Prove there's a god.

Posted in the Top Stories Forum

Comments (Page 27,228)

Showing posts 544,541 - 544,560 of716,433
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#573529
Dec 15, 2012
 
STFU
lightbeamrider wrote:
If the information is accurate, then the source does not matter.
That is correct.

But how do we decide which information is accurate? Since we can seldom verify the information ourselves, to believe that it might be accurate requires that it come from a reliable source. The source's reputation is important.

As I said, Christian apologetics sites are notoriously dishonest, and any factual information on them was imported, not developed there. And in my experience, things found only on a Christian apologetics site have been dishonest.

So, if what you have is accurate, link me to the non-Christian source from whence it originated. If there is no such external source, I don't trust it. Past history matters. Reputation matters.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#573530
Dec 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

[Sorry about the STFU above. It was litter from another project.]
lightbeamrider wrote:
Read Matthew Henry Bible Commentary on line regarding Ezek. 37. If you read it carefully then you will see it predicts the rebirth of Israel ...
Why are you referring me to a commentary? Aren't you discussing a biblical passage? I just mentioned that I prefer original sources when possible over apologetics. And FYI, very few readers will go hunt down something you want read unless they want to read it. Why would I be interested in Matt's opinion?
lightbeamrider wrote:
... it predicts the rebirth of Israel as a nation at the exact same spot and undivided.
So what? Do you consider that quality prophecy? I don't. No superhuman ability is necessary to fulfill a prediction.

Let me help you with that. The characteristics of prophecy that would convince a skeptic are these :

[1] High quality prophecy needs to be specific, detailed and unambiguous. Optimally, the time and place are specified.

[2] It also needs to prophecy something unexpected, unlikely or unique - something that was not self-fulfilling and could not have been contrived.

[3] The prophecies must be verified that they came before the event predicted, and that they were fulfilled completely.

[4] The prophecies must be unaccompanied by failed prophecies.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Completed early 1700s (?) when Israel did not exist. Now lets say 1000 years from now someone discovers a fragmented copy of that writing and knew Israel came back in 1948. They would have to conclude the Matthew Henry Commentary fragment was no earlier than 1948. While we know it was completed far earlier. I think that is called confirmation bias.
See above

“O'si yo!”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#573531
Dec 15, 2012
 
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow!
You actually hit the shift key THREE whole times there!
excuse me?

“I won, I won, I won!!!”

Since: Mar 11

Who? Me, me, me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#573532
Dec 15, 2012
 
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
mr - we won't be able to see eye-to-eye until you can remove the flaming-biased log out of your eye.
Huh? Mr? Are you addressing yourself?

Did you come out of the closet?'cause your words that follow "mr" suggest you did.

“I won, I won, I won!!!”

Since: Mar 11

Who? Me, me, me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#573533
Dec 15, 2012
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Your God is weak. He "put some restrictions on...slavery."
Hello?!? Helmut, do you hear me? That's like Great Britain telling Nazi Germany "Ok, you can have Poland and France, but that's it. No more. And be nice to those people! Or else!"
What an imaginative piss-ant wimp you worship.
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
if you don't like nazism, why are you socialist? it's the same thing, but we just haven't seen it's full fruition yet.
Huh? I'm not a socialist.

Your brain doesn't quite work, hey.

“I won, I won, I won!!!”

Since: Mar 11

Who? Me, me, me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#573534
Dec 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
actually, under Jewish law, on the year of julilee the jews were required to set slaves/indentured servants free whether they paid their debt off by then or not. many of them would refuse freedom and chose to continue to be members of jewish households because they saw how God was in their midst.
it was really a wonderful law, considering the barbarism of the surrounding nations at the time.
why are pagans always so barbaric and why do you refuse God's ways???
So you're saying that God was so all powerful He had to settle for "it's ok to have slavery as long as you have one day a year where you release some of them."

What morality! What ethics!

Your deity sucks.

“I won, I won, I won!!!”

