Christianity Is The BEST Religion....

[GrandizerII]

They do see Isa (Jesus) as the Maseeh (Messiah). What are you talking about?

The ancient Hebrews believed the Messiah was to be God incarnate, Islam does not accept the deity of Jesus Christ.

Where's the "energy" part?

What creates light? You can't separate light from energy.

Ok, you're probably referring to Isaiah 9:6-7, no? Have you ever consulted what the non-Christian Jews say about these verses? Check out this link, and then tell me where you think this Rabbi has gone wrong with their interpretation:

http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/prooftext6is96.html

As for light, that's not what I asked. I'm asking where in the Bible itself does it say light is energy? People back then didn't adhere to the modern concept of energy that we do. So it seems to me like you're doing some retrofitting based on modern science.

[Amarok]

As for evolution, until someone can prove that new information can be added to DNA naturally then tho whole of evolution is dead, it has never been proven and it never will be, end of story. Write all you want I will not waste my time with trying to answer 10 or more people in the same thread and about the same post. Good night and sweet dreams.

The ignorance it burns. And there's no time to educate the clueless.Especially when they don't care about the answer . Considering this has already been explained to you and ignorance on the matter exposed . So kindly shut up .

---

To all the rest who replied to my post I'm not going to get into a running battle with you there are to many wanting replies and I haven't the time so here is how it will stand.

In other words, "bla bla bla".

astrophysics has told so many contradicting stories about the universe on so many subjects and so many levels that it is a joke of science,

It's called progress ... advancement in knowledge, adjusting views and beliefs in light of new evidence and better logic.

Also, didn't you just diss someone for shitting on physics (even though she actually didn't)? How hypocritical can you get?

The Scientist can't agree on anything so they all promote their own fairy tales and yes that's what they are because none of them can be proven and most of what they claim hasn't been seen to exist,

Scientists agree on many things to do with the universe. For example, they agree with the basics of astronomy (the sun is a star, the earth and other planets revolve around the sun, the moon does not emit light of its own, the Solar System is just a small regional part of the Milky Way galaxy). They generally agree that the universe is expanding, that the universe is 13-14 billion years old, that time is relative to the observer, and that spacetime bends. That some scientists disagree with some of these more advanced views does not mean that they're not directly/indirectly based on both conclusive evidence and sound logic.

The silly Bible may be a collection of fairy tales, but not science. Science is evidence-based, the Bible is fantasy/faith-based. And also, you Christians can't even agree on the most essential doctrines of Christianity. Is God 3 Persons or 3 Modes of God or ... ? Is Jesus both fully human and fully divine? Is one saved by grace through faith alone? Is it "once saved, always saved", or is it not? Is hell really eternal, or is it not? Must Christians continue to keep the Sabbath? I can go on and on forever.

Also, don't forget the clear contradictions in the Bible.

So as you say to me the one making the claim has the responsibility to prove the claim. I'm guessing there isn't enough time for them to do this.

Sounds like you're not up to date with the latest scientific discoveries, and how predictions made by well-established scientific theories have come to pass successfully. Well, that's your problem, not the scientists. If you don't want to read and learn, then fine. Stick to your silly Bible. But don't blame scientists for your wilful ignorance.

They are even making up stories about killer particles that can destroy galaxies and even the whole universe, they couldn't possibly know of such a particle and live to tell about it, now how stupid is that and you all call me gullible.

Would you like to be more specific here? Maybe link me to an article? And how would you know they couldn't possibly know of such particles/whatever? Are you all of a sudden a better scientist then they are?

And you are gullible as fuck, no question about that.

As for evolution, until someone can prove that new information can be added to DNA naturally then tho whole of evolution is dead, it has never been proven and it never will be, end of story. Write all you want I will not waste my time with trying to answer 10 or more people in the same thread and about the same post. Good night and sweet dreams.

And here comes the special creationist talk. What do you mean by "new information"? And why can't things we observe as natural happen naturally? And why haven't you bothered to look up the clear and overwhelming evidence for evolution? Is it because you're an idiot?

---

Look, I'm telling you exactly what the Bible states, life = energy.


If life can exist after death of the body then is has to be some form of energy, you cannot say that life cannot exist after death because you don't know; but if life is energy then according to science it continues to exist...

Like I've said, it's funny how science seems to corroborate what the bible has been saying all along.

Where is the word for "energy" in the Bible? Are you serious?

"new information" is whatever the creationist needs it to mean at the time . Same goes for kinds . It's reached a point were they essentially argue it requires no meaning or "It's just obvious "

[Huggy Bear]

The ancient Hebrews believed the Messiah was to be God incarnate, Islam does not accept the deity of Jesus Christ.

