Hit And Run Xtians

[LNC]

If one had free will then one would get to participate in the set up of the world. We'd have something to say about the choice. We would make commandments that we could actually obey satisfactorily. Thou Shall not smash thy thumb with a hammer. Thou shall not drink from the toilet...

 

We don't have free will because we are constrained to circumstance unlike God. I have the free will not to be old, nevertheless I am old. I'm sure that is part of a woman's free will not to be raped, but many are raped and some guys too. It is certainly part of free will to eat and yet many starve to death.

 

I don't know that your first paragraph logically follows. I have free will but I didn't participate in establishing the laws of this land. And, unless the politicians give me the opportunity, I won't be able to participate in changing them either.

 

So, you are saying that choices that you make are completely illusory? Having free will doesn't mean that you are free to choose anything you want, even those things that are logically impossible or naturally impossible. You are conflating concepts here and creating confusion as a result. God has free will and is omnipotent, but that doesn't mean that he can act contrary to his character. It means that he is the maximally powerful being. In the same way, free will doesn't mean that you can choose to do things that are contrary to nature or logic. You cannot choose to be a married bachelor or create a square circle. Nor can you control the free wills of other individuals, say those intent on raping.

[Abiyoyo]

 

Sorry, I didn't read this post before posting the last post. I don't believe that the original intention of Paul or the rest of the early Apostles was to establish a new religion as they saw Jesus as the fulfillment of the OT prophesies. However, I see no reason that a Hellenistic Jew would seek to establish something different just because he was a Hellenistic Jew. The fact is that Paul was set out to persecute the church and to rid the land of them until he had his personal encounter with Jesus. Paul was in complete alignment with the rest of the leaders of the early church which is why he and Barnabas were sent out with the letter from the Jerusalem Council to go to Galatia to deliver it.

 

Even before I studied Greek philosophy, I saw that Peter conflicted with Paul, hence the Jerusalem decree. They had obvious differences.

 

I don't see that Paul's letters differ in doctrine; however, he may be addressing specific areas of application with different churches as they had different questions or problems that he needed to address.

 

Yeah, like telling women to be quiet in church. So, I guess Joyce Meyers is an abomination, right?

[Neon Genesis]

That is a nice ad hominem, but you still haven't explained in what way you could have free will as an atheist. Please explain.

No, I do not have to explain anything. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You're the one making the extraordinary claims here that we need to believe in a sky fairy to have freewill. That's like saying we can't have freewill unless we believe in leprechauns. Then you just brush off my response to your claims and refuse to explain how my response is an ad hominem. Do you understand basic common sense? Since you claim to have broken all the ten commandments including murder, then I guess that would explain why you're mentally unstable.

 

 

Acts 9, Paul has a personal encounter with Jesus. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do." (vs. 5, 6) OK, so Paul says that he had a direct revelation, which means that no human taught him, not that no one taught him. So, why does it matter that James wasn't one of the original 12, he still met the requirements of an apostle as he saw the risen Jesus (as did Paul who was also considered an apostle). You do not understand Scripture when you say that Peter was the rock that Jesus would build his house upon, that is actually Roman Catholic teaching, not Biblical doctrine. It was Peter's testimony that Jesus was the Christ that was the rock and Paul was testifying that same message. Again, when you say that Paul got a second had account means that you have either not read Acts 9 or you have not understood it. Here is what Paul heard on the road to Damascus, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do." Paul received the gospel directly from the mouth of the risen Jesus. You can't get more first hand than that.

 

Acts 9 tells me that Jesus approves of what Paul preaches since he personally appointed him not only to eternal life but to preach the gospel. There, now you have your quote directly from the mouth of Jesus. Any other questions that you have?

