that followed Jesus was getting healed physically, and getting freed from Roman rule; that is, what Jesus could do for them and their earthly lives. The crowds following Jesus were not interested in His message of their helpless fallen spiritual condition and dependence on Him for their reconciliation with God. Well, maybe Lentz' flock is similar? But then Jesus' crowds turned against Him, and called to the Romans for His torture and crucifixion. That part is no comparison, is it Lentz?
"shaky theology and doctrine"
Oops, judging again and that in your small minded world is a sin. Just because this persons special brand of delusions doesn't meld with your special brand of delusions doesn't change it or give you the right to judge. Your Holier Than Thou personality is not what your jesus preached either and yet your hypocrisy gets in the way of you seeing that.
This is the 21st century and there is still zero evidence for your god, so when do you plan on joining us instead of living in your crazy land fantasies-holding out for something that doesn't exist? When do you intend to grow up, act like an adult and leave your imaginary friends behind with your childhood?
living in Christ means using our minds renewed by God
----–
Can you admit that in order to "live in Christ", one must first be aware of Christ's existence?
TruthPrevails1, aside from the logical absurdity of a denier like you trying to use the Bible for your arguments even though you don't agree with it, understand it, or accept it, you are terribly mistaken in your impression that God instructs His people to not judge others. On the contrary, the Bible says God fully expects us to decide who are our brothers and who are not, to discern God's truth from man's deception, and to shine His light where we see darkness. Jesus' teachings about judging are about the manner of judging, and warnings against using double standards when judging others. In the light of God's sovereignty and man's fallen depravity as a consequence of sin, Lentz's comment that his popularity justifies his theology is dangerously close to blasphemy. I fully welcome God's judgment of me by the same standard that I have applied to Lentz's comment.
Madtown, you know I have answered your question on previous posts several times, but for any new readers here I will give the short version again: Faith in Christ alone by God's grace alone is the only way for any human being with accountability to be reconciled with our perfect Creator.
made
" to discern God's truth from man's deception"
The shear irony is astounding.
You quote from a book written by MEN, with no sign of any gods involved, with MEN claiming to speak for god,...you can't see that your bible is likely one of those deceptions...the blind continue to believe they see....
Faith in Christ alone by God's grace alone is the only way
------
Wow. You're either exceptionally bullheaded or exceptionally dense. I suppose it could be both. Um, no.......you've never "answered" any question, with a legitimate sensical answer, that is. I suppose you think you answer questions, but you don't give real answers. One more time: how on earth can someone have faith in Christ, when they have never heard of Christ? You really think God would judge someone negatively for not following Christ, when God knows the person has no concept of the existence of Christ? Surely you're not that dense, are you?
Dirt
i'm relatively new to this blogging stuff and if you will indulge me just a bit i will relate to you my experience here very briefly. from what i've seen here, the majority of them are here to bait people of faith and vent their hatred of God. they will without conscience or any fear profane our God and people of faith. they will say profane things to offend our zeal for the Lord in hopes of getting us to say things we might not want to say and then accuse us before our God. they are extremely irreverent. none of them are spiritual and they are arrogant and prideful of the small amount of knowledge they do possess convinced they are right in all matters. they really have no understanding of scripture and it is an offense to them; so they twist it and blaspheme it and hurl profanity at it. i will continue to preach Christ whether they like it or not and who knows, perhaps the seed will get planted and grow now or later. it is the Lord who will be glorified yet again.
"...in hopes of getting us to say things we might not want to say and then accuse us before our God. "
Did you not have the free will to say the things you said ? Were the things you said coerced ? Face it, scot, it was your own behavior that you were called out on – you can try to blame it on others all you wish, but that is sadly transparent.
Awanderingscot, I have noticed your posts, and you speak and defend God's truth. Christians are in constant spiritual warfare, and the enemy will throw every weapon they have at God's truth. As you have seen, there is only a handful of our brothers against an army of lost and bitter deniers on this battleground of the CNNBeliefBlog. Some of us brothers may have occasional disagreements on social issues and priorities that do not affect our salvation, but it is clear we are all united behind the truth and power of God's Word and Gospel. I fully agree with you that we must continue to fight the good fight in our ways with our abilities and gifts with the purpose of God using this forum for His eternal purposes, even if to reach and save just one person, despite all the swine trampling the pearls. Besides, these deniers actually confirm Scripture with their blindness and reprobate vitriol, and those who continue to harden their hearts against their Creator are only heaping heavier wrath upon their heads, which serves God's infinite glory as well.
Madefromdirt.....you're just kidding with that silly diatribe, right? You couldn't possibly be serious with all that craziness you were spouting were you? If you were serious, you might want to consider crawling back under your rock, or maybe visiting your church and setting up camp in one of the pews.
Us heathens appreciate your concern, but I think we will be just fine without all the nutty proselytizing you and some others on this site tend to do. Thanks anyway.
Dirt
see what i mean, "calling me out on my "behavior", like their moral authority has any weight at all. it goes from an attack on the message to a personal attack until another truth of God's word is revealed and then back to an attack on the message. there is this vacillation in them whereby they seem to love the 'loaves and the fishes' at times and then go back to cursing 'he has a demon' and attacking the messenger. oh how dark must be the soul when the eye does not allow any light in.
MadeFromDirt
"Besides, these deniers actually confirm Scripture"
Yes, they confirm that the Bible does terrible things like supporting slavery, discriminations, beating children, etc.
Not a good point for you.
"Rail"
i am still waiting with baited breath for your judgment to be revealed. are you going to show me where i have erred or continue to assassinate my character with innuendo? also, when you do, please have the courage to gather all the evidence so that the comment can be held in context. thank you sir.
Dirt
see what i mean about the attacks on scripture and the blasphemy. they continue to store up wrath for themselves
awanderingscot,
That's a CLASSIC! You are accusing someone of doing EXACTLY what you've done.
Wow!
scot – i already posted two of your milder personal attacks on the original thread. Do feel free though, to continue ignoring your previous behavior. Context ? In what context is an ad hominem acceptable ?
"they continue to store up wrath for themselves"
So is there a worse fate then heii? If you already are getting 1 wrath from God, who cares if you store up more? Will he send me to a heII that hurts more? The lunacy of heaven and heII are shockingly apparent, the fact that anyone believes in such nonsense is evidence of severe mental illness.
""they continue to store up wrath for themselves""
Oh no!!!!look out!! he's storing wrath! he's storing wrath!! aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!
"Churches like this may be good for introducing people to Jesus."
First taste is free eh? The local drug dealer says the same thing...
There is no logic in theological as said god remains silent 24/7 which is strange since Paul promised the second coming a few thousand years ago. And no mega church will make him or her or it appear!!!
And the "hipsters" more like "con-sters" already have $50+ million in their coffers, drive luxury cars and live in fancy homes. Give us a break!!!
" [In January 1956, Martin Luther King Jr.] returned home around midnight after a long day of organizational meetings. His wife and young daughter were already in bed, and King was eager to join them. But a threatening call—the kind of call he was getting as many as 30 to 40 times a day—interrupted his attempt to get some much-needed rest. When he tried to go back to bed, he could not shake the menacing voice that kept repeating the hateful words in his head.
King got up, made a pot of coffee, and sat down at his kitchen table. With his head buried in his hands, he cried out to God. There in his kitchen in the middle of the night, when he had come to the end of strength, King met the living Christ in an experience that would carry him through the remainder of his life. "I heard the voice of Jesus saying still to fight on," King later recalled. "He promised never to leave me, never to leave me alone … He promised never to leave me, no never alone."
In the stillness of the Alabama night, the voice of Jesus proved more convincing than the threatening voice of the anonymous caller. The voice of Jesus gave him the courage to press through the tumultuous year of 1956 to the victorious end of the Montgomery Bus Boycott. More than that, it gave him a vision for ministry that would drive him for the rest of his life."
http://www.preachingtoday.com/illustrations/2011/january/1010311.html
Sleeplessness, anxiety and stress can cause all sorts of strange thoughts to pop into one's head. I imagine hearing voices would be possible while one is under duress.
ML was no different than most Christians as he suffered from the Three B Syndrome, Born, Bred and Brainwashed in his religion. I suffered from said Syndrome for sixty years. After getting the time to look for the answers to questions that hounded me most of my life, I found them in the studies of the contemporary OT and NT scholars. ML unfortunately did not get that opportunity.
While someone's experience may convince them, how is it supposed to convince anyone else?
'The plural of anecdote is not data.'
'The plural of anecdote is not data.' Stealing that...
i have compassion for you but there must be a reason He doesn't speak to you. he speaks to me and many of my other brothers and sisters. have you tried pouring out your heart to Him, confessing your sins and asking forgiveness? i used to be in chains myself, i didn't exactly know it, i was partying, having a good life, thought i knew everything; but something deep inside me told me something wasn't right, my soul was sick and my soul was lonesome. I was at war with my creator, alienated from the peace and joy that can truly come only from knowing the Father in heaven. i urge you to make peace with Him. you will be a new and better man.
As noted many times:
Jesus was a bit "touched". After all he thought he spoke to Satan, thought he changed water into wine, thought he raised Lazarus from the dead etc. In today's world, said Jesus would be declared legally insane.
Or did P, M, M, L and J simply make him into a first century magic-man via their epistles and gospels of semi-fiction? Many contemporary NT experts after thorough analyses of all the scriptures go with the latter magic-man conclusion with J's gospel being mostly fiction.
Obviously, today's followers of Paul et al's "magic-man" are also a bit on the odd side believing in all the Christian mumbo jumbo about bodies resurrecting, and exorcisms, and miracles, and "magic-man atonement, and infallible, old, European/Utah white men and talking with Jesus and 24/7 body/blood sacrifices followed by consumption of said sacrifices. Yummy!!!!
So why do we really care what a first century CE, illiterate, long-dead, preacher/magic man would do or say?