What creates light? You can't separate light from energy.

Ok, you're probably referring to Isaiah 9:6-7, no? Have you ever consulted what the non-Christian Jews say about these verses? Check out this link, and then tell me where you think this Rabbi has gone wrong with their interpretation:

http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/prooftext6is96.html

The Jews don't accept the deity of Jesus Christ either, so I don't know what point you're trying to make.

quoted from your link.

If Jesus were the 'Mighty Gd,' why would he have to call upon another as Gd in order to save him? How can Gd forsake himself? This also denies the very idea of a trinity, and shows how Jesus does not fit the description of the Isaiah 9 quotation.

As for light, that's not what I asked. I'm asking where in the Bible itself does it say light is energy? People back then didn't adhere to the modern concept of energy that we do. So it seems to me like you're doing some retrofitting based on modern science.

Light IS energy, what you're doing is attempting to argue semantics...

If I refer to fire as light, does that mean it's not energy?

[Fake Messiah]

Christianity is the best religion because you'll have a god that you can trust to lead you to the light, a god that will help you through dark times.

Which christianity? Mormons? Jehovah's witnesses? Lutherans? All of them?
But why do you think that god leads you to light when the Bible says he lives in a dark place?
The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness. 1 Kings 8:12, 2 Chronicles 6:1
He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies. Psalm 18:11
Clouds and darkness are round about him. Psalm 97:2

---

First of all the Muslim religion was founded by descendants of Abraham, through Ishmael, so essentially it's the same God

Yeah that's why Christians have been warring with Muslims for many centuries and every time Muslims occupied some country in Europe they forced Christians to convert to Islam. Why do you think there are so many Muslims in Bosnia? Did they all wake up one day and threw away their crosses and embraced Allah? Or were they forced into it by people that saw them as heathens?

BUT the bible states that all Israel will be saved

Saved from what? Bible or more closely NT is actually very anti-Semitic. One does not have to read very far into the Book of John, the Book of Acts, or the writings of Paul to see comments that easily buttress anti-Semitism. Like John 5:16 "Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day",
John 5:18 "The Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal to God"  
John 7:1 "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry; because the Jews sought to kill him".

These three verses alone are sufficient to create hatred of Jews in the minds of Christians. But they are only part of a larger picture. In John 8:52 the Jews directly accuse Jesus of "having" a devil and according to John 18:35 the Jews are responsible for delivering Jesus to Pilate to be executed. John 19:1-23 indicates that, along with the Roman soldiers, Jews were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. Have you heard the term "Christ killers"?

One can easily see from these verses and others in the Book of John that the author looked upon Jews as the main enemy of Jesus and the primary force behind his demise. Most important of all, in John 8:44 Jesus himself attacks the Jews by saying, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do." Imagine saying that the Jews are "of your father the Devil" !! You know there are plenty of Christians that did that and some still do to Jews.
Other verses also contribute to the anti-Semitic onslaught. Not to be outdone, Paul adds to the hammering by saying in 1 Thess. 2:15 that the Jews killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets. According to Acts 9:23 and 13:50 the Jews are accused of persecuting Paul and his followers: "After many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him [Paul]" and "The Jews stirred up the devout and honorable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them." Even Peter enters the anti-Semitic foray by accusing the Jews of crucifying Jesus (Acts 4:10 and 5:30).
And so on...

As far as Hinduism, that along with every other mythology based religion is derived from ancient Babylonian mythology... the same with some supposed christian religions like the Roman Catholicism, which is also derived from ancient Babylonian mythology.

And stories like creation of the world, garden of Eden, tree of life, big flood etc are originals?

[polymath257]

Look, I'm telling you exactly what the Bible states, life = energy.

In him was life; and the life was the light of men - John 1:4

If life can exist after death of the body then is has to be some form of energy, you cannot say that life cannot exist after death because you don't know; but if life is energy then according to science it continues to exist...

Like I've said, it's funny how science seems to corroborate what the bible has been saying all along.

Your quote is an *analogy*. I doubt even the author took it literally. You know, light to show the way and all that stuff.

Sorry, but modern science does NOT corroborate the Bible. Light is not the same as energy. Neither is the same as life. Those are hard facts.

As for life after death, that seems to be a delusion produced by people afraid of non-existence, even though they non-existed 500 years ago.

---

They do see Isa (Jesus) as the Maseeh (Messiah). What are you talking about?

