Why Should Jesus Love Me?

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#565874 Aug 1, 2013
lil whispers wrote:
"READ MY LIPS" "There is no such thing as a ATEISTS" PERIOD.
You got that right.
That isn't even a word.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#565875 Aug 1, 2013
JuicyLullz wrote:
<quoted text>True. An honest coherent post. Well done!
You caught it too, eh?
:P

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#565876 Aug 1, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
Where do you believe the matter that forms planets and other objects came from? Do you feel it always existed, was created, or some other explanation?
Why don't you skip the bullshit and cut to the chase: you believe that Jesus made it all, and you think that the inability to answer that question somehow suggests that Jesus did it. Your argument will be that if we don't know, why not a god, and if a god, why not Jesus?

Most of us are agnostic atheists, and already admit that the possibility of a god, however unlikely and however unnecessary cannot be ruled out logically or empirically. So why reinvent the wheel. Start from there and try to turn the "not impossible" position of skepticism on gods into Jesus is Lord.

Here is the commonest position of unbelievers:

[1] Gods are logically possible only in the sense that they cannot be definitively declared impossible.

[2] The not-yet-shown-to-be-impossible is not interesting compared to the actual.

[3] Not knowing the origins of the universe or the origin of life on earth is not an argument for any god.

[4] And no argument for a god is also an argument that Jesus is that god.

Now how do you propose to go down that very, very long logical path from not impossible and not explained to Jesus is Lord, which is very likely the only destination of interest to you? I suspect that even if you could go 9/10ths of the way down that road by showing the world that there must be a god, and that it is one known to man, that you would argue just as energetically with the Muslims you met there against the possibility that Allah is that god as you do with us skeptics way back at the beginning. You likely don't care about proving that a god exists, just that Jesus is Lord.

So how about starting there? How about if I stipulate for the sake of argument that there is a god or race of creator gods, and you go the last mile from there to Jesus is Lord?

Because I can rule Jesus out.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#565877 Aug 1, 2013
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>Tonic with that, sir?
No, I never!
My Shirley Temple and Gin is enough!
I dislike tonic water or any carbonated water...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#565878 Aug 1, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
Your whole premise is a plaintive desire for someone to agree with your statement: "It could have happened couldn't it?"
I just did.

But it won't be enough for him to stop arguing that point. Because that really is the whole argument in a nutshell: if you can't rule the possibility of a god, his choice to attribute it all to Jesus is as sound as any other position. He keeps his argument alive by arguing the part that can't be disputed, and to my knowledge, isn't being disputed.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#565879 Aug 1, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
Where do you believe the matter that forms planets and other objects came from? Do you feel it always existed, was created, or some other explanation?
Jesus? Did it come from Jesus?

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#565880 Aug 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Naw, I like this one better.
Rednecks live in the Southeastern United States. While they do not comprise the entire population in this region they do make up the vast majority of the people here.
Typically, rednecks live in rural settings. They avoid urban settings. They are proud of their pick-up trucks or older cars and stick with them despite rising gas prices.
They typically work industrial or manual labor jobs. The majority do not have anything beyond a high school education. They depend on the "Good 'Ol Boy" system of advancement. They are extremely weary of those who do possess the desire to act educated -- these people are perceived as sell-outs.
You can often see rednecks hauling lawn equipment or hunting (dog) equipment even if they do not plan on using these items in the near future. It is a proud symbol of their social class.
Rednecks often are seen about in hunting attire even though they do not plan to hunt anything. Dressing up comprises of dockers and a tucked in polo shirt. Baseball hats on men are a must regardless of the occasion or whether indoors or not.
Most rednecks do not live in mobile homes anymore. Most have modest homes. Typically they decorate in Native American or hunting themes. Most devote much more money into their vehicles then their homes.
Rednecks speak with a Southern accent and avoid using big words. They may know big words but it is not socially acceptable to use them. People who do are identified as outsiders.
I'm sure you do.

