OrdinaryClay Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 "'Do not I fill heaven and earth?' declares the Lord" (Jeremiah 23:24). God is said through Christ to be "sustaining all things by his powerful word" so that"in him all things hold together" (Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:17 Hmm seems as though i have found the verses which support my premise and londons, why dont you read the book in your profile picture captain? i thought you were christian? http://www.christian...nz/scienc12.htm (Jer 23:24) "Can a man hide himself in hiding places So I do not see him?" declares the LORD. "Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?" declares the LORD. God's presence is everywhere. Nothing is hidden from Him. Through His will He could dissolve the universe, but He is not embedded in creation. He is distinct from Creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Kalam could be used to prove fairies. Please demonstrate. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence; The universe has a beginning of its existence; Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence. Well the cause could be anything, I meant fairies in jest to just point out the speculative nature of the conclusion. If this argument is valid, one could say, for example. These magical blue fairies that like sand and have white clothes have enough power to create the universe with there wands but they got disgusted with there creation, so they use there magic to cause things like mental illness. If kalam is valid, there is no good reason to say that kalam couldn't be proof of a good like that. You don't know anything about who caused the universe by that. Also see post 122 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 The Bible does not teach God is in everything. So what does omnipresence mean to you? We can not escape His presence. It does not mean He is "embedded" in everything. Okay, was just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser01 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 "'Do not I fill heaven and earth?' declares the Lord" (Jeremiah 23:24). God is said through Christ to be "sustaining all things by his powerful word" so that"in him all things hold together" (Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:17 Hmm seems as though i have found the verses which support my premise and londons, why dont you read the book in your profile picture captain? i thought you were christian? http://www.christian...nz/scienc12.htm (Jer 23:24) "Can a man hide himself in hiding places So I do not see him?" declares the LORD. "Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?" declares the LORD. God's presence is everywhere. Nothing is hidden from Him. Through His will He could dissolve the universe, but He is not embedded in creation. He is distinct from Creation. My mistake i should not of taken it out of context, though i didnt realize it had anymore to the verse. Regardless in theism we should be able to detect his intervention, why dont we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 3. Ok, if Genesis is an allegory and not history, then we never needed a real savior did we? An allegorical one will do nicely, thank you very much. God doesn't incarnate Himself as a human to solve an allegorical problem, does He? 4. What about the sheer wastage of time and material that Theistic Evolution demands? An entire universe that's 13.7 billion years old, just to give a few billion bipeds on one planet a shot at eternal life? There are other problems, many of them. I can't recall any more right now, but if you want a good place to find them and to see YEC's and TE's hammer each other, go to the General Theology area of Christianforums.com. Both sides bring out highly damaging arguments against each other, which, as a long-time lurker on that site, suits me just fine! Thanks, BAA. Your reasoning does not follow, yet you seem to take so much pride in your non-sequitor. The approval of an internet circle of friends will not help us much when we stand before God almighty. (Mar 8:36) "For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? Even if Genesis were "allegorical" our sinful nature can still be logically (and physically) possible and hence we would still need salvation. Our sinful nature doe snot rest on a literal 7 day creation Oh hi there, Clay! Thanks very much for your damning judgement of me, my reasoning and the company I choose to keep. For your information, I was damned from the moment I rejected Jesus Christ, which happened l-o-n-g before we ever met online. Therefore, anything I do now is pretty much irrelevant, right? An eternity of suffering for this rejection is exactly the same penalty I'd have had if I'd never become a Born-Again Christian. So, whatever I do with my life now (with or without your approval) is a moot point. Everlasting hellfire is my lot. C u there! (Waves. ) I note that your quotation from the gospel of Mark relies upon the existence of man's soul. Perhaps you could cite some (extra-Biblical) evidence for the existence of such an invisible, intangible, inaudible and undetectable 'thing'? Please note that citation of 'things' resembling the human soul or sharing it's qualitites or being an approximation of it are not sufficient. Arguing from a similar 'thing' to the actual 'thing' doesn't fit the specification of my question. Nor does your maintaining by faith the existence of something you can present no evidence for. Bona fide evidence for the existence of man's soul please - or withdraw the allegations of pride and approval-seeking