Annoying Christian Thread Continued Here

[bornagainathiest]

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.

 

Your subjective experience counts for very little here, Clay.

 

You seem to have a very shallow notion of proof.

 

Without properly defining what you accept as a proper notion of proof, OC, we are left guessing as to what you mean by this. You use the word word, 'shallow', but we're forced to presume that you mean, shallow in comparison to your unknown definition of what proof is. You might as well be adressing us in Sanskrit, for all the sense you are making.

 

To be understood you should describe, explain and elaborate ALL of your points, terms and arguments.

 

I would also remind you that your status here is one of equality and parity with the other members. As such, if you DO want to be understood, the onus is squarely upon you to explain yourself to the best of your obvious ability, not to blithely assume that everyone here is as intelligent or as well-read as you clearly are.

 

Please rectify this recurring failing of yours in future posts. Thank you.

 

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.

 

Perhaps you lack the basic empathy to see just how condescending that last sentence was?

Treating others with contempt like this wins no friends, persuades nobody and simply serves to harden people's hearts against you.

Even if you are 100% correct and hold to the perfect truth on this matter, the way in which you wield the weapon of truth speaks volumes about you.

You use it without mercy, compassion or even the barest acknowledgement of human weakness and frailty.

We are in error and you are in the truth and you're here to treat us as the disobedient, stiff-necked rebels you see us as, right?

 

Now OC, if I've done you a disservice in that last sentence, please show us where, in your many postings, you've displayed even a smidgeon of empathy or compassion towards those here who are lost in darkness.

 

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.

 

BAA

[bornagainathiest]

antixianxian You seem to have created a matrix of belief, just as the hoards of others have done, in order to accomodate its one member...YOU.

 

And everyone else. I am just asking question or making statements and trying not be rude.

 

Questions are good, that's how we learn and get answers.

 

Asking too many questions can also force you to stop believing in god/jesus/yahweh/etc.

 

It didn't for me. The more I asked the stronger my faith became. I asked in every avenue. 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.

2) Jesus of Nazareth is The Messiah and Son of the Living God.

3) There is an afterlife in which we will all come face to face with our Creator and face Him naked and with out the aid of your internet buddies.

 

(Heb 10:31) It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

 

1:)How do you prove that Yahweh is the one true God? And the creator of the universe. Dont use the Kalam argument bullshit because i will already tell you it wont get you very far.

 

2:) Ok so how do you explain historical discrepinsies like the sanhedrin meting on Passover to deal with a prisoner.

 

3:)How do you prove to me there is an after life?

 

1) It's not my job to "prove" anything to you. I'm sorry but we are all responsible for our own faith. The Kalam is a wonderful piece of evidence though (among many).

 

Then why are you posting anything at all in this forum?

If each person is responsible for the faith (and therefore their own ultimate destination) what do you hope to achieve here, if not to change people's minds and faiths?

 

Please do respond Clay.

Other Christian apologists have attempted to evangelize here but your approach is different.

All I see from you is condemnation of faulty thinking, condemnation of faulty analysis, condemnation of this, condemnation of that and condemnation of just about anything you can find fault with.

 

This prompts me to ask you... why?

 

Please explain.

 

2) Please make your case. I'll listen and respond.

 

3) See 1. Though we will all find out the answer to this one sooner or later.

 

1:) Not your job? Mathew 28:16-20 I believe you have forgotten about the great commission my friend. Secondly the Kalam argument is empty for several reasons. for one you have a crisis of causality where a self existent God is no more satisfying answer than a self existent universe. secondly the Kalam argument makes the mistake that the only answer for the universe is the theistic principle of intervening God not counting the quantum feild as a self existing entity in itself. There is also a problem with balance when it comes to theism. in a quantum fluctuation creation the universe it isnt a choice, its just something that happens, but a theistic God is one who "chooses" to create the universe. This implies unbalance. The reason cause and effect happens in the universe is because the initial big bang unbalanced things. however with a Self existent God that chooses to create the universe there must of been an initial effect to unbalance him, to make him personal. a personal God is not balanced and unbalance takes an effect. And if a theistic God is not unbalanced than he is not a God to begin with.

