Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
March 26, 2017 at 12:14 pm (This post was last modified: March 26, 2017 at 12:21 pm by Drich.)
(March 24, 2017 at 4:26 pm)Orochi Wrote:
(March 24, 2017 at 4:06 pm)Drich Wrote: My testimony is by the definition of the word 'evidence' for God. You like the OP seek popularly accepted facts. You guys control the market on popularly accepted facts. Maybe if you could tell me what popularly accepted fact you would consider to be 'evidence' then perhaps I could find it for you.
As of now all I can offer is a map for you and God to meet.
You just need to understand how your generation has changed or 'updated' their meaning. Miracles= Unexplained anomalies. google that and you get a huge list of modern medical 'anomalies' that happen generally after the sick or injured have been prayed over. Prayer= religious wishing ceremony. again, the claim we make are simply reclassified in your little word to meet the strict no God policies you have for yourselves.
But, there all still there just hidden away from plain sight as to not to upset people like you too much.
If you think that.. then it only goes to show you do not understand or can not incorporate the simple truth of biblical based Christianity into your world religious view.
In Short God did not make a world He could only move supernaturally though. God is the God of the natural world. As such it is or was our inablity to comprehend who God was and what he was doing that made him appear supernatural. As we mature and understand how the universe works the better we understand the how and who of God. Only a fool takes a 5000 year old understanding of God and demands God stay in the 5000 year old box while the rest of humanity grows and learns.
To say God is supernatural is to be a fool that demands God fit in a 5000 yearold box.
Prayer is not about Changing the world through natural or supernatural means. According to Christ and the one prayer He gave Prayer is an invitation from us to God inviting Him to change us any way shape or form he needs to make us into who He wants us to be.
He shapes and molds us via very natural trials. AIDS for example, or Cancer, money trouble, relationship problem, problem child, any and all of it He can use to seek change.
I think the biblical word you are looking for is petition. To petition God is to Ask God a favor. God has promised to answer all prayer in the affirmative if two or more make that request in His name.. However petitions do not get the same promise. It is not a sin to ask god for anything, just know if that thing is or will lead you into sin or at the very least lukewarmity I'd be willing to bet that thing you want will never see the light of day!
That said there are those who can petition God and get what they seek everytime. However they seldom do, because they know God has taken them out of His protection and they must deal with the full weight of the consequences of what they ask on their own. Rather than do that we most often times "your will be done" even if we face ruin. Because ultimately we know it is far better to be a Job and have God rebuild the life the Devil smashed than try and desperately hang on to what the devil controls.
So then please explain (if you can) how is it that 'science' has wiggled itself out of my reading of Genesis 1 and 2?
Or do you need me to break it down even further.. (also ask why aren't the old deck hands helping you two noobs on something as simple as creation verse evolution argument)
Rather than make you read that whole big long post let me just sum it up for you.
I in a sentence have found an error in the traditional reading of genesis. An error that allows a literal 7 day creation and still yet all the time needed for evolution no matter how much time 'science' deems nessary.
Not only that my simple observation cleans up all of the paradoxes that were supposedly found in the creation account. (who did adam's children marry, where did the city of nod come from cain fled to ect..)
In short I observe there is no time line mention between the end of the seventh day of creation and the fall of man which happended about 6000 (give or take YEC newest number) years ago.
That one sentence whether you fully understand it or not, just ate, assimilated, incorporated anything evolution/the douche bags of science could possible say to the contary, AND This is done without changing one letter of the bible's account of creation. The only thing that need change is the idea on the 8th day eve sinned and A&E were expelled from the garden. (which was never recorded in the bible anyway!) They in fact they could have been expelled the 100 bazillion years after day 7 of creation that 'evolution' says it needs to have happened.
7 days of creation------->100 bazillion years of evolution-------->6000 years ago----genesis 3 happens, out goes A&E into the world of Homosapeians
I have read you and every other fundie who has tried to hijack science to try and hold up the bullshit you call the truth. They have failed and so have you .So stop the mental gymnastics your not fooling anyone
How have I failed? Just claiming I failed and leaving no evidence to the contrary isn't making me look foolish sport.. The only mental gymnastics in this thread is you trying to intimidate me into silence by using what little sway you have here into silencing me, by the mere say so of your last post.
How that is not meant to be a stretch..
(March 24, 2017 at 4:28 pm)Fred Hampton Wrote:
Quote:About 21,000 people(globally) die every day of hunger or hunger-related causes, according to the United Nations. This is one person every four seconds, as you can see on this display. Sadly, it is children who die most often. Yet there is plenty of food in the world for everyone. http://www.poverty.com/
ERGO, God does not exist. Checkmate 2.0, thanks for playing:
Does it hurt?
Truthfully does it hurt being that stupid?
I can only imagine you must build some sort of immunity to the pain... Because that hurt me reading it..
Two things. If God gives those who entrusts a surplus of food with instructions to give it to the poor, and the poor die because those who have been told to distribute the food don't how does that mean God does not exist?
2) how does the death of a child mean God can not exist? Do you not understand to be absent from the body means to be present before God? That means if a kid dies they go home to their heavenly Father who's love knows no limits. How is that a bad thing?
Oh that's right death is about what the selfish want not what is best for the dead or dying.
March 26, 2017 at 2:38 pm (This post was last modified: March 28, 2017 at 9:37 am by SteelCurtain.
Edit Reason: fix quote/hide tags
)
(March 24, 2017 at 8:19 pm)TheAtheologian Wrote: Another misunderstanding. Miracles cannot be connected back to the supernatural. If I have a vision and claim it is Allah speaking to me about being a prophet of Islam, I cannot verify it since I have no access to the supernatural. People who claim to have subjective experiences are not independently verifiable.
We are told in Revelation this very thing will happen in the end times. (what you described) do you know what it prescribes to vet said dreams and visions? The bible. It explicitly says their will be no NEW revelations outside this cannon of scripture. So If you like Mohammad (Who received his revelation from an angel not God Himself) says you are the new leader of Islam.. then all you need do is check scripture.
Like I did with what I was shown in Hell. Imagine experiencing something that sears into your memory and then find what you experienced recorded over 2000 years ago..
Quote:So then why not Check the bible to see if that is the only way God works?
Have you not heard of the parable of the wise and foolish builders? Imagine Our requirement to meet God is to invite Him over to your house for dinner. Imagine that house is a belief/faith built proper understanding of God. One that must be tested by the winds and rain/trials of life. When you say god should be omnibenevolent or when you say god should have answered my prayers because I was sincere when I asked.. You are not building a faith on a foundation that reflects who the God of the bible is. Therefore when the winds and rains come your house on the sand/your faith falls flat.
That however does not mean there aren't people who do indeed have homes that stand the winds and rains. People who God is not silent to. You and your version of the God of the bible simply are not among those in whom who have walked far enough along the path to walk hand in hand with God. It doesn't mean you couldn't be saved with your version of Christianity, it simply means you can truly benefit or cash in completely.
Quote:And your God has proven nothing to us. It turns out that he is either silent or doesn't exist (I know you can't comprehend the bold).
Very nice.. now let's say I do understand this, and I even can bring another possibility to the table via what I just said about the wise and foolish builders.