you've levelled at me! As to Genesis, perhaps you'd be good enough to elaborate on what it is that you mean, beyond the two bare sentences you've typed? After all, in the spirit of fairness and justice, if you call my reasoning into question, shouldn't you give me the option of calling yours into question too? I'm looking forward to your reply. Thanks, BAA. The spirit is a supernatural fact, not a natural fact. So if you are looking for evidence subject to the empirical method you will not find it. The evidence of the supernatural is found through non-repeatable detection and not experiment. Just as I said, a literal 7 day Creation is not needed in order for humanity to have a sinful nature that requires salvation. It seems simple and obvious to me. Our sinful nature could have developed through time. Our bodies and minds could have developed through time, and the imputation of an immortal soul could have occurred miraculously at some point in our evolution. These are simply logical possibilities and negate your logical contradiction that you suggested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser01 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 If god was everywhere and in everything, we would feel the presence of god, every human would feel it, no exceptions. The reality is that no one feels it. It does not exist. Who told you He was "in everything"? He is a distinct spiritual being. Were you a Christian? Actually he is distinct from the universe but not separate from it, this is the main premise of theism which i suspect you understand. The bible itself claims that not only does God create the universe he also sustains it. This is a mighty job to take when you take into account all the needs to be maintained. If God existed and intervened to mainrtain our world then we should be able to detect it, or if he is embedded in all things as london suggest then we should be able to feel and know his presence always and at all times. When you make Biblical claims you should quote the verse you are using to make your case. We can and do detect God. Many, many very intelligent people understand this. Just because many, many equally intelligent people claim it is not the case does not make your statement fact. It makes it opinion. God is not "embedded in all things". What ever that means. Ok how do we detect God? Natural revelation ... Philosophy and science. Special revelation ... history and the supernatural. This tells me nothing, elaborate. If anything science has shown us God is unnecessary for anything in the universe, including the big bang which we are discussing now. History as well gives us no credence to believe in YHWH, the christian religion has been violent, protestant or catholic. both are violent. The religious structure of both Judaism and Christianity is a reflection of the time period. nothing in the bible could not of been writen by a common man in the first century and the same goes for the Pentateuch and the greater Torah. A God so great and powerful as YHWH has supposedly influenced the religious document but the God itself always takes the most human action with the human consequences. i will also argue that your morality comes from nothing in the bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser01 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 3. Ok, if Genesis is an allegory and not history, then we never needed a real savior did we? An allegorical one will do nicely, thank you very much. God doesn't incarnate Himself as a human to solve an allegorical problem, does He? 4. What about the sheer wastage of time and material that Theistic Evolution demands? An entire universe that's 13.7 billion years old, just to give a few billion bipeds on one planet a shot at eternal life? There are other problems, many of them. I can't recall any more right now, but if you want a good place to find them and to see YEC's and TE's hammer each other, go to the General Theology area of Christianforums.com. Both sides bring out highly damaging arguments against each other, which, as a long-time lurker on that site, suits me just fine! Thanks, BAA. Your reasoning does not follow, yet you seem to take so much pride in your non-sequitor. The approval of an internet circle of friends will not help us much when we stand before God almighty. (Mar 8:36) "For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? Even if Genesis were "allegorical" our sinful nature can still be logically (and physically) possible and hence we would still need salvation. Our sinful nature doe snot rest on a literal 7 day creation Oh hi there, Clay! Thanks very much for your damning judgement of me, my reasoning and the company I choose to keep. For your information, I was damned from the moment I rejected Jesus Christ, which happened l-o-n-g before we ever met online. Therefore, anything I do now is pretty much irrelevant, right? An eternity of suffering for this rejection is exactly the same penalty I'd have had if I'd never become a Born-Again Christian. So, whatever I do with my life now (with or without your approval) is a moot point. Everlasting hellfire is my lot. C u there! (Waves. ) I note that your quotation from the gospel of Mark relies upon the existence of man's soul. Perhaps you could cite some (extra-Biblical) evidence for the existence of such an invisible, intangible, inaudible and undetectable 'thing'? Please note that citation of 'things' resembling the human soul or sharing it's qualitites or being an approximation of it are not sufficient. Arguing from a similar 'thing' to the actual 'thing' doesn't fit the