" In today's world, said Jesus would be declared legally insane." – no need to wait until our day, those unregenerates in his day believed him to be insane as well.
The people answered and said, "You have a demon. Who is seeking to kill You?" – John 7:20, NKJV
"Many contemporary NT experts after thorough analyses of all the scriptures go with the latter magic-man conclusion with J's gospel being mostly fiction."
-sources? what "experts" can you name that have made this conclusion?
Jesus, the magic man: See the studies of Professors Crossan, Ludemann, Borg, Chilton and Ehrman
And from Professor Bruce Chilton in his book, Rabbi Jesus,
"Conventionally, scholarship has accorded priority to the first three gospels in historical work on Jesus, putting progressively less credence in works of late date. John's Gospel for example is routinely dismissed as a source......
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Authorship
"Since "the higher criticism" of the 19th century, some historians have largely rejected the gospel of John as a reliable source of information about the historical Jesus.[3][4] "[M]ost commentators regard the work as anonymous,"[5] and date it to 90-100."
"The authorship has been disputed since at least the second century, with mainstream Christianity believing that the author is John the Apostle, son of Zebedee. Modern experts usually consider the author to be an unknown non-eyewitness,
though many apologetic Christian scholars still hold to the conservative Johannine view that ascribes authorship to John the Apostle."
And from Professor Gerd Ludemann, in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 416,
"Anyone looking for the historical Jesus will not find him in the Gospel of John. "
See also http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html
Chilton reiterates what has been said about Christ by detractors and never once called Him a magic man. stop your lying.
and before i forget, Gerd Ludemann has stated himself that he is not a Christian. so really, why should any Christian give his lunacy any credibility, it's unlikely to shake anyone's faith.
Yeah – why would anyone listen to Ludemann?
He's only been teaching New Testament theology at the University level for 35+ years. What could a lifetime of academic pursuits into the historicity of the Scriptures possibly reveal that isn't understood by the average fundamentalist Christian?
Earlier in his career, the Professor was a devout Christian.
After extensive research into the source material for the New Testament, he came to the conclusion that while there was a historical Jesus, the majority of the words attributed to him are specious, not to mention that His life and death have been heavily mythologized – meaning the Biblical account bears little resemblance to actual, factual history.
One can understand how that would undermine his faith – facts have a way of doing that for those able to critically examine the foundations of their supernatural beliefs.
As with Professor JD Crossan's studies, Professor Ludemann a-n-alyzes each pa-ssage in the NT for hi-storical authenticity. His a-n-alyses and c-onclusions are p-ublished in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years. Professor Crossan's studies, a-n-alysis and results are p-ublished in his over twenty p-ublications on the historical Jesus. His conclusions are available on line.
at:
Crossan Inventory and at:
http://www.faithfutures.o-rg/JDB/intro.html . Some of Professor Ludemann's conclusions are also p-ublished in the latter reference.
For the word of the Lord is right, and all His work is done in truth. – Psalms 33:4, NKJV
LET's Religiosity Law #7 – Circular "holy" book reasoning + sweaty fervor = mental retardation.
awanderingscot
For the word of the Lord is right, and all His work is done in truth
-----
The words of men, who purport to speak for God.
Yeeks, if I didn't know better I would think that aws is Shirley Phelps-Roper. Have you heard her spiels?
"For the word of the Lord is right, and all His work is done in truth. – Psalms 33:4, NKJV"
Why post a scripture like this?? The book you are quoting from is the book written about your god-of course the writers are going to throw tidbits like this in-they don't want gullible members of their flock wandering. How you fail to comprehend that is beyond understanding!
1. God drowns the whole earth.
In Genesis 7:21-23, God drowns the entire population of the earth: men, women, children, fetuses, and perhaps unicorns. Only a single family survives. In Matthew 24:37-42, gentle Jesus approves of this genocide and plans to repeat it when he returns.
2. God kills half a million people.
In 2 Chronicles 13:15-18, God helps the men of Judah kill 500,000 of their fellow Israelites.
3. God slaughters all Egyptian firstborn.
In Exodus 12:29, God the baby-killer slaughters all Egyptian firstborn children and cattle because their king was stubborn.
4. God kills 14,000 people for complaining that God keeps killing them.
In Numbers 16:41-49, the Israelites complain that God is killing too many of them. So, God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them.
Anyone want to bet how long it will before this charlatan shaman and his cult crashes and burns? Any takers on what his sin will be: drugs, adultery, gay s3x, murder, child abuse, or ?
marrying an Australian!
First impression:
I believe there is a hidden truth in this. While people like to have fun—I do, most do not want to be non-believers, that's strong Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
Why did you finish your comment with an "amen"? Honestly, I'm curious.
"faith": believing something without a single shred of proof.
it amazes me that religious folk see this word as a badge of honor while any logical thinking person sees it as a mark of foolishness or insanity.
quite a disconnect.
The faith he is describing is "trust and confidence in someone or something". That is the primary definition of faith.
There are a lot of logical thinking people that put their faith in God. Doctors, scientists, mathematicians. They can demonstrate logical thinking. They have credentials and prestigious awards that verify their superior understanding of a field of study that requires logical thinking.
I'm guessing all you do is parrot what The God Delusion and anti-theist websites taught you. I don't see you provide any objective evidence of logical thinking for yourself.
Dala,
I actually agree with you. Smart logical people believe in god. I know a LOT of them. But it is my experience that they do not apply logic to their belief. People have a great capacity to compartmentalize different areas of their life and deal with various aspects of their lives very differently.
vic
People WANTING to believe does not show strong faith at all...people will convince themselves of many things they WANT to be true...the one who shows the strongest faith is the one who has faith and does NOT want it. I don't think there are any of those.
What if someone has strong faith in another spiritual/religious figure? Why is that any different, or less relevant, than your strong faith?
Apparently according to Vic they are "non-believers".
'While people like to have fun—I do, most do not want to be non-believers"
-----------------------
Is the premise with Hillsong that to be a believing church attender, it also has to be fun, else it's not compelling enough to bother with?
To wit:
"Going to church will not save you, reading a Bible will not save you, accepting the Lord Jesus Christ will save you, that's what we're doing here."
Paster John Hagee
Oh, I'll take Sauvignon Blanc with Brie and crackers with that.
Ah John Hagee. That Xenophobic, hateful, bigoted pile of excrement shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. Or do you agree with all of what he says Vic, not just the good sounding platitudinal crap he spews at seemingly random intervals?
Vic,
I certainly hope you are not recommending John Hagee?
How does one accept something they have no knowledge of?
I think that's called blind faith
John Hagee is a dovche nozzle.
"most do not want to be non-believers"
For once I agree with Vic....people often believe because of what they WANT to be true...
I want to believe I have a million dollars in my bank account...but it would be a bad idea to act like I do.
Well, by implied popular demand, I would like to clarify:
It is out of belief in God that they "do not want to be non-believers," for the lack of a better term.
So their belief in god drives them to....want to believe in god.
Do you know how silly that sounds?
"out of belief in God ... they "do not want to be non-believers," "
-------------------
Vic this is completely circular. It's like saying the sky is blue because it is not any other color.
I bet they do communion with mango-pomegranite punch and slices of butternut squash.
No squash – it has to be bread: gluten free, vegan kale bread.
"gluten free, vegan kale bread."
Those words should not be combined in a single sentence.
gluten free, vegan kale bread.
--–
a.k.a. cardboard.
cardboard
-----------–
And we come full circle – we are back to the Catholic sacramental wafers.
Mmmmmm... soylent saviour
You tell everybody. Listen to me Doc. You've gotta tell them! Soylent savior is a person!* We've gotta stop them somehow!
* Or so they claim!
i happen to like my butternut squash with a couple of thick pepper-crusted slices of bacon wrapped around it, then washed down with refreshing mango punch .... oh wait, maybe i'll have a yummy frosty date shake with that to remind me of the great time i had at the Doobie Brothers concert ... naw .. ya know what, being around real love, the love of Christ and His children is way better dude, too bad you aren't allowing yourself some.
1. God drowns the whole earth.
In Genesis 7:21-23, God drowns the entire population of the earth: men, women, children, fetuses, and perhaps unicorns. Only a single family survives. In Matthew 24:37-42, gentle Jesus approves of this genocide and plans to repeat it when he returns.
2. God kills half a million people.
In 2 Chronicles 13:15-18, God helps the men of Judah kill 500,000 of their fellow Israelites.
3. God slaughters all Egyptian firstborn.
In Exodus 12:29, God the baby-killer slaughters all Egyptian firstborn children and cattle because their king was stubborn.
4. God kills 14,000 people for complaining that God keeps killing them.
In Numbers 16:41-49, the Israelites complain that God is killing too many of them. So, God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them.
Now that's some REAL love right there!
actually you demonstrate no understanding of scripture. it was a "new king, who did not know Joseph" that ordered all Hebrew male babies murdered at birth. and this new king wasn't even an Egyptian, he was an Assyrian (Isaiah 52:4). Our Lord was justified in putting those Egyptian male babies to death because of this order by the Pharaoh. (we reap what we sow). These are the same evil people who sacrificed their own young to idols. God is justified in all He does and you only continue to store up wrath for yourself by blaspheming Him. You also need to be very careful in how you tread that you don't blaspheme the Holy Spirit for which there is absolutely no forgiveness. all the screaming and pleading will do you no good if that happens as He will not even be looking your way.
awanderingscot
"God is justified in all He does"
Yep. Like when God sat around and let Job's family, slaves, and animals all be WIPED OUT so he could WIN A BET with Satan. Nice LOVING guy.
""God is justified in all He does"
Gott mit uns.
@scotty.... "God is justified in all He does and you only continue to store up wrath for yourself by blaspheming Him. You also need to be very careful in how you tread that you don't blaspheme the Holy Spirit for which there is absolutely no forgiveness. all the screaming and pleading will do you no good if that happens as He will not even be looking your way."