You say God is silent or He does not exist.
What if the parable of the wise and foolish builders is true?
What if God does exist and if we can simply build a faith based on what the bible tells us about God we will be brought into a world where God is extremely active and interactive.
What does that mean/how would life look to the FOOL who builds his house on the sand, the Fool who automatically things the version of Christianity he was born into was the right one, and if he simply followed the rules God would appear and do tricks per his religion? God would send trials to test this fool's idea of God. The God of the bible would make this little fool's life really hard so the Fool would cry out to his version of god for help... Now because the fool created his own version of God... All the God of the bible need do is remain silent, and sooner or later the fool would come to the conclusion that his version of God does not exist.. That is unless the fool was not also prideful. If we were talking about a a Prideful fool he would because his efforts did not yield God his very first time he tried then no efforts would ever yield God, because a prideful fool often times thinks the universe revolves around his snow flakedom.
Quote:You don't seem to understand the term evidence. Evidence is anything upto and including personal experience. infact personal tesitmony is what the word evidence is built around.
Again, I am referring to the most accurate and reliable way to gather evidence, scientific method and rational thinking.
Quote:I did not attempt to change anything I simply show you the discrepancy between how you used the word evidence and how it is offically used in the english language.
Quote:Well, there is no discrepancy with what I said, you are trying to apply it to subjective religious experiences.
Actually there is. The word evidence allows for personal testimony. You do not. That is the descrepency between your use of the word evidence and it's official definition.
So when I say you are not looking for evidence of God. You are not looking for the proper definition you are not willing to consider personal testimony. Therefore it is not evidence you seek but popularly accepted facts. You are not even intellectually honest enough to admit this (that by definition you are not looking for evidence) truth. So how then can you expect to be honest enough if the presence of true evidence of God? Again you have closed your mind to everything NOT popularly accepted fact.
Quote:What I am saying is a path to truth, but you refuse to accept it.
You would not know how to identify truth if I spent the last 4 posts beating you over the head with it. Why? Because "Science" does not seek 'truth' Truth is all relative in that realm. There is only one truth sport, and science a long long time ago shed it.
Quote:You seek Hive mind approval.
If I did, I would be a Christian.
Ask any of the other Christians if any of them believe the exact same thing.. So tell me genius how is that a hive mind thought process?
We are allowed/commanded to love God with all of our being. This means we will all worship and understand God differently This get expressed differently in our doctrine and out methods of worship. So again how does all of this diversity the bible allows for= a hive mind???
Quote:Maybe I have yet to have any good reason to accept God's existence.
Hey Stupid... Then ASK for a reason IF you want one. Don't wait for your peers to give you one.
Quote:It is contested, but you refuse to open your eyes to it, since you rely on theologians and apologists to telly you about the bible.
I have personally studied the bible for almost 24 years now. there is not one out of the thousand upon thousands I have looked at that has remains unresolved. I really really hate it when someone who has spent next to no time studying anything picks up a mindless commentary and just believes it because that is what that sheep wants to believe. I came into this 24 years ago looking for answers to contradictions I thought I had. I have spent the last 10 years on line answering other people questions contradictions and concerns even those of world renoun status where one of you would take a hitchens or dawkins argument and post it... Not one sport Not one objection stood up to a very simple understanding of the bible and or how God works.
This is why you are I are going it alone/why 5 other old timers are sniping from the wings. They know where this conversation is headed.
Quote:Early oral traditions and accounts are accepted to have preceded the gospels, which were written many years after the death of Jesus. The gospel of Matthew has an unknown author, it is generally accepted that the title "according to Matthew" was added in the 2nd century. The gospel of Matthew drew upon Mark and an unknown source. Little is considered to be historically accurate in the gospels (few events are uncontested). The Gospel of John is considered to be independent of the 3 synoptic gospels (but may be a contestable statement). However, the gospel of John has much theological significance, drawing upon Jewish texts and past traditions, some small parts may be more accurate than the synoptic gospels and John the evangelist is likely not the original author of this gospel. These accounts are not as accurate as you are claiming, much was drawn from folklore and other sources.
You really did not read what I originally posted did you, or was it all too far above your head? If so why bring up what I have already addressed?
Quote:True, and the sources are largely unknown, but it is doubted that the compiled gospels are historically accurate (except for some limited parts of it).
Why only some parts?
Quote:So, a lot of what you are saying here is based on the Acts of the Apostles, which are considered to have been a two part work with the Gospel of Luke, and have the same dating (80-90 AD), while Mark (68-73 AD) and Matthew (80-85 AD) are accepted to have been written earlier or around the same time. Of course, there is sketchy evidence for these dates, so a lot is unknown here. The Acts of the Apostles has evident similarities with the Gospel of Mark, being evidence that some of the gospel of Mark and other source influenced the Acts of the Apostles along with the Gospel of Luke. The death of Paul wouldn't have impact on the writings of the Gospels.
How dos Acts end?
Then google that event
Then google Paul's death
If acts is part two of Luke, then wouldn't luke have been written first? If Acts was written at the end of the book shows furthest point of the progression of the church to be 20 or so years short of Paul's death (which is what triggered mark)
Quote:The view that Luke is the author of the Gospel of Luke is problematic because of the contradictions between acts and the authentic letters of Paul (example: Paul's conversion in Acts as compared to Paul's statement in Galatians.
citation please, Because no one doubts the authorship of luke or acts. except the history channel "Aliens" guy.
Quote:Acts was authored with the gospel of Luke, after Paul's death. Paul's viewpoints are not exactly represented accurately by the author.
There isn't support for that view, not even consistent with the two-gospel hypothesis.
Quote:The man luke wrote his gospel account to.. do you get it??? Before luke could write of the church he has to be Paul's servant/deciple before he could be that he has to be freed from his master the one he wrote his first gospel to maybe 40 years before mark.
Quote:That is Pseudo-History, I am not sure where you get that from. Luke likely didn't even write the Gospel of Luke and was independent of Paul as a personal source.
Coming from a guy who has very obviously NOT read the book of acts or anyother part of the New testament. Because Acts, Philemon, Colossians and the first letter to timothy record Luke as being a scribe/disciple to Paul.
Do try and at least google what you think before you blindly challenge me
Quote:So do I, but you keep bringing up nonsense
What a prideful arrogant ass. If something I say makes absolutely no sense, then your the one who lacks understanding... ASK A FRIGGEN QUESTION.
Quote:that could only be consistent with your personal beliefs, so I have no reason to accept that you are truly trying to reach truth.
Quote:Outside the fact that I found God... and You haven't ? And what I am offering costs you nothing to check out for yourself
Again, it is disputed that the author of the Gospel of Luke had direct personal influence by Paul and even was Luke. The gospel of mark provides evidence of drawing upon as a source with other sources.
citation please
Quote:That is not what I meant, I meant that the non canonical sources that came were derived from previous sources that could include the canonical Gospels.
such as??? give me 3 of you very best and lest see if they hold water
Quote:It does matter how we get facts, as we need to know that they were verified.
Indeed.. but verified by whom?
Do all facts only come from the collective?
Quote:Science has beaten God every time. No contest. You can't even compare.
except with the whole evolution thing..
