The Bible. Myth or Reality?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

The Bible. Myth or Reality?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAEpc1zhcuo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAEpc1zhcuo)



As a Gnostic Christian I see literal reading of the Bible as a gross distortion of what the Bible was written to do. That being to inspire people to seek God and his best laws and rules. Literal readers just become idol worshipers and do not seek God the way Jesus instructed.



http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html)



Literal reading has created and idol worshiping closed minded people who have settled for an immoral God whom we name as a demiurge as his morals, if literally true, are more satanic than God like.


Literal reading has also created a climate where scholars and experts, historians and archeologist, and all the academically well accepted information they uncover, --- is being ignored or called lies by those who are not academics of the various disciplines.



What is the point of producing good academics if literalists are going to ignore facts because of blind faith?



Remember please that if not a book of myths, then real talking serpents are somehow supposed to still exist and believers have to believe in a lot of supernatural phenomenon without any evidence whatsoever. Literalist Christians, it seems to me, have suspended rational judgement that has created in Christians a new Dark Age of thought and an Inquisitional attitude towards all other thinking. They no longer seek God and are true idol worshipers instead of the God seekers that Jesus wanted to see.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvBxFXQy7-M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvBxFXQy7-M)



Do you think the Bible to be a book of myths or a book trying to show reality and history?



Regards

DL

[Gunny]

The Bible. Myth or Reality?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAEpc1zhcuo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAEpc1zhcuo)



As a Gnostic Christian I see literal reading of the Bible as a gross distortion of what the Bible was written to do. That being to inspire people to seek God and his best laws and rules. Literal readers just become idol worshipers and do not seek God the way Jesus instructed.



http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html)



Literal reading has created and idol worshiping closed minded people who have settled for an immoral God whom we name as a demiurge as his morals, if literally true, are more satanic than God like.


Literal reading has also created a climate where scholars and experts, historians and archeologist, and all the academically well accepted information they uncover, --- is being ignored or called lies by those who are not academics of the various disciplines.



What is the point of producing good academics if literalists are going to ignore facts because of blind faith?



Remember please that if not a book of myths, then real talking serpents are somehow supposed to still exist and believers have to believe in a lot of supernatural phenomenon without any evidence whatsoever. Literalist Christians, it seems to me, have suspended rational judgement that has created in Christians a new Dark Age of thought and an Inquisitional attitude towards all other thinking. They no longer seek God and are true idol worshipers instead of the God seekers that Jesus wanted to see.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvBxFXQy7-M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvBxFXQy7-M)



Do you think the Bible to be a book of myths or a book trying to show reality and history?



Regards

DL



Gnostic Nothing: Bored and trying to stir some crap?

Might want to try reading that Book you spend so much time denigrating. You're not that good and you're not that smart. And wait'll Abbey lights into your ass.

[revelarts]

I'm having Dejavu' here.
Didn't you run this same line here some time ago.
I think maybe you got Debate Policy mixed up in your scheduled of trolling with your other forums.
Check it again and come back with the right crank anti-Christian message you think is from Jesus's "real" teachings Gnostic.

[aboutime]

Gnostic keeps trying to prove Einstein's theory of trying something, failing; then trying the same thing again, thinking he will get different results. The only MYTH most of us can see, or hear is GNOSTIC...thinking?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Three literalist fools I see so far.

Great apologetics lads.

Reads
DL

[LongTermGuy]

~ "Do you think the Bible to be a book of myths or a book trying to show reality and history?" ~

*No Myth for me... Gnostic...I have been helped to many times to mention...This is good for me...*Maybe our realities are based on how strong our Beliefs are...you seem to be a searching seeker with no strong roots.....http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VHqM1pC97Do/UgvPNdio4pI/AAAAAAAAANA/5DuH06ArBaY/s320/_49201197_hp7a-tr2-051.jpg

"What is Gnosis? There is a root from which all knowledge has emerged. Humanity has many names for it; we call it Gnosis. The Greek word Gnosis (γνῶσις) implies a type of knowledge that is derived from experience, and encompasses the whole of a person.

That is, it is genuine knowledge of the truth. Reality, truth, does not fit neatly into a concept, dogma, or theory, thus genuine Gnosis must also be something that one must experience. Personal experience is not transmissible in conceptual terms; a concept is merely an idea, and experience is far more than an idea.
In other words, real Gnosis is an experience that defies conceptualization, belief, or any attempt to convey it. To understand it, one must experience it.
***This is why Gnosis is based on `one's own effort to experience` the truth, and the method to reach that experience is primarily practical. (from: Gnostic Teachings)"

​http://thegnostictimes.blogspot.com/

[Gunny]

Three literalist fools I see so far.

Great apologetics lads.

Reads
DL

I see. So calling us names somehow addresses the fallacies of your arguments? THERE's some math for ya'.

[revelarts]

Three literalist fools I see so far.
Great apologetics lads.
Reads
DL

Is that the golden Rule your using there Gnostic?
What did the Jesus REALLY mean when he said:

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." Matthew 5:22


So let the dodging, denying, name calling, youtube posting of heresy, Bible hating, then bible quoting, and calling Jesus good with one side of your mouth and calling him evil out of the other begin.
I'll get the popcorn this should be good (not really good but..ya know sorta interesting).

[aboutime]

Three literalist fools I see so far.

Great apologetics lads.

Reads
DL


You should really be happy, and proud of your statement dumbass. We're all aware, we can only please you by Imitating, and Emulating you. The name-calling is just your defensive technique used by lying liberals.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

~ "Do you think the Bible to be a book of myths or a book trying to show reality and history?" ~

*No Myth for me... Gnostic...I have been helped to many times to mention...This is good for me...*Maybe our realities are based on how strong our Beliefs are...you seem to be a searching seeker with no strong roots.....http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VHqM1pC97Do/UgvPNdio4pI/AAAAAAAAANA/5DuH06ArBaY/s320/_49201197_hp7a-tr2-051.jpg

"What is Gnosis? There is a root from which all knowledge has emerged. Humanity has many names for it; we call it Gnosis. The Greek word Gnosis (γνῶσις) implies a type of knowledge that is derived from experience, and encompasses the whole of a person.

That is, it is genuine knowledge of the truth. Reality, truth, does not fit neatly into a concept, dogma, or theory, thus genuine Gnosis must also be something that one must experience. Personal experience is not transmissible in conceptual terms; a concept is merely an idea, and experience is far more than an idea.
In other words, real Gnosis is an experience that defies conceptualization, belief, or any attempt to convey it. To understand it, one must experience it.
***This is why Gnosis is based on `one's own effort to experience` the truth, and the method to reach that experience is primarily practical. (from: Gnostic Teachings)"

​http://thegnostictimes.blogspot.com/

Did Jesus say that a seeker should have strong roots or a pre-set mind set or bias?

No. He just said to seek God.

That is what Gnostic Christians do. Christians have let themselves become idol worshipers and ignore what Jesus taught.

John 6 ; 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded)

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Is that the golden Rule your using there Gnostic?
What did the Jesus REALLY mean when he said:

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." Matthew 5:22


So let the dodging, denying, name calling, youtube posting of heresy, Bible hating, then bible quoting, and calling Jesus good with one side of your mouth and calling him evil out of the other begin.
I'll get the popcorn this should be good (not really good but..ya know sorta interesting).

Yes. I am using the Golden Rule as well as other good biblical advice.

I'm not surprised that you do not recognize it.

Regards
DL

[avatar4321]

Yes. I am using the Golden Rule as well as other good biblical advice.

I'm not surprised that you do not recognize it.

Regards
DL

You're using the golden rule?

So since your insulting people and calling them fools, you want people to insult you and call you foolish.

Seriously why would you want that???

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

You're using the golden rule?

So since your insulting people and calling them fools, you want people to insult you and call you foolish.

Seriously why would you want that???

If true, I stand corrected. That is a good thing.

If false, then you do.

If neither is bright enough to be able to place a decent argument showing it, then you have two fools.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Regard
DL

[aboutime]

Anyone can see it plainly after watching this short video:

http://youtu.be/LBHN7aJGogY

Makes ya wanna ask the age-old question: "Who let the dog's out?"

[Max R.]

I'm having Dejavu' here.
Didn't you run this same line here some time ago.
I think maybe you got Debate Policy mixed up in your scheduled of trolling with your other forums.....

He's been banned on several forums and has a bad habit of posting flamebait and drive-by threads then running off. He usually went by "GreatestIAm" on other forums but I'm guessing that name wore out its welcome and he switched to this present one (or GnosticBishop (http://jameshannam.proboards.com/thread/1348/investigated-gnostic-christianity))


Examples:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13491

http://jameshannam.proboards.com/thread/1348/investigated-gnostic-christianity

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/choose-your-own-topic/the-bible.-myth-or-reality-6030404.msg1275398714.html#msg1275398714

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7945&start=255

http://community.beliefnet.com/greatest_i_am

http://www.debate.org/GreatestIam/

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/profile/?u=38426







His response to comments is exactly as expected:
Three literalist fools I see so far.

Great apologetics lads.

