The Good Samaritian

[Bucky Ball]

Show me where i changed my opinions.

Did you not say you used to be a non-believer ?

That depends completely on why few are chosen. You assume all who are chosen show up. The possiablity remains that few who are called show up therefore few are chosen. You must demonstrate this not to be the case if you wish to legitmatly argue your intial point.

No. Attempted deflection.
I'm not talking about the ones that show up. They question is WHY are ONLY a FEW chosen. Not about the subset of those who show up. The question is why are ONLY some chosen in the first place. Fail. You deity creates people, and then does NOT choose them, and admits it.

If said said douche bags completely did not recognise the bible then their arguement would be to demonstate God or any aspects of Him, but rather they always default to using the bible to make a point but refusing the bible when the same bible is used to defeat their points.

Incoherent drivel. Pointing out the Bible's fallacies, inconsistencies etc does not require demonstration of the deity in question, or acceptance of the authority of the text in question. Do I have to demonstrate Zeus to discuss Greek myths ? Fail.

proof? any sort of reference? or am i just to take your word on faith?

David A. Holgate, "Prodigality, Liberality and Meanness in the Parable of the Prodigal Son: a Greco-Roman Perspective on Luke 15.11-32
http://nearemmaus.com/category/historica...iterature/ Scroll down
He got it from the Progymnasmata, (Greek literature, and wrote it in). It was a well know circulating literary theme.
Maybe you should actually learn something about your cult, and it's literature, before you think you're up to preaching it.

how so?

How so ? Really ? REALLY ? Look up the phrase "intellectual dishonesty". You don't know the difference between honesty and intellectual dishonesty ? I see your problem.

how so?

You seem unable to be able follow a discussion. Are you mentally ill ?

then why did rome find him innocent, and left it to the jews to decide whether He lived or died?

Why indeed. The gospels were written by Roman sympathizers. They wanted the Jews implicated. The gospels are IN NO WAY "historical".
There was no word in their language for "history".
If the whole thing actually happened why, when Peter was brought before the authorities in Acts, did he mention NOTHING about the zombie invasion, (all the others who also rose from the dead and walked around Jerusalem), split, rocks, earthquake, and all the dead who walked around Jerusalem, The torn temple curtain ? Why ? Because it's ALL BULLSHIT. Why did the Romans and the Jews not go and try to RE_ARREST him, if he was seen by ANYONE ? Philo of Alexandria wrote about all sorts of other far less important things happening in Jerusalem at at that time, he is actually thought to have been IN Jerusalem during those years, and he and NOT ONE ancient Jewish historian NEVER ONCE mentions the temple curtain, or ANYTHING about these events. If the temple curtain had spontaneously torn, it would have been a monumental event in Jewish history.

at which point was not a legal action so why record it?

Nice try. If something SO unusual had happened, it would have been mentioned somewhere by historians on site who recorded FAR less important details, flattering, AND non-flattering. Josephus wrote his book to try to prove Vespasian was the messiah. HE would have used it. He never mentions it. Philo says nothing. Pilate secretary says nothing. ALL wrote about FAR more mundane details.

how so?

Exactly. That's your problem. You know nothing about ancient Hebrew culture. You are incompetent in this discussion. Did you read the links, or references ? No. Your are here to preach, not learn.

Actually Christ Himself spoke of salvation in several different parables. Wheat/ weeds, Wheat/ Chaff, Sheep/ goats, anytime there is a seperation between believers/followers of Christ and those who are cast out where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth etc, is where Christ Himself speaks of salvation or rather He is establishing the need for it..

Oh for god's sake. You have no clue.
1. Those word were "place in his mouth" as a "literary device".
2. Clearly the subtleties of cultural differences are WAY WAY WAY over your head. You have no clue.

That is what happens when you let websites like the one you referenced do all of your thinking for you... (you are proven wrong by the obvious, and made to look foolish.)

No dear. I AM a PhD candidate in Ancient Near Eastern Cultures and Languages. I WROTE the damn thing. You didn't even attempt to begin to refute ONE point in the referenced paper. You are so lame, and inept.
Why do people with SO little knowledge and skill in the subject they think they are competent to discuss, come to places like think, and make fools of themselves ?

Sorry sport, the concept of proof was blazed by Christ Himself in Luke 11

Sorry junior. Prove he said that. Prove he even existed.

In order for this 'proof' to be valid Einstein and the others must have first established a link between God and what you believe they disproved.

Wrong again junior.
If the universe can be proven to be non-intuitive, that's all that's required to toss ALL logical proofs out the window. They in no way have to reference a particular point. That's not how Logic works, and not how corollaries work. Try to take a Logic course some time. They don't have to say anything about the gods. You seem to know nothing about the definition of "proofs, how they work, and what corollaries can be drawn from them.

..and what better evidence of God than God?

Great. Produce your "evidence" now. Obviously yet another subject you have not a clue is all about. PLEASE do nothing for a living in engineering, or medicine or science. You are a danger to yourself and others.
Look up the word "evidence".

BTW, you need to use a spell checker. Your spelling is atrocious. Or are you just as generally uneducated as your writing makes you look ?
The question is, what do you think you're doing here ?








meow