Quote:So did I.
Quote:I don't care how you got where you are, I want reason for me to get somewhere, if you refuse to give me any, I am not justified in accepting it.
You have stopped reading what you responding to
Quote:proof citation please
Quote:I already did, you refuse to look at it.
then link me to the other post or give me a post number please.
You tend to misrepresent yourself and your vetting process a lot.
Quote:If a person claims to have talked to their God, but a person who belongs to a different religion claims to have experience of their God, which one is actually having experiences or are they both just having subjective brain dependent experiences rather than divine connection?
It depends on God doesn't it?
Then you just admitted we can't know, just give a presumed and unjustified God as holding the burden.
Quote:How would this be any different than proving or falsifying a theory?
Science confirms with tests and conclusion (scientific method), you haven't once justified God's existence to me. You just said that it is up to God. You would never see a scientist telling someone it is up to the universe itself to prove to them Dark matter exists to a person.
Quote:Indeed but it seems you want to lump all those claims together. rather than deal with the unique aspects of each religion and call the jumbalia "rational thinking.'
I do, it is you that dismisses all the other claims of the different religions and stays on Christianity.
Quote:Asked and answered in the post. that is why you've red herring off in a different direction. Wow what an intellectually dishonest move.
It never was, stop lying.
Quote:If your position was indeed strong then why not address what I said line by line?
I do, and I haven't found any reason to accept your religious views.
Quote:Not me but God absolutely can
Why not? You just said it is just like rationality.
Quote:actually sport there isn't one scientific model for global climate change.
Uh, yes there is. Wow, your ignorance is very apparent here. Unless you mean that there is more than one scientific model, but it sounds like you are saying that there isn't one.
Quote:The point being this 'rational idealism/popular thought that can't fully be agreed on has superseded 500+ years of scientific study and research.
It doesn't contradict it.
Quote:Then again how do you explain 'global warming' over turning 500 years of Real science, in under a decade?
Its not, you are attacking a straw man here, there is nothing up to what you are implying.
Quote:I gave you a list of high profile science being bought to change 'rational thought.'
So no Rational 'thinking' is not immune to being influenced by money.
I said that the acts of rational thinking and the scientific method are something that work independently of something with money labels.
Quote:And as I explained... justification came before I presumed anything to be true. I got to meet God before i heard anything about Him. Once I met God once I faced my judgement I began to read the bible. I literally witnessed things from the bible of Heaven and Hell before I knew anything about them. The bible simply became a way to confirm what I had previously witnessed.
Quote:God randomly appeared to you one day?
Not randomly..
Again if you were not so busy looking for info to fit your definition of evidence, maybe you would have saw the link or hear me one of the 10 I mention being stood before Christ.
Quote:I am not trolling, and I am pointing out that you presume the bible is true and God exists without justifying it, nothing to do with your previous experience that happened years ago. This is an example of your dishonesty here, I am a bit concerned with this kind of thinking existing in our 21st century.
No you've made that claim several times and it has been refuted. as I witnessed what the bible had to say long before I read anything in it.
Quote:Again, the president does not beg you for an audience or sends flourishes of his power to get your attention.
Quote:False analogy.
Sorry sport can't just say false anaology when you don't want to contend with something. you must give a viable reason.
Quote:How can I get him to tell me right away and before accepting his existence? The answer is that I can't, God has to exist before he can reveal himself to me, and as far as I know, God doesn't even exist, you can't have God talk to you if he doesn't even exist, that is nonsense.
Just like I did. I did not believe in God till I stood before Christ in Judgement.
March 26, 2017 at 11:05 pm (This post was last modified: March 28, 2017 at 9:39 am by SteelCurtain.
Edit Reason: hide tags
)
(March 26, 2017 at 2:38 pm)Drich Wrote: We are told in Revelation this very thing will happen in the end times. (what you described) do you know what it prescribes to vet said dreams and visions? The bible. It explicitly says their will be no NEW revelations outside this cannon of scripture. So If you like Mohammad (Who received his revelation from an angel not God Himself) says you are the new leader of Islam.. then all you need do is check scripture.
Muslims don't agree with the bible.
Quote:Have you not heard of the parable of the wise and foolish builders? Imagine Our requirement to meet God is to invite Him over to your house for dinner. Imagine that house is a belief/faith built proper understanding of God. One that must be tested by the winds and rain/trials of life. When you say god should be omnibenevolent or when you say god should have answered my prayers because I was sincere when I asked.. You are not building a faith on a foundation that reflects who the God of the bible is. Therefore when the winds and rains come your house on the sand/your faith falls flat.
That however does not mean there aren't people who do indeed have homes that stand the winds and rains. People who God is not silent to. You and your version of the God of the bible simply are not among those in whom who have walked far enough along the path to walk hand in hand with God. It doesn't mean you couldn't be saved with your version of Christianity, it simply means you can truly benefit or cash in completely.
This misses the point.
Quote:Very nice.. now let's say I do understand this, and I even can bring another possibility to the table via what I just said about the wise and foolish builders.
You say God is silent or He does not exist.
What if the parable of the wise and foolish builders is true?
What if God does exist and if we can simply build a faith based on what the bible tells us about God we will be brought into a world where God is extremely active and interactive.
If he does, there should be evidence, but you refuse to provide any, so why should I believe it is true?
When you say "build a faith", I assume you mean I need faith for God to be active and interactive to me, but as I said, it is only fair that I require reason to believe God exists before I "build a faith".
Quote:Actually there is. The word evidence allows for personal testimony. You do not. That is the descrepency between your use of the word evidence and it's official definition.
Evidence requires reason to believe something is true independent of a subjective experience.
Quote:So when I say you are not looking for evidence of God. You are not looking for the proper definition you are not willing to consider personal testimony. Therefore it is not evidence you seek but popularly accepted facts. You are not even intellectually honest enough to admit this (that by definition you are not looking for evidence) truth. So how then can you expect to be honest enough if the presence of true evidence of God? Again you have closed your mind to everything NOT popularly accepted fact.
I am looking for justification of the truth of what these people claim to experience and claim to be true, if that makes me intellectually dishonest, then I guess you are using a different definition. I am not closing my mind at all, asking for evidence means I am willing to accept, but I need to know it is true first.
Quote:You would not know how to identify truth if I spent the last 4 posts beating you over the head with it. Why? Because "Science" does not seek 'truth' Truth is all relative in that realm. There is only one truth sport, and science a long long time ago shed it.
Wow, I now have a hard time believing you are being sincere about this, because if you replaced the term "science" with "religion" in the phrase above, it would be absolutely correct! Better than I could have said it too. Religion doesn't seek truth, it is all relative to each religion. Science has established objective facts since the same process is used to gather evidence and conclusions.
Quote:Ask any of the other Christians if any of them believe the exact same thing.. So tell me genius how is that a hive mind thought process?
The majority agree with it (in my country anyways), and is the world's largest religion.
Quote:Hey Stupid... Then ASK for a reason IF you want one. Don't wait for your peers to give you one.
I did, I asked you. I need an independent reason since in order for God to give me a reason, he must exist, which is exactly the question I am dealing with here, so I can't refer to the being that is already in question.
