Old Testament: Love it or leave it? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Old Testament: Love it or leave it?


Walt_NC
07-03-2012, 17:32
Christians, help me out. I have found that many of the Christians that I meet hold widely varying positions on the validity of the Old Testament. So what's the deal. Is it or is it not the word of God? Is it any more or less valid than the New Testament?

Colubrid
07-03-2012, 18:04
Yes the OT is the word of God and it all points to Jesus.

Droid noob
07-03-2012, 21:43
It's just as important as the new, as it shows all His prophecies coming true.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

BMyers
07-03-2012, 21:44
Just as important as the NT

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

mj9mm
07-03-2012, 21:45
How could you take Jesus at His word without the Old Testament:dunno:

Woofie
07-03-2012, 23:31
It all still applies, except the bad stuff.

G23Gen4TX
07-04-2012, 02:03
Yes the OT is the word of God and it all points to Jesus.

How is that?

Animal Mother
07-04-2012, 06:05
Yes the OT is the word of God and it all points to Jesus. How do you get from the genocidal tribal war god of the OT to the pacifist god of the NT?

Droid noob
07-04-2012, 06:37
How is that?


Look it up. There are 200ish prophecies Jesus fulfilled.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

Brucev
07-04-2012, 06:50
Christians, help me out. I have found that many of the Christians that I meet hold widely varying positions on the validity of the Old Testament. So what's the deal. Is it or is it not the word of God? Is it any more or less valid than the New Testament?

I consider that the OT and NT together comprise the Bible. Neither is complete without the other. I do not subscribe to a dictation theory of inspiration. I understand that there is in the OT, as there is in the NT, material that pertains to a particular place/time as well as material that is of eternal significance. I read the OT in the light of Christ. Where there is a conflict, I consider that Jesus is the final and last word of God on the matter and act accordingly. In fact, I'd be willing to say that if everyone were a "red letter" Christian, the supposed concerns expressed and other red herrings occasionally noted by some would be of not real consequence.

muscogee
07-04-2012, 07:28
Look it up. There are 200ish prophecies Jesus fulfilled.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

Such as? Can you name and justify one?

Droid noob
07-04-2012, 08:13
<sup id="en-HCSB-18713">1</sup> Who has believed what we have heard?<sup>[a (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18713a)]</sup>
And who has the arm of the LORD<sup>(A (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18713A))</sup> been revealed to?<sup>(B (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18713B))</sup>
<sup id="en-HCSB-18714">2</sup> He grew up before Him like a young plant<sup>(C (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18714C))</sup>
and like a root out of dry ground.
He didnít have an impressive form
or majesty that we should look at Him,
no appearance that we should desire Him.<sup>(D (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18714D))</sup>
<sup id="en-HCSB-18715">3</sup> He was despised and rejected by men,<sup>(E (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18715E))</sup>
a man of suffering who knew what sickness was.<sup>(F (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18715F))</sup>
He was like someone people turned away from;<sup>[b (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18715b)]</sup>
He was despised, and we didnít value Him.

<sup id="en-HCSB-18716">4</sup> Yet He Himself bore our sicknesses,
and He carried our pains;<sup>(G (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18716G))</sup>
but we in turn regarded Him stricken,
struck down by God,<sup>(H (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18716H))</sup> and afflicted.
<sup id="en-HCSB-18717">5</sup> But He was pierced because of our transgressions,<sup>(I (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18717I))</sup>
crushed because of our iniquities;<sup>(J (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18717J))</sup>
punishment<sup>(K (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18717K))</sup> for our peace was on Him,
and we are healed by His wounds.<sup>(L (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18717L))</sup>
<sup id="en-HCSB-18718">6</sup> We all went astray like sheep;<sup>(M (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18718M))</sup>
we all have turned to our own way;
and the LORD has punished Him
for<sup>[c (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18718c)]</sup> the iniquity<sup>(N (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18718N))</sup> of us all.<sup>(O (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18718O))</sup>
<sup id="en-HCSB-18719">7</sup> He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet He did not open His mouth.
Like a lamb led to the slaughter
and like a sheep silent before her shearers,
He did not open His mouth.<sup>(P (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18719P))</sup>
<sup id="en-HCSB-18720">8</sup> He was taken away because of oppression and judgment;
and who considered His fate?<sup>[d (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18720d)]</sup>
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
He was struck because of my peopleís rebellion.
<sup id="en-HCSB-18721">9</sup> They<sup>[e (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18721e)]</sup> made His grave with the wicked
and with a rich man at His death,<sup>(Q (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18721Q))</sup>
although He had done no violence
and had not spoken deceitfully.<sup>(R (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18721R))</sup> <sup id="en-HCSB-18722">10</sup> Yet the LORD was pleased<sup>(S (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18722S))</sup> to crush Him severely.<sup>[f (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18722f)]</sup><sup>(T (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18722T))</sup>
When<sup>[g (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18722g)]</sup> You make Him a restitution offering,<sup>(U (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18722U))</sup>
He will see His seed, He will prolong His days,
and by His hand, the LORDís pleasure will be accomplished.<sup>(V (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18722V))</sup>
<sup id="en-HCSB-18723">11</sup> He will see it<sup>[h (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18723h)]</sup> out of His anguish,
and He will be satisfied with His knowledge.
My righteous<sup>(W (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18723W))</sup> Servant<sup>(X (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18723X))</sup> will justify many,<sup>(Y (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18723Y))</sup>
and He will carry their iniquities.
<sup id="en-HCSB-18724">12</sup> Therefore I will give Him<sup>[i (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18724i)]</sup> the many as a portion,
and He will receive<sup>[j (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18724j)]</sup> the mighty as spoil,
because He submitted Himself to death,<sup>(Z (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18724Z))</sup>
and was counted among the rebels;<sup>(AA (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18724AA))</sup>
yet He bore the sin of many<sup>(AB (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18724AB))</sup>
and interceded for the rebels.<sup>(AC (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18724AC))</sup>

Who does this sound like? This is certainly one pretty specific prophecy that was fulfilled and not denied by even the jews. Josephus(jewish historian captured by the romans) even recorded it. I have a bunch more sitting in front of me. You asked for one. It's justified by outside sources that gain nothing for recording it. I too didn't believe in Jesus or God at one point and studied it from a skeptic pov. The evidence is just to compelling to ignore if one gives it an honest look at some point. I consider myself lucky, in that, I wasn't raised to "just believe". I'm the type to ask the hard questions. Not to mention, we are called to "test all things" in the bible and to give a defense to our faith.

Brucev
07-04-2012, 08:18
Such as? Can you name and justify one?

If you have a serious interest, you can find not only those O.T. passages (usually messanic in nature) that refer/point to Jesus as well as how many of those O.T. passages are lived out/full-filled by Jesus in the N.T. era. There are numerous multiple online sources available. Many study Bibles will have list of such O.T. passages along with the corresponding N.T. references. If you only want to debate, wait for someone to provide you the information. If you want to know the answer to your question, consult one of the sources at your convenience.

Vic Hays
07-04-2012, 08:20
<sup id="en-HCSB-18713">1</sup> Who has believed what we have heard?<sup>[a (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18713a)]</sup>
And who has the arm of the LORD<sup>(A (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18713A))</sup> been revealed to?<sup>(B (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18713B))</sup>
<sup id="en-HCSB-18714">2</sup> He grew up before Him like a young plant<sup>(C (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18714C))</sup>
and like a root out of dry ground.
He didn’t have an impressive form
or majesty that we should look at Him,
no appearance that we should desire Him.<sup>(D (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18714D))</sup>
<sup id="en-HCSB-18715">3</sup> He was despised and rejected by men,<sup>(E (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18715E))</sup>
a man of suffering who knew what sickness was.<sup>(F (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18715F))</sup>
He was like someone people turned away from;<sup>[b (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18715b)]</sup>
He was despised, and we didn’t value Him.

<sup id="en-HCSB-18716">4</sup> Yet He Himself bore our sicknesses,
and He carried our pains;<sup>(G (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18716G))</sup>
but we in turn regarded Him stricken,
struck down by God,<sup>(H (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18716H))</sup> and afflicted.
<sup id="en-HCSB-18717">5</sup> But He was pierced because of our transgressions,<sup>(I (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18717I))</sup>
crushed because of our iniquities;<sup>(J (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18717J))</sup>
punishment<sup>(K (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18717K))</sup> for our peace was on Him,
and we are healed by His wounds.<sup>(L (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18717L))</sup>
<sup id="en-HCSB-18718">6</sup> We all went astray like sheep;<sup>(M (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18718M))</sup>
we all have turned to our own way;
and the LORD has punished Him
for<sup>[c (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18718c)]</sup> the iniquity<sup>(N (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18718N))</sup> of us all.<sup>(O (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18718O))</sup>
<sup id="en-HCSB-18719">7</sup> He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet He did not open His mouth.
Like a lamb led to the slaughter
and like a sheep silent before her shearers,
He did not open His mouth.<sup>(P (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18719P))</sup>
<sup id="en-HCSB-18720">8</sup> He was taken away because of oppression and judgment;
and who considered His fate?<sup>[d (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18720d)]</sup>
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
He was struck because of my people’s rebellion.
<sup id="en-HCSB-18721">9</sup> They<sup>[e (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18721e)]</sup> made His grave with the wicked
and with a rich man at His death,<sup>(Q (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18721Q))</sup>
although He had done no violence
and had not spoken deceitfully.<sup>(R (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18721R))</sup> <sup id="en-HCSB-18722">10</sup> Yet the LORD was pleased<sup>(S (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18722S))</sup> to crush Him severely.<sup>[f (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18722f)]</sup><sup>(T (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18722T))</sup>
When<sup>[g (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18722g)]</sup> You make Him a restitution offering,<sup>(U (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18722U))</sup>
He will see His seed, He will prolong His days,
and by His hand, the LORD’s pleasure will be accomplished.<sup>(V (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18722V))</sup>
<sup id="en-HCSB-18723">11</sup> He will see it<sup>[h (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18723h)]</sup> out of His anguish,
and He will be satisfied with His knowledge.
My righteous<sup>(W (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18723W))</sup> Servant<sup>(X (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18723X))</sup> will justify many,<sup>(Y (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18723Y))</sup>
and He will carry their iniquities.
<sup id="en-HCSB-18724">12</sup> Therefore I will give Him<sup>[i (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18724i)]</sup> the many as a portion,
and He will receive<sup>[j (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18724j)]</sup> the mighty as spoil,
because He submitted Himself to death,<sup>(Z (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18724Z))</sup>
and was counted among the rebels;<sup>(AA (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18724AA))</sup>
yet He bore the sin of many<sup>(AB (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18724AB))</sup>
and interceded for the rebels.<sup>(AC (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18724AC))</sup>

Who does this sound like? This is certainly one pretty specific prophecy that was fulfilled and not denied by even the jews. Josephus(jewish historian captured by the romans) even recorded it. I have a bunch more sitting in front of me. You asked for one. It's justified by outside sources that gain nothing for recording it. I too didn't believe in Jesus or God at one point and studied it from a skeptic pov. The evidence is just to compelling to ignore if one gives it an honest look at some point. I consider myself lucky, in that, I wasn't raised to "just believe". I'm the type to ask the hard questions. Not to mention, we are called to "test all things" in the bible and to give a defense to our faith.

This describes the Jesus of the New Testament. This is the Jesus that we all need. This is just not the Jesus that most people want.

The New Testament is the Old Testament explained.

I Corinthians 10:6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
10:7 Neither be you idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
10:8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
10:9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
10:10 Neither murmur you, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
10:11 Now all these things happened to them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the world are come.

SPIN2010
07-04-2012, 08:22
Plainly, it sets the stage for the arrival of Christ.

If you reject any part of the Bible why would you accept any of it? :dunno:

Kingarthurhk
07-04-2012, 08:41
Plainly, it sets the stage for the arrival of Christ.

If you reject any part of the Bible why would you accept any of it? :dunno:

True, and the New Testament writers, including Christ were constantly referring to the Old. It is what they had and the basis of the New.

Also, has anyone tried to build a two story house without the first floor?

Vic Hays
07-04-2012, 10:21
The Old Testament and the New Testament are two witnesses.

Revelation 11:3 And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and three score days, clothed in sackcloth.
11:4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceeds out of their mouth, and devours their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
11:6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.

FCoulter
07-04-2012, 10:47
Such as? Can you name and justify one?
Just a few to keep you busy.

http://www.cbcg.org/franklin/SA/SA_28prophecies.pdf

muscogee
07-04-2012, 11:50
<sup id="en-HCSB-18713">1</sup> Who has believed what we have heard?<sup>[a (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18713a)]</sup>
And who has the arm of the LORD<sup>(A (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18713A))</sup> been revealed to?<sup>(B (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18713B))</sup>
<sup id="en-HCSB-18714">2</sup> He grew up before Him like a young plant<sup>(C (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18714C))</sup>
and like a root out of dry ground.
He didnít have an impressive form
or majesty that we should look at Him,
no appearance that we should desire Him.<sup>(D (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18714D))</sup>
<sup id="en-HCSB-18715">3</sup> He was despised and rejected by men,<sup>(E (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18715E))</sup>
a man of suffering who knew what sickness was.<sup>(F (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18715F))</sup>
He was like someone people turned away from;<sup>[b (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18715b)]</sup>
He was despised, and we didnít value Him.

