Prove there's a god.
henry

Bischofferode, Germany

#760423 Jul 21, 2014
dirty white boy- wrote:
<quoted text> Love thy neighbor as thyself.
The Old laws was of establishing them as a peoples, Jesus taught of loving thy enemies as thy loved thy self, which the old Jewish sect obviously didn't wanna give up, Love over came all old laws, turn the other cheek, he doesn't say kill that mf'er, because love would overcome that. the old laws are/were still in place but no need to kill a mf'er when, with love comes understanding and peace..
If love wasn't In place things would definitely run amuck.
They didn't wanna relinguish the power of control for love, their hearts had been harden unto the old ways.
If he had came to fulfill the laws of the commandments, their would not have been a mf'er left alive..
LOVE IS THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT OF ALL.
you obey and follow them laws with love, which overcame slavery, rape, genocide, and just randomly doing drive by's and killing mf'ers!
There was never such a Thing like a god at all. The bible is a relikt of the Stone Age. But we live in the nuclear Age. Fukushima will not be the last catastrophe and I believe mankind will end by Radiation of our planet.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#760424 Jul 21, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
My claims regarding omnipotence don't require that the god be able to do the logically impossible. You may have seen my list of ways of ruling out the Christian god at http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE... . Here are the two items that refer to omnipotence.
WHY THE BIBLE GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE: Things that cannot exist.
[2] An omnipotent being incapable of being in the presence of sin
[8] An all-loving, omnipotent being that allows unnecessary suffering
The only way those would work is if you believe that omnipotent means "able to do anything and having no restrictions". But it doesn't. Omnipotent simply means all powerful. Don't add to the definition to suit your fancy.
Neither being in the presence of sin nor preventing needless suffering is logically impossible like making a two-sided triangle. What is logically impossible is to be both omnipotent and being unable to do things I can do. I can be in the presence of sin and I can prevent unnecessary suffering where I have the power to do so. So can an omnipotent god. And one that is all knowing and all-loving would have to. That's the logical impossibility: being all of those things and permitting gratuitous suffering at the same time.
See? You're adding to the meaning of omnipotent. Why?

Omnipotent does not mean "able to do anything".
And though I'm not disagreeing with you, as usual, anybody that does can find biblical support for his position and say that those scriptures and his understanding of them trump yours. Somebody that cares to argue the opposite position can cite any of the following:
[1] "But Jesus looked at them and said,“With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”- Matthew 19:26
[2] "For nothing will be impossible with God.”- Luke 1:37
[3]“Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh. Is anything too hard for me?" - Jeremiah 32:27
Any of those scriptures can be used to contradict you.
Those are figures of speech, like when you tell your child that he can do anything, be anything he wants to be.

You're not literally telling him that, that would be ridiculous. You're encouraging him using a figure if speech to illustrate it.
Lab28

Anaheim, CA

#760425 Jul 21, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
So what then is your larger point? That we have the bible or Christianity to thank for abolition, civil rights and/or women voting? I would argue the opposite.
Citing examples from history of Christians behaving honorably or intelligently is not an endorsement of Christianity unless you can also demonstrate that it was their Christian upbringing in biblical principles that led them to those conclusions, conclusions that non-Christian not referring to bibles couldn't have come to. Is that your position?
<quoted text>
Once again, what is your point? What difference does it make whether those words appeared in the Declaration or not? And what difference does it make what this founder or that one had in mind when signing on to the use of that phrase?
And how did "God" get in there? Your god? What does the Christian god have to do with freedom from a dictatorial king?
Abolition
"Wherever there is a human being, I see God-given rights inherent in that being, whatever may be the sex or complexion."
-William Lloyd Garrison

“Older forms of indentured servanthood and the bond-service of biblical times had often been harsh, but Christian abolitionists concluded that race-based, life-long chattel slavery, established through kidnapping, could not be squared with biblical teaching either in the Old Testament or the New.”
&#8213; Timothy Keller