 

2:) The Jews were grossly enamored in the law at the time of jesus, the Sabbath of course is the most important day of the week and there are several laws prohibiting any action taking place on the Sabbath. The Sanhedrin met on the sabbath to deal with Jesus, which would make it a historical problem. Jesus to them is not a God, He is not a man of power, he is a criminal to them and they would not violate the law that gives them their status to deal with a prisoner of all things. they would wait. secondly, upon jesus's death it is said that the dead rose from their graves and the veil was split. there is no outside historical record to support this even ever occurring. Pontious pilot and the trial jesus is another where Pilot for some reaosn needs the jews, the people he governs, to make a descision for him. Barabas was a know murderer of romans, pilot would of been put to death himself for letting barabas go.

 

1) The great commission is preaching and proclaiming. One does not preach proofs, and people are not saved through proofs.

(Jas 2:19) You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.

 

The kalam argues for an intelligent non-contingent cause. God best fits such a requirement. Ask BAA for a link to the thread he and I discussed such a subject. He should be glad to give it to you.

 

Oh, do you mean this one, Clay... ?

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/50818-what-really-is-a-christian-anyway/page__st__40

The thread where I'm still waiting for you to answer the question (the one I've put to you FOUR times now) concerning the full implications of eternal inflation, as described by Alan Guth?

The thread where you'll do anything to avoid answering that question?

 

What's it been... almost two months now?

 

Tut! Tut! You really must clear your 'In' tray, you know.

 

 

So far the scientific evidence argues against a self-existent universe (quantum field or otherwise). There is speculation sure, but no science yet. For a materialist to believe in a self-existing universe without evidence is akin to believing in magic.

 

Then stick around... if your ticker will let you. Said evidence could be just around the corner.

 

A quantum field still requires natural laws. These laws still need an explanation. From a scientific stand point it is a cop-out to pretend that the laws of nature just exist with no explanation.

 

An eternally-existing Multiverse, where all possible conditions are realized is an excellent explanation for what you term natural 'laws'. (Subtly implying that if a Law exists it therefore must have had a Law-Maker?) Such an explanation is, however abhorrent to you and you'd probably take issue with the evidence for it, even if such data were forthcoming.

 

Now there's a question that deserves answering!

How about it Clay? Would you accept good evidence for an eternally-existing Multiverse with good grace, or not?

 

Your balance argument holds no basis in science. It is meta-physics. Now you may choose to place your faith their, but you can not claim it is science in any way.

 

Then I call your bluff.

Better to hold to this brand of meta-physics, than to kowtow to your 'god'... if you are an example of his love.

 

2) Christ was not crucified on the sabbath, nor were His trials.

(Luk 23:53) And he took it down and wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid Him in a tomb cut into the rock, where no one had ever lain.

(Luk 23:54) It was the preparation day, and the Sabbath was about to begin.

[bornagainathiest]

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.

 

There you go again!

Usage of 'hidden' terminology and appeal to 'hidden' arguments. No more soundbytes please! Explain to us how you arrive at these conclusions. Your thinking could be at fault and we'd never know - because you won't explain. Please rectify this asap, Clay.

 

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.

 

Please say why this is so. Please elaborate on your cryptic pronouncements - if not for my benefit, then for the benefit others who might be persuaded by you. Assuming, of course, that you're here to persuade anyone?

 

 

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.

 

And if something seems simple and obvious to you, that's an end of it? You can't be troubled to make any further effort on behalf of anyone else who might be reading this dialog? I suppose it's just ... "Not your job"?

 

Then is it also too much to ask for a Job Description from you, so that we can understand why it's not your job?

 

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.

 

Then please explain for us the why's and wherefore's of the Apostle John's description of the Tree of Life in Revelation.

 

Thank you.

[bornagainathiest]

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;

 

So that's a No, is it?

 

You refuse point blank to explain yourself?

 

I find myself in the difficult position of having to take your words on faith, OC. I'm forced to do so by your total and utter refusal to move from your position and fulfill what seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable request.

 

Well then, just for the record, I categorically REFUSE to take what you say here on faith.

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

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..

 

You are mistaken Sir!

 

My message was a request for you to behave like any other member of this forum and reply when politely asked to do so. It was not a call for others to read these discussions. I therefore encourage you, OrdinaryClay, to go back and re-read my message. It was really quite simple to understand.

 

And Ficino and Legion are still waiting.

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

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.

 

Sorry Clay,

 

But once again I REFUSE to take this on faith from you.

 

(Hint. Twenty-six keystrokes and one mouse click does not a proper answer, make.)

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

... 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.

 

Once again, your pronouncements (even if backed up decades of deep thought) mean very little without explanation and verifying evidence. For a supposedly intelligent man your continued failure to grasp this single, salient fact is perplexing. Unless, perhaps, you don't feel bound to explain yourself?

 

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.

 

Only if the Bible is a trustworthy and reliable document concerning God's will. Now I'll take a leaf from you book Clay. Here goes!

 

Jesus did not fulfill prophecy. I don't have to explain myself on this. Decades of deep thought have lead me to this conclusion. I'm absolutely and unequivocally convinced of this.

 

3) See one.

 

And I'm absolutely and unequivocally convinced that the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is NOT the creator of the universe and is NOT the one true god.

 

Impasse, Clay!

 

You can break this logjam by making the effort to explain yourself further - further as in, well beyond the microscopic input you've made so far.

 

You still need to answer all of the questions, points and refutations put to you by Valk, Kaiser, Ficino, Legion, Centauri and myself!

 

BAA.

[mcdaddy]

Why do y'all waste precious oxygen on the mother of all douchebags here? Clearly he's a fucktard. Leave him be in his fucktardedness.

[sjessen]

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.

 

The question is what credibility and authority does the Bible have? It is quite obvious to anyone who has investigated this question that it is not the infallible word of God as it is touted to be. Therefore, it is a book written by men and consequently we do not have any reason to accept what it says or hold it up as ultimate truth. It is a book of writings, that's all.

[sjessen]

Why do y'all waste precious oxygen on the mother of all douchebags here? Clearly he's a fucktard. Leave him be in his fucktardedness.

 

Good point!

[Legion]

 

The most annoying thing about Christians

is their reduction of life to ego trip.

And man, who here is going to argue?

Because I'll herein give you a tip.

For each and every one of us

from ant to captain of the ship

no matter our place in the cosmos

we're always at the center of it.

[Akheia]

Wow, what a condescending douchebag. I'm in awe of his breathtaking arrogance and cruelty, of his utter inability to love. It takes a really special brand of ignorance to be this completely, blithely incompetent in the realm of human relations. I missed his last big appearance here, I think, and I'm thinking I didn't miss a fuckload of fun there.

 

What I'd want to know is this: why the fuck is anybody really concerned about his assertions about the Bible's internal validity? We know it's not a valid history of humanity and that it's got a checkered history of its own. We know it's not an internally-consistent document and we know that relying upon it for any kind of truth is a game best played with a good dose of gullibility. There's not going to be any way he can win that argument. Apologists have been trying every argument they can for centuries and been shot down consistently. Some idiot with a half-baked understanding of theology sure isn't going to do what the greatest names in apologetics could not.

 

He thinks he's the AVENGING ANGEL to swoop in and show us ignorant heathens where we're wrong, but the truth is that he got his ass handed to him at every turn. He's failed to demonstrate even the least amount of evidence for his claims, insists that we argue his disproven fairy-tale book with him and cite verses (LIKE WE SHOULD FUCKING CARE), and gets his own theology wrong constantly.

 

OC wants us to believe in God? We can't. Science has disproven the entire Old Testament; history/archaeology has disproven the New. Modern science denies the existence of your moldy old Middle Eastern storm-god at every turn as well--prayer does nothing random chance cannot; the mere proliferation of denominations tells us that God can't possibly be talking to humans. And then some fundie charges into Ex-C spouting about God's reality, but doesn't actually prove that reality to anybody beyond himself.

 

OC, I'm sure your church thinks you're terribly clever, but they're primed to believe you. I am not. You have not established that the Bible is a valid authority, and you have not given me any kind of evidence for your God's existence. You just insist I believe you because your Bible says I should. Well, I don't believe your Bible is true, so I guess that means that I can write you off as Yet Another Dipshit Fundie.

 

Before we proceed, please prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Yahweh (not just *A* divinity, but *that particular* divinity) exists, arguing only from extra-biblical sources. Cite sources and peer-reviewed studies and avoid scientifically-illiterate sources.

[Legion]

What bothers me about you, is what bothers me about me. And so I take this opportunity to thank you for allowing me to see.

[mcdaddy]

Wow, what a condescending douchebag. I'm in awe of his breathtaking arrogance and cruelty, of his utter inability to love. It takes a really special brand of ignorance to be this completely, blithely incompetent in the realm of human relations. I missed his last big appearance here, I think, and I'm thinking I didn't miss a fuckload of fun there.

 

What I'd want to know is this: why the fuck is anybody really concerned about his assertions about the Bible's internal validity? We know it's not a valid history of humanity and that it's got a checkered history of its own. We know it's not an internally-consistent document and we know that relying upon it for any kind of truth is a game best played with a good dose of gullibility. There's not going to be any way he can win that argument. Apologists have been trying every argument they can for centuries and been shot down consistently. Some idiot with a half-baked understanding of theology sure isn't going to do what the greatest names in apologetics could not.

 

He thinks he's the AVENGING ANGEL to swoop in and show us ignorant heathens where we're wrong, but the truth is that he got his ass handed to him at every turn. He's failed to demonstrate even the least amount of evidence for his claims, insists that we argue his disproven fairy-tale book with him and cite verses (LIKE WE SHOULD FUCKING CARE), and gets his own theology wrong constantly.

 

OC wants us to believe in God? We can't. Science has disproven the entire Old Testament; history/archaeology has disproven the New. Modern science denies the existence of your moldy old Middle Eastern storm-god at every turn as well--prayer does nothing random chance cannot; the mere proliferation of denominations tells us that God can't possibly be talking to humans. And then some fundie charges into Ex-C spouting about God's reality, but doesn't actually prove that reality to anybody beyond himself.

 

OC, I'm sure your church thinks you're terribly clever, but they're primed to believe you. I am not. You have not established that the Bible is a valid authority, and you have not given me any kind of evidence for your God's existence. You just insist I believe you because your Bible says I should. Well, I don't believe your Bible is true, so I guess that means that I can write you off as Yet Another Dipshit Fundie.

 

Before we proceed, please prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Yahweh (not just *A* divinity, but *that particular* divinity) exists, arguing only from extra-biblical sources. Cite sources and peer-reviewed studies and avoid scientifically-illiterate sources.

 

OC, you can leave a tip for Akheia on your way out.

 

 

Cuz you just got SERVED.

[centauri]

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.

No, it does not.

There is nothing in the Hebrew scriptures that says Jesus is needed for salvation.

Christianity is revisionist theology that attempts to redefine God's prior word, known to Christians as the "Old Testament".

[mcdaddy]

Hey OC, pull my finger.

[centauri]

... 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.

No, you're making things up.

There is nothing in the Hebrew scriptures that says Jesus was the God of Abraham, Isaac,and Jacob.

 

2) Jesus fulfilled the prophetic intent of God's will as written in the Bible.

No, he did not.

He fulfilled nothing.

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.

 

These are requirements for a king messiah as specified in the Hebrew scriptures.

 

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.

The requirements for a king messiah are not the "wills of men", they come directly from God's word.

