Proof that the Christian god cannot exist
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
tony1
SORRY ABOUT THE LENGTH PEOPLE
There you go with your marijuana fetish again and tiassa's not even in the room.
Is that why you believe in the bible so wholeheartedly because you got a bad batch and figured satan had a hand in it?
As many atheist have said in the past, break out the hard evidence, other than the bible, and we'll talk. Anyone can quote scriptures, there are many bible CDroms out there. Punch in a few keywords out jump many quotes in reference to what you keyed. They even have a few that break the "bible codes". Not hard but a waste of money in my opinion.
If they did have proof in the bible then why would they even have a such thing as bible codes. Why do they not have actual dates to each event in the bible. Historians that specialize in the bible don't agree on the actual crucifixion of christ as far as the day it happened.
(food for thought...At one time there was one christian church)
When Christ made Simon, "Peter (the Rock from which he would build his church)" and said, "I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven; what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, what you let loose on earth, you let loose in heaven."(Matthew 16:19) he made Peter, and his successors (the succeeding Popes) the guardians of the truth. That is to say, the Popes are infallible in terms of matters pertaining to the Faith.
then...
In 1517 when Martin Luther, in protest, nailed his Ninety-Five Theses detailing the misuse of indulgences and other excesses of the Roman Catholic Church – at that time the only Christian Church – a wave of others such as Calvinists and Presbyterians followed questioning the Church and detaching themselves. According to Luther, Christianity lay in the direct communication of each person to God; not on the elaborate organization of the church headed by the Pope.
your answer was...
I probabl missed your point but I believe the above proves it does matter on perception. Catholicism would still be the only religion if not for Martin Luther's perception or interpretation of the bible.
SORRY ABOUT THE LENGTH PEOPLE
There you go with your marijuana fetish again and tiassa's not even in the room.
Is that why you believe in the bible so wholeheartedly because you got a bad batch and figured satan had a hand in it?
As many atheist have said in the past, break out the hard evidence, other than the bible, and we'll talk. Anyone can quote scriptures, there are many bible CDroms out there. Punch in a few keywords out jump many quotes in reference to what you keyed. They even have a few that break the "bible codes". Not hard but a waste of money in my opinion.
If they did have proof in the bible then why would they even have a such thing as bible codes. Why do they not have actual dates to each event in the bible. Historians that specialize in the bible don't agree on the actual crucifixion of christ as far as the day it happened.
(food for thought...At one time there was one christian church)
When Christ made Simon, "Peter (the Rock from which he would build his church)" and said, "I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven; what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, what you let loose on earth, you let loose in heaven."(Matthew 16:19) he made Peter, and his successors (the succeeding Popes) the guardians of the truth. That is to say, the Popes are infallible in terms of matters pertaining to the Faith.
then...
In 1517 when Martin Luther, in protest, nailed his Ninety-Five Theses detailing the misuse of indulgences and other excesses of the Roman Catholic Church – at that time the only Christian Church – a wave of others such as Calvinists and Presbyterians followed questioning the Church and detaching themselves. According to Luther, Christianity lay in the direct communication of each person to God; not on the elaborate organization of the church headed by the Pope.
your answer was...
I probabl missed your point but I believe the above proves it does matter on perception. Catholicism would still be the only religion if not for Martin Luther's perception or interpretation of the bible.
Devildog, sound...very sound!
Tony1's dislike for facts has manifested multiple times on this thread. If all of my logic came out of one book, just imagine how weak they would be. The strength in other studies in the realms of science and history, lies in numbers. History is only history with multiple accounts. Science is only science through multiple tests. Many stories in the Bible have questionable accuracy, as would only be the case due to the time period of it's writing. Because the major authors did not exist during the life of the main character, this too casts doubt on the story's validity.
I only ask that each person challenge what they are told. Don't just trust it, observe it. Only through verification of what you are told, may you find something that may be called a fact.
Tony1's dislike for facts has manifested multiple times on this thread. If all of my logic came out of one book, just imagine how weak they would be. The strength in other studies in the realms of science and history, lies in numbers. History is only history with multiple accounts. Science is only science through multiple tests. Many stories in the Bible have questionable accuracy, as would only be the case due to the time period of it's writing. Because the major authors did not exist during the life of the main character, this too casts doubt on the story's validity.
