(November 12, 2015 at 9:58 am)Drich Wrote:

(November 11, 2015 at 3:13 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: there are many religions that promise direct access to God christianity is not the first or last religion that offers direct access ,

Like what? What offers a personal relationship between the believer and their God? Aside from satanism I don't know of anyothers that offer what Christianity offers with their deity, again unless the people were being exploited, prophets or emmesarries.

Now Is that religion now considered to be a 'dead religion?' finally Ask yourself why, and why is Christianity still going strong after making the same promise?

Quote: so if direct access makes a religion true then you should believe in all the religions that teach direct access to God is possible to be also true

It's not the claim, it is the fulfillment of said claim that makes a religion true.
Again, non of which can be verified in this life aside from Christianity.

Quote:christianity/the bible does makes claims/promises that have been flat out wrong and have failed to come to pass

Mark 11:24: " Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. "

In John 14:12-14 we find the same thing:
" I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. "

Jesus says, " I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these " yet believers and those who have faith cannot walk on water or do any of the things that Jesus was able to do, so this is a promise that has not come to pass .

And when Jesus says, "ask anything in my name, and I will do it," this also is not true. Jesus does not just say it once. He says the same thing several times ...

In Matthew 7:7: "Ask, and it will be given to you." In Matthew 17:20: "Nothing will be impossible for you." In Matthew 21:21: "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

Every single reference you made is out of context. in each case their is a qualifier to "asking in prayer" that you have intentionally left out. Put these verses back in context and the discussion can continue.

Quote:we can not do the things that Jesus did or greater things , and we cannot receive whatever we ask for in prayer . His deciples could not then and neither can believers today. so i was just wondering what people thought about these promises that have over time proven to be untrue .

Again context.Who was Jesus speaking to?

Quote:Also Jesus told His deciples that "For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Matthew 16:27-28 , suggesting it seems that Gods Kingdom would come in their lifetime (for some of them) , which also did not come to pass.

What do you think the book of Revelation is? (It is a visual account of the "Son of man" Comming in glory) Who wrote Revelation? (The Apostle In whom Jesus Loved/John) Did He write it before or after he died? I'll let you figure that one out.

What else you got?

why should people take johns hallucination and presume its from God and not the result of lying or drug or a result of some other factor you are literally taking this persons account as truth noone else saw this but him he was not an unbiased witness  , how do you know it happened 2000+yrs ago how do you know these people are reliable that it wasnt you are basing your entire religious faith on the testomony of a person , why should anyone trust any of it  because its come true ? ummm nooo it has not do you realize the book or revelations hallucination that john had is responsible for confusion among people you know by the fruits , do you even know how many dooms day cults and predictions and people who are upeople anyone care about the details of fairy tales that seems like a waste of time if it is true then of course youd want to study it but to determine if something is true to need investigate IF its from God and then if the testomony hasnt been corrupted by church politics and human error is perception and memory the gospels were written from the memory of his followers who were influenced by their culture as much as any other person is

your religion direct access to God only through jesus so jesus serves as the go between and so really no you dont have direct direct access to God through your religion , why is your religion true and others not true what has convinced you cant say because everything has come to pass because they have not  catholics for example and  catholocism is the base of all christianity you need a priest or clergy appointed by God as a middleman . between them then jesus .you are believing without seriously questioning these people puttting together and being responsible for the book that the masses were given . are you catholic ? and your religion practed idolatry catholics actually pray to a virgin mary statues and crosses are prayed to the cross is an idol everyone interprets in their own way that is the reason for denominations it all looks exactly like a product of human creativity and superstition . no different that any other religion

(November 12, 2015 at 12:58 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:good makes my job faster.

You don't have a job, drippy.  You have an obsession.

Obsession permits its own topic to be real and even in some ways worthy.   Therefore the word obsession all too easily glosses over the real magnitude of drippy's deficiencies.

(November 12, 2015 at 12:42 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote:KevinM1

Genesis 3 is all about it.  Humanity is cursed because Adam and Eve ate the fruit.

No it doesn't. Genesis 3 is the passage used to identify what certain denominations define as original sin, but the bible never points to the fall as the point of original sin. It is the point where Adam and Eve first sinned. we are not judged on their sin, but on our own. Each one of us according to the bible, when we become aware of sin and do it anyway is then guilty of sin. Not what someone else did at the dawn of humanity.

I wish you'd stop playing fast and loose with this, Drich. Stop pretending that you don't know WHY we sin, according to your book. Why are we born this way? Who's directly responsible for giving humans such a capacity?

The problem here isn't necessarily you; it's the subject matter. There's no way to explain Man's sinful nature without being evasive and sounding like a babbling maniac OR admitting that the god you worship is in no way benevolent.

Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place, huh? One of the unavoidable pitfalls of trying to explain utter nonsense.

(November 11, 2015 at 11:15 pm)Laika Wrote: [quote='Drich']
Which faith? or which version of the Faith? Are you suggesting that out of the supposedly 40,000 different expressions of Christianity mine is unique? Or are you simply defaulting to the logical fallacy of sweeping generalizations?

Because in the OP (Again) I point to a very specific faith/system of belief.

Quote:That's my point.

So.. yes, your going with logical fallacy..

Quote: You can't just say we all don't understand Christianity

Actually i can, if and when you demonstrate a fundemental lack of basic knoweldge in/of the Christian belief.