Total bullcrap scotty.... quite the imagination you have there. Fortunately I don't believe in your fairytales about holy ghosts and other imaginary tales from the book of mythology know as the bible.... you are quite deluded indeed!
Not believing will not excuse you when meet Him on judgement day. prepare yourself now.
Scot....I'm perfectly prepared, thank you. If I'm ever in a position to be judged (although I don't see how, since my earthly remains will be gone, including my nerve endings that are susceptible to fire), I think I can present a great case.
awanderingscot
"God is justified in all He does"
So you think God was justified to sit around and let Job's family, slaves, and animals all be WIPED OUT so he could WIN A BET with Satan.
That says a lot about your MORALITY. Sad.
aws, re your judgement day remark, ah, the stick side of your carrot and stick way to sell your religion. You need to have that threat there or it won't sell to the masses. However, if your god is loving and all merciful as you claim, then why should anyone fear him? As one example, all Hitler, a Christian, would need to do is ask him for forgiveness and thus go scot-free. Nothing to worry about.
Speaking of which, it would be nice to be free of a certain scot's absurd remarks here. Until you can provide proof of your god, and so far you have not been able to, I utterly reject your beliefs.
"Now I don't know what stopped Jesus Christ from turning every hungry stone into bread
And I don't remember hearing how Moses reacted when the innocent first born sons lay dead
Well, I guess God was a lot more demonstrative back when He flamboyantly parted the seas
Now everybody's praying
Don't prey on me"
– Brett Gurewitz
you have misinterpreted me. i myself don't have to provide you proof, i only need to warn you.
Scot....you have warned us all....you may leave now.
D0C
LOL .. what is your obsession with quoting brain-dead punk rockers?
DumbAzzScot, imagine the worst, most damning blasphemy according to your cult's book of silliness and imagine that I just uttered it. That is how little I fear your alleged but never proven god.
Hotair....I'm in trouble....I uttered it twice!
do you really think anyone is going to give credence to the rantings of a crack cocaine and heroin addict?
DumbAzzScot, what is your obsession with quoting the piece of crap book of fiction called the bible but better described as The Babble for Brain Dead Believers?
No, that is why no one actually pays attention to you.
Hot "Air"
good for you.
Hot "Air"
is all you are little boy, you got poopy in your diaper? is that why your little baby face is all red?
"i myself don't have to provide you proof, i only need to warn you."
How convenient for you, all the power, none of the responsibility. Make a claim and expect people to jump and yet provide no evidence whatsoever. Fewer and fewer people are falling for it, the education of the masses is happening and it doesn't look very good for those glued to their phony faith.
You couldn't be more wrong about me. But poopy in a diaper would be more real than your alleged bit never proven god.
Why call them brain dead?
Gurewitz owns and operates the most successful indie label in the world.
Graffin has a PhD and is a professor of evolutionary biology .... Ohhh! Now I get why you think they're brain dead.
What with the science and everything....
But what can I say – I've been a fan of Bad Religion for decades.
I found Graffin's PhD thesis to be particularly interesting.
Mentally ill, bordering on brain dead, believers will say and do anything to keep their delusions intact.
D0C
no dog, reread if necessary, brain-dead=crack cocaine and heroin.
LOL .. evolutionary biology – all they have to work with is old bones, PHD ? laughable, they give those things away still don't they? i'm not the least impressed.
Scot....yeah, can you imagine the stupidity of some people? Like believing that images could be produced in California then transmitted to a little box in my house! Or those dumb scientists that thought we could send a man to the moon, or create a communications system that people all over the world could use to talk with each other.
A few old bones? You are a moron.
We could have the entire tree of life mapped out with every missing link identified all the way back to the first single cell organism and you'll still have religious nuts like aws claiming none of it matter because their God did it anyway. So what is the point of arguing with this fool? Much like the dinosaurs these morons will eventually die out.
gulliblenomore
you are a moron for believing technology is the same thing as science.
Scot....science and technology are compatible. You know this, of course, or you are an even bigger moron than I thought.
Technology only works because of scientific discovery. Otherwise we would have to rely on "magic" to communicate. My 4 year old thinks our wireless router is magic, so it makes sense to hear religious morons believing in magic as well.
NBHA....thanks for the backup. I knew this guy was a total moron and complete jerk, but I didn't think he was disingenuous as well.
neverbeenhappieratheist
"We could have the entire tree of life mapped out with every missing link identified all the way back to the first single cell organism"
– but you don't do you? you don't have 1 fossil of even our immediate progenitor do you? but go on believing your stupid fairy tale anyway.
Scot....and all you have is a musty 2000 year old book that says 'god did it'.
neverbeenhappieratheist
"Technology only works because of scientific discovery."
– you're an idiot if you believe this.
Scot....there is a severe disconnect within the confines of your brain. Feel free to believe your god fairy tale, I don't care. But to refute technological advances based on scientific principles just shows you to be a fanatical revisionist....and a verified whack-job.
"you don't have 1 fossil of even our immediate progenitor do you?"
"From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals. With the rapid pace of new discoveries every year, this impressive sample means that even though some early human species are only represented by one or a few fossils, others are represented by thousands of fossils. From them, we can understand things like:
how well adapted an early human species was for walking upright
how well adapted an early human species was for living in hot, tropical habitats or cold, temperate environments
the difference between male and female body size, which correlates to aspects of social behavior
how quickly or slowly children of early human species grew up.
While people used to think that there was a single line of human species, with one evolving after the other in an inevitable march towards modern humans, we now know this is not the case." – http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils (Smithsonian)
You are right, we don't have "1" fossil, we have thousands of them. You are just willing to reject all the evidence beacsue you have a belief already and the facts don't fit your belief so you choose to deny the facts.
Yes, Brett Gurewitz had a drug problem 20 years ago.
That doesn't detract from the impact of his art.
Hemingway was a drunk, Coleridge an opiate addict, Van Gogh drank Absinthe by the bottle....
"science and technology are compatible."
– trying to switch gears now are we? that's like comparing a horse to it's rider. you're a moron.
Scot...,not switching gears at all. Simply stating that without the science, technology is impossible. But, I am starting to question my intelligence though. I must be stupid to be wasting one second of my life on a fanatical lunatic like you.
Why are there so many of you nut cases on this site?
"Technology only works because of scientific discovery." – you're an idiot if you believe this."
Please give one example of a piece of technology that is not based on physics learned from scientific experiment.
NBHA.....I'm not sure why either of us are trying to be logical with this idiot. He is obviously beyond help.
I'm starting to think aws is just another Poe pulling our leg. No one can be this deliberately stupid.
NBHA....he is that stupid. Read some of his other posts
"even though some early human species are only represented by one or a few fossils, others are represented by thousands of fossils." – blah, blah, blah.. please do go on with your story, always a disclaimer "even though" "others are" in this example. like even ape's teeth are not subject to decay, stupid sh1ts, go on believing your stupid contrived bs.
I think DumbAzzScot is Theo Puffy Words' "dark side.". Both are severely delusional and neither has anything but words.
Evidence for evolution appears in the fossil record, vestigial features, study of ebryonic development, biogeography, DNA sequencing, examining pseudogenes, study of endogenous retroviruses, labratory direct examination of natural selection in action in E-Coli bacteria, lactose intolerance in humans, the peppered moth's colour change in reaction to industrial pollution, radiotrophic fungi at Chernobyl all add to the modern evolutionary synthesis.
We have directly observes speciation in Blackcap birds, fruit flies, mosquitos, mice, Shortfin molly fish.
If you would like to see exactly how the improbable can happen, you can use the computer simulation of life's development called Avida.
The principles of evolutionary biology are applied on a daily basis by countless people in disparate fields.
Without a firm understanding of evolution, modern agriculture would be impossible.
Pharmaceutical biochemistry would be non-existent, reducing our overall health and life expectancy.
Computer programmers use a principle called "Evolutionary Computing / Genetic Algorithms". This engineering technique is routinely used in aerospace engineering, architecture, astrophysics, data mining, drug discovery and design, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, robotics, scheduling, systems engineering and a host of other fields.
Darwin's 5 laws are confirmed and used in practical applications every single day by people all over the world.
Since Darwin first posited his theory, evolutionary scientists have tried to lessen the conflict between evolution and religion.
They worry that the public association of evolution with atheism will hurt evolutionary biology, perhaps impeding its funding or acceptance.
The great majority see no conflict between religion and evolution, not because they occupy different, noncompeting magisteria, but because they see religion as a natural product of human evolution.
Sociobiological evolution is the means to understanding religion, whereas religion as a "way of knowing" has nothing to teach us about evolution.
"go on believing your stupid contrived bs."
Thanks, I will continue to get my information about the real world from reliable sources such as the Smithsonian Instltute rather than from Egyptian hieroglyphs telling their creation myth of Atum rising out of the waters of Nu or from that other contemporary work depicting Adam being the first human created out of dirt and then a women created from his rib.
"gullible"
your name fits you well, you can't be serious are you? you do know many inventions came about purely by accident don't you? you do know many inventions and derived technology came about by what we colloquially call 'tinkering' don't you? someone had an idea, made it work, no science involved at all, math yes, science no. i'm not sure why i'm even discussing this with you as you still don't know there is a difference.
Scot....then don't. I'm not wasting any more time on your ignorance
wanderingscot,
And **all** of religion came from tinkering with reality and from people adding their favorite superst.itions and fantasies to the pot without a single shred of verified (or ever verifiable) evidence.
"someone had an idea, made it work, no science involved at all, math yes, science no."
All that shows is that you don't really understand what science is. Of course I'm not at all surprised that it escapes you.
(sorry – my last reply was to wanderingdolt)
For DumbAzzScot, from http://www.diffen.com/difference/Science_vs_Technology:
"The words science and technology can and often are used interchangeably. But the goal of science is the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake while the goal of technology is to create products that solve problems and improve human life. Simply put, technology is the practical application of science."
