Let's cut through the chase: Jesus didn't exist.

[stretched]

Buffalo:
“Does it mean any thing to the discussion that the New Testament, has nothing to do with the Old Testament, other then overturning Torah Law, I keep seeing a lot of people mixing the theology of the two to make judgement on Christanity, they may be related, but they are totaly different in doctrine. Blood Law vs. Forgiveness, Salvation.”

* Heh. Of course. These two books are totally unrelated. Heh. They represent two different religions. Heh. So Jesus is NOT God eh? Jesus of the NT is not the God of the OT? Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[LeeDa]

So if Jesus never existed then the position for Lord of lords and King of kings and general ruler of the universe is avaliable?

Apply here.

 

[SnakeLord]

Has taken a while but I have been exceptionally busy..

The same reason anyone kills a cockroach or a fly in their house. They're nasty

I disagree. They're not "nasty", they're just different. Unlike you I generally pick them up and put them in a more appropriate setting for them and me, (namely outside). From your argument it would seem that makes me better than god. You excuse his acts of annihilation on the basis that, just like cockroaches apparently, we are nasty.. and thus need to be annihilated.

Being an animal lover I don't do that, and nor would I do that if I were a human loving god.

God didn't tell you to get nasty but you are, and so are the other people he killed.

I disagree. I'm not being nasty, just different. Man I've seen my dog eat his own faeces. It might seem wrong to me but that's no excuse to kill him.

You disagree that Adam and Eve actually had a choice to be sinless (perfect) like God or sinful like we are.

You simply have no case and no argument here. They had no knowledge of good and evil until eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and as such would have been working purely on instinct.

You resent that you are born with the nature God abhors

I disagree.

A) I'm an atheist, there's no such thing as a god.

B) I actually like myself. Admittedly I should cut down on the smoking, but otherwise I'm at peace with myself.

yet he gave you a way out and you won't take it: Jesus who died on the cross so you wouldn't have to.

It is of no consequence to my nature, to who I am. Look Woody, the only way you can ever have a decent afterlife is to worship Lenny the leprechaun. That's all you are saying to me. It's meaningless isn't it?

By the way I'm still waiting for your apology for calling me a liar concerning some "Frodo" whom I don't even have a clue about.

Sorry, but I have no reason to believe or trust you. When I mentioned Frodo you said: "I don't watch movies". This is somewhat of a giveaway.

You claim they can't know what sin is without being sinners first.

Wrong. I state that they didn't have knowledge of good and evil before eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil that gave them knowledge of good and evil. They could have been given knowledge of good and evil by their god, but instead they had to eat a fruit and then be damned for eating a fruit that would give them the required knowledge of whether to eat the fruit or not.

Jesus knows what sin is

Gold medal on it's way.

so Jesus blows your A&E argument right out of the water

You're talking out of your rectum. Your statement wasn't even relevant.

Are you going to call Jesus a sinner too? He could have sinned if he wanted to -- the devil tried hard, but Jesus passed where A&E failed

Why would you say jesus passed? Let's look at your earlier statements:

"Jesus knows what sin is -- actually he was "made sin" according to the bible"

So.. jesus passed because jesus knows what sin is, indeed was made sin. Adam and Eve didn't know.

I have two natures and you have one

Well, even if that were the case, then there's nothing I can do about it. Unlike you I wasn't born with "multiple" natures, (although I currently do treat people for those kind of problems). My nature is my nature - be there 1 or 101.

In the next life the old nature will be a worm in the dung heap for you, but the new nature will be a well springing forth to everlasting life for me.

In the long run I guess I would be thankful. Although 80, (if lucky), is admittedly a tad short, I couldn't even begin to express my distaste for a never ending life. I would be so piss bored after 50 million gazillion trillion squillion squillion years that I'd happily take the first option.

When you're a worm in the crap pile, you can say God made you that way -- ok if that's the nature you want to have then keep it.

Oh? Who was it that made it that way if not your god? Some other god?

I suppose maggots like to eat rotten flesh, but I don't have to chose to be one, and neither do you.

When dead, it isn't going to make a difference what maggots do or do not do.

I don't know why they only had manna to eat. Maybe their shit didn't stink. 600 thousand turds a day -- think about it.

Well shit tends to smell more when a person does not have a decent diet - but in either case it's a bit of a piss poor excuse. Could god not have just clicked his fingers and made the shit not smell, or just vanish? (Although in the bible he does tell people to bury their shit).

