Prove there's a god.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#643465 Jul 21, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:

unicorns (Deut. 33:17, Psalms 22:21. 29:6, Job 39:9-10),
Deut 33:17

In majesty he is like a firstborn bull; his horns are the horns of a wild ox. With them he will gore the nations, even those at the ends of the earth. Such are the ten thousands of Ephraim; such are the thousands of Manasseh.”

---

Psalms 22:21

Rescue me from the mouth of the lions; save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

---

Job 39:9-10

Will the wild ox consent to serve you? Will it stay by your manger at night?
Can you hold it to the furrow with a harness? Will it till the valleys behind you?

O_o

Put down that medieval book already.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#643466 Jul 21, 2013
Myth Buster wrote:

You'll [nanoanomaly]always be an especially ignorant self-righteous bigoted pile of shit, punk.
Reverend Alan wrote:

Nicely said.
Is that what atheists consider "nice"?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#643467 Jul 21, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
John 14:13-14 NIV, "And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
WHAT JESUS WANTS US TO BELIEVE:
Child: Jesus I want to cure cancer and feed the poor.
Jesus: The poor are being fed and cancer is being cured as I type.
NEXT!
WHAT RR WANTS US TO BELIEVE:
Child: Jesus, I want to cure cancer and feed the poor.
Jesus: Sorry kid, that does not glorify God.
That's Da Rules.

I'm glad you're learning.

It may sound horrible to you, but death is not the end. It's the begining.
Forum

Carlsbad, NM

#643468 Jul 21, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
John 14:13-14 NIV, "And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
WHAT JESUS WANTS US TO BELIEVE:
Child: Jesus I want to cure cancer and feed the poor.
Jesus: The poor are being fed and cancer is being cured as I type.
NEXT!
WHAT RR WANTS US TO BELIEVE:
Child: Jesus, I want to cure cancer and feed the poor.
Jesus: Sorry kid, that does not glorify God.
The floor should be swept because it is dirty.
Lazy adults that depend on children to clean for them
do not please God.
Children learn responsibility on their own.
They also learn who their friends are.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#643469 Jul 21, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
1 John 4:12 "No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."
Versus
Gen. 32:30 "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."
Here, from the very website you copied this from - is your answer.

The *primary* problem is your (very unreasonable) interpretation of the term "no man".

**Almost always** the term "no man" has the meaning "no man living". When that term has a different meaning, that term is **almost always** modified by the word "ever".

Examples:

- No man knows where Attila the Hun is buried.(Of course the men who buried him knew...but since they are dead, they are not included in the term "no man".)

- No man is more than 200 years old.(Of course George Washington - born in 1732 - is 280 years old; but because he is dead, he is not included in the term "no man").

- No man has spoken with Julius Caesar.(Hundreds or thousands of people did so - but they are not included in the term "no man" because they are dead.)

etc. ad nauseum

Conclusion: there is only a contradiction if you employ and **extremely** unusual interpretation of the phrase "no man". If you employ the typical meaning - one that very nearly always holds true - there is (very obviously) no contradiction at all.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#643470 Jul 21, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Oops...
I turned it into basashi.
Yum!
HFY!!

How is our favourite anthropologist?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#643471 Jul 21, 2013
stupid atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
If you was aware of your ignorance, you would be somewhat smart..
You are no different then a christian, who pulls scripture out of contex, and try and make them "justify" for them, and contradicting for your motive....
Can you be a peacefull person, and want that, but at the same time have anger and wrath if need be?
Or are you just stupid and hatefull, full of anger and bitterness?
John 14:13-14 NIV, "And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

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.

Now, please Jesus, this is very important, if you don't do as you promised in John 14:13-14 and other places it will be proof that you don't exist and the Bible is just a bunch of lies we find in that ancient collection of Jewish puppet plays.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#643472 Jul 21, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
I too love to quote the god damned Bible, but only when biblicists read the quotes:
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).
When Christians supported alcohol prohibition was it because Christians hate what God does?
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.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#643473 Jul 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You could've at least supplied the link....
http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/r...
Thank you for the link, all issues of B.E are nicely preserved there and I didn't even know it.

I hope you take the time to read all the issues because if you do you will quickly see that you can not refute any of the evidence presented. All you can do is your deceitful apologetics.

Here is a really good link: http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images...

Hundreds of pictures of dogs butts that all look like Jesus.
Astra

Sydney, Australia

#643474 Jul 21, 2013

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#643475 Jul 21, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Fer Chrissake.
He disagreed with you over the Zimmerman trial. He did not shoot your dog. He didn't sleep with your wife. He did not criticize hoir children. He didn't take your food, he didn't burn the US Flag, screaming 'Allah Akbar', he didn't throw a stone through your window.
Kom on Aura. You are usually a good and insightful poster. But you have got to let some of these stupid things go.
Ahem!



I believe it's called sissy mock fighting.

Parodies are for bored children and men who never grow up.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#643476 Jul 21, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Shh DF, I'm allowed to argue with the people of my choosing.
Entertainment is a lackluster affair when when everybody is
"me so happy". But it's more than a few ideas that are irreconcilably different, So I will ask for a divorce and he can keep the UK portion of topix and as an American I will take the rest of the world. He can stand over there with Nuggin, in the
Pharaohsare'US section of the United Nations of America.
lol
xD

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?

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 2 min RiversideRedneck 56,008
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min kent 650,247
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 12 min bad bob 182,943
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 31 min ImFree2Choose 2,325
Question for white men? do you just use black w... (Feb '10) 41 min BearerofBADnews 308
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr New Age Spiritual... 445,909
Why did God allow sin into His universe? 1 hr New Ideas 18
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) 12 hr akon mason 70
More from around the web