Hotair....he actually knows that. He is being purposely belligerent now. Don't waste your time.
"gullible" your name fits you well, you can't be serious are you?"
I guess if someones handle was "downwithstupidity" this moron would say "stupid, your name fits you well..." because apparently he has the reading comprehension of a gerbil.
NBHA....you owe an apology to all gerbils everywhere. And I agree with you. Really this guy is just an azzhole.
"what we colloquially call 'tinkering' don't you? someone had an idea, made it work, no science involved at all, math yes, science no."
The pure idiocy of this statement is astounding. Anyone who thinks any technology works with "no science involved at all" is either a certified moron or just crawled out of the jungle somewhere and believes airplanes fly on vudoo power.
awanderingscot, I know you are; however, I was quoting Inigo Montoya as a reply to t131's paraphrase.
D0C
blah-blah-blah. you can't make a case for evolution simply because the natural order exists. you can tho assign all the BS names you want to it and claim it proves evolution. where is the missing link? you've got entire skeletons of hundreds of dinosaurs but you can't produce just one fossilized skeleton of man's supposed ancestor. you know why? because it's BS.
Aw, scotty. Keep your head buried in the sand. Evolution is real. It exists and it's happening even now. But you just hide your little head. It must be terrifying for you to realize that the afterlife you so desperately want is nothing more than wishful thinking.
"you can't make a case for evolution [blah blah blah]"
lol – oh how I love it when stupid comes out so easily and voluntarily...
i'm more of a realist than you are you twink.
wanderingscot,
You know, we've only been studying evolution for a little over 100 years - great strides have been made in proving and understanding it. Your religion, on the other hand, has had 2,000-3,000 years to produce a single fairy wing, gleaming halo, flaming tongue, magic fishbone, or **anything** else to prove that what you **believe** is anything more than fantasy.
Who ya calling twink, scotty? And how in the world can you call yourself a realist when you deny observable, proven science and instead believe in a god for which there isn't a single shred of evidence?
To paraphrase Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word (realist). I do not think it means what you think it means"
"Prepare to die."
give me just one example of the theory of evolution making a contribution to the development of mankind that's not B.S.
Scot....I'll give you the biggest benefit to mankind that evolution has produced. Evolution helped wean intelligent people out of the dark ages of religion.
"i'm more of a realist than you are you twink."
TWINK YOU!!!
Here's a whole page of links, princess.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=47
Akira
– I am already prepared to die. from the time my Lord first uttered the words of His covenant. i embrace my death on earth.
"I am the Lord; I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians"
– I also have been freed from the chains of sin that bound me.
"I will rescue you from their bondage"
– I have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb
"I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments."
– i am justified in the sight of the Lord and pronounced righteous.
"I will take you as My people"
– He sanctifies me daily.
"I will be your God"
– the great I AM has promised and I trust in His mighty arm and thus have no fear of death.
wanderingscot,
You can quote that old book all day long... forward, drawkcab and uʍop ǝpᴉsdn; in English, ελληνικά, עברית, or монгол. It. Means. Nothing. It. Proves. Nothing.
tallulah131
i've already looked at that crap ... blah-blah-blah and not a shred of proof. where's the missing link goofball? hundreds of dinosaur skeletons and not one skeleton of our supposed ancestors. i'll tell you something. it takes more faith to believe your stupid crap than it does to believe in a supernatural creator called God. Atheists are fools and delusional
Here's a short list of the transitional fossils found for the lineage of Ho.mo Sapiens:
Australopithecus Afarensis – several found in ethiopia by multiple people in the last 40 years.
Australopithecus Africanis – several in South Africa in the mid 20th century
Ho.mo Erectus – China, 1986
Ho.mo Habilis – Kenya, 1973
Australopithecus Sediba – Kenya, 2008
Ho.mo georgicus – Georgia, 2001
Ho.mo ergaster – Kenya, 1975
Ho.mo heidelbergensis, Spain, Italy and Ethiopia over several decades
These bones are real, tangible exhaustively studied evidence.
The old cry of "where's the missing link!" is heard less and less as we unearth more and more of them
scotty: blah blah blah......
I found a picture on a youtube of scotty and his pals hard at work debunking evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c2Wu4_vDlc
Scotty sure is debunking evolution all right... his head-crushing method has never failed........(in his head – lol)...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwlAvsPvPfg
D0C
"transitional fossils" is just another b.s. term for a collection of bones that can't be honestly pieced together to form a complete skeleton. most are the bones of monkeys or apes. the "australopithecus" Lucy caused quite a stir in her day and evolutionists were smug in their assertion they had found the missing link although no more than 40% of a complete skeleton was found. some of the pieces were found miles away but they just "had to be" part of Lucy. later on it was discovered to be an ape. stupid fools who believe evolution.
Lucy was NOT found to be an ape.
Her bones were NOT discovered miles and miles apart.
Now you're just lying.
another deceitful ploy evolutionists use is to assign binomial nomenclature to 'species' that don't exist or have become extinct. they'll take 20%, 30%, 40% of an ape or monkey skeleton and give it a 'scientific' name stating that they've found a 'transitional species' when in reality the skeleton is composed of a mother ape and her baby, male or female; or it could be a monkey specimen with a genetic deformity and a baby or whatever, they really don't know, but the need to feed the evolution monster is there. and thus we have it: ahem, attention everyone we've found a new species. only suckers like the atheists here on this blog parrot this stupid crap. they can find hundreds of complete dinosaur skeletons but can't produce even one full skeleton of our supposed "ancestor".
Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he thinks she is our ancestor. It included the ideas already mentioned and that Lucy’s femur and pelvis were more robust than most chimps and therefore, “could have” walked upright. After the lecture he opened the meeting for questions. The audience of approximately 800 was quiet so some creationists asked questions. Roy Holt asked; “How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?” (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, “Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?” Dr. Johanson:
– "Anatomical similarity." is his proof. No sir, you are the liar.
So you'll accept the ways in which scientists piece together dinosaur skeletons that are far from complete, but somehow this same process is invalid when applied to primates?
Complete skeletons are extremely rare in paleontology.
scot
Still harping on Lucy? Please...at least try to get some updated ammunition if you are going to take on science.
Though we have mountians and mountains of evidence that you refuse to belief, proving the evolutionary process beyond a doubt, you choose to reject it.
On the other hand, you actually believe all the stories in the bible, even though there is not one single shred of evidence that any of the supernatural claims the men who wrote the bible put in it.
Truly fascinating the willful ignorance of religious belief. It is amazing what some people will convince themselves of, with absolutely nothing to go on.
There were two knee joints found – one close by and one far away.
Dr. Johansen does not claim that the knee joint found far away belonged to Lucy. Instead, it was part of another fossil he found some time earlier. He does put them together logically, though, claiming that they were of the same species.
Other examples of the species have been unearthed since Lucy.
Again, here's scotty with his fingers plugged in his ears, shaking his head and chanting "NA-NA-NA" at the top of his lungs because he cannot refute the reality of evolution. All he has is ignorant denial, which only serves to make him look like a fool.
[Placed correctly. I hope.]
awanderingscot, I know you are; however, I was quoting Inigo Montoya as a reply to t131's paraphrase.
in addition to this and concerning 'Lucy in the sky with diamonds' LOL .. she had a small chimpanzee sized brain according to the 'evidence', hardly the over sized brain that would allow for developing tools needed for survival. this is just another example of the B.S. evolutionists want everyone to believe. 40% of a skeleton would hardly be conclusive anyway if it could be proven that the entire 40% belonged to the same individual. supposedly there were the bones of 34 other individuals and 10 infants in the same area. but they found "Lucy's" knee bones some 1.5 miles away? what a load of crap.
Akira
LOL .. ok i do remember some of that movie, very funny. forgive me but i haven't watched television in years.
" where is the missing link?"
Thus showing how outdated scot knowledge is.
No one is looking for the "missing link" scot...lets see if you can educate yourself.
Why am I saying your question about the missing link is outdated, scot? What made the term outdated?
igaftr
who cares? you're debating yourself. whether it's missing link or transitional species is irrelevant. so if the discussion is pertaining to evolution for example and you say missing link, it will be assumed the reference is to a transitional species, you're not wrong in saying 'missing link'. notice i did not say fossil, i don't believe there is such a thing. grow up.
scot.
I see...who cares that you are using vastly outdated information. Who cares that you obviously do not comprehend the VAST evidence of evolution, the genetics especially.
Who cares you keep trying to poke holes in the sciences involved, when real scientists have already addressed everything you have b brought up long ago, and have moved on.
Seriously, try joining us in this century.
Just last year, the world's first completely preserved adult hominid skull from the early Pleistocene was discovered in Dmanisi, Georgia. The new specimen provides direct evidence for wide morphological variation within and among early Ho.mo, showing the existence of a single evolving lineage across continents.
– Science 18 October 2013:
Vol. 342 no. 6156 pp. 326-331
Banjo: Oh, please. A far more logical explanation is the undisprovable science of Creatureism. All life was created in its present form seven thousand years ago, by a fantastical creature from outer space!
Farnsworth: Bunk!
Banjo: Oh! If your elitist, East Coast evolution is real, why has no one found the missing link between modern humans and ancient apes?
Farnsworth: We did find it! It's called Ho.mo erectus!
Banjo: Then you have proven my case, sir, for no one has found a link between apes and this Ho.mo erectus.
Farnsworth: Yes, they have! It's called Ho.mo habilis!
Banjo: Ah-ha! But no one has found the missing link between ape and this so called Ho.mo habilis.
Farnsworth: Yes, they have! It's called Australopithecus africanus!
Banjo: Oh-ho! I've got you now! [Time Lapse. The hologram now shows 19 different species of ape] Fair enough, but where, then, is the missing link between apes and this Darwinius masillae? Answer me that, Professor!