Not much of a comeback either really. The fact is you already made my point and argued my case for me. I need not say much more.

They didn't have the disease problems before. Sounds like manna took care of some sanitation engineering for such a crowd. Ever been to an outdoor event where 600 thousand people are gathered for a day without porta-johns or running water?

Well, some valid research on how manna makes your shit less disease causing and less smelly than your shit if you eat anything other than manna is needed.

So all of the nation of Israel died in the wilderness.

Quite a lot did.. by god's own hand all because they asked for a varied diet.

none of the survivors had to eat quail until they were sick of it after the manna was taken away?

In this instance god would be the dumbest fucker you've ever met. Why could he not vary their diet? Give them manna till they're sick of it and then give them quail until they're sick of it. No wonder they wanted to go back to Egypt.. At least there they weren't put in such a position.

Seriously Woody.. is it that bad to ask god for a varied diet?

yeah, the catholics. Ever wondered why there isn't a commandment in the bible that says: Thou shalt not spill the seed?

You're saying that if it isn't specifically written in black and white in the bible then it has no meaning?

Isn't that exactly what happens with a nocturnal emmission, being a male of the species, surely you've had one before.

Certainly, but it lacks something that masturbation and not impregnating your dead brother's wife have in common:

Intent.

When it's time, I don't see any harm in it, and it can be done in just a few seconds if that long.

Yeah, quite a few people suffer from that problem.

However, if you're going to fantisize or read pornography while you're doing it, and it becomes an addiction -- yeah big problem

Why is it a problem to fantasize?

So why make a semantical argument out of fear/reverance/faith just because their meanings overlap?

Their meanings don't overlap. When faith is the issue they use faith. When 'fear' is the issue, they say fear.

It was a guess, since I've never heard of him before except from you

Yeah right.

In other words, you don't want to admit the analogy between Confucious and Christ vis-a-vis in about the same period of human history.

Incorrect. I told you to start a confucious thread where I will happily discuss confucious. I see no valid reason to drag this conversation and thread onto someone completely different.

that were personally witnessed by thousands of people

What "thousands of people"? Names please.

As for the fictional characters such as gilgamesh, et al that were claimed to be real - this was religion mandated from day one by the political authorities -- believe it or else without any resistance -- who believes it now?

Not exactly, no.. But it raises an interesting point. Christianity was hardly worth batting an eyelid at - few followers etc. Then it became "mandated" by political authorities and anyone that resisted ended up getting slaughtered.

I believe A&E did not fear God before they sinned

Of course not. Without knowledge of good and evil, god was completely meaningless. They could fart and piss in his face without giving it a moments thought.

 

[Woody]

SL said,

Unlike you I generally pick them up and put them in a more appropriate setting for them and me, (namely outside).

With unbelievers God does the same thing you do, and he lets them live in their appropriate setting -- outer darkness:

cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness.

(Mat 25:30)

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

John 3:19

SL:

Man I've seen my dog eat his own faeces. It might seem wrong to me but that's no excuse to kill him.

And it's no reason for him to join you at the dinner table, as God joins his believers.

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Rev 3:20

SL said:

They had no knowledge of good and evil until eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and as such would have been working purely on instinct.

So let's get this straight. You are saying that no matter how intelligent someone is, they can not know right from wrong unless they do that which is wrong -- ie they'll never have the smarts to figure it out. So until I kill someone I don't know it is wrong to kill, until I steal from someone I don't know it is wrong to steal, etc., etc. In other words, every wrong deed is ok as long as it is done at least once, and THE MORAL CODE FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL IS ONLY KNOWN THROUGH THE EXPERIENCE OF DOING WRONG. You are telling us that morals can not be taught, rather the wrong must be experienced first before it can be understood. Some of us are slow at learning, so perhaps all moral misconduct is excusable.

worship Lenny the leprechaun

Geez, get real, I never heard of him (except from you), and I'm still waiting for your apology about Frodoo Baggins, whom I honestly knew nothing about.

"I don't watch movies". This is somewhat of a giveaway

Somewhat of a guess actually, and I never read the hobbitt either. I was going to let you explain about Mr. Baggins. You wouldn't - so I looked it up in the Wikipedia. I still don't know who Frodo is, only he was a character in Lord of the Rings, and I have no interest in Wiccan witchcraft, Harry Potter, and such.