I only ask that each person challenge what they are told. Don't just trust it, observe it. Only through verification of what you are told, may you find something that may be called a fact.
If you interpret the scripture the way Catholics do you would be correct. Mormons use the same verse the same way to justify prophets.
What Martin Luther did was show that ALL Christians have those keys. Not any one select authority. Obviously Luther was correct as there is a slew of scriptures showing just how correct he was. There's a lot involved with the issue and once you get the whole picture the Catholic and Mormon church are shown to be liars.
The Catholic church had to keep the Bible away from the common man to be able to hold such doctrine which is also how they stayed as the one church. When Luther came around that all changed. People READ FOR THEMSELVES just how messed up the Catholic church is on this issue.
Of course you wouldn't know that because you have no idea how a false chuch works or how to study the Bible to see what it says.
You also continually assume that anytime there's a split it's an indication that NO PARTIES hold the truth.
That is a rediculous assumption which you must hold to continually push your little crusade against the Bible or whatever. Just because not everyone knows the truth doesn't mean it cannot be known or that it is not known.
Ben
What Martin Luther did was show that ALL Christians have those keys. Not any one select authority. Obviously Luther was correct as there is a slew of scriptures showing just how correct he was. There's a lot involved with the issue and once you get the whole picture the Catholic and Mormon church are shown to be liars.
The Catholic church had to keep the Bible away from the common man to be able to hold such doctrine which is also how they stayed as the one church. When Luther came around that all changed. People READ FOR THEMSELVES just how messed up the Catholic church is on this issue.
Of course you wouldn't know that because you have no idea how a false chuch works or how to study the Bible to see what it says.
You also continually assume that anytime there's a split it's an indication that NO PARTIES hold the truth.
That is a rediculous assumption which you must hold to continually push your little crusade against the Bible or whatever. Just because not everyone knows the truth doesn't mean it cannot be known or that it is not known.
Ben
Devil dog, I'm not sure about your sources but if there was only one church I think it would be called Catholic(means: universal) but would not be Roman Catholic.
From what I've read of church history there were five major bishops each holding equal power. I can't remember all of them but there was the Bishop of Jeruselem, the Bishop of constantinople, the bishop of Rome and two others.
So what that made was four bishops situated in the east. And one bishop in the West(Rome). So what the Bishop of rome did in the 400's or 500's (correct me if I'm wrong) was write to the Bishop of the one in Greece I can't remember the name. The letter to that Bishop stated that the Bishop of Rome wanted him to relinquish full control to him(the Bishop of Rome). The Bishop of the one in Greece declined and became the Greek Orthodox church, and the Bishop of Roman became the Roman Catholic church.
So it was actually the Roman Catholics who started all this nonsense. Luther merely brought what I would say truth which the Roman Catholic church didn't like. I think because they would lose power. From what I've heard/seen the Roman Catholic church is only interested in power not doctrine. They even decided to put Catholic (universal) into there name probably so they could state they have absolute truth and authority. Therefore, Roman Catholics hold they are the universal church.
It is rumored this is why they have the Benedict, Fransiscan and another order. Because the Vatican actually houses secret archives of texts. Therefore, if one person had access to all of them that would mean they would become too powerful. Therefore, certain orders are only allowed to read certain texts.
I hope you found that somewhat interesting.
Thanks
From what I've read of church history there were five major bishops each holding equal power. I can't remember all of them but there was the Bishop of Jeruselem, the Bishop of constantinople, the bishop of Rome and two others.
So what that made was four bishops situated in the east. And one bishop in the West(Rome). So what the Bishop of rome did in the 400's or 500's (correct me if I'm wrong) was write to the Bishop of the one in Greece I can't remember the name. The letter to that Bishop stated that the Bishop of Rome wanted him to relinquish full control to him(the Bishop of Rome). The Bishop of the one in Greece declined and became the Greek Orthodox church, and the Bishop of Roman became the Roman Catholic church.
So it was actually the Roman Catholics who started all this nonsense. Luther merely brought what I would say truth which the Roman Catholic church didn't like. I think because they would lose power. From what I've heard/seen the Roman Catholic church is only interested in power not doctrine. They even decided to put Catholic (universal) into there name probably so they could state they have absolute truth and authority. Therefore, Roman Catholics hold they are the universal church.