Reads
DL

[Max R.]

You're using the golden rule?

So since your insulting people and calling them fools, you want people to insult you and call you foolish.

Seriously why would you want that???
QED. That's how he operates.

[LongTermGuy]

QED. That's how he operates.

`Kick his ass `Mad` Max...:coffee:

.....Just kidding man...yes...Understand...:cool:

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

He's been banned on several forums and has a bad habit of posting flamebait and drive-by threads then running off. He usually went by "GreatestIAm" on other forums but I'm guessing that name wore out its welcome and he switched to this present one (or GnosticBishop (http://jameshannam.proboards.com/thread/1348/investigated-gnostic-christianity))


Examples:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13491

http://jameshannam.proboards.com/thread/1348/investigated-gnostic-christianity

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/choose-your-own-topic/the-bible.-myth-or-reality-6030404.msg1275398714.html#msg1275398714

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7945&start=255

http://community.beliefnet.com/greatest_i_am

http://www.debate.org/GreatestIam/

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/profile/?u=38426







His response to comments is exactly as expected:

I have a list for my groupies. Just ask for it by P M.

Regards
DL

[LongTermGuy]

`......Hey Gnostic...how ya doing this evening? `Quick 2 questions for you...what is your purpose here?...
*Do you enjoy your freedoms being able to post here?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

`......Hey Gnostic...how ya doing this evening? `Quick 2 questions for you...what is your purpose here?...
*Do you enjoy your freedoms being able to post here?

I am great, thanks.

My purpose is to learn better morals than I have or teach a better morality than what I see in Christianity.

I prefer to learn but few here seem interested in teaching even as your scriptures say you should be eager to do so as a way to show love to your neighbour.

To your last. Not yet. I am hoping to change that over time.

Regards
DL

[LongTermGuy]

I am great, thanks.

My purpose is to learn better morals than I have or teach a better morality than what I see in Christianity.

I prefer to learn but few here seem interested in teaching even as your scriptures say you should be eager to do so as a way to show love to your neighbour.

To your last. Not yet. I am hoping to change that over time.

Regards
DL

`Thanks for your opinion and your direct straight answer.... we will see how things go because we are in charge of our own destiny...

[DragonStryk72]

I'm having Dejavu' here.
Didn't you run this same line here some time ago.
I think maybe you got Debate Policy mixed up in your scheduled of trolling with your other forums.
Check it again and come back with the right crank anti-Christian message you think is from Jesus's "real" teachings Gnostic.

Oh good, I'm not nuts here. I swear to god, I was like, "wait did somebody zombie thread?"

[DragonStryk72]

I am great, thanks.

My purpose is to learn better morals than I have or teach a better morality than what I see in Christianity.

I prefer to learn but few here seem interested in teaching even as your scriptures say you should be eager to do so as a way to show love to your neighbour.

To your last. Not yet. I am hoping to change that over time.

Regards
DL

Wow, out right lying now. Nothing you have posted or said have conveyed a person willing or wanting to learn. You regurgitate the same crap again, and again, never learning anything. People respond, and you just post the same crap again in another thread. That's not someone looking to learn.

You speak on no other subject, not a single one, and you don't teach anything, because your posts are so very skewed, that there isn't a way to get any real information from them. its all just another sad manipulation.

[John V]

You know, travelling around the world there’s one thing about communist countries that you never forget. They function quite normally, but you can sense there’s something missing and it takes a while to put your finger on it. What’s missing is belief, which can only be described as a feeling of emptiness.

After a while you sense why the worst atrocities in the 20th century occurred in those countries that elevated man-made laws above the Ten Commandments and a cult leader politician above God. It’s where the mass graves come from.

Look at Europe as it abandons religion for secularism and although a correlation can’t be proven, all the human rights, equality, diversity and multiculturalism put together can’t repair the moral vacuum it’s created. Be careful, religion is a funny thing, don’t take it for granted, it’s something you don’t miss until it’s no longer there and you won’t like what replaces it. Dismiss it as liberal stupidity if you prefer, but this is how it started in the USSR, China and Cambodia as well

He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama (or Stalin, or Mao, or Pohl Pot).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJFC1qFCgyA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJFC1qFCgyA) (2.27 minutes)

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

`Thanks for your opinion and your direct straight answer.... we will see how things go because we are in charge of our own destiny...

That is not what scriptures say and cannot be true if anything is pre-ordained as it is in scriptures.

One example is here.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

If Jesus was chosen to die, then his killer was also chosen and that takes choice away from the on who killed Jesus.

No one can deviate from Gods plan so we cannot have free will.

Some, many, do not agree but the laws of continuity say otherwise.

If God sets any one condition, then he must set all other conditions before and after the fact to insure that it comes to pass.

That is basically what the butterfly effect is.

Regard
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Wow, out right lying now. Nothing you have posted or said have conveyed a person willing or wanting to learn. You regurgitate the same crap again, and again, never learning anything. People respond, and you just post the same crap again in another thread. That's not someone looking to learn.

You speak on no other subject, not a single one, and you don't teach anything, because your posts are so very skewed, that there isn't a way to get any real information from them. its all just another sad manipulation.

You show your bias and lack of understanding.

Any who engage me in a civil way get what you say you want.

Most here are right wing and I am small l liberal left and sow it in what I post.

Most here just visit to throw stones and run away. I expect that to some extent. I did expect a few to engage properly but few here are willing.

Regards
DL

[NightTrain]

You show your bias and lack of understanding.

Any who engage me in a civil way get what you say you want.

Most here are right wing and I am small l liberal left and sow it in what I post.

Most here just visit to throw stones and run away. I expect that to some extent. I did expect a few to engage properly but few here are willing.

Regards
DL


Awww... poor little fella. Is the entire internet conspiring against you?

Isn't it odd that 99.9% of all internet posters that you've interacted with ALL respond the same way to your smug, condescending lines of bullshit?

Not just here, either. You've been banned pretty much wherever you go, you martyr. See a pattern?

Most Canadians are pretty nice people, but you have a special socially inept way about you - is there something in the water there in Ottawa that accounts for your universal revulsion on every board you've joined?

Odd that wherever you go, you're announcing that everyone there is stupidly wrong and you have all the answers - all the way up until you get banned.

You're not trying to learn, be honest for once. You're a copy-and-paste troll, and not very good at that, either.

[Max R.]

I have a list for my groupies. Just ask for it by P M.

Regards
DL

The fact you think you have your "groupies" makes you more like David Koresh and a lot less like a Gnostic Bishop.

FWIW, I like Gnostic Christianity. Too many people don't understand that the Christianity we know today isn't the same Christianity, or Christianities, we had even up until a few centuries after the Crucifixion. Our "modern" view of Christianity has been shaped, even manipulated, by people like Pope Gregory I who, five centuries after the Crucifixion, gave us the "modern" view that Mary Magdalene was a harlot.

http://www.usnews.com/news/religion/articles/2008/01/25/mary-magdalene-was-none-of-the-things-a-pope-claimed

While I think the words of Christ have been manipulated through the centuries, his message can still be seen in the Bible. A message of love, faith and forgiveness.

[aboutime]

The fact you think you have your "groupies" makes you more like David Koresh and a lot less like a Gnostic Bishop.

FWIW, I like Gnostic Christianity. Too many people don't understand that the Christianity we know today isn't the same Christianity, or Christianities, we had even up until a few centuries after the Crucifixion. Our "modern" view of Christianity has been shaped, even manipulated, by people like Pope Gregory I who, five centuries after the Crucifixion, gave us the "modern" view that Mary Magdalene was a harlot.

http://www.usnews.com/news/religion/articles/2008/01/25/mary-magdalene-was-none-of-the-things-a-pope-claimed

While I think the words of Christ have been manipulated through the centuries, his message can still be seen in the Bible. A message of love, faith and forgiveness.



Max. This really is the very first time I ever heard of anyone bragging about Maggots being Groupies!:laugh:

[Max R.]

Max. This really is the very first time I ever heard of anyone bragging about Maggots being Groupies!:laugh:

LOL.

Funny, but every time I hear the word "maggots", I think of this guy (and my own DIs and Sgt. Instructors):

NSFW or little ears.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71Lft6EQh-Y

[aboutime]

LOL.

Funny, but every time I hear the word "maggots", I think of this guy (and my own DIs and Sgt. Instructors):

NSFW or little ears.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71Lft6EQh-Y


AMEN to that! If only we had a few more D.I.'s in Washington who didn't let Political Correctness get in the way of Teaching Boys to be Real Men...and the REACH AROUND thing the Gunny spoke of...wouldn't be such a problem.:laugh:
We all need to identify the MAGGOTS for who, and what they are. Namely...MAGGOTS.:laugh:

Full Metal Jacket is the best example of how BOOT used to be...before the WUSSY SQUADS took over.

[DragonStryk72]

That is not what scriptures say and cannot be true if anything is pre-ordained as it is in scriptures.

One example is here.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

If Jesus was chosen to die, then his killer was also chosen and that takes choice away from the on who killed Jesus.

No one can deviate from Gods plan so we cannot have free will.

