We Don't Get It, So God Did It

[D. Benitez 0]

This message is for AnwiiI really appreciate your sermon of a spiritually lost person. You have accused people of being ignorant, or a person of ignorance for having faith or strong belief in God. You are a preacher of "secular humanism". You preach a human aspect of what God started, but it sounds to me like you are a person who has rejected the calling of God. You must get really vexed in your spirit when you read things about God because you must have had a bad experience because of people turning you off through traditional practices of so-called "religion". You have failed to read the Bible to find out for yourself. You approach God from an intellectual, traditional, and ignorant point of view. Which you exhibit when you talk about God. The bible says only a fool says in their heart there is no God. When you speak you mention God but then you try to discredit Him ,then you say some good things and then you resort to your humanistic nature. Its funny to me that the mind and tongue you use to communicate your views are the instruments God created in you to find Him. Your favorite word in your comments are "ignorant or ignorance" but I hear a person confused and crying out to God. The Book of Hosea says my people perish for lack of knowledge. Read the Bible and pray for understanding and God will give it to you. Remember WISDOM IS LOOKING AT EVERY LIFE SITUATION THROUGH GOD's PERSPECTIVE. THE BIBLE SAYS TRUST IN THE LORD WITH ALL YOUR HEART AND LEAN NOT UNTO YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING, ACKOWLEDGE HIM IN ALL THY WAYS AND HE WILL DIRECT YOUR PATH. DONT CONCENTRATE ON RELIGION FOCUS ON A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP. WITH GOD.In His Love

[Baniboy 3]

Alright, my idea on the "four corners" thing was flawed (but I was close), so I did some research on it. Read this:

 

QUOTE Europeans in the 16th century divided the world into four continents: Africa, America, Asia and Europe.[1] Each of the four continents was seen to represent its quadrant of the worldEurope in the north, Asia in the east, Africa in the south, and America in the west. This division fit the Renaissance sensibilities of the time, which also divided the world into four seasons, four classical elements, four cardinal directions, four classical virtues, etc.

 

The four corners of the world refers to the Americas (the "west"), Europe (the "north"), Asia/Oceania (the "east"), and Africa (the "south").

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_continents

Wrong and wrong again. "Europeans in the 16th century"... If I remember correctly, the old testament wasn't written in Europe nor in the 16th century.

Sorry to disappoint you again but your god seems to forget about the things he created all the time. Like, where's Australia? Well, the writer seems to have skipped a few geography lessons or he/she is dumb on purpose!

I found your "four corners":

 

The countries named are all within the areas of the Middle-East, Northeast Africa and Mediterranean region, <a href="http://www.godvsthebible.com/node/9%23ftn9;[9] the lands that the Israelites knew of:

 

Assyria: Roughly northern Iraq and Syria

Egypt: Egypt

Pathros: Upper Egypt

Cush: Sudan/Northern Ethiopia

Elam: Western Iran

Shinar: Southern Iraq

Hamath: Town in modern Syria

Islands of the Sea: Likely refers to Cyprus, Rhodes and Crete.

God apparently forgot to tell about the other nations/kingdoms/areas/whatever. Again, if you don't use scientific method to prove things and just assume like Israelites did, you end up having four corners and what not against modern science in your book.

Americas, Europe, Asia/Oceania, and Africa (essentially the entire earth)

I don't wanna offend you or anything but... Do you even own a map?! Where's Australia? Antarctica? Where? Huh?

 

Even if all this somehow magically were to be true, you can't see the whole earth from a top of a mountain, so give up already. NEXT!

 

Okay, instead of examining how it was written, how about you acknowledge the information that is there? It is not written like brainwashing material, and it is not dishonest. You can verify the information that is there from other sources if you so wish.

Oh, so now you're blaming me for actually examining the document, instead you want me to blindly believe everything written there. Then you say I'm not acknowledging the information that is there. Let me tell you something:

 

Let's assume you have a biology book, everything in it seems to be as it should. You're reading a chapter about monkeys and suddenly you notice that the book claims that monkeys have 2 butt holes. Would you throw the whole book away? Or would you just pick a word and start explaining how it can also mean another thing like truefusion seems to be doing all the time?(no offense tf, but it's really annoying when you do it)

 

I'm attempting to establish the general reliability of the bible through examples. If you wish, we could go through every book of the bible to verify it's accuracy, etc. verse by verse. I'm sure you would love to spend your time doing that

I was talking about the resurrection, not the reliability. And no, I wouldn't love to do that, it'd be as stupid if I started examining "alice in wonderland". A waste of time. In fact, I'm only replying to this topic because I don't want to leave a debate open, this is getting all boring and stupid with all the "forgotten continents"... Back to the point, I don't accept eye-witnesses as empirical evidence. And when I see a big flaw in my biology book, I throw it away. Which I have done with carm.org.