It is rumored this is why they have the Benedict, Fransiscan and another order. Because the Vatican actually houses secret archives of texts. Therefore, if one person had access to all of them that would mean they would become too powerful. Therefore, certain orders are only allowed to read certain texts.
I hope you found that somewhat interesting.
Thanks
I thought it was Ignatius
thanx,
Tiassa
In fact, I'm pretty sure it was Ignatius of Antioch who first used the word catholic; I'll have to dig up my source for the exact epistle, but it was in the first or second century, which indicates that the word simply stuck.
thanx,
Tiassa
Okay I'm going to quote something form the Bible, This of course isn't because I read from it, I just happened to find the pieces in revelation's that had me asking a few questions.
Okay from my understanding a modern day equivalent to this is placed in most good books at the start by the publisher, for instance:
or
From what I understand if I thought that there was more for me at the end of my life other than just having my energy slowly disperse as I decay in nothingness, Then I might have sculptured some mythology of some other land that I might transverse too.
Now if I was going to protect what I had written in this world although I had embarked to the mythological next, Then I think I would pretty much state something like:
Namely I'm playing on the fact that people at that period of time are Superstitious, so if I said they would be cursed... then they better darn well know it.
It worked for the egyptians for many years until their tombs were desecrated by robbers.
Also another quote from newer books really gets me thinking that some of the bibilical authors missed something,
Stryderunknown
Okay from my understanding a modern day equivalent to this is placed in most good books at the start by the publisher, for instance:
or
From what I understand if I thought that there was more for me at the end of my life other than just having my energy slowly disperse as I decay in nothingness, Then I might have sculptured some mythology of some other land that I might transverse too.
Now if I was going to protect what I had written in this world although I had embarked to the mythological next, Then I think I would pretty much state something like:
Namely I'm playing on the fact that people at that period of time are Superstitious, so if I said they would be cursed... then they better darn well know it.
It worked for the egyptians for many years until their tombs were desecrated by robbers.
Also another quote from newer books really gets me thinking that some of the bibilical authors missed something,
<HR>
Stryderunknown
I was unaware of that quote. It really puts this book in context. It is a work of mythology similar to The Iliad of Homer and The Odyssey. We define them as such due to their mystical content. Monsters and Demons alike populate their worlds and impossible acts are produced within their plots. How many have the belief that people can come back from the dead? All those that do must have their sanity checked.
There is another train of thought that we cannot read into the events as actual occurences but may glean moral messages from the book. I do not see the connection in certain issues such as the Jesus character's "self-sacrifice" seems to have no connection to anything relevant. Often the stories just show how powerful the Jesus character is or how vindictive the God character can be. Overall it is a banal piece and is also easily dwarfed by the superior literature of pieces from the same time period. Many contradictory elements are present making it a very frustrating read. Thankfully translators saw some of the contradictions such as a second reference to the supposedly dead Goliath character. There are many archaic references to cultures and people long gone. You almost need some seperate guide to reveal what they refer to.
I reiterate there are many superior books that can be more inciteful.
There is another train of thought that we cannot read into the events as actual occurences but may glean moral messages from the book. I do not see the connection in certain issues such as the Jesus character's "self-sacrifice" seems to have no connection to anything relevant. Often the stories just show how powerful the Jesus character is or how vindictive the God character can be. Overall it is a banal piece and is also easily dwarfed by the superior literature of pieces from the same time period. Many contradictory elements are present making it a very frustrating read. Thankfully translators saw some of the contradictions such as a second reference to the supposedly dead Goliath character. There are many archaic references to cultures and people long gone. You almost need some seperate guide to reveal what they refer to.
I reiterate there are many superior books that can be more inciteful.
A classic example of a rant against the Bible based on a faulty interpretation.
What Revelation simply says at the end is
"If God didn't say it, don't say he did, if God did say it, don't say he didn't."
You can find such ideas in the OT as well. One person in the OT was given the burial of an ass for cutting a page out of a document written by a prophet. Revelation promises such people Hell for doing it. Deuteronomy says the same as Revelation.
I have no problem with this. Next time consult at least Google before jumping to conclusions about what the Bible says. Or...I dunno, ASK.
Ben
What Revelation simply says at the end is
"If God didn't say it, don't say he did, if God did say it, don't say he didn't."
You can find such ideas in the OT as well. One person in the OT was given the burial of an ass for cutting a page out of a document written by a prophet. Revelation promises such people Hell for doing it. Deuteronomy says the same as Revelation.