Quote: and then try to teach us your interpretation so we'll be able to argue intelligently.

So is it your assumption that All of your peers wish to remain in bigotry and logical fallacy when argueing basic faith matters?

Quote: You don't speak for the Catholics with their 1747438 saints. You don't speak for the Mormons and their friendo Joseph Smith. You don't speak for the Protestants or the Lutherans or the Presbyterians or the Baptists or any other Christian denomination. You speak only for yours. And with all the past wars and conflicts and discrimination and aggression between these guys throughout the years, I'd venture to say that the interpretations must be different enough, enough to say that your single sect of Christianity is not a stand in for the whole.

I never pretended for a second that i never repersented any specific doctrinally based denomination.

However I do repersent the Christianity Jesus Himself taught. The difference? Doctrinallly based Christianity all seem to think They are the Only acceptible versions of the religion, and that the denomination itself has the power to save or 'excommunicate' a person from salvation by taking away some doctrinal right/responsiblity.

The problem with that is Jesus never taught that. He specificaly taught He was the only way, truth and life. That no man came to the Father but only through Him. Never one did he say we must follow the teaching of a given church or church structure. Matter of fact he said the exact oppsite in that He was the final judge, and that He is the one who decides who is and is not Christian. Mat 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

If you look at the list of signs and wonders Jesus gives, one can easily identify these people as being apart of the church. Not only that but just in the level of 'miracles' they perform they are higher ranking members of the comming church. yet they fail to have even the most basic relationship needed for simple salvation.

That means "Christianity" is not defined by any given doctrine/church like you and members of doctrinal based christians think it is. Christianity is defined by Christ and Christ alone. He decides who is and is not Christian. So which 'version' of Christianity is right? Which one belongs to Christ? None of them truly do. we are all 'wrong' to one degree or another. that's the point.

For it is only by God's grace that any of us are saved. The same grace that covers us when we willfully sin, covers us when we worship wrongly, but do so in accordance with out greatest command (love God with all of our being). That is what saves us through Christ, not a set of rules created by tradition and piece mealed verses. Now if one's love is great, but they can only understand tradition and piece together verse scraps then that is all they are responsiable for (per the parable of the talents.)

Which means that version of Christianity (whatever it may be) is right for them. However if God gave those people the ability to move past their tradition and bad doctrine, and they don't then Christ see them as being luke warm and will be expelled from Christ. Worst yet are those who use religion for their own gain/Christian pharisees. For them it would be much better if they had never been born.

So why bible based Christianity over doctrinal Christianity? For the same reason you all 'good people' have turned your back on God all together.

You've tested the god of man's doctrines and found Him to be absent, or in critical error of the bible. (The reason being God will not support a corrupt or broken version we create just because our intentions are Good.) No he sends the wind and rain (Parable of the wise and foolish builders) to test our notions about Him which wash away false belief and bad faith. For some (Again like you good people) assume because your idea of God was proven wrong that their can not be anything else.

because again most of you were brought up in doctrinal christianity with the idea that one of you has the right religion (look at your arguement with me, it too presupposes this very thing.) Rather than the Biblical view that says only Christ decides who is and is not Christian, and not man in his various expressions of faith.

So why do i get to Speak for Christianity? Because in cased you missed it. The Christianity described in the bible are the followers of Jesus according to Jesus himself, we're not assigned to follow one doctrinally based faith over another. That We all despite our religions, have the same responsiblity/oppertunity to be Christian no matter what our collective doctrines tell us. It solely depends on what Christ himself decides. And that is based off of what we are told in the bible verse our ability to comprehend it, as well as the resources he has given us to follow our beliefs. Not some creed or man in a funny hat.

Drich Wrote:Homosexuality is a sin, for the sake of that specific arguement. the person i was speaking to was pretending that because Jesus did not identify Homosexuality specifically that the rest of the bible did not matter, and homosexuality according to Christ was not a sin. I said ok fine lets go with homosexuality is not a sin. I pointed out Jesus still identified sexual sin as a sin... And because their wasn't a santified pretext Homosexuals could have sex they were still in sin.

Quote:Wow, so you are able to openly admit that your book condemns homosexuality as morally wrong and causes you to think of it as such. THIS kind of shit is why I disagree with the shit you believe in.

The Self righteousness is deep here.

This statement wrongly presupposes that All sin in Immoral, and the God see Immorality as we see immorality. Meaning He views it through the lens of shame. this is not the case in biblical Christianity. One, man's immorality is an ever changing standard, and God's is not.

Therefore God's use of the term is different than how you are trying to use it. God's 'immorality/unrighteousness' puts all of humanity against a standard we ALL fail against. So all are immoral, all are in sin all are unrighteous. their is no shame their because all need the same thing.

Because again He knows we all sin, and are slaves to sin meaning we are bound to and by the laws of sin. So rather than deal out shame God offers redemption from sin/Immorality. Meaning He knows we will never be free from sin, but through redemption of sin, He frees us from the consenquences of sin. Meaning we can still be bound to sin, but Righteous/Moral to Him through Christ.

The only time God looks at us through the lens of "shame"/Looks at sin in a negitive way is when we elect to keep our sin by not repenting of it, and love our sin more than Him. This is what the essence of Biblical evil is.

Quote:I don't believe in sex before marriage either, but tbh I don't think of it as sinful or morally wrong. Some people just don't want to get married.   Here is another example of a religion imposing judgment or criticism on someone's lifestyle choice.