<sup id="en-HCSB-18716">4</sup> Yet He Himself bore our sicknesses,
and He carried our pains;<sup>(G (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18716G))</sup>
but we in turn regarded Him stricken,
struck down by God,<sup>(H (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18716H))</sup> and afflicted.
<sup id="en-HCSB-18717">5</sup> But He was pierced because of our transgressions,<sup>(I (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18717I))</sup>
crushed because of our iniquities;<sup>(J (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18717J))</sup>
punishment<sup>(K (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18717K))</sup> for our peace was on Him,
and we are healed by His wounds.<sup>(L (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18717L))</sup>
<sup id="en-HCSB-18718">6</sup> We all went astray like sheep;<sup>(M (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18718M))</sup>
we all have turned to our own way;
and the LORD has punished Him
for<sup>[c (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18718c)]</sup> the iniquity<sup>(N (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18718N))</sup> of us all.<sup>(O (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18718O))</sup>
<sup id="en-HCSB-18719">7</sup> He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet He did not open His mouth.
Like a lamb led to the slaughter
and like a sheep silent before her shearers,
He did not open His mouth.<sup>(P (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18719P))</sup>
<sup id="en-HCSB-18720">8</sup> He was taken away because of oppression and judgment;
and who considered His fate?<sup>[d (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18720d)]</sup>
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
He was struck because of my peopleís rebellion.
<sup id="en-HCSB-18721">9</sup> They<sup>[e (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18721e)]</sup> made His grave with the wicked
and with a rich man at His death,<sup>(Q (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18721Q))</sup>
although He had done no violence
and had not spoken deceitfully.<sup>(R (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18721R))</sup> <sup id="en-HCSB-18722">10</sup> Yet the LORD was pleased<sup>(S (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18722S))</sup> to crush Him severely.<sup>[f (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18722f)]</sup><sup>(T (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18722T))</sup>
When<sup>[g (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18722g)]</sup> You make Him a restitution offering,<sup>(U (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18722U))</sup>
He will see His seed, He will prolong His days,
and by His hand, the LORDís pleasure will be accomplished.<sup>(V (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18722V))</sup>
<sup id="en-HCSB-18723">11</sup> He will see it<sup>[h (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18723h)]</sup> out of His anguish,
and He will be satisfied with His knowledge.
My righteous<sup>(W (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18723W))</sup> Servant<sup>(X (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18723X))</sup> will justify many,<sup>(Y (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18723Y))</sup>
and He will carry their iniquities.
<sup id="en-HCSB-18724">12</sup> Therefore I will give Him<sup>[i (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18724i)]</sup> the many as a portion,
and He will receive<sup>[j (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#fen-HCSB-18724j)]</sup> the mighty as spoil,
because He submitted Himself to death,<sup>(Z (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18724Z))</sup>
and was counted among the rebels;<sup>(AA (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18724AA))</sup>
yet He bore the sin of many<sup>(AB (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18724AB))</sup>
and interceded for the rebels.<sup>(AC (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+53%3A1-12&version1=77#cen-HCSB-18724AC))</sup>

Who does this sound like? This is certainly one pretty specific prophecy that was fulfilled and not denied by even the jews. Josephus(jewish historian captured by the romans) even recorded it. I have a bunch more sitting in front of me. You asked for one. It's justified by outside sources that gain nothing for recording it. I too didn't believe in Jesus or God at one point and studied it from a skeptic pov. The evidence is just to compelling to ignore if one gives it an honest look at some point. I consider myself lucky, in that, I wasn't raised to "just believe". I'm the type to ask the hard questions. Not to mention, we are called to "test all things" in the bible and to give a defense to our faith.

Yes, that points to a Messiah but is says nothing about Jesus being the Messiah. As far as I know, there is nothing in the Old Testament that points to Jesus as the Messiah. To get there you have to start with the assumption and work backwards. That's what the New Testament does. If you don't believe me, ask the Jews.

Messianic thinking is common in cultures that seem themselves being destroyed by outside forces and realize there is nothing they can do about it. The current government of Iran believes its is preparing the way the Messiah.

muscogee
07-04-2012, 11:53
Just a few to keep you busy.

http://www.cbcg.org/franklin/SA/SA_28prophecies.pdf

Once again, those quotes require a real stretch of logic to say they point to Jesus.

muscogee
07-04-2012, 11:54
http://disjointedthinking.jeffhughes.ca/2010/12/contesting-christianity-messianic-prophecies/

Vic Hays
07-04-2012, 13:02
Yes, that points to a Messiah but is says nothing about Jesus being the Messiah. As far as I know, there is nothing in the Old Testament that points to Jesus as the Messiah. To get there you have to start with the assumption and work backwards. That's what the New Testament does. If you don't believe me, ask the Jews.

Messianic thinking is common in cultures that seem themselves being destroyed by outside forces and realize there is nothing they can do about it. The current government of Iran believes its is preparing the way the Messiah.

Our record in the New Testament says that Jesus fulfilled that prophecy.

There are also prophecies that say when the Messiah will appear.

Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem to the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

And where He will come.

Haggai 2:7 And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.
2:9 The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the LORD of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the LORD of hosts.

Droid noob
07-04-2012, 13:51
Yes, that points to a Messiah but is says nothing about Jesus being the Messiah. As far as I know, there is nothing in the Old Testament that points to Jesus as the Messiah.


That is but one prophecy that Jesus fulfilled. The OT mentions where He would be born, what line He would come from, What tribe, when....and on and on and on. Are you looking for THE name Jesus? If that's the case, your right. It doesn't say what the Messiah name will be at all.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be an ........alligator!

Some will suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

muscogee
07-04-2012, 14:38
Our record in the New Testament says that Jesus fulfilled that prophecy.

Once again, you have to start with the New Testament and work backwards to get there. You cannot start with the Old Testament and reach the conclusion that Jesus was the Messiah.

There are also prophecies that say when the Messiah will appear.

Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem to the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Is that "seven weeks, and three score and two weeks" B.C or A.D.? What street is that scripture talking about? I don't see any definitive timeline here.

And where He will come.

Haggai 2:7 And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.
2:9 The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the LORD of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the LORD of hosts.

How do you get "where He will come from" out of that? It looks like you just make things up and throw out whatever scriptures come to mind to justify it?

Berto
07-04-2012, 14:47
I've always wondered the same as the OP, interesting discussion.

muscogee
07-04-2012, 14:53
That is but one prophecy that Jesus fulfilled. The OT mentions where He would be born,
And Matthew makes up a ridiculous story about a census forcing everyone to travel to the city of their birth to make that happen. There is no mention of this in Roman of Jewish history. Do any of the other Gospels mention this? I believe they say Jesus was from Nazareth.
Are you looking for THE name Jesus? If that's the case, your right. It doesn't say what the Messiah name will be at all. I'm looking for something that does not require a logical stretch to confirm what you said.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be an ........alligator! It someone tells you it's an alligator and you believe it then yes.

Some will suppress the truth in unrighteousness. And some will believe whatever they're told with bothering to do their own research and think for themselves. You're not the only one here who has been exposed to this line of indoctrination. Some of us have seen through it.

G23Gen4TX
07-04-2012, 14:56
Where in the OLD TESTAMENT is the name "Jesus" mentioned as the messiah?

Don't tell me the bible tells you the numbers to the lottery the day AFTER the drawing. Tell me the numbers the day before.

randrew379
07-04-2012, 15:10
The gospels were written by men decades after the alleged events: these men were not eyewitnesses, despite what some wish to believe; and there are discrepancies among these gospels. Also, over the past two centuries these writings have been mistranslated, miscopied, and intentionally amended. The story of the adulterous woman is accepted as a later addition by serious biblical scholars. Also, there is no historical evidence of a census that would have required Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem.

Anyone can write a tale to justify/explain anything - e.g., Joseph Smith, Muhammad, L. Ron Hubbard.

Vic Hays
07-04-2012, 15:39
Is that "seven weeks, and three score and two weeks" B.C or A.D.? What street is that scripture talking about? I don't see any definitive timeline here.



The Bible says:

Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem to the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Jerusalem was in ruins at the time Daniel made this prophecy.
The street and wall were those of Jerusalem.

7weeks (wall and street rebuilt) plus 62 weeks (3x20+2) =69 weeks.

A prophetic day is equal to one year. The commandment to restore Jerusalem was 457 BC.

69x7=483 +1 for no year named 0=484

484-457= 27 AD Jesus baptized and begins His ministry.

Messiah means anointed one.

Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit 27 AD. (Matthew 3:16)

High-Gear
07-04-2012, 18:25
Look it up. There are 200ish prophecies Jesus fulfilled.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

Is that really hard to do? I mean if you wrote it down for me, all I'd have to do is follow the recepie right? And anything I got wrong could be covered with a little creative narrative writing 100 - 300 years after I died by those who had a vested interest in my being the one who fulfilled the prophecies...right?

High-Gear
07-04-2012, 19:03
Just a few to keep you busy.

http://www.cbcg.org/franklin/SA/SA_28prophecies.pdf

I really don't understand how they make the connections. Between prophecy, and how it is fulfilled. I've read the first 5-6, and they don't seem remotely close. I hope you read your link before posting it and can explain it please.

Droid noob
07-04-2012, 21:06
Is that really hard to do? I mean if you wrote it down for me, all I'd have to do is follow the recepie right? And anything I got wrong could be covered with a little creative narrative writing 100 - 300 years after I died by those who had a vested interest in my being the one who fulfilled the prophecies...right?

A vested interest? Ppl were dying for Him from the moment Jesus was resurrected. One of the most compelling defenses of the Christian faith is the fact that the eyewitnesses were so sure they had seen the resurrected Jesus. They were used as candle lighting for Nero's parties. Fed to beasts in the Arenas, etc. There was no worldly gain for the early christians.


Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

muscogee
07-04-2012, 22:49
A prophetic day is equal to one year. The commandment to restore Jerusalem was 457 BC. Where do you get this?

Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit 27 AD. (Matthew 3:16)
Where do you get this?

muscogee
07-04-2012, 22:53
A vested interest? Ppl were dying for Him from the moment Jesus was resurrected. One of the most compelling defenses of the Christian faith is the fact that the eyewitnesses were so sure they had seen the resurrected Jesus. They were used as candle lighting for Nero's parties. Fed to beasts in the Arenas, etc. There was no worldly gain for the early christians.


Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

People used to die for Kukulkan. Does that mean he was God?

Animal Mother
07-04-2012, 23:00
Our record in the New Testament says that Jesus fulfilled that prophecy. The New Testament isn't an objective record, it was all written by people who already believed the Jesus was the Messiah. Where are the objective verifications that Christ fulfilled the prophecies about the Messiah?

Animal Mother
07-04-2012, 23:01
A vested interest? Ppl were dying for Him from the moment Jesus was resurrected. One of the most compelling defenses of the Christian faith is the fact that the eyewitnesses were so sure they had seen the resurrected Jesus. They were used as candle lighting for Nero's parties. Fed to beasts in the Arenas, etc. There was no worldly gain for the early christians. People die for all kinds of belief that aren't true. The Heaven's Gate group committed suicide, that doesn't prove they boarded a spaceship that was following the Hale-Bopp comet, does it?

Droid noob
07-05-2012, 05:22
It's one thing to die for something you "believe" is true. It completely different if you were there and know it to be true or false. If the first disciples and early christians knew they didn't see the risen Jesus, why would they become martyrs?

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

Animal Mother
07-05-2012, 05:32
It's one thing to die for something you "believe" is true. It completely different if you were there and know it to be true or false. If the first disciples and early christians knew they didn't see the risen Jesus, why would they become martyrs? Many people know things that are not objectively true. Numerous people have ecstatic religious experiences, including believing they've participated in lengthy conversations with people. None of that is objective evidence for the truth of the New Testament. Without such objective evidence you can't say that the New Testament shows Jesus fulfilling the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament.

Droid noob
07-05-2012, 07:06
Many people know things that are not objectively true. Numerous people have ecstatic religious experiences, including believing they've participated in lengthy conversations with people. None of that is objective evidence for the truth of the New Testament. Without such objective evidence you can't say that the New Testament shows Jesus fulfilling the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament.

How did you objectively come to this conclusion?

Jesus appeared to over 500 people in one city. Do you honestly think all those 500 people would let these stories gain any traction if it weren't true? In those times people relied heavily on oral tradition often told to large groups of people at once. This is something that would've been debunked from the beginning. How many witnesses do you need to throw out the lsd theory?

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

Schabesbert
07-05-2012, 07:13
The New Testament isn't an objective record, it was all written by people who already believed the Jesus was the Messiah.
That's patently untrue. Saul (St. Paul) was certainly quite hostile to Christianity.

Vic Hays
07-05-2012, 08:50
Where do you get this?


Where do you get this?

The beginning time and time of Jesus baptism for this prophecy are well documented historically. 457 BC and 27 AD


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artaxerxes_I
"Ezra thereby left Babylon in the first month of the seventh year (~ 457 BCE) of Artaxerxes' reign, at the head of a company of Jews that included priests and Levites. They arrived in Jerusalem on the first day of the fifth month of the seventh year (Hebrew Calendar)."

Here is the history for Ezra in the Bible:

Ezra 7:13 I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee.

and autonomy:
7:26 And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_of_Jesus
"The Baptism of Jesus is generally considered as the start of his ministry, shortly after the start of the ministry of John the Baptist.[13][15][32] Luke 3:1-2 states that:[33][34]
Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, .... the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
There are, however, two approaches to determining when the reign of Tiberius Caesar started.[35] The traditional approach is that of assuming that the reign of Tiberius started when he became co-regent in 11AD, placing the start of the ministry of John the Baptist around 26 AD."

There is also more to the prophecy that fits very well.

The seven years of ministry to Jerusalem until the stoning of Stephen when the gospel went to the world in 34 AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Stephen

The seven years cut in the middle by the crucifixion of Jesus.

Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

muscogee
07-05-2012, 09:07
The beginning time and time of Jesus baptism for this prophecy are well documented historically. 457 BC and 27 AD


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artaxerxes_I
"Ezra thereby left Babylon in the first month of the seventh year (~ 457 BCE) of Artaxerxes' reign, at the head of a company of Jews that included priests and Levites. They arrived in Jerusalem on the first day of the fifth month of the seventh year (Hebrew Calendar)."

Here is the history for Ezra in the Bible:

Ezra 7:13 I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee.

and autonomy:
7:26 And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_of_Jesus
"The Baptism of Jesus is generally considered as the start of his ministry, shortly after the start of the ministry of John the Baptist.[13][15][32] Luke 3:1-2 states that:[33][34]
Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, .... the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
There are, however, two approaches to determining when the reign of Tiberius Caesar started.[35] The traditional approach is that of assuming that the reign of Tiberius started when he became co-regent in 11AD, placing the start of the ministry of John the Baptist around 26 AD."

There is also more to the prophecy that fits very well.

The seven years of ministry to Jerusalem until the stoning of Stephen when the gospel went to the world in 34 AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Stephen

The seven years cut in the middle by the crucifixion of Jesus.

Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Where does the idea that "A prophetic day is equal to one year" come from?

Schabesbert
07-05-2012, 09:14
Christians, help me out. I have found that many of the Christians that I meet hold widely varying positions on the validity of the Old Testament. So what's the deal. Is it or is it not the word of God? Is it any more or less valid than the New Testament?

The unity of the Old and New Testaments (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm)

128 The Church, as early as apostolic times,104 and then constantly in her Tradition, has illuminated the unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments through typology, which discerns in God's works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his incarnate Son.

129 Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself.105 Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament.106 As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.107 [St. Augustine]


Is it still in effect? Yes and no.

It has been fulfilled by Christ, so in its exact letter it is no longer in effect. The principles, however, have been revealed (and indeed amplified) by Jesus, and by the natural law impressed on our souls and consciences, and thus remain.

The Law was a SHADOW of Christ:
Heb 10:1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities ...

A shadow looks kinda like the thing that casts the shadow, but not really.

"The Law", says St. Paul, was our paidagogos, our teacher-of-infants, UNTIL Christ's arrival:

Ga 3:24 So that the law was our custodian (paidagogos) until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith.

When I was a very young child, I had to be in bed by 9PM. This was a rule that had good reason behind it: we require sufficient rest. As an adult, I need to generally follow the general rule, but I seldom if ever am in bed by 9.

IhRedrider
07-05-2012, 09:42
How did a post about "Old Testament Love it or leave it?" ' a post that was directed to Christians, turn into a argument between atheists and Christians about the validity of Christ?

Don't argue with a fool he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

muscogee
07-05-2012, 09:52
Don't argue with a fool he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Look in the mirror when you say that.

SPIN2010
07-05-2012, 10:15
How did a post about "Old Testament Love it or leave it?" ' a post that was directed to Christians, turn into a argument between atheists and Christians about the validity of Christ?

Separation guilt.

Droid noob
07-05-2012, 10:19
While I welcome debates with others of different opinion, why are atheists in a religious topics forum? Some people just like getting a rise out of those that can't control themselves. There will definitely be a hotter hell if, God forbid, they manage to poison a weaker christians mind.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

G26S239
07-05-2012, 10:38
While I welcome debates with others of different opinion, why are atheists in a religious topics forum? Some people just like getting a rise out of those that can't control themselves. There will definitely be a hotter hell if, God forbid, they manage to poison a weaker christians mind.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2
Might is right. Worship Yahweh or He will torture you for all eternity. What a loving deity. :wavey:

Droid noob
07-05-2012, 11:29
Might is right. Worship Yahweh or He will torture you for all eternity. What a loving deity. :wavey:

You got it! He is a God of mercy and justice. If He didn't punish sin, He wouldn't be God.

Is submission the root of your disbelief? I think that's the case with most. Which would be why so many come to Jesus after all else fails. Hence the phrase "come to Jesus moment".

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

Droid noob
07-05-2012, 11:31
Might is right. Worship Yahweh or He will torture you for all eternity. What a loving deity. :wavey:

Also God won't torture you. Satan will. Hell is separation from God.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

G26S239
07-05-2012, 11:43
Also God won't torture you. Satan will. Hell is separation from God.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2
Rationalizing why your dictator is benevolent. Not unlike some battered wives or Stockholm Syndrome.

So God made Sammael, and because God is omniscient, He knew what Sammael would do and allowed it to happen anyway. He committed the biggest genocide ever (only 8 survived according to legend) yet you try to absolve Him of complicity in what he allows his minion to do. :upeyes:

Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

G26S239
07-05-2012, 12:26
You got it! He is a God of mercy and justice. If He didn't punish sin, He wouldn't be God.

Is submission the root of your disbelief? I think that's the case with most. Which would be why so many come to Jesus after all else fails. Hence the phrase "come to Jesus moment".

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

Lack of any evidence of magic beings is where my disbelief comes from. Same reason I don't believe in unicrorns, leprechauns, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy etc.

Vic Hays
07-05-2012, 12:29
Where does the idea that "A prophetic day is equal to one year" come from?

A day is used symbolically as a year in a number of places. This is one of the keys to understanding prophetic time.

Ezekiel 4:6 And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.

Numbers 14:34 After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.

Bren
07-05-2012, 12:40
It all still applies, except the bad stuff.

And the stuff about not eating bacon and lobster.:rofl:

Droid noob
07-05-2012, 12:54
Rationalizing why your dictator is benevolent. Not unlike some battered wives or Stockholm Syndrome.

So God made Sammael, and because God is omniscient, He knew what Sammael would do and allowed it to happen anyway. He committed the biggest genocide ever (only 8 survived according to legend) yet you try to absolve Him of complicity in what he allows his minion to do. :upeyes:

Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

He is omniscient, but man also has free will. You can't have free will without having evil follow suit.

G26S239
07-05-2012, 13:00
He is omniscient, but man also has free will. You can't have free will without having evil follow suit.

Free will does not condemn people to eternal torture, Yahweh does! Furthermore he drowned all but 8 people on earth. Stalin never achieved that level of performance. Difference being that Stalin is generally condemned for his mass murder but Yahweh is worshipped. Might is right is where you are coming from.

Droid noob
07-05-2012, 13:07
Lack of any evidence of magic beings is where my disbelief comes from. Same reason I don't believe in unicrorns, leprechauns, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy etc.

Lack of evidence????? You've been spoon fed plenty of evidence here. The evidence is overwhelming. I think instead of you asking all the questions, the burden of proof should lie in your court. At some point your going to have to do some of this work yourself. It's becoming apparent we're wasting each others time here. Comparing God to the fellas above just shows the attitude and contempt you have for a higher being. At the risk of going further off topic I'll give one more piece of evidence for God. Our Planet. The conditions it's met to sustain life. How anyone could come to the conclusion that it was anything but ID is beyond me. The bible has been proven right on a number of issues. the big bang, the universe not being eternal, etc. What else can I say? Your mind is made up.:dunno:

Droid noob
07-05-2012, 13:09
Free will does not condemn people to eternal torture, Yahweh does! Furthermore he drowned all but 8 people on earth. Stalin never achieved that level of performance. Difference being that Stalin is generally condemned for his mass murder but Yahweh is worshipped. Might is right is where you are coming from.


Sure it does. He had people warning them for too long. Noah warned them! It took a lifetime to build the ark. All the while he was warning them.

muscogee
07-05-2012, 13:14
While I welcome debates with others of different opinion, why are atheists in a religious topics forum?

Where else could we debate religious issues? If you want everyone to agree with you, go to church.

There will definitely be a hotter hell if, God forbid, they manage to poison a weaker christians mind.

If I make a better case for my position than "Almighty God" then I will go to Hell? If that's true, God's not so almighty. Believers have had thousands of years to make the case for an almighty God and they have failed miserably. The fault doesn't lie with those of us who see through the ruse.

muscogee
07-05-2012, 13:17
A day is used symbolically as a year in a number of places. This is one of the keys to understanding prophetic time.

Ezekiel 4:6 And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.

Numbers 14:34 After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.

Seems like a stretch for me.

G26S239
07-05-2012, 13:18
Sure it does. He had people warning them for too long. Noah warned them! It took a lifetime to build the ark. All the while he was warning them.
Rationalize however it suits you. Yahweh committed genocide if your legends are true. You worship a mass murderer who practices do as I say, not as I do. Of course he did qualify the 6th commandment in 2nd Kings chapter 10 when he unleashed Jehu on the worshipers of Baal Peor so I suppose it depends on who's ox is being gored. The commandments appear to be flexible when need be.

Droid noob
07-05-2012, 13:27
Where else could we debate religious issues? If you want everyone to agree with you, go to church.



If I make a better case for my position than "Almighty God" then I will go to Hell? If that's true, God's not so almighty. Believers have had thousands of years to make the case for an almighty God and they have failed miserably. The fault doesn't lie with those of us who see through the ruse.

That the thing. You're not making a better case. To those that are informed, your highly subjective opinion is very weak. Insults to God are not an effective strategy. I'm only talking about those that feel Jesus's tug on their heart, but don't know much about Him yet.

Droid noob
07-05-2012, 13:28
Rationalize however it suits you. Yahweh committed genocide if your legends are true. You worship a mass murderer who practices do as I say, not as I do. Of course he did qualify the 6th commandment in 2nd Kings chapter 10 when he unleashed Jehu on the worshipers of Baal Peor so I suppose it depends on who's ox is being gored. The commandments appear to be flexible when need be.


The Lord gives and takes away. Do you have a right to destroy something you created or own?

muscogee
07-05-2012, 13:55
That the thing. You're not making a better case. To those that are informed, your highly subjective opinion is very weak. Insults to God are not an effective strategy. I'm only talking about those that feel Jesus's tug on their heart, but don't know much about Him yet.

You are not informed. This forum is full of people who know the Bible better than many of the believers here. Why is the no record of the census which forced Mary and Joseph to go to city of their birth other than the Book of Matthew? Why would any government force people to do that just to count its citizens? Why couldn't they be counted where they lived? What was the penalty if they didn't travel to the cities of their birth? How would anyone know if they didn't? Would that even be possible? Imagine our government attempting that. Of course, you never contemplate question like this. The Bible says it so it must be literally true.

Why does the Bible require interpretation? Why can't an almighty God express himself well enough to be understood without people having to make stuff up to fill in the gaps or explain away the absurdities? If you want me to believe snakes used to walk around and talk to people, you had better present some serious evidence. You had better present some good evidence that the reason men die is because the God of love and forgiveness is still angry at all of us because what Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden thousands of years ago. Honestly, is the type of thing a loving forgiving God would do? It sees like the kind of thing a spoiled child would do. I could never be angry enough at my children to condemn my grandchildren to death, but your God claims to just that. I could go on for a very long time, but you won't listen. That's fine, but don't tell me you're informed and I'm not.

G26S239
07-05-2012, 13:56
The Lord gives and takes away. Do you have a right to destroy something you created or own?
Okay, I will stipulate that you have a (twisted) point.

Ergo abortion is okay.
Killing one's own children is okay. :thumbsup:

G26S239
07-05-2012, 13:59
And God so loved the world that he created a bunch of people to worship him and stroke his massive ego.

http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php

G26S239
07-05-2012, 14:01
That the thing. You're not making a better case. To those that are informed, your highly subjective opinion is very weak. Insults to God are not an effective strategy. I'm only talking about those that feel Jesus's tug on their heart, but don't know much about Him yet.
Than perhaps you should shake the dust off your feet and ignore muscogee's provocations. Whatever works.

Droid noob
07-05-2012, 14:27
You are not informed. This forum is full of people who know the Bible better than many of the believers here. Why is the no record of the census which forced Mary and Joseph to go to city of their birth other than the Book of Matthew? Why would any government force people to do that just to count its citizens? Why couldn't they be counted where they lived? What was the penalty if they didn't travel to the cities of their birth? How would anyone know if they didn't? Would that even be possible? Imagine our government attempting that. Of course, you never contemplate question like this. The Bible says it so it must be literally true.

Why does the Bible require interpretation? Why can't an almighty God express himself well enough to be understood without people having to make stuff up to fill in the gaps or explain away the absurdities? If you want me to believe snakes used to walk around and talk to people, you had better present some serious evidence. You had better present some good evidence that the reason men die is because the God of love and forgiveness is still angry at all of us because what Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden thousands of years ago. Honestly, is the type of thing a loving forgiving God would do? It sees like the kind of thing a spoiled child would do. I could never be angry enough at my children to condemn my grandchildren to death, but your God claims to just that. I could go on for a very long time, but you won't listen. That's fine, but don't tell me you're informed and I'm not.

To be clear I wasn't saying you weren't informed. I was talking about christians not being informed of our history and being easily swayed. I will address the rest when my daughters off the computer. Why all the insults?

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

G26S239
07-05-2012, 15:16
Lack of evidence????? You've been spoon fed plenty of evidence here. The evidence is overwhelming. I think instead of you asking all the questions, the burden of proof should lie in your court. At some point your going to have to do some of this work yourself. It's becoming apparent we're wasting each others time here. Comparing God to the fellas above just shows the attitude and contempt you have for a higher being. At the risk of going further off topic I'll give one more piece of evidence for God. Our Planet. The conditions it's met to sustain life. How anyone could come to the conclusion that it was anything but ID is beyond me. The bible has been proven right on a number of issues. the big bang, the universe not being eternal, etc. What else can I say? Your mind is made up.:dunno:
What evidence? The bible? The Bhagavad Gita, Enuma Elish and various other creation mythologies make equally ridiculous claims that are at odds with the claims of the bible.