Quote:I have personally studied the bible for almost 24 years now. there is not one out of the thousand upon thousands I have looked at that has remains unresolved. I really really hate it when someone who has spent next to no time studying anything picks up a mindless commentary and just believes it because that is what that sheep wants to believe.
What makes you think I haven't studied the bible? There is only one explanation, its because I disagree with your fallacious beliefs about it.
Quote:You really did not read what I originally posted did you, or was it all too far above your head? If so why bring up what I have already addressed?
I did, and part of it assumes that what is written must be so.
Quote:Why only some parts?
Because much of the gospels were from forged stories and folklore, but few remains independently verified.
Quote:How dos Acts end?
Then google that event
Then google Paul's death
If acts is part two of Luke, then wouldn't luke have been written first? If Acts was written at the end of the book shows furthest point of the progression of the church to be 20 or so years short of Paul's death (which is what triggered mark)
They were written around the same time.
Quote:citation please, Because no one doubts the authorship of luke or acts. except the history channel "Aliens" guy.
The account on Paul's conversion in Acts 9:1–31, 22:6–21, 26:9–23 is inconsistent with Paul's statement in Galatians 1:17-24, that is part of the reason that Luke as a companion of Paul being the author is contested. This strongly suggests that there wasn't a connection. The author isn't even named in both Luke and Acts, the idea that the author is Luke originated in the 2nd century church tradition. There also is evidence of substantive revision of acts occurring throughout the 2nd century church*. Yeah, I know you don't trust scholarship or historians unless they are Pro-Christianity theologians and apologists. *Introduction to the synoptic gospels Pheme Perkins pg. 250-253
This further confirms that you rely on apologists for your claims.
Much of the arguments here include the lack of mentioning specific events, however, there is no reason to believe that acts would include the destruction of Jerusalem since it was a writing on what supposedly happened before this and the gospel of Luke (which was its counterpart) shows knowledge of the fall of Jerusalem (Luke 21:12). As for Paul's death, it doesn't say how any of the apostles died and has no reason to (discounting James here).
Quote:Coming from a guy who has very obviously NOT read the book of acts or anyother part of the New testament. Because Acts, Philemon, Colossians and the first letter to timothy record Luke as being a scribe/disciple to Paul.
And Luke likely didn't even write acts of the apostles or the gospel of Luke, so it doesn't prove anything to say that.
Quote:What a prideful arrogant ass. If something I say makes absolutely no sense, then your the one who lacks understanding... ASK A FRIGGEN QUESTION.
No question concerning this, your nonsense is nonsense because it makes no sense of actual history.
Quote:citation please
The gospel of Mark has similarities with shorter length compared with the other Gospels, the best explanation for this is the drawing upon Mark and another source that makes up for the differences. Also, there is reason to believe that part of the gospels evolved by intervening change after they were already written, including for example, the birth and infancy and possibly the first two chapters of the gospel of Matthew and Luke.*
*Citation: Funk, Robert Walter. The acts of Jesus: The search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. Harper San Francisco, 1998.
Quote:such as??? give me 3 of you very best and lest see if they hold water
I will say that many of the other non-canonical gsopels could be independent of the canon but may be based on oral tradition instead. One non canonical gospel that I would say is influenced by the other gospels would be the Gospel of Thomas. Gospel of Peter is probably independent.
Quote:Indeed.. but verified by whom?
Do all facts only come from the collective?
They come from a universal applied to our world that derives consistent facts that may be universally accepted. Which is great since it doesn't rely on what some person happens to think.
Quote:except with the whole evolution thing..
Yeah, apparently science is all good to these religious people but the same method then concludes biological evolution and we should just pick that one out of there. This is the nonsense religion gets people to think like.
Quote:then link me to the other post or give me a post number please.
You tend to misrepresent yourself and your vetting process a lot.
Trail back to the post where I put that link to the page yourself, you refuse to accept it, so it is up to you to change your mind about it if you are willing.
Quote:Not randomly..
Again if you were not so busy looking for info to fit your definition of evidence, maybe you would have saw the link or hear me one of the 10 I mention being stood before Christ.
I already knew what I said, didn't try to cram my definition in. It is you that tries to add your own definition to it, not me, my definition is universal.
Quote:No you've made that claim several times and it has been refuted.
You just lied (I don't like dishonesty), not once did you refute that and you know it.
Quote:Sorry sport can't just say false anaology when you don't want to contend with something. you must give a viable reason.
That is all there is to say, its just a false analogy, nothing more.
Quote:Just like I did. I did not believe in God till I stood before Christ in Judgement.
How could you stand before Christ in judgement if God doesn't even exist?
Moderator Notice Please use hide tags if you are going to quote like this.
~SteelCurtain
March 27, 2017 at 12:39 am (This post was last modified: March 27, 2017 at 12:40 am by masterofpuppets.)
(March 26, 2017 at 12:14 pm)Drich Wrote:
(March 24, 2017 at 4:28 pm)Fred Hampton Wrote: ERGO, God does not exist. Checkmate 2.0, thanks for playing:
Does it hurt?
Truthfully does it hurt being that stupid?
I can only imagine you must build some sort of immunity to the pain... Because that hurt me reading it..
Two things. If God gives those who entrusts a surplus of food with instructions to give it to the poor, and the poor die because those who have been told to distribute the food don't how does that mean God does not exist?
2) how does the death of a child mean God can not exist? Do you not understand to be absent from the body means to be present before God? That means if a kid dies they go home to their heavenly Father who's love knows no limits. How is that a bad thing?
Oh that's right death is about what the selfish want not what is best for the dead or dying.
Nonsense. Do you really think God would choose selfish, fallible hominid primates (i.e. humans) to distribute food to the poor? And owing to the fact that he is omniscient and therefore knows that his "plan" would ultimately culminate in today's situation, there is no one to blame but God himself. God is a perfect being, and yet not only does he let all these people starve, once they die God will damn them to Hell so long as they do not believe in him.
And as for (2), if this is the case then why do so many non-Christian children die as well? They haven't had enough time to worship God, so they will go to Hell. How is that fair? If a child is about to become a Christian but dies one day early, he will go to Hell. Is it fair that he goes to Hell just because the arbitrary date of his death was one day too early?
I could go on, but the point is God's plan doesn't make any sense no matter how you twist it around and look at it. God literally refutes himself out of existence.
"Faith is the excuse people give when they have no evidence." - Matt Dillahunty.
(March 27, 2017 at 12:39 am)ma5t3r0fpupp3t5 Wrote:
(March 26, 2017 at 12:14 pm)Drich Wrote:
Does it hurt?
Truthfully does it hurt being that stupid?
I can only imagine you must build some sort of immunity to the pain... Because that hurt me reading it..
Two things. If God gives those who entrusts a surplus of food with instructions to give it to the poor, and the poor die because those who have been told to distribute the food don't how does that mean God does not exist?
2) how does the death of a child mean God can not exist? Do you not understand to be absent from the body means to be present before God? That means if a kid dies they go home to their heavenly Father who's love knows no limits. How is that a bad thing?
Oh that's right death is about what the selfish want not what is best for the dead or dying.
