The Flesh And The Spirit

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does it not bother you that a supposedly infinite god is even capable of approaching zero?  Ergo, he is not, in fact, infinite?  Or, will his infinity become complete when he reaches zero and becomes infinite nothingness?  Which is nothing more than a round-about way of saying he will infinitely cease to exist, if he ever did exist in the first place.

 

Whenever you get around to it, End3.

 

No, not at all....because I think that is the point is it not? It's a test of faith. I expect you to find that a bs answer, but as I have speculated before, it pretty adequately separates.

 

Are you saying you'd have faith in god even if he doesn't exist?

 

No, I'm saying that in light of the stories presented regarding God's attempts at allowing humanity to "see", I think the methodology in place is this: "You wouldn't listen before so I'm stepping out of the belief room for a bit and see who's still here when I return". It appears very similar to when Moses returned to find everyone having the idol party. Multiple stories and types about arks and deliverance. The ark this time is faith in Christ...

 

So god, evidence for whose existence is already tenuous at best, is going to take his ball and go home just because so few of us find the "proof" compelling?  Again, are you okay with worshiping such a needy little bitch? 

[Justus]

Does it not bother you that a supposedly infinite god is even capable of approaching zero?

 

'Infinite' is a assumption you are making since there is nothing in the scriptures that suggest that God is infinite in either form or nature.

 

Ergo, he is not, in fact, infinite?

Maybe you meant 'eternal'? 

 

While some may consider that the term infinite as being synonymous with the Biblical term 'eternal', in actuality that simply doesn't hold true since the term 'eternal' refers unto the nature and form of a living thing, not the size or distance of an object. 

 

Or, will his infinity become complete when he reaches zero and becomes infinite nothingness? 

 

That doesn't even make sense mathematically or scientifically.

"Infinity is not a real number, it is an idea. An idea of something without an end. Infinity cannot be measured." Source

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Does it not bother you that a supposedly infinite god is even capable of approaching zero?

 

'Infinite' is a assumption you are making since there is nothing in the scriptures that suggest that God is infinite in either form or nature.

 

Ergo, he is not, in fact, infinite?

Maybe you meant 'eternal'? 

 

While some may consider that the term infinite as being synonymous with the Biblical term 'eternal', in actuality that simply doesn't hold true since the term 'eternal' refers unto the nature and form of a living thing, not the size or distance of an object. 

 

Or, will his infinity become complete when he reaches zero and becomes infinite nothingness? 

 

That doesn't even make sense mathematically or scientifically.

"Infinity is not a real number, it is an idea. An idea of something without an end. Infinity cannot be measured." Source

 

See how little sense it really does make, End3?  I couldn't have made the point better myself.  Even Justus, who can't make sense out of the most basic scientific principles, realizes that none of it actually adds up.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does it not bother you that a supposedly infinite god is even capable of approaching zero?  Ergo, he is not, in fact, infinite?  Or, will his infinity become complete when he reaches zero and becomes infinite nothingness?  Which is nothing more than a round-about way of saying he will infinitely cease to exist, if he ever did exist in the first place.

 

Whenever you get around to it, End3.

 

No, not at all....because I think that is the point is it not? It's a test of faith. I expect you to find that a bs answer, but as I have speculated before, it pretty adequately separates.

 

Are you saying you'd have faith in god even if he doesn't exist?

 

No, I'm saying that in light of the stories presented regarding God's attempts at allowing humanity to "see", I think the methodology in place is this: "You wouldn't listen before so I'm stepping out of the belief room for a bit and see who's still here when I return". It appears very similar to when Moses returned to find everyone having the idol party. Multiple stories and types about arks and deliverance. The ark this time is faith in Christ...

 

So god, evidence for whose existence is already tenuous at best, is going to take his ball and go home just because so few of us find the "proof" compelling?  Again, are you okay with worshiping such a needy little bitch?

 

I'm sorry, maybe you are understanding and I am not realizing it, but I am saying he is taking his toys and going home as a tool for separating believers and non.