That is not a direct quote from Jesus. That's Paul or Luke or whoever wrote Jesus' lines claiming that Jesus appeared to him in a vision and told him he appointed him to be his apostles. You know what we call people like that in modern times? We call them delusional. I see no reason to believe that Jesus appointed Paul from his claims of a vision anymore than there's a reason to believe Muhammad was appointed to be the Prophet of God when he was visited by Gabriel in a cave. For some reason in modern times, when people claim God spoke to them and told them to go murder a child, even most religious believers will consider them to be certifiably insane, but when holy men make the same claim in the first century that God told them to do such and such, we're expected to believe them. As Thomas Paine rightly said in The Age Of Reason, even if God were to give someone a revelation, it's only a revelation to that person only. Once that person starts spreading the revelation around to others, it's no longer a revelation but becomes hearsay and no one should be obliged to believe it. I see no reason why we should believe Paul was seriously visited by Jesus anymore than we should believe the claims of any other mad man that claims sky fairies are talking to them.

 

Furthermore, in the verses you quoted, Jesus never said that he approves of everything Paul teaches. He clearly just says to go to a city where you'll be told by someone else what to do. Nowhere in those verses does Jesus give any instructions on what to teach or that he approves of everything he teaches. And it certainly does matter that Paul didn't get his information about Jesus from one of the original 12. It'd be like if I wanted to learn the theory of relativity, I wouldn't go to a high school English teacher to learn it. I would go to someone who's an expert scientist with it and studied the subject first hand themselves to get the most accurate information but apparently Paul is content with learning from a second hand account. Or if I wanted to learn about what atheism is, I would not go and ask a Christian who knows nothing about the subject as to what atheism is. I would go ask an actual atheist myself what atheism is. It's no wonder Paul's delusional followers centuries later in modern times are content to learn about atheism from second hand religious sources and ignore what actual atheists think. And if Jesus didn't intend for Peter to be the rock, why did Peter then establish the first church on the Day Of Pentecost? Why didn't he get Paul to do it if Jesus intended Paul to establish the church? It seems awfully strange to me for Jesus to supposedly want Paul to establish the church but then wait until after the church was already established by the real apostles of Jesus to recruit him.

 

The Bible doesn't call on us to "accept" God or to "accept" Jesus. We are called upon to repent of our sins and to trust in Jesus and in his death and resurrection as a covering or payment for our sins.

Isn't that the same thing? And when are you going to prove you're a true Christian by drinking poison and surviving?

 

God has free will and is omnipotent, but that doesn't mean that he can act contrary to his character

If God has freewill, can God commit a sin?

[LNC]

I don't mean to be rude, but this is a crock of shit. Have you ever heard of double speak. This is a very good example.

 

Please give Chapter and Verse wherein each of these wills is enumerated. Show from scripture wherein God says he respects free will above even his own desire. Was it the free will of the Chinese to be drowned in the flood? Oh wait their culture is older than the bible flood, so they must not have gotten drowned.

 

I guess you couldn't help yourself...

 

sovereign will - Ephesians 1:11

moral will - Matthew 5:48

preceptive will - Philippians 2:12

decretive will - Acts 2:23

efficient will - Rom 11

permissive will - Romans 1:18-32

secret will - Rom. 9

revealed will - Eph. 2:11-22

 

Again, free will doesn't mean that we control all of our circumstances, but it does mean that we control some of them in a real way. Now again, let me challenge you from your perspective to tell me how anyone can have any freedom of will absence the existence of a personal God.

[LNC]

LNC, You have that turned around. It states that God was hardening the Pharaoh's heart to show them a sign.

 

 

Exod 7:3-5

3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

4 But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments.

5 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them.

(KJV)

 

I don't see how that is contradictory to what I am saying. Maybe you can explain.

[LNC]

Oh, but you see God didn't really harden Pharaoh's heart. He just knew that Pharaoh's heart would be hard if presented a problem in a certain way. You see while the million of sperm were heading for Mrs. Pharaoh Senior's egg, God blocked all the sperm that could have a soft heart with that particular egg -- you know later when Pharaoh Junior would be king. Since sperm aren't smart enough to have free will, God is not really interfering in free will.

 

Oh and I forgot to mention that the Mrs. Pharaoh's egg from last month would have been a softy with any sperm so God made sure she had a headache on the days she was fertile. But he didn't interfere with her free will either because he made sure that her egg and sperm would produce a woman that had headaches when the proper egg was not in evidence. And of course so on back to Adam and Eve.

 

Therefore you should be able to see that God can harden a heart with out resorting to free will blocking.