Since: Mar 11

Who? Me, me, me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#573535
Dec 15, 2012
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. He was a famous pamphleteer, and a lot of people's favorite Founder.
Thanks. Funny how many of these theists lie about that.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#573536
Dec 15, 2012
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I can stipulate for you that [Jesus] existed without knowing whether it is true or not. His historicity means nothing to me if he wasn't also a god.
I've read conflicting data. As I said, it doesn't matter either way.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Yeah it does not mean anything because you are on the losing side of that argument.
There was no argument there, just some claims. Which one were you contesting - that Jesus might not have existed, that there are dissenting opinions about his historicity, or that he wasn't a god?
lightbeamrider wrote:
"One could easily argue that the Bible is the most important book in the history of western civilization. What other books come close in terms of historical, social, and cultural significance?"
I can stipulate to that as well. I hope you know what that word means. I am not agreeing with you or disagreeing - just willing to concede the point for now because I see no value in challenging it. If that changes, I may have reason to disagree later.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#573537
Dec 15, 2012
 
lightbeamrider wrote:
Who (Besides IANS) wouldn't want to know more about a book that has transformed millions of lives and affected entire civilizations?...It is important for all of us--at least for all of us interesred in human history, society and culture."
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:
"One could argue as well that Jesus is the most important person in the history of the west,(Jesus means nothing to IANS) looked at from a historical, social, and cultural perspective, quite apart from his religious significance."
Only if he existed and was the author of the words attributed to him. Even then, Jesus may not even be the most important person in Christian history. Constantine probably did more for Christianity than Jesus.

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.

But even if we stipulate to Jesus being the most important figure in history, so what? Are you offering that as evidence that he was a god?

“O'si yo!”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#573538
Dec 15, 2012
 
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
Aha, a definite clue that you might not be Patty. You spelled 'desperate' correctly, which she has never done, and that is another word I forgot to mention in one of my earlier posts of clues that make UIF so obviously Patty are shown. Her spelling is despirate, which to my understanding is not a known word, at least not in English.
Or is it a case that she finally looked up the word and is going to spell it correctly?
LOL thats so funny. spelling is the bases on which you decide who's who on here........thats hallarious.

“I won, I won, I won!!!”

Since: Mar 11

Who? Me, me, me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#573539
Dec 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. I don't have much respect for its advice or values.
Faith, obedience, self-abnegation, chastity, worship and piety, are not virtues. And there is no such thing as sin.
The virtues include integrity, compassion, autonomy, authenticity, patience, responsibility, courage, and the like.
On a societal scale, the virtues would include such things as political freedom, democracy, egalitarianism, justice, and opportunity.
Well said!

waaasssuuup is too delusional to understand this, of course. He actually thinks that Satan is talking through you.

Which means that waaasssuuup comes here to talk to Satan. Topix is his place to commune with the devil. I think he wants to take Satan out on a date. Maybe share a cigar and a whisky.

“I won, I won, I won!!!”

Since: Mar 11

Who? Me, me, me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#573540
Dec 15, 2012
 
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
"FAILED TO REVEAL HIMSELF"!!!
you've simply rejected God by rejecting His Son
Nah. Atheists reject your fiction, that's all. Just like you reject the fictions of other religions. We go one further and reject all you loons.

“I won, I won, I won!!!”

Since: Mar 11

Who? Me, me, me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#573541
Dec 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
a person defending homosexuality takes all objectivity out of a moral/spiritual debate. shot - goal!
Why?

Because you say so? Your morality is sick.

Because you believe your deity says so?

Your deity is sick. It also condones rape and slavery.

Game, set and match. You lose. You're the not-winner :)

“I won, I won, I won!!!”

Since: Mar 11

Who? Me, me, me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#573542
Dec 15, 2012
 
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
i read the bible as a believer, not a skeptic.
No truer words!

And that's why you fail to understand anything and everything not in your belief system.

“I won, I won, I won!!!”