Some, many, do not agree but the laws of continuity say otherwise.

If God sets any one condition, then he must set all other conditions before and after the fact to insure that it comes to pass.

That is basically what the butterfly effect is.

Regard
DL

Wow, you actually proved the regurgitation point, like immediately. I swear, I didn't you'd do it that quick. I mean, it was literally the next words out of your mouth on here.

We already had this discussion. You assume that reference's Christ death, and thus his killer. It does not, period, just that he was chosen. This was gone over in the very thread where you were busy manipulating that very subject. We are not rehashing it, you can comb you the litany of your abandoned threads, and re-read. Again, do your own damn homework, and stop leaving it to us


You show your bias and lack of understanding.

Any who engage me in a civil way get what you say you want.

Most here are right wing and I am small l liberal left and sow it in what I post.

Most here just visit to throw stones and run away. I expect that to some extent. I did expect a few to engage properly but few here are willing.

Regards
DL

Again, you are flatly lying. You don't want engagement, you don't want debate, and your previous response that I quoted here puts proof of that forward. You just want to keep trolling the exact same set of arguments repeatedly, and at length, period. If you were debating, you wouldn't pull the regurgitation crap constantly, if you were here to learn, again, you wouldn't be regurgitating the same crap again and again, thread after thread.

If you want debate, then have one. If you want to learn, then show you have. You're a coward, however, and thus, you'll continue with the hypocritical sidestepping, until it's time to flee to another thread so you can try again.

[Caliban]

It is a vulgar error to regard myths as falsehoods. Myths are the outward manifestations of deep spiritual and psychological truths that would be otherwise difficult to express any other way.

While the first few books of Genesis and some other parts if the Bible may not be LITERALLY true, they CONVEY truths through their stories and symbols which are quite profound.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

It is a vulgar error to regard myths as falsehoods. Myths are the outward manifestations of deep spiritual and psychological truths that would be otherwise difficult to express any other way.

While the first few books of Genesis and some other parts if the Bible may not be LITERALLY true, they CONVEY truths through their stories and symbols which are quite profound.

I agree.

The profound meaning you see is what literalists do not see and that is why they end adoring a God who is clearly a monster if the script is read in a literal way.

Some clear examples of this are the story of God torturing and killing babies because of his anger with the parents. We see this with Kind David's baby, the flood and the first born of Egypt. There are many more scenes n scriptures, that if read literally show a vile satanic God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

You assume that reference's Christ death, and thus his killer. It does not, period, just that he was chosen.



I kept what spoke to the issue and dumped your garbage.

If your vile God had a plan to have Jesus murdered then he also had to put the murderer in the plan.

All murders need a murderer to do the deed.

Regards
DL

[Caliban]

The problem arises from regarding the Bible as a single book, when in fact it is a collection of books all written in vastly different periods of Jewish history. It mashes together myth, legend (part myth, part history), history, visionary, mystical and prophetic literature, history, law, and morality and wisdon literature. In spite of this incredible complexity, it appears to have a real inner coherence and progression. This might be due to its priestly editors and redactors to some degree, but i believe it reflects a genuine evolution in the spiritual understanding of its authors.

[Max R.]

The problem arises from regarding the Bible as a single book, when in fact it is a collection of books all written in vastly different periods of Jewish history. It mashes together myth, legend (part myth, part history), history, visionary, mystical and prophetic literature, history, law, and morality and wisdon literature. In spite of this incredible complexity, it appears to have a real inner coherence and progression. This might be due to its priestly editors and redactors to some degree, but i believe it reflects a genuine evolution in the spiritual understanding of its authors.

Agreed. It's people who cherry-pick the Bible to push a personal agenda who are misusing the Bible. The spiritual message of the Bible isn't in one verse or even one book, but through the context of the entire biblical canon.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

The problem arises from regarding the Bible as a single book, when in fact it is a collection of books all written in vastly different periods of Jewish history. It mashes together myth, legend (part myth, part history), history, visionary, mystical and prophetic literature, history, law, and morality and wisdon literature. In spite of this incredible complexity, it appears to have a real inner coherence and progression. This might be due to its priestly editors and redactors to some degree, but i believe it reflects a genuine evolution in the spiritual understanding of its authors.

I agree.

An understanding that secular governments have improved upon quite a bit and that is why no Christian group is trying to get biblical law enacted as the law of the land.

I is also why most Christians ignore most of it's laws.

Christians have made divorce and abortion thriving businesses in the U.S.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Agreed. It's people who cherry-pick the Bible to push a personal agenda who are misusing the Bible. The spiritual message of the Bible isn't in one verse or even one book, but through the context of the entire biblical canon.

I agree but when you look at the overall picture of God, this becomes true.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
― Richard Dawkins (http://www.debatepolicy.com/author/show/1194.Richard_Dawkins), The God Delusion (http://www.debatepolicy.com/work/quotes/3044365)

I show in the post above just what not recognizing that leads to for way too many unfortunate Christians.

Regards
DL

[Gunny]

I agree but when you look at the overall picture of God, this becomes true.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
―Richard Dawkins (http://www.debatepolicy.com/author/show/1194.Richard_Dawkins), The God Delusion (http://www.debatepolicy.com/work/quotes/3044365)

I show in the post above just what not recognizing that leads to for way too many unfortunate Christians.

Regards
DL

Does mommy let you play on the computer only on weekends?

[Max R.]

Does mommy let you play on the computer only on weekends?

More likely Nurse Ratched after medication time.

http://www.standbyformindcontrol.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/One-Flew-Over-The-Cuckoos-Nest2.jpg

[Max R.]

I agree but when you look at the overall picture of God, this becomes true.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
―Richard Dawkins (http://www.debatepolicy.com/author/show/1194.Richard_Dawkins), The God Delusion (http://www.debatepolicy.com/work/quotes/3044365)

I show in the post above just what not recognizing that leads to for way too many unfortunate Christians.

Regards
DL
Richard Dawkins is a self-aggrandizing ass who enriched himself off the wallets of idiots.

That said, you are blaming the actions of God based on the interpretations of man. The Bible, although inspired by God, is nonetheless a work of man. It's the flawed views of human beings about an entity larger and more powerful than the entire Universe. It's on the level of a 5 year old trying to understand love, hate and what makes the world go round; at times accurate, but mostly flawed. This is why the Bible should be taken in context, not cherry-picked. It's also a reason not to take the Bible literally since in some ways, it's like the game of "Telephone" due to the hand of man.

[Caliban]

Dawkins likes to confine his debates to hillbilly tongue-talkers where he can be guaranteed an easy win. Whenever he's confronted by a formidable Christian intellect and scholar he gets crushed and humiliated. Dawkins is an ignoramus, overall.

Not a very respectable source to cite. He's more showbiz and celebrity--the atheist equivalent to Kim Kardashian--than a serious thinker.

[NightTrain]

I almost ruined my computer with a mouthful of coffee when I saw the troll reference Dawkins.

Yep, that'll lend weight.

[revelarts]

It is a vulgar error to regard myths as falsehoods. Myths are the outward manifestations of deep spiritual and psychological truths that would be otherwise difficult to express any other way.
While the first few books of Genesis and some other parts if the Bible may not be LITERALLY true, they CONVEY truths through their stories and symbols which are quite profound.
The problem arises from regarding the Bible as a single book, when in fact it is a collection of books all written in vastly different periods of Jewish history. It mashes together myth, legend (part myth, part history), history, visionary, mystical and prophetic literature, history, law, and morality and wisdon literature. In spite of this incredible complexity, it appears to have a real inner coherence and progression. This might be due to its priestly editors and redactors to some degree, but i believe it reflects a genuine evolution in the spiritual understanding of its authors.
Agreed. It's people who cherry-pick the Bible to push a personal agenda who are misusing the Bible. The spiritual message of the Bible isn't in one verse or even one book, but through the context of the entire biblical canon.

That said, you are blaming the actions of God based on the interpretations of man. The Bible, although inspired by God, is nonetheless a work of man. It's the flawed views of human beings about an entity larger and more powerful than the entire Universe. It's on the level of a 5 year old trying to understand love, hate and what makes the world go round; at times accurate, but mostly flawed. This is why the Bible should be taken in context, not cherry-picked. It's also a reason not to take the Bible literally since in some ways, it's like the game of "Telephone" due to the hand of man.
people are being very frank about their negative ideas about God and the Bible and stuff so i'll be frank as well.

As a teen I grew up around the the idea that the Bible is full of myth but the REAL truth the deeper meaning is underneath. and "men" and "the church" and "rulers" ruined it... distorted it... used it as a tool... to control... etc etc...

look as a teen I could see some of that but I didn't buy it all. it seemed like ---and still does in most cases-- a way to quickly blow the Bible off and seem fashionably intellectual.

People who talked about the deeper meaning often never said what that was or explained how they got THAT out of the text.
stuff like "It's more mysterious than mystery itself", Pssft.Ok whatever. "it's really about love, love in the deeper unity of mans inner most beings and connection with the universssse..."
riiiight. so how is that mumbo jumbo better than what the Bible says directly? And who made that up? "MEN", "men who want to control etc etc" as well right? Why should I BUY that line either?