/Here is another example of self righteous douche baggery that imposses your defination of morality onto God wrongly... i would not have had even pointed this out, but for the fact that you are trying to drive a point that you don't seem to understand does not apply.

Drich Wrote:Again, Read the OP. My views only repersent "BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY" Meaning I only am claim to repersent those who only base what they believe only on the bible.

Quote:Adorable...  but unfortunately, a vast majority of the Christians that are on TV, in the government, that cause issues, and that i address when I voice my dislike of religion, and that i fight with, are the ones that go to Church, that listen to a Pastor or a Minister or a Priest tell them what to believe. So since those are the ones I criticize, and since you have professed that your thread's insurance policy covers only Christians who are based solely on Bible readings, then that means your accusations of my misguided bigotry aren't even really justified, since my dislike is not aimed at the "Bible-based Christians" you seek to defend (though the homosexual discrimination is still there, so in a way I do have that problem with you). You make no case for the other like 80% that I actually target.

Don't sell yourself short. Here in this last statement you still don't yet understand that 'doctrinal christianity' can still yield the Christians Jesus identifies with in the bible. I should hope though by now you do know the difference between the two.. In that a biblical Christian can belong to any Church, creed, non creed or religion (Christian or otherwise) as again no specific doctrine/creed/denomination saves us. Christ Himself will judge whether or not we are 'saved.' Or rather who is Christian and who is not. the fallacy is in doctrinal christianity that has us award ourselves with the 'title' Christian by following traditional rules and various patters of specific belief, which preclude all others. Your whole arguement is based on this primise and fails because again, no one form of christianity is right. all are wrong, and it is only through Grace that any of us are save, lest any of us boast.

That is Jesus' Christianity and that is what i repersent here.

Quote:However, even if you are only defending the Biblical Christians, your thread and nothing you have said thus far has debunked or proven me wrong in saying that you believe in a book that presents scientific impossibilities

such as? I believe you gave a list of things i showed to be not only possible by science but documented by it as well.

Quote:and that can't honestly be trusted to be the 100% true word of a God it claims exists.

As i explained in a post above to Kevin, The only reason the bible fails to stack up against 'science' is because most of you are not honest enough to compare apples to apples or simply don't care too. You/Most people at a very young age build a picture of God, and never change or modify it on the idea of God never changes.. The thing is God does not have to change in order for us to change our understanding of Him. But most of you choose only view god through a 6th grade sunday school concept, which does pretty well if you only have a 1 hour per week 6th grade level/understanding of science.

However most of you while holding on to your 6th grade sunday school idea of God try and stack that up against graduate level science, and of course your understanding of God will fail/appear as scientific impossiblities.

That is what i mean by not compareing apples to apples.

Quote: How do you know your Bible is true?

Because Christ tell us to Ask, Seek and Knock for the Holy Spirit and The Father will Give Him in abundance. I did this very thing and Got was I A/S/K-ed for.

Quote: How can you prove that?

How can I prove that I received the Holy Spirit? we look for Spiritual Fruit and Spiritual gifts. In my life. What better proof of God is there than God comming to be apart of you and our life?

Quote:That is my issue, and that issue is not being addressed in the content of this thread. I care less about the details of your book and more about you proving to me the validity of it.

Then simply A/S/K as outlined in Luke 11 and He will provide you with all the 'proof' you need.
God does not serve me. So i can not summon him for you. However He has promised us in luke 11 all those who A/S/K will be given God the Spirit as 'Proof.' and again what better proof of God than direct interaction with Him.

lakia Wrote:Well obviously the Bible isn't going to say "thou must deny evolution" because the idea hadn't been discovered yet. However, the entire first chapter of Genesis is not in line with evolution. At all. The only way it can be so is if you twist the words into every which metaphor you can think up.

Again says who? your 6th grade sunday school teacher? what in your mind contradicts evolution? again the whole of theory of Evolution could have taken place between the end of creation and the fall of Man. Genesis 1 describes a central garden perspective. Not a Creration of the universe perspective.

I talk about it more here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-14190.html

Drich Wrote:lol, A virgin in OT times was a young woman with hymen intact.

Quote:Ummmmmmm....... For most women, the hymen breaks when she loses her virginity.

So two possibilities exist: One, you imply that Jesus's mother DID have sex with a human male, and was just lucky enough that her hymen didn't break. So in this case, if both parents are human, and he was naturally conceived, that means he was NOT divinely conceived, and thus why believe him to be the son of god?

Possibility two: the hymen is in tact because she never had sex, and because artificial insemination (as far as I know) was not around at the time (and even if it was, that would just lead us back to problem #1), then that means she was a virgin in today's terms. and it is scientifically impossible for a virgin to conceive.

No it's not. 45 cases of 'virgin births' in the US since 95. To check the virginity then, is just as easy as it is to check now. Granted the women now all but have admitted to 'fooling around' but never the less did not break their hymens. So again despite your personal idea of a virgin birth it is indeed scientifically possible (albeit rare) to conceive without breaking the hymen.

I ask again, Get past your 6th grade understanding of the bible and compare apples to apples.

Now that said i am a firm believer in the bible narritive. I am just point out a virgin birth is not only possible almost 50 examples have been reported in the last 20 years. So again not this big scientific impossiblity when you compare apples to apples.