Since: Mar 11

Who? Me, me, me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#573543
Dec 15, 2012
 
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. that's exactly why I don't do it. When we feel obligated to defend, justify or protect something, we need to examine our motives. Consider the recent posts regarding slavery and the Christian response. They know it's immoral yet are compelled to vehemently justify the practice ..
.. by the way, SCAR gave an excellent synopsis of Jewish tradition and law. If you missed it, here's a link:
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...
.. for homosexuality to be considered a normal sexual variant by the majority, a change in thinking must occur. We can start right here, right now on Topix ..
.. if anyone calls you or any other straight person gay, don't deny it. By posting a disclaimer, you're saying, "No, not me, I'm normal." Do you understand? Does anyone understand ??..
Absolutely.

Hey...wait a second...didn't...

You poohhead!

:p
:p
:-p

“I won, I won, I won!!!”

Since: Mar 11

Who? Me, me, me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#573544
Dec 15, 2012
 
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't been reading anything from wasssssy, but has he brought up that the Bible does condemn kidnapping?
How else are you supposed to get a slave? You either kidnap someone yourself, or you get them pre-kidnapped.
That doesn't do anything to defend what the Bible does say about slavery. It's just another contradiction.
I don't know if he was doing that. He was arguing that God said slavery was ok because "everyone was doing it."

All I can say to waaasssuuup is "duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh! "

“I never claimed to be Perfect”

Since: Nov 10

Boss of the Inland Empire

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#573545
Dec 15, 2012
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying that God was so all powerful He had to settle for "it's ok to have slavery as long as you have one day a year where you release some of them."
What morality! What ethics!
Your deity sucks.
Perhaps the term "Indentured Servant" would work better?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#573546
Dec 15, 2012
 
lightbeamrider wrote:
Well you select edit my post and then accuse me of dehumanizing you?
Yes. What don't you like about that?

Are you implying that your words were misunderstood because I edited out what I considered irrelevant verbiage? If so, please show us the unedited version, and below it, the edited version. Then explain how you were injured by the editing.

I will almost always edit a post down to the parts I'm responding to. It's easier to read that way.

And I edit honestly and responsibly. If anybody thinks otherwise, they are invited to do what I just outlined for you and bring it to my attention. If they are correct, I will apologize, and try to do better.

So please go ahead and show me if that's what you meant.

“I won, I won, I won!!!”

Since: Mar 11

Who? Me, me, me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#573547
Dec 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps the term "Indentured Servant" would work better?
Would it? Indentured servant refers to a person who sold themselves for a period of time to pay for their debt.

Does this count:

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"

Perhaps you were refering to this:

"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare,'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.(Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Of course, that's qualified with:

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)"

So...ah...no, I don't think most of the above cases are indentured servants.

But let's pretend that they are. Do you believe that a perfectly moral being should condone indentured servitude or hold His chosen people to a higher moral standard?

“I never claimed to be Perfect”

Since: Nov 10

Boss of the Inland Empire

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#573548
Dec 15, 2012
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Would it? Indentured servant refers to a person who sold themselves for a period of time to pay for their debt.
Does this count:
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"
Perhaps you were refering to this:
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare,'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.(Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
Of course, that's qualified with:
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)"
So...ah...no, I don't think most of the above cases are indentured servants.
But let's pretend that they are. Do you believe that a perfectly moral being should condone indentured servitude or hold His chosen people to a higher moral standard?
I read Scar's post AFTER I posted.
To answer your question, yes I do have a problem with the act of Slavery or owning another person.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 544,541 - 544,560 of716,433
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

340 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 20 min Buck Crick 223,170
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 21 min bmz 36,393
Penis Size 23 min The Rogue 2
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 54 min petesake 114,618
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 59 min River Tam 598,743
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 1 hr Gabric 62
Hot gays in Abu Dhabi (Nov '13) 1 hr ali 332
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr The Awakener 171,443
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr truth 529,972
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 hr onemale 255,692
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••