First Prev
of 8
Next Last
Idi O Syncrasy

Farmington, CA

#150 Feb 9, 2011
Mr Ironhart wrote:
<quoted text>
You said; Everything had to start from something.
This question along with;
There must be a purpose.
And;
There must be a creator.
It deadlocks everything; why must it be any of these?
"Why must it be any of these?"
The answer to that is easy, IF one thinks about it without preconceived prejudice.
The only reason those concepts would cause 'deadlock' would be stubborn resistance to knowledge.

The Bible opens with "In the beginning..." and science is getting closer to defining that 'beginning' all the time.
Astronomy and physics has provided so much near irrefutable evidence that there was indeed 'a beginning' that it could fairly be called, fact.

Now this beginning could only come about in one of two ways.
Random chance or intentional creation.

Given the order of all things about us, both on our Earth and throughout the Universe, the evidence leads away from random chance as a possibility.

Looking way back through the prism of physics to the point in time just as the big bang happened, matter and anti-matter were separated and anti-matter was reduced to a near non-entity and order prevailed out of chaos.
I fact, it still remains a near impossibility to replicate anti-matter under the best of conditions and even then it lasts only a moment.

So there again, the evidence points away from random chance.

Now if one compares the genetic make up of all the varying life on this planet, there is just enough shared similarity to allow for the exchange of food source and compatibility of neighborly existence.
Additionally, the ongoing dance of planets with one another leads to waltzing without stumbling or stepping on toes.
The Universe is not only complimentary, but also gracefully smooth.
Especially given how a small shift in equilibrium of any member could be catastrophic.

Here again, the presence of order and compatibility stands as a witness against random chance.

I could go on, but you must get the idea by now of what I'm trying to convey.

This demonstration concludes then that the evidence for random chance being responsible for the inception of the Universe, and by extension..us, is severely lacking.
To the point of myth status.

Concluding our search via positive deduction then, there was a creator responsible for creating all, with intent.
And since there is intent in creation, then there is indeed purpose.

Easy, that.
Elementary my dear Ironhart. Elementary.
Mr Ironhart wrote:
Think about this;
The world that we know is in motion or momentum, always someting moving along in some form and direction.
Immagine that everything came to a total rest, time and all; then what is left?
Rather unimaginable to me.
Sure would put a fly in the ointment, wouldn't it?
Nothing left to worry about at any rate if that did happen.
Mr Ironhart wrote:
All the great minds have been puzzled by this question; Hawkins, Einstein and others, and they have some ideas far more sopisticated than anything given by the Bible.
Scientists are still continuusly diging deeper into it.
But the authors of the Bibel just jumped to some conclutions based on ancient folklore and tales.
Those who transcribed the first eleven chapters of Genesis from the old collective of campfire folk tales never intended to write a science documentary about the beginning of the Universe. They were merely illustrating fact about the power of God in a manner understandable to the Israelites.

Now on the other hand, those renouned scientists you've listed, along with many others, all had the distinct advantage of employing eons of mankind's mental and technical evolution to put to work in their singular purpose of scientific research. Though none of them ever attempted to record history or teach morality as the Bible writers did.
Idi O Syncrasy

Farmington, CA

#151 Feb 9, 2011
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I see, you don't know the difference between an individual and making a sweeping generalization of a group. That's not terribly bright, is it?
It's certainly not terribly bright, but that's the modus operandi of you and your ilk.
Always lumping all Christians together in blanket statements is the typical common denominator amongst your group.

I thought that must be the rules of the game, responding in kind.
After all, that was the inference of your question to me.
Hypocrite much?
Carrot_Stick

United States

#152 Feb 9, 2011
Idi O Syncrasy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's certainly not terribly bright, but that's the modus operandi of you and your ilk.
Always lumping all Christians together in blanket statements is the typical common denominator amongst your group.
Heh.

The fool says in his heart,ďThere is no God.Ē
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,
there is none who does good.

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness?

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#153 Feb 9, 2011
Idi O Syncrasy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's certainly not terribly bright, but that's the modus operandi of you and your ilk.
Always lumping all Christians together in blanket statements is the typical common denominator amongst your group.
I thought that must be the rules of the game, responding in kind.
After all, that was the inference of your question to me.
Hypocrite much?
Coming from the hypocrite who asserts that there is a "modus operandi of you and your ilk," your post is worthless.

And speaking of blanket statements, this is a blanket statement: "Always lumping all Christians together in blanket statements is the typical common denominator amongst your group."

ALWAYS lumping ALL Christians together? Really, you don't say...

In reality, atheists for the most part (not "always") distinguish between types of Christians: they range in belief between liberal Christians and conservative Christians.

Liberal Christians tend to (notice I didn't write "always") take the Bible less literally, while conservative Christians tend to favor a more literal interpretation of Scripture.