Nonsense. Do you really think God would choose selfish, fallible hominid primates (i.e. humans) to distribute food to the poor?
Kinda what He did 6 official times in the OT and 10 times in the New:https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=give+to+poor&qs_version=NIV
Quote:And owing to the fact that he is omniscient and therefore knows that his "plan" would ultimately culminate in today's situation, there is no one to blame but God himself.
Here's a thought.. what if the plan wasn't about feeding people, what if the plan was about testing the rich?
Quote:God is a perfect being, and yet not only does he let all these people starve, once they die God will damn them to Hell so long as they do not believe in him.
Only Christ gets to judge who is and who is not Christian. what makes you think these people are going to Hell?
Quote:And as for (2), if this is the case then why do so many non-Christian children die as well? They haven't had enough time to worship God, so they will go to Hell.
Book Chapter and verse... Where does God say anything about worship being a prerequisite to Heaven? Did the theif on the cross worship God?
Quote:How is that fair? If a child is about to become a Christian but dies one day early, he will go to Hell.
Again book Chapter and verse. No where does it say that I the bible.
Quote:Is it fair that he goes to Hell just because the arbitrary date of his death was one day too early?
Christ's Judgement is fair no matter when we were born.
Quote:I could go on, but the point is God's plan doesn't make any sense no matter how you twist it around and look at it. God literally refutes himself out of existence.
That's the thing though isn't it.. You don't seem to know God's plan, it doesn't seem like you've ever read the bible only has someone intreprete it for you. that is why you are so far off base.
(March 24, 2017 at 4:26 pm)Orochi Wrote: I have read you and every other fundie who has tried to hijack science to try and hold up the bullshit you call the truth. They have failed and so have you .So stop the mental gymnastics your not fooling anyone
How have I failed? Just claiming I failed and leaving no evidence to the contrary isn't making me look foolish sport.. The only mental gymnastics in this thread is you trying to intimidate me into silence by using what little sway you have here into silencing me, by the mere say so of your last post.
How that is not meant to be a stretch..
You're emotional need for a sky Daddy has left you with baseless assumptions and assertions, mixed with egotistical name calling and insults.
Epic fail.
"The last superstition of the human mind is the superstition that religion in itself is a good thing." - Samuel Porter Putnam
March 27, 2017 at 10:15 am (This post was last modified: March 27, 2017 at 10:15 am by masterofpuppets.)
(March 27, 2017 at 8:59 am)Drich Wrote:
(March 27, 2017 at 12:39 am)ma5t3r0fpupp3t5 Wrote: Nonsense. Do you really think God would choose selfish, fallible hominid primates (i.e. humans) to distribute food to the poor?
Kinda what He did 6 official times in the OT and 10 times in the New:https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=give+to+poor&qs_version=NIV
Quote:And owing to the fact that he is omniscient and therefore knows that his "plan" would ultimately culminate in today's situation, there is no one to blame but God himself.
Here's a thought.. what if the plan wasn't about feeding people, what if the plan was about testing the rich?
Quote:God is a perfect being, and yet not only does he let all these people starve, once they die God will damn them to Hell so long as they do not believe in him.
Only Christ gets to judge who is and who is not Christian. what makes you think these people are going to Hell?
Quote:And as for (2), if this is the case then why do so many non-Christian children die as well? They haven't had enough time to worship God, so they will go to Hell.
Book Chapter and verse... Where does God say anything about worship being a prerequisite to Heaven? Did the theif on the cross worship God?
Quote:How is that fair? If a child is about to become a Christian but dies one day early, he will go to Hell.
Again book Chapter and verse. No where does it say that I the bible.
Quote:Is it fair that he goes to Hell just because the arbitrary date of his death was one day too early?
Christ's Judgement is fair no matter when we were born.
Quote:I could go on, but the point is God's plan doesn't make any sense no matter how you twist it around and look at it. God literally refutes himself out of existence.
That's the thing though isn't it.. You don't seem to know God's plan, it doesn't seem like you've ever read the bible only has someone intreprete it for you. that is why you are so far off base.
Then demonstrate your claims instead of merely assuming them. You're just trying to avoid all the problems I have pointed out in your anachronistic belief system.
"Faith is the excuse people give when they have no evidence." - Matt Dillahunty.
(March 26, 2017 at 11:05 pm)TheAtheologian Wrote: Muslims don't agree with the bible.
Very Good! Now finish your thought... "As a direct result of their disbelief they do not worship the God of the bible."
Rather they worship a God based on the God of the bible as many other's do.
Quote:Have you not heard of the parable of the wise and foolish builders? Imagine Our requirement to meet God is to invite Him over to your house for dinner. Imagine that house is a belief/faith built proper understanding of God. One that must be tested by the winds and rain/trials of life. When you say god should be omnibenevolent or when you say god should have answered my prayers because I was sincere when I asked.. You are not building a faith on a foundation that reflects who the God of the bible is. Therefore when the winds and rains come your house on the sand/your faith falls flat.
That however does not mean there aren't people who do indeed have homes that stand the winds and rains. People who God is not silent to. You and your version of the God of the bible simply are not among those in whom who have walked far enough along the path to walk hand in hand with God. It doesn't mean you couldn't be saved with your version of Christianity, it simply means you can truly benefit or cash in completely.
Quote:This misses the point.
See that wasn't so hard was it! you missed the point and I am more than happy to reframe it in a more simple context for you.
You said: "So then why not Check the bible to see if that is the only way God works?"
So what I did was in essence 'check the bible and spelled out how God works with people.'
You go to God with a bad understand of who He is. Maybe just good enough not to burn in Hell, but still not Good enough that God want to open the flood gates of Heaven's blessings towards you. And He tests it with the trials of life. So if you have a picture of God if you had faith and something happened to cause you loose your faith, that is because the wind and rain took it away... Foolish man builds his house on the sand.
Quote:Very nice.. now let's say I do understand this, and I even can bring another possibility to the table via what I just said about the wise and foolish builders.
You say God is silent or He does not exist.
What if the parable of the wise and foolish builders is true?
What if God does exist and if we can simply build a faith based on what the bible tells us about God we will be brought into a world where God is extremely active and interactive.
Quote:If he does, there should be evidence, but you refuse to provide any, so why should I believe it is true?
There is evidence and I have shared it, but gain it is not evidence you want. you want something the other lemmings approve of. God hates lemmings, that is why he sends them over the cliffs. Why being the human version of a lemming would you expect God provide you with anything other than the lemming infront of you to follow?
God seeks individual relationships. as such is willing to work with us person to person.
If you forgo the personal attention for something a heard of lemmings wants to see... then just know God will indeed see to it you get that cliff to jump off of.
Quote:When you say "build a faith", I assume you mean I need faith for God to be active and interactive to me, but as I said, it is only fair that I require reason to believe God exists before I "build a faith".
no. I'm saying God will give you what you will need to start and build a faith, a faith that will evolve into evidence based belief. I know it is easier for you the other way but this way is what I meant.
Quote:Actually there is. The word evidence allows for personal testimony. You do not. That is the descrepency between your use of the word evidence and it's official definition.
Quote:Evidence requires reason to believe something is true independent of a subjective experience.
Show me a proper definition using those parameters of the word evidence. The TRUTH is you can't.