Even though i believed in evolution --as we were all taught-- I always felt that there was more to the universe than the material, something else seemed to be going on at some level but i didn't know what. But there seemed SOMETHING real about this spiritual stuff. But based on people's 2ndary and tertiary interpretations of the Bible along various lines + ghost, gurus, budhist, hindus, natives, ufos and bigfoot, I just stepped back and said for years that people really don't know what the heck they're talking about. And said to myself I surly don't know so i'm not going to CLAIM to know that the Bible or any other religion is TRUE or FALSE.

Concerning the Bible it appeared to me that many who were claiming it was false half the time were just moaning about stuff that the Bible said that they didn't like. Or that put them personally in a bad light. RARELY did anyone every say 'this is what the Bible says on THIS item and here's why it's false' and then allow anyone to seriously rebut. It was --and still is--- just ASSUMED to be false.... or "myth" in the "deeper":rolleyes: sense. or "MEN" messing over the "REAL" meaning.

After some years of side show dabbling in understanding of other religions and stuff i finally talked some some christians in depth and long story short i changed my views. At this point, after sometime of study. i have no problem saying that i believe the Bible is not Myth but FACT. And aligned with the what we know of history, science and human nature better than any other religious text by far.
Are there questions that are not answered, loose ends and weird stuff . Yes absolutely. But AS IS it still the BEST explaining for the whole show we have. science claims to show more than science really can, and philosophy does not account for as much as Scripture.

People can poopoo Genesis and the other scripture if they like. But frankly i suspect that only a few that do have seriously studied the text and the research that supports it, as apposed to the info that tries to tear it down.

I'm always surprised at the information that's available but that's little known which supports the veracity of the Bible..as facts.

if anyone would like to get SPECIFIC I might be able to help. But if we just want to ASSUME that men did this or that and didn't hear right from God. Or ASSUME that there's a DEEPER UNKNOWABLE meaning. Ok. it's a free country.
But if you're open to consider that MAYBE the Bible is more factual than the popular opinion gives it credit for, then you might want to look more closely, I suspect you'll be surprised.

[DragonStryk72]

I kept what spoke to the issue and dumped your garbage.

If your vile God had a plan to have Jesus murdered then he also had to put the murderer in the plan.

All murders need a murderer to do the deed.

Regards
DL

So basically, you've got nothing. Like I said, this already got crushed before, and I'm not rehashing it again. Vomit it up somewhere else. Thank you for continuing your absolute proof that you are not here to debate or learn.

[Max R.]

Dawkins likes to confine his debates to hillbilly tongue-talkers where he can be guaranteed an easy win. Whenever he's confronted by a formidable Christian intellect and scholar he gets crushed and humiliated. Dawkins is an ignoramus, overall.

Not a very respectable source to cite. He's more showbiz and celebrity--the atheist equivalent to Kim Kardashian--than a serious thinker.
Agreed. He's more about the glam and the money than the truth. One of my personal heroes is Neil deGrasse Tyson. Dr. Tyson isn't above showbiz himself, but he always puts the truth first. While he doesn't believe in God because there's no physical evidence, he doesn't call himself an atheist. He prefers "scientist", although I'd add the term "materialist"; not in the bad sense of the word but simply as one who only believes what they see. A Missouri "Show Me" philosophy. The main thing is that, unlike Dawkins, he's not an ass about it. He simply sticks with what is provable and known. If anything, he's an agnostic.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

[revelarts]

Agreed. He's more about the glam and the money than the truth. One of my personal heroes is Neil deGrasse Tyson. Dr. Tyson isn't above showbiz himself, but he always puts the truth first. While he doesn't believe in God because there's no physical evidence, he doesn't call himself an atheist. He prefers "scientist", although I'd add the term "materialist"; not in the bad sense of the word but simply as one who only believes what they see. A Missouri "Show Me" philosophy. The main thing is that, unlike Dawkins, he's not an ass about it. He simply sticks with what is provable and known. If anything, he's an agnostic.



I like Tyson to a degree but he's --like a lot of other Scientist-- hasn't given their own assumption to the same scrutiny as they give alternatives, make a lot of stumbles in reason/philosophy and passes it off as science, and does not sift all the available evidence evenly. He stays on the reservation within the current scientific dogma, and when cornered with difficult question will sometimes reply with things like. "we don't know the reason for that yet but there's likely a material reason for it." which is fine to say but that's not "science" that belief in materialism.

[Gunny]

people are being very frank about their negative ideas about God and the Bible and stuff so i'll be frank as well.

As a teen I grew up around the the idea that the Bible is full of myth but the REAL truth the deeper meaning is underneath. and "men" and "the church" and "rulers" ruined it... distorted it... used it as a tool... to control... etc etc...

look as a teen I could see some of that but I didn't buy it all. it seemed like ---and still does in most cases-- a way to quickly blow the Bible off and seem fashionably intellectual.

People who talked about the deeper meaning often never said what that was or explained how they got THAT out of the text.
stuff like "It's more mysterious than mystery itself", Pssft.Ok whatever. "it's really about love, love in the deeper unity of mans inner most beings and connection with the universssse..."
riiiight. so how is that mumbo jumbo better than what the Bible says directly? And who made that up? "MEN", "men who want to control etc etc" as well right? Why should I BUY that line either?

Even though i believed in evolution --as we were all taught-- I always felt that there was more to the universe than the material, something else seemed to be going on at some level but i didn't know what. But there seemed SOMETHING real about this spiritual stuff. But based on people's 2ndary and tertiary interpretations of the Bible along various lines + ghost, gurus, budhist, hindus, natives, ufos and bigfoot, I just stepped back and said for years that people really don't know what the heck they're talking about. And said to myself I surly don't know so i'm not going to CLAIM to know that the Bible or any other religion is TRUE or FALSE.

Concerning the Bible it appeared to me that many who were claiming it was false half the time were just moaning about stuff that the Bible said that they didn't like. Or that put them personally in a bad light. RARELY did anyone every say 'this is what the Bible says on THIS item and here's why it's false' and then allow anyone to seriously rebut. It was --and still is--- just ASSUMED to be false.... or "myth" in the "deeper":rolleyes: sense. or "MEN" messing over the "REAL" meaning.

After some years of side show dabbling in understanding of other religions and stuff i finally talked some some christians in depth and long story short i changed my views. At this point, after sometime of study. i have no problem saying that i believe the Bible is not Myth but FACT. And aligned with the what we know of history, science and human nature better than any other religious text by far.
Are there questions that are not answered, loose ends and weird stuff . Yes absolutely. But AS IS it still the BEST explaining for the whole show we have. science claims to show more than science really can, and philosophy does not account for as much as Scripture.

People can poopoo Genesis and the other scripture if they like. But frankly i suspect that only a few that do have seriously studied the text and the research that supports it, as apposed to the info that tries to tear it down.

I'm always surprised at the information that's available but that's little known which supports the veracity of the Bible..as facts.

if anyone would like to get SPECIFIC I might be able to help. But if we just want to ASSUME that men did this or that and didn't hear right from God. Or ASSUME that there's a DEEPER UNKNOWABLE meaning. Ok. it's a free country.
But if you're open to consider that MAYBE the Bible is more factual than the popular opinion gives it credit for, then you might want to look more closely, I suspect you'll be surprised.

It's been my observation that people who don't believe do so mostly because they can't stand the fact they have to answer to a higher authority. The irony is in the lengths they go to trying to explain away God. They are quite obvious in their intentions. Fear has them jumping through hoops trying to disprove something they cannot.

The most ridiculous argument is the scientific theory. By definition it isn't a proven anything so what makes that "religion" any more or less than God? The hypocrites are so busy being hypocritical they don't bother to look at the fact there's no difference between their religion and anyone else's.

[aboutime]

Actually. As a Christian who is unafraid to admit I am a Christian. I find it highly entertaining to read, watch, or listen to Agnostics, Athiests, and other Announced Non-believers.
I find it highly entertaining to ask them WHY...they identify as Agnostic, Athiest, or Confirmed Non-believer? Which, if you honestly consider their claims Logically....Must Mean...they are threatened in Some, Unknown Way by (as they Insist) something that DOES NOT EXIST (Like God. Or any God).

IF...as they claim. There is no GOD, or DEITY....(According to them). WHY must they identify themselves as they do IF....There is NO GOD, OR DEITY to FEAR or NOT BELIEVE IN????

Can anyone explain that?

To put it another way...for those who might have a problem with the question.

Why must there be a Descriptive Word to identify yourself over something that Doesn't exist?
Kinda sounds like the purest definition of an Oxymoron?
HOPE THIS HELPS:
Oxymorons (or Oxymora) > What is an oxymoron?
www.fun-with-words.com/oxym_explain.html
Oxymorons (or oxymora) are literary figures of speech usually composed of a pair of neighbouring contradictory words (often within a sentence). However this is not always the case. The Webster Dictionary defines oxymoron as "a combination of contradictory or incongruous words".

[Max R.]

