Why... ?

[Tawhano]

You are inconsistent and in denial.

Sadly it is you who are delusional. You haven’t been able to support one single comment you have made. Everything you perceive as truth is based on misinformation and ignorance and you have not attempted to post one single credible source to back up anything you submitted as truth. yet you believe you have provided an honest debate.

You go ahead and keep in your little happy world of nonsense.

Let’s examine this childish remark with another remark you made shall we. You make this “playground” sarcasm to me and yet you said this earlier on:

My God is perfect and doesn't need to keep intervening in his perfect creation. All is as God created it to be.

Please explain the difference in what you said to what I said. You can not. You will not. You haven’t been able to answer one of my questions thus far I see no reason for this to change.

You keep on saying it over and over.

I’m going to ask you to quote the post where I allegedly say this over and over and you will not be able to give me an honest answer; you lack the capability to do so. Just like your false accusation that I am a fundamentalist and declaration that my views are literalist theology. Why haven’t you posted evidence for those false accusations? Where is your integrity?

Until then, don't bother me with your Sunday School Catechisms, I've outgrown them.

Here is proof that you haven’t been reading my post and your rebuttals have not been with me but made in the mindset of your presumptions that as a “fundamentalist” with a “literalist theology” I believe something even though I haven’t offered but very little in what I believe. You can’t have possibly deduced what my religious background is. You can’t possibly deduce what I believe and do not believe unless I tell you. Yet, you make the statements that you have; this is called prejudice. Prejudice is born from ignorance and hatred.

From the very beginning it has not been my position to debate what I believe. It has not been my intention to share with you what I believe. I made my position very clear to you from the start. You made unsubstantiated comments posted as truths; I merely provided rebuttal to these false assumptions. You were unable to provide evidence and in fact made it clear you were unwilling to do so.

You want support and back up for my claims, then investigate them yourself.

Posting claims as truths and being unwilling to provide any support for those claims is totally dishonest. Putting labels on people you know nothing about is totally dishonest. Putting words into your opponent’s mouth to demean them and to discredit them is totally dishonest. Does your god condone dishonesty?

All your arguments can be found on many anti-Christian sites posted by atheist to disprove God. I find this very puzzling. Are you getting your information from atheist sites and that is why you refuse to post the source for your beliefs? Can you explain this?

 

[KCDAD]

You haven't provided any on this thread, nor have you provided any in the other thread. You provided claimed contradictions, you never posted where, and the place you did- in a completely different thread- I rebutted quite soundly.
Yeah, it's called critical thinking. I don't blindly accept websites and claims that don't add up to anything. Debate.
Okay, Jesus existed:
Backed in the Bible in Matthew 1. Also backed in secular sources:
[FONT=&quot]Josephus, in two different places (97 AD):
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whos name was James"

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day”.

Tacitus (AD 120):
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abomination, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from who the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and harmful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.”

Lucian (early 100's AD):
“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account…You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.”[/FONT]

And that's just the tip of the iceberg, but the rest of that iceberg is completely off topic.
Just did.
Yeah, except I never have. I said that Jesus verifies the Bible, I think.
Can and did. You ignored it.
In denial of your unsubstantiated claims, perhaps? Show me a couple instances where either of us have been inconsistent, if you can.

Again, coming from someone who has yet to back any claims... Oh, and no need to be rude. Ad hominem gets you nowhere, and you're getting close to it here.


We don't even know how it's pronounced. The Jews never wrote the word down, you can learn that anywhere.

Please provide evidence where God changes His mind. Because everything you've put down here- Noah building a boat, sacrifices, Jesus' death- is not evidence of God changing His mind, but finishing a plan started in the beginning:
Gen 3:14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life;
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."

Because you have done this.... it was not part of the plan... but because you did this.... NOW I will....

Because mankind is so evil... it was not a part of the plan... but because mankind is evil... NOW I will...

Because Nineveh has repented, I hadn't expected that, I will change my mind and repent my promise to destroy them...

Because you ask for forgiveness, I will change my mind and allow you ( for the time being) NOT to burn eternally in this great pit of despair I created because I hadn't expected you humans to be so ... so.... human when I created you.

Because I hear a commotion down on Earth, I will go down and see what man is up to... [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] they are building a building up to Heaven.. I have to stop them so I will confound their languages... whew... just in time, because I hadn't expected that to happen when I set my latest plan in motion.

 

[CShephard53]

Because you have done this.... it was not part of the plan... but because you did this.... NOW I will....

Because mankind is so evil... it was not a part of the plan... but because mankind is evil... NOW I will...

Because Nineveh has repented, I hadn't expected that, I will change my mind and repent my promise to destroy them...

Because you ask for forgiveness, I will change my mind and allow you ( for the time being) NOT to burn eternally in this great pit of despair I created because I hadn't expected you humans to be so ... so.... human when I created you.