Wrong. I state that they didn't have knowledge of good and evil before eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil that gave them knowledge of good and evil. They could have been given knowledge of good and evil by their god,

In other words they were too stupid to figure it out. Here we are today, you don't believe god exists, yet you know the difference between right and wrong. Did someone have to eat from a mythical tree for you to know the difference? Of course not. Your argument loses all credibility because you are an atheist that doesn't believe the A&E story to start with or that god exists, or you don't believe there is a right and wrong. You don't think capital punishment is ok -- what is the basis for that or any other moral decision?

Why would you say jesus passed? Let's look at your earlier statements:

"Jesus knows what sin is -- actually he was "made sin" according to the bible"

So.. jesus passed because jesus knows what sin is, indeed was made sin. Adam and Eve didn't know.

Jesus did not commit sin -- that is the point. Your only caveat is concerning the sabbath, which Jesus says he is the Lord of.

Well, even if that were the case, then there's nothing I can do about it. Unlike you I wasn't born with "multiple" natures, (although I currently do treat people for those kind of problems).

I too was born with only one nature. I had no choice, and it will die. But I received a second nature by asking for it. The second nature will live forever.

When dead, it isn't going to make a difference what maggots do or do not do.

They feed on rotting flesh forever -- I'm glad it's not me.

Well shit tends to smell more when a person does not have a decent diet - but in either case it's a bit of a piss poor excuse. Could god not have just clicked his fingers and made the shit not smell, or just vanish? (Although in the bible he does tell people to bury their shit).

Or he could have snapped his fingers and they wouldn't have to eat at all, or he could have snapped his fingers and they would crave manna no matter how much they ate, etc., etc. what's the point? He gave them what was sufficient.

Seriously Woody.. is it that bad to ask god for a varied diet?

They were in the wilderness for 40 years, and did any of them die from a diet defficiency? Manna must have everything a person needs to live -- all the vitamens, minerals, nutrients, carbohydrates, etc. and allt ehy had to do was go out in the morning and gather it up. I don't know about you, but I'd like to try a little manna myself before I write it off as blazee.

Certainly, but it lacks something that masturbation and not impregnating your dead brother's wife have in common:

Intent.

Intent to do what?

Why is it a problem to fantasize?

Ok, now I see what you mean by intent.

What "thousands of people"? Names please.

Thousands of people an atheist like yourself could have easily gone to and asked in order to debunk the myth -- where were your atheist brethren when they were needed? Kind of slack on the job no?

Not exactly, no.. But it raises an interesting point. Christianity was hardly worth batting an eyelid at - few followers etc. Then it became "mandated" by political authorities and anyone that resisted ended up getting slaughtered.

Atheists like yourself always seem to brush off the early persecution of christians.

 

[General_Paul]

I think you need to tone down the anti-athiest jargon there. Was it not jesus who said "Judge not lest ye be judged?"

 

[SnakeLord]

With unbelievers God does the same thing you do, and he lets them live in their appropriate setting -- outer darkness:

An eternal lake of fire is dark? Besides, I said "appropriate setting". For insects and the like, the outdoors in a damp, dark location is appropriate. For me it would most likely be a nice woodland area - not a pit of fire. As a result it seems your god doesn't put people in an appropriate setting, but a setting he created in order to harm people as much as possible.

And it's no reason for him to join you at the dinner table, as God joins his believers.

I agree, my dog has his own eating area - but the argument stems further than that. For the sake of the analogy we'd have to conclude that I created the dog with the nature of eating dog poo, then rejected him from my table because he eats dog poo and then sent him to an eternal lake of fire for eating that dog poo that I created him with the nature to eat.

So let's get this straight. You are saying that no matter how intelligent someone is, they can not know right from wrong unless they do that which is wrong -- ie they'll never have the smarts to figure it out.

No. I'm saying that until adam and eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil they had no knowledge of good and evil. god even attests to this in the bible.

You are telling us that morals can not be taught

I didn't say any such thing.

Geez, get real, I never heard of him

You have now. So, have some faith.

Here we are today, you don't believe god exists, yet you know the difference between right and wrong. Did someone have to eat from a mythical tree for you to know the difference? Of course not.

From a biblical perspective, yes.. they did.