Funny, that.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#565881 Aug 1, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Nailed it!
Jesus walks into a motel room. He pulls out a few nails and drops them on the reception desk.

"Can u put me up for the night?"

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#565882 Aug 1, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
And I have just as much proof for my belief in God as you do for abiogenesis or the Big Bang so not sure how how you can still claim to be on higher intellectual ground
Your god hypothesis supported only by your fervent desire to believe and the inability of others to explain origins yet is much, much weaker than the claims of abiogenesis, which in turn are weaker yet than the Big Bang theory.
Skombolis wrote:
If anything, you have nothing where life was formed from non-life.
That's incorrect. An inchoate theory is much more than nothing.
Skombolis wrote:
I have every living thing in the world that shows it does.
Life is only evidence that life can and does exist, not that gods exist, nor that Jesus is exists.
Skombolis wrote:
I believe God started the ball rolling with life. I don't know exactly how it was done nor care.
Then why do you keep asking?
Skombolis wrote:
That is why these distractions and side-issues are of no relevance to me.
Yet you persist in perpetuating them. Nobody is asking you these questions. It is you and you alone doing that.
Skombolis wrote:
But surely someone purporting the Big Bang to be the actual cause has at least considered where the matter came from right? I mean, that's pretty important to the theory.
The theory explains where matter comes from, but it's not important to the theory that it does.

But here you go: Subatomic matter and antimatter (quarks and leptons) condensed asymmetrically from the primeval fireball leaving a slight excess of the former. The quarks condensed to form nucleons (neutrons and protons), which later condensed to form atomic nuclei (nucleogenesis). With the leptons, these electron-free atomic nuclei formed plasma, which is opaque.

The universe cooled further, and the nuclei and leptons (electrons and neutrinos) condensed further to form neutral matter. It was at this point that the cosmic microwave background radiation was released, and the universe became transparent.

This early matter was gaseous and diffuse. Over time, it accreted into dust, forming huge clouds of gas and dust, which condensed into galaxies of stars and solid planets.

That's where matter came from.

But that's not what the Big Bang theory is about. It's about the expansion of the universe from a single point of hot, dense energy called the singularity. The generation of matter was only one consequence of this process. Force was also generated as matter was.

The proper question is not where did matter come from, but where did the singularity come from, and why.
Skombolis wrote:
Where do you believe the matter that forms planets and other objects came from? Do you feel it always existed, was created, or some other explanation?
I just told you, beginning right after the part where you called such questions distractions that you didn't care about.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#565883 Aug 1, 2013
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus walks into a motel room. He pulls out a few nails and drops them on the reception desk.
"Can u put me up for the night?"
It's good to see you don't have any hangups with the Jesus! humor.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#565885 Aug 1, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't Skom's bandwagon.
It was between you and River.
I did read it. I stayed out of it. I respected you and River enough to let you work it out yourselves.
However, my observation was that you were mean to her. I do not know, nor care, why.
I was debating a couple topics at once w her..
I did not know Alice was River till a month or so ago.
I have a history w her and Godsmacked and a few others.. Funny though..
Godsmacked has apologized for her behavior towards me three years ago.. Knowing her actions were unjustified concerning who she went to battle for back then..

You insult River by thinking she needs such as Skom and Lupy to defend her argument..
She was doing just fine..
Your insults just make you three look immature-
Looks like Lupy is back in junior high.. Having field day..lol..- yuck.
Sorry, your Internet bride is a fake, a chameleon..

Truthfully, yourself , Skom and Lupy have made the whole thing your own bandwagon..
Of course you care, or you wouldn't have jumped on it..

Ride on you three.. Birds of a feather.. and all..
I am through arguing w you three regarding River Tam..

