 |
|
|
|
|
August 29th, 2014
04:47 PM ET
Italian paper: ISIS targeting Pope FrancisItalian newspaper Il Tempo reports that Pope Francis is a target ISIS has "in the crosshairs." CNN's John Allen reports.
Next entry »In Venezuela, a 'sacrilegious' Lord's Prayer
« Previous entryWhat God is screaming in Ferguson, Missouri
|
  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 
"They are still mammalian cells, they have not changed into bird cells. Try again."
Has anyone claimed that mammals can or will evolve into birds? Believers believe such strange things about evolution you have to wonder if their other beliefs are in similar disarray. Wouldn't your God want you to be well-informed and for you to think clearly?
Nope.
God did not want anyone eating from the tree of knowledge.
He likes dumb people. (obviously)
Actually he likes good people
But I have always been told that only "he" can be good.
Can't even keep your own baseless beliefs straight?
Which god likes good people?
Yeah, good and dumb.
God is the product of imagination. Bright believers imagine an interesting and engaging sort of God. Dull believers imagine a brutish and simplistic sort of God. Sometimes they fight over it.
Many of the arguments we have get muddled by failing to distinguish matters of fact/fiction from matters of opinion. It is closely related to the failure to distinguish objective and subjective evidence (i.e. treat them as the same).
Examples of fact/fiction:
Michael Jordan has a career average of 30.4 points per game.
The fastest land dwelling creature is the Cheetah.
Oranges contain both calcium and vitamin C.
The earth is billions of years old.
The earth is 6,000 years old.
God created the universe in 6 days.
Examples of opinion:
Chocolate tastes better than coffee.
The prettiest creature is the butterfly.
Seinfeld is the funniest TV show ever.
People shouldn't have se.x before they are married.
People shouldn't engage in same se.x relationships.
People should always turn the other cheek.
Blending of opinion and fact creates unproductive argument (we see plenty of that). Sadly, some people do this intentionally to cloud issues where they feel defensive.
So what about the big statement, God exists. Questions like this are interesting because in principle, they should be a matter of fact, either God(s) exist or not. But there is no objective evidence, so in practice, only opinions exist.
Specific religious claims also fall into the various categories as shown above. We don't know if Yahweh exists, but it is a fact that he didn't create the universe in 6 days.
So where does that leave us? Literal interpretations of all the religions I have seen are false. More liberal interpretations can preserve some religions, but internal inconsistencies stretch interpretations to great extents in some cases. The factual resolution to God exists could easily be accomplished by the purported God(s), but that hasn't happened in millennia. The advance of science has continued on an accelerating pace, discovering facts that conflict with many religious literal assertions, increasing the need for more and more elaborate interpretations.
Nice one Boston but Yahweh came to Earth as Jesus Christ. Who existed! The question is whether to believe that Yahweh/Yeshuah were telling the truth or it was all a big joke. Some have chosen the former others the latter but we live or is it die to see. In the meantime I enjoy living in my God's Truth. Enjoy your non-belief or unbelief whichever tickles you.
"The question is whether to believe that Yahweh/Yeshuah were telling the truth or it was all a big joke"
I would be more inclined to word it as "whether to believe that the authors/editors/compilers of the Bible were accurate and/or telling the truth".
If you will excuse me for getting back to the topic of the article –
What ISIS is doing now is actually very similar to what happened in the old testament.
They are claim in the land that they think is rightfully theirs and showing no mercy to the people alredy living there.
What gives christians/jews arny right to criticize them for it?
I have noticed that similarity, as well.
Robert Brown: "God does use people to spread the good news, but God makes his offer in person. I really don't understand why he calls people to preach his word."
Robert, I believe God calls us to disciple (teach) the nations because experience brings reality. Jesus Himself grew in wisdom & knowledge, so it's a growth process, one that can only come through experience/daily "walking the walk – so to speak"
God is building/reproducing Himself in us through His Word – The person who has been re-born into the Family of God, invites the Holy Spirit (who imparts the Nature of God) to dwell in him and he begins to feed on the Word, practice the Word, live the Word and therefore in our daily walk we are being molded to be like Jesus/Jesus is building Himself into us.
"The process of building Christ into one may be very slow, but it makes Jesus men and women out of us. We are created in Christ Jesus. We are His Creation; and until Christ is formed in us, the world cannot see anything but religion in us.
It is not knowledge of the Scriptures but rather only when we yield ourselves to the Lordship of Love that Christ can ever build Himself into us.
In summary: We preach/teach the word because "the Word is the Will of the Father. God watches over His Word. What God says IS, becomes. God is Truth, so I will be true. God is Light, so I will walk in the Light.
You see, we learn to act on the Word, as we act on the word of a banker or a lawyer in some crisis in our life. The Father is jealous over His Word. He never sets a low estimate upon it. He holds it in the highest regard. If He said it, that ends it.
To His enemies, it is but paper and ink; but to the Lovers, it is Life and Health; it is joy unspeakable.
We are sowers of the Word. Some of us forget the Word in hard places. Unconsciously, we walk by sight. The senses take the reality away from the Word, but as the spirit gains the ascendancy over the senses, the Word once more has its place.
Remember, your word is you. You must learn to say, "I gave my word; I must keep it, no matter what it costs." If your word is of no value, you will reason that the Word of God is of no value.
I have found that unbelief in the Word of God is largely because of people's lack of faith in their own word."
E.W.Kenyon – New Creation Realities.
Blessings and Favor throughout your week.
All blithering nonsense. Believers are capable of endless dot-connections in their endless excrement of pious meaningless nonsense.
Very good newman. Thank you.
Scot
I would have thought that Christians would love the idea of evolution.
If the christian god really did design every animal, then he is the most inept designer ever ... as 99% of the creatures that have ever lived have been so badly designed that they have become extinct.
A 99% failure rate does not indicate an omnipotent, omniscient god. It indicates absolute incompetence. Evolution would give christians an escape hatch to explain such incompetence by their god, and yet they argue against it.
Seems christians worship the stories of bible more than they worship their god.
"as 99% of the creatures that have ever lived have been so badly designed that they have become extinct."
– telling stories again? and even if you could prove this, so what? He is sovereign and does as He pleases. He doesn't need your permission goofball
Arguing with awanderingscot is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it's victorious ...
I think you're insulting pigeons. Pigeons are reasonably intelligent.
Am I correct Scot that you believe all the animals we have found in the fossil records all existed in at the same time?
There was a conversation that started before the weekend that made me think of this. It's a thought exercise to replace Pascal's Wager. I call it the little white pill-
A Man offers you a little white pill. He tells you that the pill is supposed to be a vaccination against a horrible condition.
This condition will cause you to be in constant, unbearable, un-relievable pain until the day that you die. However, no one has EVER witnessed anyone suffering from this condition, and there is currently no medical evidence that it will actually develop. But if it does ever occur, it is predicted that it will be extremely virulent, and nearly unstoppable if you are not already vaccinated. He is very, very sure that the disease will one day manifest.
Just before handing you the pill, the Man says that there is one more important thing. The pill has 4 separate and completely unpredictable effects.
-It can inoculate you as promised, completely and for the rest of your life
-It can render you immune to the horrible disease AND make you healthier and happier than you were before,
-It can do absolutely nothing, as if it were a sugar pill
_It can give you a non-transmittable form of the disease it was designed to prevent, relegating you to a life of pain.
It is impossible to test the pill or yourself to determine which effect will happen, there is absolutely no way to predict the result, and they cannot determine any statistical percentages for any of the outcomes.
Do you take the pill?
No, I would not take the pill beforehand.
The Ebola vaccine in the U.S. —the only in the world— is experimental and was never tested before until missionaries Dr. Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol contracted the virus. It seems to be working.
Vic
That statement is just plain false Vic, do a little research before you stick your foot in your mouth.
Correction:
"The Ebola "pill" in the U.S.† —the only in the world— is experimental "for treatment"...." is different from the soon-to-be-started experimental Ebola vaccine for prevention.
† ZMAPP
You stated that the only experimental vaccine was one developed in the US. Sorry but the National Microbiologic Laboratory in Winnipeg, Canada is the leader in research in this field and have provided 800 to 1000 doses of the experimental vaccine to African nations. The US version is composed of 2 anti bodies produced by the Canadian lab and one produced by the American Army lab, so get your facts straight. I forgive you although it is usually not in my nature to do so.
bchev
your heavy bias is showing
Alias,
Happy to hear how. Pascal's Wager is silly and overly simplistic. I tried to make a scenario that did a better job of presenting the broad range of possible outcomes. I'm naturally cynical and distrustful, so there is a good chance a bias worked into it, however hard I tried to avoid it. What would make it more neutral?
bchev
"_It can give you a non-transmittable form of the disease it was designed to prevent, relegating you to a life of pain."
How do you justify implying that converting to a religion could cause you a life of unstopable pain?
I assumed he meant you chose the "wrong" religion.
I was raised catholic. Other than a nun hitting me with a yardstick, I don't remember anyone being in any actual pain.
Alias,
Rynomite has it. All of the in life consequences of the pill are analogs for after-life consequences (if such things exist) of religions. In this case, choose the wrong religion and theoretically you spend eternity being punished. It's ironic that it seems much worse in the pill example, because we have a frame of reference for pain here in our lives, we know that that would be awful. But theoretically, if any religion is real and does have a provision for eternal torment, then that would be worse to a degree that is beyond our ability to even fathom.
Short answer is you're of course right, your religious choice probably isn't going to cause you a life of pain, this is a metaphor.
—For Sharing Purposes Only—
NASA wants your help:
http://www.komando.com/cool-sites/268189/nasa-wants-your-help-to-identify-images-taken-in-space?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=asd&utm_content=2014-08-31-article_2_0-title
That's fascinating! Thanks for the link.
Living easy, living free
Season ticket on a one-way ride
Asking nothing, leave me be
Taking everything in my stride
Don't need reason, don't need rhyme
Ain't nothing I would rather do
Going down, party time
My friends are gonna be there too
I'm on the highway to hell
No stop signs, speed limit
Nobody's gonna slow me down
Like a wheel, gonna spin it
Nobody's gonna mess me round
Hey Satan, paid my dues
Playing in a rocking band
Hey Momma, look at me
I'm on my way to the promised land
I'm on the highway to hell
(Don't stop me)
And I'm going down, all the way down
I'm on the highway to hell
But like all dreams that come to an end
They took a tumble at the devil's bend
The beast and Charlotte they were
two of a kind
They'd always take the line...
from here to eternity
Hell ain't a bad place
Hell is from here to eternity
Oh goody!
Now do "Whole lot a Rosie"....
Good Morning Robert Brown I was just on the highway to Hell doing some fishing you should check it out ?
And by the way did you see that other post for you about our ancestors ?
I fish often, but I missed your reference. What story, page?
Something about the walking on water deal – page 3.
Like a true nature's child
We were born
Born to be wild
We can climb so high
I never wanna die
Born to be wild
You got a bike, Robert?
No, sold my last one years ago, when I finally figured out that they are apparently invisible to people driving autos.
"Those Jesus Freaks
Well, they're friendly but
The shlt they believe
Has got their minds all shut up
An' they don't even care
When the church takes a cut
Ain't it bleak when you got so much nothin'"
- Frank Zappa, "The Meek Shall Inherit Nothin'"
Off topic:
The real Adam:
As per National Geographic's Genographic project:
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/
" DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.
"Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.
Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.
It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."
o More details from National Geographic's Genographic project: https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/
"Our spe-cies is an African one: Africa is where we first ev-olved, and where we have spent the majority of our time on Earth. The earliest fos-sils of recognizably modern Ho-mo sapiens appear in the fossil record at Omo Kibish in Ethiopia, around 200,000 years ago. Although earlier fossils may be found over the coming years, this is our best understanding of when and approximately where we originated.
According to the genetic and paleontological record, we only started to leave Africa between 60,000 and 70,000 years ago. What set this in motion is uncertain, but we think it has something to do with major climatic shifts that were happening around that time—a sudden cooling in the Earth’s climate driven by the onset of one of the worst parts of the last Ice Age. This cold snap would have made life difficult for our African ancestors, and the genetic evidence points to a sharp reduction in population size around this time. In fact, the human population likely dropped to fewer than 10,000. We were holding on by a thread.
Once the climate started to improve, after 70,000 years ago, we came back from this near-extinction event. The population expanded, and some intrepid explorers ventured beyond Africa. The earliest people to colonize the Eurasian landma-ss likely did so across the Bab-al-Mandab Strait separating present-day Yemen from Djibouti. These early beachcombers expanded rapidly along the coast to India, and reached Southeast Asia and Australia by 50,000 years ago. The first great foray of our species beyond Africa had led us all the way across the globe."
o "Our spe-cies is an African one: Africa is where we first ev-olved, and where we have spent the majority of our time on Earth. The earliest fos-sils of recognizably modern Ho-mo sapiens appear in the fossil record at Omo Kibish in Ethiopia, around 200,000 years ago. Although earlier fossils may be found over the coming years, this is our best understanding of when and approximately where we originated.