Your argument loses all credibility because you are an atheist that doesn't believe the A&E story to start with or that god exists

Oh I see. Guess I'll make sure I never debate Star Trek again because I don't believe in klingons.

Jesus did not commit sin -- that is the point.

While I disagree from a biblical perspective, the point is that jesus knew what sin was - and so could avoid it. adam and eve did not until they had eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil - and thus were bound to fuck up somewhere along the lines through no fault of their own.

They feed on rotting flesh forever -- I'm glad it's not me.

Again: When you're dead you wont honestly give a shit what maggots do.

Or he could have snapped his fingers and they wouldn't have to eat at all, or he could have snapped his fingers and they would crave manna no matter how much they ate, etc., etc. what's the point?

The point was you're being silly. Trying to justify god feeding his people nothing but manna, and killing them when they asked for something else, purely on the unsupported basis that manna doesn't make your shit smell bad.

They were in the wilderness for 40 years, and did any of them die from a diet defficiency?

Unknown, but then plenty of them did die from getting whacked by god all because they did the evilest of evil things: asked for something different to eat.

Intent to do what?

I would have thought it would be rather easy to figure out: In two of the three, sperm is ejected purposely. In the third instance it isn't.

Ok, now I see what you mean by intent.

Not an answer to my question.

Thousands of people an atheist like yourself could have easily gone to and asked in order to debunk the myth -- where were your atheist brethren when they were needed? Kind of slack on the job no?

Busy watching christians get eaten by lions etc. You keep telling me how much christians suffered - in which case surely the "atheists" were doing a wonderful job when it was needed?

Atheists like yourself always seem to brush off the early persecution of christians.

See above.

 

[General_Paul]

How's this: everybody's been persecuted at one point in time: Islam from the 18th Century onwards, Jews during the "biblical" era, Christians got fed to lions. How's this for a size up: In China and Japan, religious wars spanned MILLENIA and really didn't end until Euros came and basically forced their belief standards on them. And Woody, the persecution of Christians doesn't mean jack shit in this 21st Century age. So what? Ohh...you were persecuted 1700 years ago. So? Who gives a shit? If anybody has a right to say WORD ONE about persecution, its Jews, Gypsies, and Catholics in Germany and Europe. They got fucked by Adolf Hitler, the Jewish religion almost ceased to exist in Europe and YOU tell ME about "Christian persecution"?

 

[Woody]

SL said,

An eternal lake of fire is dark? Besides, I said "appropriate setting". For insects and the like, the outdoors in a damp, dark location is appropriate. For me it would most likely be a nice woodland area - not a pit of fire. As a result it seems your god doesn't put people in an appropriate setting, but a setting he created in order to harm people as much as possible.

They (sinners) will get exactly what they deserve, no more and no less. His (God's) scales of justice are fair and exactly calibrated. You see no harm in being a sinner by nature, but God does. You say you have no choice, but you do, hence the punishment.

Proverbs 14:12 and 16:25 sum up your view of right and wrong, and unfortunately it is your death sentence in hell.

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Your view of right and wrong are worthless. Your view has no authority except to you. You can not raise anyone from the dead, not even yourself. Hence it really doesn't matter what you or I think about right and wrong. See where it gets you.

SL about me saying I never heard of Frodo Baggins:

You have now. So, have some faith.

Have faith in what, your upcoming apology for calling me a liar about your Frodo Baggins?

I'm still waiting for that manly apology of yours.

SL about morals not being learnable except by doing what is wrong:

I didn't say any such thing.

So why would it be any different for A&E whom you don't even believe existed?

Oh I see. Guess I'll make sure I never debate Star Trek again because I don't believe in klingons.

Not the same thing. Everybody agrees Star Trek is Science fiction. We do not have that agreement concerning the bible. You are "staw-manning: your argument with statements like:

god even attests to this in the bible.

And then you do a total flip-flop with reality with statements like:

I didn't say any such thing.

Make up your mind on the question of man's knowledege of good and evil: In reality, doesn't man learn morals without eating from a tree? Why should the hypothetical garden of eden be any different? You don't believe it existed. I do believe it existed. We both agree that man can know the difference between right and wrong without eating from a tree that is fictional to you but real to me. I believe that and I believe the A&E story. You believe that and you don't believe the A&E story. Isn't the truth what really matters here?