 

3) See one.

Your first talking point wasn't validated by the Bible.

It was merely an argument by assertion, with no basis as fact.

[Legion]

 

Do you think there's something strange

about the name "Ordinary Clay"?

It says, "I'm just an average guy,

but my maker, he don't play."

"Whether I'm large or I'm small

I'll be lettin' you decide."

But I know, yes Legion knows

We're fabricated from inside.

[centauri]

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.

Here you go:

http://www.ex-christ...h/page__st__560

 

And here's another chance for you to answer one of the key elements of the many exchanges in the thread "Repenting After Death".

 

I addressed this to you on March 31,2012 and it pertains directly to the same claims that you've just recycled here.

 

"The Old Testament defines the stipulations for a king messiah and gives a basic job description, it does not validate Jesus by default.

That's your job, at least if you want to do more than simply make assertions without substance.

 

You haven't shown at all where God told his people in the Old Testament that a king messiah would end or alter the law.

That's what Paul claimed.

It's also a doctrinal bombshell.

The definition of a king messiah was accompanied by a job description.

It should be a relatively simple matter to confirm Paul's teaching with validation for that teaching from the Old Testament.

Christians are constantly bragging to me about all of the Old Testament proof texts that leave no doubt that the New Testament is of divine origin.

This is a golden opportunity for you to prove the amazing truth of Paul's revelations.

All you have to do is cite the passage or verse from the Old Testament that says a king messiah would end the law."

[bornagainathiest]

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?

 

You really cannot see what McDaddy means, can you Clay?

 

And now his pertinent observation has now been joined by Antixianxian's (#105) and Akheia's (#162).

 

No, McD's question isn't about the presence of any transgression on your part. Rather, he and the others have noticed the absence of something - something that you should be in your behavior and clearly isn't. That's why his question is a 'where?'.

 

A true Christian is known by this 'something'; not by the soundness of their arguments, nor by their decades of deep thought and not by their absolute certainty. Those Christians without this certain 'something' are no more than resounding gongs or clanging cymbals.

 

Do you see what McD means now?

 

BAA.

[Spectrox]

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.

 

How to say nothing in just over a hundred words.

[Ouroboros]

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.

All prayers are in conflict for the simple reason that they're made by humans. "God's will be done." How can that be if we think they know better and ask God for something that it would happen? It's in conflict with God's will, is it not? And if we can only pray in accordance with God's will... then what's the use, and how can you define a "prayer answer" since it would have happened anyway (according to God's will)? Prayer is nothing but a failed attempt by humans to feel empowered in a world of chaos and chance. God is just a label for destiny.

[mcdaddy]

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.

All prayers are in conflict for the simple reason that they're made by humans. "God's will be done." How can that be if we think they know better and ask God for something that it would happen? It's in conflict with God's will, is it not? And if we can only pray in accordance with God's will... then what's the use, and how can you define a "prayer answer" since it would have happened anyway (according to God's will)? Prayer is nothing but a failed attempt by humans to feel empowered in a world of chaos and chance. God is just a label for destiny.

 

"But not my will be done Lard, thy will be done".

 

So:

 

If the petitioner's will is done, which if it is different than God's, means that Gods will has been thwarted, rendering him non-omnipowerful;

 

OR

 

God's will is done anyways, rendering the prayer futile and pointless.

 

Why should I pray again?

 

Pray tell, dear child.

[Guest Valk0010]

Why do y'all waste precious oxygen on the mother of all douchebags here? Clearly he's a fucktard. Leave him be in his fucktardedness.

 

Good point!

There are plenty people who haven't spent time really thinking about the questions enough to not get swayed by dressed up stupidity.

[mcdaddy]

Why do y'all waste precious oxygen on the mother of all douchebags here? Clearly he's a fucktard. Leave him be in his fucktardedness.

 

Good point!

There are plenty people who haven't spent time really thinking about the questions enough to not get swayed by dressed up stupidity.

Its like Pee Wee Herman in a tux.