 

That's why your dismissing the links from CARM.org written by a man who has spent many years of his life studying these things?

If you are going to make such accusations that the accounts of those who saw Jesus after His death and resurrection are false, back up those claims. Don't provide a silly argument involving Elvis.

Yes! I dismiss stupid article where they claim that because so many people saw Jesus after his death, he must've resurrected. Happy now? Just as many people have seen Elvis after his death doesn't prove that he's still alive, many people seeing Jesus after his death doesn't prove anything. It's kinda ironic too because somewhere there it also says that eyewitnesses don't count as empirical evidence. I'm not saying they are false, but I'm saying that they don't count as evidence.

 

A man that has spent many years studying the subject is either

a) Lying and brainwashing, leaving the "bad parts" of the bible out.

Hasn't studied the subject or has, but is just ignorant.

 

That is what I mean when I say you have to understand things with the mindset of those who it was written by: so that you can properly understand their writings.

Aww, sorry I thought it was god's word so it applies everywhere? So now you agree that it's written by men and with their mindset AND knowledge. How delightful. So are you an agnostic now?

 

only those who believed it would have written about it

So why they didn't? The first documentations we have are 7 years after Jesus' death... This doesn't prove anything as we can't possibly all of the documents but still.

 

 

I'm done with your post. Next I'll reply to truefusion but not yet since I have to go play some drums and practice for my math test.

Have a nice day.

[shangshaptak 0]

I truly am amazed. I mean, when you try to accept or reject the existence of god as a 'spiritual' entity, 'beyond and unbound by the rules of this universe', you may have a battle of logic as then, whole concept of god is generalized and blurred to a point where any logic is possible, it becomes a widespread battleground for philosophical diatribes.I can dig that.But to actually quote the scriptures and defend them.....man that's downright funny. Trying to explain creationism with modern science terminologies, few attempts are funnier. You believe in god, alright, that's understandable, you need to provide a valid reason for your existence, someone must have created you, you must be going somewhere after you die etc. Giant ego trip, but understandable. But rejecting the fact that you are a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu or Buddhist today solely because you were born as one, because your parents brought you up as one, because that's all you knew growing up.....that's blind. You also need to understand that the logics you provide to defend your holy books, similar logics are rampant throughout the annals of all religions, every religious person follows his or her religion with an equally strong set of faith based arguments. Otherwise there wouldn't have been so many religions in todays world. Every religion, to its followers is infallible. When I consider that, the existence of a logical-religious person seems like an oxymoron.God is perfect. That's why he created such a wonderful and perfect world all around us, right? After the holocaust,after the Japanese occupation of China, after Pol Pot, after My Lai, after Rwanda, after Palestine, after Iraq and countless other 'perfect' occurrences, excuse me for not groveling for the mercy and love of a 'just','kind' and 'loving' god.By trying to pass these of as 'tests of faith', is criminal.I can also look at the bright sides of the creation. Off course I can't deny that despite all of these, there is beauty, the world is truly worth living into. But this sure as hell ain't no 'perfect' creation of a 'perfect' god.

Edited September 6, 2009 by shangshaptak (see edit history)

[KansukeKojima 0]

Wrong and wrong again. "Europeans in the 16th century"... If I remember correctly, the old testament wasn't written in Europe nor in the 16th century.

 

I did not say the Europeans wrote the Old Testament, and I did not say it was written in the sixteenth century. Second of all, the "four corners" thing we are debating is from the New Testament. The verse you posted which started the debate about four corners was from Revelation, which was in the New testament, not the Old Testament.

 

Now, what I did say was that when the bible was TRANSLATED, Europeans would have used "the four corners of the earth" in order to express what would mean "the entire world" in Greek. I am not claiming Europeans wrote the bible. What I am claiming is that Europeans used the phrase "four corners of the earth", when they TRANSLATED the bible, to mean "the entire earth". Do you understand that now?