The burden of proof is on those of you who claim that Balaam's donkey talked to him*. If your neighbor came to your house tonight with such a whopping pile of bs would you take his story at face value? Or would you dismiss it as the rambling of a kook? I suspect that you would do the latter.

*Among other ridiculous claims in the bible.

muscogee
07-05-2012, 16:11
To be clear I wasn't saying you weren't informed. I was talking about christians not being informed of our history and being easily swayed. I will address the rest when my daughters off the computer. Why all the insults?

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

I was responding that your claim that were my intellectual superior. What did you see as an insult?

IhRedrider
07-05-2012, 17:00
Don't do it Droid noob, he is already separated from the Almighty and to engage in a reasonable rational debate with him is impossible. He will only drag you to a level that you don't want. Don't be mislead, he has an agenda, and that agenda is to try and cast as much derision as he can on God. The reason is because he hates God. Don't fall for the pseudo-intellectual tripe that he dishes, he just hates God.

Droid noob
07-05-2012, 17:19
Below are a few books you might want to give a look see. These are the best three imo. If you have any resources that you would like me to look into, I would be more than happy to give them a read.


I Don't have enough Faith to be an Athiest
The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Stroebel
New Evidence that demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell

muscogee
07-05-2012, 19:20
Don't do it Droid noob, he is already separated from the Almighty and to engage in a reasonable rational debate with him is impossible. He will only drag you to a level that you don't want. Don't be mislead, he has an agenda, and that agenda is to try and cast as much derision as he can on God. The reason is because he hates God. Don't fall for the pseudo-intellectual tripe that he dishes, he just hates God.

That's real Christian of you. The "peace that passes understanding" thing seems to elude you doesn't it? That's alright. Just keep reading the Bible and praying. It will come to you like it did to me and so many of the rest of us.

Animal Mother
07-05-2012, 19:27
How did you objectively come to this conclusion? Analysis of the available evidence.
Jesus appeared to over 500 people in one city. Do you honestly think all those 500 people would let these stories gain any traction if it weren't true? Do you honestly think that if 500 people saw a guy who claimed to have come back from the dead, none of them would leave a record of the experience?
In those times people relied heavily on oral tradition often told to large groups of people at once. This is something that would've been debunked from the beginning. How many witnesses do you need to throw out the lsd theory? If the story didn't arise until decades later and in places other than where it was to have occurred, in a place and time where correspondence between cities could take months, who would really be able to object from a position of knowledge?

Animal Mother
07-05-2012, 19:32
That's patently untrue. Saul (St. Paul) was certainly quite hostile to Christianity. Saul, as portrayed in the Bible, was hostile to Christianity, but it was a post conversion Paul who wrote the epistles found in the New Testament. A redemption story is always a great plot line and, once again, the Bible isn't an objective history.

muscogee
07-05-2012, 19:41
Below are a few books you might want to give a look see. These are the best three imo. If you have any resources that you would like me to look into, I would be more than happy to give them a read.

I Don't have enough Faith to be an Athiest
The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Stroebel
New Evidence that demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell

You're new to this forum. Stroebel et al. have been discredited here more than once. I started memorizing Bible verses long before I could read. I have read the Bible and treatises on the Bible and the life and times of Jesus ever since I learned to read. I really wanted to believe, but The more I knew about the Bible and the life of Christ, the less sense it made. At the very best, Jesus was seriously mistaken. At the worst, Christianity is a hoax perpetrated by the Emperor of Rome.

Why don't you give a personal response to the issues I raised rather than telling me to read books you like? I have read numerous books pro and con. The pro Jesus books require unjustifiable logical stretches so I don't read them any more.

Animal Mother
07-05-2012, 19:51
Lack of evidence????? You've been spoon fed plenty of evidence here. The evidence is overwhelming. The Bible isn't evidence.
I think instead of you asking all the questions, the burden of proof should lie in your court. How does one go about proving something didn't happen, other than the complete lack of evidence? Take the Flood for example. There's no evidence it happened, copious evidence it did not, yet some Christians still insist it was a literal event. What further response is possible?
At the risk of going further off topic I'll give one more piece of evidence for God. Our Planet. The conditions it's met to sustain life. How anyone could come to the conclusion that it was anything but ID is beyond me. A more pertinent question is how does one arrive at ID without first starting with ID as the initial assumption.
The bible has been proven right on a number of issues. the big bang, the universe not being eternal, etc. What else can I say? Your mind is made up.:dunno:
You're saying that the Bible references the Big Bang? Does it also validate a 13.7 Billion year old universe?

Revvv
07-05-2012, 19:53
God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The God of the Old Testament is the God of the New. Both parts of the Bible are inspired scripture.

Vic Hays
07-05-2012, 20:00
Seems like a stretch for me.

I gave you all the history and explanations. There is no satisfying you.

Schabesbert
07-06-2012, 07:28
Saul, as portrayed in the Bible, was hostile to Christianity, but it was a post conversion Paul who wrote the epistles found in the New Testament. A redemption story is always a great plot line and, once again, the Bible isn't an objective history.
You're standard of evidence is contradictory. You want a hostile witness who has come to be convinced by the evidence, and remains a hostile witness? You're asking for a dishonest, self-deluded, and/or insane witness. Sorry, we don't have those.

Animal Mother
07-06-2012, 07:33
You're standard of evidence is contradictory. You want a hostile witness who has come to be convinced by the evidence, and remains a hostile witness? You're asking for a dishonest, self-deluded, and/or insane witness. Sorry, we don't have those.
No, I don't want any such thing. I want an objective verification of the supposed fulfilling of prophecy by Jesus. A Jewish account deriding him for claiming to be the Messiah because he happened to be from Bethlehem would be one example. Evidence for the absurdly complicated census that sent Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem in the first place would be another. Testimony from one of the supposed Magi wouldn't hurt. Nor would an independent account of all those infants being slaughtered by Herod.

muscogee
07-06-2012, 07:41
I gave you all the history and explanations. There is no satisfying you.

You want me to believe that God talks in riddles and it requires a seer such as yourself to interpret what God means. How does that make you different from the medieval Church?

Schabesbert
07-06-2012, 08:58
No, I don't want any such thing.
Then why did you say you DID want this?

The New Testament isn't an objective record, it was all written by people who already believed the Jesus was the Messiah.
That's patently untrue. Saul (St. Paul) was certainly quite hostile to Christianity.

Saul, as portrayed in the Bible, was hostile to Christianity, but it was a post conversion Paul who wrote the epistles found in the New Testament. A redemption story is always a great plot line and, once again, the Bible isn't an objective history.
You're standard of evidence is contradictory. You want a hostile witness who has come to be convinced by the evidence, and remains a hostile witness? You're asking for a dishonest, self-deluded, and/or insane witness. Sorry, we don't have those.
... to which you made the above reply.

I want an objective verification of the supposed fulfilling of prophecy by Jesus.
... by someone who did not subsequently believe this to be the case?

A Jewish account deriding him for claiming to be the Messiah because he happened to be from Bethlehem would be one example.
If such an account did exist, it would not be highly prized by either Christians or their opposition. What makes you imagine that such an account would have been likely to survive over 2,000 years?

Evidence for the absurdly complicated census that sent Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem in the first place would be another.
:rofl:
It's funny how opponents to Christianity have claimed that historical events recorded in scripture didn't happen until they were proved wrong. Over and over.

Nor would an independent account of all those infants being slaughtered by Herod.
You doubt that such a thing could have happened?
Would it convince you at all if such evidence could be produced?

Animal Mother
07-06-2012, 09:16
Then why did you say you DID want this? Where exactly did I ask for a "dishonest, self-deluded, and/or insane witness. "? Could you quote the post?
... to which you made the above reply. A reply I stand by. When Paul wrote his epistles, was he a believer?
... by someone who did not subsequently believe this to be the case? That would certainly eliminate one of the reasons to change the facts.
If such an account did exist, it would not be highly prized by either Christians or their opposition. What makes you imagine that such an account would have been likely to survive over 2,000 years? I didn't say it was likely, I said it was one example of evidence which would be more compelling than the Bible.
:rofl:
It's funny how opponents to Christianity have claimed that historical events recorded in scripture didn't happen until they were proved wrong. Over and over. Do you have evidence such a census took place then or are you advocating that we should accept religious claims in the absence of evidence if the possibility exists that someday evidence will be found?
You doubt that such a thing could have happened? That is could happen? No, I don't doubt that at all. That it did happen in this instance? I don't know, there's no evidence.
Would it convince you at all if such evidence could be produced?Produce the evidence and I'll be able to answer that question.

Woofie
07-06-2012, 10:22
The Lord gives and takes away. Do you have a right to destroy something you created or own?

Like unborn children?

Droid noob
07-06-2012, 11:07
Like unborn children?

Absolutely not. Being of the belief God is the author of all things, only He can take mankind's life.

Look. He wiped out most of mankind once. He wiped out Jericho(including women and children, whoever didn't flee when they had the chance), and wiped out most of the amalekites. All for good reason. If it makes your stomach turn. Good. There is evil in the world and it can't go unpunished. There is evil because we have a choice... Free Will. You can't have free will and no evil with it. It's our fallen nature to sin.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

Animal Mother
07-06-2012, 11:09
Absolutely not. Being of the belief God is the author of all things, only He can take mankind's life.

Look. He wiped out most of mankind once. He wiped out Jericho(including women and children, whoever didn't flee when they had the chance), and wiped out most of the amalekites. All for good reason. If it makes your stomach turn. Good. There is evil in the world and it can't go unpunished. There is evil because we have a choice... Free Will. You can't have free will and no evil with it. It's our fallen nature to sin.
In those last two instances, God didn't do the killing. Men did under God's orders.

If God ordered you to kill a child, would you obey?

Droid noob
07-06-2012, 11:27
In those last two instances, God didn't do the killing. Men did under God's orders.

If God ordered you to kill a child, would you obey?

Like Abraham did with Isaac?

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

Schabesbert
07-06-2012, 11:31
Where exactly did I ask for a "dishonest, self-deluded, and/or insane witness. "? Could you quote the post?
I did quote the post. No, you did not use those words, but the meaning of your request was obvious. I used a technique called "logic" to trace those conclusions.

A reply I stand by. When Paul wrote his epistles, was he a believer?
Yes, he was. He came to be a believer from his previously held, vehemently anti-Christian beliefs. Because of this, you discount his testimony. Hence, my conclusion that you want someone who does not believe in Jesus, and yet knows of His miracles; an illogical request.

That would certainly eliminate one of the reasons to change the facts.
Your position is totally illogical.

I didn't say it was likely, I said it was one example of evidence which would be more compelling than the Bible.
It's far less than likely; in fact, nearly unheard of. But that's the standard you require. :dunno:

Do you have evidence such a census took place then or are you advocating that we should accept religious claims in the absence of evidence if the possibility exists that someday evidence will be found?
Since anti-Christians have been making similar claims about other events recorded in history for which archaeological evidence had subsequently been found, I have evidence that it wouldn't make any difference to your arguments.

But yes, some inconclusive evidence does exist that similar censuses took place.

See Luke & the Census (http://www.conservapedia.com/Luke_and_the_Census) for example.

That is could happen? No, I don't doubt that at all. That it did happen in this instance? I don't know, there's no evidence.
Produce the evidence and I'll be able to answer that question.
Why? How would that affect your belief in the slightest?

Animal Mother
07-06-2012, 11:34
Like Abraham did with Isaac?
I was thinking more like the Amalekites, but I can't help but notice you haven't answered the question.

Animal Mother
07-06-2012, 11:51
I did quote the post. No, you did not use those words, but the meaning of your request was obvious. I used a technique called "logic" to trace those conclusions. Logic tells you that anything independent of the Bible is "dishonest, self-deluded, and/or insane"?
Yes, he was. He came to be a believer from his previously held, vehemently anti-Christian beliefs. Because of this, you discount his testimony. Hence, my conclusion that you want someone who does not believe in Jesus, and yet knows of His miracles; an illogical request. No, I doubt his testimony because it is written by an evangelist, attempting to bring others to his faith in Jesus as the Messiah, not by an objective reporter. You can tell this because I actually wrote exactly that (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19163935&postcount=35), and you've quoted that post.
Your position is totally illogical. No, it isn't, but given your unusual understanding of logic I can see why you'd think that.
It's far less than likely; in fact, nearly unheard of. But that's the standard you require. No, unlikely isn't the standard I require, independent extra-Biblical evidence is what I'm requesting.
Since anti-Christians have been making similar claims about other events recorded in history for which archaeological evidence had subsequently been found, I have evidence that it wouldn't make any difference to your arguments. No, you don't have any such evidence. Especially given that I have neither denied Biblical reports later shown to be true nor declared that no such evidence would ever be found. I'm offering you the opportunity to present such evidence, if it is known to exist. Your failure to do so seems to be a tacit admission that it isn't.
But yes, some inconclusive evidence does exist that similar censuses took place.

See Luke & the Census (http://www.conservapedia.com/Luke_and_the_Census) for example. When you're forced to depend on Conservapedia, you really need to reassess your position. When your argument is that Luke has been translated incorrectly for 1900 years and he was actually referring to a different census for which there is also no evidence, it seems clear that no actual evidence is available for your position.
Why? How would that affect your belief in the slightest?Produce the evidence and I'll also be able to answer that question.

G26S239
07-06-2012, 12:23
Absolutely not. Being of the belief God is the author of all things, only He can take mankind's life.

