Prove there's a god.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#573580 Dec 15, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know the word "shibboleth"? It's a good'un: "A custom, principle, or belief distinguishing a class or group of people."
It can apply to an individual as well.
For example, we can pick out the Canadians here in Mexico if they are walking down the street with ski poles when its not snowing, or if they are wearing shorts and black socks - often with a safari hat. Americans don't do those things. They serve as shibboleths. You likely have some for identifying Americans.
I like that ski pole example though my wife does sometimes use hiking sticks in Barbados which are much similar. Americans can be known by their accents and sometimes their attitude, but I haven't really pinned them down. Some might be wearing something to identify them as Canadians, as I understand that kits can be purchased for that purpose so that people don't know they are Americans, and so are not as likely to attack them.:)

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#573581 Dec 15, 2012
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. it wasn't until 324, when Constantine the Great became emperor of Rome, that Jesus became God.
BS. Matthew and John mostly established Jesus as God/Man. Deity of Jesus is all over the New. Alluded in the Old. Daniel 7:13. The ''son of man'' comes from the ''clouds of heaven''. Not Earth. To the ''Ancient of Days'' Son of Man is a Messianic title and clouds of heaven is how the Messiah comes to judge. Look at Matthew 26:63-65. Jesus references himself as Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming in the Clouds of Heaven. The high priest accuses Jesus of blasphemy. The high priest knew full well the claim of Jesus.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#573582 Dec 15, 2012
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =cfuJnUJa5JAXX
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
I really liked that third one.

:)

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#573583 Dec 15, 2012
Al Garcia wrote:
Doesn't science state that Change is the law of nature?
Not explicitly, but yes - continual change of many things is implied. The universe is expanding, its parts are in relative motion, stars are converting lighter elements into heavier ones, and entropy is continuously increasing. All of that is change.

The pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Heraclitus said something similar to your comment, noting that, "No man ever steps in the same river twice."
Al Garcia wrote:
I'm sure that would include the definition and application of morality. It evolves as society and/or government changes.
Doesn't your bible say that your god is unchanging?

"For I am the Lord, I change not" - Malachi 3:6

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." - Hebrews 13:8

Since moral standards are evolving - even in your bible between testaments - one gets the impression that they are anthropogenic, and not divine in origin.
Al Garcia wrote:
It is difficult, and I do wrestle with it. But life is about the learning and the struggle.
Good luck in your journey.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#573584 Dec 15, 2012
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
at the time, jesus was a common name, the Romans executed thousands of people.
Produce the records.
No one doubts that there may have been (at that time) the Bastard son of a carpenter's wife and a roman soldier, that was executed by the Romans.
>>>>> however <<<<<
there is no record of such an execution
So? Produce records from the first century for all them Roman crucifixions.
and
the character depicted in the christian bible as "jesus" never existed.
Yeah? What you know that the scholars do not? LOL! Take a reality break!

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#573585 Dec 15, 2012
United in faith wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL thats so funny. spelling is the bases on which you decide who's who on here........thats hallarious.
Well it works in your case, because the 3 IDs are the only people in the world, likely, that spell certain words the way you do. That is only one of many means that you identify yourself though.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#573586 Dec 15, 2012
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
Also we need to consider what you mean by "higher moral standard" your idea will be different than mine and both of ours will be different from someone a hundred years from now. I can tell you that as I sit here, in my pj's drinking coffee in my comfortable recliner, the thought of slavery is repulsive. What would my thoughts be if I was born in a different time and in a different culture?
slavery is never ethical, regardless that some culture accepts the practice, that merely speaks to the morals of said culture.

christianity is a failed moral system

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#573587 Dec 15, 2012
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I do worship God a which according to the Bible is a perfect and moral being. How can we then define moral if we humans are always changing the definition of moral. Moving the goalposts shall we say as we get closer?
We can only make sense of what we can understand. Sounds simple at first, but what if what we understand us like us looking at a single piece of a 10,000 piece puzzle and trying to understand what the rest of the puzzle looks like?
We have a green piece and we look at the puzzle maker when he tells us that the rest is not green. He's crazy. I have it in my hand, I'm looking at it, it's definitely green. WTH?
That's our struggle Hiding. Trying to Understand the rest despite of what we currently hold in our hand.
yhwh the most vile entity ever imagined.

on every measure

take the measure of communication,(the god communicating with his creation) the god is either absent or immoral.

“I never claimed to be Perfect”

Since: Nov 10

just better than yesterday

#573588 Dec 15, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Not explicitly, but yes - continual change of many things is implied. The universe is expanding, its parts are in relative motion, stars are converting lighter elements into heavier ones, and entropy is continuously increasing. All of that is change.
The pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Heraclitus said something similar to your comment, noting that, "No man ever steps in the same river twice."
<quoted text>
Doesn't your bible say that your god is unchanging?
"For I am the Lord, I change not" - Malachi 3:6
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." - Hebrews 13:8
Since moral standards are evolving - even in your bible between testaments - one gets the impression that they are anthropogenic, and not divine in origin.
<quoted text>
Good luck in your journey.
Yes IANS, according to the Bible God does not change. It is our interpretation that is changing based on on the changes of society around us.

What and how we interpret those changes are the issues that I personally struggle with.
Thank you for your kindness.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#573589 Dec 15, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
He knows that. They all know that. They want to avoid that question. So, just reword it...
What came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?
Or
What came first, the dinosaur or the dinosaur egg?
uneducated question.

it has no answer

define "egg"

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#573590 Dec 15, 2012
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
I think Piers is wrong. I don't own any guns but if I decide to, I will. Legally would be better, I think.
I don't think Piers' argument is wrong, but it's a moot point. We aren't going to ban guns in America, or anything close to that. If we're willing to spend money, increasing school security would be a good idea.

We have to be willing to accept that there are going to be many problems that we can't legislate away, or pray away, or wish away.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#573591 Dec 15, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I agree that your bible is worth being familiar with. But how familiar? What more does an unbeliever need to know about your bible than what I know?
lightbeamrider wrote:
Ask Ehrman.
That won't be necessary. The question was rhetorical, and I can answer it myself.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Jesus may not even be the most important person in Christian history. Constantine probably did more for Christianity than Jesus.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Now you are talking about Christian history. That is not what Ehrman is referencing. He is referencing human history.


Was there a point to that? In what way does that change anything in this discussion? If Jesus isn't the most important person in Christian history, he isn't the most important person inhuman history, either.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Jesus might not even be the most influential character in the New Testament. Your religion mirrors the teachings of Paul more than those of Jesus.
lightbeamrider wrote:
This assumes there is a distinction between the two. Paul and Jesus which only critics accept. The letters of Paul are Jesus centered. They deal mostly with problems of churches in non Jewish locations. Paul is wrote about as primary character from Acts 13 on. Before that the main character is Peter.
Of course there is a distinction between Jesus and Paul. They are two different personae. The rest is irrelevant to my comment. It doesn't contradict - nor even address - my claim that the teachings of Paul are more characteristic of Christianity and were more important in shaping it than were those of Jesus.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#573592 Dec 15, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
Most discount resurrection because it does not happen. There is a naturalistic bias.
LOL. Christianity is a remarkable thing to examine up close and in depth like this.
lightbeamrider wrote:
It takes sufficient cause to effect resurrection. Sufficient cause is God. People who allow for the possibility of God must also allow for the possibility of supernatural events which defy nature since God is Supernatural.
I think I do. I allow for the possibility of gods and miracles. It's just never going to go beyond that without evidence.

I doubt that that is what you meant by allowing for the possibility. My guess is that you meant accept it and act on it as you do.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#573593 Dec 15, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
God is unjust with no one.
Sure he is - well, the character is. For starters, it is unjust to punish a man for being a man if you created him. And it is incredibly unjust to levy so disproportionate a punishment as eternal torture. It is unjust to keep a soul conscious just to make it suffer. It is unjust to drown the world when you have the power to just rapture them. It is unjust to kill the firstborns of a city, or to order genocides.

I could go on for quite a while.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#573594 Dec 15, 2012
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Doofus.
Jesus & the Holy Spirit.
Still discussing the trinity? "Doofus" is not going to be pleased with this.

Let us pray: "In nomine Doofii, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen."

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#573595 Dec 15, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You're right scar, I don't understand.
I know.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I don't understand
I know, and you're going to point that out in the next part of your statement.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
why you continue your futile attempt at comparing Christianity to Judaism.
I'm not comparing Christianity >to> Judaism.

I never have. This an example of you not understanding, again.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Christianity began with the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Christianity is based upon the Jesus being the messiah, and it was never prophesied in the OT there would be a resurrection.

The Messiah was to appear and accomplish all things attributed to that character in one normal lifetime. Co, the Jesus is not the Messiah.

If you want to just start with the Jesus as a different deity and originator of a new religion, more power to you, and I agree that's the case
RiversideRedneck wrote:
something the Jews don't believe happened.
Right, because the Jesus did not fulfill Judaic prophecy. This isn't a comparison, this is a fact. The Jews weren't being stubborn, there was a reason they did not accept the Jesus as the prophesied Messiah.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
One more time, I'm not a Jew. Got it?
I never said you were.

Another example of your lack of comprehension.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#573596 Dec 15, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure he is - well, the character is. For starters, it is unjust to punish a man for being a man if you created him.
Not if man is given choice.
And it is incredibly unjust to levy so disproportionate a punishment as eternal torture.
That is because man is in exalted position in creation and his offenses are against a Divine Eternal being.
It is unjust to keep a soul conscious just to make it suffer.
Actually we get glimpses of hell. For one thing there is a level of punishment which can be gleaned from Scripture.
It is unjust to drown the world when you have the power to just rapture them.
If God gives life then God can take life away. Things were really bad based on all we know.
It is unjust to kill the firstborns of a city, or to order genocides.
I could go on for quite a while.
1) There was a provision for escape. Blood on the doorposts. 2) The Egyptians did it first to the Israelites. That is what you ignore. It was coporate in the way it was carried out. Besides your judgements are arbitary and irrelevant since you do not believe in God in the first place. You cannot play by your own rules. You also ignore the passover was a glimpse to a future event of Jesus on the cross. Just like Abraham and his son. You cannot reasonably accuse an Infinite God of injustice. It is a category mistake. If God is the author of life then God by definition can end life for any reason or no reason.

Since: Oct 12

Muscat,Oman

#573597 Dec 15, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Good post!
Cream in your coffee?
Thanks do you want any coffee

for you [""""]
in winter,you can enjoy coffee more.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#573598 Dec 15, 2012
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
I like that ski pole example though my wife does sometimes use hiking sticks in Barbados which are much similar. Americans can be known by their accents and sometimes their attitude, but I haven't really pinned them down. Some might be wearing something to identify them as Canadians, as I understand that kits can be purchased for that purpose so that people don't know they are Americans, and so are not as likely to attack them.:)
They might be walking sticks. They look like ski poles.

I've been told that Americans are easily identified by the shoes, especially sports shoes. I don't know if that is correct.

Americans also tend to be aloof when you pass them on the street - no smile. eye contact, or "hello." I don't know if Canadians are the same or friendlier.

Since: Oct 12

Muscat,Oman

#573599 Dec 15, 2012
Coffee for everyone

[""""]for lightbeamrider
[""""]for scaritual
[""""]for It aint necessarily so
[""""]for all others

Have 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 Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min Gods r Delusions ... 649,634
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 10 min It aint necessari... 55,654
Israel End is Near (Feb '15) 1 hr AussieBobby 425
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr crust 281,467
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 2 hr Rosa 106,051
TRUTH about illegal aliens (Aug '14) 5 hr Knock off purse s... 12
Does anybody know Doctor REALITY'S race or nati... 5 hr Knock off purse s... 36
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) 10 hr Noname 69
More from around the web