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#565886 Aug 1, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
It's good to see you don't have any hangups with the Jesus! humor.
Glad u liked the Easter jokes. Now Jesus probably doesn't love me.
:D

I always felt that anyway, when I was going to a Xtian school.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#565887 Aug 1, 2013
Red Apples wrote:
<quoted text>
So true. In reality all a "theory" is is someones "best guess according to what they've been presented with". And so they "believe" what they've been presented with. Or simply put, they "believe" said "theory".
But of course they'll deny that it's "a belief" till they're blue in the face.
If it were a fact it would no longer be a theory. Pretty simple stuff really.**PORTIONS DELETED**
.. that a god(s) created the universe is a hypothesis, not a theory ..

.. if western educators accepted your claim as theory, it would be part of every school's scientific curriculum. This is exactly what Intelligent Design advocates tried to do. They failed because ID is not a theory, only a hypothesis ..

.. words are important. Changing their meaning to fit one's personal agenda hinders the acquisition of knowledge and an understanding of the world we live in ..

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#565888 Aug 1, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
Philogeny has nothing to do with it.
You assume that virus are alive yet you can not define "life".
Is RNA "life" ?
Is a protein "life" ?
False. I gave you a definition. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't a definition.

And, false again, contemporary life has everything - everything - to do with phylogeny. You cannot ignore history. You cannot ask ultimate questions about life while ignoring phylogeny.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#565889 Aug 1, 2013
Le_le wrote:
<quoted text>
I just read where he said you are lying..or you are just insane..
lol..
I believe you are neither..
Who wants to even associate w such a person as Skombolis ??
I don't get it..
And prolly never will..
Thank you Le_le, that means a lot. Skom is just very poor at reading and thinking. He accuses me of lying while lying himself - it's bizarre. To name two examples: I answered his questions three times, yet he accuses me of not answering; he had a conversation with HL that he denies - yet I posted it.

Only brain damage can explain this kind of behavior.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#565890 Aug 1, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
That would contradict the Laws of Entropy.
No, that's incorrect. That complexity arises from simplicity is described by chaos theory. It requires energy input, which is why it doesn't violate entropy.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#565891 Aug 1, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the problem with many theists.
When the, deity mythology ( the origin of "all" ), of the theist is rejected by atheists due to a lack of any unbiased and/or unverifiable evidence their deity mythology, most theists take the stance that the atheist - must - have an alternative hypothesis or theory to replace the, deity mythology ( the origin of "all" ), that the theist believes in, and that the atheist - must - commit a faith supported belief to the alternative hypothesis or theory that the theist feels the atheist the - must - have, because the theist insists the atheist has to have an alternative to the theists, deity mythology ( the origin of "all" ).
As if an atheists rejection of a deity mythology demands an alternative to their belief, and all that it encompasses, in that deity mythology.
Then feel that it makes the theist position of believing in that unsupported by any unbiased or unverifiable evidence - deity mythology ( the origin of "all" )- as reasonable, based in logic, and comparable to science of any type.
...
..
......
...
hahahaaaaa
Well said.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#565892 Aug 1, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
It could have saved hours if only I had just said what you wanted?
Well there's the religious honesty we've come to know and loathe. LMAO
Totally. Skom has demonstrated his true, dishonest self - again - today.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#565893 Aug 1, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
Forgot to mention that "alien life" may not use RNA or DNA and may not need carbon, oxygen and/or water.
That really depends on the number of stable and feasible alternatives. If DNA and RNA are but two of many, then you're correct. And you may be - some experiments demonstrate there are other ways of producing molecules that can store and pass on information.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#565894 Aug 1, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Totally. Skom has demonstrated his true, dishonest self - again - today.
I do that a lot its fun

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 3 min ROCCO 31,647
Couple in dallas tx looking for a female to hav... (Jan '15) 37 min rmmslat 2
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 52 min nanoanomaly 987,439
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Phooey 687,432
American Soldiers - Duty, Honor, Country (Jun '11) 3 hr Ricky F 39,265
Trump: "Get that Son of a B- - - - off the fiel... 3 hr Johnny 6
the REAL reasons O.J. Simpson beat murder charges 4 hr Johnny 32
More from around the web