Busy watching christians get eaten by lions etc. You keep telling me how much christians suffered - in which case surely the "atheists" were doing a wonderful job when it was needed?

ok, I see. Athiests were more interested in being entertained than knowing the truth. :bugeye:

 

[LeeDa]

It would be cool if people worshipped me. I might feel pity for them though eventually. I guess if christians can worship a person that never actually existed, it would be like a step up to worship someone who does. Come ye christians and worship me, a real living being not someone who never existed. They'll be all like "you shall worship noone except the lord god" or however that goes. Anyway if you get bored worshipping Jesus im definately available. Its just a suggestion. I mean i was just saying it would be kewl to be worshipped. If only I was worthy.

Every knee shall bow and every tounge confess that LeeDa is the lord.

 

[SnakeLord]

You see no harm in being a sinner by nature, but God does.

How am I a 'sinner'? And, if it's by 'nature', what choice would I have?

Your view of right and wrong are worthless.

Really? I think it's wrong to kill, wrong to steal, lie etc. Worthless?

You can not raise anyone from the dead, not even yourself. Hence it really doesn't matter what you or I think about right and wrong.

What has the ability or inability to bring dead people back to life got to do with right or wrong?

SL about me saying I never heard of Frodo Baggins:

“ You have now. So, have some faith. ”

Have faith in what, your upcoming apology for calling me a liar about your Frodo Baggins?

I wasn't talking about Frodo. Try to keep up.

So why would it be any different for A&E whom you don't even believe existed?

Because their teacher was the fruit. Come on Woody, work it out.

Not the same thing. Everybody agrees Star Trek is Science fiction.

So.. then nobody can debate star trek? You said I can't debate A&E because I don't believe the story is real, which simply means nobody can debate star trek because nobody believes it's real.

“ god even attests to this in the bible. ”

And then you do a total flip-flop with reality with statements like:
“ I didn't say any such thing. ”

I don't see how, (or why), you've tried to put the two together and call it a 'flip-flop'. The first statement we are talking about the bible, the second was after I spoke about the bible stories you decided to not understand what I said and clearly still don't.

Make up your mind on the question of man's knowledege of good and evil: In reality, doesn't man learn morals without eating from a tree?

Sure, but 'man' is not the first man - a man without knowledge of good and evil who was told not to eat the fruit that would give him knowledge of good and evil - but indeed supposed to remain like an animal forever, (not even knowing he was naked).

Upon having eaten the fruit, and gaining knowledge of good and evil, adam and eve can then teach their offspring.

Isn't the truth what really matters here?

Sure, and the biblical truth of the matter is that A&E had no knowledge of good and evil until they had eaten the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

ok, I see. Athiests were more interested in being entertained than knowing the truth

Nonsense, but there's always time for some entertainment isn't there?

 

[Woody]

SL said,

Sure, and the biblical truth of the matter is that A&E had no knowledge of good and evil until they had eaten the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

See what I mean about flip-flopping? You don't believe the bible is true. I believe the bible is true as it relates to the salvation of mankind, but it is far from being ALL the truth we can know.

In order for truth to be such, it must agree with reality.

In reality, you do not believe the bible is true. Hence, your conclusion about A&E's "fictional account" with a "fictional tree" have no relevance to your assessment of man's morality. Or could it be that you are undecided about the bible? If so then perhaps you have a reason to question the merits of the A&E account.

The pure and simple truth of the matter from a believer's point of view is as follows: A&E gave up immortality when they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God said in the day they ate it they would surely die, and they did -- they changed from immortal to mortal. This is what we inherit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Satan did not eat from this tree and he is immortal, yet he knows right from wrong, and chooses wrong. His nature also changed when he made the wrong choice. He can only do that which is wrong. A little leaven corrupts the whole batch -- as the bible says.

In reality, anyone with a mental age greater than a 4 or 5 year old child can know the difference between right and wrong. This does not come from a tree or else we would know the difference from our date of birth.


I'm still waiting for that manly apology of yours when you said I was a liar concerning your Frodo Baggins, who seems to be of great importance to you, but matters not to me.

 

[SnakeLord]

See what I mean about flip-flopping? You don't believe the bible is true. I believe the bible is true as it relates to the salvation of mankind, but it is far from being ALL the truth we can know.

I can see you're having serious difficulty understanding something quite simple. We are discussing from a biblical perspective, an 'if that's true' perspective.