The ancient Hebrews believed the Messiah was to be God incarnate, Islam does not accept the deity of Jesus Christ.

Where's the "energy" part?

What creates light? You can't separate light from energy.

Only is the sense that you cannot separate motion from energy, or matter from energy. NONE of those things is actually energy. In fact, energy is an *aspect* of those things.

What creates light? Changing electromagnetic fields. That's why we can create light by flipping a switch on the wall. That's why LEDs work. That's how radio (yes, radio is a type of light) works.

But electromagnetic fields are not, themselves energy. They *have* energy (and momentum, and angular momentum, etc), but that is not all they are.

---

Ok, you're probably referring to Isaiah 9:6-7, no? Have you ever consulted what the non-Christian Jews say about these verses? Check out this link, and then tell me where you think this Rabbi has gone wrong with their interpretation:

http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/prooftext6is96.html

The Jews don't accept the deity of Jesus Christ either, so I don't know what point you're trying to make.

quoted from your link.

If Jesus were the 'Mighty Gd,' why would he have to call upon another as Gd in order to save him? How can Gd forsake himself? This also denies the very idea of a trinity, and shows how Jesus does not fit the description of the Isaiah 9 quotation.

As for light, that's not what I asked. I'm asking where in the Bible itself does it say light is energy? People back then didn't adhere to the modern concept of energy that we do. So it seems to me like you're doing some retrofitting based on modern science.

Light IS energy, what you're doing is attempting to argue semantics...

If I refer to fire as light, does that mean it's not energy?

Fire is not energy either. It is a chemical reaction that *releases* energy.

[GrandizerII]

Ok, you're probably referring to Isaiah 9:6-7, no? Have you ever consulted what the non-Christian Jews say about these verses? Check out this link, and then tell me where you think this Rabbi has gone wrong with their interpretation:

http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/prooftext6is96.html

The Jews don't accept the deity of Jesus Christ either, so I don't know what point you're trying to make.

quoted from your link.

If Jesus were the 'Mighty Gd,' why would he have to call upon another as Gd in order to save him? How can Gd forsake himself? This also denies the very idea of a trinity, and shows how Jesus does not fit the description of the Isaiah 9 quotation.

As for light, that's not what I asked. I'm asking where in the Bible itself does it say light is energy? People back then didn't adhere to the modern concept of energy that we do. So it seems to me like you're doing some retrofitting based on modern science.

Light IS energy, what you're doing is attempting to argue semantics...

If I refer to fire as light, does that mean it's not energy?

It's not energy according to the Bible. You're playing word games here, which is why it seems like I'm arguing semantics. Perhaps if you were to stop bullshitting, we wouldn't have to waste time arguing whether or not the Bible says life or light is energy, when clearly the Bible says nothing about the scientific physical notion of energy, and simply treats life as a spiritual thing. There's your answer.

As for Isaiah 9, so what do you think the Rabbi was wrong about with his interpretation? He seems to be saying that the Messiah was never meant to be Mighty God himself, but that it's a name attached to him in this passage. It was meant as an attachment rather than as an absolute descriptor. Similar to the whole Immanuel (God with us) thing.

[Amarok]

No were in the bible does it identify light as a form of energy .

[Silver]

Poetic interpretation, don't you know.

[Mister Agenda]

Apparently you do hold beliefs in things that violate reality.

There is strong evidence that there was no biological life before the Hadean period. For much of the time before that, life as we know it would be impossible. Once life as we know it became possible, we see the beginnings of fossil evidence for single-celled organisms. Life began, somehow. How does that 'violate reality'?

---

If life is just chemistry, why can't we just chemically keep someone alive indefinitely? My cell phone can be powered indefinitely through chemistry, the human body... not so much.

Your cell phone won't last forever, genius. If we find a way to retard aging indefinitely, how will that affect your religious beliefs? I suspect not at all and the 'keep someone alive indefinitely' is just a red herring.

---

If something is real, it is fact. Abiogenesis is not fact therefor it is not real.

A fact is something known to be true. Not everything that is true is a fact. It is a fact that coelacanths still exist. It was true that they were real before we knew it for a fact.

Abiogenesis in the biological sense is a hypothesis that is difficult to test. It meets all the requirements for a hypothesis in that it is a plausible explanation that fits what we already know to be true and there are no known mechanisms that would prevent it from being true.

But it is a fact that at one point there was no life on earth, that it must have started somehow, and the earliest detectable organisms were single-celled.

[sdelsolray]

Are there any theists/creationists who post here that have even a semblance of coherent thinking? The two in this thread are abysmal.