 

I never said that God didn't harden Pharaoh's heart, just that that hardening didn't nullify Pharaoh's free choice. You illustration is actually impertinent to the discussion.

[Abiyoyo]

I don't mean to be rude, but this is a crock of shit. Have you ever heard of double speak. This is a very good example.

 

Please give Chapter and Verse wherein each of these wills is enumerated. Show from scripture wherein God says he respects free will above even his own desire. Was it the free will of the Chinese to be drowned in the flood? Oh wait their culture is older than the bible flood, so they must not have gotten drowned.

 

I guess you couldn't help yourself...

 

sovereign will - Ephesians 1:11

moral will - Matthew 5:48

preceptive will - Philippians 2:12

decretive will - Acts 2:23

efficient will - Rom 11

permissive will - Romans 1:18-32

secret will - Rom. 9

revealed will - Eph. 2:11-22

 

Again, free will doesn't mean that we control all of our circumstances, but it does mean that we control some of them in a real way. Now again, let me challenge you from your perspective to tell me how anyone can have any freedom of will absence the existence of a personal God.

 

See, point proven. Paul screwed your logic up. 2-8 of your scripture references are not Paul, and maybe the Acts one is...have to look it up

[Abiyoyo]

LNC, You have that turned around. It states that God was hardening the Pharaoh's heart to show them a sign.

 

 

Exod 7:3-5

3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

4 But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments.

5 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them.

(KJV)

 

I don't see how that is contradictory to what I am saying. Maybe you can explain.

 

Because you said this,

QUOTE (LNC @ Mar 9 2009, 12:45 PM) *

God used the plagues to harden his heart, which meant that he still had the choice as to whether or not to respond to those events. Obviously Pharaoh was able to resist God in the first nine events and finally relented in the tenth, but then changed his mind after letting the Israelites go.

 

What don't you get, it's black and white. God said He will harden Pharaoh's heart, the Pharaoh shall NOT hearken unto you (Israelites), That I (God) will deliver the Israelites out of Egypt, so that the Egyptians will know that I(God) and God.

 

God did it, purposely, no choice here.

[Pandora Moon]

Speaking of doublespeak I found this analysis between Ingsoc & Christianity at a site called Exploring Dystopia http://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/in...ianity-t50.html I hope that you find it interesting

[Neon Genesis]

Again, free will doesn't mean that we control all of our circumstances, but it does mean that we control some of them in a real way. Now again, let me challenge you from your perspective to tell me how anyone can have any freedom of will absence the existence of a personal God.

I can tell you how easily like this. I will exercise my godless free will by choosing to ignore your posts until you stop ignoring mine and prove you're a true Christian by drinking poison and surviving.

[agnosticator]

Speaking of doublespeak I found this analysis between Ingsoc & Christianity at a site called Exploring Dystopia http://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/in...ianity-t50.html I hope that you find it interesting

 

I've always referred to god's "love" as being equivalent to loving big brother. LONG LIVE BIG BROTHER!

[LNC]

The only reason atheists use the same arguments is that Christians never come up with anything original nor can they answer the atheists' arguments. As you say, if the argument is successful, why change it? But Christians haven't come up with anything new since the 1st century without stealing from the Muslims, but even the Christians' arguments are all stolen from the Greek philosophers. If anyone are the thieves here, it's the xtians.

 

As the writer of Ecclesiastes said, "there is nothing new under the sun." However, you are actually mistaken in your grasp of history. Augustine (4th/5th centuries), Anselm (8th/9th centuries), Aquinas (13th century) and others have advanced very well regarded arguments for the existence of God. As well, there are many contemporary philosophers refining many of these arguments. I will answer your charge of thievery below.

 

Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

So, why is Craig committing sin to "prove" God's existence? According to the bible, since Craig is using the worldly philosophy of the Muslims, then Craig is using empty deceit and so I should beware him since he's not from Christ.

 

I think that you misunderstand the verse that you quoted. If anything, it speaks against the New Atheist philosophies that are out there as they are definitely not according to Christ. Craig is attempting to lead people to Christ through his argumentation. The key to the verse is "empty deceit, according to the traditions of men, according to the basic principles of the world<" in other words, worldly minded philosophy. That is far from what Craig is promoting. Now as to your claim above that Christians are thieves and your reference to Craig's Kalam argument (which is to what I assume you are referring in both instances), I didn't know that anyone owned that particular argument. If people own arguments then I am sure that you are a bit embarrassed that Dawkins "steals" Stephen Jay Gould's concept of NOMA in his writings. I mean, Dawkins has made a lot of money using that argument.

 

So, when Christians use other people's arguments, it's proof the argument works, but when atheists keep using the same arguments, this means we have nothing new and we're stealing from others? What was that Jesus said about plucking the shard out of your eye first?

 

I am not sure how you come to that conclusion based upon what I said. Your response makes no connection or sense based upon what I said. Matthew 16:18

 

The only telling thing I find about this is that you're apparently so arrogant that you think know what atheism is better than actual atheists do.

 

Why is it that you atheists resort to name-calling so much? BTW, when someone calls another person arrogant, it comes off as being a bit arrogant. So, are you saying that it takes one to know one, or at least, how to define one? Is that actually your argument? If so, then a whole lot of people on this site have been trying to tell me what Christianity is, including your use of two Scripture references above while not actually being Christians. So, why is it OK for you to do so, but not me?

 

And the only response you've put forth of it is "God is my imaginary friend and I believe in him, therefore he's real!" Are you three years old or something?

 

Really, I don't remember saying that. I think you are reading imaginary posts. Again, with the name-calling - and you accuse me of acting like a three year old...

 

One must wonder where in the bible Jesus ever said he wanted to be the head of a church to begin with?

 

Try this passage for a start.

 

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:18

[LNC]

So, "god" would be known by man in heaven and the new earth, and he would not be god. If you would accept god as a mystery, I'd understand. But I know you don't. You have no knowledge of god; just subjective opinion from a book no different in knowledge than the koran.

 

It would not matter to what extent you "know" god (even exhaustively). That would not change god at all. I was just following your reasoning to its logical conclusion.

 

You admit god would "have mystery", yet say I cannot state that god is a mystery. That is inconsistent.

 

Your "knowledge" is subjective and cannot be objectively verified. "Belief" would be the term to use. Knowledge is objectively verifiable. So, I could rephrase my statement to"I believe god is a mystery", since we have no knowledge of god.

 

I left your original quote above as I believe that it is erroneous. To say that to know God is to have him to cease being God is a false statement. We can know God partially and meaningfully and yet he can remain God. I see no logical reason that he would cease to be God. We will never know God exhaustively as he is infinite and we are finite. But that doesn't preclude us from knowing him in a meaningful way as we are created in his image. To say that God is mysterious, i.e., he has aspects that we do not know, doesn't mean that he is a total mystery to us. My wife is mysterious (as are all females to males), but that doesn't mean that I don't know her, though I will never know her exhaustively either.

 

If my knowledge is subjective, then so is yours, so you cannot make objective statements about my knowledge, that is logically inconsistent. Unless you claim to have a higher knowledge than do I, for which you would have to provide proof. How can my "knowledge" be subjective, but you say that knowledge is objectively verifiable? You also say that you believe that God is a mystery and yet in the same sentence refute your statement by saying that you have no knowledge of God. IOW, you claim knowledge of God (he is mysterious) and claim no knowledge of God, you can't have it both ways, you must choose one statement or the other as they are contradictory.

[LNC]

So far, I am not sensing that anyone has a good argument that has been put forth.

 

Bullshit. Many here (myself included) have successfully argued against many of the inane arguments you put forth. However, what you have done, thus far, is ignore the ones that apparently you cannot come up with a counter argument for.

 

I said a good argument. I have answered every post addressed to me in order as I have come to them. I am not in control of when the thread is closed as has happened a couple of times before I could get to all the posts. Remember, there are many of you and only one of me, so I have a hard time keeping up with all of you.

[LNC]

LNC:

If God could be known by by man completely, he would not be God.

 

So, jesus could not have been god.

 

Why not? That assumes that you could not know Jesus without knowing him completely. If that is the case, then none of us knows anyone since we cannot have complete knowledge of any other person.

 

Again, I was following your reasoning to its conclusion. It doesn't matter to what degree you know someone, as long as they are real (objectively verifiable). Otherwise it's just opinion, or subjective belief.

 

Well, that depends upon your standard of proof. Maybe you could let me know what your standard is. How does one objectively verify a historical figure by your standard?

[LNC]

Heaven/hell are the only options and if we disagree with the bible, we are assigned to hell. No choice on our part. You only fool yourself to buy into it.

 

Biblical Christianity displays it's version of god, and claims its god is the true god. We have no way of knowing anything about god. God is a mystery, if god exists. So, the bible is false and has not proven anything objectively verifiable about god. Don't play games and pretend you haven't read any of my past posts on the subject.

 

Yes, heaven and hell are the only options; however, a person doesn't go to hell for disagreeing with the Bible, a person goes to hell for willful and unjust rebellion against God.

 

You say that we have no way of knowing anything about God which is a self-refuting knowledge statement about God. You say that God is a mystery, again a knowledge statement about God. How could you possibly know any of this about God if what you say is true? So, it is actually your statements that are logically fallacious, and not the Bible that is false.

 

Without the bible, there is no "willful and unjust rebellion". Without the bible there is no christian god. Without the bible, there is no sin, nor salvation; heaven or hell.

 

So, I'll be more specific and say, "I believe god is a mystery, if god exists". That is really what I think.

Your knowledge statement runs into the same problem in that you claim to know god. But your "knowledge" is really belief.

 

I am sorry to inform you, but there was willful and unjust rebellion long before the Bible was written. God's existence does not depend upon the existence of the Bible either, nor does the existence of sin, salvation, heaven or hell.

 

How do you know that God would be a mystery if he existed? Wouldn't you need specific knowledge to know that? That is my point, that people make that claim and it is self-refuting. My knowledge of God is based upon both objective knowledge and evidence and subjective experience. Neither is of less importance than the other, nor is either less of a proof than the other. Just because an experience is personal doesn't mean that it cannot be real. I am sure that you have had many personal experiences that you know to be real. Just because an experience is subjective in that it is person specific, doesn't mean that it is subjective in the sense of truth, those are two different uses of the term subjective and it is equivocating of language to conflate them.

[Neon Genesis]

I think that you misunderstand the verse that you quoted. If anything, it speaks against the New Atheist philosophies that are out there as they are definitely not according to Christ. Craig is attempting to lead people to Christ through his argumentation. The key to the verse is "empty deceit, according to the traditions of men, according to the basic principles of the world<" in other words, worldly minded philosophy. That is far from what Craig is promoting. Now as to your claim above that Christians are thieves and your reference to Craig's Kalam argument (which is to what I assume you are referring in both instances), I didn't know that anyone owned that particular argument. If people own arguments then I am sure that you are a bit embarrassed that Dawkins "steals" Stephen Jay Gould's concept of NOMA in his writings. I mean, Dawkins has made a lot of money using that argument.

If Craig is leading people to Christ with his argument, why is it that the only people who buy into his arguments are people who already believe in Christ? Since Craig's arguments aren't leading anyone here, then are his arguments worldly? I also think it's hypocritical of you to accuse atheists of stealing when they reuse the same refutations towards Christians who never come up with anything new, but when Christians do the same thing, it's ok as long as they do it for Jesus. And how is Dawkins stealing any arguments? Nowhere does Dawkins claim sole ownership of his arguments and he even cites Stephen Jay Gould in his book. Not only are you a thief, but you're also breaking the commandment that thou shalt not bear false witness. What was that Jesus said about plucking the shards out of your eye first?

 

 

Why is it that you atheists resort to name-calling so much? BTW, when someone calls another person arrogant, it comes off as being a bit arrogant.

Since when? Even Jesus criticized the Pharisees in the bible for being arrogant. Are you claiming then that Jesus was arrogant?

 

So, are you saying that it takes one to know one, or at least, how to define one? Is that actually your argument? If so, then a whole lot of people on this site have been trying to tell me what Christianity is, including your use of two Scripture references above while not actually being Christians. So, why is it OK for you to do so, but not me?

Speak English please, not Christianeze.

 

Really, I don't remember saying that. I think you are reading imaginary posts. Again, with the name-calling - and you accuse me of acting like a three year old...

Yes, you did. You specifically said in another thread that God was a non-physical being and this somehow proves God is exempt from being required to have been created. That's the same thing as saying you're imaginary friend isn't made up, they're invisible.

 

 

 

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:18

He tells Peter to build the church, not that he himself wanted to head it. If Jesus wanted to head the church, why didn't he just stay on Earth instead of going back up into heaven? And why would Jesus want to build a church if Jesus was expecting the Second Coming to happen withing the apostles' life time like it says in Matthew 23:26?

Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

 

I said a good argument. I have answered every post addressed to me in order as I have come to them. I am not in control of when the thread is closed as has happened a couple of times before I could get to all the posts. Remember, there are many of you and only one of me, so I have a hard time keeping up with all of you.

Then why do you still refuse to prove you're a true Christian by drinking poison and surviving? Surely this would be easy for a true Christian like yourself?

[LNC]

Do you think all the Islamic will go to Hell? Jews (which I remind you are still God's people)?

 

Lets say an Islamic came to you, and talked with you about Mohammad. The Islamic person says that if you don't believe in Mohammad as the same as God, then you will perish for eternity. What would you say? Remember, their are just as many Islamic as Christians. You, just happen to live in America where Christianity is more predominant; where as if you lived in an Islamic country, and a preacher came to you saying this and that about worshiping Jesus. Guess what. That person just became a blasphemous person, because Islam believes in One God, no other forms or trinity, etc.

 

I am not the judge of anyone, I can only tell you what you already probably know that the Bible says.

 

"None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God." Romans 3:10-11

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

 

First, I meet with an interfaith group on a weekly basis and this group includes Muslims, Baha'is, Catholics, Agnostics, and others. Second, a Muslim would never say that as it would be heretical to his/her beliefs. They do not believe that Muhammad is God. It doesn't matter how many people adhere to a belief, that is not a sign of its veracity. Your final argument is an appeal to what is called the genetic fallacy, that has nothing to do with the truthfulness or untruthfulness of a worldview.

[LNC]

Actually LNC, i didn't get that from any atheist sites. I got it from common reading of the Bible. Now i will have to look into what the original texts said to see if it in fact says winged creature. I have my doubts though. It will probably just be like your assertion that virgin is prophesized in the OT. Yet there is no proof that i could find and you never did give any proof. However, i did post a link that makes it clear that Isiah was talking about the near future, not the distant future.

 

I gave you many links to check out in reference to the flat earth and solid sky dome that you said screw all about, other than make a jab at the author of one of those sites, or to simply no, i'm right and they are wrong. Did you know the book of Enoch has descriptions of the solid firmament and even tells of a journey to the end of the earth and seeing the windows in it that the sun and the moon pass through? Before you say that this book is not in the Bible keep in mind that it is quoted quiet a bit in the NT and early influential church people, like Justin Martyr, held it in high regard? Monsters, what in the sea has armor and breaths fire? I guess this was just in biblical days huh? Did you know that Behemoth and Leviathan were mythological monsters in ancient Jewish mythology?

 

Isn't it obvious what i am meaning by Esau? How in blazes did he have free will when God hated him before he was even born. He didn't even have a bloody chance.

 

That is part of your problem, you are reading the English translation from Hebrew. You need to do some background reading to be able to get past some of the translation issues that have developed over the years. Also, you need to understand context as it can help in doing Biblical hermeneutics. I'm sure that when you do your research you will come to the conclusions that I have stated. Apparently you haven't taken my advice about the virgin passage from Isaiah and looked at how the LXX translators translated the word from Hebrew to Greek many years before Jesus' birth as you still doubt me on this one.

 

Why don't you post the specific verses to which you are referring and we can discuss them. I am not about responding to websites, unless of course you want me to respond in kind (by posting the link to another website.) I don't recognize the Book of Enoch to be canonical, nor do most Christians and Jews, so I am not that concerned over what it says. If Justin Martyr held it in high regard, then that tells you that Justin Martyr held it in high regard, not that the church did. Regarding a sea creature that has armor, we know of many dinosaurs that had skin like armor, and we know of animals that were capable of "breathing fire" due to the way that they processed food in their stomach(s). So, I don't find either of these to be particularly troubling. We aren't exactly sure what the behemoth and leviathan were referring to in the OT, other than very large creatures. Whether some mythology used those names as mythological creatures is not particularly important. We do know of prehistoric creatures that could have fit the descriptions given for these, so again, I don't find that particularly troubling.

[PandaPirate]

Why is it that whenever xtians come here for the purpose of reconverting us and saving our souls, they always end up leaving with their tails behind their legs two or three pages later? I frankly find this to be rather cowardly of them to just leave and never come back without having the guts to apologize or admit they were wrong. Even most of the xtians that come here regularly do this in the threads they post in. They'll try to convert us in these threads but then when they get backed into a corner, they just pack up their bags and move to another thread. They don't even admit they were wrong about their claims. They just drop the thread for another one and I don't understand why they bother staying around when they should know by now they aren't going to convince anyone here. I don't care if they post here or not. I just don't get why when even Jesus said if somebody doesn't convert, to dust off the sandals on your feet. I also feel insulted when the xtians come here to convert us but then turn around and complain that they don't have enough time to answer all our questions because they apparently have something more important to do than saving souls. It's like they think our salvation is unimportant in the grand scheme of things. If you don't think our salvation was all that important to begin with or you had such important things to do more than saving us, why bother posting in the first place? And didn't Jesus say you were supposed to put saving souls as your top priority above everything else?

 

LOL, I remember one time I accidently reverted back to Christianity after a particularly emotional year and I thought it was God's mission for me to come on here and convince all of you of the evil errors of your ways. You guys put me in my place real quick and re-de-converted me in about one hour.

[agnosticator]

LNC,

 

God is a mystery.

Mystery: Something unknown; beyond human knowledge, and understanding.

 

Bible=the christian god-father,son (jesus), and holy ghost. They are not objectively verifiable as being god(s). If the historical jesus existed, he would be a man. Get it?

[Neon Genesis]

LOL, I remember one time I accidently reverted back to Christianity after a particularly emotional year and I thought it was God's mission for me to come on here and convince all of you of the evil errors of your ways. You guys put me in my place real quick and re-de-converted me in about one hour.

I don't know if I was here when this happened since I don't remember it. Just out of curiosity, what was the final nail in the coffin from ex-c for your faith?

[LNC]

My initial reaction is that this sounds like God has predestined certain individuals to salvation. In other words, God has picked specific individuals ahead of time to be with him in the long run.

 

However, on reflection, I can understand your words a second way:

God's hope is for all to be saved, and so he does not intend specific individual souls for salvation over others. But he has certain criteria for salvation and those who come to meet that criteria through personal choice--whoever they are as individuals-- find salvation. In this way, everyone God intends to be saved, is saved, but that intent is based on criteria, not specific people.

 

If I have misunderstood your meaning, perhaps you would take the time to clarify.

 

Phanta

 

Yes, that would be the Biblical understanding that he has predestined some to eternal life. Now, you changed the word "desire" to "hope" in your statement and there is a difference in the two words. I can desire something without hoping that I would get it. I see various cars on the road that I desire to have, but I don't hold out hope of getting one.

 

God's criteria for salvation is that one have their sins covered by the death of his son on the cross. We don't add anything to that equation. Even my belief in God is granted as a free gift that I received when he made me alive with him (Ephesians 2:4); prior to that I was dead in my sin. So, no it is not true that God intends everyone to be saved, only those whom he has predestined to eternal life.

 

Now, the reason that he doesn't violate our will is that we are dead in relation to him and therefore have no will to follow him until he makes us alive. At that point, we have no desire not to follow him as we have, for the first time, seen him to be the truth. So, I freely choose him as my eyes have been opened to see him.

[LNC]

What have i been refuted on and dropped? It is you who has dropped all the arguements on the flat earth and firmament and geocentric earth simply because that thread was shut down.