 

Oh, so now you're blaming me for actually examining the document, instead you want me to blindly believe everything written there. Then you say I'm not acknowledging the information that is there. Let me tell you something:

 

Let's assume you have a biology book, everything in it seems to be as it should. You're reading a chapter about monkeys and suddenly you notice that the book claims that monkeys have 2 butt holes. Would you throw the whole book away? Or would you just pick a word and start explaining how it can also mean another thing like truefusion seems to be doing all the time?(no offense tf, but it's really annoying when you do it)

There is a difference between throwing my sources out because, to you, they seem to be brainwashing material and throwing them out because the information is downright false. You threw the sources out, not because the information was false, but because it seemed to you like it was written like brainwashing material. I'm confident you would throw out almost anything I gave you written by a Christian because it appears to be "brainwashing material", to you. If you actually demonstrate to me how the information on the website is false, then I will have no problem with you throwing the sources out. I challenge you to prove the information on that website to be false.

 

I was talking about the resurrection, not the reliability. And no, I wouldn't love to do that, it'd be as stupid if I started examining "alice in wonderland". A waste of time. In fact, I'm only replying to this topic because I don't want to leave a debate open, this is getting all boring and stupid with all the "forgotten continents"... Back to the point, I don't accept eye-witnesses as empirical evidence. And when I see a big flaw in my biology book, I throw it away. Which I have done with carm.org.

I agree that eye-witnesses are not empirical evidence. The reason I am a Christian is not because I actually saw Jesus resurrected. I am not a Christian because there is enough evidence for me to believe. The reason I am a Christian is because of a supernatural work of God in my heart, leading me to repentance and belief. I KNOW this is the truth because of that experience I had, and I present what evidence I do have to you in order to defend my faith. I am arguing these points in order to defend my faith. Whether or not you accept my arguments is out of my control.

 

Yes! I dismiss stupid article where they claim that because so many people saw Jesus after his death, he must've resurrected. Happy now? Just as many people have seen Elvis after his death doesn't prove that he's still alive, many people seeing Jesus after his death doesn't prove anything. It's kinda ironic too because somewhere there it also says that eyewitnesses don't count as empirical evidence. I'm not saying they are false, but I'm saying that they don't count as evidence.

The article is not claiming that because lots of people saw Jesus after his death he must have been resurrected. The article is attempting to defend the reliability of said eye-witness accounts. If those accounts are indeed reliable, they can be used as evidence. Again, whether or not you want to accept it as such is out of my control.

 

A man that has spent many years studying the subject is either

a) Lying and brainwashing, leaving the "bad parts" of the bible out.

Hasn't studied the subject or has, but is just ignorant.

If you are going to make those accusations about him, back them up.

 

Aww, sorry I thought it was god's word so it applies everywhere? So now you agree that it's written by men and with their mindset AND knowledge. How delightful. So are you an agnostic now?

Things can still be written by men yet inspired by God. You saying those things has really demonstrated to me that you do not have much knowledge about Christian beliefs and theology. If you are going to name Christianity false, then at least study it first so you can actually attack the right belief system, not a strawman of the true position.

 

So why they didn't? The first documentations we have are 7 years after Jesus' death... This doesn't prove anything as we can't possibly all of the documents but still.

... They did write about it. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all are about the life of Jesus Christ.

 

 

Have a nice day.

You too

[Baniboy 3]

This one is gonna be a quickie, I'm not gonna write a lot.

Do you understand that now?

Oops, yea I was kinda sleepy when I wrote that, so...I see you have been so busy using styling in your text that you've forgotten my other statement.
Anyway, you do realize that you can't see "the four corners of the earth" from the top of a mountain, don't you?

There is a difference between throwing my sources out because, to you, they seem to be brainwashing material and throwing them out because the information is downright false. You threw the sources out, not because the information was false, but because it seemed to you like it was written like brainwashing material. I'm confident you would throw out almost anything I gave you written by a Christian because it appears to be "brainwashing material", to you. If you actually demonstrate to me how the information on the website is false, then I will have no problem with you throwing the sources out. I challenge you to prove the information on that website to be false.

