InterestedAtheist
Veteran
Doubtless even philosophers enjoy a laugh now and then.
You and I both know that the only people who take the "arguments" for God's existence seriously are apologists.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Doubtless even philosophers enjoy a laugh now and then.It and other arguments for God HAVE been published in peer reviewed secular philosophical journals.
Please show me where the Bible speaks of God being in some other universe. The Bible seems to be unaware that there is anything beyond the visible stars. And the Bible claims these stars are in the firmament, which sure sounds like the ancient view of a heavenly structure holding up the stars over a flat earth.No all other ancient religions teach that there was some other universe from the which the creator had to operate from to create this universe
And they got it right? We don't know where the materials for the Big Bang came from, but quite possibly it came from the matter of previous universes, or sources that are indeed analogous to what we call matter. We don't know.and also all other ancient religions teach that it was created from pre-existing matter.
Puhleeze. Now you are going to turn to the nuance of ancient Hebrew words to make your point?That is just one verse among many and in the original hebrew the word stretching actually means an ongoing stretching just like the universe.
You referring to the Spanish Inquisition? The Crusades? The Thirty Years War? The Salem Witch Trials? Slavery? Segregation? The invasion of the U.S. Capitol by an angry mob? All were justified by the Bible.Because the teachings of the Bible have resulted in everything good about Western civilization
During the Middle Ages Muslim society was more advanced then Christian Europe.and Koran has resulted in mostly evil and horrible societies.
Unlike man made religions and gods, we dont know why God did alot of things. In fact that is evidence that He was not manmade. If He had been manmade, his inventors would have come up with an answer for just about everything.dm: The Trinity is a very complex subject, God chose not to reveal it fully at the time the writers wrote the bible. Why? We dont know for sure. Maybe He wanted us to use our large brains to discover it in His word. Just like He does with other sciences. He doesnt give us all the answers when we want them. That is why the Bible generally does not touch on scientific issues. But when it does, it is correct.
dm: Ah, yes, we are back to the limited bandwidth argument. God would have liked to have told us all this, but how much can he squeeze into one book? Uh, if you are omnipotent, don't you just write a sequel? If there is room for all the genealogies and repetitive rants of the prophets, why not a brief introduction to the Trinity? Better yet, why not devote a few verses to the basics of germ theory, the scientific method, or how to build a printing press? A few verses could have mitigated much human misery.
Actually while not mentioning it explicitly it is plainly implied throughout both OT and NT. Tertullian was first one to start figuring it out and gave the basic outline of the doctrine. Arianism is the heresy that started greater research into the doctrine because over time the Son was being downgraded more and more in either the direction of being less human or too human so theologians felt like it was important to give a more complete picture of the nature of Christ and God.dm: Not only does the Bible not discuss the Trinity, the earliest writings in the church don't seem to know about it either. Why not? They probably didn't see the problem.
Actually most of the books that we call the bible became unofficially authoritative long before the official recognition. All the churches were using those books and recognized them as Gods word in the 2nd century.dm: In the first 3 centuries, there were only a few copies of the New Testament books scattered in different places. Probably few if any people had read the whole New Testament. But in the fourth century, when the books of the New Testament were being collected and regarded as authoritative, the problem became embarrassing.
No, they never taught that the trinity was one person. And now we know why the Universe is a diversity within a unity, because a Triune God created it. No other god has such a nature, thereby eliminating any other god as the creator of this universe.dm: The Jehovah God of the Old Testament was a jealous God that insisted none was his equal. But a few verses in the New Testament treat Jesus and the Holy Spirit as equal to God. So the apologists set out to resolve the conflict. They came up with a doozie. There are indeed 3 equal personal beings that are God, but the word "God" does not always refer to the Father God. Sometimes it refers to the whole set of 3 Gods. Sometimes it refers to the Father God. But how can a whole set of Gods perform as though they were one being, with no explanation that these were the acts of a team? Along comes the idea of the Trinity. There is something about being God that allows a team to be considered one person. Call it the Trinity. Amazingly, the ancients found that an acceptable explanation. Even more amazingly, highly educated modern people fall for the same argument. Go figure.
No, just like any other book or text, the definition of the word used is determined by the context.ed: A careful analysis of the texts reveals that the authors are actually meaning what they say though they themselves may not have fully understood it at the time. And it reveals that God is a Trinity, ie a diversity within a unity. Just like the universe He created, that is His fingerprint on this universe.
dm: Provided, of course, you freely change the meaning of "God" to either mean "God the Father" or "the set of three God persons", whichever you need it to mean in each verse to match your theology.
No, the three persons are divine but they are not three individual gods. There is only one God. I dont deny it is a difficult doctrine but it has been confirmed by the nature of the universe and the existence of love and language.ed: That statement is partially correct, and if you acknowledge that all three are personal beings then I would consider that orthodox.
dm: I see. The statement you would consider orthodox is, "There is a God called God the Father and a God called Jesus who is God the Son and a God called the Holy Spirit, but they are composed of only one divine essence." That's odd. Earlier I had said it looks like you had 3 Gods, and you denied it. Now you say that the belief in 3 Gods is orthodox. Not only that, but when I ask you what is the difference between this statement of 3 Gods and your view of 3 persons that are God, you do not tell us anything that is different. It appears that you cannot see any differences between the man who believes there are 3 Gods composed of one divine essence and your views. If your views are identical to the view that says there are 3 Gods, then, by golly, I think you have 3 Gods.
Many of those problems dont apply to a flood that occurred 2 mya.
Please give a source that the Chinese were building 450 foot long wooden boats in the Middle Ages.There is evidence that the Chinese in the Middle ages built wooden seaworthy ships 450 feet long.
Huh? If Noah lived 2 million years ago, he was Homo erectus or something even more primitive. The only tools they had were crude stone tools made by striking stones together. How can you build a 450 foot long ship with such tools?And Noah's technology would have been far more advanced prior to the scattering to the languages at Babel similar to Middle Age technology.
The problem is that the two accounts of creation differ. Genesis 1 says the other animals were made before humans. Genesis 2 says they were made after humans.No, we know from studying ancient documents that very often ancient writers give a summarized list of chronological events and then "zoom" in on the key event. This is what the story in Genesis 2 is, it is a zoom in on the sixth age which is the most important because Man was created in that age and establishes His relationship with God on a day in that age.
Wait, you tell me that you are a biologist, and you believe people will live 900 years old if they ingest the right chemicals? I'm not a biologist, but I would have thought otherwise.As long as man ate from the Tree of life no poison could kill him. This was how he could potentially live forever, the tree of life provided the necessary chemicals to protect humans from death.
Irrelevant.Actually linguistic experts like Chomsky say that there is evidence that our brains have a built in syntax and grammar. That shows that at one time there was one language.
Huh? Please show me a list of the books of the New Testament before the 4th century that is close to the list we have today. The early lists of books are quite different from ours. They include many books that are not in the New Testament, and exclude many that are. See The Formation of the New Testament Canon (infidels.org) .Actually most of the books that we call the bible became unofficially authoritative long before the official recognition. All the churches were using those books and recognized them as Gods word in the 2nd century.
This is complete and utter nonsense. I never called another person's argument cat vomit.I think we both know that referring to an opinion as cat vomit isn't funny to the person who offers that opinion. Adding a winky face doesn't make it funny. Calling it sarcasm doesn't make it funny.
This is complete and utter nonsense. I never called another person's argument cat vomit.Why would you call someone's argument cat vomit and then think they'll be happy with a winky face. That makes no sense.
Calling people hard-hearted is an attack on the person. It is against the forum rules to attack the person. You can attack the argument, but not the person.This is why I so strongly suggested that you are hard-hearted.
This is complete and utter nonsense. I never called another person's argument cat vomit.If your kid came home from school and said all the other kids called their drawing cat vomit and then laughed, you'd know that wasn't just a joke. You would know that your kid was being bullied.
I am not upset with you for hurting my feelings. I have a problem with you deliberately violating forum rules by attacking the person. You have been told this is against the forum rules. You just keep doing it anyway.Go ahead, be upset with me for hurting your feelings.
This is complete and utter nonsense. I never called another person's argument cat vomit.
Ed
"Also, the universe is a diversity within a unity, which is the basic characteristic of the Triune Christian God. It is His fingerprint on the universe".
"When my cat vomits, there is a diversity within a unity. Ergo God"?
Who is we? I have known and read about many couples over the years say that they dont need government sanction to believe that their marriage is real.ed: I didnt say they could not get what they call "married", I just said it should not be endorsed by the government. They can do whatever they want and call it whatever they want.
ia: In other words, they can't do what we consider to be "getting married." Nice dodge.
Well why are you not pushing the government to recognize such marriages? How about two brothers? or Three brothers?ed: How about a brother and sister as long as they are sterile?
ia: Sounds okay to me. There are considerable difficulties in the way, though those would be greatly reduced if (a) they were sterile and (b) they had somehow never known each other until they met and fell in love.
You cant prove anything you say either.ed: I cant prove it, but there is evidence that we are.
ia: That's basically your answer to everything. No, you can't prove anything you say, and the "evidence" you provide is of the flimsiest quality.
Your next words demonstrate this:
What is your evidence that the mind is what the brain does? I admit I cant prove that the mind/spirit is nonphysical, but there is evidence it exists. Personal identity thru time and if transgenderism is real, these two phenomenon plus the points I made above are strong evidence that the mind is primarily not based on the physical. In addition, some NDEs have not been explained by purely physical processes. If the mind is based purely on the physical then how do we have free will?ed: For example, the mind is non physical. You cant take a slice of mind or take a picture of a mind. The mind and the spirit are basically the same thing. Also, we appear to have free will, but if the mind were purely physical then we would not have a free will. All our decisions would be determined by the ratio of chemicals in our brain and we would not be able to weigh arguments and evidence to come to a conclusion.
ia: The mind and the spirit are basically the same thing? The mind is the effect of the physical brain's activity. Or, to put it another way, the mind is what the brain does. The spirit is an unproven hypothesis based on a prescientific notion, and one that you have yet to prove exists.
What is your evidence that the nonphysical mind doesnt exist?ed: I demonstrated earlier how they are united biologically, and since for humans biology and spirit are connected while you are alive, then they are both united.
ia: Since you haven't yet either proven or demonstrated or even given good reason to believe that this "spirit" thing exists, your argument falls apart.
There is no such right as I proved earlier.ed: Not according to the studies I referenced earlier.
ia: Studies showing it is good for people to be deprived of the right to marry the people they love, and good for a society to deprive them of that right?
No, just take that one little step in logic and you will know the cause of the universe.ed: I am not making up an answer, I am coming to a logical conclusion using the law of sufficient cause.
ia: You are saying that since we do not know the cause of the universe we should accept your preferred cause just because we cannot disprove it. Which is, of course, nonsense.
Like former atheist cosmologists who never had any contact with Christians much less Christian apologists?ed: Many former atheists consider it evidence.
ia: As I said: your evidence is of no interest to anyone except Christian apologists - or the people who rely on their arguments.
The same way I know my physical senses are reliable.ed: Because we have a moral conscience.
ia: How do you know that your "moral conscience" is reliable?
He doesn't have to be to give us a reliable moral conscience. He may or may not be good when He gives us the conscience. Or He may be good yet not prove it to us but rather He gives the moral conscience to us so we can make our own determination of whether He is good. And it turns out that is the case.ed: If you are saying that it was given to you by God, your argument is invalid, since you have not yet proved that God is goodness.
No, a better analogy is God is our programmer and He created each computer/person slightly different and He created us to solve moral problems to test our problem solving ability and those that dont do a good job doing so are junked and only keeps the computers that do the best job.ed: Why? That would be like saying that a computer cannot solve problems given to it by its programmer. It makes no sense.
ia: Of course it wouldn't. It would be like saying that a computer is unable to prove its programmer wrong. Which, of course, it can't.
By living them out and looking at the results. So as you live them out you discover your life more fulfilling and successful than previously, that shows they are good for us.ed: He has revealed His moral law in the Bible which is based on His character.
ia: Okay. If we accept this to be true, how do you go about proving that the things that God says are good, actually are good? You keep avoiding this question. I don't blame you.
It is part of the self existing creator. It does not have a beginning.ed: It is a consequence of being created in His image. It is more rational to believe that our moral conscience came from a pre-existing morality than that it came from a random amoral process.
ia: Then where did that pre-existing morality come from?
ed: Courts don't decide what science is. Science is the study of Nature, it is simple. We dont need for courts to tell us what science is. In fact, it is dangerous for courts and government to decide what science is. That is what happened in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany and looked what happened.
ia: Courts didn't decide what science was in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Dictators did, for their own ends.
The whole thing was based on our secular humanistic government arbitrarily deciding that science must be based on the philosophy of naturalism which is narrowminded and unAmerican. Some of our greatest scientific discoveries were the direct result of good science done by non-naturalistic scientists. And in fact, all the major branches of modern science were founded by non-naturalistic scientists. So by being open to the supernatural has no effect on the scientific method and preventing great scientific discoveries and in fact by limiting scientific endeavor in this way limits the possibility of even greater scientific discoveries.ia: I can see you are completely unfamiliar with the record of desperate legal challenges that creationism has mounted on science and education in the USA, and the repeated string of instances in which courts - fairly, sensibly, and transparently - have shown them to be the lying liars they are.
Evidence he discouraged others from wearing masks?Sheer delusion.
Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, what did Trump do?
He refused to wear a mask, he discouraged others from wearing masks,
He left the choice up to the people. Our nation was founded on free choice. The people that went knew the risk.ia: he mocked others for wearing masks, and he held mass public events that turned out to be super-spreaders.
Not true.ia: He told people to do ridiculous things with UV light and drink bleach.
What is wrong with being optimistic?ia: He said the virus would just go away, suddenly, like a miracle.
CNN is not a reliable source of news about Trump. they still beiieve in the Russian hoax after having been refuted by multiple investigations.ia: Just an example of Trump's malicious incompetence:
This coronavirus timeline is incredibly damning for Donald Trump - CNNPolitics
He said HOPED to have churches meeting by Easter. He did not say that they could start going to church on easter. Trump said to do everything Fauci said to do. Why do you think Fauci was at almost every news conference?ia: "I would love to have the country opened up and raring to go by Easter," he said on Fox News on March 24, adding that it would be great to see "churches packed full of people for Easter."
Easter Sunday fell on April 12 this year.
On April 13 -- aka the next day -- Trump had this exchange with Washington Post editor Bob Woodward about the virus:
TRUMP: And Bob, it's so easily transmissible, you wouldn't even believe it.
WOODWARD: I know, it's --
TRUMP: I mean, you could, you could be in the room -- I was in the White House a couple of days ago, meeting with 10 people in the Oval Office and a guy sneezed, innocently. Not a horrible --
WOODWARD: Yeah.
TRUMP: You know, just a sneeze, the entire room bailed out, OK? Including me, by the way.
Evidence? That is not what Fauci said. Even he admits now that they were not prepared.ia: Oh, and about your repeating Trump's reflexive blaming of Obama? (a) Donald Trump had been the President of the USA for THREE YEARS when the coronavirus started, so if the USA wasn't ready, the responsibility, and blame, is entirely his. And (b) the Obama administration did have measures in place to deal with the coronavirus. Donald Trump ignored, threw away and/or dismantled them. Do you seriously not know this?
Evidence that he ignored warnings? Pelosi and Biden said there was nothing to worry about in March. She even visited Chinatown. And Fauci said you dont need masks in April.ia: Obama faced disease threats the the USA while he was President. He handled them just fine.
Obama Prepared for a Potential Pandemic. Trump Gutted His Work.
For weeks, Trump has repeatedly blamed Obama for his own slow response, arguing the former president who left office more than three years ago is to blame for the nation’s testing failures and “severe” and “widespread” shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) for doctors and nurses.
He has also insisted that no one could have seen the coronavirus coming. “Nobody knew there would be a pandemic or epidemic of this proportion. Nobody has ever seen anything like this before,” Trump said on March 19.
But Obama and his administration did see it coming, thanks in large part to their experiences with the 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) and 2014 Ebola outbreaks. Taking what they learned from those public health crises, the Obama administration sought to prepare Trump and his aides for the next pandemic. The current president, however, spent the first three years of his administration undermining and ignoring those pandemic preparedness efforts; he also ignored warnings from experts during the first three months of the coronavirus outbreak.
Why is it ravaging California the most, when they have the strongest lockdown?ia; And now the coronavirus is ravaging America, and what is Trump doing?
Oh, he's hard at work - playing golf and pardoning undeserving criminals.
He said to do everything Fauci told us to do.ia: When you look at the coronavirus with Trump at the helm, the only thing that makes sense is that Donald Trump does not care in the slightest about any of the American people.
Thank goodness he'll soon be gone.
Evidence he discouraged others from wearing masks?
He left the choice up to the people. Our nation was founded on free choice. The people that went knew the risk.
Not true.
What is wrong with being optimistic?
CNN is not a reliable source of news about Trump. they still beiieve in the Russian hoax after having been refuted by multiple investigations.
He said HOPED to have churches meeting by Easter. He did not say that they could start going to church on easter. Trump said to do everything Fauci said to do. Why do you think Fauci was at almost every news conference?
Evidence? That is not what Fauci said. Even he admits now that they were not prepared.
Evidence that he ignored warnings? Pelosi and Biden said there was nothing to worry about in March. She even visited Chinatown. And Fauci said you dont need masks in April.
Why is it ravaging California the most, when they have the strongest lockdown?
He said to do everything Fauci told us to do.
No, there is an unusually widespread number of them around 2 mya.ed: I also mentioned the worldwide hydraulically caused fossil graveyards such as the one at Gibraltar. And there are others.
dm: What you failed to mention is that fossils buried by water have been occurring for hundreds of millions of years. There is no distinct hydraulically caused fossil graveyard 2 million years ago.
These verses even if included did not mean if you intentionally drank poison God would protect you. It meant that if you unknowingly did so God would protect you. This is also where the snake handling denominations get it wrong. If you handle snakes or drink poison intentionally, you are plainly violating Christ's teaching against testing God.dm: Mark 16:8-20 is widely regarded to have been inserted long after the original book was written. It says that if Christians drink deadly poison it will not hurt them. If I was about to drink deadly poison, I would think it was important to know if it would hurt me. So yes, this is an important teaching that changes depending on whether we include these verses.
That is one possible interpretation but it also fits the jews wandering in the wilderness. In addition, hieroglyphics have been found on two New Kingdom Egyptian Temples and a Temple pillar in Sudan. They mention the "land of the nomads of Yahweh" referring to a land east of Egypt, ie the Sinai and Canaan. The two areas at that time when the hebrews were living in tents and in fact the inscription mentions them as tent dwellers.ed: Does the Negev’s Ancient Rock-Art Help Turn the Bible Exodus Story into Fact? | Ancient Origins (ancient-origins.net)
dm: Finding references to people who believed in Yahu (which is close to Yahweh) is far from verifying Exodus. The evidence indicates that the early Jews were Canaanites who were already living in the mountains of canaan. Their settlements are virtually identical to other Canaanite settlements, other than the lack of pig bones. They worshipped the same God, El. They came to dominate the more prosperous coastal areas and eventually incorporated the name Yahweh for God.
dm: This is a long cry from the story that Egypt was devastated by plagues including the death of every firstborn; that 2 million Jews escaped to the desert and lived there 40 years; and that they came into Canaan from outside in an enormous invasion. That simply did not happen.
Fraid so, from wikipedia: "The Pleistocene Epoch is typically defined as the time period that began about 2.6 million years ago and lasted until about 11,700 years ago. The most recent Ice Age occurred then, as glaciers covered huge parts of the planet Earth."dm: Again, there was no distinct ice age 2 million years ago.
As shown above, the initial wobbling began around 2-2.6 mya. This may have been caused by the floodwaters weight.dm: There have been distinct ice ages that have occurred in a regular pattern the last 1 to 2 million years due to the wobble of the earths axis. These occur in a fixed pattern due to the dynamics of the planetary movements.
There is growing evidence that erectus and sapiens are the same species. The Kow Swamp fossils point to interbreeding between sapiens and erectus. Now recent research is confirming that: Mystery ancestor mated with ancient humans. And its 'nested' DNA was just found. | Live Science. Generally if two organisms can interbreed and produce fertile offspring that is evidence they are the same species. It would be similar to a bulldog breeding with a wolf, their skull structures are very different yet DNA has confirmed that they are the same species. I predict this will be discovered for erectus and sapiens in the not too distant future. As far as brain size, erectus is within the normal human range of 700 cc to 2000 cc. Erectus brain size has been found to be 780cc to 1225 cc.dm: Homo sapiens have only been around for 300,000 years. There were no homo sapiens 2 million years ago.
You are referring to Homo erectus, who have distinctly different bones from Homo sapiens. The skulls clearly have a different shape. The earliest Homo erectus have brain capacities significantly below the range of homo sapiens. The earliest homo erectus also appear to be more like the earlier homo habilis, which are even more apelike.
As I explained to you earlier, the Flood was primarily a supernatural event. God could easily protect the seeds and vegetation and cause them to recover very quickly at a "supernatural' rate. Given that rain and the water from under water vents was fresh the ocean salinity levels would be greatly reduced considering how much water was needed to flood the earth.dm: You tell me that you are a biologist. You must know that a global flood would totally destroy plant life on earth. Some plants would not survive, even as seeds. It would take many thousands of years or even millions of years for the earth to recover from being inundated with salt water for a year. Meanwhile the animals from the ark would try to survive on a destroyed earth with no source of food.
It didn't happen.
I gave you a link with the problems of a global flood. Have you looked at it?
No variation is significant enough to change any teaching of Christianity as I demonstrated with your example above.dm: The scribes had trouble copying anything. The available manuscripts are filled with variations, making it impossible to know for sure what the original said.
Having sex and having children is the primary function of marriage? So all those people who are unable to have sex and/or have children...their marriages aren't really real.The primary function of marriage.
Burden of proof. You're the one claiming that this is the purpose of marriage. You provide evidence that (a) marriage was created so that people could have children, (b) that is still its primary purpose and (c) a reason why marriage that cannot have children is valid for straight people but not for gay people.First provide evidence that that is NOT why marriage was created.
That's exactly what you said, and you just said it again just above.No, that is not what I claimed go back and reread my posts, I am not going to rehash it all again.
See what I mean?I have demonstrated using biology and logic to explain why in my earlier posts and will not rehash it.
"Survival of the fittest" is not a tautology. "The fit" don't automatically survive. The phrase, in evolutionary science, means they are more likely to survive. Which is just plain common sense.Fraid so, you wont survive if you dont have what it takes to survive, ie fitness.
andNo, I said His character is the Good. Goodness is not His totality. He is also a person. Goodness is an attribute not a person.
But what is goodness? God's nature. And why is that nature good? Because it's God's, and His nature is to be good.No, I said that His character is Goodness, not His totality. No circularity there.
Trying to distract us again, eh?You cant PROVE what you say is true either. But I did demonstrate that a Good God probably exists and I proved that atheists have no rational basis for believing that good exists.
Apologies for not replying sooner, or at length. I'm afraid I'm rather busy at the moment. I am certainly pleased we agree on some things, and I agree with most of what you say here.We strongly disagree regarding evolution, but we are very much united on this point. His behavior is entirely inconsistent with what it means to be Christian. It is my belief that God and science are completely compatible. After all, science is simply the study of reality; how and why it works the way it does. That reality is created by the creator; it makes sense, not only that we would want to explore it, but that he would want us to explore it, because doing so would more convincingly illustrate his magnificence to us. This is why it makes no sense for Atheists to essentially say, "The more complex we discover reality to be, the less need there is for any intelligence behind that complexity."
We have the scientific ability to understand what viruses are. We can see microscopic particles. We can understand how these particles affect us. And, by extrapolation, we can devise means of preventing harmful particles from affecting us. God gives us the spirit of a sound mind; he expects us to use it. Wearing masks is rather obvious based on the information we have. As for those people who say we should not wear masks, they are not doing so based on any kind of Christian reasoning; rather they are abusing Christianity as a cloak to legitimize their politics.
It is up to sincere people to recognize when this is happening. Christianity is not the problem here, but rather selfish motivation. That is not a religious problem; all humans struggle with such motivations in one way or the other.
It's crazy, right? I mean, I feel your incredulity; I really do. How is it possible that so many people could support such an obvious liar? You've probably heard the reasoning some professing Christians use to justify their support for Trump, that the Bible says God ordains the leaders of the land and therefore we are required to support them.
I believe this is a misinterpretation of the concept at best, and a deliberate twisting at worst. One of the most notable examples is that of Pharaoh. The record explicitly states that God raised Pharaoh up. You could imagine the people of Pharaoh's day rejoicing in such a message, using it to support all his political agendas as though he was the messiah.
But, when considering the bigger picture from a distance, it becomes clear why he did this; God wanted to demonstrate that no matter how powerful a human leader is considered to be, he is nothing compared to God. Most people don't realize this, but Pharaoh begged God to cease each of the plagues inflicted on Egypt, agreeing to let the slaves go, and each time God did, indeed, relent, and each time Pharaoh reneged on his agreement, thus leading to the next plague. It had become a test of wills. Pharaoh tried to fight God and he was utterly destroyed.
I think something similar is happening with Trump, but with a different emphasis. Somehow, someway, Trump has managed to get away with more than any other politician in history has been able to. It seems like every day there is some new report about how unprecedented, non-normal, and untraditional his bad behavior is, to the point that I feel nauseated just hearing such phrases. How? How is he able to continue getting away with so much? I believe there is some supernatural component at work here, not in support of Trump, but rather in suppression of goodness.
I believe the creator has allowed all this to happen as a demonstration of just how obscene America has become. Trump is not the problem. He is simply a barometer. He is, perhaps, the last gasp of warning to any sincere American; it is time to leave before that country is destroyed. It truly has become depraved.
Please document your claim that there were unusually widespread number of marine fossils 2 mya. Are you just making this up?No, there is an unusually widespread number of them around 2 mya.
First, that is not from wikipedia.Fraid so, from wikipedia: "The Pleistocene Epoch is typically defined as the time period that began about 2.6 million years ago and lasted until about 11,700 years ago. The most recent Ice Age occurred then, as glaciers covered huge parts of the planet Earth."
As shown above, the initial wobbling began around 2-2.6 mya. This may have been caused by the floodwaters weight.
False. Human brains are usually 1000 to 1800 cc. Homo erectus brains before 1.5 mya were never above 900 cc.There is growing evidence that erectus and sapiens are the same species. The Kow Swamp fossils point to interbreeding between sapiens and erectus. Now recent research is confirming that: Mystery ancestor mated with ancient humans. And its 'nested' DNA was just found. | Live Science. Generally if two organisms can interbreed and produce fertile offspring that is evidence they are the same species. It would be similar to a bulldog breeding with a wolf, their skull structures are very different yet DNA has confirmed that they are the same species. I predict this will be discovered for erectus and sapiens in the not too distant future. As far as brain size, erectus is within the normal human range of 700 cc to 2000 cc. Erectus brain size has been found to be 780cc to 1225 cc.
Why all the miracles? If God wanted to kill all the people, why not just kill them?As I explained to you earlier, the Flood was primarily a supernatural event. God could easily protect the seeds and vegetation and cause them to recover very quickly at a "supernatural' rate. Given that rain and the water from under water vents was fresh the ocean salinity levels would be greatly reduced considering how much water was needed to flood the earth.
These verses even if included did not mean if you intentionally drank poison God would protect you. It meant that if you unknowingly did so God would protect you. This is also where the snake handling denominations get it wrong. If you handle snakes or drink poison intentionally, you are plainly violating Christ's teaching against testing God.
There were people in tents that worshipped Yahweh? You still haven't found evidence that a massive army of Israelites left Egypt and conquered Canaan.That is one possible interpretation but it also fits the jews wandering in the wilderness. In addition, hieroglyphics have been found on two New Kingdom Egyptian Temples and a Temple pillar in Sudan. They mention the "land of the nomads of Yahweh" referring to a land east of Egypt, ie the Sinai and Canaan. The two areas at that time when the hebrews were living in tents and in fact the inscription mentions them as tent dwellers.
The Bible says all of the firstborn in Egypt died.The Sphinx Dream Stele shows that the first born of the probable Pharoah of the Exodus had mysteriously disappeared or died.
Jericho was a walled city in the stone age, but in the bronze age when the reported invasion occurred, it was just a small town.And then there is the evidence for the destruction of Jericho at right around the right time.
Possibly, since any other being is not the true God. But I will let God decide that. Part of it depends on how you were explained the trinity by others, maybe you were misled, if you were, God would not hold that against you.ed: No, you need to believe there are three persons and only one God or divine essence.
dm: What if I only know about two persons? Am I doomed to eternal torture because I only knew about 2 of the persons?
If you dont know who God is, how can you believe in Him? Romans 10:14,17. If you dont want to get to know Him by using your brain He gave you by studying His word, then yes you will probably not make it to heaven. But also read my statement above in your first question.dm: If a person needs to believe these two assertions (There are three persons. There is one divine essence.) please show me where the Bible says you need to believe these two things to go to heaven. Are you going to tell me God didn't have enough bandwidth to tell us this?
You dont need to believe that those verses belong in the bible because they probably don't. But there are some important truths in those verses that dont contradict other parts of the bible as I explained earlier.dm: Mark 16:8-20 is commonly thought to be added later. Do I need to believe Mark 16:8-20 or don't I?
That is an oversimplification. You should believe both since both are part of Gods word.dm: And for that matter, the whole book of Matthew is basically an edit of the book of Mark. Do I need to believe the things in Matthew, or just Mark?
Nothing in Luke contradicts Matthew.dm: And if I need to believe the things in Matthew, do I also need to believe the things in Luke that contradict Matthew? How can I believe contradictory things?
dm: And do I need to believe that grasshoppers have four legs? (Leviticus 11:21-22)
I'll go with @doubtingmerle on this one. Just watch the interviews Donald Trump made, and you'll see that he was, quite simply, neither competent nor interested in handling the pandemic. You want evidence? Sure. Go and see for yourself.Evidence he discouraged others from wearing masks?
He left the choice up to the people. Our nation was founded on free choice. The people that went knew the risk.
Not true.
What is wrong with being optimistic?
CNN is not a reliable source of news about Trump. they still beiieve in the Russian hoax after having been refuted by multiple investigations.
He said HOPED to have churches meeting by Easter. He did not say that they could start going to church on easter. Trump said to do everything Fauci said to do. Why do you think Fauci was at almost every news conference?
Evidence? That is not what Fauci said. Even he admits now that they were not prepared.
Evidence that he ignored warnings? Pelosi and Biden said there was nothing to worry about in March. She even visited Chinatown. And Fauci said you dont need masks in April.
Why is it ravaging California the most, when they have the strongest lockdown?
He said to do everything Fauci told us to do.
Got it. I don't need to believe Mark 16:9-20. They probably don't belong. One wanders how many other verses got inserted into the Bible.You dont need to believe that those verses belong in the bible because they probably don't.
Do you consider this an important truth:But there are some important truths in those verses that dont contradict other parts of the bible as I explained earlier.
That is an oversimplification. You should believe both since both are part of Gods word.
Sure they do. For example, Luke says Mary and Joseph were from Nazareth before Jesus was born. Matthew says they moved to Nazareth after his birth.Nothing in Luke contradicts Matthew.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?