I have no problem with this. Next time consult at least Google before jumping to conclusions about what the Bible says. Or...I dunno, ASK.
Ben
Tiassa, I wouldn't be surprised if the church was called the Catholic Church, but in the first or second century there was no Roman Catholic church. Even though the Bishop in Greece didn't bow down to the Bishop of Rome they still decided they were the universal church and only recognised themselves. Hence you have the Eastern Orthodox church excommunicated. Not sure what the status is right now but it goes back and forth. Its a joke to me.
In the first and second century there were many subcults such as the one that would become the Christian cult. They buried themselves underground in vaults with paintings of sheep and the Jesus character. They had no real organization. It was only after Constantine that they had weight. It was more of a random choice as he had gone through multiple religions. It simply happened that the Christian religion was the one that he chose shortly before his death. There was no devine reason as it was completely random.
Know your history and you shall know yourself!
Know your history and you shall know yourself!
Teg, what are your sources on that. I forget the title of my main source but it went something like this. "A guide to the Anglo Catholic Church: A manual for members of the Anglo Catholic communion"
It was written in 1897(somewhere around there late 1800's) and revised in 1967. This is the main source where I got the historical info.
It was written in 1897(somewhere around there late 1800's) and revised in 1967. This is the main source where I got the historical info.
My source?!?!?
My source is every history book about Rome and the Christian Cults. In particular I found this intriguing information in my Art History book.(along with some photographs of the caverns that held the bodies)
I would guess that if your source rewords the above information it is only to make themselves look better. There were no formal churches in the 1st or 2nd century. There were only informal gatherings. "A guide to the Anglo Catholic Church: A manual for members of the Anglo Catholic communion": the title gives away their motive.
My source is every history book about Rome and the Christian Cults. In particular I found this intriguing information in my Art History book.(along with some photographs of the caverns that held the bodies)
I would guess that if your source rewords the above information it is only to make themselves look better. There were no formal churches in the 1st or 2nd century. There were only informal gatherings. "A guide to the Anglo Catholic Church: A manual for members of the Anglo Catholic communion": the title gives away their motive.
Re: Yes!
*Originally posted by Bebelina
Indeed you have, you infidel!*
Perhaps it is because you forgot to tell us what your message is.
*Originally posted by Teg
Now you are attacking facts?*
Actually, it's the "fickle facts" put forth by LordManimal that I have trouble with.
*Without your knowledge of the harmful sideaffects of using rat poison, I could give you some to eat and you might happily do so.*
You do the same everyday without a second thought.
Just replace the word "rat" with the word "insect" and voila! a major component of your diet.
*After looking at your full statement we can see that your words were taken out of context. *
Whew!
I thought I was a closet toker there for a minute.
*Besides some small ritual changes, the general atmosphere, and a forgiving ritual, they are one in the same. They use the same book and have a common background. The only real difference is that historic breaking by Henry VIII. He was upset about being unable to divorce and so he made his own religion. We can only compare the two religions to other world religion and will find that there are no two as similar as these. They have the same history prior to Henry VIII and follow the same basic structure. *
Shows how little you can find out in the history books.
Henry VIII isn't anywhere near the central figure in Christianity, otherwise it would be called Henryanity.
Roman Catholicism is called that because it is centered on Rome.
Christianity is called that because it is centered on Christ.
*I have seen two amateurs do it without the aid of a sheep dog. They rounded up 700+. Sheep are worse than cows when it comes to the ability to follow blindly.*
Well, you've got me at a loss.
Few people willingly prove my points for me that effectively.
I said "one" man couldn't do it by himself.
You proved it by saying you saw "two" do it. Thanks.
I said sheep don't follow blindly.
Lo and behold, you say sheep are worse than cows when it comes to that.
I just can't argue with such brilliant points, even though they were mine.
*Originally posted by DEVILDOG
There you go with your marijuana fetish again and tiassa's not even in the room. *
Sorry, I thought he was.
*When Christ made Simon, "Peter (the Rock from which he would build his church)" and said, "I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven; what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, what you let loose on earth, you let loose in heaven."(Matthew 16:19) he made Peter, and his successors (the succeeding Popes) the guardians of the truth. That is to say, the Popes are infallible in terms of matters pertaining to the Faith. *
Sounds very theological.
