There isn't one. Unless anyone can prove otherwise?
There is no such truth. We all have our opinions/beliefs. Maybe our descendants, through scientific inquiry, will know more about the nature of existence.
Although the world has their own opinions and beliefs, there is only one truth.
People's false opinions are irrelevant to the truth, because they only want what they believe to be true.
Fact is, we all have to accept the truth because we cannot change it.
Nice try though Satan.
Did you seriously just call LL Satan? I'm not sure, but I think that might be taken as a personal attack.
and calling JWAH pathetic might be as well.
I said it as in Satan's attempt to lure us away from what's real in any possible way, even if it's something irrelevant to reality.
Interesting. You say there isn't one, without providing any proof, yet you require proof for anyone to argue.
Shouldn't the criteria be the same for both sides?
It should indeed and I dont normally categorically state that there is no god unless I am getting lazy and trying to make a point.
Of course, it only makes sense that the default position when something has been made up is to not believe it exists.
Ok, so now you are switching to 'it doesn't exist because it is made up'. So, rather than having unfair criteria for reality, you revert to circular reasoning?
If you can answer one question for me, I will consider your position that God doesn't exist. How was the universe created?
Sorry I thought I made it clear in my last post. I dont categorically claim that there is no god. I simply got lazy in this particular instance.
If you want me to be entirely honest with you, I think that the stance there is no god is probably 99.99% true.
I dont know how the universe came to be. Of course noone needs to explain the universe in order to negate the claim that there is a god.
Nobody can negate the claim that there is a god. That's the point. There isn't even a method to say that God is 99.99% unlikely to exist.
I use the question of the creation of the universe because it is a common belief that God created the universe. Since we can't explain that, why would anybody think we can explain away the possibility of God?
In the cosmic sense, our combined understanding is extremely small.
Interesting that you speak for everyone. Just because your understanding is extremely small, that does not mean everyone is as limited in their thinking as you are.
Your arguments are illogical and nonsensical. For a number of reasons so I would ask you a few questions - seeing as your default position is to believe everything unless it can be positively dis-proven. You must believe an awful lot of stuff.
Can you now disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Great Green Arkleseizure or any of the other possible Gods? No - you can not.
Assuming you cannot - do you believe they created the Universe? You must do as you cannot disprove them.
If so - surely this disproves your god?
And - I also assume you can prove the Universe did not exist at some point. Can you show us your proof please?
I am speaking about human knowledge in total. We can explain only a small percentage of what goes on in the universe, and even those explanations are hazy and tentative.
Did I say I believe everything unless it is dis-proven? No, I didn't. So why would you say I said something that I didn't say?
Did I say I could? I really don't understand what your point is. For your information, you can't win an argument by pretending I say something and refuting that. Speaking of illogical fallacies that's a 'straw man'.
I never said they do exist. I never said they don't exist. Why do you insist on pretending I've said things that I haven't?
Did I mention 'my God'? Again, I didn't think so.
Wow, you are good. 6 things I didn't say. What exactly is your point?
Sorry - I thought you were a Christian. I made the illogical assumption that you believed in the Christian god.
My bad. Let us try this again. Do you believe that the universe was created by the great green arkleseizure?
My points are:
1 - as you cannot disprove the great green arkleseizure, the default position must be that it exists and created the universe - yes?
So - if the great green arkleseizure created the universe - the christian god did not. Therefore I have dis-proven the christian god.
2 - you say the universe was created. So you must have proof that there was a time when it did not exist - yes?
I do think it is wonderful that you hold all human knowledge though. Congratulations. You are very special.
This is what happens when you act like I say things that I don't.
No, I don't.
Nope. You are the only one who has said that so far.
Nope. You haven't prove the great green arkleseizure.
No, I didn't say the universe was created. Again, you are not using my words in the way in which I have used them. Nor did I claim to have proof of the origins of the universe.
Wow... You're still going up with these things that I never said. Please try to be more responsible in what you take from my words. In case you can't tell, I didn't say that.
I said "probably" 99.99% and I based that on the religious texts that we have which are the only sources of information for any gods.
Of course they are so contradictory and inconsistent it stands to reason that the odds of them being true are not too good. The 99.99% is my own opinion or guess if you will.
What odds would you give to a pink unicorn with purple spots being ridden by an emu with no head existing?
Based on contradictions in religious texts(which texts? contradictory to themselves? contradictory to other texts?) you eliminate the possibility of God. Logically, this is an erroneous conclusion. Even if one point of claimed evidence is false, the conclusion can still be true.
Contradictory to themselves and inconsistent with themselves. The bible is so self contradictory and inconsistent that it cannot possibly be true.
That is a perfeclty apt conclusion.
And you are a perfect example of ignorance.
We know that ignorance equals bliss, but it will only last for so long.
You should try reading it with your eyes and mind instead of your mouth, by rejecting everything in it.
Most of the periods in the Bible have already taken place, and we continue to live its timeline as life goes by, we cannot do anything to stop it, for it is the Will of our Creator, he's omniscient, the beginning and the end.
He wrote time and we can only live it, not change it.
This makes all your personal ignorant opinions irrelevant, and you sound idiotic as these fools mocking the Word of God.
You're going to need a lot more than a little "luck" to help you redeem yourself from this one.
Its not a perfectly apt conclusion. Its a perfectly bias conclusion.
There are no bible contradictions. I love to refute bible contradictions. Go ahead name one, i am just dying to check it out. I wonder what atheist site you will send me to lol.
See how easy that was to show fallacies at work in your posts.
First of all i would like to say that a lot of times when individuals ask if there is a God, because they doubt if God exists..Usually these people really do believe that there is a God but they feel the need and the want to have constant reminders and certain answers as if God is gonna show up and say,ok child"..what is it that you need to know..,So if you don't really believe than why do you care to even hear or know about a God you don't even believe in.
He (could) lives in the .01%!!
You just can't figure that out.
Why not just ask Him to prove Himself to you, insed of posting ridiculous comments and threads.
He's more than willing (and able) to reveal Himself to you.
That's if you are genuine, of course. He doesn't play games with "wanna-be's".
I dont believe a god exists. Are you seriously asking me to talk to something that in my opinion is more then likely non existant?
If I told you that the only reason you dont believe in Vishnu is because you dont let him prove himself to you and told you to let him into your life, you couldnt honestly believe he was there could you?
I hope you see how silly your request is.
God is a extraordinary claim. That requires extraordinay evidence.
You don't sound too convinced!
You can ask, but Vishnu will never reveal himself. He truly IS non-existent! I won't waste my time.
Not as silly as you will feel when you face Him, and He says to you, "I'm the One you thought 'probably' doesn't exist"
Extraordinary evidence you already have. You just choose to ignore all of it.
Please don't use evidence and proof interchangeably. They are not the same thing.
What do you mean I dont sound convinced? I cannot categorically claim that there is or isnt a god because I dont have that knowledge and neither do you.
I am 99.999999999999999% certain that any of the gods worshipped today are not real based on the scriptures I have read.
Your claim that Vishnu is non existant is rather arrogant given your lack of ability to back up your claim dont you think?
You dont have ANY evidence. You haven't presented anything for me to ignore. Don't tell lies.
Unless you can demonstrate your claim to be true, then you are simply voicing your opinion, and since it is just your opinion, I find it rather insulting that you would try to pass it off as fact.
In fact, I wouldn't want you anywhere near my children. You would probably try to brainwash them to try and save them from what you THINK is real.
Since you are 99.9999 convinced and wrong, you should start over.
There is only one God, and not other gods.
No bibles outside the Holy Bible claim that they are the only god, but that their gods exist with other ones, and that they be worshipped by statues.
The Holy Bible are the Words of the only and living God.
Other gods are nonexistent, only spirits acting as gods, in order to keep them in their religions outside of the Holy Bible, and in conclusion never finding the only God.
What I stated here is the truth, and you can take it and measure it across all cultures and religion.
You won't be able to prove me wrong.
And, inevitably, you're going to know that it is the truth.