"Religion without humanity is very poor human stuff."
-Sojourner Truth

Women's Suffrage
Kaiser Wilson Have you forgotten your sympathy with the poor Germans because they were not self-governed? 20,000,000 American women are not self-governed. Take the beam out of your own eye."
- Silent Sentinel banner, 1917

"I have not placed reading before praying because I regard it more important, but because, in order to pray aright, we must understand what we are praying for."
-Angelina Grimke

"The doctrine of blind obedience and unqualified submission to any human power, whether civil or ecclesiastical, is the doctrine of despotism, and ought to have no place among Republicans and Christians."
-Angelina Grimke

Remarkably easy to just find the name of a leader in one of those movements and google quotes for them.

I can't wait to hear how this somehow doesn't meet your standard of proof for Christianity influencing these movements.

Since: Apr 14

Location hidden

#760426 Jul 21, 2014
Proxy Queen wrote:
<quoted text>
When we've wronged someone, we seek their forgiveness in order for the relationship to be restored. Whatever relationship that may be; friend, coworker, lover, anonymous person on an Internet website, etc.
Forgiveness is an act of love, mercy, and grace. One cannot forgive without humbling themselves and letting go of their ego. If they do, the act of forgiveness is a false act.
Forgiveness does NOT require the person being forgives to ask for it nor can you make them accept your apology. That's why it's usually called "asking forgiveness".
I think you misunderstood the question. Can you forgive another person for their wrong, if they did not ask for forgiveness/apologize/are not sorry for what they did/ have no remorse for their actions? Why would one apologize/ask forgiveness for what another did wrong? Why would one forgive someone who was not sorry for their actions?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#760427 Jul 21, 2014
Proxy Queen wrote:
You constantly denigrate Christians and our culture and our teachings. You should expect hostility thrown at you for doing so.
I am used to it, but it is neither necessary nor acceptable. I am critical of ideas, institutions, and practices.

This is a forum for having exactly those kinds of discussions. I read criticisms of atheism every time I'm here. Is that not the same thing in reverse?

When lightbeamrider tells me that atheism answers nothing and offers nothing except hopelessness and immorality, do I take it personally and attack him for it? No, I answer the claim and nothing else. He doesn't return the favor, however.

It is only then that I attack him person - after he's been slurping from his gutter of abusive language and spitting its sewage onto the thread.

Likewise with nanoanomaly, reply mail, Viking, and Joyful. They all drink and spray that same filth.

Let's look at your comment again: "You constantly denigrate Christians and our culture and our teachings. You should expect hostility thrown at you for doing so."

What you call denigrating your culture is this: I criticize faith and am criticized for having none or for being skeptical and a materialist. I criticize scripture and hear criticisms of Darwin. I criticize the church and read criticisms of atheism and humanism. It's all the same.

I don't call that denigrating atheists, at least not sufficiently to justify hostile personal attacks against the Christian that posted it.

So yes, I expect to be dealt with with hostility from ill-bred people of faith because it's so very common here. But I don't consider it justified.

Do you?
Lab28

Anaheim, CA

#760428 Jul 21, 2014
With the caveat that Timothy Keller is actually a modern apologist.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#760429 Jul 21, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
Viking (man of a thousand sick puppets) should sue American Standard for theft of his intellectual property.
Smartazz.

Like your buds here have ever had an original thought of their own. All they do is parrot The Horsemen...and me.

Your Poe parodies aren't believable either.

Since: Apr 14

Location hidden

#760430 Jul 21, 2014
dirty white boy- wrote:
<quoted text> Forgiving someone is for your own peace of mind..
You have no control over someone else and whether they ask for it or not.
Do it for yourself..
Peace..
Thank you for the answer. But, how do you forgive them for something that you know they have no remorse for? When they don't even think they did anything wrong?
henry

Bad Langensalza, Germany

#760431 Jul 21, 2014
Joyful8118 wrote:
Lmao, you all are so hilarious with your paranoid, baseless ASSumptions. I have not posted on any thread except this one and a couple little ones that I created myself. Like I said the only names I have used were this one - registered and Angel and Joy - unregistered users, which can be used by others. The only registered name I have used is this one. Thanks for the amusement. Never even heard of whatever other threads that you all are talking about.:) Keep up your ignorance.
May God bless you.
God? Never existed!