Farnsworth: Okay, granted, that one missing link is still missing, but just because we haven't found it doesn't mean it doesn't exist!
Banjo: [He scoffs.] Things don't exist simply because you believe in them. Thus sayeth the Almighty Creature in the Sky!
D0C
"Without a firm understanding of evolution, modern agriculture would be impossible."
Wrong: 1) agriculture has existed long before the theory of evolution 2) seed genetics, nothing to do with theory of evolution.
"Pharmaceutical biochemistry would be non-existent, reducing our overall health and life expectancy."
Wrong: 1) biochemistry existed long before the theory of evolution, in fact biochemistry as a science began over 800yrs ago
"Computer programmers use a principle called "Evolutionary Computing / Genetic Algorithms".
Wrong again: 1) computing as a technology began long before the theory of evolution. a fine example of this is the abacus used by the ancient Greeks.
– evolutionists are a lying breed who try to take credit for all man's inventions, technology, and the natural order
It's so sad when adults deny the fact of evolution simply because the truth doesn't fit within the framework of their religion. Scotty's denial only makes him look pathetic and desperate - like a little kid plugging his ears, shaking his head and chanting "Na-na-na!" at the top of his lungs.
and you are a gullible dupe
Uhh...scotty – if you quoted Doc correctly, note that he said "modern agriculture" and "Pharmaceutical biochemistry". I know you like to keep your head a couple of thousand years back, but I'm guessing Doc used those qualifiers intentionally. And I'm guessing that because you seem to have missed this that you also missed his point. If I were you, I would ask him how those current fields as expressed relate to an understanding in evolution.
I'm gullible because I don't believe in a bronze-age god for which there isn't a single shred of evidence, but do believe in verifiable, observable science?
You lose, scotty. You lose.
Doris
Modern agriculture is an IMPROVEMENT over ancient agriculture, nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Zilch
Pharmaceutical biochemistry is a BRANCH of biochemistry, nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Zilch
– evolutionists are a lying breed who attempt to take credit for all of mankind's inventions, technology, and the natural order.
"nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Zilch"
conjecture
And again, you should be engaging Doc on that issue, scotty–you might learn something. But I do understand that your head has grown used to the feeling of being encased in sand.
Modern, high yield agriculture is predicated on understanding genetic diversity, disease resistance and pest control .
Lnowledge of genetic variation and evolutionary relationships helps farmers improve the ability of crops to resist disease.
Tracing genes of known function and comparing how they are related to unknown genes helps one to predict unknown gene function, which is foundational for drug discovery and Epidemiology.
Recognizing bacteria as evolving ent.ities and understanding their evolution helps us to control that evolution, allowing us to prolong the useful lifespan of antibiotics. To stay one step ahead of pathogenic diseases, researchers must understand the evolutionary patterns of disease-causing organisms. To control hereditary diseases in people, researchers study the evolutionary histories of the disease-causing genes.
Directed evolution allows the "breeding" of molecules or molecular pathways to create or enhance pharmaceutical products.
DumbAzzScot has sand up his azz?
The only being duped here is you TOT. It is simply willful ignorance to deny evolution when there is so much evidence supporting it and only the bible to support the creation story. Tell us, why do you suppose it is that Evolution can be taught in public schools and creation can't be? Tell us what Nobel Peace awards have been given for the study of creationism? Do you understand why the Smithsonian never contemplates bankruptcy but yet your Master-Ken Ham's Creation Museum is holding on by a thread?
D0C
you're confusing your 'theory' of evolution with genetic variation and adaptability. organisms that don't adapt simply die, they don't evolve into new species. all along the primer has been factors such as the environment and only recently has the science of microbiology and genetics become a factor; but these are ARTIFICIAL stimuli or processes not occurring in the natural order. evolution naturally occurring is crap.
"truth"
Al Gore won a Nobel Prize didn't he? go fly a kite.
Wow TOT, reading comprehension is not your strong suit-is it?
I said for CREATIONISM, not a creationist.
Now are you going to be an adult and stop evading the tough questions asked???
Atheist parents beat atheism into their children’s brains in order to perpetuate the evil of the religion called atheism. The atheist god gives the children treats of raw liver and over-cooked brussel sprouts for desert, following a meal of road kill tar tar. It is no way to raise a child atheist abusers. Get a life.
don't feed the trolls.
Atheists are funny because they can look in the mirror and not see exactly what is there, their hypocrisy. They worship science as their god and the criticize everyone else. They think they are smarter when they prove their ignorance every time they open their pie holes.
Tone down the rhetorical flames, @thefinisher1. I don't want to have to send you to the penalty box.
–Daniel Burke
AMEN!
Wow, there's a referee? Who knew?
They make Daniel Burke wear those black and white striped tops to work ...
Oh that's just rude. I can't imagine how many zebra jokes the poor guy gets.
4-minute major for Assault on Logic.
The uniform ain't so bad. The stripes are slimming, at least.
Actually, that would be a double minor; a major is five minutes and no return to the ice until the term is finished no matter how many the other team scores. Actually, I'd the thefinishedone a game misconduct, myself...
You are correct! Jeez, my bad. I even played in high school, though that's getting to be a little while ago. I like both teams in the Finals, have to root a little for the Rangers, they haven't been this far in awhile. As always for me, I just hope it goes 7.
I've always thought that particular troll deserved a penalty for high schticking.
Kings or Rangers, Daniel?...
I shed a tear two nights ago. Sigh.
As did I, Akira, as did I.
Rangers. Only because Martin St. Louis plays for them now and I love the little guy.
I wonder if there are any Christians who are Devil's fans?
And the Christian con game continues !!!
Are you going to eat that?
Only the ears and feet.
don't feed the trolls.
41,000 sects of Christianity. They'll try ANYTHING to get more people to indoctrinate.
You don't have to go far in any part of the U.S. before you discover radically different kinds of Christians. From NYC, we only have to go to Harlem before we come across ATLAH Worldwide Missionary, led by Pastor James David Manning. Back in March, someone snapped a picture of the church's outdoor sign which included: "Jesus Would Stone Homos" and "Stoning is Still the Law", along with references from Matthew, John, Deuteronomy and of course Leviticus. Pastor Manning has also been known to be very outspoken against the President and the First Lady – even making derogatory statements about the First Lady's physical appearance. It's just one of the over 41,000 sects of Christianity.
Evidently, Manning also posted a YouTube video about stoning in which he said Christians who refuse to stone gay people are "advocating lawlessness."
YouTube has since removed ATLAH's video for violating the site's hate speech policy.
What do you expect from a guy who gets all his power by claiming to speak for a bronze-age myth?
I don't get hipsters. If you have to try so hard to be cool, you will never be cool.
Pffft.
Hating hipsters is so mainstream now.
I was doing it before it was cool.
Pffft yourself. I was always proud of my social reject status. I never even wanted to be popular.
Atheism is to a person as a bone is to a dog. Chewy and dirty and it should be buried with the other bones and nasty bits dogs hide. The fake finisher would know all about this being a name stealing atheist who already told you he/she is a faker. Hide your nasty squeaky toy and dig for your treasure atheist bat boy!
don't feed the trolls.
This is the real finisher but I am going to play the fake finisher to try to finish the finisher who is myself, the real finisher. Wait.
The fake finisher has gone completely off his/her rocker kids. I hope you know I am the real deal!
they both seem to have a slim grasp on reality with very shady perspectives...
We are not supposed to feel "comfortable" when we go to church. Look at the prophets of God when they were confronted with a vision of The Holy – their natural reaction was to fall on their knees in absolute terror.
Here on earth, we treat the name of God with such flippancy, but Isaiah says of God that in the year the King Uzziah died, he saw the Lord, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple, and when He spoke the pillars and the threshhold were shaken, and the temple was filled with smoke. Here on earth we treat the idea of God so lightly, but in heaven, when God speaks, even the inanimate objects have the good sense to be moved.
Here on earth, we have lost the sense of the Holy, and all has become profane.
“Every church building communicates some kind of non-verbal message. In the past, the Gothic cathedral was designed to focus attention on God’s transcendence. The use of high ceilings, vaulted space, towers, and spires all served to communicate that in this building, people met with the holy. While some contemporary church buildings still use spires and vaulted ceilings to suggest God’s awesome holiness, other church buildings have been designed to create a fellowship facility. These churches can look more like town meeting halls or even theaters. In some of these churches, the sanctuary becomes a stage, and the congregation becomes and audience. The trend may be seen as a profanation of sacred space to remove any discomfort suggested by the presence and terror of our holy God. These settings are designed so that people are made comfortable with each other as they enjoy fellowship with one another. The idea of fellowship with a holy God seems to be entirely lost.”
“The Holiness of God,” by R.C. Sproul
"confronted with a vision of The Holy – their natural reaction was to fall on their knees in absolute terror."
-------------------
GOD: Oh, don't grovel! If there's one thing I can't stand, it's people groveling.
ARTHUR: Sorry–
GOD: And don't apologize. Every time I try to talk to someone it's "sorry this" and "forgive me that" and "I'm not worthy". What are you doing now!?
ARTHUR: I'm averting my eyes, oh Lord.
GOD: Well, don't. It's like those miserable Psalms– they're so depressing. Now knock it off!
ARTHUR: Yes, Lord.
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
that has to be my favorite God quote. LOLOL
Monty Python is actually a good example of the disconnect that most people have with the idea of a holy God.
The most terrifying doctrine that is taught in Scripture is this: that God is good. The reason that is so terrifying is because we are not... So, if God is good, that means that we can believe what He has declared about Himself in the Bible to be true – that He is righteous, that He is just, and that He is so holy that He cannot look upon sin. And if God is righteous and just, then He cannot pardon sin. His righteousness MUST be satisfied. (For what judge could excuse a man who has just murdered someone? Justice MUST be served.) And to those whom He judges to be worthy of justice, His justice will be so thorough that it will grind them to powder. When we realize how holy God is, and when we realize how wicked we all are for even the committing of just one single sin, it should come as a complete and total shock to us that this holy and righteous God can know what we did, and said, and thought on yesterday, and not kill us in our sleep last night. And He would be perfectly justified in doing so, for we are made in the image of God, that is, we are called to be a reflection of who He is. We are to be His ambassadors here on earth to show the world who God is, and what He is like, and when we sin, we are telling a sinful world that THIS is what God is like. We are committing high treason against the one who created us.