Quote:But there is one more possibility, one that you might not have considered before.........
........
..........
Maybe she just told a lie.

uuuhhh, no. If she were prego before the actual marriage then she would have been stoned. (They would have checked before stonning someone/young girl) Because her dad would have made a huge fuss at joseph, and then Joseph would have said it was not me, she would have claim no one touched me, They would have taken her to the temple The preists would have had some old ladies check and their word would have sealed her fate. A woman's virtue was a very very big deal, because it all but determined her whole life.

Again as with the 45 or so cases in the US since 1995 it is easy to verify the claim then, just as it is now.

Drich Wrote:What if I said i could reproduce all those these feats now? To you, and some knoweledge of modern tech, you might cry foul, but what would someone who live 2000 years ago say? If we can reproduce these effects now then why would it have been 'scientifically impossible' for God to have done them then?

Quote:Because first you'd have to prove that God exists in order to make that assertion. You can't lay your claim on another unproven claim. (begging the question)

ah, no. The assertion made was that these feats are possible now with out God. So again why would I need to prove God if what i am saying is we do not need God to do these things? again the primise i am attempting to over come is your assertion that the items on list provided are scientifically impossible. when in fact they are not.

Drich Wrote:Maybe because again. you like so many others do not understand the basics of biblical Christianity. Just look at you list of objections.. They are all sterotyped nonsense that is well with in the reach of MAN today. Yet you posit them as impossible. Why? because you have never seriously given any of this any thought outside of what others have pointed out to you to think. You 'think' you know, but as I pointed out your best 'objections' so far are bunk.

Quote:It's not a stereotype if it's true.

Again they are not true, so therefore stereotyped reasoning.

Quote:Has Christianity not been a leading cause of the things I mentioned?

If the things you mention are not mandates commanded in the bible then they are not cause by Christianity. they are cause by evil men in the name of a religion. that is no different than a psyco killing your enemies even if you don't want him too.

The primary difference being, Jihad/Flying planes into buildings is mandated by Islam. therefore one can say that religion is (morally wrong/fill in the blank.)

Which contrasts with Christianity because nothing you mentioned in mandated by anything written in the bible. therefore all things done in the name of christianity is not because of the religion, but because evil men seized this religion to control the power it's followers afforded them. Again like the psyco killing your enemies in your name despite your wishes to the contary

Quote:Yes? Then it is not a generalization. It's rested on statistics and fact.

and because the answer is indeed a strong/verifiable no, everything I said before is true.

Your hate for the religion has warped the truth in your mind. you can not even acknoweledge the bible makes no demand of it's followers to do the things you charged the religion for. Matter fact most of the time the very oppsite is what is actually true.

Drich Wrote:Every blessed one. why? because they are all FIRMLY with in the realm of reason for an open mind.

Quote:Ok, Drich.

Ah! glad to see you yield to reason.

Drich Wrote:All religion has a negitive aspect, why? because at some point 'religion' is used by hart hearted men to get what they want. Understand though that With or without religion you do not eliminate hard hearted men who will maniuplate anything to get what they want. For them religion becomes a tool to serve a wicked nature. Our natures do not disappear with out God. Matter of fact they worsen.

Quote:I agree. It is used by shitty people to do shitty things. Just as science and government sometimes are. However, since we clearly are at a point in societal evolution in which we don't need a god to keep us on our best behavior, and we don't need a god to fill in gaps of scientific knowledge, then we can just toss religion out altogether, in my book. Of course, saying that won't make it true, but one can hope.

They thought the same thing in 1930's germany. The problem with 'morals' without absolutes, is that their is nothing to prevent moral decline. Without a Thous shall not murder how long before murder of certain extremeist/ideologies is accepted? It took less than 10 years for Germany to make that jump without the direction of the church. Think of the good intentions of political correctness movement. It all started out as a good thing but has quickly declined into a contest of self righteousness, to where the term politically correct is no longer politically correct. Again without an absolute their is no stablity, and what was right to this time and this generation gets tossed aside for the next. making our 'morals' immoral.

Drich Wrote:The religion, yes. Biblical Christianity no.

Quote:Let's take a little vocab lesson.

Religion (as found in any dictionary): the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Christianity (as found in any dictionary): the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.

Biblical Christianity is a religion. Don't try to weasel your way out of denying what Christianity has been responsible for by painting your tiny, specific sect as innocent or abject from the term. The Bible by itself is not a religion. The Bible itself is nothing, just markings on paper. Everything it is and all power and influence it has is intertwined with an individual reading and believing its words to be absolute truth, and once he believes there's a God, it becomes a religion. You don't need to got to church to be a part of a religion.

You might be able to make a case for organized or institutional religion, but do yourself the favor of admitting that you are in a religion. Denying it will get you nowhere.

Are you so foolish to think, that our religious efforts/ current worship of God is all that God ever wanted? Do you think In any religion their hasn't been a steady decline from it's original doctrinal precepts to it's modern day use? Religion is indeed Man's worship of God. It does not mean it fulfills what God has asked us to do.

christianity (small c) is a religion it is our doctrinal beliefs, it is our traditional practices it is everything geared toward Jesus and God that Jesus and God did not ask us to do. It is the psyco killing your enemies despite what you actually want. That is man's religions.

what God has identified and what Jesus gets to decide what is and is not Christian (capitol C) has absolutely nothing to do with what we call christianity. Not a dodge. I am point out the very obvious gap between how and what we worship in doctrinal Christianity and what is described in the bible/What Jesus wants from us.