Because I hear a commotion down on Earth, I will go down and see what man is up to... [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] they are building a building up to Heaven.. I have to stop them so I will confound their languages... whew... just in time, because I hadn't expected that to happen when I set my latest plan in motion.

On this thread I will no longer respond to unbacked claims.

 

[KCDAD]

The first because is Adam and Eve and expulsion from the Garden, and the creation of hell.

The second because is God's response to why he decided to destroy all life on Earth except for Noah's family and a selection of animals. (Or Sodom and Gomorrah, or pretty much anything else in The Old Testament)

The third is Jonah

The fourth is everthing in the Old Testament before Jesus

The fifth is the Babel,

Ignore whatever you want... it won't change the truth that you persistently disregard.

 

[CShephard53]

The first because is Adam and Eve and expulsion from the Garden, and the creation of hell.

The second because is God's response to why he decided to destroy all life on Earth except for Noah's family and a selection of animals. (Or Sodom and Gomorrah, or pretty much anything else in The Old Testament)

The third is Jonah

The fourth is everthing in the Old Testament before Jesus

The fifth is the Babel,

Ignore whatever you want... it won't change the truth that you persistently disregard.

Ad hominem, eh? Sad.

 

[KCDAD]

Ad hominem, eh? Sad.

Ad hominem? Is that a new phrase you just learned? Next you should try and learn its meaning. Why not respond to the post instead?

 

[CShephard53]

Ad hominem? Is that a new phrase you just learned? Next you should try and learn its meaning. Why not respond to the post instead?

Because I don't respond to personal attacks, except to point them out. Oh, and I already said I don't respond to unbacked claims on this thread, too.

 

[KCDAD]

Let’s examine this childish remark with another remark you made shall we. You make this “playground” sarcasm to me and yet you said this earlier on:

Please explain the difference in what you said to what I said. You can not. You will not. You haven’t been able to answer one of my questions thus far I see no reason for this to change.

The difference is I am talking about God and you are talking about ... A BOOK!

 

[KCDAD]

Because I don't respond to personal attacks, except to point them out. Oh, and I already said I don't respond to unbacked claims on this thread, too.

Because you can't respond to unbacked claims? They should be the easiest to respond to. If I claim the Bible says God changed his mind and repented (in regards to Nineveh) you could easily show me the error of this thinking by saying the book of Jonah was mistranslated, or is merely a story teaching about the inevitable consequences of evil and the benefits of repentance.
The fact that God changes (his mind or anything else... wait a minute, God HAS a mind? Psychologists would have a real problem with that concept, since the mind is another name for personality, that is, how we choose to interact with our environment, which is LEARNED) sorry... I digress, the fact the God changes at all is rather inconsistent with the whole concept of the perfect, eternal, infinite immutable (which means unchanging) architect , creator and sustainer of the universe..

But, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, you don't even do that. You just deny deny deny and suggest that I am personally attacking you when in reality it is your belief I am attacking.

 

[CShephard53]

Because you can't respond to unbacked claims? They should be the easiest to respond to. If I claim the Bible says God changed his mind and repented (in regards to Nineveh) you could easily show me the error of this thinking by saying the book of Jonah was mistranslated, or is merely a story teaching about the inevitable consequences of evil and the benefits of repentance.
The fact that God changes (his mind or anything else... wait a minute, God HAS a mind? Psychologists would have a real problem with that concept, since the mind is another name for personality, that is, how we choose to interact with our environment, which is LEARNED) sorry... I digress, the fact the God changes at all is rather inconsistent with the whole concept of the perfect, eternal, infinite immutable (which means unchanging) architect , creator and sustainer of the universe..

But, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, you don't even do that. You just deny deny deny and suggest that I am personally attacking you when in reality it is your belief I am attacking.

So you're doing another fallacy, then. Strawman. Debate the issue at hand. And play nice.

 

[KCDAD]

Why is it logical to view God outside of the context of the Bible? Subjectively?

Because God is bigger than anything anyone can write. The Bible is incapable of presenting a consistent, unified description of that which is indescribable.
Because, as John's Gospel records, God is spirit and must be worshiped in spirit and in truth... which means of course... you must intimately know and experience the pneuma of truth.

The Old Testament is a dogmatic, contradictory, Jewish history book EXACTLY the same as the Q'uran is a dogmatic, contradictory Muslim history book. The NewTestament is a little different, but not if you try and turn it into a history book, because then it becomes exactly the same as the other two.

 

[KCDAD]

Please stop using debate and logic terms you don't understand. It makes you look foolish to those who know, and makes me look foolish to those that don't.

 

[CShephard53]

Why is it logical to view God outside of the context of the Bible? Subjectively?

