God's Mighty Plan Of Salvation

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

Thinking the Hezbollah started throwing rocks first on this one.... or killing teenagers.

 

Religion-based hatred? Ha, I see how many peace-filled people reside here.

 

 

As if this conflict started with the most recent events?  I don't think you know which religion started it, and by now it doesn't matter.  The point is, religion is motivating people to kill.

 

You compare centuries of murder to comments on an internet forum?  That's just embarrassing.

[sdelsolray]

And as far as vitriol in this site, yeah, there's a lot of it, and it's mostly aimed at christianity (surprise surprise, it's an Ex-christian site...). 

 

Ouch, words hurled at christians sting, you're crying in the corner, you're being persecuted for your lord's sake! 

 

Meanwhile... real physical violence comes from religious countries.

 

http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/06/atheist-nations-are-more-peaceful.html

 

Let's be consistent.  Coincidence does not demonstrate correlation and correlation does not demonstrate causation.

 

I see a correlation here.  However, the graphs do not demonstrate causation.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

I'm not threatened. I gather people are miffed that the verse I just randomly picked was translated universe. The point is we will never ultimately know if there is another universe, or several. But, as I point out, if I were to take off in a ship, then I would be participating in science, i.e. an experiment.

 

The act of taking off in a spaceship is not participating in science, nor is it an experiment.

 

Science and experiments can be performed on a spaceship, but simply being in one doesn't qualify as science.

 

To do science, you have to use the scientific method.

 

Which means putting aside your subjectivity and being objective, End.

 

I give up BAA.....again. You're so obtuse it's not even worth discussing.

 

 

That's ok, End.

 

You're under pressure and you want out.

But you don't want us to see that you're under pressure, so you'll get out of it by calling me obtuse.  That'll be the 'escape clause' you'll use to avoid facing up to the pressure.  You do understand, but you're going to pretend you don't. That way you can drop out of this without losing face and without having to change in any way.   

 

I understand.  I'm disappointed and not entirely surprised... but I do understand.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[sdelsolray]

 

Clean and unclean

 

What we see is more likely at least 2 stories interwoven. The first was likely stolen from the epic of Gilgamesh and was written as 2x2. The second was written later by priests and included the 7 clean. No where before was there any clean or unclean. It is not even revealed why Cain and able sacrificed. Cain gave him fruits of the ground. Did this make god angry? He never says why, just that he doesn't like cains. But Abel gives the first of his flock and the fat. Fat tastes good! So god (priests) liked his. It would appear that god only wants meat or that Cain did not bring his best fruits. Strangely it never says why.

 

So clean and unclean probably came about in around 500bce when Ezra, Josiah et al "found" the first 5 books then proceeded to write the priestly rules to back up their wants and needs.

 

 

Cain offered his sacrifice without faith.

 

Abel offered his in faith.

 

Did you plagiarize the sentence "Cain offered his sacrifice without faith" without proper attribution?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

"Either way, why would animals not be afraid of the humans who were killing them, either for their own or their gods' consumption, until after the flood?"

 

If you mean why did the animals willingly enter the ark, here's my answer.

 

I live in a rural area in the South. There is no way I could go out and round up two of a kind of all the

critters that live in the woods.

 

I believe God instructed the animals to enter the ark.

I did not mean, "Why did the animals willingly enter the ark?" and you know perfectly well that is not what I meant.  I meant, "Why were the animals not already afraid of the humans who were killing them."

 

You are being supremely disingenuous, TinPony; and I am nearing the end of my patience with you.  Stop playing games and answer the fucking question or you and I are done.

 

Answer the question I asked you, Ironhorse, not the question you wanted me to ask.

 

Answer the question, Ironhorse.  Lurkers are watching.  Your answer (actions) might be the very thing one of them needs to cling to their troubled faith.

[SpaceWrangler]

 

 

 

 

Clean and unclean

 

What we see is more likely at least 2 stories interwoven. The first was likely stolen from the epic of Gilgamesh and was written as 2x2. The second was written later by priests and included the 7 clean. No where before was there any clean or unclean. It is not even revealed why Cain and able sacrificed. Cain gave him fruits of the ground. Did this make god angry? He never says why, just that he doesn't like cains. But Abel gives the first of his flock and the fat. Fat tastes good! So god (priests) liked his. It would appear that god only wants meat or that Cain did not bring his best fruits. Strangely it never says why.

 

So clean and unclean probably came about in around 500bce when Ezra, Josiah et al "found" the first 5 books then proceeded to write the priestly rules to back up their wants and needs.