Quote:I did read Genesis. Adam and Eve were already established human beings when they were put in the garden. "Man and woman". The only way you can turn it into evolution is if you say that each day God took to make the Earth was longer than a 24 hour day. Kind of a cop out in my opinion, but it would slide.

Ah, no.. As I point out in my evolution/creation thread Adam was Man made in the image of God/Spiritual being had a living soul. He was made by God's own hand (physical body) on day 3ish of creation to reflect the evolutionary process of 'evolved man'( who dewelled outside the garden and was left to develop naturally.) at the time of the fall (5000 years ago) so that Adam's Children could find suitable mates.

Drich Wrote:The Religion (Again religion is the work of man in the "name" of God/But absent of any biblical mandate) Yes, Biblical Christianity? No. Homosexuals are looked at as sexual sinners. If anything All sexual sinners were looked at with distain, but not until recently were sexual sinners given a pass, but homosexuals were not. Again not a biblical mandate, just something the self righteous among us (without God) have done on their own, but happen to use the 'name of God' to justify their own hate. Show me a Mandate to Hate or even 'judge' evil people let alone sinners. and I will point you back to Romans 2:1 where Paul very specifically says we are not allowed to judge/Act against EVIL People let alone sinners because we are ALL GUILTY of the Same things.

Again your ignorance here of basic biblical Christianity makes you beleve ALL Christians see themselves as being better hence the ablity to judge or hate those in unrepentant sin, when clearly this act would be in direct violation of what Paul says we are to do.

Quote:Because viewing them as sexual sinners is soooooo much better.

Indeed! because it puts everyone in the same boat. meaning we are all equal.

Quote:Oh, my favorite! Not ALL Christians! Hey, if I'm digging through a barrel of apples, and I can only find 5-6 good ones, and all the rest are rotten, I'm not going to look up and say, "this is a good barrel." Not all of Christianity is bad, but when the percentage is so high, i really don't waste my time searching for the diamonds in the rough.

You do know you just admitted to stereotyping and identifying grouping "those people." This is the core principle behind ALL Bigotry. It judges indivisuals based on what the people think of the 'group.' Good to know if the KKK were to ever come back around in fashion, they would not be hurting for memebers.

Quote:No, but let's be honest... The Bible didn't exactly condemn it. Your guy knows all, sees all, past and future. Don't ya think he would have been smart enough to include "no slaves" up there in the 10 commandments, if he foresaw how lack of it would cause people to use the Bible as a avocation? What poor foresight your god has. Or maybe he just doesn't give a shit.

your not one of 'those people' are you? (people who think all slavery is bad/hypocrite) Do you not understand that you life right now is COMPLETELY dependant on modern slaves? a slave by any other name is still a slave. You would not be able to eat or respond to this thread if not for those who work on less than a livable wage did not provide affordable goods to you.

Quote:I care less about what your book actually says (until you are prepared to prove the shit, since in my book it's all myths), and more about how it affects other people and causes them to act. And if it causes them to do so many shitty things, with so little benefit, then why keep it around?

prove what exactly? do you not know their is more 'proof' of this book than the top ten other ancient books put together?

Quote:Haha, okay. Let's pick this apart.

I don't claim to have all knowledge, buddy. That's you. YOU and your posse think you KNOW exactly how the universe was created, when at least I will tell you that I lack understanding of that event.

then how can you tell me I am wrong?

Quote:You think that you KNOW the nature of a God.

I know what we have been told in the bible.

Quote: You think that you KNOW that he exists,

that is true.

Quote: and you think that you KNOW all the shit written in your book is true.

I know via the fulfillment of the promises given that they are indeed true.

Quote: There is only one thing I claim to know about your God, your Bible, and your religion: there's no evidence to support any of it.

again define 'evidence' Because whatever God provides you all move the goal posts back.
So again, tell me how God, is not 'proof' of God.
Because that is what is offered and that is what I have received literally!

Quote: There's no foundation for it's claims of jesus's divinity,

again by all literary standards their is more proof found in the NT manuscripts than of any other writting ascribed to anyother ancient figure. to question the validity of Jesus and the NT is to question all of known History.
https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

Quote: of his magic powers, of his "saving mankind", outside of your book and some letters written by the same people who starred in the book.

But that's the thing.. they were not aprt of a book club then. Everything written about Jesus was compiled 300 years after the fact and two books were written by an outsider. a unaffiliated 3rd party, yet because he is in support of what the others said it is dismissed.. You know in every other instance that is considered to be proof or verification of facts, not a point of dismissal.

Quote: Funny, I'd figure that if there was someone walking on water or floating into the clouds, a number of everyday eye witnesses would have reported it.

But again, ALL Writtings on Jesus were gathered up in the 3rd century, and the church as built a massive libary on those writtings. these writtings cover followers as well a unaffilated 3rd parties, but because they are all apart of the vatican libary they are considered 'religious text.' all are dismissed because the church perserved them, content excluded/it is not even considered. their present location is all that is needed to dismiss them. where else in any field of study is evidence over looked because it is in the wrong libary?

Again moving the goal posts.

Quote:You have the same issue with the story of Moses parting the Red Sea,

You do know how water works right???

what evidence do you think their would be after 3500/4000 years of WATER being spread apart by a great wind and coming back together?
Is this the best you have?!?!?

Quote:and the fact that there's no evidence that the Israelites were even in Egypt to be slaves in the first place.

you do know how Egyptians Recorded History do you not???
They never recorded a great loss.. The Jews walking out with all of their belongings with a whole sale slaughter of their first born sons would indeed be considered a 'great loss.' so what do the egyptians do? they lie:

---

https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/pla...zilla&tt=b

---

then their's this:
http://www.jewishjournal.com/passover/ar...s_20100324

Quote:Jesus might have existed, his followers might have existed, but as for all the supernatural mumbo jumbo.... that seems to be remarkably kept between jesus and those followers.

Feeding 5000, then 2000 then another 5000 plus temple healings verfied by the priests who hated him... yeah I'd "honestly" call that keeping this between me and my followers as well

Quote:Do you think it matters to me how long you've been reading the Bible?

appearently so, if you tried to overwhelm me with 'stuff' you thought the bible had no answer for.
Wake up, and look beyond you biased closed minded 6th grade sunday school view of God and the bible. their is honest answer out their if you are willing to look for them.

Quote:I could spend 50 years examining the Harry Potter franchise and I'd be no closer to proving Harry Potter existed.

Apples and oranges. What if you spent 50 years studying Washington? do you think yoou could make some head way then?

Quote:I don't claim to know the secrets of the universe. I just know enough to reject stuff the reeks of bullshit. You might call yourself imaginative. I call you gullible.

do you? It seems the only way youre able to do that is by making unfair comparesons.. If this is how you must approach God then is your reasoning truly sound?

Quote:Actually, you didn't answer any of my points about homosexual discrimination, advocating slavery, denying evolution, and fighting against women's rights. All you did was brush it off saying, "that's religion, not MY religion".

actually sport i did. i just did not answer you in the way a 6th grade sunday schooler would have expected. Your curent reasoning/arguements/rebuttals are not flexible enough to identify and refute the points i made. why? because you like so many other atheist can only recite or spin traditional Atheist vs Christian arguements, you all seldomly can think on your feet. what i have provided is something you have not been taught how to refute, so your trying a general dismissal. cute.. but no dice. my work stands on the points I have made.

Drich Wrote:ll i needed to do to prove you wrong is show a discrepency between "religious belief" and what the bible says or does not say.

Quote:Don't care that much about what it says. Because I doubt a quarter of it is true. Once again, I care about how people use it.

Because you admitted to judging an indivisual in accordance to what those in a group setting do, who share traits with the indivisual with your apple in a barrel analogy.
In a religious pretext this is known as bigotry. in a racial setting this same behaivor is called racism. So why should I care what someone like you is willing to consider?

Quote:Again I am not here to argue denominational doctrines and which one is right. In the OP I state I am trying to communicate what Biblical Christians believe. Nothing more

Quote:
hey, that's fine. But if you're not interested in any other discussion about Christianity, its crimes, and whether it's actually true, then you don't have grounds to say I'm wrong in what I believe about your religion.

your response was so long and un-thought out I bet you did not know you final point contradicts your opening..
What I am looking for from you is a simple acknoweledgement of either being a bigot who truly does judge indivisual by a group perception right or wrong. Or two that it is possible for evil people to commit henious acts in the names of something someone with out their consent which is what you and your witch hunt is (ironically) trying to do with Christianity.

(November 12, 2015 at 4:12 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(November 12, 2015 at 12:58 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You don't have a job, drippy.  You have an obsession.

Obsession permits its own topic to be real and even in some ways worthy.   Therefore the word obsession all too easily glosses over the real magnitude of drippy's deficiencies.

What do you propose for a nut like him?

(November 12, 2015 at 12:42 pm)Drich Wrote:

(November 11, 2015 at 7:59 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Hence 'whatnot'.

You are using the term What-not wrong.
It means unmentioned items that could belong the list provided. Ex: we need bread, ham, cheese, tomato and what-not to make a good sam-bitch.

No, I'm using it correctly.  The context is a bunch of other meaningless things, of which the genealogies of the bible are but one.

Quote:

Quote:"Original sin' is not a topic mentioned or taught by the bible.

Quote:Genesis 3 is all about it.  Humanity is cursed because Adam and Eve ate the fruit.

No it doesn't. Genesis 3 is the passage used to identify what certain denominations define as original sin, but the bible never points to the fall as the point of original sin. It is the point where Adam and Eve first sinned. we are not judged on their sin, but on our own. Each one of us according to the bible, when we become aware of sin and do it anyway is then guilty of sin. Not what someone else did at the dawn of humanity.

And yet, every Christian I've ever encountered talks about humanity's sinful nature.

Quote:

Quote:You realize you're defending your god for committing genocide because the people were wicked before he decided it may be a good idea to lay down some ground rules (the commandments)?

How so?

God seems to play fast and loose with things at the beginning, speaking to people directly (like Cain and Abel), but not giving people a series of rules to go by without needing his direct intervention all the time.  So, he drowns the entire freaking planet, minus two of each 'kind' and one particular family, and reboots because he did a piss poor job getting his point across the first time.  I mean, if everyone is wicked, maybe the problem isn't them, but the person setting up the rules?  Maybe having the ground rules delivered before hand would have saved us an apocalypse?  Far better than "I like your sacrifice more than your brother's, now watch me be totally shocked and surprised (even though I'm god and know everything) when your brother kills you."