"he's not the messiah, he's just a very naughty boy!"
– Bwian's Mum
Monty Python was actually very respectful of Jesus's teachings and was only mocking the zealot's behavior.
Yet for all your talk of sin and retribution and justice, there's always the "get out of hell free card" which makes the proxy threats meaningless.
"I repent, I'm saved, Hallelujah. God's mercy will save me, Jesus died for my sins" etc.
So what's the point of all your fear and awe?
"So what's the point of all your fear and awe?"
------------
Because when we see better who God is by an understanding of His holiness (inasmuch as we CAN know about His holiness), then we understand better who we are. In a similar way that we may act if we were presented before an absolute monarch here on earth, even if he were a good monarch, we are still in awe of his power over our lives. He answers to no one, and all under his rule exist for his own purposes.
Jesus is the friend of sinners, and brother to the saved, but we cannot see God the Father simply as our "buddy" as I've heard others say. He's not our buddy in the same sense that we would never call our earthly father our "buddy." He is forever "Father," and there are privaledges accorded to that role that He can never be divorced of.
It's been said in a joking way from an earthly father to his son, "I brought you into the world, and I can take you out!" If that were possible in the earthly realm and the father be still just, that would be a rather close analogy to God our Father. We love Him, and He loves us, but He has a power over us that is not to be questioned. And that brings with it a reverential fear.
" we cannot see God the Father simply as our "buddy" as I've heard others say.
---------------
"Buddy Jesus" is a parody of the type of personal relationship with God you are referring to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Christ
A building has really nothing to do with that.
'And that brings with it a reverential fear.
--------------------–
But not really if all you have to do is say "I repent". That's the paradox.
I get the whole fear and awe thing – it is wholly inconsistent with any of the sects that believe that all you have to do to be saved is 'repent and profess'.
"But not really if all you have to do is say "I repent". That's the paradox."
----------------
No one will truly repent unless and until they are confronted with their own wickedness.
For instance, if a criminal doesn't know it is wrong to murder, and has been doing so his whole life, and then is suddenly caught and brought before the judge, when it is explained how he has broken the law, now he understands that he is in BIG trouble. His ignorance did not nullify the law, and not only that, but justice is now required to be met on his behalf. That thought brings on the att.itude of repentance. It isn't simply a word, but an atti.tude.
So many people tell us that instead of God being just with us, God was loving and just forgave us… But that is not right, because if that were true, then God’s love was unjust. No, God cannot lay aside one of His attributes in favor of another. Therefore, in order for God to pardon a wicked people, He must first satisfy the demands of His own justice, He must be appeased as a righteous God. Now, in so many pagan religions, the requirement of appeasement falls upon the people who have committed the sins to appease their god, but in Christianity, God becomes a man and walks on this earth, He lives a perfect and sinless life, then the sins of His people are imputed to Him, and then He, Himself is crushed for their sins, and He Himself makes appeasement for their unrighteousness. Our God appeased Himself. Our God satisfied His own righteousness.
"what He has declared about Himself in the Bible to be true"
Stop Lying theo.
"He" did not declare a single thing in the bible. Men said god said, men said god did. Nowhere did god say or do anything.
So , in order to be honest, God allegedly did or said...otherwise you really are lying, since you do not actually know if any "god" had anything to do with the bible.
"Nowhere did god say or do anything."
--------------–
Try telling that to King Belshazzar
theo
Come on now. FIrst, there is no evidence that he actually was a king, and there is nothing to verify any supernatural claims.
Sorry theo, liikey just more writer embellsihment.
Still, no evidence that "god" did or said anything.
"Still, no evidence that "god" did or said anything."
-----------------
I haven't set out to prove anything. That's not my job. It is up to every man to examine the evidence before him and come to terms with the conclusions that he makes given the understanding that he has. Should it be the will of God, He will reveal Himself in due time to you.
In the meantime, I proclaim what the Bible says that He declares about Himself, for it is through the foolishness of preaching that God has chosen to save some.
What's your view on former believers Theo? I'm curious if you fall in the "it's a phase" or "was never a chrisitian" camp or another I'm not considering...
See in my experience, I was a believer, but now I'm not. I thought and felt much like you, but now I'm on the other side. I'm curious as to what your take is on that.
See in my experience, I was a believer, but now I'm not. I thought and felt much like you, but now I'm on the other side. I'm curious as to what your take is on that.
---------------------
Why don't I just tell you what Jesus says?
John 10:26 – "you do not believe because you are not of my sheep."
Here, Jesus’ words clearly indicate that it is God who chooses His sheep and it is they who will believe and follow. If God has not chosen you in eternity past and are not one of His sheep, then you will never remain in belief. If God has chosen you, then you will never leave your faith.
See also Ephesians 1:3-14, John 6:37-44, 65
Elsewhere in 1 John 2:19, we read: "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us."
Here, we see men who once "believed" rightly, but then went out and chased another way. Whether that was a false doctrine, or no doctrine at all. They went out, because they were never "of God's sheepfold."
theo
"I haven't set out to prove anything"...no ..you set out to misrepresent your argument, by claiming that it IS god, when you really do not know. I know you have convinced yourself that it is true, but that has no bearing on if it is actually true, so you should really use qualifiers indicating it is your opinion, or you believe that... or god allegedly....
The way you state it, is dishonest....perhaps even to yourself.
"you do not believe because you are not of my sheep."
-----------
Baaaa,
What is it with the sheeple metaphor? Why do Christians like this metaphor?
Good shepherds tend their flocks so they can fleece them kill them and eat them.
"The way you state it, is dishonest....perhaps even to yourself."
------------
You maintain your stance of doubt because God has withheld Himself from you. I maintain my stance of certainty because God has revealed Himself to me. Do not stand in the place of ignorance and proclaim that which you do not know.
theo
"You maintain your stance of doubt because God has withheld Himself from you"
More baseless belief. You have convinced yourself of that too, but you STILL don't actually know if there are any gods, or what they want if anything.
theo
" Do not stand in the place of ignorance and proclaim that which you do not know."
I am not. You are.
Answer this question...honestly.
How do you know, that which you call "god" is ACTUALLY the god YOU think it is, and not Satan tricking you?
You should not be able to answer that question. You should have doubt. If you have no doubt, you do not have faith. Also, if you have no doubt, you fall into the self deluded catagory, since there is no way possible to know it is "god", and not some imposter, or some other god than what you think, or just your mind making things up because you want it so badly.
It sounds like you have fallen into a common self created psychological trap.
So by all means, answer that one question.
"How do you know, that which you call "god" is ACTUALLY the god YOU think it is, and not Satan tricking you?"
----------------------–
I have answered this before, but apparently it's not going to do any good for you.
Only God can create anything (ex nihilo) and that creation bears witness to its creator. Even in our world, when we design or build anything (and there is a huge difference between "create" and "build"), the thing made in some way always reflects attributes of the one who made it.
From looking at creation, we can see that its creator is:
• Supernatural in nature (as He exists outside of His creation)
• Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known)
• Eternal (self-existent, as He exists outside of time and space)
• Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it)
• Timeless and changeless (He created time)
• Immaterial (because He transcends space)
• Personal (the impersonal can’t create personality)
• Necessary (as everything else depends on Him)
• Infinite and singular (as you cannot have two infinites)
• Diverse yet has unity (as nature exhibits diversity)
• Intelligent (supremely, to create everything)
• Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything)
• Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver)
• Caring (or no moral laws would have been given)
And when we observe evil and wickedness in this world, we are driven to ask, "So what went wrong?" And then we can better understand ourselves.
The Bible's description of God fits what can be observed from the nature of creation, so we know that He is who He declares Himself to be.
Theo's post @7:47 AM is a perfect example of Philioidiotism.
Theo
Nothing in your post shows how you know.
You did not address the question, but you did give insight into the self-delusional thought process.Classic.
though it has been PROVEN to you many times, your assertions are completely baseless. All you have done is shown the path you took to convince yourself your belief is true. So sad you can't see that.
theo
• Supernatural in nature (as He exists outside of His creation)...belief, there is nothing to support this.
• Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known) The Big Bang was certainly a huge release of energy.
Nothing showing any sentience behind it.
• Eternal (self-existent, as He exists outside of time and space) Belief based on belief. Nothing indicating any base for this belief.
• Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it) more belief, we do not know if "he" exist, let alone created anything.
• Timeless and changeless (He created time) again, baseless belief.
• Immaterial (because He transcends space) again, baseless belief
• Personal (the impersonal can’t create personality) again, baseless belief.
• Necessary (as everything else depends on Him) nothing showing the need for any gods.
• Infinite and singular (as you cannot have two infinites) Baseless belief
• Diverse yet has unity (as nature exhibits diversity) I don't even know why this is in here, nut again, baseless beleif.
• Intelligent (supremely, to create everything) Since your premise is baseless (nothing showing any "god" created anything,
so this is again, belief based on other belief.
• Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything) more belief
• Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver) again, baseless belief
• Caring (or no moral laws would have been given) you imagine "god" cares...more belief.
Would you care to attempt to answer the question now?
So you take the "never was a real christian" view? Problem is, the criteria you are using is circular. It's very easy to say someone wasn't a "real" christian, much harder to admit someone might have truly believed, but doesn't anymore.
Love me some Python.
That can be taken several ways Akira.
"...taken several ways"
The Python or the comment? lol
Lol. Love me some Monty Python.
Akira
Is that the Full Monty Python?
Is that how Terry Jones playing the organ nekkid is referred to these days?