I like Tyson to a degree but he's --like a lot of other Scientist-- hasn't given their own assumption to the same scrutiny as they give alternatives, make a lot of stumbles in reason/philosophy and passes it off as science, and does not sift all the available evidence evenly. He stays on the reservation within the current scientific dogma, and when cornered with difficult question will sometimes reply with things like. "we don't know the reason for that yet but there's likely a material reason for it." which is fine to say but that's not "science" that belief in materialism.
God created the Universe and the laws that govern it. Divining those laws is a search for God. Denying those laws is to deny God's creation.

Who here doesn't believe God can't cast out a handful of sand and know that in 13 billion years there'd be life on Earth?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Richard Dawkins is a self-aggrandizing ass who enriched himself off the wallets of idiots.

That said, you are blaming the actions of God based on the interpretations of man. The Bible, although inspired by God, is nonetheless a work of man. It's the flawed views of human beings about an entity larger and more powerful than the entire Universe. It's on the level of a 5 year old trying to understand love, hate and what makes the world go round; at times accurate, but mostly flawed. This is why the Bible should be taken in context, not cherry-picked. It's also a reason not to take the Bible literally since in some ways, it's like the game of "Telephone" due to the hand of man.

I agree. The bible and Christianity are no longer relevant to today and are quite flawed.

Literalism just makes it even more of a distorted theology.

Christians are ending up adoring a satanic God and are not taught how to judge moral values.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Dawkins likes to confine his debates to hillbilly tongue-talkers where he can be guaranteed an easy win. Whenever he's confronted by a formidable Christian intellect and scholar he gets crushed and humiliated. Dawkins is an ignoramus, overall.

Not a very respectable source to cite. He's more showbiz and celebrity--the atheist equivalent to Kim Kardashian--than a serious thinker.

I can agree with most of this.

He still ends with a better moral position than Christians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_fjBkwxc&feature=related

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

God created the Universe and the laws that govern it. Divining those laws is a search for God. Denying those laws is to deny God's creation.

Who here doesn't believe God can't cast out a handful of sand and know that in 13 billion years there'd be life on Earth?

God can't even reproduce a true son and is thus inferior to mot of us.

Regards
DL

[aboutime]

God can't even reproduce a true son and is thus inferior to mot of us.

Regards
DL

How long can you pretend NOT to be a member of WESTBORO???

[Gunny]

Actually. As a Christian who is unafraid to admit I am a Christian. I find it highly entertaining to read, watch, or listen to Agnostics, Athiests, and other Announced Non-believers.
I find it highly entertaining to ask them WHY...they identify as Agnostic, Athiest, or Confirmed Non-believer? Which, if you honestly consider their claims Logically....Must Mean...they are threatened in Some, Unknown Way by (as they Insist) something that DOES NOT EXIST (Like God. Or any God).

IF...as they claim. There is no GOD, or DEITY....(According to them). WHY must they identify themselves as they do IF....There is NO GOD, OR DEITY to FEAR or NOT BELIEVE IN????

Can anyone explain that?

To put it another way...for those who might have a problem with the question.

Why must there be a Descriptive Word to identify yourself over something that Doesn't exist?
Kinda sounds like the purest definition of an Oxymoron?
HOPE THIS HELPS:
Oxymorons (or Oxymora) > What is an oxymoron?
www.fun-with-words.com/oxym_explain.html (http://www.fun-with-words.com/oxym_explain.html)
Oxymorons (or oxymora) are literary figures of speech usually composed of a pair of neighbouring contradictory words (often within a sentence). However this is not always the case. The Webster Dictionary defines oxymoron as "a combination of contradictory or incongruous words".

Yep. Disbelief is in and of itself belief.

[Gunny]

I agree. The bible and Christianity are no longer relevant to today and are quite flawed.

Literalism just makes it even more of a distorted theology.

Christians are ending up adoring a satanic God and are not taught how to judge moral values.

Regards
DL

No, literalism makes YOU a distortion of reality. The fact is, you think you're special and above the rules. Your moral values are based on Judeo-Christianity; yet, you choose to deny the truth. You weren't born with morals. You were born knowing hunger and cold. Morals are societal, not intrinsic.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

No, literalism makes YOU a distortion of reality. The fact is, you think you're special and above the rules. Your moral values are based on Judeo-Christianity; yet, you choose to deny the truth. You weren't born with morals. You were born knowing hunger and cold. Morals are societal, not intrinsic.


Correct.

God did not live in one and that may be why his morals are so poor.

No one in a society would advocate for human sacrifice and the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty.

Except for immoral Christians.

You would reject a man for advocating the punishment of the innocent, yet you advocate for your God who does just that.

Why your double standard?

Regards
DL

[Abbey Marie]

Gnostic's Internet Message Board Creed:

I am Christianphobic.
Therefore, I must find fault with Christians.
I will go try to crap on all their beliefs, until they get defensive.
Then I will shout, "Hah! You are not following your own Bible's tenets."
And convince myself I was right all along!
Rinse
Repeat

[Kathianne]

Gnostic's Internet Message Board Creed:

I am Christianphobic.
Therefore, I must find fault with Christians.
I will go and try to crap on all their beliefs, until they get defensive.
Then I will shout, "Hah! You are not following your own Bible's tenets."
And convince myself I was right all along!
Rinse
Repeat

I've said from the start, he's a troll. I only looked at the thread because I saw you'd posted last.

I also want to throw my 2 cents in that normally good posters often do what he's been doing, to other Christians. It seems to me that the world and this board would be better places if we all tried to follow the Golden Rule. I fail too often, but keep trying.

[Gunny]

Correct.

God did not live in one and that may be why his morals are so poor.

No one in a society would advocate for human sacrifice and the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty.

Except for immoral Christians.

You would reject a man for advocating the punishment of the innocent, yet you advocate for your God who does just that.

Why your double standard?

Regards
DL

Last I checked, "my God" doesn't sacrifice. YOUR lame-ass God does. Back to my first comment ... Christ amended the laws of God. As the Son of Man, he was the only one who had the right to.

YOU, on the otherhand, don't. You're worthless and scared. Why else would anyone fear God so much? Because you don't believe and think you're not accountable for your actions and deep inside, you fear the consequences.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I've said from the start, he's a troll. I only looked at the thread because I saw you'd posted last.

I also want to throw my 2 cents in that normally good posters often do what he's been doing, to other Christians. It seems to me that the world and this board would be better places if we all tried to follow the Golden Rule. I fail too often, but keep trying.

So does your God.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?49788-Why-does-God-not-follow-the-Golden-Rule-His-best-rule

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Last I checked, "my God" doesn't sacrifice. YOUR lame-ass God does. Back to my first comment ... Christ amended the laws of God. As the Son of Man, he was the only one who had the right to.

YOU, on the otherhand, don't. You're worthless and scared. Why else would anyone fear God so much? Because you don't believe and think you're not accountable for your actions and deep inside, you fear the consequences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olhCazkejPg

I fear having your debilitating mind set.

Regards
DL

[Drummond]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olhCazkejPg

I fear having your debilitating mind set.

Regards
DL

If I weren't a Conservative, therefore grounded in reality and commonsense, I would fear having yours.

Regards
D

[Gunny]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olhCazkejPg

I fear having your debilitating mind set.

Regards
DL

And I fear being a serpent. That's exactly what you are. A fool tempting others. Too bad faith has you beat.

Like I said, you're just scared. Afraid to stand up for your action, so why not deny the authority?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

And I fear being a serpent. That's exactly what you are. A fool tempting others. Too bad faith has you beat.

Like I said, you're just scared. Afraid to stand up for your action, so why not deny the authority?

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.
Who is afraid of standing up to their actions?

Christians are.

That is why, like you, they accept an immoral tenet to try to save their (sold to Satan) souls.

Regards
DL

[Max R.]

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.
Who is afraid of standing up to their actions?

Christians are.

That is why, like you, they accept an immoral tenet to try to save their (sold to Satan) souls.

Regards
DL
Dude, you're trolling. It's dishonest for you to deny it.

[Gunny]

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.
Who is afraid of standing up to their actions?

Christians are.

That is why, like you, they accept an immoral tenet to try to save their (sold to Satan) souls.

Regards
DL

I haven't done anything to a Christian. Want to try your worthless, paper tiger attack again? YOU are immoral. Not to mention worthless.

I don't care if you don't believe, but attacking my beliefs makes you a piece of trash.

[aboutime]

The only purpose for Gnostic to come here is to CUT OFF his brain, to SPITE humanity. And he wins every time.

[revelarts]

God created the Universe and the laws that govern it. Divining those laws is a search for God. Denying those laws is to deny God's creation.

Who here doesn't believe God can't cast out a handful of sand and know that in 13 billion years there'd be life on Earth?

or just speak and the universe and life form in 7 seconds or 7 days.

no need for 13 billion.

As humans we can try to divine (i like that choice of words) the laws of physics but we hit walls a various points and make 1 HUGE assumption... if materialist.... they assume that the laws are constant and have been that way since ..."the beginning" or infinitely. Or assume we can make-up math that will allow the "singularities" (read miracles) that don't align with "the laws of science".