However, Peter wasn't the rock Jesus was building his church on.
He is building it on the statement, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."
As for the keys, anyone confessing the same gets them, too.
It just happens that in Matt. 16:19, Peter was the only one to say so.
*at that time the only Christian Church*
At that time there were a bunch of Christian groups (Albigenses, Waldenses, Anabaptists, etc.) around, and the Catholic church wasn't one of them.
*Catholicism would still be the only religion if not for Martin Luther's perception or interpretation of the bible.*
Truth still doesn't depend on perception.
Perception is simply recognition of what is already there; it doesn't create anything that isn't there.
*Originally posted by Teg
The strength in other studies in the realms of science and history, lies in numbers.*
Which mean nothing.
...for there is no restraint to the LORD to save by many or by few.
(1 Samuel 14:6, KJV).
*Originally posted by Stryderunknown
18:I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book. If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19:And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described book.*
Good quote.
It means that you will get your nothingness.
Earlier verses say that you will turn to smoke and ashes on the way there, though.
*Originally posted by Teg
I reiterate there are many superior books that can be more inciteful.*
Unfortunately, we have only your word that they are superior.
I'm not willing to bet my life that you're right.
I am, however, willing to bet my life that you are wrong.
*Originally posted by Deadwood
Even though the Bishop in Greece didn't bow down to the Bishop of Rome they still decided they were the universal church and only recognised themselves.
LMAO.
Obviously, those two don't understand what "universal" means.
*Originally posted by Teg
It was only after Constantine that they had weight.*
"they" being the Eastern Orthodox "catholic" church.
*Anglo Catholic*
More jokes.
They have obviously lost sight of what "catholic" means.
*Originally posted by Bebelina
Is he from NY?*
No.
I just can't spend as much time in front of the computer as some of you guys can.
But, thanks for asking.
*Originally posted by Bebelina
Indeed you have, you infidel!*
Perhaps it is because you forgot to tell us what your message is.
*Originally posted by Teg
Now you are attacking facts?*
Actually, it's the "fickle facts" put forth by LordManimal that I have trouble with.
*Without your knowledge of the harmful sideaffects of using rat poison, I could give you some to eat and you might happily do so.*
You do the same everyday without a second thought.
Just replace the word "rat" with the word "insect" and voila! a major component of your diet.
*After looking at your full statement we can see that your words were taken out of context. *
Whew!
I thought I was a closet toker there for a minute.
*Besides some small ritual changes, the general atmosphere, and a forgiving ritual, they are one in the same. They use the same book and have a common background. The only real difference is that historic breaking by Henry VIII. He was upset about being unable to divorce and so he made his own religion. We can only compare the two religions to other world religion and will find that there are no two as similar as these. They have the same history prior to Henry VIII and follow the same basic structure. *
Shows how little you can find out in the history books.
Henry VIII isn't anywhere near the central figure in Christianity, otherwise it would be called Henryanity.
Roman Catholicism is called that because it is centered on Rome.
Christianity is called that because it is centered on Christ.
*I have seen two amateurs do it without the aid of a sheep dog. They rounded up 700+. Sheep are worse than cows when it comes to the ability to follow blindly.*
Well, you've got me at a loss.
Few people willingly prove my points for me that effectively.
I said "one" man couldn't do it by himself.
You proved it by saying you saw "two" do it. Thanks.
I said sheep don't follow blindly.
Lo and behold, you say sheep are worse than cows when it comes to that.
I just can't argue with such brilliant points, even though they were mine.
*Originally posted by DEVILDOG
There you go with your marijuana fetish again and tiassa's not even in the room. *
Sorry, I thought he was.
*When Christ made Simon, "Peter (the Rock from which he would build his church)" and said, "I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven; what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, what you let loose on earth, you let loose in heaven."(Matthew 16:19) he made Peter, and his successors (the succeeding Popes) the guardians of the truth. That is to say, the Popes are infallible in terms of matters pertaining to the Faith. *
Sounds very theological.
However, Peter wasn't the rock Jesus was building his church on.
He is building it on the statement, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."
As for the keys, anyone confessing the same gets them, too.
It just happens that in Matt. 16:19, Peter was the only one to say so.
*at that time the only Christian Church*
At that time there were a bunch of Christian groups (Albigenses, Waldenses, Anabaptists, etc.) around, and the Catholic church wasn't one of them.
*Catholicism would still be the only religion if not for Martin Luther's perception or interpretation of the bible.*
Truth still doesn't depend on perception.
Perception is simply recognition of what is already there; it doesn't create anything that isn't there.
*Originally posted by Teg
The strength in other studies in the realms of science and history, lies in numbers.*
Which mean nothing.
...for there is no restraint to the LORD to save by many or by few.
(1 Samuel 14:6, KJV).
*Originally posted by Stryderunknown
18:I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book. If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19:And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described book.*
Good quote.
It means that you will get your nothingness.
Earlier verses say that you will turn to smoke and ashes on the way there, though.
*Originally posted by Teg
I reiterate there are many superior books that can be more inciteful.*
Unfortunately, we have only your word that they are superior.
I'm not willing to bet my life that you're right.
I am, however, willing to bet my life that you are wrong.
*Originally posted by Deadwood
Even though the Bishop in Greece didn't bow down to the Bishop of Rome they still decided they were the universal church and only recognised themselves.
LMAO.
Obviously, those two don't understand what "universal" means.
*Originally posted by Teg
It was only after Constantine that they had weight.*
"they" being the Eastern Orthodox "catholic" church.
*Anglo Catholic*
More jokes.
They have obviously lost sight of what "catholic" means.
*Originally posted by Bebelina
Is he from NY?*
No.
I just can't spend as much time in front of the computer as some of you guys can.
But, thanks for asking.
*Originally posted by Tony1
You do the same everyday without a second thought. Just replace the word[poison] "rat" with the word "insect" and voila! a major component of your diet.*
You forget that those poisons prevent the en masse starvation that would occur due to a lack of plentiful fruits and vegetables. Not everyone can afford environmentaly safe food. While we are on the subject engineering is fine in my book.
The strength in other studies in the realms of science and history, lies in numbers.
*Which mean nothing.*
So are you saying that you be just as inclined to believe a statement from 4 people as a statement echoed by 4 million?
Numbers are everything! Without them you would be running around naked with a spear in your hand.
*I have seen two amateurs do it without the aid of a sheep dog. They rounded up 700+. Sheep are worse than cows when it comes to the ability to follow blindly.*
*Well, you've got me at a loss. Few people willingly prove my points for me that effectively. I said "one" man couldn't do it by himself. You proved it by saying you saw "two" do it. Thanks. I said sheep don't follow blindly. Lo and behold, you say sheep are worse than cows when it comes to that.*
You like to take small distinctions and extrapolate fodder. How is it that 2 should be a big difference than one. I was simply making the point that I have never seen a sheep resist the herding.
*Shows how little you can find out in the history books. Henry VIII isn't anywhere near the central figure in Christianity, otherwise it would be called Henryanity. Roman Catholicism is called that because it is centered on Rome. Christianity is called that because it is centered on Christ.*
This is too laughable! The history of religion by Tony1! Some guys made the Roman Catholic Church and some other dudes created a Christian Church. The one was called Roman Catholic because it was in Rome (a ring of truth) and the other Christian (Catholicism is defined as a Christian religion). I was referring to the break by Henry VIII. If you remember your history, it was a split that resulted in the Protestant religion. This quickly became the national religion of England. Thus it was called the Church of England. Puritans were just an offshoot. Due to this fact all religions in America that are based on the bible(barring the Catholic religion) are all offshoots of Henry's Church.
The superior books can be anything from the collected works of Darwin to Frank Herbert's Dune. Both have a better take on the meaning of life.
You do the same everyday without a second thought. Just replace the word[poison] "rat" with the word "insect" and voila! a major component of your diet.*
You forget that those poisons prevent the en masse starvation that would occur due to a lack of plentiful fruits and vegetables. Not everyone can afford environmentaly safe food. While we are on the subject engineering is fine in my book.
The strength in other studies in the realms of science and history, lies in numbers.
*Which mean nothing.*
So are you saying that you be just as inclined to believe a statement from 4 people as a statement echoed by 4 million?
Numbers are everything! Without them you would be running around naked with a spear in your hand.
*I have seen two amateurs do it without the aid of a sheep dog. They rounded up 700+. Sheep are worse than cows when it comes to the ability to follow blindly.*
*Well, you've got me at a loss. Few people willingly prove my points for me that effectively. I said "one" man couldn't do it by himself. You proved it by saying you saw "two" do it. Thanks. I said sheep don't follow blindly. Lo and behold, you say sheep are worse than cows when it comes to that.*
You like to take small distinctions and extrapolate fodder. How is it that 2 should be a big difference than one. I was simply making the point that I have never seen a sheep resist the herding.