[sdelsolray]

What some folks will do, entirely within their imaginations, is often stunning.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does it not bother you that a supposedly infinite god is even capable of approaching zero?  Ergo, he is not, in fact, infinite?  Or, will his infinity become complete when he reaches zero and becomes infinite nothingness?  Which is nothing more than a round-about way of saying he will infinitely cease to exist, if he ever did exist in the first place.

 

Whenever you get around to it, End3.

 

No, not at all....because I think that is the point is it not? It's a test of faith. I expect you to find that a bs answer, but as I have speculated before, it pretty adequately separates.

 

Are you saying you'd have faith in god even if he doesn't exist?

 

No, I'm saying that in light of the stories presented regarding God's attempts at allowing humanity to "see", I think the methodology in place is this: "You wouldn't listen before so I'm stepping out of the belief room for a bit and see who's still here when I return". It appears very similar to when Moses returned to find everyone having the idol party. Multiple stories and types about arks and deliverance. The ark this time is faith in Christ...

 

So god, evidence for whose existence is already tenuous at best, is going to take his ball and go home just because so few of us find the "proof" compelling?  Again, are you okay with worshiping such a needy little bitch?

 

I'm sorry, maybe you are understanding and I am not realizing it, but I am saying he is taking his toys and going home as a tool for separating believers and non.

 

Doesn't the "evidence" do a good enough job of separating believers and non?  What I mean is, most of us can see that there is no evidence; only a few believe there is.  Why does god need to do anything more with regard to separating us?

[Guest Furball]

 

Does it not bother you that a supposedly infinite god is even capable of approaching zero?

 

'Infinite' is a assumption you are making since there is nothing in the scriptures that suggest that God is infinite in either form or nature.

 

 

God is Infinite Bible Verses

[dangitbobby83]

God is Infinite Bible Verses

 

 

 

 

I love the "alter call" at the end of the post. You are given a few choices which leads to other pages, but the most glaringly obvious choice isn't even on the screen. 

 

"Nope, no more questions! God's obviously not real. See ya!"

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does it not bother you that a supposedly infinite god is even capable of approaching zero?  Ergo, he is not, in fact, infinite?  Or, will his infinity become complete when he reaches zero and becomes infinite nothingness?  Which is nothing more than a round-about way of saying he will infinitely cease to exist, if he ever did exist in the first place.

 

Whenever you get around to it, End3.

 

No, not at all....because I think that is the point is it not? It's a test of faith. I expect you to find that a bs answer, but as I have speculated before, it pretty adequately separates.

 

Are you saying you'd have faith in god even if he doesn't exist?

 

No, I'm saying that in light of the stories presented regarding God's attempts at allowing humanity to "see", I think the methodology in place is this: "You wouldn't listen before so I'm stepping out of the belief room for a bit and see who's still here when I return". It appears very similar to when Moses returned to find everyone having the idol party. Multiple stories and types about arks and deliverance. The ark this time is faith in Christ...

 

So god, evidence for whose existence is already tenuous at best, is going to take his ball and go home just because so few of us find the "proof" compelling?  Again, are you okay with worshiping such a needy little bitch?

 

I'm sorry, maybe you are understanding and I am not realizing it, but I am saying he is taking his toys and going home as a tool for separating believers and non.

 

Doesn't the "evidence" do a good enough job of separating believers and non?  What I mean is, most of us can see that there is no evidence; only a few believe there is.  Why does god need to do anything more with regard to separating us?

 

But supposedly there was a time where God presented evidence of Himself....where humanity went their own way WITH evidence. So it appears somewhat reasonable that God would now use a "it's your choice" WITHOUT evidence approach to sort hearts.

[florduh]

According to the story, it was evidence alone that worked to convince Thomas. I would think everybody deserves the same advantage, no? All we get are some old, unverifiable stories of certain miracles and the admonition, "but this isn't the age of miracles now." How convenient.

[Guest end3]

According to the story, it was evidence alone that worked to convince Thomas. I would think everybody deserves the same advantage, no? All we get are some old, unverifiable stories of certain miracles and the admonition, "but this isn't the age of miracles now." How convenient.