specification of my question. Nor does your maintaining by faith the existence of something you can present no evidence for. Bona fide evidence for the existence of man's soul please - or withdraw the allegations of pride and approval-seeking you've levelled at me! As to Genesis, perhaps you'd be good enough to elaborate on what it is that you mean, beyond the two bare sentences you've typed? After all, in the spirit of fairness and justice, if you call my reasoning into question, shouldn't you give me the option of calling yours into question too? I'm looking forward to your reply. Thanks, BAA. The spirit is a supernatural fact, not a natural fact. So if you are looking for evidence subject to the empirical method you will not find it. The evidence of the supernatural is found through non-repeatable detection and not experiment. Just as I said, a literal 7 day Creation is not needed in order for humanity to have a sinful nature that requires salvation. It seems simple and obvious to me. Our sinful nature could have developed through time. Our bodies and minds could have developed through time, and the imputation of an immortal soul could have occurred miraculously at some point in our evolution. These are simply logical possibilities and negate your logical contradiction that you suggested. What about natural disasters then? In the creationism view natural disasters are easily explained by the fall of man, however in your view of theistic evolution natural disasters, disease and other calamities have no reason to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 3. Ok, if Genesis is an allegory and not history, then we never needed a real savior did we? An allegorical one will do nicely, thank you very much. God doesn't incarnate Himself as a human to solve an allegorical problem, does He? 4. What about the sheer wastage of time and material that Theistic Evolution demands? An entire universe that's 13.7 billion years old, just to give a few billion bipeds on one planet a shot at eternal life? There are other problems, many of them. I can't recall any more right now, but if you want a good place to find them and to see YEC's and TE's hammer each other, go to the General Theology area of Christianforums.com. Both sides bring out highly damaging arguments against each other, which, as a long-time lurker on that site, suits me just fine! Thanks, BAA. Your reasoning does not follow, yet you seem to take so much pride in your non-sequitor. The approval of an internet circle of friends will not help us much when we stand before God almighty. (Mar 8:36) "For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? Even if Genesis were "allegorical" our sinful nature can still be logically (and physically) possible and hence we would still need salvation. Our sinful nature doe snot rest on a literal 7 day creation Oh hi there, Clay! Thanks very much for your damning judgement of me, my reasoning and the company I choose to keep. For your information, I was damned from the moment I rejected Jesus Christ, which happened l-o-n-g before we ever met online. Therefore, anything I do now is pretty much irrelevant, right? An eternity of suffering for this rejection is exactly the same penalty I'd have had if I'd never become a Born-Again Christian. So, whatever I do with my life now (with or without your approval) is a moot point. Everlasting hellfire is my lot. C u there! (Waves. ) I note that your quotation from the gospel of Mark relies upon the existence of man's soul. Perhaps you could cite some (extra-Biblical) evidence for the existence of such an invisible, intangible, inaudible and undetectable 'thing'? Please note that citation of 'things' resembling the human soul or sharing it's qualitites or being an approximation of it are not sufficient. Arguing from a similar 'thing' to the actual 'thing' doesn't fit the specification of my question. Nor does your maintaining by faith the existence of something you can present no evidence for. Bona fide evidence for the existence of man's soul please - or withdraw the allegations of pride and approval-seeking you've levelled at me! As to Genesis, perhaps you'd be good enough to elaborate on what it is that you mean, beyond the two bare sentences you've typed? After all, in the spirit of fairness and justice, if you call my reasoning into question, shouldn't you give me the option of calling yours into question too? I'm looking forward to your reply. Thanks, BAA. The spirit is a supernatural fact, not a natural fact. So if you are looking for evidence subject to the empirical method you will not find it. The evidence of the supernatural is found through non-repeatable detection and not experiment. Just as I said, a literal 7 day Creation is not needed in order for humanity to have a sinful nature that requires salvation. It seems simple and obvious to me. Our sinful nature could have developed through time. Our bodies and minds could have developed through time, and the imputation of an immortal soul could have occurred miraculously at some point in our evolution. These are simply logical possibilities and negate your logical contradiction that you suggested. 