According to the genetic and paleontological record, we only started to leave Africa between 60,000 and 70,000 years ago. What set this in motion is uncertain, but we think it has something to do with major climatic shifts that were happening around that time—a sudden cooling in the Earth’s climate driven by the onset of one of the worst parts of the last Ice Age. This cold snap would have made life difficult for our African ancestors, and the genetic evidence points to a sharp reduction in population size around this time. In fact, the human population likely dropped to fewer than 10,000. We were holding on by a thread.
Once the climate started to improve, after 70,000 years ago, we came back from this near-extinction event. The population expanded, and some intrepid explorers ventured beyond Africa. The earliest people to colonize the Eurasian landma-ss likely did so across the Bab-al-Mandab Strait separating present-day Yemen from Djibouti. These early beachcombers expanded rapidly along the coast to India, and reached Southeast Asia and Australia by 50,000 years ago. The first great foray of our species beyond Africa had led us all the way across the globe."
A few clarifications are in order. Current thinking has it that there were never fewer than 10,000 in our ancestral population. We are the descendants of many more males than just the one 'Adam' – including that individual's generation. The modern Y chromosome population may derive from one individual, but that is because other lineages were lost when a branch ended in female offspring only. We most likely have bits of all the other chromosomes from all of those branches, just not the Y. This is expected in the mathematics of inheritance. It's like the classical surname problem. Eventually, without the invention of new names, everyone will have the same surname.
Where is the observable evidence of evolution? We're still waiting.
scot
You won't accept evidence of any kind that does not agree with your delusion, so what is the point of asking? In other news, Neanderthals created cave art, researchers have discovered, probably better than anything you could produce, scot.
Trolling, trolling, trolling keep you keyboard trolling, scotty lad.
Were are the observable evidences? Stumped again?
You first scot.
Where is any verifiable evidence, anything at all, for your creation hypothesis?
Demanding evidence when you dodge requests for evidence from you is dishonest...but that is what you were going for wasn't it.
scot
Did you bother to do a search on bichir fish, you know the ones that can breath air and can leave water and go for a walk about? Have you bothered to watch Cosmos? May I recommend that you watch episode two of Cosmos over and over again until you GET IT, carry on.
The observable evidence for Neanderthal cave art is in caves, Scot.
It's still a fish goofball.
The drawings in caves were done by humans, nothing spectacular there. Children today can draw pictures of animals, so what.
No kidding, Scot. That's the point>/I>. Glad you're getting it.
scot
You really are getting it, a fish that can also live on land, that is like a mammal that can live in the ocean, see how that works. Thank you for admitting that Neanderthals are part of the chain from primitive apes to humans, good laddie.
We have catfish today that walk on land, we have freshwater lungfish today, no big deal. We have mammals that live in the ocean, no big deal. Once again, where is the observable evidence required by science for evolution? Still obfuscating?
wandering,
I prefer your pretend humanist, at least she had something different to say.
scot
No one is obfuscating, you simply refuse to go to the oh so many places you have been directed to and get an education, you would rather remain the troll that you are.
Where is the observable evidence science requires? Just provide one, that's all. What? You can't?
"Where is the observable evidence science requires?"
Asked and answered many, many times.
Where is your evidence for your creation hypothesis...asked for many, many times, yet you continue to offer nothing...which seems to be the entire contents of your mind.
wandering,
Here's a good place to start – http://evolution.berkeley.edu/. You've been presented with this and more many times which suggests that you're not interested in educating yourself, but feel free to post your evidence for creationism any time.
Please provide just one instance. One instance of observable evidence is all I ask. Stumped?
Did you read the link provided multiple times? Redzoa, Doc V, bostontola, etc. have all provided plenty of evidence.
If creationism is so compelling, you'd easily be able to provide evidence for that which you can't do.
Scotty is a troll. He isn't interested in the information you provide. He's not even interested in the questions he asks. He just wants to bother people.
It's rather easy to set up experiments demonstrating principles of evolution. I've done quite a lot of in silico work in that regard. There are also experiments one can do with everything from viruses to mammals that show evolution in action. One experiment I was involved in last year looked at the ways the gene coding for a specific enzyme changed in mammalian cells under the selection pressure of a cytotoxic agent that targeted the enzyme. It helped us understand how cancers escape from chemotherapy with similar toxins. What we saw was best modeled using standard evolutionary dynamics.
They are still mammalian cells, they have not changed into bird cells. Try again.
So, you conclude that at its core we observe Cause and effect. That effect is not possible without Cause and that Cause must already contain capacity to create the effect. That said evolution theory simply says all life is the observable result of preexisting capacity to bring about a known effect. Evolution points to agency.
Can a frog become an intelligent human being in 60 million years? Do you believe that is a real possibility?
you must be a troll ... no-one could be that stupid
fred
Animals have evolved into something with higher intelligence.
Why couldn't it happen again?
Alias
The capacity for a frog to become a human or a human to become a frog in 60 million years is extremely unlikely (impossible) to exist without intelligent agency. Both time and capacity are lacking.
fred
I find it passing strange that this blog attracts so many creationist/deniers of evolution that are such a very, very small number of the Christian believers. Most of the larger religions that own and operate the majority of universities and colleges in the country teach evolution as an accepted theory. So you and your ilk are the fringe of a fringe cult that has to deny the vast scientific knowledge that a large majority of Christiane agree with. The only place you can babble on about your nonsense is on a blog like this where fanatics have a voice, not many moderate logical Christians posting here.
More reasons why wanderingdummy rejects evolution;
2.) Because he's too stupid and/or lazy to open a book or turn on the Discovery Science Channel.
3.) Because if he can’t immediately understand how something works, then it must be bullshlt.
4.) Because he doesn’t care that literally 99.9% of all biologists accept evolution as the unifying theory of biology.
5.) Because he prefers the idea that a (insert god of choice) went ALLA-KADABRA-ZAM!!!
ausphor
Hate to break the news to you but I understand the theory of evolution and believe the science that supports it is proven. The reason is that this house of cards is built upon assumptions. What I do not believe is taking evolution theory and building an atheistic or agnostic world view out of research that is limited in scope.
So you being the wise one answer the question, can a frog become a man in 60 million years?
evidencenot
Tell me how a frog can become a man in 60 million years or less without intelligent agency.
Fred,
which assumption do you not accept?
fred
You are being obtuse. Go to any reputable evolutionary site and you will see the branches of the various forms of life and how the theory shows how each branch developed, your frog to human is a red herring, a rather ignorant one to be sure. You say you believe the theory then ask a totally stupid question to ask someone to take a ridiculous leap from one absurdity to another, pathetic trolling aka, thewanderingmoron.
ausphor
Are we in agreement then that a frog cannot become a man?
fred
You say you understand the theory of evolution, I think you do not understand at all. Look up the Phylogenetic tree and how the branches have developed, that is the core of the theory accepted by the vast majority of humans including Christians. BTW no I certainly do not agree that a frog cannot become a man, all it takes is the frog be kissed by a princess and presto the frog changes into a man, a prince no less. Of course that is a fairy tale so is your bible, you just can't tell the difference between fantasies.