Science has limits and built in assumptions a various points, and often ignores contrary evidences if the dominate paradigm doesn't account for them.
touched on some of this in an older thread (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?46599-Universe-is-Not-Expanding-After-All-Controversial-Study-Suggests&highlight=galaxy)

[DragonStryk72]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olhCazkejPg

I fear having your debilitating mind set.

Regards
DL

And more proof. I mean really, you're my most valuable player in this argument. Yet more rehash of old arguments you already got slapped down on, until you ran away from them form new threads. I mean, come on, nothing original? Not one thing? Just the same regurgitated shit again and again?

[Max R.]

or just speak and the universe and life form in 7 seconds or 7 days.

no need for 13 billion.

As humans we can try to divine (i like that choice of words) the laws of physics but we hit walls a various points and make 1 HUGE assumption... if materialist.... they assume that the laws are constant and have been that way since ..."the beginning" or infinitely. Or assume we can make-up math that will allow the "singularities" (read miracles) that don't align with "the laws of science".


Science has limits and built in assumptions a various points, and often ignores contrary evidences if the dominate paradigm doesn't account for them.
touched on some of this in an older thread (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?46599-Universe-is-Not-Expanding-After-All-Controversial-Study-Suggests&highlight=galaxy)

Although capable of it, why would God set up the laws of the Universe then violate them? That's like designing a game then cheating to win.

Thanks, "divining the truth" is a favorite phrase and goes to the heart of the Scientific Method. Yes, science has limitations; specifically that it only deals with the natural universe and cannot, by definition, go beyond it. As such, while science seeks to understand the laws God created in our Universe, it can't go beyond those natural laws to understand God. That remains a spiritual exploration, well beyond the limits of science, linear thought, logic and physical reality. Which is why Science is a matter of physical existence and Spirituality is a matter of faith.

http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/dox/scientific_method.html

http://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html
Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is also the body of knowledge accumulated through the discoveries about all the things in the universe.


The word "science" is derived from the Latin word scientia, which is knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible data, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientia). True to this definition, science aims for measurable results through testing and analysis. Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research. One important aspect of the scientific process is that it is focuses only on the natural world, according to the University of California (http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/intro_01). Anything that is considered supernatural does not fit into the definition of science.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yep. Disbelief is in and of itself belief.

Their faith is in man-or evil or anything but God and Salvation..
Atheism is a faith. And its easily seen to be a faith in --"nothing".. --Tyr

[revelarts]

Although capable of it, why would God set up the laws of the Universe then violate them? That's like designing a game then cheating to win.

Thanks, "divining the truth" is a favorite phrase and goes to the heart of the Scientific Method. Yes, science has limitations; specifically that it only deals with the natural universe and cannot, by definition, go beyond it. As such, while science seeks to understand the laws God created in our Universe, it can't go beyond those natural laws to understand God. That remains a spiritual exploration, well beyond the limits of science, linear thought, logic and physical reality. Which is why Science is a matter of physical existence and Spirituality is a matter of faith.

http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/dox/scientific_method.html

http://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html
Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is also the body of knowledge accumulated through the discoveries about all the things in the universe.

The word "science" is derived from the Latin word scientia, which is knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible data, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientia). True to this definition, science aims for measurable results through testing and analysis. Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research. One important aspect of the scientific process is that it is focuses only on the natural world, according to the University of California (http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/intro_01). Anything that is considered supernatural does not fit into the definition of science.

I appreciate where your coming from. I guess we has just slight differences on where the lines are.

"why would God set up the laws of the Universe then violate them? That's like designing a game then cheating to win."

a couple of things. !st we assume we know all the laws. we don't. As i mentioned there are things that scientist are calling "singularities" events in the material universe that DON"T follows the laws as we understand them. faster than light travel, the initial supposed big bang event itself. Most will admit to and say well OK at the beginning of the universe the laws did not apply. ---based on there understanding-- so here in he MATERIAL world they acknowledge that they believe the laws of nature are NOT always constant. and have in FACT been different.

So my question is, if God was not bound by the laws then why is he now.
and 2ndy Do you believe in miracles at all? or that God raised Jesus from the dead.

the reason God gives for doing that and breaking the laws of nature is to SHOW people that He exist and has power over all creation. SO that we might believe.

God doesn't separate nature from spirit but set up nature in some cases to PROVE spirituality -so to speak.

I agree that "Science is a matter of physical existence" but the Bible talks about Spirituality is a matter of faith BASED ON what has happened in physical existence. not just a mind game.


1 Corinthians 15
" Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by one man came death, by one man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
The last enemy that will be abolished is death. "

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Dude, you're trolling. It's dishonest for you to deny it.

More like showing a truth that you do not want to face.

Many have spoken to this without ever trying to justify it.

You and your friend are aware that you take a poor moral position and that is why you run from any meaningful discussions on his issue.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I haven't done anything to a Christian. Want to try your worthless, paper tiger attack again? YOU are immoral. Not to mention worthless.

I don't care if you don't believe, but attacking my beliefs makes you a piece of trash.

Having those immoral beliefs make you a friend of Satan's.

But go ahead and bad mouth me if you feel that that is the only way to justify your immoral beliefs.

Others will see you guys retreating and will know the truth.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

And more proof. I mean really, you're my most valuable player in this argument. Yet more rehash of old arguments you already got slapped down on, until you ran away from them form new threads. I mean, come on, nothing original? Not one thing? Just the same regurgitated shit again and again?

Apologies.

There are just many here that are too dim to make moral judgements.

It is almost as if you guys knew how immoral your thinking was and that you are too immoral to want to face yourselves.

Regard
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Their faith is in man-or evil or anything but God and Salvation..
Atheism is a faith. And its easily seen to be a faith in --"nothing".. --Tyr

Is that better than belief in an imaginary flying man in the sky who will punish you for not believing in his imaginary ass?

Regards
DL

[aboutime]

Unanswered questions get YOU, my highest (lowest) respects.
Enjoy....The TRUTH really does hurt you.

http://icansayit.com/images/westborofan.jpg

[Max R.]

More like showing a truth that you do not want to face.

Many have spoken to this without ever trying to justify it.

You and your friend are aware that you take a poor moral position and that is why you run from any meaningful discussions on his issue.

Regards
DLWhat is your truth, DL? That you hate Christians? That you like to troll forums?

Your accusation that anyone is running from "meaningful discussions" is a lie since you don't intend to have meaningful discussions on this topic. If anyone disagrees with you, your response is the same BS quoted above.

Point to one single time you've had a meaningful discussion on this topic with anyone on this forum or another. I'll wait for your link(s) proving you've done such a thing.

[aboutime]

What is your truth, DL? That you hate Christians? That you like to troll forums?

Your accusation that anyone is running from "meaningful discussions" is a lie since you don't intend to have meaningful discussions on this topic. If anyone disagrees with you, your response is the same BS quoted above.

Point to one single time you've had a meaningful discussion on this topic with anyone on this forum or another. I'll wait for your link(s) proving you've done such a thing.


Max. The biggest hint for me about how DL is a liar, and disingenuous here. Is a form of his own Hypocrisy, when he signs every post with the word...Regards.
And he/she/it has never denied, or admitted to being a member of WESTBORO.
Sometimes, what people always fail to say is as much a fact as what they DO say.

[DragonStryk72]

Apologies.

There are just many here that are too dim to make moral judgements.

It is almost as if you guys knew how immoral your thinking was and that you are too immoral to want to face yourselves.

Regard
DL

Or, they've stopped taking you seriously, and are generally sick of the same thing I am, that you're not really here to debate, or learn. If you were, once again, you wouldn't just keep repeating yourself. That's all you do, and then, when you get cornered, you run off to another thread.

[Gunny]

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.
Who is afraid of standing up to their actions?

Christians are.

That is why, like you, they accept an immoral tenet to try to save their (sold to Satan) souls.

Regards
DL

That was dumb. I answer for my own sins and don't need anyone else to. I will stand judged for each and every thought and deed.

You think you're above that. It's the basis of your denial. If you deny God's existence then you think your lack of morals is above reproach. Bet you voted for that lying piece of garbage, Obama, didn't you? He thinks he's above the law too.

[Max R.]

I appreciate where your coming from. I guess we has just slight differences on where the lines are.

"why would God set up the laws of the Universe then violate them? That's like designing a game then cheating to win."

a couple of things. !st we assume we know all the laws. we don't. As i mentioned there are things that scientist are calling "singularities" events in the material universe that DON"T follows the laws as we understand them. faster than light travel, the initial supposed big bang event itself. Most will admit to and say well OK at the beginning of the universe the laws did not apply. ---based on there understanding-- so here in he MATERIAL world they acknowledge that they believe the laws of nature are NOT always constant. and have in FACT been different.

So my question is, if God was not bound by the laws then why is he now.
and 2ndy Do you believe in miracles at all? or that God raised Jesus from the dead.

the reason God gives for doing that and breaking the laws of nature is to SHOW people that He exist and has power over all creation. SO that we might believe.

