Prove there's a god.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#643477 Jul 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Food. Same as non-Christians.
O_o
Non-Christians do not eat human flesh and drink human blood.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:53-54) and

"He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him.... So he that eateth me, even he shall live by me" (John 6:56-57).

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#643478 Jul 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I am the biblical authority in this thread, I know what I'm talking about.
Just like scientific interpretation is better today than it was in 1610, so is biblical interpretation.
The English men that translated the first KJV got it close, real close. For their time (and what little resources they had) they did good enough. They got the Bible written in English in a way that the people of the time could understand.
But people speak English very differently now, so another interpretation was needed.
Couple that with instant worldwide communication and knowledge, the group of people that wrote the NIV had it easier to translate from Hebrew & Greek direct to today's English.
IMO - the NIV is one the best, most accurate translations in history.
Biblical authority? Sure.

You yourself keep saying the Bible isn't a science book.

Now you're comparing it to a science book.

The NIV appeals to your apologetic method... and the scientific method be damned.

That is all.

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#643479 Jul 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
They are virtually the same, only a 1% difference.
As we learn more, science books need to be updated, yes?
The same goes for the Bible.
Way, way, waaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy different process.

Since: Jul 13

Kenya

#643480 Jul 21, 2013
Apocalypse666 wrote:
Come on and do it.
Prove there's a god.
Don;t read off scripture or anything like that just prove there's a god.
I can't prove it to you but most people discover it with time.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#643481 Jul 21, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not that I'm attempting to attack you but I apologize...it was rude of me to say that. It's just that one need not be an expert in a field to debate it. I'm not an expert in pharmacology but I can debate the effectiveness of many drugs based on repeated observation of the patient's who take them along with my educational background. Again, I'm not a pharmacologist, but when you combine my education, experience, observation, and moderate understanding of pharmacology...I certainly could debate with an expert.
Thank you - I apologize for my harshness.

Have you debated with a pharmacologist? I apologize, but I don't think you could. My mother is a pharmacist - I know a lot about medicine, especially behavioral pharmacology, but the sheer volume of what she knows, how she can link it to bodily and chemical functions, is way beyond my knowledge.

You might be able to say "I know these people on these drugs, and they have these side effects" but you wouldn't be able to say "the drugs they were on were contraindicating to these specific herbal supplements/drugs/combination of drugs and supplements they are taking because of these overlapping chemical properties, and causing these specific side effects." etc. But a pharmacist can. A pharmacologist should be able to go beyond that, into discussing specific receptor sites for the medicines - including whether they are agonist or antagonist for one set of receptors and not for another.

The volume of drugs on the market now exceeds 20 000. Their interactions are largely unknown. However, most drugs are currently able to be described by their interaction with receptor sites on cells, in a very specific way (weakly/strongly/permanently binds to the sodium/potassium/calcium channel, etc - but much more specific than this). Most pharmacists can rattle off the basics for any drug on the market, but have to look up the specifics (absorption rate, half life, contraindications and metabolism, etc). Pharmacologists would be able to discuss the chemical interactions at the cellular level, since they're interested in developing new drugs, whereas pharmacists are focused on whole patient function.

Compared to the above, you have observations on their usage in people, for some drugs (keeping in mind that the majority of a drug's effect on a person's body is invisible to human observation). The reality is that you're not actually debating with pharmacologists, but pointing out anecdotal evidence (which I believe is important). To debate with them, you'd have to have comparable knowledge. You'd have to be able to say "no, this drug is affecting X receptor site, not Y. I disagree with your position." Simply stating "I disagree with you because I've seen Y person take the drug and have Q effect" is not debating with a pharmacologist.

And the only way you'd get comparable knowledge to a pharmacologist is to study pharmacology. At the level where you'd be having meaningful debates, you'd have to be so immersed in the field as to be keeping up on the latest research. So, no, you aren't actually capable of debating with them. At best, you're capable of pointing out personal stories and observations. Those are very different things.

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#643482 Jul 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
They are virtually the same, only a 1% difference.
As we learn more, science books need to be updated, yes?
The same goes for the Bible.
BTW...

What is the difference?(NIV original/modified)

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#643483 Jul 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not a verse of what to do, that is a verse of what NOT TO DO.
"rise no more", meaning that we need to be fully aware that drunkenness deprives us of the use of reason, makes us crazy, makes us sick, and endangers our well-being.
But I'm sure you already knew that.
Jer. 25:27 according to God:

GOD: "Then tell them,'This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Drink, get drunk and vomit, and fall to rise no more because of the sword I will send among you" (Jer. 25:27).

Jer. 25:27 according to RR;

RR: "Then tell them,'This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: DO NOT Drink, get drunk and vomit, you need to be fully aware that drunkenness deprives you of the use of reason, makes you crazy, makes you sick, and endangers your well-being."

