Annoying Christian Thread Continued Here

[bdp]

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.

 

Bullshit. And fuck you.

[bdp]

 

 

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.

 

So 'he' can see me flipping him off.

[bdp]

 

The spirit is a supernatural fact, not a natural fact.

 

"the spirirt" is not a fact of any kind. Of all the great big fucking idiots who've ever tramped all over these boards you are, without question, the stupidest.

[mcdaddy]

 

The spirit is a supernatural fact, not a natural fact.

 

"the spirirt" is not a fact of any kind. Of all the great big fucking idiots who've ever tramped all over these boards you are, without question, the stupidest.

 

"supernatural fact". LOL.

 

That's like saying square circle, or jumbo shrimp, or some such other bullshit.

 

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SUPERNATURAL FACT YOU FREAKING TARD.

 

NOT A DAMN THING HAS BEEN PROVEN TO EXIST "SUPERNATURALLY".

 

Is this guy serious? What a damn troll.

 

 

[midniterider]

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 bible is a book of fairy tales. It is fiction. You base your life on fiction. You are living a ficitonal life. You have been programmed to treat fiction as fact. The truth is your bible is unimportant. Your jesus is unimportant. Your religion is unimportant. Your hell is non-existent.

[Ouroboros]

"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.

Exactly. Is prayer just a form of confirmation of what God was going to do anyway? Is he that self-centered that he needs some kind of prayer-approval from his followers? What's the meaning of prayer when it's rendered useless and futile? (Unless the meaning is only to make the person feel good about agreeing with God)

[Ouroboros]

The spirit is a supernatural fact, not a natural fact.

= imaginary "fact".

[Ouroboros]

The Bible says otherwise.

Only you and your fellow believers care about what the Bible says.

 

What the Bible says or not has nothing to do with facts. It's just words in a book, nothing else. The words mean something to you, but they don't mean shit to an unbeliever (except for prose).

 

The Harry Potter books also contain magic and Harry tells the truth, therefore magic exists. Let's try... Expelliarmus!

 

Damn. Nothing happened. But they must be true since the spells are in the books. So I still believe Harry Potter spells work. It was just that Rowling's Spirit didn't want it to work this time, but most of the time she allows them to happen. At least we know that from the books.

[London]

This one always works for me.

 

Evanesco!

[OrdinaryClay]

Kalam could be used to prove fairies.

Please demonstrate.

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
    
   
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence; Therefore:
    
   
3. 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

 

No, the cause can not be anything. Only a conscious non-contingent entity outside the natural laws of the universe. For example It can't be a unicorn or the "spaghetti monster" because such "things" are physical entities made of matter. I agree this leaves open other characteristics, like the moral behavior of such an entity, but the KCA does not allow for anything to be the Creator.

[OrdinaryClay]

"'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?

Yes, we should, and many, many highly educated and intelligent people do.

 

 

The study of natural theology detects His intervention through science and philosophy (the teleological argument for example) , while special revelation reveals His intervention through testimony and miracles. It is important to understand that the supernatural is by definition not subject to the empirical method.

 

To say there is no evidence is wrong. Atheists reject the evidence presented. When a legal case comes to trial the jurors don't throw up their hands ans say "no evidence", they reject the evidence presented. This is what atheists do. I've accepted the evidence.

[Guest Valk0010]

 

 

To say there is no evidence is wrong. Atheists reject the evidence presented. When a legal case comes to trial the jurors don't throw up their hands ans say "no evidence", they reject the evidence presented. This is what atheists do. I've accepted the evidence.

Distinction without a difference on your part.

[OrdinaryClay]

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.

Actually I don't support theistic evolution. Based on the evidence I'm an old earth Christian, and I believe a form of Intelligent Design.

[mcdaddy]

"'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?

Yes, we should, and many, many highly educated and intelligent people do.

 

 

The study of natural theology detects His intervention through science and philosophy (the teleological argument for example) , while special revelation reveals His intervention through testimony and miracles. It is important to understand that the supernatural is by definition not subject to the empirical method.

 

To say there is no evidence is wrong. Atheists reject the evidence presented. When a legal case comes to trial the jurors don't throw up their hands ans say "no evidence", they reject the evidence presented. This is what atheists do. I've accepted the evidence.

 

And this evidence that's widely rejected by the most educated and intelligent people around the world is......?