God doesn't separate nature from spirit but set up nature in some cases to PROVE spirituality -so to speak.

I agree that "Science is a matter of physical existence" but the Bible talks about Spirituality is a matter of faith BASED ON what has happened in physical existence. not just a mind game.
You misunderstand me; God isn't bound by the laws of the Universe since God is both outside the Universe and also it's creator.

Factor in another comment, where we disagree; God has separated natural law and spirit. We have enough of an understanding of Universal laws to put mankind on the Moon, but we don't have a shred of proof God exists or that there is existence after mortal death. IMHO, God designed this as a matter of faith. The exact purpose of doing this can only be speculated upon since there is nothing we can prove.

Lastly, who says "we assume we know all the laws"? We obviously do not. The only people I've seen make such grandiose "I know it all" proclamations are preachers, politicians and pundits.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

You misunderstand me; God isn't bound by the laws of the Universe since God is both outside the Universe and also it's creator.

.

You know this, how?

Who has gone outside our universe to confirm this?

Note that you make statements that you cannot possibly prove and an honest man would call that statement a lie.

Do you believe you have a moral responsibility to prove what you say is true or even possible to know if true or not?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I answer for my own sins and don't need anyone else to. I will stand judged for each and every thought and deed.

Are you saying that you reject the notion of Jesus dying for you?

Regards
DL

[tailfins]

You know this, how?

Who has gone outside our universe to confirm this?

Note that you make statements that you cannot possibly prove and an honest man would call that statement a lie.

Do you believe you have a moral responsibility to prove what you say is true or even possible to know if true or not?

Regards
DL

DL, while I find you posts rather amusing, I would like to know what you are trying to accomplish. Maybe if we knew what your goals were, we could help you accomplish them. If you mission is to make people laugh at you, I think you can say "mission accomplished".

[Drummond]

You know this, how?

Who has gone outside our universe to confirm this?

Sheer logic dictates its truth.

The Universe exists. It has physical properties and adheres to physical laws.

The Universe is essentially a machine in that sense. It does what it has to do, since the parameters that define it don't allow for an alternative.

This is also true for a properly functioning machine. It does what it's designed to do.

Now ... does the creator of that machine live inside it, or, in creating it, HAD to have lived OUTSIDE of it, independently of its existence, not bound by the limits of its design ?

How could the very same not be true of God, creator of our Universe ?

[Drummond]

DL, while I find you posts rather amusing, I would like to know what you are trying to accomplish. Maybe if we knew what your goals were, we could help you accomplish them. If you mission is to make people laugh at you, I think you can say "mission accomplished".

I think his 'mission' is ongoing. It's to troll forums like this one. Trolling doesn't accomplish a thing; trolling is just trolling.

[aboutime]

You know this, how?

Who has gone outside our universe to confirm this?

Note that you make statements that you cannot possibly prove and an honest man would call that statement a lie.

Do you believe you have a moral responsibility to prove what you say is true or even possible to know if true or not?

Regards
DL


Gnostic. You continue to come here expecting all of us to believe YOU, and only YOU are qualified to ask such really ignorant questions; when with your own words (like above) You must have gone outside our universe to confirm OTHERWISE.
I call that, pure, and simple, unadulterated..Hypocrisy, coming from a Hypocrite.

[revelarts]

You misunderstand me; God isn't bound by the laws of the Universe since God is both outside the Universe and also it's creator.

agreed



Factor in another comment, where we disagree; God has separated natural law and spirit. We have enough of an understanding of Universal laws to put mankind on the Moon, but we don't have a shred of proof God exists or that there is existence after mortal death. IMHO, God designed this as a matter of faith. The exact purpose of doing this can only be speculated upon since there is nothing we can prove.


Simple question.
if man has been dead for 3 days is there any known natural law or science that can bring him back?
At this point what we have is a BREAK in natural law by God to confirm the existence of God and authority of Jesus Christ by physical evidence.
would you consider that "a shred of proof"?

That's my point. The point that the apostle Paul makes further in the 1 Corinthians quote i sited.
Every miracle Jesus performed BROKE natural laws as we understand them, as evidence for his veracity and spiritual reality and authority.

There were eyewitness to these events that occurred in a natural context which could be/was "scientifically" examined but not explained naturally. Without a trip to the moon.

Now sure, one can assume that the eye witnesses were mistaken or liars. That's our choice. (but even there you'd need to make a case of liar or mistaken.) But Christianity does not leave us with just "a matter of faith" based on nothing in the natural world.

Peter spoke of his honesty and then of one specific event that put it pass "a matter of faith"
"15 And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things. For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
2 Peter 15-17
As far as morality after death in concerned well, If a man is dead for 3 days returns and tells the story we have some evidence. if not "proof" in a test tube sense.

A far as shreds of evidence of God's existence just based on science I beg to differ there as well. depends on how you view the evidence. the scientific FACT that DNA could NOT have come into being by RANDOM chemical occurrences or known natural laws. Points directly to an intelligent designer in a VERY stark way. so much so that those scientist that REFUSE to consider it have oped for the idea that Aliens have seeded the earth or some asteroid came to earth with DNA preloaded (just pushing the problem back into space). But at this point they admit that there's no way for laws of nature on any realistic conception of a primitive earth to randomly form a DNA RNA of even the 1st right handed amino acids. Add to that that we KNOW scientifically that high complexity and ordered processes only comes a mind. and you have a simple "scientific" base for God. the same as when one determines if a man dead in the snow was killed or died of natural causes. if a knife is sticking out of the man's back with 2 sets of footprint coming in and one leaving you don't assume that the knife got there by random chance from outer space.

And that just 1 item that can be brought to bear to come along side the testimony of the men and women of spcripture.

It's not and "EITHER OR" it's a "BOTH AND" when it comes to faith. At least that's the way the Bible describes it.
people can "believe" what they like but the Bible describes nature and specific breaks in naturally order as evidence OF the God and the spiritual realms.

King David simply put it "the Heaven declare the glory of God and the skys his handiwork."



Lastly, who says "we assume we know all the laws"? We obviously do not. The only people I've seen make such grandiose "I know it all" proclamations are preachers, politicians and pundits.

If I said "all" then i mis- wrote.
But many scientist do assume they know enough. Enough to rule out God and the Bible. My point is they don't know as much as they pretend. and many things pointed out to the public as current scientific sureties are in fact far from it.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

DL, while I find you posts rather amusing, I would like to know what you are trying to accomplish. Maybe if we knew what your goals were, we could help you accomplish them. If you mission is to make people laugh at you, I think you can say "mission accomplished".

Personal garbage is always easier to give than an answer to a reasonable question.

You should stop saying things that are an obvious lie that you cannot justify.

But better for me that you continue to lie. It shows what Christianity does to a moral sense.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I think his 'mission' is ongoing. It's to troll forums like this one. Trolling doesn't accomplish a thing; trolling is just trolling.

Correct and look at how many here troll and accomplish nothing.

Regards
DL

[aboutime]

Correct and look at how many here troll and accomplish nothing.

Regards
DL


But, but, but....Gnostic. We are accomplishing something when we constantly IDENTIFY YOU as the TROLL here.

[Gunny]

Are you saying that you reject the notion of Jesus dying for you?

Regards
DL

I reject the notion of you trying to twist it into something it isn't. Christ GAVE his life for us. We didn't ask.

So go back to your drawing board, Wile E. Nothingness. There's a verse about people like ... something about kicking the dust from one's sandals.

You don't want to believe, don't. I'm not responsible for your lack of belief. But don't try telling ME I'm wrong when you can't prove a word you post.

[Voted4Reagan]

Why do any of you bother with Gnostic?

Ignore his trolling. Let him wither on his vine.

[DragonStryk72]

Personal garbage is always easier to give than an answer to a reasonable question.

You should stop saying things that are an obvious lie that you cannot justify.

But better for me that you continue to lie. It shows what Christianity does to a moral sense.

Regards
DL

Except you've never before asked a reasonable question, nor had reasonable intent to your questions. Never, not once.

[Max R.]

You know this, how?

Who has gone outside our universe to confirm this?

Note that you make statements that you cannot possibly prove and an honest man would call that statement a lie.

Do you believe you have a moral responsibility to prove what you say is true or even possible to know if true or not?

Regards
DL
Sane, honest people read where I stated it as a matter of faith. Douchebags liars, trolls and the like accuse me of lying.

[Max R.]

I think his 'mission' is ongoing. It's to troll forums like this one. Trolling doesn't accomplish a thing; trolling is just trolling.
Agreed. Notice he rarely, if ever, seeks to discuss an issue. He immediately launches personal attacks against those who disagree with him. Not just this forum, but all those in which he posts threads such as this one.

[Max R.]

agreed



Simple question.
if man has been dead for 3 days is there any known natural law or science that can bring him back?
At this point what we have is a BREAK in natural law by God to confirm the existence of God and authority of Jesus Christ by physical evidence.
would you consider that "a shred of proof"?

That's my point. The point that the apostle Paul makes further in the 1 Corinthians quote i sited.
Every miracle Jesus performed BROKE natural laws as we understand them, as evidence for his veracity and spiritual reality and authority.

There were eyewitness to these events that occurred in a natural context which could be/was "scientifically" examined but not explained naturally. Without a trip to the moon.

Now sure, one can assume that the eye witnesses were mistaken or liars. That's our choice. (but even there you'd need to make a case of liar or mistaken.) But Christianity does not leave us with just "a matter of faith" based on nothing in the natural world.

Peter spoke of his honesty and then of one specific event that put it pass "a matter of faith"
"15 And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things. For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
2 Peter 15-17
As far as morality after death in concerned well, If a man is dead for 3 days returns and tells the story we have some evidence. if not "proof" in a test tube sense.

A far as shreds of evidence of God's existence just based on science I beg to differ there as well. depends on how you view the evidence. the scientific FACT that DNA could NOT have come into being by RANDOM chemical occurrences or known natural laws. Points directly to an intelligent designer in a VERY stark way. so much so that those scientist that REFUSE to consider it have oped for the idea that Aliens have seeded the earth or some asteroid came to earth with DNA preloaded (just pushing the problem back into space). But at this point they admit that there's no way for laws of nature on any realistic conception of a primitive earth to randomly form a DNA RNA of even the 1st right handed amino acids. Add to that that we KNOW scientifically that high complexity and ordered processes only comes a mind. and you have a simple "scientific" base for God. the same as when one determines if a man dead in the snow was killed or died of natural causes. if a knife is sticking out of the man's back with 2 sets of footprint coming in and one leaving you don't assume that the knife got there by random chance from outer space.

And that just 1 item that can be brought to bear to come along side the testimony of the men and women of spcripture.

It's not and "EITHER OR" it's a "BOTH AND" when it comes to faith. At least that's the way the Bible describes it.
people can "believe" what they like but the Bible describes nature and specific breaks in naturally order as evidence OF the God and the spiritual realms.

King David simply put it "the Heaven declare the glory of God and the skys his handiwork."



If I said "all" then i mis- wrote.
But many scientist do assume they know enough. Enough to rule out God and the Bible. My point is they don't know as much as they pretend. and many things pointed out to the public as current scientific sureties are in fact far from it.

The Resurrection of Christ is a matter of faith since, outside of the New Testament (most of which was written decades after the fact), there is zero direct evidence it happened. What we do have is indirect evidence that something dramatic happened and created a watershed moment in Judea and throughout the region. Why would almost all the Apostle's believe so fervently after the Crucifixion that many were killed spreading the faith?

Science explains DNA, but what it doesn't explain is the spark of life. There are theories, but no proof. Perhaps if life is discovered elsewhere in the Universe or life is created, views will change. Even so, I think such events don't explain the bigger picture of the meaning of existence and what lies beyond the Natural Universe.

[revelarts]

The Resurrection of Christ is a matter of faith since, outside of the New Testament (most of which was written decades after the fact), there is zero direct evidence it happened. What we do have is indirect evidence that something dramatic happened and created a watershed moment in Judea and throughout the region. Why would almost all the Apostle's believe so fervently after the Crucifixion that many were killed spreading the faith?

I appreciate your position. I think many hold it.
If you don't mind me saying so i think we have slightly different perspectives. But not that much different at 1st glance. But i think we might be standing just steps away on opposite sides of a watershed.

the new testament is considered in many way a historical book by most people in a lot of respects. It's been corabrated and OFTEN been the 1st place where knowledge of certain events of history have been found.

sometime ago some historians asserted that Pilate was a made up figure. until they found roman evidence.
Details in the N.T. of places, romans names and events etc have been confirmed. And again OFTEN the 1st source of knowledge ..eventhough people thought it needed to be taken ..on faith.. BECAUSE it's ."the new testament" and no one else has it.

the new testament is the BEST ancient document we have. there are over 25,000 of copies that go back to --as you say-- the 1st century A.D.. the next closeist is Homers Iliad w only 800 ancient copies. Plato only has 7 copies and they were written 1200 years after the originals. But people don't brush off it's historicity. And that 1200 year gap is considered GOOD by ancient docs standards. Many New testament scholars at this point after looking at the alternatives have conclude that the N.T. account itself is accurate. That is, the disciples Peters and the rest recorded accurately what they saw and claimed the events as FACT. and there's little to dismiss their claims.
But as you say whether people believe it or not is another matter. But some people don't believe in the moon landing or that eating meat is good for you either.
It's a "matter of faith" in a similar sense you seem to assert.
But there is another sense where there's saving faith. The scripture says the demons "believe". believe the raw facts but it does them no good. Trusting in Jesus Christ as savior for forgiveness of sins and as the son of God is a matter of faith.

But the resurrection itself, is either a matter of historical fact or it's not.



Science explains DNA, but what it doesn't explain is the spark of life. There are theories, but no proof. Perhaps if life is discovered elsewhere in the Universe or life is created, views will change. Even so, I think such events don't explain the bigger picture of the meaning of existence and what lies beyond the Natural Universe.

"Perhaps if life is discovered elsewhere in the Universe or life is created, views will change"..

that is a statement of faith Max. It's not based on scientific evidence.
Based on the evidence we have NOW. ---which is the ONLY thing science can do well--- the best scientific explanation for life is an intelligent creator.

Assuming we MIGHT find life in space. still just pushes the question back and assumes there are chemical processes that defy known ones, and physics that defy known physics and bring complexity and layered self replication mechanical functions to non-living energy, gases, liquids, and minerals.

And assuming that man might some someday create life proves the point that it does take an intelligent designer to create life.

But yes we completely agree that the physical world does not explain the bigger picture of the meaning of existence.
But I believe the Natural Universe is a stepping stone to seeing beyond it. Just realizing that the Natural Universe didn't happen by accident, create itself or come from NOTHING, should lead us to search beyond nature.

[Max R.]

"Perhaps if life is discovered elsewhere in the Universe or life is created, views will change"..

that is a statement of faith Max. It's not based on scientific evidence.
Based on the evidence we have NOW. ---which is the ONLY thing science can do well--- the best scientific explanation for life is an intelligent creator.Thanks for the responses.

Too much for me to cover in a short time, so I'll stick with the quote above.

Agreed there is zero evidence of life outside of Earth, but that isn't sufficient reason to stop looking. If life is discovered elsewhere, it still doesn't explain where the Universe came from and why nor if there is post-mortem existence. Nonetheless, there is a different between a theory and faith. Theories can be proved or disproved. Faith is just that, faith.

Is there any doubt that God could have written his word in the stars or programmed it into our heads so there is no doubt, no confusion and no debate on the matter? That we'd all just know? Obviously that didn't happen, so why not? My guess is that it's the journey that matters, not the destination. That God wants us to figure it out for ourselves. We won't know for sure in this existence, so it's a matter of faith. :)

[avatar4321]

Agreed. Notice he rarely, if ever, seeks to discuss an issue. He immediately launches personal attacks against those who disagree with him. Not just this forum, but all those in which he posts threads such as this one.

Then he claims how we are supposedly attacking him.

[avatar4321]

The Resurrection of Christ is a matter of faith since, outside of the New Testament (most of which was written decades after the fact), there is zero direct evidence it happened. What we do have is indirect evidence that something dramatic happened and created a watershed moment in Judea and throughout the region. Why would almost all the Apostle's believe so fervently after the Crucifixion that many were killed spreading the faith?

Science explains DNA, but what it doesn't explain is the spark of life. There are theories, but no proof. Perhaps if life is discovered elsewhere in the Universe or life is created, views will change. Even so, I think such events don't explain the bigger picture of the meaning of existence and what lies beyond the Natural Universe.

I disagree that there is zero direct evidence outside of the new testament. For one the Book of Mormon thread I started should tell you that.

But more importantly, the most important evidence is the witness of the Holy Spirit which convinces the mind and the heart through direct personal revelation.

It is by the power of the Holy Ghost that I known that He lives and truly is the Son of God. And it was revelation that taught Peter who He was. (Matthew 16)

It's incumbent upon us to all seek out own personal witness of Jesus Christ.

[Max R.]

I disagree that there is zero direct evidence outside of the new testament. For one the Book of Mormon thread I started should tell you that.

But more importantly, the most important evidence is the witness of the Holy Spirit which convinces the mind and the heart through direct personal revelation.

It is by the power of the Holy Ghost that I known that He lives and truly is the Son of God. And it was revelation that taught Peter who He was. (Matthew 16)

It's incumbent upon us to all seek out own personal witness of Jesus Christ.I was raised RLDS, so am familiar with the Book of Mormon. Using a religious text literally written over 1800 years after the Crucifixion isn't valid evidence supporting the resurrection of Christ or proof of an afterlife.

Despite the assertions of atheists that their numbers are growing, their percentage is actually about the same as it always was; about 2%. What is changing is the number of people who have spiritual believes, but do not subscribe to dogmatic religions such as Mormonism or modern Christian beliefs (the Trinity, a personal God who grants wishes with prayer, etc).

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

It's incumbent upon us to all seek out own personal witness of Jesus Christ.

I agree with this last.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embeddedRegardsDL)