Since: Apr 14

Location hidden

#760432 Jul 21, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
My claims regarding omnipotence don't require that the god be able to do the logically impossible. You may have seen my list of ways of ruling out the Christian god at http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE... . Here are the two items that refer to omnipotence.
WHY THE BIBLE GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE: Things that cannot exist.
[2] An omnipotent being incapable of being in the presence of sin
[8] An all-loving, omnipotent being that allows unnecessary suffering
Neither being in the presence of sin nor preventing needless suffering is logically impossible like making a two-sided triangle. What is logically impossible is to be both omnipotent and being unable to do things I can do. I can be in the presence of sin and I can prevent unnecessary suffering where I have the power to do so. So can an omnipotent god. And one that is all knowing and all-loving would have to. That's the logical impossibility: being all of those things and permitting gratuitous suffering at the same time.
And though I'm not disagreeing with you, as usual, anybody that does can find biblical support for his position and say that those scriptures and his understanding of them trump yours. Somebody that cares to argue the opposite position can cite any of the following:
[1] "But Jesus looked at them and said,“With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”- Matthew 19:26
[2] "For nothing will be impossible with God.”- Luke 1:37
[3]“Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh. Is anything too hard for me?" - Jeremiah 32:27
Any of those scriptures can be used to contradict you.
Incidentally, I don't think you actually answered my question. I just did. That is where the bible describes its deity's omnipotence.
Where in the bible did all of those qualifcations you listed come from?
Preach on.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#760433 Jul 21, 2014
Proxy Queen wrote:
I think that by calling God a loser you are attempting to illicit an emotional response thereby facilitating and encouraging your perception that Christians aren't nice people. Won't work on me, dude man.
I'll be he [Tide] wasn't trying to cause you to post an angry or emotional reply. He simply doesn't respect the character of the god of the Christian bible.

And why should you write anything about it apart from a rebuttal if you so choose? Is he attacking you when he calls Jehovah a loser? It sure seems like a lot of Christians behave as if that is the case.

Your reaction was appropriate. You discussed the issue without gutter diving.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#760434 Jul 21, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Feel free to criticize atheism. That's what we're here for: to share ideas about ideas. What you have attacked instead is my person.
<quoted text>
That is an appropriate topic of discussion.
That's because there is nothing wrong with being an atheist/doubter/unbeliever, but there is something wrong with *being* you.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#760435 Jul 21, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Incidentally, I don't think you actually answered my question. I just did. That is where the bible describes its deity's omnipotence.


Perhaps. I meant to answer, just went off on a tangent.
Where in the bible did all of those qualifcations you listed come from?
God can't lie.
Numbers 23:19
1 Samuel 15:29
Psalm 92:15
Malachi 3:6
Romans 3:4
Titus 1:2
Hebrews 6:18
James 1:17-18

God can't cease to exist
Psalm 90:2

God can't remember a time He didn't exist
Isaiah 49:15

God can't break a promise.
Psalm 89:34

God can't remember sins He has chosen to forget
Isaiah 43:25

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#760436 Jul 21, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I find just about every aspect of you contemptible.
The feeling is obviously mutual. Do the logical thing, move along and bother someone else.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#760437 Jul 21, 2014
curiouslu wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for that but perhaps you'd like to tell Mr Dawkins, he might care.
http://vanallens.com/exchristian/jesusinator....
dawkins is a flaming gay AND stupid:-)

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#760439 Jul 21, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh, neat. Hey, did you read Phillip K Dick's take on gnosticism? I am trying, but cannot remember the book title. Anyways, it was a lovely spiral into insanity and religion.
Oh! Got it - Valis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VALIS
Can't say I have.....as I don't read much from the fiction genre. I do every so often, but haven't done it recently.

I'd like to recommend a book on the topic.....and it is a long one, but very informative on the subject of Gnosticism.