Heck, that was the second phase of "OK, peeps, here I AM"(Get it? the great I AM), in order THAT they believe, and now you are wanting fairness. If that were true, you would be faithful now. I suspect you wouldn't believe regardless if your friend named Jesus was standing next to you and did TWO miracles. You must be bored. Do you still have your sled? It is spring and you might catch skin at the beach...

[sdelsolray]

 

According to the story, it was evidence alone that worked to convince Thomas. I would think everybody deserves the same advantage, no? All we get are some old, unverifiable stories of certain miracles and the admonition, "but this isn't the age of miracles now." How convenient.

Heck, that was the second phase of "OK, peeps, here I AM"(Get it? the great I AM), in order THAT they believe, and now you are wanting fairness. If that were true, you would be faithful now. I suspect you wouldn't believe regardless if your friend named Jesus was standing next to you and did TWO miracles. You must be bored. Do you still have your sled? It is spring and you might catch skin at the beach...

 

 

 

You are entering the "full of shit" territory once again, a rather predictable action on your part.  Back off, or not, your choice.  Understand that I, and I believe others, do not take ownership of your vitriol and hubris, even in the small doses you regularly dish out.  

 

 

 

But supposedly there was a time where God presented evidence of Himself....where humanity went their own way WITH evidence. So it appears somewhat reasonable that God would now use a "it's your choice" WITHOUT evidence approach to sort hearts.

 

Yes, keep practicing your apologetics.  You need a lot of work in that area.  A lot of work.

 

Your sky fairy fantasies are yours, and yours alone.  You are humored, and not taken seriously when you spout your curious form of theism.

[midniterider]

 I suspect you wouldn't believe regardless if your friend named Jesus was standing next to you and did TWO miracles.

 

 

Non-believers see their imagination as something less than real.

Christians see their imagination as Jesus Christ.

[bornagainathiest]

 

According to the story, it was evidence alone that worked to convince Thomas. I would think everybody deserves the same advantage, no? All we get are some old, unverifiable stories of certain miracles and the admonition, "but this isn't the age of miracles now." How convenient.

Heck, that was the second phase of "OK, peeps, here I AM"(Get it? the great I AM), in order THAT they believe, and now you are wanting fairness. If that were true, you would be faithful now. I suspect you wouldn't believe regardless if your friend named Jesus was standing next to you and did TWO miracles. You must be bored. Do you still have your sled? It is spring and you might catch skin at the beach...

 

 

For this to hold up End, the first phase would have to be real history.

 

Therefore, the onus is on you (as the claim maker) to provide proper historical evidence for it.

 

Catch is, scripture from the second phase says you can't do that.

 

Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3.

 

 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 

So you believe in your first and second phases, purely by faith, because the Bible says there is no historical evidence for the creation and Eden.

 

Meaning that you can't do as Thomas did and check this out for yourself.

 

That's Florduh's point.

 

You cannot test anything, cannot produce evidence and can only go with faith.

[Guest end3]

 

 

According to the story, it was evidence alone that worked to convince Thomas. I would think everybody deserves the same advantage, no? All we get are some old, unverifiable stories of certain miracles and the admonition, "but this isn't the age of miracles now." How convenient.

Heck, that was the second phase of "OK, peeps, here I AM"(Get it? the great I AM), in order THAT they believe, and now you are wanting fairness. If that were true, you would be faithful now. I suspect you wouldn't believe regardless if your friend named Jesus was standing next to you and did TWO miracles. You must be bored. Do you still have your sled? It is spring and you might catch skin at the beach...

 

 

 

You are entering the "full of shit" territory once again, a rather predictable action on your part.  Back off, or not, your choice.  Understand that I, and I believe others, do not take ownership of your vitriol and hubris, even in the small doses you regularly dish out.  

 

 

But supposedly there was a time where God presented evidence of Himself....where humanity went their own way WITH evidence. So it appears somewhat reasonable that God would now use a "it's your choice" WITHOUT evidence approach to sort hearts.

 

Yes, keep practicing your apologetics.  You need a lot of work in that area.  A lot of work.

 

 

Your sky fairy fantasies are yours, and yours alone.  You are humored, and not taken seriously when you spout your curious form of theism.

 

Florduh and I are friends. I expect he posts sometimes just to keep the ball rolling and keep me honest in the same effort. There is nothing full of shit about my theology....it's just putting the pieces together.

 

And to the latter posts.....perhaps the ancients were asked to take the universe by faith, but that doesn't exclude the time God lead them or Christ was with them. THOSE would be non-faith times. If you don't want to speculate on motives/mechanisms of God, then fair enough. stop.

[Guest end3]

And why would you beat me up now that you have diagnosed me with a hereditary condition. I'm calling the ACLU, NAACP, LULAC, and LGBGT and Bernie supporters to see if I can get some fairness in this hostile environment.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does it not bother you that a supposedly infinite god is even capable of approaching zero?  Ergo, he is not, in fact, infinite?  Or, will his infinity become complete when he reaches zero and becomes infinite nothingness?  Which is nothing more than a round-about way of saying he will infinitely cease to exist, if he ever did exist in the first place.

 

Whenever you get around to it, End3.

 

No, not at all....because I think that is the point is it not? It's a test of faith. I expect you to find that a bs answer, but as I have speculated before, it pretty adequately separates.

 

Are you saying you'd have faith in god even if he doesn't exist?

 

No, I'm saying that in light of the stories presented regarding God's attempts at allowing humanity to "see", I think the methodology in place is this: "You wouldn't listen before so I'm stepping out of the belief room for a bit and see who's still here when I return". It appears very similar to when Moses returned to find everyone having the idol party. Multiple stories and types about arks and deliverance. The ark this time is faith in Christ...

 

So god, evidence for whose existence is already tenuous at best, is going to take his ball and go home just because so few of us find the "proof" compelling?  Again, are you okay with worshiping such a needy little bitch?

 

I'm sorry, maybe you are understanding and I am not realizing it, but I am saying he is taking his toys and going home as a tool for separating believers and non.

 

Doesn't the "evidence" do a good enough job of separating believers and non?  What I mean is, most of us can see that there is no evidence; only a few believe there is.  Why does god need to do anything more with regard to separating us?

 

But supposedly there was a time where God presented evidence of Himself....where humanity went their own way WITH evidence. So it appears somewhat reasonable that God would now use a "it's your choice" WITHOUT evidence approach to sort hearts.

 

Should I be held accountable for crimes against humanity based on evidence that one of my distant ancestors once owned slaves back in 1794?  If the answer is, "No", then how can it be "reasonable" for god to hold me accountable for believing based on "evidence" that he displayed thousands of years before the advent of microscopes, cameras, PCRs, and pretty much any other means of detecting and definitively validating evidence?

[bornagainathiest]

It's a very simple question, End.  

 

Is the Eden narrative in Genesis... history?

 

If it isn't, then it's just a story and not history.  

 

To qualify as history, the Eden story must be supported with evidence. 

 

That's because history is based on evidence, not faith.

 

But the Hebrews 11 quote says that Genesis must be believed by faith and not by evidence.

 

So, by what's written in Hebrews, the book of Genesis cannot qualify as history.

 

Christians must accept Genesis as true by faith, not by evidence.

 

Therefore, to agree with what Hebrews tells you to do, you must accept Genesis by faith and declare that it doesn't qualify as history.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest end3]

Should I be held accountable for crimes against humanity based on evidence that one of my distant ancestors once owned slaves back in 1794?  If the answer is, "No", then how can it be "reasonable" for god to hold me accountable for believing based on "evidence" that he displayed thousands of years before the advent of microscopes, cameras, PCRs, and pretty much any other means of detecting and definitively validating evidence?

Given our expanding knowledge base, why wouldn't the answer always be yes? ....not continuing with "crimes"?

[Guest end3]

That's because history is based on evidence, not faith.

 

But the Hebrews 11 quote says that Genesis must be believed by faith and not by evidence.

 

So, by what's written in Hebrews, the book of Genesis cannot qualify as history.