 

Again i say, that i did not get my bat arguement from talkorigins or any other atheist site. I have no idea where YoYo got his info, even though i can guess with pretty good accuracy that he got it from the same place i got mine, a simple reading of the Bible. You seem to have no idea that YoYo is a fellow christian. But it is obvious that he subscribes to a different brand of it than you. There are hundreds upon hundreds you know. Btw, Talkorigins is not an atheist site, it is a science site.

 

As for Shanton's second source, it wasn't word for word but it left little to the imagination that you had copied from it.

 

I don't remember you bringing up specific passages that trouble you, and if you did and I missed them, then my apologies. I don't have time to do your research and answer your questions as well, so if you have specific passages that you have difficulty with, then please give those references and I will be happy to address them.

 

Surely you are not going to tell me that you just stumbled upon that verse on your own. I know Christians who have read the Bible many times and would have read past those verses without even noticing them. BTW, regarding TalkOrigins, I would agree that it is predominantly a science oriented website; however, one learns a lot about a site by visiting the bibliography, which I did at this site. Listed were book recommendations in the areas of atheism, logic, Old Testament (including a book on the names of God), beliefs (including religious beliefs), and UFOs. None of these topics has to do directly with science, so I would say that TalkOrigins has a philosophical bent to it that is anti-supernatural and anti-religious. It is one thing to be neutral and another to advocate against a position.

 

I admitted that I used one source for research and since the information was in table form, it was hard to do much else than to recreate it almost as it was. However, he showed one example of that and asserted another which I had never seen before and for which he produced no evidence of my having taken anything from that site - the information didn't even really pertain to what we were discussing, other than the fact that they abbreviated the term Law of Non-Contradiction to LNC, that seemed to be the only link between me and that site - and that is a stretch.

 

So, yes, I will admit that I sourced my information regarding Gilgamesh from that Tektonics site; however, no one here has told me from where they are sourcing their information, and I know that it isn't coming off the top of their heads. These arguments are floating around by too many atheists to convince me of that.

[LNC]

Will you stop saying that and actually, for once, give some evidence. Someone said on here a few pages back that you just assert things as fact with nothing to back it up. This is the truth. If there were evidence all around us as you say then the people who study what is all around us, scientists, would be christian instead of well over 90% having no belief in a god. If there was evidence all around us then creation scientists and ID morons would submit their "findings" to peer reviewed scientific journals and institutes instead of just putting it on their creation websites and books.

 

I have given evidence that has been ignored by you and others. First argument, the origin of the universe. All matter, space, and time began at the Big Bang some 14 billion years ago. Matter is not self-caused nor eternal, therefore it had a cause that is spaceless, matterless, and timeless. Second argument, the fine-tuning of the universe and nature. That fine tuning is due to either necessity, chance or design. The physical laws are arbitrary in nature, in other words, they don't have to be the way that we find them, therefore, it is not due to necessity. Chance cannot explain the fine-tuning as the chance of these constants being the way that they are fall outside the realm of them occurring by chance alone (too many constants that are tuned too exactly to accomplish the purpose for which they are tuned). That would leave design as the most reasonable explanation. Third argument, and I will leave it at this, the existence of objective morality. We had this discussion on another thread and no one was able to explain their existence from a purely naturalistic point of view. Also, no one wants to deny their existence as the ramifications of such would have devastating consequences. The most reasonable explanation is that they derive from a transcendent source that is personal (otherwise we would lose the oughtness of morals), eternal (otherwise morals would be created and arbitrary), and immutable (unchanging). These are just a few of the characteristics that we would need to see to have objective morality. God, by definition fits all of these characteristics and gives us the basis of objective moral values, which again most of us would agree exist and must have a source.

 

Those ID scientists have submitted their information for peer review which, as you and I both know, is controlled by those with a worldview that is counter to ID and therefore opposed to giving them the opportunity to be reviewed. The last time an article was allowed to be published, it cost the editor, Richard Sternberg of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, his job. There is as much politics in the field as there is science. The question is what do the evolution advocates have to fear if they are so confident that the IDers are wrong? Why not publish them and then show them where they are wrong?