Let's see humans have a 96% DNA match with chimps, 60% with fruit flies and a 50% match with bananas ........yet like the frog a banana cannot become an intelligent human being. The Bible referred to these as kinds.
If selection, variation and mutation are the only agents why will a banana not become a human? It cannot unless an intelligent agent adds something to the banana that never existed in the banana.
That is a fact not random trolling.
fred
Didn't want to have to say it but you are just as much of an idiot on this topic as thewanderingfool, no point in responding to you more than I already have. Thomas Jefferson stated it quite well by inferring that the last resort to use with people that believe in the holy trinity is ridicule, I have reached that point in regards to your moronic assertions. God did it, ya right.
fred, no one disputes that "kinds", as you say, won't transform into other kinds. It's a bit like saying The Farmer's Almanac will not become the Bible even though both started out with someone putting pen to paper (or the like). "Kinds" can and do become new kinds. New information is created. A simple mechanism: a gene is duplicated. A duplicate copy is not needed. Under selection pressure a new function is needed related to the gene product's function. One of the duplicated genes has in one individual changed (randomly) in such a way that its product can assume that function. Voila – new information. More changes emerge in the population that increase the fitness of the new gene for the needed function. After a while it takes fairly sophisticated analytical techniques to recognize features of the parent gen in the new one.
Based on your "tree" it looks like God instructed Noah to put life on the ark according to highly conserved DNA sequences. We certainly have not seen any of the life forms that existed before the flood pop up have you?
Tom, Tom, the Other One
thanks, I was trolling a bit because I do not understand the mindset that believes observed patterns of evolution suggest agency is not required for existence yet alone intelligent agency.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
to be a priest, you had to fulfill ceremonial obligations, Levites had vigorous guidelines. Such as the condition of the person going in to the tabernacle, could not do so if they had been defiled, they were to go through a process of cleansing before entering. and this is where there were exclusions.
But Christ has a bit of a different relationship compared to the priestly nation, and the Holy of Holies.
And you know that how exactly ? No references by a scholar ?
Are you that Scholar Bucky?
Depends on how you define that. I'm still working on my PhD. I suspect I have about 16 more years of education than he has.
can you name all 66 books of the bible from memory bucky?
There are 66 books in your Bible.
And yet God gave the Catholics more than that, and the Eastern Orthodox churches even more!
Until the Jewish Council of Jamnia in 90 AD, the Jewish people hadn't really settled on an official canon.
The Saduccees believed in only the Pentateuch, Pharisees believed in 34 other books and other Jews around from the Diaspora believed in an additional 7 books.
The Prostestant reformer Martin Luther was not a big fan of at least those 7 of the original books of the Old Testament, not to mention his reluctance when it came to the "divinely inspired" status of Revelation.
But are the Protestants right to reject those books?
The Dead Sea Scrolls include the books of Tobit and Sirach.
When Jesus addressed the Greek speaking Diaspora Jews, he quoted from the Septuagist version of the scriptures which includes the disputed 7 books that Protestants do not recognize.
Jesus observed the feast of Hannukah, or the Dedication of the Temple, in John 10. This can be found in the Old Testament book of First Maccabees, Chapter 4, which is in the Catholic Bible, but not in the Protestant Bible.
So are you certain you've got the whole story?
How many books of Inerrant, Divine Guidance were bequethed to mankind?
I know some very dim people who can recite all sorts of baseball stats for 66 players or know the names of 66 songs by their favorite boy band ...
Or 66 songs by Air Supply that have the word "Love" in the ti/tle.
And what excly would thth prove or not prove. A cheap childish gimmick. No wonder you value such simplistic tripe. Memorizing by rote names of books in no way means you understand the contents. Grow up.
It's a myth Austin. They got it from the Babylonian myths.
"The version of the text is generally in agreement with the Masoretic or traditional version codified in medieval codices, such as the Aleppo Codex, but it contains many variant readings, alternative spellings, scribal errors, and corrections. Unlike most of the biblical scrolls from Qumran, it exhibits a very full orthography (spelling), revealing how Hebrew was pronounced in the Second Temple Period."
Yet you claim they were dedicated and good at what they did ??
http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah
There was no long history of "oral traditions" in Israel. They were a scroll writing culture. They had no office as Islam did, (the "Hafiz" who memorized the Quran). They got scroll writing from the Greeks, relatively late, (proven by Archaeology). Your Babble was assembled very late in their history.
one time I reveived a powerful revelation when I was staying with a dying friend in the hospital. and then I fell back asleep after the nurse spilled the dialysis bag, and the next dream, was a demonic revelation, that was trying to compete with the one that came by the grace of God.
Satan is a crafty distraction.
I can tell you this with the authority of the truth that has been given to me.
You can tell me that with the authority of a sooth-sayer / omen reader / divination pract'itioner.
Deuteronomy 18:10 "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,"
Are you a witch, Austin ? Do you read entrails ?
BTW Austin, and Kevy, if I can present to you an "event" for which there is as good or better evidence, than there is, (by your standards), for the resurrection of Jesus, do you agree, up front to accept it as true ?
realbuckyball:
BTW Austin, and Kevy, if I can present to you an "event" for which there is as good or better evidence, than there is, (by your standards), for the resurrection of Jesus, do you agree, up front to accept it as true ?
------------------------
Would you accept, by your standards, that there is a chance that the resurrection of Jesus is true?
Would you accept, by your standards, that there is a chance that the resurrection of Jesus is true?
The question is not about my standards. The question is about THEIR standards, and consistency.
(Nice try at evasion though).
If you want to know about what writers from that era thought about that subject, (which is NOT what my challenge is about), read CHRISTIAN seminary professor of NT, Dr. Bernard Brandon Scott's "The Trouble With Resurrection".
I may read that seminary. But what about your opinion, again, is there a chance that Jesus resurrection is real?
silly semantic games. Of course there is a chance that the jesus resurrection was real. About the same chance as the story of Harry Potter flying around on his broom playing quiddich being real, or of Santa being the one who brings your presents every year. But we live in the realm of the real world, so no, the resurrection was not real.
Is there a chance a dead human rose from the grave ? No. No human has ever once rose from the dead.
It would not only be one miracle, but, becaus of Pauli Exclusion, the entire universe would have had to have been re-arranged. No organism has ever risen from a dead state.
If Jesus existed, (and he may not have), it is possible that a man named Paul, in the Jewish apocalypitic tradition of hero worship, "came to see" (ie experienced a "changed view") that Jesus was the "Annointed One", and his status was "raised up" to an immortal, (in the apocalyptic Maccabean hero tradition). The Greek words in Paul do not mean "physically risen from the dead". Correctly translated, (as BB Scott points out), they mean "raised up", (as in lower to highter STATUS).
IF the Jews and Romans had actually gone to all the trouble to arrest and execute a man claiming to be their king, (we know they probably didn't, as the Sanhedrin was never once in all of history called into session on Passover weekend), and IF he was to be sighted all over Jerusalem, SOME record of the event in secular history would be there, and both the Jews and Romans would have mounted a serach party, to find and re-arrest him. No one even talks about doing that. The Gospel of Matthew says the temple curtain was spontaneously torn, that many others rose with him, and rocks were split. There is not a shred of evidence any of that ever happened. If such a monumental temple occurance had happened, some Jew would have said something about it, since they wrote about sll sorts of other way less important things. So NO. It's not possioble.
I see they have wimped out, and eveded my challenge. Oh well. So much for their REAL convictions.
They got it from the Babylonian myths.
-----------------------
Where did you read this? And what Babylonian myths are you talking about?
Of course Bucky had it from a scholar 4000 years removed from the event. How nice?
Just as I thought. Neither of you ahve any real education in the subject. Read the Enuma Elish, and the Gilgamesh Epic. You'll be shocked. And yes, scholars know where they came from. Genesis was not assembled 4000 years ago. More like 3000. The dialects, and vocabulary of ancient (archaic) Hebrew are known, and datable. It's possible to do fairly accurate dating. While you're at it, look up "syncretism".
We know little about these myths and much more about the Bible but you choose to give those myths more credibility than the Bible. I can give you lots of references that shows that Bible is not based on these myths. In particular, when talking about Gilgamesh, a tablet fragment of the ancient Sumerian city of Nippur (2100 BC) , several centuries older than Gilgamesh, describes the Flood and appears to be based on Genesis
"based on Genesis"
Not even close. Genesis was based on what came before it, And the epic of Gilgamesh was clearly before your book.
It really doesn't matter, since we know that the flood as described in Genesis, never happened on Earth...it is a childrens story...nothing more.
maybe YOU don't know much about those myths. Scholars of the Ancient Near East know one hell of a lot about them. Nice try. Fail again. (You know I hope that Yahweh was the 70th son of the chief Babylonian god, (El Elyon), and he was the War God .. whcih is why the Jews picked him as their god. So he would help them in their battles.
Flavorful Favorites
Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
September 1, 2014 at 9:01 pm | Reply
austin929
read John Henery's commentary on that one. "if they get in a fight".........you owe them the days pay for the missed work.
this is the beginning of workers compensation insurance.
More absurdities from the book of mythology know as the bible;
GE 3:14-16 God curses the serpent, Eve, and Adam for what they have done. (Note: This is inconsistent with God's omniscience; God should have known full well, ahead of time, what the outcome would be. Since God created the three as well as the Tree of Knowledge, he is ultimately responsible for the Fall.)
So I should decide to take on faith an idea of heaven that might be wonderful, if true. What's required is more than faith, even the biblical sort of faith. I have to ignore, excuse, defend, or lie to myself about the huge body of history behind the idea. The God who offers me heaven is represented by a book that, in its origins (the Old Testament), is clearly literature written to justify and excuse the way a Semitic tribe, no more or less reprehensible than the other tribes around it and much like the Islamic fundamentalists of today, treated its own people and its competitors. That is, while its not trying to explain why God has punished its people in various ways when what really happened was the dice were against them as often as not and they fell to every major military power that came along. Their repulsive religion of self-justification alternating with guilt and recrimination was in need of reform when the rabbi Jesus came around. He tried. They killed him. That's all. But we have a legend that grew up around him – the very thing that offers us heaven. If only we have faith that it's true.
If that is your belief than fine. I certainly cannot prove your beliefs to be false. However, your beliefs are just that your beliefs. In my view, in my studies of scripture, of history, of trying the teachings out and even praying for myself whether it's all true or not, I have come to a different conclusion. Of course they are just my own beliefs, but then again it is all a matter of belief when it comes to concluding whether there is a God who does not want to be made known to the whole of humanity in the first place but would rather want us to develop our own faith and belief in said God.
GE 6:5 God is unhappy with the wickedness of man and decides to flood the earth to eliminate mankind. All living things including plants, animals, women and innocent children are also exterminated. (Note: This is like burning down a house to rid it of mice.)
The Hebrews in ancient Israel did not believe in heaven, (or personal immortality). Sheol was not heaven, (or hell). Late in their history the concept of personal immortality arose, post-Exile, and only the martyr-heroes were thought to be immortal. Even as late as Paul of Tarsus, HE did not believe in immortality, except for the saved : "Put on immortality etc". The assumptions Fundie Christians make about the OT are amazingly ignorant of that culture.
26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
Job 19:26 KJV
Psalm 39 :
"Turn your gaze away from me, that I may smile again,
before I depart, and am no more"
Psalm 115 :
The dead do not praise the Lord,
nor do any that go down into silence".
Your display of ignorance of Hebrew culture is astounding Kevy.
Job was written AFTER the Exile. Thanks for making my own point for me.
Where did you get unequivably that Job was written after the exile?
I went to school Kevy. We all know you didn't.
How does the verses in Psalms you gave prove that there was no belief whatsoever in a ressurection? Especially of course if one was ressurected they are no longer dead, so nothing would stop then from singing praises, or if you depart and am no more meaning that they are no longer living a mortal life as opposed to continuing on as a spirit in Sheol living in a state of paradise or in a state of prison in Sheol awaiting for the ressurection?
6 The Lord killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up.
1 Samuel 2:6 KJV
This was supposedly coming from Hannah in the Old Testament and although the oldest known written sources don't go back to that time how does that prove without a doubt that Hannah never actually said that or that there was no chance whatsoever that there were written sources of either from Hannah or other Old Testament sources regarding the ressurection did not originally come from any pre-exile sources?
Well buckyball,
You can claim I have lacking education, but I least know that if you claim something, like it is a complete fact that the Book of Job was written after the exile, that you have to present that proof and that simple insults don't cut it.
The question addressed is that of Theodicy. Why do humans suffer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job
That is the post-Exilic question the book addresses.
The long complex development of the ideas of mono-lateralist polytheism, and monotheism, (the Hebrews were not monotheistic), and the rise of "immortality" in the Second Temple Period, (the Apocalyptic Period), AFTER the family units pre-exile were disrupted, are topics for entire semesters at real schools. If all you have is Bible College, or Bible study, I see why you actually know so little.
I checked your reference in wickipedia. There is no establishment from all scholars regarding when the Book of Job was written and the range of when it was estimated among scholars according to wickipedia was as far back as the 7th century B.C.E. whoch would place it prior to Babylonian exile.
As to your whole schpeale about the polytheism of the Old Testament, what does that have to do with when the Book of Job was written?
even though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live,” says the Lord God, “they would deliver neither son nor daughter; they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness.” – Ezekiel 14:20, NKJV
– Ezekiel lived in the 6th century BC
– Job is spoken of as a man of antiquity and lived in Edom, he did not live with the Hebrews before,during, or after the exile.
– once again no-nothing bible detractors and twisters are trying to rewrite bible history.
I have a book about the Flintstones. They lived millions of years ago but they had these cool cars where your feet went through the floor to push them along. By your logic, it's in a book so it must be true. Wilmaaaaaaa!!!!!
wandering
"... no-nothing ..."
Not really good enough from someone who criticizes the grammar of others.
EX 12:30 The Lord kills all the first-born of Egypt and there is not a house where there is not at least one dead. (This means that there was not a house in Egypt that did not include at least one first-born-a most unusual situation.)
EX 12:37, NU 1:45-46 The number of men of military age who take part in the Exodus is given as about 600,000. Allowing for women, children, and older men would probably mean that a total of more than 2,000,000 Israelites left Egypt at a time when the whole population of Egypt was less than 2,000,000.
"So I should decide to take on faith an idea of heaven that might be wonderful, if true"
What are the chances that heaven is true?
Since were are talking about a deity who doesn't want to be made known in the first place, then it would seem like that odds would never truly be known. So, just like if you want to know what salt tastes like, the only way to find out if there is such a deity is to go through first-hand experience in exercising ones faith and through prayer. There is really no way to know outside of first-hand experience one way or the other if there is such a deity. It all boils down to it being a matter of belief.
So your god "doesn't want to be known".
I see.
So it creates billion for hell.
Great god ya gots there Kevy.
You "know" that your god doesn't want to be known, so your god wants you to know, that he doesn't want to be known, but he wants you to know why he doesn't want to be known....he is a trickster, hide and seek champion of the universe!!!
Actually cheesy,
The invitation is an open invitation given from God that if you exercise your faith and try out those teachings and praying about it you will get an answer. That is an invitation given at God's risk, since people claim to have different results from taking the challenge. There is nothing really tricky about it.
buckyball,
I also believe that for those who didn't have the chance in life to to about and exercise their faith in life will have that chance after this life.
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1 Peter 3:18-20 KJV
I had this coversation with Bob on the previous page...how come all god's invitations come through people....why doesn't he handle his own invitations?
Cheese,
God watched that Seinfeld episode about George's fiancee...
He refuses to lick the envelopes...and why not when so many are willing to do so for him.
Serenity now!
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
I had this coversation with Bob on the previous page...how come all god's invitations come through people....why doesn't he handle his own invitations?
-----------------------–
He does. Jesus is God
Cheese!
LOL!
...and, funny how transframer didn't get your point. Such a sad state, these Christians, who fail to listen (or, more often than not, refuse to listen) to the content and context of what is being said.
Oh so typical...
Sorry if I missed the point. What was it?
Well cheesy,
You got a point there. It's not like if God handed out the invitations himself for us to take the challenge of exercising faith to get to find out if he exists would ever blow the whole need of us taking the challenge to exercise our faith in the first place and make the whole challenge rather moot.
Well Kevinite,
Your whole idea of god wanting to believe in him based on faith is rather flawed. Why should that be necessary?
And if you answer the question don't refer to what the book says. I know what the books says and
a) I have no reason to trust the book is anything more than a product of man.
and
b) the book never reasonably justifies the concept.
Uh cheesy,
You wouldn't think it would be necessary to that if God would want us to have free will and choose whether to follow his gospel of our own accord and not because we would be obligated since if it were known as a fact to all of humanity through all time that God exists that we would be obligated and not through free will choose whether or not to follow?
So if I understand at all, you seem to believe that god needed Satan to start other religions so god would know who really deserved to be saved.
Do you comprehend how many fails there are in that logic?
Actually, I do believe that for us there needs to be in this world to have opposition in all things. That one cannot know happiness without knowing misery, or one cannot cannot know light without first being exposed to darkness. So, actually for us to truly be tested and to truly progress we do have to be in a world of such opposites.
I do believe that when Satan rebelled, that God did utilize Satan and his rebellion in making it a part of the opposing forces in which we are in this life tested in regards to what are we going to do with our free will.
About as good as the chances that the guy down the street was actually abducted by aliens and had a probe up his butt.
Tom Tom
You do realise that faith in the context of the Bible means the believe that you are loved unconditionally by another no matter what rather than blind belief or a set of doctines blindly accepted. In such a context your blind belief is not faith but a supersti.tion. Science rests on faith. So if you were a true believer in science you could try on Christian spirituality for science. Standing by to help if you so decide. Religious folks may get it wrong but it doesn't make you right.
" Science rests on faith."
WRONG! ...science rests on EVIDENCE......
And no man hath ascended up to heaven but he that come down from heaven even the Son of man which is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up. That whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:13-15.
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. Romans 3:11
Herein is love, not that we loved God but that He loved us, and sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins 1 John 4:10
For there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 2:5
Man does not reach up to heaven after God, but God reaches down from heaven to man through Jesus Christ.
So, we can't know that there is a heaven unless we die. And then we can' t report back. This doesn't sound a little – um... questionable to you?
Yeah that would be questionable. Of course, that is where faith comes into play.
Samsonite,
You are the one claiming the scrabbleture is real, so you are the one who needs to provide the proof of it's veracity, not us.
A mind is a terrible thing to lose, to religion......
Actually nikki,
What I was claiming was having faith and belief in something. Where did you get that I was claiming anything other than that?
That was supposed to be the next post down, where you told us non believers to disprove your scripture stuff.
I was taking that to mean if we could not disprove it, then it must be true, which is absurd, but par for the course with you believers.
Actually, I wasn't claiming anything to be a fact. I was claiming that it is all a matter of belief.
I believe the word you're looking for is "scam".
I believe the word you are looking for is "scam". All you have to do is prove that the gospel is just a scam.
Your religion offers an afterlife that it cannot prove exists. It claims a god that it cannot prove exists, and the only "proof" it does offer is a book of myths written by relatively primitive human beings. If this were anything other than religion, people would be shouting "scam" from the rooftops. But since our culture allows irrational thought to be protected as long as it's called religion, it's up to more logical thinkers to point out to you that you've been had.
Actually it's the claim of believing or having faith in the gospel and the teachings of Jesus Christ that it will bring blessings of immortality and eternal life. You are the one who is claiming that it is a scam flat out as opposed to believing that it is a scam. If you believe that it is a scam, then fine but if you flat out claim that it is a scam then it's you who has the burden of proof that it is a scam and simply claiming that there is no proof of a God or a afterlife given by those who believe is not proof in of itself. This is especially the case when it comes to believing in a deity who does not want to be known to all of humanity to begin with. Since you are the one who is claiming that it is all a scam then you do have to prove that there is no such God who does not want to be made known in the first place, but would rather have us to develop our faith and belief in that deity.
That's how scams work. You want the reward so badly you are willing to believe whatever you are told.
kevinite
you don't know your own religion very well.
The bible says god wants all men to know him.
tallulah,
You didn't actually prove it's scam to begin with.
You are the one who is claiming that it is a scam flat out as opposed to believing that it is a scam. If you believe that it is a scam, then fine but if you flat out claim that it is a scam then it's you who has the burden of proof that it is a scam and simply claiming that there is no proof of a God or a afterlife given by those who believe is not proof in of itself. This is especially the case when it comes to believing in a deity who does not want to be known to all of humanity to begin with. Since you are the one who is claiming that it is all a scam then you do have to prove that there is no such God who does not want to be made known in the first place, but would rather have us to develop our faith and belief in that deity.
-So, in your deluded, intellectually dishonest world, you actually think someone can say they believe even if they don't, and that's cool with your god ... who actually v=creates billions of people for hell, (which HAS to be true, if your claim that he doesn't want to be known by all. What possible reason could your capricious deity have for that ?
Alias,
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Hebrews 11:1 KJV
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Hebrews 11:6 KJV
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
John 20:29 KJV
I could never prove it's a scam to you because you are too emotionally invested in it. There is no evidence to support the existence of your god, your heaven, hell or any afterlife at all. Not a single shred of evidence. A rational person would look at this simple fact and question what they believe.
But you have chosen to believe because you want the prize and no fact or logic will sway you. You fell for the scam, and now you're trying to sell it. Surprise! Not everyone is going to be as blind as you.
Actually tallulah,
If you want to just go by logic, since there is no way to prove a negative like proving there is no God who does not want to be made known in the first place as well as there is no way to prove that there is such a God that the logical conclusion would be to not have any conclusion made regarding whether or not there is such a deity. Anything other than that is a matter of belief.
uh buckyball,
What are you talking about? Where did you get that if I said that if your beliefs were insincere that it was all okeedokee?
buckyball,
I also believe that for those who didn't have the chance in life to to about and exercise their faith in life will have that chance after this life.
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1 Peter 3:18-20 KJV
Quoting your Babble will not help you, Kevy. YOU said YOUR god doesn't want to be known by all. Now you're trying to weasel out of that absurd comment. So which is it ? Either he wants to be known or not. And since when do you actually think YOU know what a god wants or doesn't want. (Oh I get it. It's what YOU want, and you make it up). So tell me, are there things that YOU want, that your god doesn't ? I suspect that list is very short. As in it's nowhere but in your head.
Really buckyball,
You don't get the concept of relying on faith and being tested to see if we are willing to follow the teachings of the gospel and not feel obligated to follow the teachings because we wouldn't have any choice since if it were an established fact that God exists?
"If you want to just go by logic, since there is no way to prove a negative like proving there is no God who does not want to be made known in the first place as well as there is no way to prove that there is such a God that the logical conclusion would be to not have any conclusion made regarding whether or not there is such a deity. Anything other than that is a matter of belief."
So basically, it's a scam.
Again tallulah, that is only your take on it and you still haven't proven that it is actually a proven scam as opposed to it just being your opinion that it is a scam.
Let's see, Kevin...
There is not a single shred of verifiable evidence that any biblical miracles occurred. Not a single indisputable shred of evidence that that Jesus actually existed. Certainly none that he was the son of god. All you have is a collection of writings by cult followers, compiled and edited by cult leaders, all written no earlier than 40 years after the alleged events. Many were written much later.
There are no contemporary non-biblical accounts of Jesus at all, despite the fact that Romans were fastidious record keepers. The contradictory biblical accounts of the nativity appear to be utterly fabricated (the closest recorded census took place 10 years after the death of Herod, and did not require people to leave their homes, there was no massacre of innocents, etc)
The old testament has problems of it's own: Archeology and geology have thoroughly debunked Noah's flood and the entire Exodus story. Indeed, the flood story appears to be borrowed from the older account in the Epic of Gilgamesh.
The entire bible is rife with errors and contradictions, yet this is the only source material you have for your faith.
I could go on all day if I wished, pointing out why your religion is a scam, but why waste my time when you don't care about the truth. You want the prize so much you are unwilling to even consider that there is no prize.
I'll give you this: There is an outside chance that what you believe is true. That chance is exactly equal to the likelihood that a Valkyrie will haul you to Valhalla should you die in glorious battle.
Let's see tallulah,
We already went through this no evidence whatsoever bit before and again the point is still there that a lack of evidence isn't evidence in of itself, especially when it comes to the concept of a God who does not want to be made known in the first place, because of the point of not wanting to be made known, so any point made about lacking evidence makes no sense whatsoever as being considered proof. You're the one who made the claim that there is no such God and so you still have the burden of proof.
Also tallulah,
The archeological evidence you pointed out is actually subjective and not set in stone. The epic of Gilgamesh doesn't actually prove that the Noah account came from there since you did not take into account the aspect of the oral traditions and how far they go back. Also, the "evidence" is only based on what is thus far found and it doesn't establish without a doubt that it is what happened. What you have put forth once again is just your own opinion as opposed to any irrefutably-established fact.
I dont need your report of being to heaven. The Holy Spirit came to me and spoke to my heart. Which is what he does to every person. If I can see past the 40,000 christian sects, violence done in the name of God, see no physical evidence of God, have religious scars and see the truth, then there will not be an excuse for you. As it is written .....they are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Your posts get creepier and creepier by the day.
I hope to never meet you.
Then stop replying to my post. Calling me creepy does nothing for you. I hope you never meet satan. Hes the one you are to be concerned with.
Since that mythical figure does not exist either, I have no chance of meeting it.
For the record Messed, I did not call you creepy, just your posts.
I once saw some xtians speaking in tongues, they were creepy.
Do you do that too?
Yeah you did. If my post are creepy then im creepy. a persons post are an outward manifestation of whats in the heart. Again stop talking to me if I creep you out.
blessed. hey when you come back here year after year you will realize that if they are not picking on me, that they will switch over to you. or someone else.
and that is one difference I noticed, that we argue for the sake of information and truth, or the word of God, but we don't usually go after someone with insults, though they may find the conversation offensive, or take up enmity with God's word.
but love suffers long, and takes no offence. no offence, for the chance to win their heart.
dust yourself off and pray .
the Spirit of God is at work. Praise God for your faith, may He bless us all with more faith and grace.
O i get my fair share of abuse. Im not bothered by it. I talk strong and tell people the way it is. especially to those that have nothing intelligent to say and just want to make stupid comments. To those, just walk away and leave my creepiness. LOL
"the Spirit of God is at work. Praise God for your faith, may He bless us all with more faith and grace."
Nothing more than your imagination........
Oh but you can Tom Tom as Eternal Life is experienced here on Earth not in Heaven and that assures you that the promises are true. When you do good you get a glimpse into eternal life. When you are good you have eternal life. Then you realise that there is more beside what you thought. That is the awakening the Bhuddah felt. That is what Christ preached.
No evidence for said claims... just mythology.... pure fiction.. so sorry for your personal delusion.
(Jesus speaking)
John 5:31 If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.
John 8:14 Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid.
Jesus (apocryphal): I'm testifying about myself at all times.
30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
(John 5:30-31 KJV)
Which would seem that bearing witness of not Jesus's own will but the will of the Father.
14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
(John 8:14 KJV)
Which would seem that although Jesus testifies of himself the will Jesus testifies of is not his will but the will of his Father.
Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true....I am one that bear witness of myself, and the father that sent me beareth witness of me. John 8:14,18
He never said that "even if I testify about my self, my testimony is valid". nor did he imply that he was testifying about himself apart from God. He said he was testifing and his father. John also testified of him.
Of course he never said any of those things, because he never existed.
How is it that his brothers and sisters and mother and father all existed but he didn't. In fact the first bishop of the Christian brother was his younger brother James. The evidence is overwhelming unles you are an Anti-theists masquerading as Atheist. Huh Bucky.
Austin, Blessed and Kevinite you guys do great! Keep it up!
In fact the first bishop of the Christian *Church* was his younger brother James.
With apologies.
I'm watching a creation v. evolution debate on Cspan. Can a Christian on here confirm to me that it's true that Christians believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old?
Its only some Christians...
It can be a challenge to categorically debate christians, because they believe so many different things.
Nothing like a book of instructions no one can agree on.
Exactly, there is not one single belief that ALL christians share.
I work with many that do Khilil.
That and other totally absurd things.
But how is it any different than believing in some unseen unproven magic man in the sky?
If you are going to go in, go ALL in or not at all.
Only the dumb ones.
Robert, I am reading the bible. Hilarious!
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Exodus 32:14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.
Too funny.
Im worried about your spiritual condition.
con·di·tion·al
/kənˈdiSHənl/
adjective
adjective: conditional
I wonder if the person who mocks the scripture has another handle?
1.
subject to one or more conditions or requirements being met; made or granted on certain terms.
What was all that nonsense about?
"I wonder if the person who mocks the scripture has another handle?"
Yes I do. But I do not mock god. There are no gods to mock. I am mocking you.
That's okay Austin...you worry about something that doesn't exist...we're worried about your mental health condition-that should be far greater concern to you and anyone who has to deal with you.
NU 22:21-30 A donkey sees an angel, recognizes it as such, and then speaks in human language (presumably Hebrew) to his master.
Pure comedy gold!
Clearly one of those was a metaphor.
You are taking it out of contest.
If you read the passages all around it, that will change everything.
I take the bible 100% literally.
sometimes there are metaphors. The important thing is for the truth to be made alive within you . Keep searching, and read the context.
@Austin
No. I like it my way.
Austin,
If you are going to try that hard to believe, any major religion or philosophy will do.
Yea, we know... no statement in the bible stands on it's own... it's needs to be taken in "context" presumably from some unrelated chapter or verse or it may require an interpretation.. ..... what a joke.......
God did not change His mind. Forgiveness and graciousness is His character.
"So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people." (Exodus 32:14, NASB).
In ex 32:14 in the KJV it says the lord repented. repented in the hebrew translation is nacham (naw-kham) means to be sorry, to pity, console or rue: or to avenge; comfort; ease (one self), repent.
Again God did not change his mind. Graciousness, mercy, forgiveness, love, compassion are his character. So is judgement. He will punish those who sin against him, but he desires mercy. Moses interceded for their behalf therefore they Lord repented.
He was going to do something, then he decided not to.
Where I grew up, we call that changing your mind.
You can pick one word and assign it a new meaning all you want. your book is still flawed.
He already deceided to be merciful, its who he is. Thats not change. Your confused character with fickle human emotions. Only people change their minds and part course, we are unstable.
God sure did some threatening and some smyting back in the day.
He really mellowed in babble 2.0 though.
Though I can't get either version to work properly on my PlayStation.
2 Kings 2:11 As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.
John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.
LOL
YOu want to jack around and mock Elijah?
Hey man, will you please stop?
I will stop soon. Have to take off.
Hey man, would you please face reality?
Your bible is fundamentally flawed in many places.
It is not the word of any god. I know how comforting it is for you to believe it is, and how it make you feel like everything is okay because you have absolved yourself of all responsibility; but it is not the truth.
Who is jacking and mocking? Get your mind out of the gutter.
I cant wait to see Elijah and the Lord, and Moses.
Off you go then.
You would be in for a major disappointment, but considering you'll be dead I doubt you'll notice.
Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
read John Henery's commentary on that one. "if they get in a fight".........you owe them the days pay for the missed work.
this is the beginning of workers compensation insurance.
Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
This is why so many girly men cling so tightly to the bible.
It is the only way a woman would ever submit to them.
Austin, Topher, Fred, Robert, all stand up and take a bow together ...
Deuteronomy 7:1-2 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations . . . then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.
Read a little further and see why,
4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
Sorry, I don't see why. Since there are no gods, I can't serve one. If the Lord you describe existed, I certainly would not worship it. I am opposed to such adolescent violence.
And you have no problem with killing those who would serve another god?
ISIS is recruiting people JUST LIKE YOU.
So instead of giving those people reason to switch gods...he orders those people killed.
Pretty vain god
Or the whole thing was made up by his followers to justify genocide and stealing the land....
Kind of like what the Israelites did in the Old Testament? Right?
Best way to change immoratly to morality is to claim an authority "told you to"....