 

Christians must accept Genesis as true by faith, not by evidence.

 

Therefore, to agree with what Hebrews tells you to do, you must accept Genesis by faith and declare that it doesn't qualify as history.

At least one thought here....history may happen and we never see an inkling of evidence. Your neighbor might stub there toe on the bathroom counter and leave evidence, but you might not ever see or know about the evidence.....ever.

[bornagainathiest]

 

That's because history is based on evidence, not faith.

 

But the Hebrews 11 quote says that Genesis must be believed by faith and not by evidence.

 

So, by what's written in Hebrews, the book of Genesis cannot qualify as history.

 

Christians must accept Genesis as true by faith, not by evidence.

 

Therefore, to agree with what Hebrews tells you to do, you must accept Genesis by faith and declare that it doesn't qualify as history.

At least one thought here....history may happen and we never see an inkling of evidence. Your neighbor might stub there toe on the bathroom counter and leave evidence, but you might not ever see or know about the evidence.....ever.

 

 

Good thought, End.

 

Many, many things happen which nobody sees or knows about... ever.  The writer of Hebrews knew this because he refers to events in the Genesis 1 and 2 that no human being ever saw.  God creating heaven and earth, creating light, creating and separating the waters, etc.  That's why he says that faith is... assurance about what we do not see.  When something goes unseen or unrecorded, it can't be taken as history.  It can only be believed in by faith. 

 

Which is why Thomas insisted that he see the evidence for himself.  Thomas went by evidence, not faith - because faith and evidence are opposed to each other.  Evidence is about what is observed and seen and known, about what is recorded and witnessed.  Faith isn't about what is seen, what is known and what is knowable.   Faith is about what is unseen, unknown and unknowable.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

That's because history is based on evidence, not faith.

 

But the Hebrews 11 quote says that Genesis must be believed by faith and not by evidence.

 

So, by what's written in Hebrews, the book of Genesis cannot qualify as history.

 

Christians must accept Genesis as true by faith, not by evidence.

 

Therefore, to agree with what Hebrews tells you to do, you must accept Genesis by faith and declare that it doesn't qualify as history.

At least one thought here....history may happen and we never see an inkling of evidence. Your neighbor might stub there toe on the bathroom counter and leave evidence, but you might not ever see or know about the evidence.....ever.

 

 

Good thought, End.

 

Many, many things happen which nobody sees or knows about... ever.  The writer of Hebrews knew this because he refers to events in the Genesis 1 and 2 that no human being ever saw.  God creating heaven and earth, creating light, creating and separating the waters, etc.  That's why he says that faith is... assurance about what we do not see.  When something goes unseen or unrecorded, it can't be taken as history.  It can only be believed in by faith. 

 

Which is why Thomas insisted that he see the evidence for himself.  Thomas went by evidence, not faith - because faith and evidence are opposed to each other.  Evidence is about what is observed and seen and known, about what is recorded and witnessed.  Faith is about isn't about what seen, what is known and what is knowable.   Faith is about what is unseen, unknown and unknowable.

 

 

 

 

Once again, and for the lurkers, BAA is describing one of the definitions of faith, the religious definition which (according to Hebrews) means wishful thinking and/or belief without evidence.  The secular definition is trust or confidence based on prior experience and/or evidence.  For example, I have faith that my car will start in the morning.  This faith is based on my prior experience with my car (e.g., it has started every day since I bought it, except once when the battery was dead).  Because of these two different meanings for the same word, the word "faith" can be misunderstood.  This is why I would rather say, "I trust my car will start in the morning", or, "I'm confident my car will start in the morning."

[Guest end3]

 

 

That's because history is based on evidence, not faith.

 

But the Hebrews 11 quote says that Genesis must be believed by faith and not by evidence.

 

So, by what's written in Hebrews, the book of Genesis cannot qualify as history.

 

Christians must accept Genesis as true by faith, not by evidence.

 

Therefore, to agree with what Hebrews tells you to do, you must accept Genesis by faith and declare that it doesn't qualify as history.

At least one thought here....history may happen and we never see an inkling of evidence. Your neighbor might stub there toe on the bathroom counter and leave evidence, but you might not ever see or know about the evidence.....ever.

 

 

Good thought, End.

 

Many, many things happen which nobody sees or knows about... ever.  The writer of Hebrews knew this because he refers to events in the Genesis 1 and 2 that no human being ever saw.  God creating heaven and earth, creating light, creating and separating the waters, etc.  That's why he says that faith is... assurance about what we do not see.  When something goes unseen or unrecorded, it can't be taken as history.  It can only be believed in by faith. 

 

Which is why Thomas insisted that he see the evidence for himself.  Thomas went by evidence, not faith - because faith and evidence are opposed to each other.  Evidence is about what is observed and seen and known, about what is recorded and witnessed.  Faith isn't about what is seen, what is known and what is knowable.   Faith is about what is unseen, unknown and unknowable.

 

You're contradicting yourself imo. A few months back you were saying that objectivity (history), happens despite subjectivity, and now I am understanding you saying history can't happen without subjectivity. Can you please clarify.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Should I be held accountable for crimes against humanity based on evidence that one of my distant ancestors once owned slaves back in 1794?  If the answer is, "No", then how can it be "reasonable" for god to hold me accountable for believing based on "evidence" that he displayed thousands of years before the advent of microscopes, cameras, PCRs, and pretty much any other means of detecting and definitively validating evidence?

Given our expanding knowledge base, why wouldn't the answer always be yes? ....not continuing with "crimes"?

 

So, in your view, I should be held accountable for crimes committed by my ancestors and proven by "evidence" that was available at that time?  I should be labelled as a slave master, simply because some 3rd cousin twice removed from my fourth great-grandfather had a few house servants and a workhand or two for his tobacco fields?

 

And you're okay, moreover, with "god" condemning us all as "sinners" simply because he provided "evidence" to folks like Moses (who may not have even been real); and, in this day and age, such "evidence" is no longer convincing or compelling?

 

If the answer to both of these is "yes", then allow me to be the first to point you into the direction of the 21st century.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

That's because history is based on evidence, not faith.

 

But the Hebrews 11 quote says that Genesis must be believed by faith and not by evidence.

 

So, by what's written in Hebrews, the book of Genesis cannot qualify as history.

 

Christians must accept Genesis as true by faith, not by evidence.

 

Therefore, to agree with what Hebrews tells you to do, you must accept Genesis by faith and declare that it doesn't qualify as history.

At least one thought here....history may happen and we never see an inkling of evidence. Your neighbor might stub there toe on the bathroom counter and leave evidence, but you might not ever see or know about the evidence.....ever.

 

 

Good thought, End.

 

Many, many things happen which nobody sees or knows about... ever.  The writer of Hebrews knew this because he refers to events in the Genesis 1 and 2 that no human being ever saw.  God creating heaven and earth, creating light, creating and separating the waters, etc.  That's why he says that faith is... assurance about what we do not see.  When something goes unseen or unrecorded, it can't be taken as history.  It can only be believed in by faith. 

 

Which is why Thomas insisted that he see the evidence for himself.  Thomas went by evidence, not faith - because faith and evidence are opposed to each other.  Evidence is about what is observed and seen and known, about what is recorded and witnessed.  Faith isn't about what is seen, what is known and what is knowable.   Faith is about what is unseen, unknown and unknowable.

 

You're contradicting yourself imo. A few months back you were saying that objectivity (history), happens despite subjectivity, and now I am understanding you saying history can't happen without subjectivity. Can you please clarify.

 

 

End,

 

Could link to where you I said this?  If I have screwed up, then I'll freely admit it.  But first, there's the matter of you providing evidence for your claim.  

 

(It can't be taken on faith, now can it?  My words aren't unseen or unknown.  They're recorded.   So this is history and can be known and can be looked at.)

 

Please note that I often link back to my own or other people's comments, so I'm not asking you to do anything I wouldn't do myself.  Many other members link back in the same way as well.  

 

So could you please find where I said this and we can go from there?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.