*Shows how little you can find out in the history books. Henry VIII isn't anywhere near the central figure in Christianity, otherwise it would be called Henryanity. Roman Catholicism is called that because it is centered on Rome. Christianity is called that because it is centered on Christ.*
This is too laughable! The history of religion by Tony1! Some guys made the Roman Catholic Church and some other dudes created a Christian Church. The one was called Roman Catholic because it was in Rome (a ring of truth) and the other Christian (Catholicism is defined as a Christian religion). I was referring to the break by Henry VIII. If you remember your history, it was a split that resulted in the Protestant religion. This quickly became the national religion of England. Thus it was called the Church of England. Puritans were just an offshoot. Due to this fact all religions in America that are based on the bible(barring the Catholic religion) are all offshoots of Henry's Church.
The superior books can be anything from the collected works of Darwin to Frank Herbert's Dune. Both have a better take on the meaning of life.
*Originally posted by Bebelina
My life is my message, but I will try to write it all down in a book, for you who don´t have the possibility to become close disciples.*
Scary thought. You have disciples?
If your life is your message then your message is that you imagine that you are from another galaxy, you have pinkeye and you lack the ability to take a good long look at yourself.
*So do not despair Tony, the rescue is coming.*
Relax.
I've already been saved from believing stuff that you believe.
*Originally posted by Teg
Not everyone can afford environmentaly safe food.*
You're right.
Those who can't afford it are often called "sick" or "dead."
*So are you saying that you be just as inclined to believe a statement from 4 people as a statement echoed by 4 million?*
I would be more inclined to listen to the truth from two people than to lies from billions of people.
*You like to take small distinctions and extrapolate fodder.*
Actually, I don't like that at all.
You're the one generating the fodder.
No extrapolation is required.
*How is it that 2 should be a big difference than one.*
It is twice as many.
*Catholicism is defined as a Christian religion*
Only by Catholics and other non-Christians.
*I was referring to the break by Henry VIII. If you remember your history, it was a split that resulted in the Protestant religion.*
Man, are you ever confused.
Have you ever heard of Martin Luther?
*Due to this fact all religions in America that are based on the bible(barring the Catholic religion) are all offshoots of Henry's Church.*
Actually, only Episcopalianism is.
*The superior books can be anything from the collected works of Darwin to Frank Herbert's Dune. Both have a better take on the meaning of life. *
"Superior" means "better," not "worse."
And, "better" is the comparative of "good," not "bad."
I don't remember Darwin even discussing the meaning of life.
He couldn't have, since he obviously didn't know what life is.
My life is my message, but I will try to write it all down in a book, for you who don´t have the possibility to become close disciples.*
Scary thought. You have disciples?
If your life is your message then your message is that you imagine that you are from another galaxy, you have pinkeye and you lack the ability to take a good long look at yourself.
*So do not despair Tony, the rescue is coming.*
Relax.
I've already been saved from believing stuff that you believe.
*Originally posted by Teg
Not everyone can afford environmentaly safe food.*
You're right.
Those who can't afford it are often called "sick" or "dead."
*So are you saying that you be just as inclined to believe a statement from 4 people as a statement echoed by 4 million?*
I would be more inclined to listen to the truth from two people than to lies from billions of people.
*You like to take small distinctions and extrapolate fodder.*
Actually, I don't like that at all.
You're the one generating the fodder.
No extrapolation is required.
*How is it that 2 should be a big difference than one.*
It is twice as many.
*Catholicism is defined as a Christian religion*
Only by Catholics and other non-Christians.
*I was referring to the break by Henry VIII. If you remember your history, it was a split that resulted in the Protestant religion.*
Man, are you ever confused.
Have you ever heard of Martin Luther?
*Due to this fact all religions in America that are based on the bible(barring the Catholic religion) are all offshoots of Henry's Church.*
Actually, only Episcopalianism is.
*The superior books can be anything from the collected works of Darwin to Frank Herbert's Dune. Both have a better take on the meaning of life. *
"Superior" means "better," not "worse."
And, "better" is the comparative of "good," not "bad."
I don't remember Darwin even discussing the meaning of life.
He couldn't have, since he obviously didn't know what life is.
blonde_cupid
Registered Senior Member
Cris,
***If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.***
O.K.
***Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined.***
The choice "we" make is known by God* in advance. O.K.
***This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient.***
O.K.
***Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.***
Not O.K. What God* knows in advance is "our choice" - not God's* choice. It's not much different from knowing "our choice" after the fact.
For example, let's assume that you gave your daughter a choice of cereal or eggs this morning and you "saw" that "she" chose eggs. I hope you would agree that your "seeing" your daughter choose eggs was not coersion on your part and that she chose according to her will, not yours, even though you were able to observe what she chose. Now, let's assume that yesterday, you were somehow able to "see" what "she" was going to choose for breakfast today. Your advance knowledge would not change the fact that your daughter chose eggs. Eggs would still be "her" choice for breakfast even if you knew in advance what she would choose. Your advance knowledge did not coerce her into choosing eggs and she did not act according to your will. She was presented with two options and made her own choice, according to her will, even though you knew what her choice would be in advance.
Human free-will and the omniscience of God* can exist harmoneously. They are not mutually exclusive.
On the other hand... If, because you knew yesterday that your daughter would choose eggs for breakfast today, you decided to take away her choice and just put eggs in front of her for breakfast, then you would have effectively taken her choice away, coerced her into eating eggs and forced her to act according to your will, not hers.
I hope you can see the difference.
***If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.***
O.K.
***Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined.***
The choice "we" make is known by God* in advance. O.K.
***This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient.***
O.K.
***Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.***
Not O.K. What God* knows in advance is "our choice" - not God's* choice. It's not much different from knowing "our choice" after the fact.
For example, let's assume that you gave your daughter a choice of cereal or eggs this morning and you "saw" that "she" chose eggs. I hope you would agree that your "seeing" your daughter choose eggs was not coersion on your part and that she chose according to her will, not yours, even though you were able to observe what she chose. Now, let's assume that yesterday, you were somehow able to "see" what "she" was going to choose for breakfast today. Your advance knowledge would not change the fact that your daughter chose eggs. Eggs would still be "her" choice for breakfast even if you knew in advance what she would choose. Your advance knowledge did not coerce her into choosing eggs and she did not act according to your will. She was presented with two options and made her own choice, according to her will, even though you knew what her choice would be in advance.
Human free-will and the omniscience of God* can exist harmoneously. They are not mutually exclusive.
On the other hand... If, because you knew yesterday that your daughter would choose eggs for breakfast today, you decided to take away her choice and just put eggs in front of her for breakfast, then you would have effectively taken her choice away, coerced her into eating eggs and forced her to act according to your will, not hers.
I hope you can see the difference.
blonde_cupid
If there was even a slight variation, i.e. someone made a different choice compared to the one he planned, then he would not be omniscient.
The best example I can give is a computer program. A program is just a list of instructions, many of which are decisions. A program operates on data and the decisions made by the program will be different depending on the nature of the data.
If I both wrote the program and provided all the data (I am the creator), then I can predict with 100% accuracy (omniscience) every decision the program will make. The program has no free will in the matter because I created the data as well as the program.
In exactly the same way if a creator god is responsible for all of creation and is omniscient then the choices of all humans are entirely predictable because he designed it that way. The humans have no choice, and free will is an illusion.
Cris
It is very different because you are not the creator of the universe. An omniscient creator creates the conditions where every action would take place and through his omniscience at the beginning of time could see that every detail occurs exactly according to plan.
If there was even a slight variation, i.e. someone made a different choice compared to the one he planned, then he would not be omniscient.
The same reasoning applies. I was not responsible for all the conditions that led to the perceived choice. There could be no free choice when all the conditions that led to the action were known beforehand and started by an omniscient creator.
The best example I can give is a computer program. A program is just a list of instructions, many of which are decisions. A program operates on data and the decisions made by the program will be different depending on the nature of the data.
If I both wrote the program and provided all the data (I am the creator), then I can predict with 100% accuracy (omniscience) every decision the program will make. The program has no free will in the matter because I created the data as well as the program.
In exactly the same way if a creator god is responsible for all of creation and is omniscient then the choices of all humans are entirely predictable because he designed it that way. The humans have no choice, and free will is an illusion.
Cris