But, most likely, from seeing your lack of knowledge, understanding, and character, you'll reject it and go on with your own interpretations.
Worst mistake you'll ever make.
This isn't the only life to live, but you'll find out too late and you won't have a chance to change it. But that's life to many, the payout - the same.
from: Jesuswas a hippy: If you want me to be entirely honest with you, I think that the stance there is no god is probably 99.99% true.
This is what you think, you better start KNOWING before you end up in somewhere you regret and wish you had learned instead of guessing and making up your own righteousness.
Pride gets in the way of learning, you won't learn if you think what you know is right, instead of accepting the truth.
Pride is pathetic, and so are you
The believer, using fallacies, will always fall back on the belief of a God if an answer is not readily available for them. Often, even when one is readily available, they will not consider the position, anyways.
It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist.
Correct. It's also ridiculous to say something doesn't exist because it hasn't been proven. Everything we know today was, at some point in history, unproven.
janesix was pointing our YOUR fallacy. Funny that you agree.
You're wrong Troubled, it wasn't my fallacy. I never said God exists because he can't be disproven. I made an argument to show the incorrectness of JWAH's OP.
Try to keep up, there is such a thing as 'context'.
No, you didn't make an argument, you used a fallacy and it was pointed out to you, again.
Uh, it is. Did you miss the point of the OP?
The OP said:
God doesn't exist(statement of fact)
... unless someone can prove God does exist.
The burden of proof in the OP is placed on proving the existence of God, and defaults to God doesn't exist in the absence of proof. It doesn't require proof that God doesn't exist.
Can you really not tell the difference?
Of course, the burden of proof is on the claimants of believers for the existence of the Great Green Arkleseizure and no one else. Simple really.
Yes, it is. However, if someone wants to disprove the Great Green Arkeseizure, then the burden of proof is on them to disprove it.
You should know better. Lack of evidence doesn't constitute proof against something, when speaking logically.
There you go with fallacies again. Shouldn't they be proving the existence of the Great Green Arkeseizure?
Lack of evidence doesn't constitute proof for something, either.
If you can imagine God to be real, I can imagine the Great Green Arkeseizure to be real, or an invisible purple rhinoceros. Neither one of us has a shred of evidence to support our beliefs.
And, it would be fallacious for either of us to embrace those beliefs just because science has not disproved them.
Only if they want to prove it. Someone stating a belief doesn't have burden of proof. There is a difference between a statement of belief(read: opinion) and a statement of fact.
I never said it did.
Did I say you aren't allowed to imagine the GGA to be real? Your insistence on strawman arguments is amazing. Go ahead, I don't care.
I do have evidence, but it is highly subjective. That's why I don't present my beliefs as fact.
No, personal beliefs don't have to be based off of logic or science... where would you get a requirement like that?
Really? I would have never imagined that reading posts here.
It is also why your beliefs are irrational and illogical.
Look up the word evidence, too.
Yet, you call my statements of opinion 'fallacies' even though the burden of proof doesn't apply?
I know the word evidence. I've quoted it to you before. You can't say my beliefs are irrational because there is no test for it. No method to show that they are irrational.
Tell you what Troubled, let's debate at debate.org. You're so confident in my usage of logical fallacies and your own logical prowess, let's debate over there and let the community decide who makes the better arguments.
Appeal to Popularity Fallacy
Appeal to Authority Fallacy
Nope. I didn't say we would use the votes to determine who is right. I just suggested we debate in a more formal environment. It could be a good learning experience for both of us.
In case you can't tell the difference, appeal to popularity is trying to prove a point by showing that is popular. Appeal to authority is trying to prove a point by showing that a person with authority believes it.
Bandwagon fallacy is the same as appeal to popularity, or appeal to popular belief.
I just figured allowing others to critique our arguments would allow us both to learn and grow. It's fine if you don't care to do that.
No, for you, maybe.
Still trying to get a grasp on fallacies? Keep at it.
I would agree you need to learn. What that has to do with me is irrelevant.
Ok, if you feel you have nothing to learn, then you have learned everything you can.
I seek knowledge everywhere I can
I didn't present anything as fact, so there was no appeal. Popularity and bandwagon are the same thing. You can't even address my points so you make fun of them. Next is , and after that ignoring my arguments.
Right. You think you know everything, fine. I know I have a lot to learn. I think the difference is pretty clear between us.
Funny how you tell others not to put words in your mouth.
I do have things to learn, just nowhere near as much as you.
Yes, you put words in my mouth and then turn around and complain others are doing the same thing.
Ok. That's fine.
Ah, sorry. I mistook your failure to admit that you have anything to learn, and your derision of my needing to learn, as a stance on your personal feelings about your own knowledge. I wonder why someone who admits they have things to learn would laugh at others that are trying to learn as much as they can...
Can you answer a question? One question? Without laughing, changing the topic, or just saying something like 'fallacy'?
Let's try it.
Yes or no:
Are the bandwagon fallacy and appeal to popularity the same?
Appeal to Popularity is a claim accepted as being true because most people are inclined to believe it true, while the Bandwagon is a threat of rejection by peer pressure being substituted for evidence in an argument.
Thanks for finally addressing a point.
I wonder where you get your information? esgs.free.fr, nizkor.org?
I would suggest better information. Bandwagon refers to wagons that were used for bands or politicians. People would 'jump on the bandwagon' to show their support, and the term came to be synonymous with following the masses.
Bandwagon is another name for Argumentum ad populum. Peer pressure is a type of Bandwagon, but it is not the same thing. You are confusing what can be construed as a narrow subset of a parent as a completely different thing.
Not really. Here are a couple of Bandwagon examples that make my point...
"Bill says that he likes the idea that people should work for their welfare when they can. His friends laugh at him, accuse him of fascist leanings, and threaten to ostracize him from their group. He decides to recant and abandon his position to avoid rejection.
Bill thinks that welfare is needed in some cases. His friends in the Young Republicans taunt him every time he makes his views known. He accepts their views in order to avoid rejection."
And, here are some examples of Appeal to Popularity...
"I read the other day that most people really like the new gun control laws. I was sort of suspicious of them, but I guess if most people like them, then they must be okay."
Jill and Jane have some concerns that the rules their sorority has set are racist in character. Since Jill is a decent person, she brings her concerns up in the next meeting. The president of the sorority assures her that there is nothing wrong with the rules, since the majority of the sisters like them. Jane accepts this ruling but Jill decides to leave the sorority."
Hope that helps.
Yes, people can change their mind due to peer pressure. It's called peer pressure. That is not a logical fallacy. Bill isn't saying 'X is correct because you will be ridiculed if you say it is wrong'.
They only 'make your point' if you call them bandwagon. But, they aren't logical arguments, so how can you say they are logical fallacies?
Right, appeal to popular belief and bandwagon are the same. See the links I've posted, and the example I gave you above.
That has got to be the stupidest thing I've hear yet. Because we as humans can't prove something it doesn't exist? That is rich.
I just disproved your god. Unless you can prove to me that the great green arkleseizure does not exist.
I guess electricity or the atom did not exist 1000 years ago. Dumb logic isn't it. Things exist whether we know it or not. Funny how humans think so highly of ourselves in this corner of the universe.
So why are you denying the great green arkleseizure? Or do you now accept that he exists and created the universe?
If there are people who agree with you...then the more power to ya! I am talking about a very fundimental thing...the existance of A Supreme
Being. That is what people are talking about. Try starting a thread about your "great green arkleseizure" and see who's talking then.
Joseph smith wrote a book about his crazy mormon religion. Not many believed him. He was viewed as the leader of a crazy sect.
Look how many mormons there are today.........
Religion aside, the issue and debate about a Creator keeps so many of these threads going
That and trying to earn some money via google adsense....
I just started trying. I made £6 only in a couple months. Its pretty lame really. I just want to see how much I can make a day from discussing something I normally discuss for free.
I don't know what criteria you are using for 'proof' or where you got it, but your understanding seems to be extremely limited in this area.