Cain offered his sacrifice without faith.

 

Abel offered his in faith.

Where do you get that from?

 

So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell. Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it." (‭Genesis‬ ‭4‬:‭3-7‬ NASB)

I have to agree with Space Wrangler on this.

Going by the verse above, it was not a faith issue. It was most likely that Cain did not offer the 'first fruits' of his crop.

Problem with that tho is

 

It states that Abel "also" brought the firstlings of his flock. This reads to insinuate that Cain did bring his firstlings.

[Gus]

 

 

Perhaps over the course of this thread Redneck and I will come to some mutual agreement on some areas but not others.

 

 

I am not here to say I am right and anyone else is wrong, its just ideas we are talking about.

 

 

Gus, does it matter whether or not these ideas are true?

 

 

 It matters in so much as to why people believe in what they do.

 

If we can just say none of it matters anyway, we don’t need to have the conversation at all I guess.

 

I believe it to be true and state why. RNP does not believe it to be true and states why. So both looking at it and coming to that mutual understanding of each other I guess.

 

Also to Roz, I have not forgotten your question. I feel it deserves a considered response and I am thinking on how to put it. At the moment, Im quite busy but will try and post it up by the weekend.

[Gus]

 

 

 

 

Clean and unclean

 

What we see is more likely at least 2 stories interwoven. The first was likely stolen from the epic of Gilgamesh and was written as 2x2. The second was written later by priests and included the 7 clean. No where before was there any clean or unclean. It is not even revealed why Cain and able sacrificed. Cain gave him fruits of the ground. Did this make god angry? He never says why, just that he doesn't like cains. But Abel gives the first of his flock and the fat. Fat tastes good! So god (priests) liked his. It would appear that god only wants meat or that Cain did not bring his best fruits. Strangely it never says why.

 

So clean and unclean probably came about in around 500bce when Ezra, Josiah et al "found" the first 5 books then proceeded to write the priestly rules to back up their wants and needs.

Cain offered his sacrifice without faith.

 

Abel offered his in faith.

Where do you get that from?

 

So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell. Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it." (‭Genesis‬ ‭4‬:‭3-7‬ NASB)

I have to agree with Space Wrangler on this.

Going by the verse above, it was not a faith issue. It was most likely that Cain did not offer the 'first fruits' of his crop.

Problem with that tho is

 

It states that Abel "also" brought the firstlings of his flock. This reads to insinuate that Cain did bring his firstlings.

 

 

Could be or could just be he also brought his offering, and it says they where first as a matter of fact rather than direct comparison.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

Perhaps over the course of this thread Redneck and I will come to some mutual agreement on some areas but not others.

 

 

I am not here to say I am right and anyone else is wrong, its just ideas we are talking about.

 

 

Gus, does it matter whether or not these ideas are true?

 

 

 It matters in so much as to why people believe in what they do.

 

If we can just say none of it matters anyway, we don’t need to have the conversation at all I guess.

 

I believe it to be true and state why. RNP does not believe it to be true and states why. So both looking at it and coming to that mutual understanding of each other I guess.

 

Also to Roz, I have not forgotten your question. I feel it deserves a considered response and I am thinking on how to put it. At the moment, Im quite busy but will try and post it up by the weekend.

 

I'm not sure I understand  your answer.  What I was getting at was... to me it matters a great deal whether something is true.  I need good evidence before I will believe something is true.

[Gus]

 

I think the distinctions were not dietary, but about animals to be used for sacrifice.  

Either way, why would animals not be afraid of the humans who were killing them, either for their own or their gods' consumption, until after the flood?

 

Not that I expect an answer from you, TinPony.

 

 

Good question, but maybe not many animals’ sacrifices where really taking place relative to how many would be eaten. But after, when animals could be eaten there was much wider spread animal death, to the point of extension even maybe.

 

Also, with regards to how did Noah know which animals where clean and unclean prior to the law being revealed?

 

Stands to reason God would have told him. Same as Cain and Able knowing to bring an offering before the law had been written.

[Gus]

 

 

 

 

Perhaps over the course of this thread Redneck and I will come to some mutual agreement on some areas but not others.

 

 

I am not here to say I am right and anyone else is wrong, its just ideas we are talking about.

 

 

Gus, does it matter whether or not these ideas are true?

 

 

 It matters in so much as to why people believe in what they do.

 

If we can just say none of it matters anyway, we don’t need to have the conversation at all I guess.