[OrdinaryClay]

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.

It is possible Adam existed in the context of a 4,5 billion year old earth. I believe the creation story is perfectly in line with a 13.7 year old universe. Take some time to study the subject, if you desire.

[mcdaddy]

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.

Actually I don't support theistic evolution. Based on the evidence I'm an old earth Christian, and I believe a form of Intelligent Design.

 

An old earth xian....but not a theistic evolutionist. Wtf.

[Guest Valk0010]

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.

Actually I don't support theistic evolution. Based on the evidence I'm an old earth Christian, and I believe a form of Intelligent Design.

So geology is right but evolution isnt? So that would mean then, you would have to believe that all the extinct organism and animals we know existing, couldn't have contributed by breeding to the following generation? Or do you believe that there was large periods of time with no life on the planet at all? As far as I can see those are the only two ways one could be old earth and are bankrupt by even a simple of understanding of geology or evolution.

[mcdaddy]

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.

It is possible Adam existed in the context of a 4,5 billion year old earth. I believe the creation story is perfectly in line with a 13.7 year old universe. Take some time to study the subject, if you desire.

 

I used to believe that silly notion too.

 

Oh, those were the days...but wen I grew up, I put away childish things.

[OrdinaryClay]

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?

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

[OrdinaryClay]

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.

Have you proven the god you follow?

[mcdaddy]

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.

Have you proven the god you follow?

 

You, good sir, are an idiot of the highest order.

 

You do realize shes an atheist, right?

 

Good god.

[Guest Valk0010]

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.

It is possible Adam existed in the context of a 4,5 billion year old earth. I believe the creation story is perfectly in line with a 13.7 year old universe. Take some time to study the subject, if you desire.

Possible, but downright unlikely. I have actually. I was a theistic evolutionist. I realized that there is no reason to believe that adam could have existed within a chain of a 4.5 billion year old earth and keep genesis as a book of the bible at all. There is no where, in genesis that you could fit how life evolved. And also, its a rather improbable notion. Your create a bunch of apes that get closer and closer to human, and then god goes, eureka found the guy I want to put the first soul in. It turns god into a preschooler with playdoe. As well it doesn't really work, because to evolve you need breeding. So eve would not have came from adam's rib. In old earth creationism there is the same sort of problem. Pre adam primates would have needed to breed to survive. If there was breeding then there was no reason for the coming from adam's rib routine. That alone makes the story nonsensical and disproves adam.

[OrdinaryClay]

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.

Actually I don't support theistic evolution. Based on the evidence I'm an old earth Christian, and I believe a form of Intelligent Design.

So geology is right but evolution isnt? So that would mean then, you would have to believe that all the extinct organism and animals we know existing, couldn't have contributed by breeding to the following generation? Or do you believe that there was large periods of time with no life on the planet at all? As far as I can see those are the only two ways one could be old earth and are bankrupt by even a simple of understanding of geology or evolution.

You don't understand the difference between theistic evolution and ID.

[mcdaddy]

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.

Actually I don't support theistic evolution. Based on the evidence I'm an old earth Christian, and I believe a form of Intelligent Design.

So geology is right but evolution isnt? So that would mean then, you would have to believe that all the extinct organism and animals we know existing, couldn't have contributed by breeding to the following generation? Or do you believe that there was large periods of time with no life on the planet at all? As far as I can see those are the only two ways one could be old earth and are bankrupt by even a simple of understanding of geology or evolution.

You don't understand the difference between theistic evolution and ID.

 

Then fuckin' explain it to all us tards over here.

[Guest Valk0010]

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.

Actually I don't support theistic evolution. Based on the evidence I'm an old earth Christian, and I believe a form of Intelligent Design.

So geology is right but evolution isnt? So that would mean then, you would have to believe that all the extinct organism and animals we know existing, couldn't have contributed by breeding to the following generation? Or do you believe that there was large periods of time with no life on the planet at all? As far as I can see those are the only two ways one could be old earth and are bankrupt by even a simple of understanding of geology or evolution.

You don't understand the difference between theistic evolution and ID.

Well I know what theistic evolution is. Intelligent Design is a bit like conservatism, means different things to different people. As far as I can see the only thing it means universally is there was someone who designed life. Enlighten me to what your understanding of Intelligent Design. The point i tried to make there, is that geology clues one in, on the validity of evolution since the other options are nonsensical.