LOL I had to explain that one already. I dont actually believe there is no god. I was simply being dramatic. I don't know either way wether or not a god exists although I think the probability based on evidence is that the gods spoken of by religions do not exist.
No one knows the absolute truth about God but many pretend to. We are all seekers.
The only way to find that out is to live your life benevolently like Jesus did. I think thats why its hard to live with the same personalty and mind set that he had because it was virtuous. I think also thats why Jesus is the most difficut role try and emulate in terms of our actions that constitutes a reflection to who we are as human beings in this world.
Good thing you don't live in a country or time period where it would be against the law to believe that.
Just be happy with what you believe and let others be happy with what they believe? I believe there's nothing wrong with that.
Does it really matter,anyway?We're either right or wrong,and we may never know.
Doesn't matter.The whole thing's stupid anyway.
Of course it matters. Look at the attrocious things that good people have done in the name of religion. Look at the murdered abortion doctors, look at the twin towers, look at the gaza strip, look around, religion is causing things to happen that needn't and I care.
It doesn't take religion for humans to commit atrocities. Give me a break. Human nature is human nature.
Oh ok. So the belief that murdering people for your god is a good thing because god wants you to do it and god is all loving and good doesnt make people commit murder?
How about the belief that god wants you to kill abortion doctors because abortion is wrong and you would be doing the world a favour by murdering the doctors?
Dont be so silly. Of course unfounded beliefs can cause people to do attrocious things.
Muslims think they're going to get 72 virgins from god if they suicide bomb non muslims. Dont tell me that wouldnt make a good man do wrong.
If someone is capable of an atrocity,they are an asshat in the first place.
Uh oh you might get banned. My point is, that GOOD people are doing the attrocities because they think that their all loving, god who is nothing but good, wants them to do it and if god wants them to do it, then it must be a good act for them to do.
And people who don't believe in God are doing the same things. Just like Jane says, it doesn't matter if He exists (for you). Even if he isn't real, people are surviving off of faith. They don't have to prove to anyone that God exists.
Yes but those are BAD people. They would do those things regardless. My point is that religion can make GOOD people do bad things.
Example, please? I know there are bad people out there who are religious, but not all religions lead to being BAD people. Just like we can't say ATHEISM leads to BAD people (i.e. Columbine shootings).
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god so it cannot lead to anything. It has no doctrines, no laws, nothing. It would be like saying not playing football leads to bad joints.
You want an example of a good person doing a bad thing? Mother theresa. Lets see if you can find out how many patients suffered in her care that were refused treatment because she believed that god wanted them to suffer.
Letting people suffer and die is not a good thing but she thought she was doing good.
I cant believe you needed me to give you an example. Do you live inside a coconut with internet?
I don't. A lot of people have burned down churches and shot people for their beliefs (like the Columbine shootings) and I think that religion isn't the problem. It's the people. Bad people who believe in things that a religion doesn't promote.
Columbine had nothing to do with religion in any way shape or form.
Actually, one of the Columbine shooters asked a girl if she believed in God before he shot her. She said yes and he said something profane before he shot her. I know they had other reasons for doing what they did, but my point is that anyone can do bad things; not just people who believe in God. It's silly to think that religion creates "bad people".
So you got that he shot her for her belief out of that? Seriously?
I get your point, everybody does bad things. The difference is religious people who do bad things in the name of their God, then put the onus of their actions on that God. People who do bad things who don't use God as their reason only tarnish their own reputation.
In short, if you don't want the name of your God tarnished then try to keep your own from using his name for their own purpose.
History is replete of people doing bad things in the name of their gods.
So you agree that religion isn't the problem? Just bad people. Good.
No one should blame their actions on anyone but themselves. I am just trying to make a point that God and religion do not cause bad things. People just use religion to take the blame off of themselves, but that probably means that they aren't really following some of the basic requirements of their religion (i.e. Thou Shalt Not Kill).
Sort of. Churches and religions can give birth to a type of "groupspeak" or mob mentality. The church or religion then acts as single entity, and any actions become the responsibility of entity as a whole. While it is certainly not God's fault, it is the fault or the organized religion.
Religion, in many cases, limits to one extent or another the ability to judge one's own actions or make one's own decisions because of the exerting influences of group. In smaller groups these are called cults, in larger groups I believe it is call fundamentalism.
Nonsense, religions do make good people do bad things. There are really no bad people, just bad ideologies.
What we need to realize is that as much as bad people abuse the excellent cover of religion, because religion has an above average reputation and is an excellent disguise, much like an apple wanting to be shipped with the coconuts puts on a hard, hairy outer shell, BUT what this survey fails to include, once again is an important ingredient which is
THAT WE SELDOM HEAR OF GOOD PEOPLE DOING GOOD.
I assume that all this jargon about good people doing bad in the name of religion is taken from sources like: history books, newspapers, tv. So since those mediums are not in the habit of reporting good news how can we judge that there are not MORE people doing good things in the world than bad people doing bad things in the world?
I think this is a stupid topic for debate and has also a hint of desperation within itself.
Since we know that good things come from bad situations we might be equally able to deduce that there is much more good in the world than bad.
A Troubled Manposted 26 hours ago in reply to this
History is replete of people doing bad things in the name of their gods.
and today we do not have history but present day news and are there bad things going on and since religion in on the decrease, what does this tell you..
oh wait its you
It tells you that bad things are still going on today and it has little to do with religion.
You're like the tokyo rose of hub pages
It tells us that religion is still alive and kicking, despite that fact it is on the decline. And, we can see almost every day someone doing something bad in the name of their god, usually the Abrahamic god.
We see believers lying about anything that jeopardizes their beliefs, which is people doing bad things in the name of their god.
I wonder how they reconcile the clear commandment to not kill, which is clearly stated in unambiguous terms. They really can't.
So saying they're "good" is a clear form of self-deception; no one else is required to be deceived as well.
The commandment is not to murder. Kill is an incorrect term.
Interesting. Is this why Christians have so little respect for human life?
That's a pretty bold claim with a very wide application. I'm a Christian, and I regard life extremely valuable. So what about that?
Can you prove that you regard life to be extremely valuable?
Because unless you can, the default position is that you do not.
You are asking me about my belief, which is a subjective subject. There is no empirical test to prove a person's belief. The only tests are through the person's words and deeds. I believe life is valuable. That is as much subjective proof as you can get about my belief, short of examining my life.
For more evidence, I catch spiders, bees, and flies, and let them go outside. I don't hunt or kill except for food, and I try not to harm anyone or anything if I can avoid it.
Asking for objective proof about a subjective belief shows lack of understanding about what 'proof' is.
What does that mean? You think it's OK to kill, but not to murder? Explain the difference, please.
Murder is the premeditated taking of a life. It's pretty simple. If I walk up to you and kill you, that's murder.
Some forms of killing are murder, but not all forms of killing are murder. For instance, if you come into my house and attack me and my family, I can kill you without committing murder.
Luke 6:27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you..."
'Good' = Kalos,
beautifully, finely, excellently, well
rightly, so that there shall be no room for blame, well, truly
excellently, nobly, commendably
honourably, in honour
in a good place, comfortable
to speak well of one, to do good
to be well (of those recovering health)
I consider it right, just, and honorable to defend my family by taking a life if that is the only way. There is no contradiction as you would wish there to be.
Yes, and your righteousness, justice and honor are in light of the teachings in your religion.
I see no cause for alarm due to a believer not following their religions teachings. Happens all the time.
Troubled, you tried to block me with what you suppose I believe to be true scripture. I simply pointed out that there is more meaning in a translated word than a single word that is chosen upon. Your argument is pathetic, first you try to show me as being hypocritical because of my belief, then when I explain what my belief actually is, you claim that I'm not following my own belief.
I'm not following what you think is my belief. There is a difference.
LOL! Lame excuse.
You may be following YOUR belief, yes.
It must be YOUR belief, it does not appear to be the one your religion teaches.
Lame excuse? I clarified my belief for you. Yet, you still think that you know what I believe better than I do.... amazing.
Yet, you said 'I see no cause for alarm due to a believer not following their religions teachings. '. So was I following my belief or not?