 

I believe it to be true and state why. RNP does not believe it to be true and states why. So both looking at it and coming to that mutual understanding of each other I guess.

 

Also to Roz, I have not forgotten your question. I feel it deserves a considered response and I am thinking on how to put it. At the moment, Im quite busy but will try and post it up by the weekend.

 

I'm not sure I understand  your answer.  What I was getting at was... to me it matters a great deal whether something is true.  I need good evidence before I will believe something is true.

 

 

Well your question was quite hard to answer ha-ha

 

I believe it to be true, so it matters to me. However in regards to the whole fall, as we where not there we don’t the finer details.

 

If you want evidence there was a fall, Adam and eve where real etc., well that’s a different question!

 

I’m guessing a ‘prove it’ may be coming soon!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

I think the distinctions were not dietary, but about animals to be used for sacrifice.  

Either way, why would animals not be afraid of the humans who were killing them, either for their own or their gods' consumption, until after the flood?

 

Not that I expect an answer from you, TinPony.

 

 

Good question, but maybe not many animals’ sacrifices where really taking place relative to how many would be eaten. But after, when animals could be eaten there was much wider spread animal death, to the point of extension even maybe.

 

Also, with regards to how did Noah know which animals where clean and unclean prior to the law being revealed?

 

Stands to reason God would have told him. Same as Cain and Able knowing to bring an offering before the law had been written.

 

Careful, Gus.  You are assuming a lot that isn't actually written in the text.  We have to avoid reading into it what isn't there.  god doesn't explain the difference between clean and unclean until he gives the law, many years later.  He doesn't mention it to Noah, that we know of; nor is there any discussion as to what is an acceptable offering for Cain and Abel.  You can't just make the stories say what you want them to say.  I wanted the Trojans to win; Homer didn't.  I have to accept that.

 

Incidentally, evolution explains perfectly why many animals fear humans (and also why a lion in an African savanna wouldn't give a human a second thought).

[mymistake]

 

Careful, Gus.  You are assuming a lot that isn't actually written in the text.  We have to avoid reading into it what isn't there.  god doesn't explain the difference between clean and unclean until he gives the law, many years later.  He doesn't mention it to Noah, that we know of; nor is there any discussion as to what is an acceptable offering for Cain and Abel.  You can't just make the stories say what you want them to say.  I wanted the Trojans to win; Homer didn't.  I have to accept that.

 

Incidentally, evolution explains perfectly why many animals fear humans (and also why a lion in an African savanna wouldn't give a human a second thought).

 

 

 

But the Bible stories as they stand are exactly what we would expect to see if Ezra had taken older stories and edited them together to form a new religion.  There would be plenty of cracks and contradictions.  If Ezra did a sloppy job then he would leave plot holes such as older stories not fitting with concepts introduced later.

[sdelsolray]

...

Again I will post, I spent a lot of time in my early twenties in college reading every book I could on the religions of the world.

And again I will post, my parents taught me and encourage me to question everything...including the christian faith.

 

Whether these statements are correct, exaggerations, outright lies or something else doesn't matter.  What is clear is that to the extent you did read "every book I could on the religions of the world" you have clearly demonstrated you did not understand them at the time of reading or did not retain what you read in your memory.  And that also goes for any books you claim to have read, or research you claim to have done, concerning any scientific discipline.

[ironhorse]

 

...

Again I will post, I spent a lot of time in my early twenties in college reading every book I could on the religions of the world.

And again I will post, my parents taught me and encourage me to question everything...including the christian faith.

 

Whether these statements are correct, exaggerations, outright lies or something else doesn't matter.  What is clear is that to the extent you did read "every book I could on the religions of the world" you have clearly demonstrated you did not understand them at the time of reading or did not retain what you read in your memory.  And that also goes for any books you claim to have read, or research you claim to have done, concerning any scientific discipline.

 

 

"What is clear is that to the extent you did read "every book I could on the religions of the world" you have clearly demonstrated you did not understand them at the time of reading or did not retain what you read in your memory."

 

Why is that clear to you?

[sdelsolray]

 

Gus,

 

I going to summarize a few of the claims you made in this thread and how you have dealt with them.  This is nothing personal.  It is simply a review of the actual evidence supporting my claim that you merely assert your subjective religious beliefs and when called to support those claims with evidence you fail to provide that evidence and simply repeat the mere assertions.

 

It starts with your earlier post in this thread (post #19) in which you made the following claim:

 

 

...

The cause of all sin was Satan, and Satan alone.

...

 

To support this claim you provided the following (again in post #19):

 

 

...

Lucifer was most likely sent to the garden to minster and care for Adam and Eve. He had not yet fallen.

If God put Adam and Eve in with the Devil as a dangerous adversary, it would be foolish.

But somewhere, Lucifer saw an opportunity to gain power. Knowing he could never take on God directly, he saw God give earth to Adam.

So he saw this as an opportunity to gain power by taking it from Adam. Hence why he is called the ‘prince of this earth’.

God could not just take it back, as it was legally satan’s now, and God does not go back on his word.

So Jesus had to come to take it back as a man, as it had been given to man.

...

 

Of course, this is not evidence.  It is merely a collection of more assertions and some subjective opinion.  More importantly, none of it deals with your original claim "The cause of all sin was Satan, and Satan alone."

 

Nevertheless, you conclude Post #19 with the following conclusion:

 

 

Lucifer, now Satan, is the author of the evil we see, not God.

 

Well, you may "see".  I fail to see any support for your claim.

 

After a few posters challenged you on this and a few other things, you stated, in Post #69:

 

 

...

I don’t really want to get into a battle over your points. I don’t agree with them myself (certainly not about the serpent not be Lucifer), but I wont argue the point further.

...

 

So, you won't discuss the challenge any further.  I guess that's because you wanted to return to simply making more claims (in post #69):

 

 

...

The Lord had given man total control over the earth. It was his to govern as he saw fit. Adam then yielded to Satan the power and authority God intended for man.

...

In an attempt to show that Satan is the sole creator of evil, you employ additional unsupported claims that are non-sequiturs.  How convincing.

 

But wait, it gets better.  In post #98, in response to a request for Biblical support of your claims, you stated the following:

 

 

...

I cannot provide you with a specific scripture from Genesis that says what you want it to, so if that is what you are looking for, sorry I cannot help and you are free to dismiss my theory.

...

 

OK, your claims are dismissed.  But not by you.  In an effort to support your claims that (i) Adam gave Satan power or (ii) Satan took that power from Adam (you make both claims), you provided the following "evidence" in Post # 98:

 

 

...

However, I don’t think you need to have one as there is evidence through the bible that this is the case.

On numerous occasions Satan is credited with having some authority and power over the earth. His biggest claim was to Jesus himself that he could give him authority as it had been given to him. Of course, this claim itself may not be true as Satan is called 'the father of lies', but what is interesting is that Jesus did not discredited it. More like, his claim was a truth, but giving it up was the lie.

There are also references to him as God of this earth, prince of this world and the prince of the power of the air.

Satan does not own the earth, which is Gods. But he has authority to wield huge influence (on people, government and any man made systems) and has some power to affect it physically.

…

Which isn't evidence at all, but simply another collection of claims and your subjective opinions.

 

Finally, in response to further questions about this, you stated the following (in Post #160):

 

 

...

I don’t know how the authority changed hands, but as you have suggested, some duplicitous means seems reasonable, that is certainly the character of Satan, also known as a deceiver.

 

You don't know how, but you are still certain of your claims.

 

Notice how none of this is support for your original claim, "The cause of all sin was Satan, and Satan alone."

Notice also that you provided no evidence for your subsequent claims.

 

In the world of rational and critical thinking, you have merely stated some of your personal religious beliefs.  You made several claims and failed to provide any relevant evidence to support them.  When challenged, you either refused to discuss the challenge or simply made more unsupported assertions.

 

You may wish to consider the effectiveness of your debating tactics.

Thanks for you feedback, and I don't take it personally.

 

To be fair I can see where you are coming from and where your frustration lies, but I did say in my opening statement that some of this is probably 'gusology' and we are discussing the themes of the topic, so yes granted some are personal beliefs but ones based on what I see in scripture and what I have read on the topic.

...

 

 

I'm not frustrated, at least not yet.  "Some are personal beliefs"?  (your words).  All of your statements are either (i) personal beliefs or (ii) mere assertions.  The fact that you base your beliefs on certain religious scripture or other readings does not change the fact that your statements are simply (i) your personal beliefs or (ii) mere assertions by you (most of which seem to come from the same certain religious scripture or other readings).  You can't magically transform your beliefs and assertions into anything other than what they are.  Well, you could, but that would require rational thinking, relevant evidence and analysis, something you have yet to do.

 

(to be continued in the next post)

[sdelsolray]

(continued from previous post)

 

 

...