From a Star Trek perspective it can be said that the borg are way more powerful than humans, but a lot weaker than species 8172.

That isn't to say I believe the borg or species 8172 exist - but from an 'if it were true' perspective.

I'm amazed you can't understand that very simple concept.

From a biblical perspective A&E had no knowledge of good and evil until they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I have seen no sufficient argument from you rebutting that point. All you seem to be able to manage is to say: "You don't believe it's real, you can't say that", while holding your hands firmly over your eyes.

yhwh meant for them to be like animals, (not even knowing they were naked). Against his wishes they were given knowledge of good and evil by eating a fruit given them to by a serpent that had somehow, against yhwh's knowledge, sneaked into the perfect garden. Before eating the fruit they had no way of knowing the serpent was 'evil' and no way of knowing that yhwh was supposedly 'good'. Once they had eaten the fruit the distinction became clear - but they were then punished for eating the fruit that they had to eat in order to have enough knowledge to not listen to the serpent and thus not eat the fruit.

A&E gave up immortality when they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

An eternity of being stupid or, (in their case), some 900 years of being intelligent? Of knowing right from wrong? Of knowing they were naked?

I too would take the latter. Of course, they didn't know any of this at the time, so it's only us that can be thankful that they did indeed eat the fruit. I'm just amazed yhwh got bested by a snake.

Satan did not eat from this tree and he is immortal, yet he knows right from wrong, and chooses wrong. His nature also changed when he made the wrong choice. He can only do that which is wrong.

So, no such thing as forgive and forget? One bad deed and he can no longer do anything good? Why, who made it that way?

In reality, anyone with a mental age greater than a 4 or 5 year old child can know the difference between right and wrong.

In reality, anyone with a mental age greater than a 2 or 3 year old child will know they're naked. Adam and Eve did not.

I'm still waiting for that manly apology of yours when you said I was a liar concerning your Frodo Baggins, who seems to be of great importance to you, but matters not to me.

I have no reason to believe you, (as I have now said dozens of times).

 

[Woody]

SL said:

From a Star Trek perspective it can be said that the borg are way more powerful than humans, but a lot weaker than species 8172.

That isn't to say I believe the borg or species 8172 exist - but from an 'if it were true' perspective.

I'm amazed you can't understand that very simple concept.

There is no debate if you go to the true author. I don't know who wrote the star trek movie, but would you argue with the author? We do not agree on the author of the bible. I am amazed you can not understand this simple concept: the author is the final word, and it really doesn't matter what we say as critics of the author's work.

From a biblical perspective A&E had no knowledge of good and evil until they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I have seen no sufficient argument from you rebutting that point.

The whole bible rebuts your point because Adam transgressed (Romans 5):

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. Rom 5:14

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Rom 5:12

Adam (not Eve) brought sin into the world. Sin always brings death. It is a disease that always results in death.

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom 6:23

God did not forbid Eve to eat from the tree, rather He commanded Adam. You notice the transformation did not occur until after Adam ate the fruit.

Sin came by Adam. Though Eve was deceived, Adam was not fooled by the serpent.

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Rom 5:17

Eve didn't take the rap. She was honest when she said the serpent beguiled her (Gen 3-13). Adam's excuse was -- "well that woman you gave me God -- it's her doing." Adam knew better and he takes the rap.


Now you say it is ok to continue with the disease (sin) now that we have it, you say we don't need the cure from what sin will do to us by its nature. This is where you are confused. You think biblical sin is a necessary part of you, but it is not.

Can you find anyone that agrees with you when you say Adam was innocent of his transgression? The bible says he was guilty. Pure and simple -- there is no argument. If you disagree then read Romans 5:14 again. Still disagree -- then read it again and again until you finally get it (fat chance). Adam transgressed because the author said so. Period.

Want to argue with the author of Star Trek about species 8172?

 

[Godless]

Time to lighten up, A&E are allegorical stories that never was part of reality.

But never the less it serves for a good little joke:

Eve was instructed by god, never go into the ocean. Adam on the other hand was enjoying a good swim one day in a large pool of water, the ocean.Adam was having a blast, and asked Eve to jump on in, she claimed that god forbid her to bathe in the ocean, Adam simply claimed god was nuts, the ocean was cool and refreshing and nothing was happening to him. With this reasoning Eve jumped in and started to swim with Adam, a few minutes latter god seperated the clouds, and asked Eve why she jumped into the ocean. Eve replied; that Adam was having such a good time, she didn't see any damage in joining him. God then said, WEll What the hell I'm I going to do with the Smell of fish now!