Look. He wiped out most of mankind once. He wiped out Jericho(including women and children, whoever didn't flee when they had the chance), and wiped out most of the amalekites. All for good reason. If it makes your stomach turn. Good. There is evil in the world and it can't go unpunished. There is evil because we have a choice... Free Will. You can't have free will and no evil with it. It's our fallen nature to sin.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

Genocide is good if your egomaniac despot does it. :upeyes: If Stalin, Hitler or Mengistu behaves the same way you would likely call it bad. Might is right. If it is people's nature to sin and sin is bad than the fault lies with the manufacturer for designing a flawed product.

Schabesbert
07-06-2012, 12:47
Logic tells you that anything independent of the Bible is "dishonest, self-deluded, and/or insane"?
No, but I can see how twisting logic until it nearly screams as you do might benefit your argument, if a person couldn't recognize it for what it is.

No, I doubt his testimony because it is written by an evangelist, attempting to bring others to his faith in Jesus as the Messiah, not by an objective reporter. You can tell this because I actually wrote exactly that (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19163935&postcount=35), and you've quoted that post.
Yes, but your reasoning as to WHY he became an evangelist is faultly and, well, illogical.

No, it isn't, but given your unusual understanding of logic I can see why you'd think that.
Nope; my undersatnding of logic is of the "usual" sort; i.e., the kind that makes sense. I can see how that would confuse you.

No, unlikely isn't the standard I require, independent extra-Biblical evidence is what I'm requesting.
Independent, as defined by you, which means information that would sway a reasonable person, written by a reasonable person who is unswayed by that information. I.e., logically self-contradictory.

No, you don't have any such evidence. Especially given that I have neither denied Biblical reports later shown to be true nor declared that no such evidence would ever be found. I'm offering you the opportunity to present such evidence, if it is known to exist. Your failure to do so seems to be a tacit admission that it isn't.
When you're forced to depend on Conservapedia, you really need to reassess your position.
When you're forced to using ad hominem arguments, rather than discuss the evidence presented independently of the presenter, it shows that your argument is specious.

When your argument is that Luke has been translated incorrectly for 1900 years and he was actually referring to a different census for which there is also no evidence, it seems clear that no actual evidence is available for your position.
Produce the evidence and I'll also be able to answer that question.
Wow, three mistakes in one single sentence.

First, there is a possibility that Luke should be translated differently in that instance, seeing as how the language nuance has a range which could include the presented meaning. This, to someone who understands Biblical studies and studies of ancient languages in general, would come as no surprise; it's quite common.

Second, you attempt to reduce a number of possible solutions to one single one avoids others.

Third, there IS evidence presented for a) similar censuses, b) other reasons for Joseph's return to Bethlehem which don't depend solely on a command to return to your ancestral home. But, I guess we're supposed to believe you when you say "no actual evidence" as if dismissal of evidence is the equivalent.

Animal Mother
07-06-2012, 13:29
No, but I can see how twisting logic until it nearly screams as you do might benefit your argument, if a person couldn't recognize it for what it is. I see. You're going to decide my intent and what I mean rather than letting me do it for myself. I appreciate the offer, but I'll pass. Perhaps you could save us all the trouble and produce the extra-Biblical evidence of Jesus fulfilling the OT prophecies.
Yes, but your reasoning as to WHY he became an evangelist is faultly and, well, illogical. No it isn't, because I haven't presented any such reasoning. I did offer one possible narrative benefit of the enemy turned faithful follower, but I nowhere claimed that was why Paul became an evangelist.
Nope; my undersatnding of logic is of the "usual" sort; i.e., the kind that makes sense. I can see how that would confuse you. Why don't you demonstrate you expertise on the subject and walk step by step through how you get from my asking for independent extra-Biblical evidence to claiming I am "asking for a dishonest, self-deluded, and/or insane witness. " I'm sure it will be quite instructive.
Independent, as defined by you, which means information that would sway a reasonable person, written by a reasonable person who is unswayed by that information. I.e., logically self-contradictory. No, independent defined as outside and not dependent on the Bible. People manage to write about Caesar without becoming his followers or advocates. Similarly, when reading Caesar's own Commentaries on the Gallic War, despite the apparent accuracy of the work we keep in mind that the author was not an objective observer.
When you're forced to using ad hominem arguments, rather than discuss the evidence presented independently of the presenter, it shows that your argument is specious. I did discuss the evidence, or rather the lack of it. The absurdity of depending on Conservapedia in a discussion about objective sources is something completely separate.
Wow, three mistakes in one single sentence.

First, there is a possibility that Luke should be translated differently in that instance, seeing as how the language nuance has a range which could include the presented meaning. This, to someone who understands Biblical studies and studies of ancient languages in general, would come as no surprise; it's quite common. So common in this instance that it didn't come up until the 20th century and the possible usage is repeated nowhere else in Luke or Acts. In regards to this particular usage, so common that it appears in none of the translations produced by any denomination.
Second, you attempt to reduce a number of possible solutions to one single one avoids others. It doesn't avoid them, it recognizes they are even more tenuous and lacking in foundation.
Third, there IS evidence presented for a) similar censuses, b) other reasons for Joseph's return to Bethlehem which don't depend solely on a command to return to your ancestral home. But, I guess we're supposed to believe you when you say "no actual evidence" as if dismissal of evidence is the equivalent.I understand that your reduced to attempting to obfuscate because you have no actual evidence. I say "no actual evidence" because there is no actual evidence of a Roman census being conducted of either the whole world as Luke claims or of Herod's holdings prior to the one done in 6CE. I say "no actual evidence" because there's no actual evidence of a census requiring people to return to their ancestral homes. That particular silliness doesn't even hold up to brief scrutiny. Why would that be of any benefit? If they went to their ancestral homes to be counted, then went back to where they lived, how would they be found to collect taxes from them? The instance cited in your "source" of people being told to return to their homes is in reference to migrant workers who were away from home at the time of the counting, not to some kind of ancestral migration.

Rather than accusing me of error without any justification, wouldn't the simple expedient be to produce such evidence, if it does in fact exist?

Simple question, is there any evidence of a census being performed in Judea prior to the one Josephus mentions being done in 6CE? If there is, what is that evidence?

Droid noob
07-06-2012, 13:43
Genocide is good if your egomaniac despot does it. :upeyes: If Stalin, Hitler or Mengistu behaves the same way you would likely call it bad. Might is right. If it is people's nature to sin and sin is bad than the fault lies with the manufacturer for designing a flawed product.

Your missing my point. The only product that God could create that would insure total peace is a puppet or robot. We were made with the choice to follow God or forget Him. That's the only way free will and love could exist. Free Will opens the door to moral evil.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

G26S239
07-06-2012, 14:17
Your missing my point. The only product that God could create that would insure total peace is a puppet or robot. We were made with the choice to follow God or forget Him. That's the only way free will and love could exist. Free Will opens the door to moral evil.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

I did not miss any point. You approve of genocide as long as only bad people are getting wiped out. I have a feeling that Pol Pot, Stalin and Idi Amin Dada used similar rationalizations to make their own mass killings seem okay.

You aren't that special, the Ton Ton Macoutes, Khmer Rouge, State Research Bureau and NSDAP members all justified their support of similar activities.

Geko45
07-06-2012, 15:05
Going back to the original topic of the thread, the old testament was supposedly the eternal and infallible word of god, until he changed his mind and completely upended the rules in the new testament. Why?

Schabesbert
07-06-2012, 15:14
I see. You're going to decide my intent and what I mean rather than letting me do it for myself. I appreciate the offer, but I'll pass.
Perhaps you'd care to point out where I said that I'd do such a thing?

Perhaps you could save us all the trouble and produce the extra-Biblical evidence of Jesus fulfilling the OT prophecies.
Changing the subject now, are you?

No it isn't, because I haven't presented any such reasoning.
Well, not sound reasoning, I'll give you that.

I did offer one possible narrative benefit of the enemy turned faithful follower, but I nowhere claimed that was why Paul became an evangelist.
Oh, you were just saying that to pass the time?

So it was not on-point, and therefore a non-sequitor?

Why don't you demonstrate you expertise on the subject and walk step by step through how you get from my asking for independent extra-Biblical evidence to claiming I am "asking for a dishonest, self-deluded, and/or insane witness. " I'm sure it will be quite instructive.
You're mistaking the starting point. I already posted the entire sequence.

No, independent defined as outside and not dependent on the Bible.
See, this is the mistake you continually make. The Bible isn't one book; it's a collection of books. If I were to gather up all the hystory books on, say, the the Peloponesian War in the world and put them in one big .pdf file, and then claim that there was no independant historical verification for the Peloponesian War outside of that book, it would be quite similar to the charge you're making.

People manage to write about Caesar without becoming his followers or advocates.
Yes. Do you think you could reason your way into understanding the difference?

Similarly, when reading Caesar's own Commentaries on the Gallic War, despite the apparent accuracy of the work we keep in mind that the author was not an objective observer.
Right. But that has nothing to do with the example at hand, where we have a hostile 3rd party who is suddenly and completely converted and writes about it.

I did discuss the evidence, or rather the lack of it.
The absurdity of depending on Conservapedia in a discussion about objective sources is something completely separate.

I'm glad you're admitting that it's a non-sequitor.

So common in this instance that it didn't come up until the 20th century and the possible usage is repeated nowhere else in Luke or Acts.
I know if you try real hard, you'll be able to distinguish between the general principle (other words' and phrases' meanings have been discovered to have a broader usage and the translations have of necessity been corrected) that I asserted and the particular (this instance, which you are confusing with the general principle). Abstract thinking is usually developed in early primary grades.

I understand that your reduced to attempting to obfuscate because you have no actual evidence. I say "no actual evidence" because there is no actual evidence of a Roman census being conducted of either the whole world as Luke claims or of Herod's holdings prior to the one done in 6CE. I say "no actual evidence" because there's no actual evidence of a census requiring people to return to their ancestral homes.
I see that you insist on making your weak argument look stronger by putting it in bold. Perhaps if you'd read the arguments again (and maybe a few more times) you'd realize that it's not even required that the census required people to return to their ancestral homes. Something which I pointed out in post #93, and numerated as your third error in a single sentence, and which you even quoted above.


That particular silliness doesn't even hold up to brief scrutiny. Why would that be of any benefit? If they went to their ancestral homes to be counted, then went back to where they lived, how would they be found to collect taxes from them?
Ummm, perhaps they'd be required to tell them where they are currently residing?

The instance cited in your "source" of people being told to return to their homes is in reference to migrant workers who were away from home at the time of the counting, not to some kind of ancestral migration.
Would Joseph be considered a "migrant worker" in that sense?

Rather than accusing me of error without any justification,
Oh, no, I wouldn't do that. I have justification, as I have presented. Again, your dismissal of facts or evidence not to your liking doesn't mean they don't exist in the real world.

Simple question, is there any evidence of a census being performed in Judea prior to the one Josephus mentions being done in 6CE? If there is, what is that evidence?
Perhaps, perhaps not. Just as there was no known evidence of King David's existance for a long time, or the existance of Pontius Pilate, or any of a myriad of other people and/or events that were claimed to not have existed until the evidence was found. We do know that other censuses have taken place, and some had stipulation that people return to their homes. So, this is one of those events that are unverified (for now) but plausible.

Schabesbert
07-06-2012, 15:17
Going back to the original topic of the thread, the old testament was supposedly the eternal and infallible word of god, until he changed his mind and completely upended the rules in the new testament. Why?
The short answer is that these rules were meant for a world which needed to be prepared for the messiah.

Like the example I gave before, the rules a parent gives to a 2nd grader are different than those for a 15-yr old. Same parent, same love, same concern, same principles, though.

Vic Hays
07-06-2012, 18:04
Going back to the original topic of the thread, the old testament was supposedly the eternal and infallible word of god, until he changed his mind and completely upended the rules in the new testament. Why?

I would have to agree with Bert here except to add that the New Testament is a return to the original principles which do not change.

Accommodations were made for people that were not ready for the original principles.

A good example is the permanence of marriage.

Matthew 19:8 He said to them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

IhRedrider
07-06-2012, 19:42
That's real Christian of you. The "peace that passes understanding" thing seems to elude you doesn't it? That's alright. Just keep reading the Bible and praying. It will come to you like it did to me and so many of the rest of us.

Why are you discussing something of which you neither understand and is something you profess to be wrong? Go back to your father, the father of all lies. Yes, I am calling you the spawn of satan. That is why I warned Droid noob about you. You have nothing but death to offer. I do find it telling that you knew exactly who I was talking about.

TKM
07-06-2012, 20:41
Lets get this back on track.

Old Testament equals old comic book.

Superman #1 sucked big rocks right out of the ground.

New Testament equals slightly less old comic book.

Batman #1 also Hoovers the planet.:dunno:

Kingarthurhk
07-06-2012, 20:51
You want me to believe that God talks in riddles and it requires a seer such as yourself to interpret what God means. How does that make you different from the medieval Church?

He is no seer. He is merely a scholar of the scriptures, and when studied with a mind open to the Holy Spirit, knowledge is imparted.