1 Corinthians 15:45 New International Version (NIV) 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[a]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. As I said earlier, if adam didn't exist, then verses like these become void of content or need. It would be no different then appealing to zeus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 2. If God guided Evolution to bring about the emergence of Homo Sapiens, where was the dividing line between animals (who have no souls) and the first Man and Woman who did have these invisible things? Were Austraolpithecines animals or humans? What about Cromagnon man? Did he qualify? Once again, it's all up in the air. Catholics are forced to insert the magic moment when God conferred souls on two lucky hominids somewhere in the last 2 million years. Kinda convenient that there's no possible way of knowing when, doncha think? The answers to any and all of these questions make no difference to the Christian faith. They are red herrings of comfort for those who want to bolster their unbelief with a facade of credibility. Say why the answers to these quesions make no difference, Clay. Say why they are red herrings, Clay. Please demonstrate your reasoning in full detail. The souls of waverers and lurkers looking in on this thread are in the balance here. You could make the difference. Thanks, BAA. The description of salvation through Christ has nothing to do with any of these questions. This can be seen by reading the Bible. (Rom 10:9) that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser01 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 3. Ok, if Genesis is an allegory and not history, then we never needed a real savior did we? An allegorical one will do nicely, thank you very much. God doesn't incarnate Himself as a human to solve an allegorical problem, does He? 4. What about the sheer wastage of time and material that Theistic Evolution demands? An entire universe that's 13.7 billion years old, just to give a few billion bipeds on one planet a shot at eternal life? There are other problems, many of them. I can't recall any more right now, but if you want a good place to find them and to see YEC's and TE's hammer each other, go to the General Theology area of Christianforums.com. Both sides bring out highly damaging arguments against each other, which, as a long-time lurker on that site, suits me just fine! Thanks, BAA. Your reasoning does not follow, yet you seem to take so much pride in your non-sequitor. The approval of an internet circle of friends will not help us much when we stand before God almighty. (Mar 8:36) "For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? Even if Genesis were "allegorical" our sinful nature can still be logically (and physically) possible and hence we would still need salvation. Our sinful nature doe snot rest on a literal 7 day creation Oh hi there, Clay! Thanks very much for your damning judgement of me, my reasoning and the company I choose to keep. For your information, I was damned from the moment I rejected Jesus Christ, which happened l-o-n-g before we ever met online. Therefore, anything I do now is pretty much irrelevant, right? An eternity of suffering for this rejection is exactly the same penalty I'd have had if I'd never become a Born-Again Christian. So, whatever I do with my life now (with or without your approval) is a moot point. Everlasting hellfire is my lot. C u there! (Waves. ) I note that your quotation from the gospel of Mark relies upon the existence of man's soul. Perhaps you could cite some (extra-Biblical) evidence for the existence of such an invisible, intangible, inaudible and undetectable 'thing'? Please note that citation of 'things' resembling the human soul or sharing it's qualitites or being an approximation of it are not sufficient. Arguing from a similar 'thing' to the actual 'thing' doesn't fit the specification of my question. Nor does your maintaining by faith the existence of something you can present no evidence for. Bona fide evidence for the existence of man's soul please - or withdraw the allegations of pride and approval-seeking you've levelled at me! As to Genesis, perhaps you'd be good enough to elaborate on what it is that you mean, beyond the two bare sentences you've typed? After all, in the spirit of fairness and justice, if you call my reasoning into question, shouldn't you give me the option of calling yours into question too? I'm looking forward to your reply. Thanks, BAA. The spirit is a supernatural fact, not a natural fact. So if you are looking for evidence subject to the empirical method you will not find it. The evidence of the supernatural is found through non-repeatable detection and not experiment. Just as I said, a literal 7 day Creation is not needed in order for humanity to have a sinful nature that requires salvation. It seems simple and obvious to me. Our sinful nature could have developed through time. Our bodies and minds could have developed through time, and the imputation of an immortal soul could have occurred miraculously at some point in our evolution. These are simply logical possibilities and negate your logical contradiction that you suggested. 1 Corinthians 15:45 New International Version (NIV) 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[a]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. As I said earlier, if adam didn't exist, then verses like these become void of content or need. It would be no different then appealing to zeus. Also when it discusses the genealogies in genesis is says creation-Adam- ect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 2. If God guided Evolution to bring about the emergence of Homo Sapiens, where was the dividing line between animals (who have no souls) and the first Man and Woman who did have these invisible things? Were Austraolpithecines animals or humans? What about Cromagnon man? Did he qualify? Once again, it's all up in the air. Catholics are forced to insert the magic moment when God conferred souls on two lucky hominids