Quote:

Quote:LMFAO.  Man, killing and burning livestock parts is completely different than having a person be tortured to death.  There's false equivocations, and then there's this.

Never seen a baby lamb die huh? Maybe you should google it before you speak. My grandfathers (both of them) had live stock.. Baby lambs scream like children when being killed. the way the OT had them slaughtered was to cut their throats and have them bleed out. This was not a quiet or quick way for them to go. The reason being was the picture of innocence they repersented. So every time one was sacrificed the jews were reminded of the cost of sin.
Which would have been a vivid picture up until 'meat' became something you bought in shrink wrapped trays at the store, rather than having been apart of a animal.

Cool, so your god demanded animal torture as a way to make a point.  Guess I shouldn't be surprised, since he offered his own son up.

Why am I supposed to see him/it as the epitome of goodness and kindness again?

Quote:

Quote:So, you're pagan, then.  Cool.

You don't know what that word means either huh? I see a pattern here with you. look it up.

You're right, apologies.  I meant polytheist.  Sorry, I've been dealing with a kidney blockage and the fever that accompanies it for over a week now.

Quote:

Quote:Their no magic about it. Jesus' Death and blood shed is the Physical manifestation of the Pain endured by god to forgive sins. We have been given this physical example of pain so we could have some idea of the Spiritual cost. In so far as we can learn to respect what has been given so that we may not be held to account for the sin we have committed.

Quote:...that entire description is magical.

Magic is to effect an event in an unknown way. What is unknown/unknowable about what I said? God used physical pain to communicate to us the pain He endured to forgive sin. So that we may have some way to relate to the cost, and subsequently understand the demand that we acknoweledge the loss as a means to accept the atonement provided by said loss.

It's still magical because it doesn't answer questions like:

Does god still hurt when we sin, even if we accept Jesus?
If it hurts so bad, why does he continue to create billions of people who will inevitably sin?
How does sin actually hurt god, which created everything (which must include sin)?

The surface process/lesson may make sense, but its underpinnings are complete mumbo jumbo.

Quote:

Quote: Seriously, I've read similar kinds of mumbojumbo in Dungeons and Dragons books.  It's also heinous, morally speaking.  God is powerful enough to do anything, so he can't just give everyone a vision or something, and instead must have his son go on display and be tortured as a lesson to everyone else?

If the cost could only be communicated by a horrid death on a cross, do you really want that experience beamed into your head? Jesus/God the Son died after 3 hours of this torment.. How long would you suggest we be made to endure?

Since I haven't endured any of it, a value greater than nothing would be a good place to start.

Quote:

Quote: How is that not evil?

How do you still not understand the word evil after all of this?
Evil has nothing to do with our actions. it is the love of sin over God. Jesus' death show a greater love for God the Father than for Himself.

It's evil because it's atonement by proxy.  If I have sinned, then I should be able to gain (or not) atonement myself.  It shouldn't require someone else getting punished in my stead.  Even if he volunteers.  Otherwise, how am I actually absolved of anything?  "Oh, jeez, I feel really bad about it.  Good thing the other guy spent a day or so getting tortured and killed on my behalf, or I'd be really worried!"

Of course, all of this assumes that the sins of the people on this little mud ball can actually hurt the most powerful being in the universe.

Quote:

Quote:"The details" are the whole point.. Knowing the 'crux' without the details is the same as knowing how a movie ends with out the work up/without the details of the story. The whole point of a movie is the whole journey, not just how it ends. What if i gave you the ending of the next starwars movie before you got to see it, what would you call that?
Whether you like star wars or not the point is discovering the 'crux' of a story is not the reason we go to the movies and watch them. its the whole journey, its the details leading up to the 'crux' that gives a movie it's value. The same is true here. Yes you can boil Jesus whole life down to your 'crux', but what gives His work any real meaning are in the details of his story. Which by the way maybe why so many Christians have the 'proof' of God that illudes you and everyone else who just seek the 'crux.'

Quote:Except Star Wars is interesting, and Jesus isn't.

No, I'm serious.

I'm one of those people who cannot force themselves to go through media - stories, movies, music, etc. - they don't like.  I've tried reading the bible to see what the fuss is all about.  I can't make it past the first few chapters of Genesis.  It's just wholly uninteresting and boring to me, and I really don't care.

That's because you are reading it as a story. What if the bible was a set of instructions for one to obtain the 'force?'

The thing about the Force is that it's not attainable by everyone.  Han Solo, for instance.  So, false equivocation.

I understand the 'set of instructions' point you're trying to make.  Sorry, not interested.  Outside of the actual laws of the land (which exist, are enforced with consequences clearly described and visible for all to see), I don't really like external constraints on how I live my life.  It's that chaperone factor of being permanently physically disabled from birth.  I have people hovering over me all the time.  I don't need to add god to the mix.

Quote:

Quote:Now, if someone can provide me with 3rd party, legit, verified evidence that this god character you keep talking about is real, then maybe I'll take it more seriously.  But right now?  It's a collection of boring stories that beg the question, and I treat them as such.

That's the thing though I am many like me are third parties who proclaim all sorts of things god ha done in our lives and point to the fact that we are nothing special. That we simply follow the instructions in the bible and get 'proof of God' by receiving God the Spirit in our lives. Which takes us all off in directions/places we could never otherwise go.

How do you know?  Seems to be you're engaging in post hoc ergo propter hoc to me.

Quote:Verfication is not what your looking for. You want a mandate. Something your forced to not ignore. Well, Good news everyone! that day is comming but by then it will be too late for you to benfit from it.

Are you referring to the rapture or merely my death?

Quote:

Quote:What is more unlikely is you being honest enough with yourself to point these supposed problems out rather than just giving a random list of random "problems" and not tying them to the narritive in any way shape or form.
Or can you honestly not see the basic fallacy in reasoning here?

Quote:Drich, you're trying to say that if everyone understood the narrative of the story, it would all make sense.  What I'm saying is that the narrative cannot make the ideas of:

define "sense." Do you mean To compress down to fit into the box you currently think in/can not think past?

God= creator of all things.
Hell=eternal seperation from God/Death

Described as a furnace of fire in the gospels.  Let's not make it sound more pleasant than it's been described.

Quote:Sin= Anything though/deed not in the Expressed will of God.
Virgin pregnancy/birth= Birth with hymen intact. Google it. In the US 45 'virgin births' since 1995

You know what I meant.  Come on, now, Drich.  For someone playing the professor, you know that I was referring to the incarnation of Jesus.

Quote:Resurrection=consciousness up loaded into a different body.

What?  No.  Maybe in the bible, but not with the common definition of the word.

Quote:

Quote:Less goofy.  It may fit the narrative of the story, but when contrasted with reality, they make no sense.

because yu approach with a closed mind. At some point you wrongly assumed what all those things meant and will not/can not change the definations of those terms in your mind. so when the static religious terms are challenged, by ever changing 'science' they fail. so to you they become obsolete. However if you are honest and smart enough to compare apples to apples (when science changes the perception of reality) you to also look at those religious definations and see where an honest change in the perception of the religious can also be made to reflect what we know to be 'real' while not changing the core truth of what God has given us to know.

I honestly don't know what you're trying to say, but I'll give it a go.

You say I approach things with a closed mind.  Perhaps.  I think it's more accurate to say that I approach things with a skeptical mind.  And just like when someone broaches any other subject, my first question is "Where's the proof/evidence/data?"

The bible cannot be used as its own proof.  It's the thing making the claim.  Individual testimony is worthless, because for each miracle or good turn of fortune they receive, there are many more true believers in the same positions that don't receive the same.  And while there's archaeological evidence for some things (which isn't surprising, as it is an ancient attempt to chronicle Middle Eastern history), none of that lends credence to the fantastic elements of the story that don't fit into reality as we know it.

Quote:

Quote:To go back to Star Wars, The Force, Jedi, Sith, ghosts... all of it (mostly) makes sense within the movies.  The narrative, of varying quality (those prequels... yuck), makes sense.  It's credible and self-referencing.  But, the story obviously don't apply to real life.  You're asking everyone here to take the ancient Middle Eastern version of it seriously, as though it's not fictitious.  And there's no secondary sources of information that tell us we should give it any more respect than any other collection of myths.

Again, why?

The Why you did not care about before, will answer this question, in that where star wars fails to cross the wall between fiction and reality God does cross. Which again is offered to each and every one of us who will A/S/K.

But, see, I'm not interested in A/S/King because there's no verifiable evidence to show that it would be beneficial to me.  Witnessing/testifying is useless on me.  I need data, which no theist has been able to consistently provide.  All we get are promises, threats, and 'mysterious ways', and successes and failures which seem to be reducible to blind chance.

And, keep in mind, even if a theist would be able to actually provide data that would satisfy me (I'm not going to hold my breath), I'd still have issues with the ethical issues underlying your god, the nature of sin and hell, the sacrifice, etc.

So, when you talk to me about having a closed mind, I don't mind.  I'd rather be critical and skeptical of BS than base my entire worldview on it.  And if that offends god, he can go fuck himself.  He knew who he was building when he made me.

(November 12, 2015 at 12:42 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote:"Original sin' is not a topic mentioned or taught by the bible.

Quote:Genesis 3 is all about it.  Humanity is cursed because Adam and Eve ate the fruit.

No it doesn't. Genesis 3 is the passage used to identify what certain denominations define as original sin, but the bible never points to the fall as the point of original sin. It is the point where Adam and Eve first sinned. we are not judged on their sin, but on our own. Each one of us according to the bible, when we become aware of sin and do it anyway is then guilty of sin. Not what someone else did at the dawn of humanity.

Um, drippy...you'd better study your paul shit a little more...starting to look like you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.  (Surprise, surprise.)

Quote:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Romans 5

Do try to remember that your fucking bible does not use the word "trinity" either.  But the assholes who concocted it are pretty clear what they meant.

(November 12, 2015 at 7:03 pm)Drich Wrote: That is Jesus' Christianity and that is what i repersent here.

With all due respect, there is no "Jesus's Christianity". Jesus is the Word incarnate not a set of doctrines. By teaching the Word you are teaching about Jesus Himself and not a set of doctrines presented by Him. Doctrines are the result of our attempt to understand the First Advent.

(November 12, 2015 at 7:44 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: But, see, I'm not interested in A/S/King

Then perhaps you could content yourself with the Ass-King.

(November 12, 2015 at 7:39 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(November 12, 2015 at 4:12 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Obsession permits its own topic to be real and even in some ways worthy.   Therefore the word obsession all too easily glosses over the real magnitude of drippy's deficiencies.

What do you propose for a nut like him?

Monkey turd.