Tobia Churton's "Gnostic Philosophy: From Ancient Persia to Modern Times"

http://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Philosophy-Anci...

Karen King's "What is Gnosticism" is another book that has some similar info, but a good read as well - as it involves some fundamentals in an easy to read format.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Gnosticism-Karen-L...

For me - after reading Churton's book, it solidified me that organized religion is as bogus as the books that they try to convey as "truth".

Best regards,

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#760440 Jul 21, 2014
Proxy Queen wrote:
Then don't talk to me as if I follow the OT laws. You should know by know that I believe Jesus fulfilled those laws, which is why Christians don't follow them.
dirty white boy- wrote:
Of Course Christians follow them..
Somebody thinks those Old Testament laws are still important:

"FFRF Wins Ten Commandments Case"
http://ffrf.org/legal/challenges/highlighted-...

Since: Apr 14

Location hidden

#760441 Jul 21, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I am used to it, but it is neither necessary nor acceptable. I am critical of ideas, institutions, and practices.
This is a forum for having exactly those kinds of discussions. I read criticisms of atheism every time I'm here. Is that not the same thing in reverse?
When lightbeamrider tells me that atheism answers nothing and offers nothing except hopelessness and immorality, do I take it personally and attack him for it? No, I answer the claim and nothing else. He doesn't return the favor, however.
It is only then that I attack him person - after he's been slurping from his gutter of abusive language and spitting its sewage onto the thread.
Likewise with nanoanomaly, reply mail, Viking, and Joyful. They all drink and spray that same filth.
Let's look at your comment again: "You constantly denigrate Christians and our culture and our teachings. You should expect hostility thrown at you for doing so."
What you call denigrating your culture is this: I criticize faith and am criticized for having none or for being skeptical and a materialist. I criticize scripture and hear criticisms of Darwin. I criticize the church and read criticisms of atheism and humanism. It's all the same.
I don't call that denigrating atheists, at least not sufficiently to justify hostile personal attacks against the Christian that posted it.
So yes, I expect to be dealt with with hostility from ill-bred people of faith because it's so very common here. But I don't consider it justified.
Do you?
Still lying! Makes me so happy to see that you can't stop thinking of me. You just can't keep my name out of your mouth. Awwww, so much love. Have a lovely, joy-filled, joyful day. God bless you.

Since: Apr 14

Location hidden

#760442 Jul 21, 2014
henry wrote:
<quoted text>
God? Never existed!
Oh, thank you. Don't know what I would have done without your OPINION. Have a lovely day. God bless your little heart.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#760443 Jul 21, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting, thanks. Looks like they were ahead of their time - I mean, now we live in an age where lots of people are essentially doing just this.
That is a great point, because it does.

Odd as it seems, this is exactly what the so-called "Church" has been trying to wrap its hands around for 1600+ years.....and they still can't.

This information is now at a point in its time where people have presented it, from out of the shadows and into a mainstream capacity, slowly causing the so-called "Church" to finally collapse upon itself.

Non-religious people (spiritualism) could be one of the fastest growing groups globally.

IMO - it is what Jesus spoke and taught......believe in yourself......shun the things that cause the bad things to occur....and live in love.

We would have that Utopian world.

Unfortunately for us, too many so-called "Christians" can't come to the terms of honesty, and thus continue live a lie.

Thanks for posting and responding!

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) 11 min Liam 603,282
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 11 min Pegasus 272,878
anyone got cheap cigarettes for sale? (Mar '12) 15 min David96_ 15
Golden Virginia and Amber leaf wanted 43 min David96_ 1
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 hr dollarsbill 8,029
Ruthlessly GREEDY New Yorkers earned 9-11 1 hr WasteWater 14
What Your Church Won't Tell You by Dave and Gar... (Apr '10) 1 hr real 33,187
The Christian Atheist debate 2 hr MrAnderson9 3,845
is it wrong i like to wear womens underwear (Nov '12) Sat i fkedurBeezyanally 279
More from around the web