somewhere in the last 2 million years. Kinda convenient that there's no possible way of knowing when, doncha think? The answers to any and all of these questions make no difference to the Christian faith. They are red herrings of comfort for those who want to bolster their unbelief with a facade of credibility. Say why the answers to these quesions make no difference, Clay. Say why they are red herrings, Clay. Please demonstrate your reasoning in full detail. The souls of waverers and lurkers looking in on this thread are in the balance here. You could make the difference. Thanks, BAA. The description of salvation through Christ has nothing to do with any of these questions. This can be seen by reading the Bible. (Rom 10:9) that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; And you ducked me, if god used genesis, you would not expect people to believe with a half completed story. Why should anyone be expected to do that if god used theistic evolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Just for the record Clay, you still have outstanding business with Ficino and Legion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.ex-christ...h/page__st__620 Posted 09 April 2012 - 07:12 AM OrdinaryClay, on 08 April 2012 - 01:49 PM, said: You are equivocating on the word script. An actualized world was written ahead of time. The choices we have within the circumstances are real and are not forced only foreknown. God knows unerringly, it may seem confusing because we can not fathom a mind that has complete foreknowledge . Ficino replied... OC, would you puleeze: 1. drop "forced" from your argument? It brings in too many experiential connotations, because usually when someone is forced, the person is aware of pressure. Awareness of God's prior causative action is not a topic in this discussion. So can we stick with some word more neutral, like "determined"? 2. When we try to construct philosophical arguments that lay a lot of weight on terms that we acknowledge are unknowable by us, we run huge danger of dealing in pseudo-questions. Centauri was right to raise the analogy to arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I'll throw in the medieval argument, could the second person of the Trinity have been incarnated as a cucumber? Your recourse to the notion of God's omniscience, and of its being unfathomable to us, should be a RED FLAG that this whole topic is not a philosophical topic. I call the aforesaid notion a "floating variable." Maybe there's already a term of art for such notions. Since that notion does not have a determinate value, arguments that make use of it run the risk of being unfalsifiable. You've already shown how the Molinist (incl. you) gives himself/herself permission to take many words in scripture not in their ordinary sense. If the value of προορίζω in an argument is not "mark out beforehand" but only "know beforehand," then we can't really go on. As they say where I come from, "OC, listen to yourself!" Ordinary Clay has yet to respond to Ficino's above message. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Legion wrote... Posted 01 April 2012 - 06:05 PM I strongly suspect that the Big Bang is Buku Bullshit. Ordinary Clay replied... Posted 01 April 2012 - 10:00 PM He said in the video that there are no working cosmologists who don't agree the universe started in a singularity. The big bang is not an explosion. It is an expansion of space-time itself from a singularity. Legion wrote to OrdinaryClay... Posted 01 April 2012 - 10:02 PM Please explain time to me. Ordinary Clay replied... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time Legion replied... Posted 01 April 2012 - 10:08 PM No, that is unacceptable to me. You say, with an air of certain authority... "The big bang is not an explosion. It is an expansion of space-time itself from a singularity." I assume then that you claim understanding of time. Please explain YOUR understanding of time to me. Legion is still waiting for Ordinary Clay's own understanding of time... 2 months on! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Isn't it about time you cleared your 'In' tray? BAA. Yes, I too encourage people who have not read these discussions to read them.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I believe you are on your way to deconverting my friend. you are a nice christian who just can't believe that god would put such a nice person as myself in hell. That was the beginning for me too. According to the bible anti, (the book you believe in) I AM going to hell to burn for all eternity......... (Pro 21:2) Every man's way is right in his own eyes, But the LORD weighs the hearts. All who consciously and willfully reject Christ you will go to hell. That's Christian mythology. The Hebrew deity of the Bible doesn't play by those rules. The Bible says otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 So you are saying in your opinion God is not real and some peole believe He is? The Bible does not teach God is in everything. In my experience there is no abrahamic god. The proof will be on 7-4-2012, I asked for world peace. I did not claim that the bible says god is in everything, the church claimed that. I don't believe the bible or the church to be correct or an authority on it. The fact remains that god is not anywhere to be found, this god is clearly absent from everything. The void in space has a more tangible existence. In my experience God does exist. You seem to have a very shallow notion of proof. The god you claim to beckon is a caricature from hollywood. A small amount of thought makes it clear that God's will is the guiding factor in all answered prayers. It is easy to construct conflicting prayers that God will not answer. God will not answer prayer outside His will. Now praying for peace is a good thing to pray for, and we should all do this, but pretending that because it does not happen is proof God does not exist is ill-conceived. In fact, it is simply the problem of evil re-stated, which has been demonstrated as not logically sound. In your experience, what proved to you that god exists? Clay, you misunderstand, I do not beckon a god of any kind. So the hollywood remark is invalid. "god's will"? Are you implying that god decides what thoughts prayers his people will have? "conflicting prayers"? Really Clay, I expected more from you. That is the same bullshit EVERY christian comes up with. The bible clearly states "ask and you shall recieve", it does not say "except for world peace, the end of hunger, a cure for cancer, etc." Excuses! I'm not even gonna address the rest. No one in the history of the world has ever proven that a god of any type exists, no one. All gods are based on the one true origin of "god", The Sun. You are now just making excuses like every xian does. And you are treating this conversation as though you are debating with other xians. We are non believers in the abrahamic gods Clay, that is why we are at this website gathering together to expunge the harm this sick cult has done to us. If you believe that this alleged god exists, prove it, apparently it was proven to you or you would not believe it. If you are just believing it without any type of proof what-so-ever, then you my friend are an easy target in life. People will always take advantage of you. Or perhaps you need this absent god to fill something that is grossly missing in your life. It utterly amazes me how people will accept the most bizarre behavior in the name of religion. Yet no one has ever been able to prove the existence of even one god/goddess/deity/spirit/ghost/demon from any religion that has ever existed in the last billion years. But we sure can manufacture all kinds of "convincing" arguments like "you just have to have faith" "you will recieve eternal salvation" and all kinds of phrases with any lack of proof. It's just made up. At least the Sun is real and it truly does sustain our lives. It's definately a better god than yahweh will ever be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser01 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 2. If God guided Evolution to bring about the emergence of Homo Sapiens, where was the dividing line between animals (who have no souls) and the first Man and Woman who did have these invisible things? Were Austraolpithecines animals or humans? What about Cromagnon man? Did he qualify? Once again, it's all up in the air. Catholics are forced to insert the magic moment when God conferred souls on two lucky hominids somewhere in the last 2 million years. Kinda convenient that there's no possible way of knowing when, doncha think? The answers to any and all of these questions make no difference to the Christian faith. They are red herrings of comfort for those who want to bolster their unbelief with a facade of credibility. Say why the answers to these quesions make no difference, Clay. Say why they are red herrings, Clay. Please demonstrate your reasoning in full detail. The souls of waverers and lurkers looking in on this thread are in the balance here. You could make the difference. Thanks, BAA. The description of salvation through Christ has nothing to do with any of these questions. This can be seen by reading the Bible. (Rom 10:9) that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; Christ is meaningless without the fall of man. This was demonstrated in a debate in the early church over rather or not people could "save themselves," Theistic evolution is based in Armenian bible theology which is unbiblical. Also if you accept theistic evolution when does salvation start? what time period in human development? will we see apes in heaven or even animals going further back? Also Judaism and Christianity have not existed but a fraction of our races existence so what would of happened to the hundreds of thousands of years worth of people who had no chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 ... I'm absolutely and unequivocally convinced that: 1) The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob is the Creator of the universe and the one true God. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob wasn't Jesus. 2) Jesus of Nazareth is The Messiah and Son of the Living God. In order to be a valid king messiah, Jesus would have had the proper pedigree, been physically anointed by a prophet /priest, actually sat on the throne, led people into great compliance with the law, and ushered in an era of peace and prosperity. Jesus didn't meet any of these requirements. (Heb 10:31) It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. If that's true then Christians should be terrified. They thumb their nose at Yahweh and follow a false god and messiah. That's exactly what the Hebrew deity told people not to do. 1) Yes, He was. 2) Jesus fulfilled the prophetic intent of God's will as written in the Bible. Just because He did not pander to the wills of men does not mean He was not the Messiah. He was, and He fulfilled prophecy. 3) See one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Clay, it would be hard to for me to put these in a sensible way into quotes on here. But I figure I could get your thoughts on this anyhow? http://www.rejection...prophecies.html http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/virgin.