You keep proving to us that you can not be trusted because you are deceptive, deceitful and dishonest. You would yell at someone else for changing a single word of Scripture yet that is what you have done here: changed the verse to say what you wished it said.

Clearly the verse has God ordering men to become drunk:

GOD: "Then tell them,'This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Drink, get drunk and vomit, and fall to rise no more because of the sword I will send among you" (Jer. 25:27).

And clearly it proves you are a liar.

Prov. 12:22, "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord."

How does it feel knowing you are an abomination to the Lard?

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#643484 Jul 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Because they didn't classify life the same then as we do now.
Why not?

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#643485 Jul 21, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
And disturb the ecological balance of areas you don't inhabit? Great neighbor you are.
You carve out your own little niche and let others do the same.
Who do your think you are, God?
Kill... kill... KILL!!!

Sorta sound like God, don't I?

Not.

Someone does. Know who?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#643486 Jul 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
but death is not the end. It's the begining.
Within Christianity are several organizations, such as the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Worldwide Church of God which deny the existence of hell. They preach, instead, a doctrine known as Annihilationism, according to which the wicked pass into nonexistence, either at death or the resurrection. Essentially, annihilationists are trying to put a more human face on Christianity and attract more followers by modifying the scare tactic of hell-fire and damnation that is so crucial to the NT. As fundamentalist Robert Morey said on page 203 in his book Death and the Afterlife, "As the pressures of liberalism continue, we can expect to see more neo-evangelicals moving either into Universalism or Annihilationism, either of which are acceptable to those who hold a liberal theological position."

Unfortunately for orthodox Christians, such as Southern Baptists, Annihilationism is biblically defensible as the following verses show all too well. Undoubtedly the strongest passage is found in Eccle. 3:19-21 which says, "For that which befalls the sons of men befalls beasts; even one thing befalls them: as one dies, so dies the other; yet they all have one breath; so that man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward, and the spirit of the beast goes downward to the earth." That is about as definitive as one can be. If man has no "preeminence" or "advantage" over the beasts as the RSV and the Modern Language say, then all else is for nought. Another potent verse is found in Eccle. 9:5 which says, "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward: for the memory of them is forgotten." If there is no more reward, then it is all over, including the shouting.

As Morey said on page 216 in the same book, "The book of Ecclesiastes has always been a favorite source of proof texts for the doctrine of soul sleep" otherwise known as annihilationism. Less prominent verses are:

Psalm 6:5 ("For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?"),
Psalm 88:10 ("Wilt thou do wonders for the dead? Will the dead rise and praise Thee?"),
Psalm 115:17 ("The dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any who go down into the silence"), and
Eccle. 9:10 ("Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going").

All of these verses state or strongly imply that once you are dead you are dead and that is that. As far as annihilationism is concerned, Freiling's cartoons summarize the situation as well as any by saying: "That's All, Folks" there isn't any more, at least not for the wicked.

Annihilationists have other arguments in their portfolio as well. For example, they cite

1 Tim. 6:15-16, which says, "...and this will be made manifest at the proper time by the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality...."

If only Jesus has immortality, then the conclusion is obvious.

One of the annihilationists' strongest arguments against hell is related by Morey on page 218 of his previously quoted book, where he says, "The words 'olam,''aion,' and 'aionios' do not mean eternity, because they are used of such temporal things as mountains. Therefore,'eternal punishment' need not mean that the punishment is eternal in duration, but only in result."

A final argument upon which annihilationists rely is succinctly stated by Morey on page 217, "'Eternal life' means unending physical immortality or existence. Since only the righteous receive 'eternal life' at the resurrection, the wicked must pass into nonexistence. Otherwise, they too would be recipients of 'eternal life'."

to be continued

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#643487 Jul 21, 2013
continued:

So annihilationism is by no means a weak position to assume from a biblical perspective. The problem is that an even larger number of verses can be cited to refute annihilationism and prove punishment awaits the wicked after death. Matt. 25:46, Rev. 20:10, Rev. 14:11, Mark 3:29, 9:43-48, and Luke 3:17 are prime examples. All that is accomplished by citing the verses relied upon by both sides is to expose a major biblical contradiction. What happens to people after death is by no means a clear-cut matter as far as the Bible is concerned, and all protestations to the contrary are doomed to failure. Anyone seeking a definitive description of post-death events should not go to the Bible for assistance, because only despair and disappointment await his arrival.

Since: Jul 13

Kenya

#643488 Jul 21, 2013
There are many ways to prove that there is a God. First, you need to look at the planets and ask yourself why they don't hit one another or why the Earth does not do directly to the sun where it can melt with everything on it. Ask yourself why some people who die resurrect or why phenomenons like miracles happen? Why do you get so lucky at times? Why do you dream of impending danger if it is not a warning from somewhere? You should do this research and ask people that question http://www.researchpaperstobuy.com

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#643489 Jul 21, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Non-Christians do not eat human flesh and drink human blood.
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:53-54) and
"He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him.... So he that eateth me, even he shall live by me" (John 6:56-57).
You are just another secular prosaic fundie who regurgitates from hostile anti Christian sources. Accusing Christians of cannibalism is about 1800 or so years old so that means anything you post is anything original. Unoriginal and unimaginative.

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#643490 Jul 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
God doesn't promote any kind of sexual promiscuity.
You said that many Christians (the ignorant ones) use the Leviticus to claim that god doesn't promote homosexuality.

You then said they are flat out wrong.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#643491 Jul 21, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
No, it wasn't false. Science currently has a hypothesis...not evidence...otherwise...it'd be a theory.
You're mistaken. Science has a theory - life came from the regular processes of the universe, out of normal, chemical and molecular interactions.

The hypotheses testing the above framework are manifold. The evidence for abiogenesis resides in the observation of the spontaneous production of organic molecules and how they combine. Such observations are evidence, they are clues that direct scientific hypotheses.
No, I'm not confusing propositions...if science had evidence...of any kind...if they could provide at least one single event...then they could demonstrate the possibility...currently...they cannot...hence...no evidence. NONE
Again, you're confusing 'evidence of' with 'observation of.' We have no observations of abiogenesis. We have plenty of evidence suggesting it occurred and as of yet, do not know exactly how.
And I base my position on a lack of scientific evidence...of ny kind...as well as common sense and the ability to observe nature and my surroundings...which have adequately shown...non-living matter does not produce living things.
Your basing your position on a lack of knowledge of how molecular biology works and your personal incredulity of the position of molecular biologists.
I'm not confusing evidence of abiogenesis with direct observation of abiogenesis. There's nothing to confuse...it's never been observed and there is no evidence to suggest it happens.
See? You just confused the two above. You are confusing 'evidence of' with 'observation of.' Here is a simple example:

You find a smoking gun and can smell the saltpeter. It's 'evidence' that the gun was fired. However, it's not an 'observation' that the gun can fire or was fired.
I can speak on this issue with authority because, contrary or what you may believe, I'm not entirely ignorant about how science works and I'm not an idiot.
I never called you an idiot.
And, the reason I believe that meteorites having building blocks for life and that scientists were able to create a ribonucleotide in a lab was not evidence of abiogenesis is because it isn't.
That's not an argument. You're just stating your position without offering any reason for it.'It isn't so it isn't' is hardly convincing.
Just because meteorites have building blocks for life, in no way proves life formed from them.
They are evidence of something. Abiogenesis research is testing just what they are evidence of.
And certainly, being the scientific whiz kid you gloat on about...you understand that manipulating elements to form a ribonucleotide...which is only a component of RNA...is a far stretch from evidence that life forms from non-living matter.
Stop being so insecure.
I'm stunned you haven't a more intelligent, scientifically based argument. Attacking my intelligence doesn't prove your point...just shows yours inability to do so.
I'm adjusting to my audience. You haven't presented a single worthwhile position here.

You're still conflating evidence with observation, you haven't produced an alternative theoretical position for science to take, you have no reason or rational for claiming that molecular biology and chemistry are incorrect in their research aims except that you, personally, can't believe it.

So what? Your personal inability to understand scientific research is not an argument against that research.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#643492 Jul 21, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:

Dear Jesus, I ask in your name to the glory of the Father in the son that you make "stupid atheist" competent to use the English language correctly, perfectly and with out error.
Jesus says: I told you to look inside yourself first. The word is "without", not "with out".

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#643493 Jul 21, 2013
saidI wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor do I, which is why I agree with what what "Hiding" was saying regarding what we have discovered about past humans, what spear heads mean etc, we can look back and have a pretty good idea about early humans, what they did, and what they might have looked like. That's all :)
Woohooo!

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#643494 Jul 21, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Not just doesn't, but can't.
At least not without a major head injury.
That's true.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#643495 Jul 21, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for the link, all issues of B.E are nicely preserved there and I didn't even know it.
You're a pathetici liar. "I didn't even know it", but it was word for word.....

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#643496 Jul 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I know and I agree. We "have a pretty good idea".
We don't "know".
That was my point on that topic.
Really??? I thought your point was to showcase how little you understood how archaeology and paleoanthropology work.

:p

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) 1 min New Age Spiritual... 679,149
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 2 min UMORONRACEUMAKEWO... 119,216
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 8 min bad bob 2,598
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr waaasssuuup 445,838
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 1 hr Peter Ross 6,269
Iranian Brother & Sister wanted For FRAUD!!! 2 hr Bella Esmail Moore 1
______ *ANTICHRIST in plain view / (*News) ______ 3 hr NewsYTube 1
More from around the web