Do you know what my religion is?
If you don't know what my religion is, how do you know what it teaches?
Easy. They were probably reading the other part of the bible where god states that your hand must be he first to put to death anyone who tries to lead you away from god.
The bible also tells you to kill. You simply choose to ignore that part in favour of the not killng part.
Some people prefer to believe the killing part as an instance where killing is a requirement and is wanted by god.
Nice to see you still have that firm grasp of biblical wrong context.
In order to understand what the bible is all about and to get an overview of things as they happened, progressed and to know the life and thoughts of the times of the bible throughout history, ONE really has to have a good functioning brain, because it is obviously, a very difficult subject for some people who stubbornly refuse to learn any new thing.
kill.. an act of unintentional death at the hands of another
murder.. an act of INtentional death at the hands of another
I guess shooting a deer on purpose with intent to end its life is murdering a deer. Having an axe head fly off the axe handle and hitting buddy in the head resulting in his death is killing or as we call it today, manslaughter.
unintentional shooting of a deer is deerslaughter Intentional shooting of a deer is deermurder.
The word kill in "thou shalt not kill" should be translated murder as in thou shalt not murder.
Obviously the Hebrews killed animals for sacrifice.
hows that LL
That's an interpretation though.myou have no real way of verifying its meaning with absolute certainty right?
I'm mean it's not like you were there.
thou shalt not kill
1) to murder, slay, kill
a) (Qal) to murder, slay
3) as avenger
4) slayer (intentional) (participle)
b) (Niphal) to be slain
1) to murder, assassinate
2) murderer, assassin
True the word used for kill is also interpreted manslayer, murderer and has a few other terms also. But Deuteronomy chapter 4 elaborates between accidental and intentional deaths. And we must keep in mind context. Thou shalt not kill is very much a general statement. We know that the killing of animals is allowed. So proper context, to me, dictates, murder as a better suited word. Strongs by definition leans more toward intent than action. A number of modern translations use murder. There are always modifiers to every statement or word that provokes definition. These modifiers are always in keeping with Gods perspective.
But it is ultimately up to you.
If you stumble into the pit of "its not like you were there" then you will always hedge yourself a barrier to exclude truths. We Christians don't ever, ever have to be there to know what the parameters are when it comes to Gods Way. Scripturally speaking the spirit was there and that spirit lives inside us, so when i feel inclined to lean toward a certain definition of the word could be that holy spirit leading me into truth that some existant Jesus spoke about
So, you're claiming it is human nature to commit atrocities?
Okay, but if we're talking human nature, wouldn't that apply to all humans?
Only if all human natures were the same, which they are not.
Its human nature to sin, but the degree of sin is different in each human and that nature of something else you don't understand.
Sure, we are all the same compassionate altruistic beings. It is medieval ideologies like your religion that make people say and do bad things.
That is yet another false claim with no basis in reality whatsoever.
told ya you didn't understand.
You and beelzedad ever go drinking together?
This strange compunction you have to reply to things you do not understand and in such an accusatory way with wrong inferences too.
I am intrigued.
WE all know SELF makes people do what they do.
sound of the buzzer
No, your religion is causing you to make stuff up to defend it. That is not the self, that is your religion telling you to do that.
millions of nuances throughout our whole lives make us who are we are
Peoples characters are not formed all at once but by the multitude of choices we make every day.
well if there is a god, he is definately a man because he does not listen:)
Though if believing in god get you through the day then who cares if he exist or not! if your going through hell and your faith is what gives you the strength to get up everyday then it does not matter whether we have proof or not! People and there actions in the name of god are what taint the beleif in a truely divine amazing being! Religion destroys the true essence of God, if that makes sence.
Some days I wish we would all somehow be infused with a uniform understanding of the perfect knowledge of all truth. That way there wouldn't be so much anger and hatred and railing in debates...
Then again...we'd all probably start arguing about what it was that infused us with the perfect knowledge of all truth and the nature of that...thing.
Back to square one.
We already have a uniform understanding, it's called reality.
Once again, you missed my point. That I wish all of us were of the same opinion. so we wouldn't debate. but whatever.
like everyone's reality is uniform
you're just makin this stuff up with that lame and ridiculous claim.
Stop pullin the wool, man!
I don't know why you are so compelled to make up this kind of nonsense.
archeology has revealed what the bible has claimed thousands of times. The Hittites were not believed to have existed but have been found in turkey. William f Albright declared: "there can be no doubt that archeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the OT". Roman historian Colin j Hemer, in 'the book of Acts in the setting of Hellenistic History' shows how archeology has confirmed not dozens, but hundreds and hundreds of details from the biblical account of the Early Church.
Predictive Prophecies. Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Daniel 9:20-24, Zechariah 12:10, are just a few messianic passages that foretell of the coming and dying messiah. Crucifixion is described before it existed. We have predictions that any one man could not control: his arranged ancestry, timing of his birth, place of birth; all of which and more were written down 250yrs prior. There are prophecies over nations and people and nature. No other book has this, the bible is the only book in the world that is supernaturally confirmed in this prophetic way.
Documented Miracles. In exodus 4:1 Moses asked what if the do not listen or believe? God said, throw down your staff and it will turn into a snake. Then in verse 5 God says, "this is so they may believe". God himself says that miracles are way to confirm that God is on the scene. Muhammad said, "if you want a miracle go read the koran". Well that's kinda lame. Miracles were not a sign of muhammads ministry. When john the baptist sent certain persons to ask Jesus if he was the one or not? Jesus said, "Tell john what you have seen and heard; the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised and the good news is preached".
Jesus admits that miracles are a part of what God is doing.
So when you add all this up: the reliability of bible information via archeology, the miraculous fulfillment of prophecies throughout the tome and the performance of documented miracles you just have to be persuaded that this is a supernatural book unlike any other.
What i am saying is "I believe the bible is of the one true God because it says it is", which may sound like circular logic, but, lets put it this way:
the bible claims to be the word of God and the bible proves itself to be the word of God.
There's really no reason to try and pull the wool over our eyes with such a lame and ridiculous claim.
Why are believers so compelled to make up this kind of nonsense?
No integrity, whatsoever.
So what you are saying is, that the post you are supposedly trying to respond to, doesn't make any sense to you, in fact, it is ridiculous.
So i guess i can just ignore your response, because if it doesn't make sense to you then how can you possibly report against it accurately.
So the real question then is, why are You so compelled to reply to things that you don't understand?
I think by definition if someone intentionally replied to something that made no sense to them (even though it was typed clearly) that would be a lack of integrity.
Food for ... nah, that won't be applicable.
No, I didn't say that, those are your words. You even quoted what I said but changed it to suit your agenda, anyways. No integrity, whatsoever.
You said: "archeology has revealed what the bible has claimed thousands of times."
That is entirely false and you know it. Lame and ridiculous.
Are you saying it makes no sense to me why believers make lame and ridiculous claims that are entirely false?
So you have never actually researched about what archeology has discovered in the bible yet you call what i say lame.
You are pathetic.
You did not even understand my second post...
In you are in wayyyyyyyyyyy over your head.
Please don't try to pull the wool over our eyes by trying to make us think you are in any way correct.
No, what I'm saying is that you made that up, like you do so many other things.
You're the one with the ridiculous claims about archeology, not me.
"archeology has revealed what the bible has claimed thousands of times."
MEANT TO SAY: your post is pathetic, not you are.. sorry about that.
sorry if you don't agree.
The book of acts alone has an innumerable amount of archeological corroboration.
Never mind how much of the OT testament has been dug up.
Oxford encyclopedia of archaeology of the near east - 11 vol. set
The book of acts in the setting of hellenistic history.
Archaeology dictionary of the holy land
There's so much out there and you tell me i just make this stuff up.
Those books do not support your claim. Sorry. Yes, those books can show that some of the places and dates of where events occurred can be corroborated. Your claim cannot.
now you are just talking crap.
Its nice that you can type but its not so nice that you don't bother to research.
Really? I'm talking crap? Let's really see then.
In referencing those books, we can ask some simple questions.
Do those books in any way corroborate or confirm that gods exist? No.
Do those books in any way corroborate or confirm Pilate crucified a man named Christ? No.
Do those books in any way corroborate or confirm a man named Christ was resurrected? No.
Do those books in any way corroborate or confirm that heaven or hell exist? No.
Do those books in any way corroborate or confirm Satan exists? No.
Do those books in any way corroborate or confirm any supernatural belief held by you or anyone else? No.
Do those books in any way corroborate or confirm in any way that Christ even existed? No.
So please tell us all, what do those books corroborate or confirm about your beliefs?
This is accurate.
The books do not prove Jesus lived anymore than Tolkien's book proved Tom Bambadil lived.
yes lets compare fiction with biographies
Ok the bible versus Decision Points by George W. Bush
We can pick a word from one of the books then choose another word to define it and call the first word wrong.
That sounds familiar...
I would love to see this "irrefutable" proof that Jesus existed.
Please no wiki or faith.jesus.bibleisreal.com stuff though.
Archaeology is helpful and perhaps falls into the category of irrefutable proof.
If we can trust the bible to tell us of earthly things (archaeology) then we should be able to trust it to tell us of heavenly things.
We walk around in our physical realm and we admire all there is to see and touch and feel, but can we prove that we are not just brains in boxes being zapped for experimental gain and all around us in an illusion? Are we trapped in a nightmare dream that once the dream is ended we are tossed aside or used for spare parts for another dreamer? We cannot, proof contrary to these theories are impossible; chances are that we are not brains in boxes, but still, proof lacks, yet we ground our faith and belief in our world that our eyes register things correctly and our brain processes the information properly and in that evidential light we are viewed as sane, BUT what christians try to tell people is that their christian reality and their proof that God exists in is their experience of which they ground their faith and belief.
So proof is not what is needed. The question, show me proof is fundamentally incorrect especially when asking for proofs about a belief - for a table or chair proof may be easily established, but proof concerning a belief is in the proverbial pudding.
Persuasive evidence is acceptable. When evangelizing, the Christian is to be persuasive but hardly called to turn water to wine. If answers to questions abound and there is good scriptural reference that purports a believable conclusion then that is all the Christian is supposed to do. If the words are not accepted, we move on. No duress, no foul.
Where is irrefutable proof Jesus existed?
Not his divinity. His existence.
I mean irrefutable as in an overwhelming majority of the scientific community agrees.
I think archaeology can be construed as a science.
I'd like to see this evidence of Jesus because as I understand the majority of the scientific community will say there is no real evidence either way.
I have lots of credible sources I'd love to see yours.
That depends on how you define evidence.
I have all the evidence i need
When we read what josephus, pliny, tacitus, and others wrote we notice they all refer 'in their way' to that Christian movement, but this is what you will get from unsaved historians, a historical view. Having only a historical viewpoint it is logical that they present the facts of that time and being unsaved and not believers themselves, they will not and cannot give the Christian viewpoint which we find in the gospel - those people being believers. Therefore, consequentially, there will be a difference in the details of such reports, nevertheless, they are historical reference.
In that light, if you go to unbeliever resources you will get opinions which stems from an unbeliever point of view. The details of the gospels are amazing compared to the secular reports and this is rightfully so being as those gospel writers lives were committed to That Way and like any hobby or craft or career or study, the more involved you are in it, the more you know.
And another point of interest is that, despite their flaws, if you ask any christian if they believe Jesus existed the answer will be yes and also there is no serious scholar who denies Jesus ever existed and there are tons of scholars, in fact there are some amazingly intelligent people, with lines of credentials who do not, if indeed they cannot, deny the existence of Jesus.
When i googled 'secular evidence for Jesus' 7,800,000 returns.
The people who followed Buddha, wrote about Buddha and everyone believes and his biographies were 1,000 yrs after buddha DIED and remained dead. Yet when Jesus disciples wrote about Jesus everyone scoffs and Jesus biographies were written within decades of his death and his resurrection.
To me Jesus absolutely existed, died and still exists today.
Evidence, my friend, is not the key, a little faith is the key.
You stated four times there was archeological evidence.
I merely asked you what it was.
Irrefutable evidence doesn't really have many interpretations.
I'll give you an example.
There is irrefutable evidence that dinosaurs lived on earth.
If you want to say faith tells you Jesus was real and divine or the old tetament wasnt written well after the events that's one thing.
To say there is archeological evidence in which an overwhelming majority of the scientific community and academia agree with to say the same thing is
Id like to think you know better but maybe you have your reasons for spreading false information.
You can't pick and choose what science lets you make Christianity true. Either drop the blade with two edges or be prepared to be cut by it.
Um. The way it was taught to me K - college.
Websters does a good job at it too.
He won't produce any evidence, but he will continue to make up stuff and pretend there is evidence.
Everything i have said is evidence.
You think evidence is something you will never encounter.
But it seems you do not even know the definition of evidence.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief;
lol if you actually read the words of the posts you will see pros and cons and grounds for belief. There is huge grounds for belief in this forum.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
People have mentioned contradictions and on numerous occasions those contradictions have made plain and clear that they are not contradictions but sloppy interpretations. There are indications and signs all through the bible, in nature and especially in DNA.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
again we have reports of eyewitness testimony in 4 gospels and in the lives of Jesus followers, by their deaths and by the spreading of the Christian Way all over that known world to the point where historians had to add it to their historical writings because it was too big to ignore.
to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest:
The clarity presented is obvious to those who have an open mind. To anyone with a learners in english, persuasive evidence is completely clear to anyone able to read.
to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.
Yes we have letters, gospels and 4,000 of OT history. 58,000 documents of the NT. Amazing discoveries at Qumran. Archeological support and more
So how are we doing now?
clearly you are one troubled man
Yes, I'm always troubled with believers deceptions and dishonesty. So, I'll only deal with the first one rather than all of them considering you're just wasting every ones time here.
Your definitions says "that which tends to prove or disprove" - pros and cons are not something that tends to prove or disprove... ever. Certainly, you can use them for grounds for your irrational beliefs, but they are not evidence of anything.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but your summary appears to be that the Bible has proved itself to be true because it has made historical predictions which were accurate and because it is flawless in its historical accuracy?
But...to say that miracles happened would be to actually believe the account of the Bible that a miracle happened, in which you would be asserting the truth of what you're debating, which is that the Bible is true. And to say that God is there whenever miracles are present (assuming God’s grace upon the act), would also be to assume the validity of the words of a being whose existence we are debating: and to after that deduce that these words (that “God is on the scene” when miracles occur) prove God’s presence on the scene. But…anyone could claim to be existent on the scene when miracles are there…
In a nutshell…God claims that when miracles occur, he is on the scene. Therefore, when miracles occur, you understand that God is involved. That’s simply taking God’s word on it...
God also said that the antichrist would perform many signs and miracles to lead people astray…so surely God is not necessarily apart of all miracles. And even when Moses turned the rod into the snake, the other Egyptians, called (“magicians” or “wise men”) present, counteracted this “miracle” with the same “miracle” in Pharaoh’s court: Exodus 7:11. They performed a “miracle” and made snakes out of rods. And yes, according to the Biblical account, Moses’ snake ate up all the other snakes, but the point is: they still performed a miracle—regardless of whose miracle ate whose....
However, even if it were true that miracles DID occur and that the events of the Bible really did happen in a historical context, is that adequate information to prove the infallibility of it in ALL accounts? Just because something is correct on one or maybe even two accounts…does that make the totality of it accurate? In this case the divinity of Jesus? It might make it an extremely interesting and even supernatural type of book in some regard; but even if that were agreed upon to be true, does this mean that all of it is necessarily accurate; it was not written by the same person or at the same time. Therefore, was this supernatural element true of all parts, or just some, etc?
There have been other writings, predictions, and books which have accurately and stunningly predicted historical events: some of which include the Quran, independent prophecies, etc. Please understand I’m not addressing as a hater. I’m just questioning the reasoning in this…
But...to say that miracles happened would be to actually believe the account of the Bible that a miracle happened, in which you would be asserting the truth of what you're debating, which is that the Bible is true.
Like I also say, if one does not believe in miracles then they cannot believe in the bible. So what's the point of discussing it - Its like telling someone Einstein was a great mathematician when they don't believe in e=mc2 - unless the person, in this case, who doesn't believe in e=mc2 is open to the possibility of being convinced.
And to say that God is there whenever miracles are present (assuming God’s grace upon the act), would also be to assume the validity of the words of a being whose existence we are debating: and to after that deduce that these words (that “God is on the scene” when miracles occur) prove God’s presence on the scene. But…anyone could claim to be existent on the scene when miracles are there…
I don't believe that others do the same miracles. Sure moses threw down a rod and it became a snake and so did the egyptians and they did some pretty incredible things and yet they failed after the third plagues to equal God. Jesus miracles, with maybe the exception of water to wine were healings, calming stormy waters so that a few might not drown, Jesus miracles were miracles of mercy. We know that some islam youngster had these amazing appearing and disappearing tattoos that spelt out part of the koran on her arm, but are these the types of miracles that God would do? Are these miracles of mercy? or just for show? The bleeding statues of Mary are these miracles of mercy or show? When appolonius of tyre was doing his magician tricks did he ascribe the works to God or was he out to get a cushy richy to hire him as court magi? Signs and wonders do happen but the signs and wonders God does are in a different category and of a different quality.
In a nutshell…God claims that when miracles occur, he is on the scene. Therefore, when miracles occur, you understand that God is involved. That’s simply taking God’s word on it...
Its my continuous experience that Gods word is always true.
And yes, according to the Biblical account, Moses’ snake ate up all the other snakes, but the point is: they still performed a miracle—regardless of whose miracle ate whose.
I have to wonder if the miracles were really miracles that the egyptians did. I read somewhere that the egyptians hypnotized and or drugged their snakes which they carried around and they were stiff like rods and this was not a common event but only at certain times. The egyptians produced red water off the back of God already turning the water red. Perhaps they just dug another hole and said "look this is read too".
about the antichrist
Here are all the scriptures containing antichrist:
1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. [/i]
(when did we hear about antichrist. There is no prior mention of antichrist in the NT? except that there will those who seek to deceive and turn people from the truth)
1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denies the Father and the Son.
1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit (attitude) of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (it not he)
2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Anti (against) Christ (messiah) is already defined and it is not a singular person. [/i]
However, even if it were true that miracles DID occur and that the events of the Bible really did happen in a historical context, is that adequate information to prove the infallibility of it in ALL accounts?
I believe it is, at least, if it proves correct in many areas, about many things, then we have to give benefit of doubt to those areas not proven yet. We cannot pack up and go home because we do not have all the answers. There are no areas of investigation that merely quit because of an unsolved aspect. And no institutions of investigation dissolve because somebody has denied something that hasn't been proven yet.
Just because something is correct on one or maybe even two accounts…does that make the totality of it accurate?
In other words, we have an analogical method. 'If the analogy of two phenomena be very close and striking, while, at the same time, the cause of one is very obvious, it becomes scarcely possible to refuse to admit the action of an analogous cause in the other, though not so obvious in itself'. If we can believe, "in the beginning God created the heaven and earth", then we should be able to believe that Jesus turned water into wine. If one prediction about a nation comes true, indeed if several, then we must with some guarantee, expect another to also come true. If there is a predictive prophecy about a messiah who will take away the sins of the world in the bible, we ought to be on the look out for him.
In this case the divinity of Jesus? It might make it an extremely interesting and even supernatural type of book in some regard; but even if that were agreed upon to be true, does this mean that all of it is necessarily accurate;
If the deity of jesus were true and his events were dictated by faithful followers, who laid their lives down for what they believed in a supernatural historical book, we would have to look to God and think that he is not so small that accuracy would be a problem to Him.
it was not written by the same person or at the same time. Therefore, was this supernatural element true of all parts, or just some, etc?
If the bible had been written by one person we could clearly call foul, except that it was 2,000 yrs in the making. lol, BUT there are 30 authors in the OT, 10 in the NT over a period of 2,000 years that in itself makes the books remarkable. Here we have history defining itself, purporting doctrines that are coherent. I think there is remarkable supernatural element in all the biblios (many books), bible. Even when in exile and living in a strange land captive, the word of the Lord still comes through prophetic and clear, time and time again, hitting the nail on the head continuously, so i think that many authors just reinforces a supernatural quality.
There have been other writings, predictions, and books which have accurately and stunningly predicted historical events:
This is not necessarily true. Many other prophetic writings are vague and of much less precise caliber than the bible. For instance, Cyrus, kind of persia is mentioned by name 150 yrs before his birth!
'The prophet Isaiah foretold that a conqueror named Cyrus would destroy seemingly impregnable Babylon and subdue Egypt along with most of the rest of the known world. This same man, said Isaiah, would decide to let the Jewish exiles in his territory go free without any payment of ransom (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1; and 45:13). Isaiah made this prophecy 150 years before Cyrus was born, 180 years before Cyrus performed any of these feats (and he did, eventually, perform them all), and 80 years before the Jews were taken into exile'.
Nowhere has any prediction written come so close.
Jeanne dixon is well known BUT:
she has a number of false predictions:
that red china would plunge the world into war over Quemoy and Matsu in 1958; That WW3 would begin in 1954; that Castro would b banished from Cuba in 1970; Jaqueline Kennedy would not remarry.
Nostradamus predictions are exceptionally blurry:
'Followers of sects, great troubles are in store for the Messengers, A beast upon the theater prepares the scenical play. The invention of that wicked feat will be famous. By sects the world will be confused and divided... Beasts mad with hunger will swim across rivers. Most of the army will be against the Lower Danube [hister seru]. The great one shall be dragged in an iron cage when the child brother will observe nothing'.
"From the enslaved populace, songs,
Chants and demands
While princes and lords are held captive in prisons.
These will in the future by headless idiots
Be received as divine prayers".
The bible says that all prophecies will come true by God and that the evidence against a false prophet are those prophecies that do not come true.
some of which include the Quran,
And the Sun runs to its resting place. That is the decree of the Almighty, the All-Knowing. (Surah Ya Sin, 38)
The Sun has been emitting heat for around 5 billion years as a result of the constant chemical reactions taking place on its surface. At a moment determined by Allah in the future, these reactions will eventually come to an end, and the Sun will lose all its energy and finally go out. In that context, the above verse may be a reference to the Sun's energy one day coming to an end.
There are no prophecies in the Quran.
Thanks for your questions. I tried to be brief
Thanks for the reply I can't see that I agree with your conclusions, but I guess that's fair.
I want to discuss further a couple of things that you said, to clarify:
Ok here goes: I’ll try to make this as unconfusing as possible
My statement about the miracles concerned only those in the Bible. I was not questioning the validity of miracles themselves; I was making the point that asserting that Jesus was a divine and godly man because of his performance of miracles would still make it necessary that the person FIRST believe the Bible. If so, then miracles would prove things to someone only if they already believed the Bible. (Sorry if I misunderstood. I got a little confused by your analogy so I thought there must have been a miscommunication.)
Also concerning miracles, would it really matter what type of miracles are performed? The simple fact that miracles are performed would be significant. Would whether or not someone considers them of mercy make any difference in proving the point that the Bible is indeed accurate? Unless what you’re saying is that it is the merciful nature of those miracles is what causes it to be consistent with God. But even so…all that proves is that the Bible is reaffirming itself. If you don’t already believe the Bible, wouldn’t it be somewhat irrelevant? And on the flip side, the Egyptians would not have considered those to be merciful miracles. And again, it still brings us back to the problem that believing this miracles actually occurded is attesting that the Bible is true in its account of those miracles and is profitable only towards those who believe in its accuracy already…
Concerning the Bible’s accuracy on one or two points as making it reliable to be correct on all points: I think that a book’s accuracy on one subject would indeed at least cause us to take into consideration the possibility of its being correct on all counts: but that’s as far as we can get. It’s a possibility. There are many books which are available and have accurate pieces of information in them, as well as false information, in today’s society. You separated my statements about it, but I kind of meant for them to all be put together. I should have arranged them more clearly. The Bible’s accuracy about the divinity of Jesus in light of its accuracy in other things. Even if It predicted certain things accurately, would it necessarily mean that, several books later, and 2000 years later, it is still predicting accurately? That’s why I brought up the subject of multiple authors: how do we know that one author, should he be correct, is also just as correct and Biblically inspired as the other? I was discussing In other words, just because the Bible is accurate in some things would not make it accurate in ALL things necessarily, unless all authors were without fault when they wrote it. You would have to have the assumption that the Bible was God-inspired…and then we’re back to square one, assuming the truth of what we’re debating.
As far as other prophecies not being as clear as the Bible, I think that would be more of a subjective opinion…not all would hold that opinion. Some would esteem the prophecies of other individuals, etc. as being worth our examination. As for the Quran, I think there are more passages which make prophetic predictions: I personally have not read much of the Quran; however I was engaged to a Muslim for two years and he explained to me the prophetic predictions of the Quran and how they were fulfilled. So wouldn’t the opinion on the significance of the prophecy depends on whether or not the person is inclined to believe them…
As far as taking God’s word on it…I know it’s enough for you, but…it wouldn’t be, for someone who is trying to know why or if they should believe the Bible…
Anywho, those are my thoughts. I hope I understood yours correctly…thanks for the discussion
umm...somehow the smilies turned into little white boxes at the end of the sentences...weird... anywho..
I see we have a belief issue to overcome and that would be laborious indeed for me to explain just half the reasons i believe the bible to be well worth trusting in.
As to your experience with a muslim fellah for 2 yrs, although it is nearly impossible to diffuse someones personal experience, i have read many quran prophecies and they are very weak and not noteworthy at all, but that is just my personal experience. I think we should leave that there.
The miracles were a part of Jesus ministry. I tried to liken them to moses' ministry, both of these being covenant ministries - exceptional miracles were happening at these covenant times, and that's all i was saying about that. Why elijah had miracles or signs is another topic.
The Jesus of the bible is an amazing character. His divinity is plainly stated in Johns gospel, agreed with in the other gospels and letters, but one would have to believe in the biblical texts.
The egyptians would not have considered those merciful miracles but God would have and so would Gods people, because those miracles were designed to bring His people out of Egypt and that was a really merciful thing to do and God was showing mercy to his people and Jesus showed mercy to his people - the jewish nation.
I mentioned a book that is accurate in some parts may be given benefit of doubt to other parts because as i was typing that i was thinking "I did not come to Christ having all the answers first". I only had some answers and that prompted me to experience Christ and now i have so many more answers that the bible verifying itself is as good as a book on earthquakes verifying earthquakes and teaching me things about earthquakes that i previously did not know. A book about God really should verify God, i think.
When we look at the distance of time, 2,000 yrs between jesus and moses, 2,000 yrs between adam and moses. We cannot lose faith that the end times are near. With calendar aberrations and jubilee years, and being told that we will not know the time of arrival by our Lord, we cannot think God is late. So yes i believe that the bible is predicting accurately. I do not think 2,000+ yrs is a long time to wait. Those jewish people can be stubborn - i make funny
I really can't tell you what to do. I can tell you that before i became a christian i accepted persuasive evidence from the bible that its records are true. I entered into christianity by formal prayer acknowledging Jesus as my Lord asking forgiveness for my sins and since then its been a long wonderful experience. Since then, 3 yrs ago in may on the 13th if anyone wants to send me a cake I have learned so much more and i credit that to God working in (spite) of me
Its totally up to you if you ever decide to believe the bible. Just ask the God of your understanding to help you and He will help you. God reaches every sincere heart everywhere in the world because that is His job. And when God answers you, you will find Jesus.
hope that helped
Okie dokie, thanks for the clarification; I understand better what you meant now. I don't agree on everything necessarily, but at least I'm not conufsed as to what you meant now lol. Thanks for sharing
did you okie dokie me?
oh no you didn't (snap)
I hate writing
every single little word can utterly change a meaning.
Curious about this, as the Qu'ran wasn't written until after the death of Muhammad. Curious about this as well. John 1:29-31 says: The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.” This is kinda strange that John is claiming he didn't know him as: 1. They were cousins. 2. John leapt in the womb(moved by the Holy Spirit) when Mary(pregnant with Jesus) entered Elizabeth's house.
John and Jesus had never met before. I assume the only time they met was after John ministry began when Jesus went to be baptized.
John roamed up and down the jordan river living in the desert eating locusts and honey from childhood (luke 1:80).
Jesus was at home in Nazareth going to jerusalem with mom and dad occasionally.
There is no biblical account of the two every meeting nor of joseph or mary being baptized by john, which we might then assume that Jesus went with them.
There is a parallel or a foreshadowing of Johns knowing jesus in that the babe did leap in the womb. The Holy Spirit connecting the two then and at Jesus baptism.
If there was a god, people would have their prayers answered. Religion is man-made.
I have a question.
I'm not sure but from what I read a while ago the dead sea scrolls are the undisputed earliest OT texts.
So is it not possible that things that were prophesied could have been written after the fact?
Barring Jesus and any new testament predictions.
I'm just curious if there's anything to that and I don't feel like wading through sixty pages of google results to find unbiased answers.
Seeing as the NT was written almost 300 years after the last books of the OT. It would be easy for an author to write a story of a person who fulfilled prophesies talked about in the OT.
I am not saying that is what happened, but it would have been possible and easy to do.
Paul even states that Christ was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit's guiding his understanding of the scriptures. (paraphased)
I do not think it would have been that easy to do. We need to remember that these are christians, followers of Jesus, whom they saw in His resurrected form after His public execution by crucifixion. The timing of Jesus was impeccable - before the destruction of the temple as prophesied by Daniel chapter 9:26. (btw .. the time of silence between OT and NT was 400-430yrs not 300- that is confirmed by a wealth of bible scholars). Lying is just not who those followers of JC are and of course God during this monumental work was not on holiday somewhere else and not present. Jesus was not in charge of where he was born, if he were mere man, nor of when he appeared, if he were mere man, but that God by his mighty finger has the whole thing wired from beginning to end and all that had to be done was to report accurately those things which God already did. It is no coincidence or work of deception that the OT says what it says and the NT says what it says.
The dead sea scrolls, apparently written by the Essenes, a peculiar bunch of people, not mentioned in the bible.
Although there is an intact scroll of Isaiah that only has a 4% derivation from the bible book isaiah in the bible, and the DSS contains other books of the bible; it also contains other books not in the bible.
The scrolls are said to be older than the Masoretic texts which the DSS were compared to and found incredibly accurate, also the Book of Daniel with the same accurate results.
For the most part the DSS corroborate the Masoretic Bible in textual accuracy. I have always had faith in the Masoretic texts.
But it seems to me, that the essenes were a peculiar people not really part of the Jesus movement and had somewhat founded their own type of Spirituality apart from Christ. They seem to have had the same propensity for gathering documents and taking from this and that as the roman catholic church did.
As far as "prophecies being written after the facts".
My conclusion is maybe in the DSS, but then again, I have no actual time for the DSS as i have a bible and i do not know fully the agenda of the essenes.
I would not worry too much about your quandary. The masoretics are a good enough quality rendition which the King James bible is founded on.
Not even Stephen Hawking goes so far as to say God doesn't exist, just that his services were not required. Good day to go fishing. So, not even the most brilliant mind on the planet can't hold a candle to your intellects. I worship at your feet, for if you can prove what Hawking won't even touch...why then YOU must be a GOD INDEED! Indeed!
He did do a show called "Is there a God" (Discovery Show called Curiosity. In which he showed that A God was not required to create the universe. But as you say, he didn't come right out and say that there was no God. Just a high probability that there isn't one.
My question is what real proof does anyone have that the old testament wasn't written until well after events that happened.
Thereby nullifying any "prophesies" that happened.
Coupled with the possibility that the authors could have taken ginormous liberties with the truth.
That is just ridiculous.
Lets just speculate about the flying spaghetti monster for a while shall we.
You keep dancing around both my questions.
There are others far more qualified than me to answer your questions.
Hit the books mr.
Alas, I know the answers.
Perhaps my goal is to shed light upon minds who don't.
Or to combat misinformation.
Sometimes questions are more powerful than answers.
Mr Hippy doesn't exist. He's just s bot. Prove otherwise.
I should say I know the outcomes not neccasrily the answers.
I think it's disgusting when a person proclaims to know something that's impossible for him or her to know. i.e.- Tim Tebow getting down on one knee, and praying to a Christian god at the start of each football game. Even though he can't possible know if a book of gossip and here say is accurate, but he goes as far as too think god would care about sports while dozens of innocent children will for a fact starve to death by the time the game is over. Unfortunately, Jesus isn't a good QB coach because Tebow's throwing motion looks like sh*t! (just trying to bring a little humor to a serious topic:)
So no it wasnt well said. (read post below)
on the wrong bandwagon again huh.
Just grab whatever suits ya and ya won't be disappointed
or maybe you will
but you are an expert at ignoring stuff
I have seen this and the person usually does that hand gesture cross thing and kisses a ring or something... if so... purely catholic and that person, in this instance is not praying to a god at all but to a patron saint.
Christians ought to realize and I think they do, the futility of praying for anything other than Gods blessing on the game and not the games outcome. To pray for gain, selfishly, is vanity and emanates from self.
But to pray that the other team win and you give them a good tussle for that win is , hugely christian. lol.
I find it interesting that you would claim to know what that persons prayer was for. Self/team interest or just a good game.
And be advised that I know you hurt and make false accusations against people. Just my personal opinion.
You really have to stop accusing others, brotheryochanan.
This is my belief and i had to go through a lot of things to come to my truth and my conclusion.people all over the world have many beliefs and from the beginning of time people have believed in things that they themselves have chosen to believe..From the beginning of time people have believed in god or gods and i believe that this is just what it is a belief system.For instance ..if i believe in purple swans,than to me they exist and with my belief i worship this purple swan.And eventually others may come around to believe it and not because they saw this purple swan,but because they believe in their minds that their really is a such thing.And this is why i believe people believe there is a spiritual being called God. Some people pray to Their God for answers and blessings,but i believe that if you want something you gotta go out and make it happen.I believe this because when i believed in the God that i was raised to believe in and i went through a lot of things..no God ever answered me but when i answered myself i made whatever happen happen...Now maybe there is a God,but i have never seen him.And i won't lie and say that i have,But i could be wrong and forgive me if i am..but i believe what i believe.
You can't, especially over the Internet. However, it is impossible to say there is no truth about God. You just don't know it.
I agree with you.
And if someone believes in god or Jesus or Allah or whatever it's not for me to judge.
Now if someone falsely claims to have proof one way or the other I have a problem with that.
Its not a judgment call.
Its a call to assess.
You do not impugn a sentence of punishment.
You merely point out the problems and make the corrections.
Saying someone is wrong is not a judgment, its an assessment.
To say someone is wrong and they are going to hell is judging and the judgment is that they are going to hell but the assessment is that they are wrong. If you leave off the going to hell there is no judging.
Please reread the dictionary and try not to skip over the nonreligous definitions of words.
judge: to form an estimate or evaluation of; especially : to form a negative opinion about <shouldn't judge him because of his accent>
If the negative aspect is part of judging then how is anyone called to make an assessment?
By their fruits ye shall know them.
Both john and jesus called the pharisees negative names.
My dictionary doesn't even say that
an act or instance of judging.
the ability to judge, make a decision, or form an opinion objectively, authoritatively, and wisely, especially in matters affecting action; good sense; discretion: a man of sound judgment.
the demonstration or exercise of such ability or capacity: The major was decorated for the judgment he showed under fire.
the forming of an opinion, estimate, notion, or conclusion, as from circumstances presented to the mind: Our judgment as to the cause of his failure must rest on the evidence.
the opinion formed: He regretted his hasty judgment.
Please get a real dictionary.
and better yet, please stop trying to make your point to me. It seems obvious to me that you are just digging your heels in deeper to deny what is being said. The dust has already been shaken off my shoes and this is just one more instance that your response is just plain weird.
You are bad at this English thing lol.
My response was to your erroneous correction of my post.
I'm not sure how that's weird but you seem fitting to be a good judge of it I guess.
I used and defined the word judge not judgement.
Darn, you probably felt so cool too.
Man I almost feel bad.
Kick some more dust and Scroll up and reread my original post you tried so poorly to correct.
a public officer authorized to hear and decide cases in a court of law; a magistrate charged with the administration of justice.
a person appointed to decide in any competition, contest, or matter at issue; authorized arbiter: the judges of a beauty contest.
a person qualified to pass a critical judgment: a good judge of horses.
an administrative head of Israel in the period between the death of Joshua and the accession to the throne by Saul.
(especially in rural areas) a county official with supervisory duties, often employed part-time or on an honorary basis.
verb (used with object)
to pass legal judgment on; pass sentence on (a person): The court judged him guilty.
to hear evidence or legal arguments in (a case) in order to pass judgment; adjudicate; try: The Supreme Court is judging that case.
to form a judgment or opinion of; decide upon critically: You can't judge a book by its cover.
to decide or settle authoritatively; adjudge: The censor judged the book obscene and forbade its sale.
to infer, think, or hold as an opinion; conclude about or assess: He judged her to be correct.
"judge: to form an estimate or evaluation of; especially : to form a negative opinion about <shouldn't judge him because of his accent>"
You still come up empty
I guess i better use your dictionary. Which one is that again?
Hope you're not feeling to bad
Your comprehension of English is bad.
It's getting sad now.
If you can't see how number 8 is the same definition as what I put down my opinion of your intellect has hit new lows.
I'd edit your post if you don't want to look foolish.
Did you even bother to read the definitions or just look for a verbatim copy?
I really feel bad, you try soooo hard.
Stick with the scripture your really good at that man.
You sound like you really know that stuff, don't trouble yourself with this English nonsense or even science or math.
You don't need that garbage you got the fish and babel and resurrections. So much cool stuff is in the bible you shouldn't burden yourself with this stuff buddy.
People go to school for a long time to be good at this stuff, some of us even went to college.
You get an A for trying from me
There seems to be a difference when defining the word judge. Used as a verb it is defined one way and when used as a noun it is defined another.
LFW definition was the Verb form of the word
BRO definition was the Noun form of the word
sometimes i wonder why ask or statement something that already has the answer to in several ways. Its an opinion, bias, fact, fiction, true/false, and at the end of the day, 'mind over matter'
God always lives in our hearts but, god loves everyone to this earth and we can reach to him if we emotionally attached with God..
by Williamjordan6 years ago
The word says something like the fool has said and hid heart their is no God? My point is no man can judge or know the heart of another.Do you find deep down in you a reality that God is there.I know I do and it does...
by Amie Warren6 years ago
...would it destroy your life? So many people these days seem so dependent on God for everything, so wrapped up in letting him solve all their problems for them. It absolves them of so much responsibility for their own...
by Larsie6 years ago
Fear and the fear of retribution is a regular theme of all faith based beliefs systems. You worship a pinicious and malicious god that demands absolutely and gives only conditionally. You live in debt of a creator and...
by JoshuaVerum2 months ago
People who blame God for suffering are therefore claiming He exists!Many atheists do this too which is ironic as they claim He doesn't exist. I call it the " Blame God Paradox ".
by Claire Evans14 months ago
That's the typical Sam Harris argument. How does suffering negate God's existence? Maybe He's just watching. It doesn't mean He doesn't exist and for anyone to bring up suffering as proof of no God is...
by Sean Thomas Gartland4 years ago
I have seen this in too many places. That is why I ask, I am seriously intrigued on this.
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.