As to your other question, I did a little research and came along something that may provide a plausible answer to your other question:

http://www.historian.net/NTHX.html

Animal Mother
07-06-2012, 23:24
Perhaps you'd care to point out where I said that I'd do such a thing? Happily:No, you did not use those words, but the meaning of your request was obvious. I used a technique called "logic" to trace those conclusions. You're welcome.
Changing the subject now, are you? Nope, still the same subject since my first post on this thread, despite your best efforts.
Well, not sound reasoning, I'll give you that. Hopefully, you'll understand that I decline to defend a position I've never advocated, your judgements aside.
Oh, you were just saying that to pass the time? No, I was pointing out a potential explanation. You know, like a census which could have happened even though there's no evidence it ever did.
So it was not on-point, and therefore a non-sequitor? Granted, you are clearly quite familiar with non-sequitors, but it wasn't that either. I was merely pointing out that the "enemy turned ally" is a repeated theme throughout mythology. I've explained this multiple times now.
You're mistaking the starting point. I already posted the entire sequence. Then please, correct my error and explain your "logic".
See, this is the mistake you continually make. The Bible isn't one book; it's a collection of books. If I were to gather up all the hystory books on, say, the the Peloponesian War in the world and put them in one big .pdf file, and then claim that there was no independant historical verification for the Peloponesian War outside of that book, it would be quite similar to the charge you're making. No, it wouldn't, because I'm not asking for other books necessarily, I'm asking for independent evidence. Taking your example, if you did gather all the books into one collection, there would still be archeological data and all manner of government records which might reasonably be expected to provide further insight. More importantly in this case, the Bible doesn't represent all available information about this time in history. There are numerous other documents available, it just seems that none of them mention Jesus fulfilling any of the supposed OT prophecies.
Yes. Do you think you could reason your way into understanding the difference? When you start flinging insults, it becomes clear how weak your position truly is.
Right. But that has nothing to do with the example at hand, where we have a hostile 3rd party who is suddenly and completely converted and writes about it. Paul is a tangential question, and again we don't have any objective evidence or testimony to his conversion.
I'm glad you're admitting that it's a non-sequitor. You have an odd understanding of words. "Completely separate" is not a synonym for "non-sequitor". Let me explain. Conservapedia doesn't even pretend to be an objective source, yet it is the only citation you've seen fit to reference in a discussion of objective evidence for Christ fulfilling the OT prophecies. That's the absurdity to which I was making reference.
I know if you try real hard, you'll be able to distinguish between the general principle (other words' and phrases' meanings have been discovered to have a broader usage and the translations have of necessity been corrected) that I asserted and the particular (this instance, which you are confusing with the general principle). Abstract thinking is usually developed in early primary grades. And again you resort to insults. Your position must be very weak indeed. Perhaps you could take a moment and actually explain how this "solution" escaped the notice of two millenia of theologians or why Luke would mention a census done neither at the time of Christ's birth nor at the time Luke was writing. Was he just trying to add random local flavor?
I see that you insist on making your weak argument look stronger by putting it in bold. Perhaps if you'd read the arguments again (and maybe a few more times) you'd realize that it's not even required that the census required people to return to their ancestral homes. Something which I pointed out in post #93, and numerated as your third error in a single sentence, and which you even quoted above. I put it in bold so you wouldn't miss it. Apparently you didn't miss the words, but you did miss the meaning. There's no evidence of any census at the time of Christ's birth. You can completely destroy my position in this regard with one simple act: produce evidence that such a census took place.
Ummm, perhaps they'd be required to tell them where they are currently residing? That wouldn't even make sense today, much less at a time when a 40 mile trip was a ten day journey. Do you have any evidence of this having happened?
Would Joseph be considered a "migrant worker" in that sense? I don't know. Why don't you share your evidence in support of that position and we'll discuss it.
Oh, no, I wouldn't do that. I have justification, as I have presented. Again, your dismissal of facts or evidence not to your liking doesn't mean they don't exist in the real world. I can't dismiss facts or evidence that aren't presented. At best, if I'm being kind, you've offered unsupported speculation. I've done the same with regard to Paul's supposed change of character, but I'm honest enough to admit it's speculation. I don't claim it's either a fact or evidence.
Perhaps, perhaps not. There is no "perhaps, perhaps not", either you have the evidence or you don't. This attempt at waffling is nothing more than a thinly veiled admission you don't have any evidence.
Just as there was no known evidence of King David's existance for a long time, or the existance of Pontius Pilate, or any of a myriad of other people and/or events that were claimed to not have existed until the evidence was found. But I wasn't asking about evidence that might come out in the future, was I? I asked, "is there any evidence of a census being performed in Judea prior to the one Josephus mentions being done in 6CE? If there is, what is that evidence?" I would explain to you the difference between present and future tenses, but I'm able to rest on the evidence (or lack thereof) without having to resort to insults.
We do know that other censuses have taken place, and some had stipulation that people return to their homes. Yes, to their homes, not the homes of their ancestors. But don't let facts start getting in your way now.
So, this is one of those events that are unverified (for now) but plausible. It's also plausible that having decided Jesus must be the Messiah, his followers also decided He must have been born in Bethlehem and then invented a justification to place him there. This is one of those events that are unverified (for now) but plausible.

muscogee
07-07-2012, 07:23
Why are you discussing something of which you neither understand and is something you profess to be wrong?
I understand it better than you do.

Go back to your father, the father of all lies. Yes, I am calling you the spawn of satan. That would be an apt description of my father. He was a deacon in the local Southern Baptists Church. My mother wasn't any better. They publicly abused and humiliated me until I was 18. My father tried to body slam me and humiliate in front of my aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents. I had know for some time that he was not physically able to do that unless I let him. Since it was God's will, I had continued to let him do whatever he wanted to me, but not this time. When we hit the ground, he was on the bottom. I told him if he ever hit me again he wouldn't get back up. The physical abuse stopped but the insults and humiliation never did.

It was Gods will that they beat the skin off of me and humiliate me in front of family and friends. Of courses they did it because they loved me. They did it because they loved God. It was God's will. God wanted them to publicly abuse, humiliate, and intimidate me. He still does. The people in the church watched this for years and if they ever said anything it was the same thing my parents said. I finally told them all that if the way I was raised was heaven, I wanted nothing to do about it. I tried to forgive them for over 20 years, but they never stopped. They continued to insult and humiliate me in front of my wife and children until I moved away. My mother is 83 and this still goes on. I have seen her once in the last 5 years and the sermons and insults started as soon as I got there and continued until I left.

My children saw what happened and none of them go to Church. None of my children go to Church. When they get around my mother she starts the same sanctimonious condescending crap with them. Fortunately for them, they can get up and leave.

You don't have a right to comment on that because you weren't there, but I'm sure you will anyway. Uneducated cheap shot artists are all the same. I feel the same way about the chronically sanctimonious that recovering alcoholics do about drunks. Don't tell me you have it all figured out. Been there, done that, still got the scars. But like the drunk, you won't listen because you're always drunk on you religion. You're right and everyone else is wrong. The Bible says so.

That is why I warned Droid noob about you. You have nothing but death to offer. I do find it telling that you knew exactly who I was talking about.

Droid has nothing to fear from me unless he tries to jerk me down in the ditch and stomp on me. I grew up in that environment and I'm good at taking down people who do that. You still have the scars from the last time you tried it. You want people to gang up and take me down so you can get revenge that you can never get by yourself. That's a common tactic among your type. Do you wonder why people turn away from your church? People like you drive them away. I'm here to help people who have gone through the same thing, and may still be going though it. It's OK to be angry at your church and your religion because they really exists. It's not OK to be angry at God because that's a figment of your imagination. It's not mentally healthy to be angry at your imagination. Don't listen to the IhRedriders of the world. they will drag you down into their ditch and destroy you.

WS6
07-07-2012, 09:56
Going back to the original topic of the thread, the old testament was supposedly the eternal and infallible word of god,

Why do you suppose this?

until he changed his mind and completely upended the rules in the new testament. [ ... ]

How so?

Woofie
07-07-2012, 12:10
Absolutely not. Being of the belief God is the author of all things, only He can take mankind's life.



Then why did you say

The Lord gives and takes away. Do you have a right to destroy something you created or own?

?

IhRedrider
07-07-2012, 15:26
I understand it better than you do.

You have no basis for making such an outlandish claim.

Since it was God's will, I had continued to let him do whatever he wanted to me,

Yet again, you are either lying or showing your ignorance.

"4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger by the way you treat them. Rather, bring them up with the discipline and instruction that comes from the Lord."

If you think that your father represents God in the actions that you claim he did, you are wrong.

It was Gods will that they beat the skin off of me and humiliate me in front of family and friends.

You claim that there is no God yet you claim that what "his will is". A claim that completely contradicts scripture.

Of courses they did it because they loved me. They did it because they loved God. It was God's will. God wanted them to publicly abuse, humiliate, and intimidate me. He still does.

More baseless tripe from someone who sounds like they have a victim complex. What you claim to be God's will is not scriptural and based upon what, if you claim is true, the views of abusive people. Don't heap the sins of man upon God. If what you claim is true, that you suffered relentlessly as a child, I am truly sorry that you suffered abuse. However, I guess you to be at least 40 years old, so grow up and deal with it. Nobody is exempt from suffering abuse at the hands of others. You are supposed to be a man, act like one.

They continued to insult and humiliate me in front of my wife and children until I moved away.

They con only insult and humiliate you as long as YOU let them.

You don't have a right to comment on that because you weren't there

Yes I do have the right to comment on it, YOU brought it up as a defense for you actions, not me. If you don't wish it to be commented upon, DON'T bring it up.

Don't tell me you have it all figured out.

Never have claimed to "have it all figured out". Don't make claims that you know are patently false.


Droid has nothing to fear from me unless he tries to jerk me down in the ditch and stomp on me. I grew up in that environment and I'm good at taking down people who do that. You still have the scars from the last time you tried it.

You are apparently completely incapable of dealing with people that "jerk you down in the ditch" based upon your own testimonial about your family. You sound much more like a cowardly bully to me. And by the way, I have no scars from you, you do not have the capacity to scar me.


You want people to gang up and take me down so you can get revenge that you can never get by yourself. That's a common tactic among your type.

Yet again you fail. I don't wish for anyone to "gang up" on you. I also seek no revenge, you have done nothing to me. You would like to think you know "my type", but you know very little about me.

Do you wonder why people turn away from your church? People like you drive them away. I'm here to help people who have gone through the same thing, and may still be going though it. It's OK to be angry at your church and your religion because they really exists. It's not OK to be angry at God because that's a figment of your imagination. It's not mentally healthy to be angry at your imagination.


There is so much fail in this bit of lies, it's hard to know where to start.

You are not here to "help people", you stand against God, not for anybody.
I'm not angry at "my church"
God is not "my imagination" and I'm not angry at God.

Don't listen to the IhRedriders of the world. they will drag you down into their ditch and destroy you.

More of your fathers lies. I am not in the ditch, nor do I want anyone there.


Now, lets assume that you are correct and God is a joint figment of everyone's imagination. Why would you wish to stop another individual from pursuing that which makes them happy? I think that you have more issues that those that you have already admitted to.

As a final note: if you don't like being called out for what you are, you probable should avoid the discussions among people who have a completely different belief system than you.

Remember this was a thread for Christians, about the Old Testament. Not a lot that a self professed hater of God, like you, can bring to the table.

High-Gear
07-07-2012, 20:54
A vested interest? Ppl were dying for Him from the moment Jesus was resurrected. One of the most compelling defenses of the Christian faith is the fact that the eyewitnesses were so sure they had seen the resurrected Jesus. They were used as candle lighting for Nero's parties. Fed to beasts in the Arenas, etc. There was no worldly gain for the early christians.


Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

People have died and killed for all sorts of religious beliefs, I don't think you find their sacrifice compelling. You dont believe in their gods, so how does dying for Christ make a logical argument?

High-Gear
07-07-2012, 21:02
Also God won't torture you. Satan will. Hell is separation from God.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

Why would Satan Torture me? According to you I'd be one of his buddies! He'd probably pour me a cold one and tell me where the hookers are!

High-Gear
07-07-2012, 21:06
He is omniscient, but man also has free will. You can't have free will without having evil follow suit.

I thought god had a plan for everyone, and knew the future and past, and could change the present and future if you prays hard enough? Where does free will come in? If he knows the future and everything works by his plan, or if he can change things because you want it bad enough, there is no free will!

High-Gear
07-07-2012, 22:04
Yet again, you are either lying or showing your ignorance.

"4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger by the way you treat them. Rather, bring them up with the discipline and instruction that comes from the Lord."


Again a Cherry Pickers Delight! = FAIL!

Deuteronomy 21:18-21
New International Version (NIV)
The bible plainly says you should pubicqlly humilliate and KILL a rebellious son.

18*If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19*his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20*They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21*Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

Brasso
07-08-2012, 10:41
All of you Christians paying lip service to the "Old Testament" are a hoot. You go on and on about the "New Testament" over riding the "Old", blah, blah, blah. But you just won't accept that He is the Word. The whole Word. But you don't believe that. It's just lip service. You don't believe it. If you did you wouldn't contradict it. The worst part is that you could understand it, but you refuse to.

Mar 7:9 And He said to them, “Well do you set aside the command of Elohim, in order to guard your tradition.

Mat 5:18 “For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done.

Droid noob
07-10-2012, 18:14
Then why did you say



?


Sorry, been away for a bit.

When I referred to man "creating things", I wasn't talking about life. Just material things. We aren't the author of life. I should've clarified. I understand we may not agree on God being the author of life. That's just fine.

Droid noob
07-10-2012, 18:17
People have died and killed for all sorts of religious beliefs, I don't think you find their sacrifice compelling. You dont believe in their gods, so how does dying for Christ make a logical argument?

I thought i covered my view on this earlier. There's a difference between dying for something you "believe" in and dying for something you "know" to be false. Know what i mean?

Droid noob
07-10-2012, 18:20
Why would Satan Torture me? According to you I'd be one of his buddies! He'd probably pour me a cold one and tell me where the hookers are!

That may be true also.

Droid noob
07-10-2012, 18:27
I thought god had a plan for everyone, and knew the future and past, and could change the present and future if you prays hard enough? Where does free will come in? If he knows the future and everything works by his plan, or if he can change things because you want it bad enough, there is no free will!