The quarrel most of us atheists have (again, "most", not "all") with the Christians who take the Bible literally most (not "all") of the time is that the modern sciences disprove many of the alleged historical events related in Scripture.

When presented with this conflicting data, the conservative-leaning Christians (aw, screw it - we all know I mean "fundies") do either of two things:

1. They trot out "their" scientists, most of whom begin with the premise that a literal interpretation of Scripture is more important than scientific discovery; or

2. They cry out, "God can do whatever he wants. He can make the sun stand still in the sky if he wants to, he can make plants grow without sunlight if he wants to, and he can impregnate his own mother and be his own father AND his own son if he wants to. That's why he is GOD."

Our fight is with the fundies. Unfortunately, non-fundie Christians end up being, to coin something George W. Bush (himself a fundie) said, "collateral damage."

If and when Catholics decide to impose Catholicism in our public classrooms, then we'll start kicking Catholic a$$.

If and when Jehovah's Witnesses decide to impose JW-ism in our public classrooms, then we'll start kicking JW a$$.

And if and when Christadelphians (are there even any left?- lol) decide to impose Christadelphianism in our public classrooms, then we'll start kicking Christadelphian a$$.

But for now, since it's the fundies who want to transform America into AMENica, those are the ones we're after.

So please do your best to stay out of our way.

Otherwise, don't whine when you find yourself under our bus.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#154 Feb 9, 2011
Idi O Syncrasy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's certainly not terribly bright, but that's the modus operandi of you and your ilk.
Except that it is what YOU were doing, dolt.
Always lumping all Christians together in blanket statements is the typical common denominator amongst your group.
I do?
I thought that must be the rules of the game, responding in kind.
After all, that was the inference of your question to me.
Hypocrite much?
So you allow other people to determine your behavior? That's also not very bright, is it? Notice a pattern? I do.
Obinna

Europe

#155 Jan 19, 2013
For me that same Inspiration that people that wrote the bible had , tells me that our lord Jesus wrote some gospels known as the "THE TRUTH", for He knew a day like this will come when people will begin to ask questions, besides He told us that all He has come to do was to tell the "THE TRUTH" which probably means "THE GOOD NEWS", which He asked his people to spread to the whole world, but I strongly believe that someone is sitting on it, but one day the whole world shall eventually know the truth that will set us all free.
Suzy Q

San Diego, CA

#156 Jan 20, 2013
Mr Ironhart wrote:
In Christianity the number one most important person is Jesus.
After his death so many have written about his life and teachings, and from that we can also read that he himself was fully capable of reading and writing.
One well known episode is mentioned in John 8:6-8.
But why did he write only the words in the sand?
Being such an important person and fully capable of writing, and having such an important message to the world; why did he not leave anything written by his own hand?
Is there something hidden somewhere?
The stories that Christians trust are written 50 or more years after the death of Jesus, and we all know how fragile the memories of humans are.
Jesus didn't write his words down because he said, "some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."..The fact it didn't happen speaks for itself..If he knew he wouldn't be returning for a few thousand years he would have written them down himself.

Matthew 16:28 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#157 Jan 22, 2013
People who don't exist don't leave written documents behind.

“theholychristian church.com”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#158 Jan 24, 2013
Mr Ironhart wrote:
In Christianity the number one most important person is Jesus.
After his death so many have written about his life and teachings, and from that we can also read that he himself was fully capable of reading and writing.
One well known episode is mentioned in John 8:6-8.
But why did he write only the words in the sand?
Being such an important person and fully capable of writing, and having such an important message to the world; why did he not leave anything written by his own hand?
Is there something hidden somewhere?
The stories that Christians trust are written 50 or more years after the death of Jesus, and we all know how fragile the memories of humans are.
The memory of the Apostles were not at all fragile at the time: because Jesus sent the Holy Ghost to bring everything he has said and all that has happened during their time with his, to the Apostle's remembrance.

So, no deed to write his own Gospel, for it is very clear and not to be mis-interpreted. of course the Gospel is deliberately mis-interpreted to fool people, and also by lukewarm readers not reading the whole Gospel but snippets.

JOH 14: 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name,
he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
http://www.theholychristianchurch.com/cgi-bin...

----------

- The Gospel is not the way you like to see it: it is the way it is.
- Jesus taught those who follow him only to Preach what he taught them - for they can never Teach you.

Calling The Unbeliever, Confronting The Lukewarm, Exposing The Hypocrite
Do Not Follow Men, Nor Churches! Come to Christ, says God!
http://www.theholychristianchurch.com/christi...
http://www.theholychristianchurch.com/baptism...