Let's go back to your links then:It says that "It is indeed extraordinary to have someone who has died in public at an execution to appear to many people afterwards."
Yet you say that you agree that eyewitnesses don't count as empirical evidence(and some other things like why you believe in god and stuff like that).
Yes it might be extraordinary, but isn't count as evidence, got it? So you didn't present evidence to "defend your faith", but you linked me to a site that puts eyewitness accounts under the category of evidence. I did not throw away your site because I didn't like it, but because it's academic understanding of evidence isn't correct. So stop blaming me for throwing away a site because I don't like it. Also, the writer seems make difference between homosexuality and lesbianism? He might mean "acting lesbian" without being homosexual but who knows.
Instead of debating on about the reliability of the site, let's get back on the topic, please.

Things can still be written by men yet inspired by God. You saying those things has really demonstrated to me that you do not have much knowledge about Christian beliefs and theology. If you are going to name Christianity false, then at least study it first so you can actually attack the right belief system, not a strawman of the true position.

Dude, where's your sense of humor?
@tf:

"I was busy" makes it sound like you wrote all of that. tongue.gif

Heh, I was sleepy
Despite the fact that the article wasn't written in a way it could've been, if you don't know anything about the shape of the earth and read the bible, you WILL conclude that it is flat. This has already been proved(the middle-ages?).
Now that we know better, you find another meaning for the words and just walk around the argument.

So, the words "The earth" have many meanings... Wouldn't it be just "earth", if they were talking about a piece of land and "the earth" when they're talking about the whole thing?

A "corner" does not always have to be a right angle. For example, when talking about a geographical location, it could mean "a remote area."define:corner But a compass doesn't have to exist for North, South, East and West to exist.

So what of 4 units he saw from the top? 4 remote areas? So "He saw the four remote areas of the world". Could you provide me an example of these four remote areas? Could you at least provide me an example where the word "corner" is used to mean "remote area" in the bible? I think Kansuke's explanation for four corners was a better one.

How did you ever get passed History class?—this is for your ending sentence. Either way, signs, as mentioned before, are different than miracles. Miracles contradict our understanding of physics; signs make use of our understanding of physics, which give the impression of a miracle.

There is no need to offend me, even if I didn't "get passed the history class". Like I don't offend you because of your understanding of time.So you think that turning WATER into WINE is a sign(remember: "signs make use of our understanding of physics, which give the impression of a miracle.")
So all the stuff Jesus was doing were just some cheap magic tricks? And sorry for saying "the only evidence for it is in the bible", I forgot that bible doesn't count as empirical evidence for a second.

Disregarding the rhetoric part of the question, to put what i said in a more precise manner: murder, as Biblically defined, is killing the innocent. In the eyes of an omniscient being, no ones' deeds are hidden. Therefore it cannot be said that the person was innocent when God brought judgment upon the person. To say that "you should not murder" should be translated as "you should not kill" (like Dan Barker tries to argue) is fallacious to anyone who understands Scripture. All arguments that use Biblical verses to try and make God look evil are always taken out of context—and i'm pretty close to emphasizing "always;" the reason why i don't is because i'm talking about arguments which i've seen.

So, is it safe to say that killing people because they don't believe in god is god's favorite hobby? Either way, murderous or just killing for fun, I wouldn't like to follow such god, but hey, that's only me. As for taking out of context, I remember finding a verse in the bible some time ago. It was something like "And for those who don't accept me as their king, bring them in front of me and slaughter them." If such thing as god exists, I think I wouldn't be so comfortable with his way of dealing with problems.

How can you exclude scripture from religion?

Hmm-... I meant more like science and church. Church collides with science all the time when they try to defend their bronze-age mythologies, like the creation. While the scripture might read in many ways and walk around the argument by doing that. Churches are stubborn in their beliefs... Edited November 13, 2009 by Baniboy (see edit history)

[gisellebebegirl 0]

haha my bestfriend and i went at this yersterday she argued that if my theory was right about how animals adjusted to their surrondings are evolutionated by the process where the wtrongest/weakests/median ones survive and get altered throught the years, based on what they need to survive (i forget what that is called) then we should be able to get a monkey here in california, and have it turn human.which is vias. since it is no way possible for the monkey to not interviene with our society, i mean a money running around in california??and evolution did not take one year, it took millions of years, so we wouldnt even be alike to see the answeranother thing she argued is that if evolution is true, and we became from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? again with the enviroment thing.you really have to ask yourself, where do we have monkeys right now? whats the difference between their enviroment, and the enviroment we live in, could a monkey survive in the city?could a human survive in the jungle?what does each have that makes them survive easier in their surrndings?the hands and feet are key if you ask me.