Free will comes in the decisions you make. Omniscience includes foreknowledge. If someone chooses not to follow Christ, He probably saw that coming. If He were to force you, you'd be a robot at His beck and call.

No need for the "s" on the word "pray" in your sentence. Unless, you were just demeaning........wait nevermind.

Droid noob
07-10-2012, 18:37
I understand it better than you do.

That would be an apt description of my father. He was a deacon in the local Southern Baptists Church. My mother wasn't any better. They publicly abused and humiliated me until I was 18. My father tried to body slam me and humiliate in front of my aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents. I had know for some time that he was not physically able to do that unless I let him. Since it was God's will, I had continued to let him do whatever he wanted to me, but not this time. When we hit the ground, he was on the bottom. I told him if he ever hit me again he wouldn't get back up. The physical abuse stopped but the insults and humiliation never did.

It was Gods will that they beat the skin off of me and humiliate me in front of family and friends. Of courses they did it because they loved me. They did it because they loved God. It was God's will. God wanted them to publicly abuse, humiliate, and intimidate me. He still does. The people in the church watched this for years and if they ever said anything it was the same thing my parents said. I finally told them all that if the way I was raised was heaven, I wanted nothing to do about it. I tried to forgive them for over 20 years, but they never stopped. They continued to insult and humiliate me in front of my wife and children until I moved away. My mother is 83 and this still goes on. I have seen her once in the last 5 years and the sermons and insults started as soon as I got there and continued until I left.

My children saw what happened and none of them go to Church. None of my children go to Church. When they get around my mother she starts the same sanctimonious condescending crap with them. Fortunately for them, they can get up and leave.

You don't have a right to comment on that because you weren't there, but I'm sure you will anyway. Uneducated cheap shot artists are all the same. I feel the same way about the chronically sanctimonious that recovering alcoholics do about drunks. Don't tell me you have it all figured out. Been there, done that, still got the scars. But like the drunk, you won't listen because you're always drunk on you religion. You're right and everyone else is wrong. The Bible says so.



Droid has nothing to fear from me unless he tries to jerk me down in the ditch and stomp on me. I grew up in that environment and I'm good at taking down people who do that. You still have the scars from the last time you tried it. You want people to gang up and take me down so you can get revenge that you can never get by yourself. That's a common tactic among your type. Do you wonder why people turn away from your church? People like you drive them away. I'm here to help people who have gone through the same thing, and may still be going though it. It's OK to be angry at your church and your religion because they really exists. It's not OK to be angry at God because that's a figment of your imagination. It's not mentally healthy to be angry at your imagination. Don't listen to the IhRedriders of the world. they will drag you down into their ditch and destroy you.

That's a real crappy way to come up. Sincerely sorry to hear that.

Your post paints a picture of your father representing the Christian God.

High-Gear
07-10-2012, 19:04
Free will comes in the decisions you make. Omniscience includes foreknowledge. If someone chooses not to follow Christ, He probably saw that coming. If He were to force you, you'd be a robot at His beck and call.

No need for the "s" on the word "pray" in your sentence. Unless, you were just demeaning........wait nevermind.

The s was not intentional, auto spell check. No insult intended.

High-Gear
07-10-2012, 19:13
I thought i covered my view on this earlier. There's a difference between dying for something you "believe" in and dying for something you "know" to be false. Know what i mean?

I dont get it. You said one of the most convincing arguments for the truth of the church was the early christians were so sure of their faith they were killed by Nero.

I said many people have died for their faith. Apparently you feel their faith was not sufficient, otherwise you would be equally moved to the truthfullness of their religion.

High-Gear
07-10-2012, 19:17
Free will comes in the decisions you make. Omniscience includes foreknowledge. If someone chooses not to follow Christ, He probably saw that coming. If He were to force you, you'd be a robot at His beck and call.

No need for the "s" on the word "pray" in your sentence. Unless, you were just demeaning........wait nevermind.

Ok, then how can he have a plan for you, or answer prayers? Wouldnt that fly in the face of free will?

Droid noob
07-10-2012, 19:28
I dont get it. You said one of the most convincing arguments for the truth of the church was the early christians were so sure of their faith they were killed by Nero.

I said many people have died for their faith. Apparently you feel their faith was not sufficient, otherwise you would be equally moved to the truthfullness of their religion.

I was referring to the apostles and others that were with Jesus. Not those who were told the gospel. The people who witnessed his brief return. They would be the ones inventing the story and KNOW whether it was true or not.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

Droid noob
07-10-2012, 19:38
Ok, then how can he have a plan for you, or answer prayers? Wouldnt that fly in the face of free will?

I think God NOT answering prayers would fly in the face of free will. He would simply not respond and let His "plan" go on unimpeded.

I see our free will and God's sovereignty getting along. Where it ends and God doesn't budge is beyond my finite mind.

I don't pretend to have all the answers and that's where faith comes in. I'm comfortable with that. We operate on "faith" in so many other aspects of life.


Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

Droid noob
07-10-2012, 19:41
The s was not intentional, auto spell check. No insult intended.

Cool. Thought it was the usual "dumb Christian" theme. Lol

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

Animal Mother
07-11-2012, 16:07
Free will comes in the decisions you make. Omniscience includes foreknowledge. If someone chooses not to follow Christ, He probably saw that coming. If He were to force you, you'd be a robot at His beck and call.
Isn't it possible to provide convincing evidence without resorting to force?

Vic Hays
07-11-2012, 17:11
Isn't it possible to provide convincing evidence without resorting to force?

Overwhelming evidence is force.

The principles of God are Truth, justice, mercy, faith, and individual liberty. For those who chose not to believe there will be philosophy and deception provided so that they will not be forced to believe.

2 Thessalonians 2:10 And with all delusion of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
2:13 But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brothers beloved of the Lord, because God has from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Droid noob
07-11-2012, 17:30
Isn't it possible to provide convincing evidence without resorting to force?

I think there is convincing evidence. The intricate balance of our universe is evidence for a designer Imo.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

Animal Mother
07-11-2012, 17:39
I think there is convincing evidence. The intricate balance of our universe is evidence for a designer Imo. The Anthropic principle? No, sorry, that isn't convincing in the least. We just happen to be the kind of beings that could exist in a universe like the one that we happen to inhabit on the planet we populate.

Animal Mother
07-11-2012, 17:40
Overwhelming evidence is force.
That's absurd. There's overwhelming evidence for both the Standard Model and the modern evolutionary synthesis. Does that mean you're forced to accept either one of them?

Droid noob
07-12-2012, 07:29
The Anthropic principle? No, sorry, that isn't convincing in the least. We just happen to be the kind of beings that could exist in a universe like the one that we happen to inhabit on the planet we populate.


Now that takes some serious faith to believe.


Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

High-Gear
07-12-2012, 11:20
Now that takes some serious faith to believe.


Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

Not at all. The universe is what it is. We evolved as a peg to fit into the hole the universe provided. You see it as the rest of the universe was created around us. Which takes more faith?

Droid noob
07-12-2012, 11:55
Not at all. The universe is what it is. We evolved as a peg to fit into the hole the universe provided. You see it as the rest of the universe was created around us. Which takes more faith?

The universe is what it is, makes it sound so matter of factish.

I don't see it that way at all. I just don't see how the delicate balance our universe has can happen by luck and chance. It just screams designer Imo.

Going back to the universe beginning. How does something come from nothing? We know the universe isn't eternal and did in fact have a big bang. Jews and christians have said this from the beginning. The question is, don't you need something to have a bang? Gas or some energy to start Hawkins vacuum.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

Animal Mother
07-12-2012, 12:04
The universe is what it is, makes it sound so matter of factish. It is matter of fact.
I don't see it that way at all. I just don't see how the delicate balance our universe has can happen by luck and chance. It just screams designer Imo. An argument from your personal incredulity is not compelling. What evidence can you offer?
Going back to the universe beginning. How does something come from nothing? Who, other than creationists, claim this is what happened?
We know the universe isn't eternal and did in fact have a big bang. Jews and christians have said this from the beginning. No they haven't. Many of them don't even say it now.
The question is, don't you need something to have a bang? Gas or some energy to start Hawkins vacuum. Assuming you're talking about a Hartle-Hawking state, no you don't need gas or energy because it's a description of a time before 0, when time wasn't a dimension.

Droid noob
07-12-2012, 13:54
It is matter of fact.

Better choice of words would have been, "nonchalant". I understand it's fact.

An argument from your personal incredulity is not compelling. What evidence can you offer?.

off the top of my head.....The moons affect on the ocean and it's ability to stabilize earth's axis.

Jupiter's gravitational pull greatly helps prevent asteroid collions.

The suns exact distance from earth. Any closer or farther and we wouldn't be here.

There's others i can't think of.


Who, other than creationists, claim this is what happened?
No they haven't. Many of them don't even say it now.

So your telling me scientists believe something came from nothing?

Are you saying Jews and Christians don't believe the first sentence in the bible? Maybe i misunderstood where your cmoing from here.


Assuming you're talking about a Hartle-Hawking state, no you don't need gas or energy because it's a description of a time before 0, when time wasn't a dimension.

Once nothing ceased to exist, time started. God is out of time, being mind. Mind is immaterial.

Cavalry Doc
07-12-2012, 13:57
Evolution is real, therefore there is no god.
The big bang happened, therefore there is no god.
Something can come from nothing, therefore there is no god.
I see no evidence of god, therefore there is no god.

All the above are arguments from ignorance.

I can not imagine that all that is, occurred without help.

That is an argument from incredulity.




Incredulity v. Ignorance. Guess it's debatable which is intelectually superior.

Sarge1400
07-12-2012, 14:54
Evolution is real, therefore there is no god.
The big bang happened, therefore there is no god.
Something can come from nothing, therefore there is no god.
I see no evidence of god, therefore there is no god.

All the above are arguments from ignorance.

True, but can you give an example of anyone here using those arguments?

I can not imagine that all that is, occurred without help.

That is an argument from incredulity.

Again, true. And an example has already been provided by Droid noob.




Incredulity v. Ignorance. Guess it's debatable which is intelectually superior.

What's to debate? No atheists here seem to be using your examples of argument from ignorance. Need to change your handle to Captain Strawman.

Droid noob
07-12-2012, 15:03
True, but can you give an example of anyone here using those arguments?



Again, true. And an example has already been provided by Droid noob.






What's to debate? No atheists here seem to be using your examples of argument from ignorance. Need to change your handle to Captain Strawman.

Noone will take you serious if u just jump in to insult people.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

High-Gear
07-12-2012, 15:31
Evolution is real, therefore there is no god.
The big bang happened, therefore there is no god.
Something can come from nothing, therefore there is no god.
I see no evidence of god, therefore there is no god.



I have not seen those arguments here. Please cite where you have seen them.

I live my life as no god exists, as it is inconsequential if god exists. The universe works perfectly well without god in the equation. Which ever flavor of god one chooses to believe in

Cavalry Doc
07-12-2012, 16:47
True, but can you give an example of anyone here using those arguments?



Again, true. And an example has already been provided by Droid noob.






What's to debate? No atheists here seem to be using your examples of argument from ignorance. Need to change your handle to Captain Strawman.


So, the arguments have been raised, but you want me to search for them. I'll be content for you to search for them. They are there if you look even just a little. I'd hate for you to be labeled as lazy.

Sarge1400
07-12-2012, 17:02
Noone will take you serious if u just jump in to insult people.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

If YOU want to be taken seriously, you need an argument more compelling than saying you don't understand it, so god must have done it.

Sarge1400
07-12-2012, 17:04
So, the arguments have been raised, but you want me to search for them. I'll be content for you to search for them. They are there if you look even just a little. I'd hate for you to be labeled as lazy.

Negative, Captain Strawman. YOU created the argument as if someone has used it, now show us where.

Cavalry Doc
07-12-2012, 17:07
Negative, Captain Strawman. YOU created the argument as if someone has used it, now show us where.

So unwilling to see...sarge?

Were you actually in 3 corps?


Anyhow:


http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1430783

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1431141

Post 12 & 15 to start

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1429693&page=3

Post 84 & 85

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1422022

Post 16


There are plenty more if you are willing to see it for what it is...

Cavalry Doc
07-12-2012, 17:13
If YOU want to be taken seriously, you need an argument more compelling than saying you don't understand it, so god must have done it.

He did pretty well.

Sarge1400
07-12-2012, 18:30
So unwilling to see...sarge?

Were you actually in 3 corps?


Anyhow:


http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1430783

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1431141

Post 12 & 15 to start

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1429693&page=3

Post 84 & 85

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1422022

Post 16


There are plenty more if you are willing to see it for what it is...

All I see in the posts you referenced are people saying they see no evidence of deities. That's what atheism is.
I do not see where anyone is using the arguments you presented in post 135 of this thread, Captain Strawman.

Sarge1400
07-12-2012, 18:30
He did pretty well.

I'm not surprised you think so.

Droid noob
07-12-2012, 18:49
Aaaannnd this thread has lost its fun. If i want to read insults and name calling, i'll just turn on the tv.

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk 2

Cavalry Doc
07-12-2012, 18:55
All I see in the posts you referenced are people saying they see no evidence of deities. That's what atheism is.
I do not see where anyone is using the arguments you presented in post 135 of this thread, Captain Strawman.

I see no evidence of god, therefore there is no god.


Nice blinders you have there.

http://www.triplepundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/wearingblinders.jpg


If you can't see it, the rest of us can.

High-Gear
07-12-2012, 19:04
Aaaannnd this thread has lost its fun. If i want to read insults and name calling, i'll just turn on the tv.

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk 2

Where do you see name calling and insults?