Why? Because "testimony" (sworn) is specifically what the word refers to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence
You live in a delusion. there is what words means, and how you use them. Many people lke you simply do not truly understand what words mean anymore. as you use them incorrectly all the time.
Quote:So when I say you are not looking for evidence of God. You are not looking for the proper definition you are not willing to consider personal testimony. Therefore it is not evidence you seek but popularly accepted facts. You are not even intellectually honest enough to admit this (that by definition you are not looking for evidence) truth. So how then can you expect to be honest enough if the presence of true evidence of God? Again you have closed your mind to everything NOT popularly accepted fact.
Quote:I am looking for justification of the truth
Then stop saying your looking for evidence! If you are looking to vet the truth then believe in God or not you are going to have to vet it the prescribed way. It's again like meeting the president. You are not going to vet your invitation your own way. You are going to have to follow protocol if you want to know for sure whether or not he wants to see you.
Quote:of what these people claim to experience and claim to be true,
Who care what people claim if God is willing to work these very same things through you?!?! I've never understood why people would argue whether someone has a spiritual gift or not especially when those gifts are offered to them.
Quote: if that makes me intellectually dishonest, then I guess you are using a different definition. I am not closing my mind at all, asking for evidence means I am willing to accept, but I need to know it is true first.
What makes you intellectually dishonest is claiming to want evidence when again the term allows for personal testimony. But you will not accept personal testimony. Then the only other prescribed way to vet God is to meet Him on His terms. to refuse and have God meet you on yours is dishonest.
Quote:You would not know how to identify truth if I spent the last 4 posts beating you over the head with it. Why? Because "Science" does not seek 'truth' Truth is all relative in that realm. There is only one truth sport, and science a long long time ago shed it.
Quote:Wow, I now have a hard time believing you are being sincere about this, because if you replaced the term "science" with "religion" in the phrase above, it would be absolutely correct! Better than I could have said it too. Religion doesn't seek truth, it is all relative to each religion. Science has established objective facts since the same process is used to gather evidence and conclusions.
Now what if what I said was true about science as well as religion, what if a great deal of science has become religion??? Believe it or not I do work in an engineering field that requires a fair amount of scientific knowledge, and I see or have seen for a very long time a slow shift that is transferring the legitimacy of applied sciences (science that makes computers and cell phones work) verse theoretical and even fringe science to be taken or rather spoken of with the same merit.
Granted the fringe or theoretical stuff tends to attract the scientifically religious. it is paired with practical and applied sciences, giving stuff like Darwinism the same standing in the community as gravity. Now because it seems to have the same validity Science becomes truth that attracts the fanatical.
Quote:Ask any of the other Christians if any of them believe the exact same thing.. So tell me genius how is that a hive mind thought process?
Quote:The majority agree with it (in my country anyways), and is the world's largest religion.
Which brand of Christianity That's my point. there is no one specific hive mind brand as their once was and as it is with 'science.'
Quote:I did, I asked you. I need an independent reason since in order for God to give me a reason,
and I demonstrated how I got independently verified, but again that is not enough as you seek information your peers would accept.
Here's a bold thought.. what if your master peers got together and came to the conclusion that no matter what facts are presented non will ever do! What fate with the collective thinkers face when the hive mind decides no matter what Christianity has to offer it will never be good enough... Here a bolder thought... What makes you think you and the peers who determine popular thought/fact are not already here?!?!? Here a way to test yourself.
List 5 acceptable peer approved proofs that would vet the existence of God. Something your peers can not refute. something uncontestable.
Quote: he must exist, which is exactly the question I am dealing with here, so I can't refer to the being that is already in question.
And I keep telling you that only you and God can work that out. I can tell you He is alive and well in my life and can tell you how to present yourself before God inorder for Him to welcome you into the fold. Now whether or not he sees and hears you before you bend that knee will determine on what he thinks about who you are and who you will be. God does not 'like' everyone equally.
Quote:What makes you think I haven't studied the bible?
Exegetical error. lots of it. oh, and the whole inability to identify the gospel when presented, and you copy and pasted effort when dating the books of the bible. there is no depth in your statement and when I ask for a citation you side step it. Everything I say can be backed by three independent sources. You do not have that. It doesn't even feel like you know your supposed to have that. nor have I seen you quote anything. I've seen a lot of plagiarism (no citations/ to inference or mention to reference material) you just keep repeating a broken definition of 'evidence' even though I have broken your use of that word with a greater source.
Quote:There is only one explanation, its because I disagree with your fallacious beliefs about it.
no.. when you have 20 of study behind something there is a heck of a lot more... substance. There is no need to play the snow flake argument card (just keep repeating what you think is right no matter how many times you've been legitimately refuted.
Quote:I did, and part of it assumes that what is written must be so.
Again. How can that possible be given the context of the story? The written text did not come till after the experience..
This is what I mean by lack of substance and you just keep repeating what you think is right. My experience does not fit your formula, yet you insist that it does. I ask how, you refuse to explain. Said you did, upon closer inspection, again your analysis fails to properly address the parameters of my experience. it's like your think all stories fit under the canceling argument. when one/mine doesn't. You don't know what else to say or do. you just keep insisting that I must fit your paradigm.
That sport is why I know you have not studied much of anything. you can not venture off the atheist or even religious path. It has nothing to do with out disagreements, but more to do with how you are not able to handle a subject not beaten to death by other trail blazing atheists. You like so many other pretenders just repeat yourselves hoping one of your peers will save you.
Again there is a reason you are out here with me by yourself trading blows.
Quote:Because much of the gospels were from forged stories and folklore, but few remains independently verified.
examples and citations please.
Quote:They were written around the same time.
So the book of Acts and the Book of Mark were written at the same time... Now again when was the book of luke written if Acts came first before or after Mark?
See... someone with little to no exegetical experience does not know what to say because the same reference material that says what you said says luke came after even though it says acts comes after luke.
That my friend is why I told you there are two views. One is a forensic view that looks for evolutionary traits in the 4 gospels to date them/place them in order. However the thing is they/forensic view does not look at the rest of the bible to try and decern truth. They simply want enough evolutionary evidence to make a claim that would disrupt Christian tradition. But When you seriously study you'd see Acts is in direct contradiction the forensic view, that most douche atheist quote. (And also the other 5 books I mentioned yesterday Not just acts) Acts plus the other books I mention puts Luke's gospel first, and it refutes the forensic/evolutionary view of the gospel.
Quote:citation please, Because no one doubts the authorship of luke or acts. except the history channel "Aliens" guy.
The account on Paul's conversion in Acts 9:1–31, 22:6–21, 26:9–23 is inconsistent with Paul's statement in Galatians 1:17-24, that is part of the reason that Luke as a companion of Paul being the author is contested. This strongly suggests that there wasn't a connection.[/quote]
I don't see a problem here.. maybe you could explain the problem you see.
Quote:The author isn't even named in both Luke and Acts, the idea that the author is Luke originated in the 2nd century church tradition.
That's not true at all sport. Are you in the business of just making crap up? that what any exegetically educated person would think since you seem to be plagiarizing from the skeptics annotated bible. They take open ended liberties like this one. saying it was second century church tradition. when in Fact the reason we know Luke wrote the book of luke is because we can trace one complete manuscript and several fragmented copied that predate the 2nd century copy by at least a generation with the signature: "The Gospel according to Luke." Grant, Robert M., "A Historical Introduction to the New Testament" (Harper and Row, 1963)
Quote:There also is evidence of substantive revision of acts occurring throughout the 2nd century church*.
Not according to any serious sources I know.. do you have a link?
This further confirms that you rely on apologists for your claims.
Much of the arguments here include the lack of mentioning specific events, however, there is no reason to believe that acts would include the destruction of Jerusalem since it was a writing on what supposedly happened before this and the gospel of Luke (which was its counterpart) shows knowledge of the fall of Jerusalem (Luke 21:12). As for Paul's death, it doesn't say how any of the apostles died and has no reason to (discounting James here).
[/quote]Like I read it out of the skeptic annotated bible my self... But without quotations. just empty commentary and meaningless conjecture. Look sport just because this is what your heros wish to be true does not make it true. show me some "evidence"
Quote:And Luke likely didn't even write acts of the apostles or the gospel of Luke, so it doesn't prove anything to say that.
Again No one who is taken seriously in exegetical studies even remotely doubts this to be true.
Evidence sport. where your paper trail?
(Again how I know you've never seriously studied anything in your life. you don't even know where to begin unless you are standing on someone elses' coat tails. (like your wiki search)
Quote:The gospel of Mark has similarities with shorter length compared with the other Gospels, the best explanation for this is the drawing upon Mark and another source that makes up for the differences. Also, there is reason to believe that part of the gospels evolved by intervening change after they were already written, including for example, the birth and infancy and possibly the first two chapters of the gospel of Matthew and Luke.*
*Citation: Funk, Robert Walter. The acts of Jesus: The search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. Harper San Francisco, 1998.
Ok so then how does your 'quotation' trump the one I left that said luke was written first?
Are you just in the business of thrown poop on the wall and seeing what sticks?
Quote:I will say that many of the other non-canonical gospels could be independent of the canon but may be based on oral tradition instead. One non canonical gospel that I would say is influenced by the other gospels would be the Gospel of Thomas. Gospel of Peter is probably independent.
and where would someone like you be given an opinion like that??
Or I'll call you bluff and ask what specifically sets these gospels apart?
Quote:I already knew what I said, didn't try to cram my definition in. It is you that tries to add your own definition to it, not me, my definition is universal.
the please show citation for this definition
Quote:You just lied (I don't like dishonesty), not once did you refute that and you know it.
You just lied (I don't like dishonesty), I showed it when I provided the merrium Webster definition for evidence, and then follow suite with a written testimony that sits said definition.
Quote:Sorry sport can't just say false anaology when you don't want to contend with something. you must give a viable reason.
Quote:That is all there is to say, its just a false analogy, nothing more.
You can say how you believe it is a false analogy. otherwise why communicate anything on this forum what so ever??? why not just say false statement than clam up??
It's like I'm writing to multiple people at once.
I see 4 or 5 personalities here.
pick one, or rather what does it say that you have to shift so many gears just to keep up. That you can't be consistant and go line by line and refute everything I say as I do you.
EG:"false analogy, there is nothing else to say!"
Quote:How could you stand before Christ in judgement if God doesn't even exist?
Nice of you (this version of you) to finally catch up!
Your question is telling on you..
What is your fav argument?? you know the one you go to all the time that says we must believe before God. Aren't you presuming something you shouldn't? or is this version of you not there yet?
So why do I feed trolls?
The one's that semi try lke you. Help me get the message out.
So keep on keeping on. If you want me to give up simply go incoherent that way you can have the last word. andwin.
(March 27, 2017 at 6:41 pm)Drich Wrote: Very Good! Now finish your thought... "As a direct result of their disbelief they do not worship the God of the bible."
Rather they worship a God based on the God of the bible as many other's do.
Yes, they don't believe in the bible, so they don't worship God as described in the bible.
Quote:You said: "So then why not Check the bible to see if that is the only way God works?"
I looked through the post before the one you quoted and I don't see myself saying that. Where did you get that from?
Quote:There is evidence and I have shared it, but gain it is not evidence you want.
You provided no independently verifiable evidence, subjective experiences are not evidence, they are only something true to one person, but not true to me.
Quote:God hates lemmings
Hates proof to me? I guess he want me to rely on whatever other people tell me. I shouldn't need that, God should be evident independent of what people say. If not, then there is no reason to accept him.
Quote:God seeks individual relationships. as such is willing to work with us person to person.
God has to exist to seek relationship, so I will put that for later after I find out God exists. However, you refuse to demonstrate God's existence to me. So, relationship will have to wait.
Quote:no. I'm saying God will give you what you will need to start and build a faith, a faith that will evolve into evidence based belief. I know it is easier for you the other way but this way is what I meant.
But how do I get God to give me it? He refused to hand me anything so far.
Quote:Show me a proper definition using those parameters of the word evidence.
The scientific method, the scientific method, the scientific method, the scientific method, the scientific method, the scientific method.
I hope that was enough. If that is above your head, then I will provide the simple google definition of evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
It also doesn't need to be specifically scientific, just use the same standard as the scientific method when demonstrating God's existence, there is no other way to verify it.
Quote:Then stop saying your looking for evidence! If you are looking to vet the truth then believe in God or not you are going to have to vet it the prescribed way. It's again like meeting the president. You are not going to vet your invitation your own way. You are going to have to follow protocol if you want to know for sure whether or not he wants to see you.
I am looking for evidence.
Quote:Who care what people claim if God is willing to work these very same things through you?!?!
Exactly! Now stop pretending personal testimony is "evidence", it needs to be independently verified, it doesn't matter to me what people simply claim, truth is what matters.
Quote:What makes you intellectually dishonest is claiming to want evidence when again the term allows for personal testimony. But you will not accept personal testimony. Then the only other prescribed way to vet God is to meet Him on His terms. to refuse and have God meet you on yours is dishonest.
You just said right before that that it doesn't matter what other people claim, if what people claim (personal testimony) is true, then there should be a rational justification of the existence of the source of it. I want to meet God, but I don't even know if he exists, so I need to figure that out first.
Quote:Now what if what I said was true about science as well as religion, what if a great deal of science has become religion???
It hasn't. Science and religion are separate things.
Quote:Granted the fringe or theoretical stuff tends to attract the scientifically religious. it is paired with practical and applied sciences, giving stuff like Darwinism the same standing in the community as gravity. Now because it seems to have the same validity Science becomes truth that attracts the fanatical.
Biological Evolution is constantly verified by the same method you trust in to give you the science you work with. Evolution is a theory because it is an explanation of the facts and is constantly verified. Why do some people deny it? Religion. People feel it threatens their genesis account that is based on religious dogma.
Quote:Which brand of Christianity That's my point. there is no one specific hive mind brand as their once was and as it is with 'science.'
General Christianity, but of course includes Catholicism (its pretty large), Orthodox church, and all the other thousands of denominations that all claim to be Christian.
This actually further proves my point though. Religions all have disagreements. Science does not vary by place. Truth isn't relative, science isn't either, but religion is.
Quote:and I demonstrated how I got independently verified, but again that is not enough as you seek information your peers would accept.
Again, and like you said, it doesn't matter what other people say, but needs to be independently verified. Your subjective experience is not independently verifiable, it is only part of you. Independently verifiable means verification for everyone regardless of whether God actually decided to talk to them.
Quote:Here's a bold thought.. what if your master peers got together and came to the conclusion that no matter what facts are presented non will ever do!
You can't claim that if you don't even have evidence to give me, no rational justification= nothing to go off of
Quote:And I keep telling you that only you and God can work that out.
But that assumes God exists, God has to exist to work anything out, demonstrate to me that God exists without assuming that he exists and he just needs to work it out with me.
Quote:Exegetical error. lots of it. oh, and the whole inability to identify the gospel when presented, and you copy and pasted effort when dating the books of the bible. there is no depth in your statement and when I ask for a citation you side step it. Everything I say can be backed by three independent sources. You do not have that. It doesn't even feel like you know your supposed to have that. nor have I seen you quote anything. I've seen a lot of plagiarism (no citations/ to inference or mention to reference material) you just keep repeating a broken definition of 'evidence' even though I have broken your use of that word with a greater source.
Quote:the whole inability to identify the gospel when presented
False.
Quote:you copy and pasted effort when dating the books of the bible.
I refer to the evidence, yes. The evidence is independent of what I think.
Quote:there is no depth in your statement
I guess that is up to you to determine.
Quote:when I ask for a citation you side step it.
I gave two citations in my previous post.
Quote:Everything I say can be backed by three independent sources.
You have yet to give me any except for an apologetics site.
Quote:I've seen a lot of plagiarism (no citations/ to inference or mention to reference material) you just keep repeating a broken definition of 'evidence' even though I have broken your use of that word with a greater source.
Again, I cited, and you didn't cite anything you said besides referring to me a page that gave some reasons to believe that Luke was written earlier.
The scientific method is my source for evidence.
Quote:no.. when you have 20 of study behind something there is a heck of a lot more... substance. There is no need to play the snow flake argument card (just keep repeating what you think is right no matter how many times you've been legitimately refuted.
You haven't refuted me once except by using scripture which isn't evidence of how scripture was actually written.
Quote:examples and citations please.
*“The Historical Figure of Jesus," Sanders, E.P., Penguin Books: London, 1995, Page 3
*Craig Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology," Theological Studies 54 (1993) Page 5
*Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee, Mark Allen Powell, Westminster John Knox Press, 1998
*Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus by William R. Herzog (4 Jul 2005) Pages 1–6
Basically, you will find reason to believe little in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable and there are few facts that can be derived about the historical Jesus.
Quote:So the book of Acts and the Book of Mark were written at the same time... Now again when was the book of luke written if Acts came first before or after Mark?
The answer is that it didn't. Luke and Acts were written around the same time and after Mark.*
*Burkett, Delbert (2002). An Introduction to the New Testament and Origins of Christianity. Cambridge University Press.
*Boring, M. Eugene (2012). An Introduction to the New Testament: History, Literature, Theology. Westminster John Knox Press.
The second source here provides the commonly verified dating of acts. The earliest possible date would start where Acts ends, but is much more likely to have been written later.
Quote:See... someone with little to no exegetical experience does not know what to say because the same reference material that says what you said says luke came after even though it says acts comes after luke.
I am not sure what you mean by the bold here.
Quote: They simply want enough evolutionary evidence to make a claim that would disrupt Christian tradition. But When you seriously study you'd see Acts is in direct contradiction the forensic view, that most douche atheist quote. (And also the other 5 books I mentioned yesterday Not just acts) Acts plus the other books I mention puts Luke's gospel first, and it refutes the forensic/evolutionary view of the gospel.
No, it is based on the powerful similarities and considering the coincidences, not an attempt to disprove Christianity.
Acts of the apostles doesn't disprove this at all, since Acts was written to target earlier times, it has nothing to do with the other gospels.
Quote:I don't see a problem here.. maybe you could explain the problem you see.
They both give the details of the conversion Paul had, in Galations, Paul stated that he remained unknown to the Christians after the event. This is inconsistent with the verse I pointed out to you in Acts, which implied that Paul was known.
Quote:That's not true at all sport. Are you in the business of just making crap up? that what any exegetically educated person would think since you seem to be plagiarizing from the skeptics annotated bible.
Nope, I didn't use the skeptics bible.
What I said is true.
*Burkett, Delbert (2002). An Introduction to the New Testament and Origins of Christianity. Cambridge University Press.
*Theissen, Gerd; Merz, Annette (1998). The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Eerdmans.
Quote:when in Fact the reason we know Luke wrote the book of luke is because we can trace one complete manuscript and several fragmented copied that predate the 2nd century copy by at least a generation with the signature: "The Gospel according to Luke."
You made that up, that isn't even true. Dishonesty.
The oldest fragment dates back to the late 2nd century*
*Ellis, E. Earl (2003). The Gospel of Luke. Wipf and Stock Publishers.
Quote:Not according to any serious sources I know.. do you have a link?
I provided one, there is a star next to that claim.
Quote:Evidence sport. where your paper trail?
Just like I just provided.
Quote:Ok so then how does your 'quotation' trump the one I left that said luke was written first?
The evidence actually supports it, you just deny it outright as if something written in the book of Acts and your faith disprove it, a simple red herring.
Quote:and where would someone like you be given an opinion like that??
Or I'll call you bluff and ask what specifically sets these gospels apart?
I doubt you are being serious about the non-canonical gospels (that in many cases go against the christian faith) being independent testimony.
Quote:the please show citation for this definition
The scientific method, the scientific method, the scientific method, the scientific method, the scientific method, the scientific method.
Source: http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fa...thod.shtml
and the basic google definition.
Quote:You just lied (I don't like dishonesty), I showed it when I provided the merrium Webster definition for evidence, and then follow suite with a written testimony that sits said definition.
Your Webster definition doesn't refute my definition. Please stop repeating the same stupidity.
The definition you found is related to criminal law court, not determining truths about nature and potentially the existence of God.
Quote:You can say how you believe it is a false analogy. otherwise why communicate anything on this forum what so ever??? why not just say false statement than clam up??
Its a false analogy, what else can I say? There is no use responding to a false analogy.
Quote:Your question is telling on you..
What is your fav argument?? you know the one you go to all the time that says we must believe before God. Aren't you presuming something you shouldn't? or is this version of you not there yet?
You still are trying to get around my point that I was making all along, this is worthless.
Quote:So why do I feed trolls?
I am not a troll, just because I provide evidence and ask for justification that you cannot give doesn't make me a troll.
I mean, despite the fact that you repeat stupidity, I clearly recognize you are not trolling, you are just sadly mistaken.
This is a waste of time, you just repeat the same Dogma over and over. I decided to not respond anymore if you refuse to be reasonable.
![[Image: checkmate-001.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=kingofwallpapers.com%2Fcheckmate%2Fcheckmate-001.jpg)
citation please, Because no one doubts the authorship of luke or acts. except the history channel "Aliens" guy. 