Sounds like something completely different to me.
Let's not be juvenile boys.
Bad GOPer! Bad, BAD GOPer!
So by your reasoning church architecture should resemble the audience chamber of the great and powerful Oz?
And hairshirts the required uniform.
No. Sproul's point was just that today, many people have lost that sense of "threshhold" between the "holy" and the "profane."
"many people have lost that sense of "threshhold" between the "holy" and the "profane."
-------------------
If you essentially mean that is a deliberate tactic of mega-churches in order to fill the pews (or the stadium seats), then I agree with you.
They try to dispense with visible 'religiosity' as a tactic and make more money that way.
@Theo
How did Isaiah see god when the bible clearly says:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)
Christophany
I applaud your use of a $2 word but it doesn't answer the question ...
God is absolutely holy, and no created thing can gaze upon His holiness unveiled without being undone. Therefore, when we see a prophet of God having a vision of the Holy, it is always in some veiled form, as with God covering the face of Moses before passing by and letting Moses see a partial vision of His holiness, and also appearing in veiled form in visions, and in many times, in the form of the pre-incarnate Christ known as a Christophany.
"The Angel of the Lord" is a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus. This is called a Christophany, and is found 52 times in the Old Testament: Genesis 16:7, 16:9-11, 22:11, 15, Exodus 3:2, Numbers 22:22-27, 31-35, Judges 2:1, 4, 5:23, 6:11-12, 21-22, 13:3, 14, 15-18, 20-21, 2 Samuel 24:16, 1 Kings 19:7, 2 Kings 1:3, 15, 19:35, 1 Chronicles 21:12, 15-16, 18, 30, Psalm 34:7, 35:5-6, Isaiah 37:36, Zechariah 1:11-12, 3:1, 5-6, 12:8
"The Angel of God" is also used for this, and is found 9 times in the Old Testament: Genesis 21:17, 31:11, Exodus 14:19, Judges 6:20, 13:6, 9, 2 Samuel 14:17, 20, 19:27
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)
"God is absolutely holy..."
Literally every single piece of that post is fiction. You're a lot more entertaining when you state your views about the real world which can actually be debated.
Dyslexic doG,
Yep, now look up the differences between "Lord," and "LORD."
Also, man may perceive that he has seen God, and then proclaim "I have seen God," and indeed that is true, but even though he has seen a portion of His holiness, God always appears to men in some veiled form.
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)
Is there now a difference between God and GOD?
Christians have an amazing skill at taking a plain and unambiguous sentence from the bible and surrounding it with escape hatches and self imagined fine print and obscure interpretations and shameless rationalizations and somehow saying that what is written in plain English actually means something entirely different. The bible is 'the unerring and unchangeable word of god' until it doesn't say what you want it to say and then any phrase can be changed to any extent a Christian wishes in an outrageous display of cognitive dissonance!
you're a fraud!
Dyslexic doG,
You read only the FIRST part of Genesis 32:30 without reading the REST of it. Neither did you read it in context by looking at verses 24-32. The Bible says "a man" wrestled with Jacob... Then Jacob says "I have seen God..." Does God have a body? No, the Bible tells us that "God is Spirit." So reading elsewhere in the Bible, we have the simple explanation that Jacob experienced a Christophany.
Do not suffer from a lack of study, it will severely cloud your understanding.
"For I have seen God FACE TO FACE, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)
FACE TO FACE!
FACE TO FACE!!!!!!!
you Christians are like a bunch of lawyers. Lying. twisting. obscuring. concealing.
And when all else fails, you come up with some past theologian who interpreted the bible a certain way and think that somehow proves something.
FRAUD!
F R A U D ! ! ! !
Dyslexic doG,
Take a deeeeeeep breath... Back away from the computer and walk around for a few minutes...
In an hour or so, you will remember that you don't believe in all of this, and that to you it's not a reason to get upset over.
Caaaaalm down... Have some tea or coffee.
Deep breathing worked wonders. So did the walk around. Thanks.
But you're still a fraud.
Dyslexic doG
Would you at least be willing to concede that there are some issues that legitimately require complex explanations, and just because something requires an explanation, that does not mean that it necessarily is false. I offer the example of how gravity works... Now THAT takes a lengthy explanation, and I know I don't know all the math behind it, but if I drop my pen, it falls.
To keep our blood pressures down, can we both just come together on the idea of theophany and christophany is one of those issues requiring extensive explanation? And it would take up far too much real estate in here to hammer it all out here?
Galactus was originally the explorer Galan from the planet Taa, which existed in the pre-Big Bang universe. When a cataclysm gradually kills all other life in his universe, he and other survivors leave Taa on a spacecraft and are engulfed in the Big Crunch. Galan does not die, however; he is transformed by bonding with the Sentience of the Universe. He gestates for billions of years in the universe which formed after the Big Bang, emerging as Galactus. A Watcher (Ecce) sees Galactus' birth; although he recognizes his destructive nature, he chooses not to kill him. Fully awake, Galactus is so hungry that he consumes the nearby planet of Archeopia. This planet is the first of many, since Galactus must consume their life energy for sustenance. In memory of his dead home world Taa and the first planet to fall prey to his hunger, Galactus constructs a new "home world" (Taa II).
He later becomes involved in a civil war among the Proemial Gods, who came into being during the universe's infancy as caretakers of the cosmic balance. After a faction of the gods (led by Diableri of Chaos) tries to remake the universe in their image, Galactus kills Diableri and imprisons two other rebel gods (Tenebrous and Aegis) in the Kyln.
Pray that you never see the face of Galactus...
Off topic? But I thought we were discussing imaginary Gods and their powers and qualities...
@never....... Imaginary???.... but I "know" Galactus. He is real. This is fact, this is truth. I do have a twisted word definition salad based on my imagination that I can provide as evidence though..
Theo, I am not sure what your point is. You posted a bunch of gibberish about what you think the bible means. Is there a point in there?
Yes, my point is simple. To all who would approach God, He WILL be treated as holy. To those who flippantly disregard His holiness for any reason, God will judge.
Oh, I see. For many of us, it's obvious that you're wrong. Since you can't offer any evidence to support your views, why do you continue to post them?
Are people to suffer while attending church? This seems to be what you advocate.
My comments were originally directed towards those who may be involved in the type of organizations described in the original article. If you have no interest whatsoever in the topic, why are you even posting?
Instead you post a comment unrelated to the article. You apparently have an ax to grind, and that's OK, but there are better sources of information than what you may be able to gleam from here. "The Insti.tutes of the Christian Religion" is a great place to start.
"Are people to suffer while attending church? This seems to be what you advocate."
---------------–
In Leviticus 10:1-3, we read how Nadab and Abihu worshipped God in a manner that was not prescribed, and God killed them for it. Idolatry isn’t just making some thing to bow down to and worship, but it is also worshipping the RIGHT God, but in the WRONG way, and only a worship that begins in heaven is right worship, all else is idolatry.
Hebrews 10:29 – How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?
Are you addressing me or Sea Vik, Theo?
Fair point. And yes, I do have an ax to grind with you – you are a perfect example of what a terrible thing religion is. You have used it to justify the Holocaust and slavery and still consider yourself moral. You should continue to be discredited accordingly.
I'd be interested to hear your definition of "holy".
It brings to mind an interesting question asked some time ago: "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
To say that God is "holy" is to say that He is set apart from all else – He is pure, free from every stain, wholly perfect and immaculate in every detail.
Akira
Are you addressing me or Sea Vik, Theo?
--------------
When I quoted Leviticus and Hebrews, it was in response to your statement.
So you advocate suffering in church, Theo.
I maintain not many will be tempted to join any religion that maintains it is better to hear the Word of God while physically being made to hurt while doing so.
Akira,
You lost me on this one:
"So you advocate suffering in church..."
Does your definition include fear? Jonathan Edwards had a lot to say in advocacy of fear in the presence of God. Try reading "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" and imagine going back in time and telling anyone in his congregation "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life!" You would be deemed a heretic for sure!
You OP states that "We are not supposed to feel "comfortable" when we go to church."
I don't think one should be uncomfortable when attending church.
It redirects the focus on the physical discomfort instead of where, I'm sure you would agree, where it belongs.
"I don't think one should be uncomfortable when attending church"
-------------–
Maybe I should qualify it a bit further then. If we want to go to church and be comfortable with those around us, that's fine. But it should never be that we are comfortable with God. When that happens, it is either because we have too high a view of ourselves, or too low a view of God. God is holy, we are not. That should never be a comfortable position for us to be in.
And that's a good thing, for being uncomfortable in the presence of God drives us to sanctification. We're not perfect, and we will never be in this life, but we strive to be better today than we were yesterday.
God is holely alright! What else would you call an alleged by never proven imaginary invisible being?
Thanks for that clarification.
I'm sorry you don't feel comfortable with God.
That feeling of constantly walking on eggshells must be awful.
"I'm sorry you don't feel comfortable with God.
That feeling of constantly walking on eggshells must be awful."
-----------------
It's not walking on eggshells. What it is, is a manner of lifestyle that constantly examines every knowable aspect of my life with a concern that everything I do in some way glorifies God. The idea is that I come to God in such a sense of humility and servitude that if God required my death in order that it may glorify Him more than my life, then I wish it to be so.
"He is set apart from all else – He is pure, free from every stain, wholly perfect and immaculate in every detail."
Sorry... still not getting it, and that certainly doesn't seem to go along with the dictionary definitions I'd been seeing.
That aside, I think we also have very different defintions of "perfect". In my mind, a "perfect" being would not create. For to create means that you lack something and if you lack something you aren't perfect.
I am glad that is working out for you, Theo. That it's right for you.
And the Church you're a layman in, also.
Your path is right for you.
"In my mind, a "perfect" being would not create. For to create means that you lack something and if you lack something you aren't perfect."