- Murder: the unauthorized (by God) killing of a creature
- Killing: the authorized (by God) putting to death of a creature
- Judging: In Christianity, the prohibited 'judging' is to execute a penalty upon another as retribution for their sins.
- CO1 5: 12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#159 Jan 24, 2013
Cliff09 wrote:
<quoted text>
The memory of the Apostles were not at all fragile at the time: because Jesus sent the Holy Ghost to bring everything he has said and all that has happened during their time with his, to the Apostle's remembrance.
So, no deed to write his own Gospel, for it is very clear and not to be mis-interpreted. of course the Gospel is deliberately mis-interpreted to fool people, and also by lukewarm readers not reading the whole Gospel but snippets.
JOH 14: 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name,
he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
http://www.theholychristianchurch.com/cgi-bin...
----------
- The Gospel is not the way you like to see it: it is the way it is.
- Jesus taught those who follow him only to Preach what he taught them - for they can never Teach you.
Calling The Unbeliever, Confronting The Lukewarm, Exposing The Hypocrite
Do Not Follow Men, Nor Churches! Come to Christ, says God!
http://www.theholychristianchurch.com/christi...
http://www.theholychristianchurch.com/baptism...
- Murder: the unauthorized (by God) killing of a creature
- Killing: the authorized (by God) putting to death of a creature
- Judging: In Christianity, the prohibited 'judging' is to execute a penalty upon another as retribution for their sins.
- CO1 5: 12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
Among the scriptures I find the Gospel of Thomas being the most genuinely honest, it tells about someone who has a new way of seeing religion, different from the mainstream at that time.
But this person is more human, more a reform teacher.
This Gospel is left out of the NT and to my opinion for good reason.

“theholychristian church.com”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#160 Jan 24, 2013
Mr Ironhart wrote:
<quoted text>
Among the scriptures I find the Gospel of Thomas being the most genuinely honest, it tells about someone who has a new way of seeing religion, different from the mainstream at that time.
But this person is more human, more a reform teacher.
This Gospel is left out of the NT and to my opinion for good reason.
Yes, but in the end it tells the same story, giving the same message. And that just proofs that the
book s accurate and not open to individual interpretation, producing accommodating gospels of
people's own making etc.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#161 Jan 24, 2013
Cliff09 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but in the end it tells the same story, giving the same message. And that just proofs that the
book s accurate and not open to individual interpretation, producing accommodating gospels of
people's own making etc.
No, it just gives evidence that those who had control of the various documents made sure they agreed with each other as they argued over what to include in the canon. And even at that they did a pretty lousy job, considering all the inconsistencies and direct conflicts.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#162 Jan 24, 2013
The most obvious reason that Jesus never himself left any writings is that he didn't exist. Otherwise it would be a pretty obvious thing for him to write his own words himself.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#163 Feb 8, 2013
He did. Its called the New Testament. The word Gospel means good news. That "Good News" was that Jesus paid the price on the cross for our sins. This is the Gospel, or good news, that the apostles were spreading as they traveled from place to place building the Christian Churches and many heard the Gospel and were converted.

gos∑pel
/&#712;gšsp&#601;l/Nou n
1.The teaching or revelation of Christ.
2.A thing that is absolutely true.


Gospel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/GospelCache... -
The word gospel derives from the Old English g&#333;d-spell (rarely godspel), meaning "good news" or "glad tidings". It is a calque (word-for-word translation) of the ...

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#164 Feb 9, 2013
Mr Ironhart wrote:
Why didnít Jesus write his own gospel?
How do you know anything about Jesus? The Bible maybe?

“theholychristian church.com”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#165 Feb 9, 2013
Mr Ironhart wrote:
<quoted text>
Among the scriptures I find the Gospel of Thomas being the most genuinely honest, it tells about someone who has a new way of seeing religion, different from the mainstream at that time.
But this person is more human, more a reform teacher.
This Gospel is left out of the NT and to my opinion for good reason.
In which way is Thomas' Gospel different from that of Matthew and the others? I can't recall antything specific, but I remember his account on the happening to be a very moving account.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#166 Feb 9, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know anything about Jesus? The Bible maybe?
?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 8
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Before The Big Bang 5 min Khatru 1,214
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 52 min Cookie_Parker 19,706
The Heathen's Home Page (Jun '13) 1 hr Justice League 4,482
Is Paul a false Apostle? (Sep '13) 2 hr Barnsweb 2,345
Free Will 2 hr Seentheotherside 25
36 foot giant human skeleton prooves the bible ... (Nov '11) 3 hr Seentheotherside 47
For Atheist, Agnostics, Whoever... 3 hr Seentheotherside 472
Christians encouraged to 'sow seeds of a new po... 4 hr susanblange 45
God's Love Vs God's Wrath 6 hr dollarsbill 177
More from around the web