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser01 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 ... I'm absolutely and unequivocally convinced that: 1) The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob is the Creator of the universe and the one true God. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob wasn't Jesus. 2) Jesus of Nazareth is The Messiah and Son of the Living God. In order to be a valid king messiah, Jesus would have had the proper pedigree, been physically anointed by a prophet /priest, actually sat on the throne, led people into great compliance with the law, and ushered in an era of peace and prosperity. Jesus didn't meet any of these requirements. (Heb 10:31) It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. If that's true then Christians should be terrified. They thumb their nose at Yahweh and follow a false god and messiah. That's exactly what the Hebrew deity told people not to do. 1) Yes, He was. 2) Jesus fulfilled the prophetic intent of God's will as written in the Bible. Just because He did not pander to the wills of men does not mean He was not the Messiah. He was, and He fulfilled prophecy. 3) See one. Any time it talks of Jesus and his relation to God and the holy spirit it is always of separation. On a few rare occasions it will maybe, slightly nudge that they are the same person but it is rare and even then it is a stretch. When jesus was baptized he was watched by the father and the holy spirit had taken him to a place he had never been before. it cant get anymore clear than this, but it is consistently repeated of them being separate and gives little indication of there being a "whole." such as in the garden when jesus apparently beggs himself to take the cup from himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 The souls of waverers and lurkers looking in on this thread are in the balance here. You could make the difference. Attention lurkers: For the record, and as BAA pointed out in another post, some of Clay's unfinished business dates back 3 months ago in the Lion's Den thread "Repenting After Death". Christian claims about free wiil, salvation, Jesus being a messiah, the nature of evil, and several other issues were all covered in extensive detail back then. This is a fairly common Christian approach, where the same refuted claims will be put forth again and again, using the element of time (weeks or months) to recycle them. In that way, all the past analysis is forgotten or unseen and the poster can start the same routine all over again. If you are so convinced of your position you should provide links so others can read our exchange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I thought this was a discussion of behavior that both us and many Christians agree is annoying Christian behavior.... not an exhibition piece.... Like Mcdaddy said where is the fruit? Where did I transgress? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Q. What do the following sites all have in common? Reasonablefaith.org Commonsenseatheism.com Rationalresponders.com Infidelguy.com Boardreader.com Unexplained-mysteries.com Christianforums.com Skepticforum.com Richarddawkins.net Rationalia.com Sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com A. They've all been 'graced' by someone calling themselves, 'OrdinaryClay'. . . . . Figures. BAA. I posted a fair mount on the old dawkins site. Before they dissolved. Here is a good example, on the subject of the probabilistic problems faced by natural selection. http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=105727 I must admit I have never heard of Boardreader.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 That does make prayer pointless wouldn't you think, beg for 7 years like I did for him to remove OCD about the unforgivable sin and it never happens. What did you conclude the unforgivable sin was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 That does make prayer pointless wouldn't you think, beg for 7 years like I did for him to remove OCD about the unforgivable sin and it never happens. What did you conclude the unforgivable sin was? I never got a straight answer to be honest, because, for what I didn't realize at the time, and that is most christians don't have a clue what it is. You go from baptists and the like who while not exactly calvinists, are of the view of one saved always saved. There is also people who say you could loose your salvation. But from the best i could gather, its doing the same thing the Pharisee's did to get that told to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser01 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Do you hold dispensationalism as your main theology ordainaryclay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SusanStoHeli Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I thought this was a discussion of behavior that both us and many Christians agree is annoying Christian behavior.... not an exhibition piece.... Like Mcdaddy said where is the fruit? Where did I transgress? Transgress? The topic of the thread was annoying Christian behavior - not your standard "convert the unbeliever". Not a big deal as threads wander - but it is kinda funny how a thread that started to discuss the annoying things that Christians do that even other Christians disagree with - turned into a one-man show exhibiting the annoying Christian behavior of injecting conversion and proselytization into everything. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts