|
God's Child(ren)?
|
Episode 4 of the Amateur Scientist Podcast is the Price interview I was thinking of. It's from 3 years ago, but it's still good - and it's another good show to listen to as well...just not while you're driving because you're liable to laugh so hard at some of their jokes you could run into other people or a wall.
![[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1140.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn569%2Fthesummerqueen%2FUntitled2_zpswaosccbr.png)  (October 27, 2010 at 7:18 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Episode 4 of the Amateur Scientist Podcast is the Price interview I was thinking of. It's from 3 years ago, but it's still good - and it's another good show to listen to as well...just not while you're driving because you're liable to laugh so hard at some of their jokes you could run into other people or a wall. Thanks for the tip! 
"If your god has to make peace with me in my final hour when he has my whole lifetime to prove his existence to me...do you think I should bother?"
"But the happiness of an atheist is neither the vacuous enjoyment of a fool, nor the short-lived pleasure of a rogue. It is rather the expression of a disposition that has ceased to torture itself with foolish fancies, or perplex itself with useless beliefs." - Chapman Cohen  RE: God's Child(ren)?
October 28, 2010 at 2:19 am
(This post was last modified: October 28, 2010 at 2:29 am by Rayaan.)
(October 27, 2010 at 3:31 pm)Jonah Wrote: Now, if I have read the Bible correctly, Jesus is supposed to be the son of God. Yes, but since I'm a Muslim, I don't believe that Jesus is the son of God. A verse from the Quran: "Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him." [Surah 112, verses 1-4] 
Wow, using one book of fairy tales to counter another, how productive.
.
 RE: God's Child(ren)?
October 28, 2010 at 4:17 am
(This post was last modified: October 28, 2010 at 4:18 am by ib.me.ub.)
Quote:Wow, using one book of fairy tales to counter another, how productive. Well your comments seem to be getting more & more productive as time goes by. Must be your superior intelect. 
There's a brilliant website that can answer this and all other biblical type questions..
http://www.oggtheclever.com/ 
![[Image: cinjin_banner_border.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=oggtheclever.com%2Fcinjin_banner_border.jpg)  (October 28, 2010 at 5:40 am)Darwinian Wrote: There's a brilliant website that can answer this and all other biblical type questions.. That would be your website then Dar You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid. Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.  (October 27, 2010 at 3:31 pm)Jonah Wrote: My pastor conveniently forgot to quote the rest of the passage, which reads, “...and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”His sonship was different in that he was always the Son of God. The angels were apparently considered sons of God but they were created while Jesus alsways existed. Quote:Speaking of David and Solomon, I forgot to mention in my original post was the genealogy of Jesus. If Jesus was supposed to be born of a virgin, why does he even [i]have[\i] a genealogy? Joseph wasn't his biological father, so why would he have a bloodline?The genealogy in Matthew shows that Joseph was descended from the kings of Israel and would presumably have been king if the monarchy had still existed. Jesus wasn't his biological child but considered legally his son because Joseph was married to Jesus's mother. It was through Joseph that he inherited the right to be the king of Israel. Jesus was human as well as devine because he was born of Mary. Her genealogy is given in Luke 3. Here is a good article about the two genealogies: http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matth...and-luke-3 If you think you have found an error in the Bible this site is a good place to look to see if there is an explanation for it: http://carm.org/
His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Romans 1:20 ESV (October 28, 2010 at 4:17 am)ib.me.ub Wrote:Quote:Wow, using one book of fairy tales to counter another, how productive. I wish I could say the same. But seriously, do you see something factually wrong with my statement or do you just like whining?
.
(October 28, 2010 at 3:01 pm)theophilus Wrote: The genealogy in Matthew shows that Joseph was descended from the kings of Israel and would presumably have been king if the monarchy had still existed. Jesus wasn't his biological child but considered legally his son because Joseph was married to Jesus's mother. It was through Joseph that he inherited the right to be the king of Israel. Oh, so he's only rightfully the king of Israel because some broke sheep herder is apparently a relative 2000 years removed from a Jewish King and not because God is him/his father? And what about the Genealogies in Matthew and Luke being MASSIVELY different? Luke Wrote:God Matthew Wrote:Genealogy of Jesus according to Matthew If anything it shows that the book is even more spectacular bullshit than even you Fundies indirectly make it out to be. Quote:Jesus was human as well as devine because he was born of Mary. Her genealogy is given in Luke 3. Here is a good article about the two genealogies: Ohhh Matt Slick, excuse me while I don't give a fuck. In case you haven't realized yet, Matt Slick is despised by almost as many Christians as he is Atheists for many reasons, but in this case it's his 'interpretations', they are at occasion like reading those humorous demonstrations of bad reasoning and reading into it that you see from Mitchel and Webb.
.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