God then asked Adam and Eve that he was allowing two gifts. Who wanted a penis, and urinate standing up, and... Adam jumped and begged, and begged for it to be him. So god granted Adams wish and gave him a penis, Adam went running all over the place pissing on everything since he could stand and pee, very exited he was for such a fine gift. Eve looked at god somewhat disappointed and asked god, "what was the other gift? Brains my child.

Godless

 

[geeser]

I would'nt bother snakelord, he's far to thick to understand it, he make the religious cause, worse just by breathing. it's a wonder he has enough brain cells to walk, he is the amoeba man.

 

[LeeDa]

Believe in the LeeDa and you will be saved.

 

[muhammad]

Jesus existed 100 %


its a truth ... but ...


jesus isnt god ... jesus is not son of god


jesus name in arabic is Isa


jesus is the prophet of ALLAH he is one of the messengers sent by ALLAH to people over the years

jesus is great really great ... but .. he is just a human


read this part from Quraan a translation for meaning :

surah Almaeda :

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[116] And behold! Allah will say: "O 'Isa the son of Maryam! didst thou say unto men, 'Worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.

[117] "Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when thou didst take me up thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things.


[118] "If Thou dost punish them, they are Thy servants: if Thou dost forgive them, Thou art the Exalted in power, the Wise."

[119] Allah will say: "This is a day on which the truthful will profit from their truth: theirs are Gardens, with rivers flowing beneath, their eternal home: Allah well-pleased with them, and they with Allah: that is the great salvation, (The fulfilment of all desires).

[120] To Allah doth belong the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is therein, and it is He Who hath power over all things.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------






another part from another surah...... surah Al imran :





--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[59] The similitude of 'Isa before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him "Be": and he was.

[60] The Truth (comes) from thy Lord alone; so be not of those who doubt.

[61] If anyone disputes in this matter with thee, now after (full) knowledge hath come to thee, say: "Come! let us gather together - our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves - then let us earnestly pray, and invoke the curse of Allah on those who lie!"


[62] This is the true account; there is no god except Allah; and Allah, He is indeed the Exalted in Power, the Wise.

[63] But if they turn back, Allah hath full knowledge of those who do mischief.

[64] Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: that we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will).


[65] Ye People of the Book! why dispute ye about Ibrahim, when the Law and the Gospel were not revealed till after him? Have ye no understanding?

[66] Ah! ye are those who fell to disputing (even) in matters of which ye had some knowledge! but why dispute ye in matters of which ye have no knowledge? It is Allah Who knows, and ye who know not!

[67] Ibrahim was not a Jew nor yet a Christian; but he was true in Faith, and bowed his will to Allah's (which is Islam), and he joined not gods with Allah.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







refer to my topic on the following link read it please and open your heart ..

go to this topic :

clcik here or copy & paste ------->

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44145

 

[Woody]

mohammed said:

jesus is great really great ... but .. he is just a human

I have a few questions for you:

1) According to Islam who will the messiah be?

2) According to the bible, the truth is confirmed in the mouth of two or more eye-witnesses, in order to eliminate liars. This eliminates self-proclaimed prophets such as Joseph Smith (Mormonism), Jim Jones (cult following), Sun Young Moon (unification church), and many others that don't stand up to the "acid test" for prophesy. John the Baptist is Jesus' co-witness, along with all the disciples, and apostles. Who is "the Mohammed's" co-witness?

3) There were many eyewitnesses to Jesus' life, crucifiction, burial, and resurrection. They wrote of him in the bible. They are called the "Gospel accounts". Mohammed obviously wasn't there when it happened. Why should we take the word of one man, 600 years after Jesus came, over that of all the prophets in the New Testament who were eyewitnesses?

4) Furthermore, "the Mohammed" trashes all the old testament, claiming the Jews corrupted the bible beyond use. This implies that God either does not have the power to maintain His word, or He doesn't care to maintain his word. This theory by Mohammed also fails when compared to the dead sea scrolls.

So what it comes down to is this: you must accept that "the Mohammed" is the only one person that has divine truth and it can only be known though him. It also implies that all the others who agree there will be a messiah, are wrong. :bugeye:

 

[SnakeLord]

There is no debate if you go to the true author. I don't know who wrote the star trek movie, but would you argue with the author?

Well, I'd certainly debate certain aspects of his story yes. As a writer myself, I can tell you how welcome feedback and criticism generally is.

As for the 'true' authors of the bible, there's even more of a debate possible. A) A large portion of it isn't even their work, but a version of much earlier work and B) given that these people didn't even know the planet's round it stands to reason that there is serious error in their writing. Something like the Nile turning to blood isn't because of space fairy magic spells but most likely due to pfisteria. Needless to say there would be much to debate.

I am amazed you can not understand this simple concept: the author is the final word, and it really doesn't matter what we say as critics of the author's work.

As a man that writes, I disagree. What critics say matters a great deal.

The whole bible rebuts your point because Adam transgressed (Romans 5):

I fail to even see the relevance this has to my point.

Adam (not Eve) brought sin into the world. Sin always brings death. It is a disease that always results in death.

Again, it's not of any relevance to my point.

Eve didn't take the rap. She was honest when she said the serpent beguiled her (Gen 3-13). Adam's excuse was -- "well that woman you gave me God -- it's her doing." Adam knew better and he takes the rap.

Actually, if you bother reading the text you'll see that they were both honest. The question is, (and I have asked you before), would you rather they had have lied?

Gen 3:6 'She took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it'

Gen 3:12 "The woman you put here with me - she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it

As the above confirms, Adam was completely honest. Again, would you rather he had have lied to god?

Now you say it is ok to continue with the disease (sin) now that we have it

Where did I say that?

you say we don't need the cure from what sin will do to us by its nature.

Where did I say that?

This is where you are confused

Uh uh.. you're the confused one. I didn't even say the things you claim I did.

You think biblical sin is a necessary part of you, but it is not.

If 'sin' is a part of your nature, then you will sin.. it's inevitable. Your jesus does nothing to change that fact. Even you - (what you would undoubtedly consider a true christian, a true jesus lover), sins - you admit that openly.. and that is because you cannot escape your nature, even when god suicides himself for you. His suicide has not made you a better person - you still sin as much as anyone, but now you just think you're excused for doing so.

Tell you what.. I'm not one of jesus' little poodles so I can't do it, but you can prove that you have the ability and choice to not sin anymore by doing it. Can you?

Can you find anyone that agrees with you when you say Adam was innocent of his transgression?

Certainly.

The bible says he was guilty. Pure and simple -- there is no argument. If you disagree then read Romans 5:14 again. Still disagree -- then read it again and again until you finally get it (fat chance).

But there is argument.

The bible says we should stone naughty children to death - but we argue against it.

The bible says no woman can have authority over men or teach men, but we argue against it.

There are countless things in the bible that even the most fundamental religious folk argue against - because it's simply wrong, because the bible is outdated nonsense.

Of course however, you're still missing the case. The argument is not that sin did not enter the world - upon eating the fruit, sin did enter the world. The case is concerned with Adam and Eve not having knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and thus being unable to make the distinction between what was the good thing to do and what was the wrong thing to do - and so, although sin entered the world as a consequence of the action - Adam and Eve can not be held liable from any fair jury.

Need I start drawing pictures for you?

Want to argue with the author of Star Trek about species 8172?

I'd love to.

---------

I would'nt bother snakelord, he's far to thick to understand it

No kidding.

 

[Woody]

SL said:

As a man that writes, I disagree. What critics say matters a great deal.

What author revised his novel based on what the critics said? Would he do it like this: Great Gatsby rev1 (after first criticism), Great Gatsby rev2 (after 2nd criticism), rev 3 (after critic #1 rebutted critic #2), etc. That should keep the copyright staff busy.

Gen 3:12 "The woman you put here with me - she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it"


The bible says Adam transgressed:

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. Rom 5:14

If you disagree, then you disagree with the most fundamental point of the bible: That man fell through Adam's sin, hence man dies, and mankind is saved through Jesus Christ so that he can live again:

Paul says it best:

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Rom 5:17

Geez Snakelord, why don't you just throw away the whole bible? Under your view there really is no point to it.

BTW, I'm still waiting for that manly apology of yours. What's the matter -- pride got your tongue?