When I say that Satan is the author of evil, I feel there are enough scriptural examples in the bible to make that claim.

...

 

 

 

I don't care what you "feel".  Your feelings are not relevant.  You've already tried to support your claim that 'Satan created evil, and only Satan' (again, your words) with Biblical scripture, and you failed miserably, simply because your scriptural references made no reference, express or implied, to your claim.  A classic non-sequitur.  In spades.

 

Do you want to try again?

 

 

...

But I don’t want to get into a scripture a battle, hence why I said to RNP that I don’t agree with all his points, but don't wish to argue them.

...

 

 

 

Apparently you don't want to try again.  Make a claim.  Fail at supporting it when challenged.  Refuse to support it further when the failure is identified and challenged.  How convenient.  Lazy too.

 

 

 

...

Perhaps over the course of this thread Redneck and I will come to some mutual agreement on some areas but not others.

...

 

 

 

Yes, perhaps.

 

 

...

I am not here to say I am right and anyone else is wrong, its just ideas we are talking about.

 

 

If you say so.  I have my doubts.

[ironhorse]

It's a simple plan:

 

 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

 

~John 4:16

 

 

no mantras

 

no kissing a priest toes

 

no prayer wheels

 

no avoiding eating Twinkies or drinking buttermilk

 

no required number of daily prayers

 

no banned books

[sdelsolray]

It's a simple plan:

 

 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

 

~John 4:16

 

Just not in any way you can demonstrate.

[Ravenstar]

How incredibly stupid.. now that I read that from this side… what is the point of believing in some guy I've never seen, from hearsay of hearsay,  written down, translated, transliterated, edited (heavily I might add) from the other side of the world over 2000 years ago, a 'belief' that has been under the control of the most horrendously greedy, cruel, lying assholes for the most of that time… and by emotional fanatics for the rest?

 

How does that make me a better person? What kind of ridiculous expectation is that for THE CREATOR OF THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE to expect? Everything else seems to have evidence… like oh…. THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. Almost every other belief system has either rules or admonishments to acquire wisdom… but not christianity.. oh no, they receive a 'get out of jail free' card and really don't have to do much of anything. Convenient. I haven't yet seen any evidence that this belief system makes people any better… actually I have seen the opposite.

 

All it does is give them an excuse to be a twatwaffle in this life because they believe the Almighty will grant them eternal life (kissing his butt) in the next, for doing nothing and taking no responsibility. Really? Funny, reality doesn't seem to work that way… nature sure as hell doesn't. 

 

Basically someone found out how to control people by FEEDING off their existential fear of death.

 

and our visiting christian can't even get the verse right… it's John 3:16, not 4:16. Seriously? How does a feely touchy fluff bunny christian get THAT one wrong?

 

 

 

HERE is the problem. Without even going into WHO wrote it and when...

 

In John 3:21 the Bible speaks about truth and people DOING what is right: Here are several translations.. and they don't all mean the same thing - subtle changes in words and such completely change this ONE verse. Which one do I follow?

 

New International Version
But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

New Living Translation
But those who do what is right come to the light so others can see that they are doing what God wants."

English Standard Version
But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

New American Standard Bible 
"But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."

King James Bible
But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
But anyone who lives by the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be shown to be accomplished by God." 

International Standard Version
But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may become evident that his actions have God's approval." 

NET Bible
But the one who practices the truth comes to the light, so that it may be plainly evident that his deeds have been done in God. 

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
But he who does The Truth comes to The Light, so that his works may be revealed, that they are performed by God.”

GOD'S WORD® Translation
But people who do what is true come to the light so that the things they do for God may be clearly seen.

Jubilee Bible 2000
But he that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

King James 2000 Bible
But he that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are worked in God.

American King James Version
But he that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are worked in God.

American Standard Version
But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God.

Douay-Rheims Bible
But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God. 

Darby Bible Translation
but he that practises the truth comes to the light, that his works may be manifested that they have been wrought in God.

English Revised Version
But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God.

Webster's Bible Translation
But he that doeth truth, cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Weymouth New Testament
But he who does what is honest and right comes to the light, in order that his actions may be plainly shown to have been done in God.

World English Bible
But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God."

Young's Literal Translation
but he who is doing the truth doth come to the light, that his works may be manifested, that in God they are having been wrought.'

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps over the course of this thread Redneck and I will come to some mutual agreement on some areas but not others.

 

 

I am not here to say I am right and anyone else is wrong, its just ideas we are talking about.

 

 

Gus, does it matter whether or not these ideas are true?

 

 

 It matters in so much as to why people believe in what they do.

 

If we can just say none of it matters anyway, we don’t need to have the conversation at all I guess.

 

I believe it to be true and state why. RNP does not believe it to be true and states why. So both looking at it and coming to that mutual understanding of each other I guess.

 

Also to Roz, I have not forgotten your question. I feel it deserves a considered response and I am thinking on how to put it. At the moment, Im quite busy but will try and post it up by the weekend.

 

I'm not sure I understand  your answer.  What I was getting at was... to me it matters a great deal whether something is true.  I need good evidence before I will believe something is true.

 

 

Well your question was quite hard to answer ha-ha

 

I believe it to be true, so it matters to me. However in regards to the whole fall, as we where not there we don’t the finer details.

 

If you want evidence there was a fall, Adam and eve where real etc., well that’s a different question!

 

I’m guessing a ‘prove it’ may be coming soon!

 

I didn't think it was hard to answer at all.

 

You believe it to be true, so it matters to you.  Someone else has already pointed this out, but I'll do it again: you seem to have things around the wrong way.  I need evidence before I can know if something is true.  I don't believe in things without evidence.

 

Call that a "prove it" if you like, but it takes nothing away from the simple fact that something being written about in the bible does not mean there is evidence for it... and therefore I cannot believe it is true.

 

There are so many incoherent and implausible things about the story of the fall.  Just the first one that pops into my head without even looking anything up: if all humans are descended from Adam and Eve, why were there not fatal birth defects in the third generation?

 

It matters a great deal to me whether things are true or not.  I'm guessing it doesn't matter so much to you at present.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

...

Again I will post, I spent a lot of time in my early twenties in college reading every book I could on the religions of the world.

And again I will post, my parents taught me and encourage me to question everything...including the christian faith.

 

Whether these statements are correct, exaggerations, outright lies or something else doesn't matter.  What is clear is that to the extent you did read "every book I could on the religions of the world" you have clearly demonstrated you did not understand them at the time of reading or did not retain what you read in your memory.  And that also goes for any books you claim to have read, or research you claim to have done, concerning any scientific discipline.

 

 

"What is clear is that to the extent you did read "every book I could on the religions of the world" you have clearly demonstrated you did not understand them at the time of reading or did not retain what you read in your memory."

 

Why is that clear to you?

 

Sorry, but I literally facepalmed when I read this.

[thereisnoperfect]

 

 

...

Again I will post, I spent a lot of time in my early twenties in college reading every book I could on the religions of the world.

And again I will post, my parents taught me and encourage me to question everything...including the christian faith.

 

Whether these statements are correct, exaggerations, outright lies or something else doesn't matter.  What is clear is that to the extent you did read "every book I could on the religions of the world" you have clearly demonstrated you did not understand them at the time of reading or did not retain what you read in your memory.  And that also goes for any books you claim to have read, or research you claim to have done, concerning any scientific discipline.

 

 

"What is clear is that to the extent you did read "every book I could on the religions of the world" you have clearly demonstrated you did not understand them at the time of reading or did not retain what you read in your memory."

 

Why is that clear to you?

 

Because everything you say demonstrates that you barely understand christianity and have no understanding of any other view. Because despite claiming to be a skeptic who examines all these different religions, you admit in another thread that you've never questioned or doubted christianity.

 

You are wasting your time here. Not because we can't be persuaded if we are provided with evidence and sound argumentation--because you absolutely cannot understand us as an  audience enough to communicate effectively. You have never once seen the world through anything other than christian lenses, so you can't begin to understand what we see. And you aren't willing to even temporarily change that. You are not a "skeptic." You are not even able to imagine what one is.

[bornagainathiest]

It's a simple plan:

 

 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

 

~John 4:16

 

 

no mantras

 

no kissing a priest toes

 

no prayer wheels

 

no avoiding eating Twinkies or drinking buttermilk

 

no required number of daily prayers

 

no banned books

 

But please tell us why we need God to give his son for us.

 

More specifically, what event in history (please say when and how this happened) caused us to need God to give his son for us?

 

Also, please don't tell us what you believe, but give us the facts for these things.

[Androo]

 

no mantras

 

no kissing a priest toes

 

no prayer wheels

 

no avoiding eating Twinkies or drinking buttermilk

 

no required number of daily prayers

 

no banned books

 

Yup. That's me!