Because God is bigger than anything anyone can write. The Bible is incapable of presenting a consistent, unified description of that which is indescribable.
Because, as John's Gospel records, God is spirit and must be worshiped in spirit and in truth... which means of course... you must intimately know and experience the pneuma of truth.

The Old Testament is a dogmatic, contradictory, Jewish history book EXACTLY the same as the Q'uran is a dogmatic, contradictory Muslim history book. The NewTestament is a little different, but not if you try and turn it into a history book, because then it becomes exactly the same as the other two.

It's interesting how you credit the Bible in one breath and then claim otherwise in the next. I'm sure those reading this find it interesting as well. Since you claim to know what fallacies are, you tend to use a lot of them. So tell me: If you do know, why use them?

 

[KCDAD]

It's interesting how you credit the Bible in one breath and then claim otherwise in the next. I'm sure those reading this find it interesting as well. Since you claim to know what fallacies are, you tend to use a lot of them. So tell me: If you do know, why use them?

Because it is a man made document, it has both gold and dross. You discard the dross and cling to the gold.

 

[CShephard53]

Because it is a man made document, it has both gold and dross. You discard the dross and cling to the gold.

And you can tell the difference how?

 

[KCDAD]

And you can tell the difference how?

You test it, like the Bible suggests itself. Somethings just have a brilliance about them, like much of Mark Twain and Robert Frost's writing. Other stuff just doesn't ring true, like Leviticus, Proverbs, and anything by Dan Brown. It doesn't mean that it isn't a good read, or that there isn't truth to be found in these other writings, they just aren't gold.

 

[Tawhano]

You test it, like the Bible suggests itself.

I agree with this but from my dealings with you I have to wonder how you test it. You have demonstrated your belief in a god which isn’t omnipotent so when you read scriptures that talk of miracles do you simply discard this as fantasy?

 

[CShephard53]

You test it, like the Bible suggests itself. Somethings just have a brilliance about them, like much of Mark Twain and Robert Frost's writing. Other stuff just doesn't ring true, like Leviticus, Proverbs, and anything by Dan Brown. It doesn't mean that it isn't a good read, or that there isn't truth to be found in these other writings, they just aren't gold.

Yeah, problem is that goes by feelings, not fact.

 

[KCDAD]

I agree with this but from my dealings with you I have to wonder how you test it. You have demonstrated your belief in a god which isn’t omnipotent so when you read scriptures that talk of miracles do you simply discard this as fantasy?

Not fantasy, but enchantment. Enchantment is the belief that that which is unknown must be magical or mystical. Reality and history teaches us that EVERYTHING that was once miraculous or magical becomes science or trickery eventually.

No one converses with the dead. No one levitates themselves or anyone else. No one saws a person in half or makes them disappear, later to show them perfectly normal. Elephants or tigers don't appear out of thin air, balls and cards don't just disappear or appear. No one can "read" your mind.
These are all tricks, illusions and cons.

Did Jesus walk on non frozen water... not a chance.
Did Jesus turn water into wine... not a chance.
Did Jesus somehow remove disease or injury from sick or injured bodies... not one chance out of a bazillion.
Did Jesus multiply the amount of bread and fishes the boy gave him to feed over 5000 people... you got to be kidding me.

Miracles are not testimony to God's greatness. Miracles are testimony to man's ignorance and self deprecation.

Every one of the above "miracles" are best interpreted as how we interpret reality, rather than reality itself.

For what possible purpose would Jesus change the most precious water into wine? What holy message does that teach us? "Take the easy way out"?
Why would God alter Jesus' body chemistry to make him able to not break the surface tension of the Sea of Galilee? How? These stories are children's stories. They are not meant for the thinking mature experienced adult. You learn these in Sunday School, not in sermons.
Can you imagine the reaction from any one not already indoctrinated in these stories who hears for the first time that God had to spit in the dirt and press the mud into a man's eyes in order to heal him? The reaction would be: either not a very powerful God, or Apparently mud is good for the eyes. Now that's a God that uses science, manipulates physical reality, and doesn't resort to magic. Either way, the "miracles" lose their enchantment.

 

[KCDAD]

Yeah, problem is that goes by feelings, not fact.

What feelings am I going by that you aren't?
What facts am I ignoring that you aren't?

No one can even produce an original manuscript of ANY book included in the Catholic Canon.
No one can produce ANY evidence that Moses or any one person wrote the Pentateuch.
No one can produce ANY evidence that ANY of the attributed authors of the New Testament wrote all of the books they are given credit for writing.
There is absolutely no way Jesus said all the things attributed to him in the Gospels. I am sure they are paraphrases, and capture what the authors "heard", but as we all know, we don't always hear what someone is telling us. Besides, Jesus (Y'shua) would have spoken a Galilean dialect of Aramaic (as he is quoted from the cross, or in other verses like where he specifically said don't call your brother RACA).