-----------------
The Bible tells us that God created not out of any need that He had in Himself (Aseity of God), but because God the Father loved God the Son.
In eternity past, before creation, the Father proclaimed His love for the Son, and desired to express that love by giving Him a gift; that gift was in the form of a redeemed humanity – love often shows itself in gifts, and divine love gives divinely, and without limits. The Father, in an expression of His love for His Son, determined that He would create a world, and that He would allow that world to fall into sin, and that He would recover from it a redeemed humanity that He would then give to His Son as a bride to Him so that this redeemed humanity could forever and ever, for all eternity glorify His Son. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15:24 that when the end comes, and all who will be redeemed by God have been redeemed, The Son will then take that redeemed humanity and Himself and turn over that gift back to God in a reciprocal act of love. (John 17)
"Your path is right for you."
-------------
With respect, the premise behind that statement violates the law of non-contradiction.
You infer that what is right "for me" may not be "right for you," but it's still right, because I think it is so. But what do you do when two opposing views of what is right conflict with each other? How do you then determine what is right, and what is wrong? Not all views are right, regardless of how sincere one is in their beliefs.
When crossing the street, you always look both ways, because either it is the bus, or you, but it's never both.
Theo, with respect, you are arguing with a compliment paid to you.
Your analogies aside, only you can walk your own path.
Debating, or trying to debate, Philioidiotism is really quite pointless. Better to just mock and ridicule the psychopath and let him claim an ad hominem attack, Theo loves to feel he is being persecuted; he is quite god like in his own mind.
"you are arguing with a compliment paid to you."
--------------–
If the intended comment was to make the claim that anything can be true if it is sincerely believed in the mind of the believer, then no, that's not right.
The compliment is that I am glad you have found what works for you.
If you don't care to accept it, that's on you.
"The compliment is that I am glad you have found what works for you."
---------------
But what I'm trying to see is that if it "works for me" but not for you, does that make it true, or a lie? What do you do when different worldviews collide? How do you determine what it truth? Some things can be true while others are not, everything can be untrue, but not everything can be true. Truth just "is," and our beliefs have no bearing on determining truth.
It just seems there's a hint of postmodernism in what you had said ealier, and I was attempting to see if that was indeed what you were saying.
Akira: "I am glad you found what works for you."
Theo: "Thank you."
Akira: "You're welcome."
Akira,
If you are resting on the idea that truth is relative, that's not a compliment – that's an admission of absurdity.
Try using that in the grocery store. If you want to buy a bag of chips, but you believe that you should only pay 50 cents for them when the grocery store says they are 2 dollars, are they going to let you have your "truth?" No. Truth is what truth is, and beliefs do not make truth, nor do they do any harm to truth. Truth just is.
Besides, you never answered my question. If truth is relative, then what do you do when two competing truth claims collide? How do you reconcile the differences?
@theo... "To say that God is "holy" is to say that He is set apart from all else – He is pure, free from every stain, wholly perfect and immaculate in every detail"
Imagination is a wonderful thing. That being said, it's still just imagination...
Theo,
My wording seems to drive you into making postulations that are clearly not intended.
Forget I ever said anything to you at all.
Theo,
Do you lead a congregation of some type?
No sir. Just a layman.
God is love. FEAR HIM!
God is love, but God will not be divorced from any of His other attributes.
Therefore, God is also wrath, God is also hate, God is also justice, but the trisagion is of His holiness.
You are the first person that I have see that God is wrath and hate.
Akira,
Sure... Scripture is full of God revealing Himself as the one who "loves righteousness and hates iniquity." Elsewhere the psalmist says "The one who does wickedness, my soul hates!"
Let me try that again:
You are the first person I have seen admit that God is wrath and hate.
"Let me try that again:
You are the first person I have seen admit that God is wrath and hate."
-------------
In the context of His holiness, and in context of what He calls righteousness, and what He calls sin, yes. He is not "hateful" according to what men may call hatefull.
Men may call God "hatefull" because He disagrees with a particular unrighteousness that men may be quite fond of. But it is rather God, Himself who defines what is righteous, not men.
Look at it this way, God cannot love righteousness without hating unrighteousness. The one does not exist without the other.
There's those depressing psalms again!
God is also wrath, God is also hate, God is also justice
---
You seem to "know" an awful lot things about God, things most people would say are unknowable. Is it appropriate to have a notion of God that differs from yours? When you say "God", you are referring to "christian version of God". Are any others appropriate?
"There's those depressing psalms again!"
------------
I applied for a grant from the Ministry of Silly Walks but was declined... Apparently John Cleese got there before me.
"You seem to "know" an awful lot things about God, things most people would say are unknowable. Is it appropriate to have a notion of God that differs from yours? When you say "God", you are referring to "christian version of God". Are any others appropriate?"
-------------------
As this would sabotage the discussion relating to the main article, I will refrain from going into any detail here. Suffice it to say that the creation around us reveals the attributes of its creator, but man left to his own devices will inevitably create deities in the form of himself, or the creation. Therefore it takes a specific revelation from that creator for anyone to see the true creator.
Therefore it takes a specific revelation from that creator for anyone to see the true creator
------
And, it's just mere coincidence that the "true" creator happens to be the one you accept and follow. But of course! All believers tend to say that. "There's only "1 true God", and it's the one I follow!!!!" Priceless. Comedic.
Madtown,
Of course there's only 1 God.
God is infinitely good, infinitely just, and infinitely righteous. If that were not so, then God would not be God. And we know that God is infinitely good, because “good” exists in the world – if God were infinitely wicked, then no “good” would exist in the world. We know that there is but one God, because there cannot be two absolutely free beings in the universe with attributes accredited to deity, for sooner or later those two completely free wills must contradict and collide. The attributes of God, when fully understood, require that there be but one to whom they belong.
God is Holy, self-existent, self-sufficient, eternal, infinite, immutable, omniscient, infinite in wisdom, omnipotent, transcendent, omnipresent, faithful, good, just, merciful, infinite in grace and love, and sovereign over all.
Theo Phileo
Of course there's only 1 God.
----
How do you know? Where are God's attributes referenced?
"How do you know? Where are God's attributes referenced?"
-----------------–
In the natural realm of creation. I gave a list at the bottom of my post of the attributes of God, and man can know of something of these by looking at creation, and knowing the lesser cannot be the author of the greater, so if we see beauty in creation, God must be greater in beauty... When we see wickedness in the creation, it forces us to ask, "so what went wrong?" And it is then that we better know ourselves.
The natural revelation reveals that God is:
• Supernatural in nature (as He exists outside of His creation)
• Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known)
• Eternal (self-existent, as He exists outside of time and space)
• Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it)
• Timeless and changeless (He created time)
• Immaterial (because He transcends space)
• Personal (the impersonal can’t create personality)
• Necessary (as everything else depends on Him)
• Infinite and singular (as you cannot have two infinites)
• Diverse yet has unity (as nature exhibits diversity)
• Intelligent (supremely, to create everything)
• Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything)
• Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver)
• Caring (or no moral laws would have been given)
Where are God's attributes referenced?"
-----––
In the natural realm of creation.
---–
Ah, so no need for the bible or religion in general? I'm down with that, as I imagine many here would be.
"Ah, so no need for the bible or religion in general? I'm down with that, as I imagine many here would be."
-----------
Nope. Natural Revelation is the general revelation that is given to all men to tell them of the existence of "A" God. Specific revelation found in the Bible tells man about "THE" God. Men need BOTH revelations.
Men need BOTH revelations
--–
Aw, too bad. I thought you were actually starting to get it. I see it always comes back to square 1 with you. If you believe the bible reveals "THE" God, then you have to answer the questions of why God just didn't write the words himself, why humans had to write it for him, and why christianity is the correct revelation and all others incorrect. And, why God continues to create human beings, yet never give them the opportunity to learn of this "truth". You have NO ANSWERS for any of this, outside of scripture, which is not an acceptable answer. Too bad for you. Carry on with the comedy.
Theo,
"• Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver)"
Moral? Like when he allowed Job's family, slaves and animal to be KILLED so he could win a BET? lol.
Moral? Like allowing 6-year-old girls to be SOLD to strangers for their USE?
Moral? Like sending BILLIONS of people to hell because they NEVER HEARD of him?
Get serious. Get real. Read a Bible.
Galadriel: In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!! – JRR Tolkien
quote: "he seems to revel in the spotlight"
Yep. He's just like jesus was. A charismatic individual with lofty claims but no evidence to back them up. A man with the gift of the gab who loved attention. All the rest of the story is created by the imaginations of men hungry for power.
Pentecostals do love to get hopped up on music and then listen to a rousing, come to Jesus sermon. They can't get their wallets out fast enough after an hour or so of religious cheerleading.
It's a successful formula. A guaranteed money-spinner. Much less fickle than Broadway. The show will run longer too.
I'd rather sit through "Cats".
*Shudders*
root canal
colonoscopy
Hillsong's services are fantastic. You atheists should give common sense a try!
Common sense says to not believe in things there is no evidence for , so we already are. Why don't you join us?
No thanks kid, I don't want to pierce my nipples.
My nipples are already pierced fake finisher! ^_^
Now that is funny...the only person I have ever met with pierced nipples was a devout man who attended a C.O.G.I.C.
Hi Akira! (ab)
Once upon a time, I had metal dangling from quite a number of bits – including ni.pple.
One year at X-Mas (after a few too many cups of Moose Milk), I wandered out into the living room with ornaments hanging from them and declared myself a Christmas tree.
Doc – you didn't do the old mistletoe hanging from the Prince Albert did you? (shudder)
Knew it! *wink
20 and 30-something-year-olds are waiting in long lines to get into Hillsong's services
They wait in line for Shake Shack too. I suspect that's not worth it either.
Having watched the video, I can see the appeal for some.
I do think it is a fad however – no different from 'folk' services in the 1960s to appeal to a 'youth' congregation. Five or ten years from now these people won't bring their small children to these services.