I get it, when someone disagrees with you, or you can not answer an argument, a valid move is to play the victim card and withdraw.

High-Gear
07-12-2012, 19:05
Nice blinders you have there.

http://www.triplepundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/wearingblinders.jpg


If you can't see it, the rest of us can.

I didnt see it either. The closest thing I saw was a post suggesting that without evidence one can regard the probability of god no greater than the tooth fairy. Which is a true statement.

Cavalry Doc
07-12-2012, 19:06
Where do you see name calling and insults?

Negative, Captain Strawman. YOU created the argument as if someone has used it, now show us where.


:whistling:

Cavalry Doc
07-12-2012, 19:07
Where do you see name calling and insults?

I get it, when someone disagrees with you, or you can not answer an argument, a valid move is to play the victim card and withdraw.

Follow the links, then come back....:supergrin:

dotsun
07-12-2012, 19:09
If you can't see it, the rest of us can.

I don't see it either. :dunno:

Sarge1400
07-12-2012, 19:15
Aaaannnd this thread has lost its fun. If i want to read insults and name calling, i'll just turn on the tv.

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk 2

See ya, noob. :wavey: Don't forget your ball.

High-Gear
07-12-2012, 19:18
Follow the links, then come back....:supergrin:

You make me laugh. Captain :wavey:
(reference the strawman title, not military service)

Sarge1400
07-12-2012, 19:19
:whistling:

Am I guilty of name-calling? Yes.
Insults? Other than name-calling, no.

Though I might point out, CS is pretty handy at hurling insults. He just believes that if it's done in a way he thinks is quite eloquent, it doesn't count.

Cavalry Doc
07-12-2012, 19:42
Am I guilty of name-calling? Yes.
Insults? Other than name-calling, no.

Though I might point out, CS is pretty handy at hurling insults. He just believes that if it's done in a way he thinks is quite eloquent, it doesn't count.

Other than name calling?? That's convenient.


Maybe you could show how each of the links I posted do not answer the questions asked, maybe not.

See ya there.

Sarge1400
07-12-2012, 20:12
Other than name calling?? That's convenient.


Maybe you could show how each of the links I posted do not answer the questions asked, maybe not.

See ya there.

Or maybe you could show us where somebody said:
"Evolution is real, therefore there is no god.
The big bang happened, therefore there is no god.
Something can come from nothing, therefore there is no god.
I see no evidence of god, therefore there is no god" like you're trying to tell us they said.

But I doubt it.

Cavalry Doc
07-12-2012, 21:30
Or maybe you could show us where somebody said:
"Evolution is real, therefore there is no god.
The big bang happened, therefore there is no god.
Something can come from nothing, therefore there is no god.
I see no evidence of god, therefore there is no god" like you're trying to tell us they said.

But I doubt it.

So, guess you don't hang around here much?


Duly noted.

Animal Mother
07-12-2012, 21:40
So, guess you don't hang around here much?


Duly noted.I hang around here all the time and I have the same question. Where has anyone on this forum said those things, other than you I mean? You can just go ahead and link to the post if you'd like.

Cavalry Doc
07-12-2012, 21:43
I hang around here all the time and I have the same question. Where has anyone on this forum said those things, other than you I mean? You can just go ahead and link to the post if you'd like.

So you skipped #142 too?

Sarge1400
07-12-2012, 21:43
So, guess you don't hang around here much?


Duly noted.

So, you CAN'T show us where anybody actually used those ridiculous arguments?

Duly noted.

You're well on your way to becoming completely irrelevant here.

Animal Mother
07-12-2012, 21:51
off the top of my head.....The moons affect on the ocean and it's ability to stabilize earth's axis.

Jupiter's gravitational pull greatly helps prevent asteroid collions.

The suns exact distance from earth. Any closer or farther and we wouldn't be here. Which is why we are here, instead of Venus or Mars. Again, the Earth being fit for the life that developed on it is not evidence of a guiding intelligence, it's just evidence that this happens to be the environment in which the kind of life we observe can evolve.
So your telling me scientists believe something came from nothing? No, I'm not telling you that at all. I don't even get how you are coming to that conclusion given my repeated rejections of that claim.
Are you saying Jews and Christians don't believe the first sentence in the bible? Maybe i misunderstood where your cmoing from here. That's something you'd have to ask Jews and Christians. I will say that the first sentence in the Bible isn't an expression of the Big Bang, if that's what you're trying to imply.
Once nothing ceased to exist, time started. God is out of time, being mind. Mind is immaterial.What does being immaterial have to do with being outside of time? Time itself is immaterial in the sense that you are using the term.

Animal Mother
07-12-2012, 21:56
So you skipped #142 too?No, I didn't skip it, but none of the posts you link contain the argument you are making.

Cavalry Doc
07-13-2012, 05:02
So, you CAN'T show us where anybody actually used those ridiculous arguments?

Duly noted.

You're well on your way to becoming completely irrelevant here.

Does your browser have a glitch that does not allow you to see post number 142?

Cavalry Doc
07-13-2012, 05:05
No, I didn't skip it, but none of the posts you link contain the argument you are making.

I guess I'll have to wait for an objective person's opinion. You can lead a horse to water...

It's funny, because you have been one of the most frequent pointers to science leading you to become an atheist. It leads a few towards agnosticism too.

Animal Mother
07-13-2012, 05:55
I guess I'll have to wait for an objective person's opinion. Clearly, you're not able to provide that.
You can lead a horse to water... And we have many, many times. It's almost as if you don't like water, or insist that it isn't water, it's sand.
It's funny, because you have been one of the most frequent pointers to science leading you to become an atheist. It leads a few towards agnosticism too.Please point out anywhere that I've said anything of the sort. Perhaps this is another example of you seeing things that just aren't there. Let's examine your posts providing evidence of Evolution is real, therefore there is no god.
The big bang happened, therefore there is no god.
Something can come from nothing, therefore there is no god.
I see no evidence of god, therefore there is no god.
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1430783No mention of any those arguments in that thread. Strike 1.
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1431141
Post 12That post: I've been to the natural history museum. I have seen dinosaur bones. I have yet to see a god bone. Or even a jesus bone. I see "I see no evidence of god" could you point out which part says "therefore there is no god"?
& 15 to startThat post:If there is no evidence of god, then the jury is not out.

Since you use a legal analogy - if there is no evidence, you have failed to state a claim and your action is frivolous, therefore there is nothing for a jury to decide.

In this argument, "no evidence of god" (which I agree with) means god is just as likely to exist as fairies, flying spaghetti monsters, and the fire-breathing dragon in my basement. Which is to say, for all practical purposes, he does not exist, just like those other things.This is the one example I see that might fit your claim, except that Bren specifies this is a legal analogy, not a conclusion of absolute certainty. Unless you're going to be similarly dogged in your pursuit of the position that we should accept the possible existence of fairies, et al.
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1429693&page=3
Post 84 & 85 Those posts:When there is evidence a deity was involved in the beginning of the Universe, it can be taught as science. Until then, it can be discussed in a class like philosophy.
andCosmic background radiation.

Transitional fossils.

Age of the earth.



I agree.



Wrong. There is evidence things can "just happen." It's been discussed in GTRI before. There is no evidence for deities.Again, the first part of the "I see no evidence of god, therefore there is no god." but where is the second part? Oddly, in that same thread, when challenged to post any example of people claiming that science proved atheism on this forum, you replied, I guess none have said that in those words, but it has been implied by the repeated resistance to leaving the discussion on whether there is or is not a deity involved in the beginning of the universe to the family and others, while leaving that discussion out of the school.
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1422022

Post 16 That post: Once again, Atheism is simply the rejection of a God or Gods based on lack of evidence. Not a "belief that there is no God."

IMHO the difference isn't even that subtle.

And the only thing that may make me shoot myself in the head is your inability to understand what Atheism is!!! Not really.

And haven't we been over the morality thingy already?Another example of the first part of one argument in the first sentence, but nothing of the second half of that argument nor of any of the others.
There are plenty more if you are willing to see it for what it is... It appears you are in fact seeing things that aren't there, since at best you've presented multiple examples for one of your claims about the positions being advocated. Where are the examples of "Evolution is real, therefore there is no god."? Why don't you share one of those with us?

Cavalry Doc
07-13-2012, 07:18
I'll just have to find a way to go on living with the knowledge that we disagree. That should be pretty easy.

Animal Mother
07-13-2012, 07:26
I'll just have to find a way to go on living with the knowledge that we disagree. That should be pretty easy.
It's amazing how often you come to this conclusion when your claims are shown to be completely false.

berniew
07-14-2012, 10:48
The older I get - and the more I compare notes with others my age (40s) the more I think this is a product of the culture of those born in the 30s and 40s along with liberal sprinkling of the inherent sinfulness of man - than it is of any particular denomination.

People can take any philosophy and twist and distort it to support what they want to

My upbringing was not Baptist - but it doesn't sound much different from yours.

I understand it better than you do.

That would be an apt description of my father. He was a deacon in the local Southern Baptists Church. My mother wasn't any better. They publicly abused and humiliated me until I was 18. My father tried to body slam me and humiliate in front of my aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents. I had know for some time that he was not physically able to do that unless I let him. Since it was God's will, I had continued to let him do whatever he wanted to me, but not this time. When we hit the ground, he was on the bottom. I told him if he ever hit me again he wouldn't get back up. The physical abuse stopped but the insults and humiliation never did.

It was Gods will that they beat the skin off of me and humiliate me in front of family and friends. Of courses they did it because they loved me. They did it because they loved God. It was God's will. God wanted them to publicly abuse, humiliate, and intimidate me. He still does. The people in the church watched this for years and if they ever said anything it was the same thing my parents said. I finally told them all that if the way I was raised was heaven, I wanted nothing to do about it. I tried to forgive them for over 20 years, but they never stopped. They continued to insult and humiliate me in front of my wife and children until I moved away. My mother is 83 and this still goes on. I have seen her once in the last 5 years and the sermons and insults started as soon as I got there and continued until I left.

My children saw what happened and none of them go to Church. None of my children go to Church. When they get around my mother she starts the same sanctimonious condescending crap with them. Fortunately for them, they can get up and leave.

You don't have a right to comment on that because you weren't there, but I'm sure you will anyway. Uneducated cheap shot artists are all the same. I feel the same way about the chronically sanctimonious that recovering alcoholics do about drunks. Don't tell me you have it all figured out. Been there, done that, still got the scars. But like the drunk, you won't listen because you're always drunk on you religion. You're right and everyone else is wrong. The Bible says so.



Droid has nothing to fear from me unless he tries to jerk me down in the ditch and stomp on me. I grew up in that environment and I'm good at taking down people who do that. You still have the scars from the last time you tried it. You want people to gang up and take me down so you can get revenge that you can never get by yourself. That's a common tactic among your type. Do you wonder why people turn away from your church? People like you drive them away. I'm here to help people who have gone through the same thing, and may still be going though it. It's OK to be angry at your church and your religion because they really exists. It's not OK to be angry at God because that's a figment of your imagination. It's not mentally healthy to be angry at your imagination. Don't listen to the IhRedriders of the world. they will drag you down into their ditch and destroy you.

berniew
07-14-2012, 10:51
I tried to think of several different was to reply to the tone of your post - all I can come up with is - quit your meanness



You have no basis for making such an outlandish claim.



Yet again, you are either lying or showing your ignorance.

"4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger by the way you treat them. Rather, bring them up with the discipline and instruction that comes from the Lord."

If you think that your father represents God in the actions that you claim he did, you are wrong.



You claim that there is no God yet you claim that what "his will is". A claim that completely contradicts scripture.



More baseless tripe from someone who sounds like they have a victim complex. What you claim to be God's will is not scriptural and based upon what, if you claim is true, the views of abusive people. Don't heap the sins of man upon God. If what you claim is true, that you suffered relentlessly as a child, I am truly sorry that you suffered abuse. However, I guess you to be at least 40 years old, so grow up and deal with it. Nobody is exempt from suffering abuse at the hands of others. You are supposed to be a man, act like one.



They con only insult and humiliate you as long as YOU let them.



Yes I do have the right to comment on it, YOU brought it up as a defense for you actions, not me. If you don't wish it to be commented upon, DON'T bring it up.



Never have claimed to "have it all figured out". Don't make claims that you know are patently false.




You are apparently completely incapable of dealing with people that "jerk you down in the ditch" based upon your own testimonial about your family. You sound much more like a cowardly bully to me. And by the way, I have no scars from you, you do not have the capacity to scar me.




Yet again you fail. I don't wish for anyone to "gang up" on you. I also seek no revenge, you have done nothing to me. You would like to think you know "my type", but you know very little about me.




There is so much fail in this bit of lies, it's hard to know where to start.

You are not here to "help people", you stand against God, not for anybody.
I'm not angry at "my church"
God is not "my imagination" and I'm not angry at God.



More of your fathers lies. I am not in the ditch, nor do I want anyone there.


Now, lets assume that you are correct and God is a joint figment of everyone's imagination. Why would you wish to stop another individual from pursuing that which makes them happy? I think that you have more issues that those that you have already admitted to.

As a final note: if you don't like being called out for what you are, you probable should avoid the discussions among people who have a completely different belief system than you.

Remember this was a thread for Christians, about the Old Testament. Not a lot that a self professed hater of God, like you, can bring to the table.

Schabesbert
07-23-2012, 09:10
So, you CAN'T show us where anybody actually used those ridiculous arguments?

Duly noted.

You're well on your way to becoming completely irrelevant here.
Hmmm ...
Well to be fair with you, "God" didn't create anything. It's already been scientifically proven that the universe was created by the big bang.

:popcorn: