The Conservative Cave
Interests => Religious Discussions => Topic started by: Rebel Yell on April 28, 2008, 11:18:24 AM
-
I thought this would be a good one to bring over, even though I've been told that not everyone wants to share Charlie Daniels soapbox. But some do, so here it is.
666
If you're not at least somewhat familiar with the Bible the things I am writing in this column will probably not make a lot of sense to you.
I don't claim to be a learned Bible scholar and I'm certainly not a prophet but what I write is my humble opinion based on my reading of God's Holy Word and the writings of people whose knowledge and interpretation of the Bible I respect.
There is a lot of talk these days about a one-world government. And indeed some day there will be. One it will be portrayed as Shangri La and will make so much sense to the secular world that they'll swallow it hook line and sinker.
The leader of this government will appear on the scene as a genius, a problem solver the likes of which this planet has never seen, charismatic, dynamic, attractive, a man with all the answers to world peace, world plenty, the energy problem, hunger, disease and all the myriad afflictions of mankind.
I don't believe this will happen overnight, I don't think he will appear on the evening news and declare himself the leader of the world. But the things he proposes are going to sound so wonderful to a horribly troubled planet that it will turn to him giving over the sovereign power of nations into his hand.
He will impose a cashless society. You won't need to carry cash anymore so nobody can steal it from you, you won't be able to overspend your credit limit and go into debt because every transaction you make will be immediately noted and the money, which you never see, is deducted from your account by a central mega supercomputer.
And how do you access this utopian existence? Simple, you just have a mark put into your hand or on your forehead which, in my opinion will be a microchip embedded under the skin which holds
all your personal history and lets the government know every transaction and your whereabouts 24/7.
That means if you're wanted by the law they can locate and arrest you. And you can't slip across international borders and hide in another country, because there won't be any international borders.
Sounds like a sensible, orderly society doesn't it? Well for those who accept the computer chip in their hand or head, it will be for three and one half years. Those without it can't buy anything or sell anything and will eventually be put to death for not accepting the mark.
The problem with the chip or the mark is that it is a one-way ticket to an eternity in hell. It means that you've completely turned your back on God and given your allegiance and your soul to the prince of darkness.
I'm sure that by now most of you know that I'm talking about the mark of the beast and the seven-year reign of the antichrist, three and a half years of peace and three and a half years of hell on earth.
The more chaos, the more crime, the more godlessness the world plunges into the more it sets the stage for the antichrist, who will step on the world stage in a time of dire and global crisis and present answers to impossible questions and solutions to unsolvable problems that will simply astound the whole earth.
He will be hailed as the one man who can bring peace and prosperity to the earth, a benevolent, ends all, be all global leader who will do away with war and hunger.
At the end of three and a half years he will walk into a temple in Israel and declare himself to be Almighty God and all hell will break loose. Slaughter and chaos will be totally unprecedented with vast numbers of people destroyed and unimaginable destruction of the earth. From then on there will never be another day of peace on earth until the second coming of Jesus Christ.
The first time I heard about the Book of Revelation and the antichrist I was very young and it was impossible for even the most astute Bible scholar to figure out. But as time has gone by and knowledge and technology have exponentially increased the pieces have fallen in place and the time of the antichrist could happen very soon.
The antichrist could well be alive somewhere on planet earth
preparing for the day of his power and he will be incredibly powerful.
I'm thankful that the God I serve is infinitely more powerful.
Pray for our troops
What do you think?
God Bless America
Charlie Daniels
April 21, 2008
-
Thanks and H5!
-
Thomas Jefferson's opinion of Revelations...
No man on earth has less taste or talent for criticism than myself, and least and last of all should I undertake to criticise works on the Apocalypse. It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it, and I then considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams. I was, therefore, well pleased to see, in your first proof sheet, that it was said to be not the production of St. John, but of Cerinthus, a century after the death of that apostle. Yet the change of the author's name does not lessen the extravagances of the composition; and come they from whomsoever they may, I cannot so far respect them as to consider them as an allegorical narrative of events, past or subsequent. There is not coherence enough in them to countenance any suite of rational ideas. You will judge, therefore, from this how impossible I think it that either your explanation, or that of any man in "the heavens above, or on the earth beneath," can be a correct one. What has no meaning admits no explanation; and pardon me if I say, with the candor of friendship, that I think your time too valuable, and your understanding of too high an order, to be wasted on these paralogisms. You will perceive, I hope, also, that I do not consider them as revelations of the Supreme Being, whom I would not so far blaspheme as to impute to Him a pretension of revelation, couched at the same time in terms which, He would know, were never to be understood by those to whom they were addressed. In the candor of these observations, I hope you will see proofs of the confidence, esteem and respect which I truly entertain for you.
http://www.constitution.org/tj/jeff16.htm
Sorry, Charlie. I'm going with Thomas Jefferson on this one.
:innocent:
-
Thomas Jefferson's opinion of Revelations...
No man on earth has less taste or talent for criticism than myself, and least and last of all should I undertake to criticise works on the Apocalypse. It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it, and I then considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams. I was, therefore, well pleased to see, in your first proof sheet, that it was said to be not the production of St. John, but of Cerinthus, a century after the death of that apostle. Yet the change of the author's name does not lessen the extravagances of the composition; and come they from whomsoever they may, I cannot so far respect them as to consider them as an allegorical narrative of events, past or subsequent. There is not coherence enough in them to countenance any suite of rational ideas. You will judge, therefore, from this how impossible I think it that either your explanation, or that of any man in "the heavens above, or on the earth beneath," can be a correct one. What has no meaning admits no explanation; and pardon me if I say, with the candor of friendship, that I think your time too valuable, and your understanding of too high an order, to be wasted on these paralogisms. You will perceive, I hope, also, that I do not consider them as revelations of the Supreme Being, whom I would not so far blaspheme as to impute to Him a pretension of revelation, couched at the same time in terms which, He would know, were never to be understood by those to whom they were addressed. In the candor of these observations, I hope you will see proofs of the confidence, esteem and respect which I truly entertain for you.
http://www.constitution.org/tj/jeff16.htm
Sorry, Charlie. I'm going with Thomas Jefferson on this one.
:innocent:
If everyone believed it, then it would never happen. It can't be true in your liberal eyes because according to the creator of the universe, the end time is your liberal paradise. And there was no registered Republican listed as the author.
-
If everyone believed it, then it would never happen. It can't be true in your liberal eyes because according to the creator of the universe, the end time is your liberal paradise. And there was no registered Republican listed as the author.
I find your abundance of faith... disturbing.
-
I find your abundance of faith... disturbing.
As an agnostic/atheist why would you care.....
doc
-
If everyone believed it, then it would never happen. It can't be true in your liberal eyes because according to the creator of the universe, the end time is your liberal paradise. And there was no registered Republican listed as the author.
I find your abundance of faith... disturbing.
I find your inability to let a religious discussion pass you by without having to chime in with you atheist, liberal bullshit....... pathetic.
-
I find your inability to let a religious discussion pass you by without having to chime in with you atheist, liberal bullshit....... pathetic.
I haven't brought my atheistic perspective into this thread. I think that most devout believers reject the superstitious fear, paranoia, and zealotry expressed in the Charlie Daniels piece you posted. Then again, maybe not.
-
As an agnostic/atheist why would you care.....
doc
One need not care about something to have an opinion on it.
-
As an agnostic/atheist why would you care.....
doc
One need not care about something to have an opinion on it.
Use of the word "disturbing" implies an emotional response, does it not?
doc
-
As an agnostic/atheist why would you care.....
doc
One need not care about something to have an opinion on it.
Just curious: you are an agnostic? An atheist? Did you go to church as a child (and if so, which religion)?
-
Just curious: you are an agnostic? An atheist? Did you go to church as a child (and if so, which religion)?
I was brought up Catholic. I now consider myself to be an agnostic athiest.
-
Use of the word "disturbing" implies an emotional response, does it not?
doc
The statement was a tongue in cheek reworking of a famous movie line.
-
I was brought up Catholic. I now consider myself to be an agnostic athiest.
At the risk of sounding ignorant, what exactly is an "agnostic atheist"?
How old were you when you decided that the whole God thing wasn't working out for you? Again, just curious.
-
At the risk of sounding ignorant, what exactly is an "agnostic atheist"?
You don't sound ignorant. Most people are justifiably confused by the term agnostic atheism. I know I was when I first heard it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
I suppose that agnostic atheism could be defined as a form of weak atheism...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_atheism
How old were you when you decided that the whole God thing wasn't working out for you? Again, just curious.
I gradually lost my faith in adulthood.
-
Thank you for indulging me, TNO.
-
Agnostic Atheism sounds like someone who wants to be an atheist, but something is just tugging them to believe that there is a being greater than man.
-
Agnostic Atheism sounds like someone who wants to be an atheist, but something is just tugging them to believe that there is a being greater than man.
I'm about as close to being a hard atheist as one can get without actually being one. I retain my agnosticism because I can't think of a good reason why a fallible human such as myself should embrace absolute certitude about anything let alone the unknown.
-
Agnostic Atheism sounds like someone who wants to be an atheist, but something is just tugging them to believe that there is a being greater than man.
I'm about as close to being a hard atheist as one can get without actually being one. I retain my agnosticism because I can't think of a good reason why a fallible human such as myself should embrace absolute certitude about anything let alone the unknown.
It's a bitch, ain't it? It just don't make sense, logically. But something dep down inside just won't alow you to let go completely.
-
It's a bitch, ain't it? It just don't make sense, logically. But something dep down inside just won't alow you to let go completely.
Just the opposite. My gut feeling tells me that I should feel absolutely certain that God does not exist. I retain my agnosticism, though, because I can't rationally justify my gut feeling that God does not exist.
-
It's a bitch, ain't it? It just don't make sense, logically. But something dep down inside just won't alow you to let go completely.
Just the opposite. My gut feeling tells me that I should feel absolutely certain that God does not exist. I retain my agnosticism, though, because I can't rationally justify my gut feeling that God does not exist.
And that is called faith. Even though you try to deny it, it's still there.
-
What is it about the Book of Revelation that scares the shit out of the Godless? If you don't believe in God, it's just a story, right? It's silly, right? Four horsemen, a beast. Ha, Ha!
SOMEthing is tugging at them.
-
What is it about the Book of Revelation that scares the shit out of the Godless? If you don't believe in God, it's just a story, right? It's silly, right? Four horsemen, a beast. Ha, Ha!
SOMEthing is tugging at them.
The Book of Revelations doesn't scare me in the least. What scares me is the possibility that a religious zealot in a position of authority might one day choose a dangerous course of action based on what some crackpot like Charlie Daniels thinks the Book of Revelations demands or foretells.
-
And yet you responded both to my post and to the OP. Hmmmm. :whatever:
What's that river in Egypt called?
-
Eschatology is the most useless of all religious pursuits. I've moved among circles of Christians that got very wound-up about ID'ing the anti-Christ.
Why?
When he is revealed it will be because the God-ordained end is nigh. To try and prevent that is to prevent the will of God. Even the scriptures say the man of perdition shall not be revealed until He who lets, lets.
I also do not think that the end--if there be one--would come from a triumph of atheism--but the consensus that God did indeed exist but mankind choosing to reject Him regardless. It's just one bunny's opinion but it seems to accord with the calamities that have befallen those who openly rejected God throughout the balance of scripture.
BTW - it is my understanding that the Eastern Orthodox church does not include Revelations amongst its received canon. Is this correct?
-
What is it about the Book of Revelation that scares the shit out of the Godless? If you don't believe in God, it's just a story, right? It's silly, right? Four horsemen, a beast. Ha, Ha!
SOMEthing is tugging at them.
The Book of Revelations doesn't scare me in the least. What scares me is the possibility that a religious zealot in a position of authority might one day choose a dangerous course of action based on what some crackpot like Charlie Daniels thinks the Book of Revelations demands or foretells.
*pat pat*
You are SOOO cute in how you use grown up words.
-
I also do not think that the end--if there be one--would come from a triumph of atheism--but the consensus that God did indeed exist but mankind choosing to reject Him regardless. It's just one bunny's opinion but it seems to accord with the calamities that have befallen those who openly rejected God throughout the balance of scripture.
An interesting idea, but... I have difficulty imagining why someone who is given incontrovertible proof that the supreme being exists would reject it. Then again, I have always imagined that if I were ever to have a meeting with the supreme being that it would go extremely badly because I would probably handle it like Captain Kirk did at the end of Star Trek V...
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=WYW_lPlekiQ&feature=related
-
I also do not think that the end--if there be one--would come from a triumph of atheism--but the consensus that God did indeed exist but mankind choosing to reject Him regardless. It's just one bunny's opinion but it seems to accord with the calamities that have befallen those who openly rejected God throughout the balance of scripture.
An interesting idea, but... I have difficulty imagining why someone who is given incontrovertible proof that the supreme being exists would reject it. Then again, I have always imagined that if I were ever to have a meeting with the supreme being that it would go extremely badly because I would probably handle it like Captain Kirk did at the end of Star Trek V...
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=WYW_lPlekiQ&feature=related
Kirk also knew that wasn't God. "Why does God need a starship?"
-
Eschatology is the most useless of all religious pursuits. I've moved among circles of Christians that got very wound-up about ID'ing the anti-Christ.
Why?
When he is revealed it will be because the God-ordained end is nigh. To try and prevent that is to prevent the will of God. Even the scriptures say the man of perdition shall not be revealed until He who lets, lets.
I also do not think that the end--if there be one--would come from a triumph of atheism--but the consensus that God did indeed exist but mankind choosing to reject Him regardless. It's just one bunny's opinion but it seems to accord with the calamities that have befallen those who openly rejected God throughout the balance of scripture.
BTW - it is my understanding that the Eastern Orthodox church does not include Revelations amongst its received canon. Is this correct?
When he is revealed only the elect will recognize him for what he is. The rest of the world will jump on the anti-christ bandwagon and do the end days boogie. My question to those who seek to make sense of prophecy that Christ himself implied would not be untangled until the appropriate time is why bother? If you are elect then you'll know him when you see him. If you are not elect then your going to join in the persecution of the elect. I feel that those who spend huge amounts of time and effort trying to unravel end times prophecy have a suspicion they may not be on the right end of things and want a little forwarning so that they can change their ways just in the nick of time. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way...
-
I also do not think that the end--if there be one--would come from a triumph of atheism--but the consensus that God did indeed exist but mankind choosing to reject Him regardless. It's just one bunny's opinion but it seems to accord with the calamities that have befallen those who openly rejected God throughout the balance of scripture.
An interesting idea, but... I have difficulty imagining why someone who is given incontrovertible proof that the supreme being exists would reject it. Then again, I have always imagined that if I were ever to have a meeting with the supreme being that it would go extremely badly because I would probably handle it like Captain Kirk did at the end of Star Trek V...
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=WYW_lPlekiQ&feature=related
Most people tend to handle meeting God up close and personal in the same general way:
Exodus 3:6 Then he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.
Judges 13:20-22 As the flame blazed up from the altar toward heaven, the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame. Seeing this, Manoah and his wife fell with their faces to the ground. When the angel of the LORD did not show himself again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realized that it was the angel of the LORD.
"We are doomed to die!" he said to his wife. "We have seen God!"
Ezekiel 1:26-28 Above the expanse over their heads was what looked like a throne of sapphire, and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him.
This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking.
Matthew 17:6-7 When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. But Jesus came and touched them. "Get up," he said. "Don't be afraid."
Luke 5:8 When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!"
Revelation 1:17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.
-
Kirk also knew that wasn't God. "Why does God need a starship?"
Exactly. A being standing before me and claiming to be God would have to perform feats way more impressive than burning a bush or two for me to believe that I'm standing before the supreme being.
-
Kirk also knew that wasn't God. "Why does God need a starship?"
Exactly. A being standing before me and claiming to be God would have to perform feats way more impressive than burning a bush or two for me to believe that I'm standing before the supreme being.
If you actually in the presence of God, you'll know it is Him. And, trust me, you WILL NOT be condescending toward Him.
-
Kirk also knew that wasn't God. "Why does God need a starship?"
Exactly. A being standing before me and claiming to be God would have to perform feats way more impressive than burning a bush or two for me to believe that I'm standing before the supreme being.
I think you miss the point. When standing before the Almighty you won't need miracles or parlor tricks to help you realize that you are before God. Just the mere presence of God will assure you that you are encountering the Creator.
-
Kirk also knew that wasn't God. "Why does God need a starship?"
Exactly. A being standing before me and claiming to be God would have to perform feats way more impressive than burning a bush or two for me to believe that I'm standing before the supreme being.
I think you miss the point. When standing before the Almighty you won't need miracles or parlor tricks to help you realize that you are before God. Just the mere presence of God will assure you that you are encountering the Creator.
Very true. If God merely speaking through someone can strike me mute. . .(I'm speaking from experience here) I would think the full experience of God's Divinity will be something you will not be able to deny.
*Red*
-
Very true. If God merely speaking through someone can strike me mute. . .(I'm speaking from experience here) I would think the full experience of God's Divinity will be something you will not be able to deny.
*Red*
So, if I find myself standing before something claiming to be God, how do I determine that I'm standing before the supreme being and not just a higher being?
-
Kirk also knew that wasn't God. "Why does God need a starship?"
Exactly. A being standing before me and claiming to be God would have to perform feats way more impressive than burning a bush or two for me to believe that I'm standing before the supreme being.
I think you miss the point. When standing before the Almighty you won't need miracles or parlor tricks to help you realize that you are before God. Just the mere presence of God will assure you that you are encountering the Creator.
Very true. If God merely speaking through someone can strike me mute. . .(I'm speaking from experience here) I would think the full experience of God's Divinity will be something you will not be able to deny.
*Red*
I posted a message on the previous page that listed Scripture for some of the Biblical encounters between man and God. You can probably relate to them. I know I did.
-
Very true. If God merely speaking through someone can strike me mute. . .(I'm speaking from experience here) I would think the full experience of God's Divinity will be something you will not be able to deny.
*Red*
So, if I find myself standing before God, how do I determine that I'm standing before the supreme being and not just a higher being?
Your not really this ignorant are you?
-
Very true. If God merely speaking through someone can strike me mute. . .(I'm speaking from experience here) I would think the full experience of God's Divinity will be something you will not be able to deny.
*Red*
So, if I find myself standing before God, how do I determine that I'm standing before the supreme being and not just a higher being?
You know how you know the wind is blowing in your face?
Like that. That's how obvious it will be.
Gator, I don't think he's as much ignorant as unwilling.
*Red*
-
Your not really this ignorant are you?
Ignorance is not the problem. Fallibility is. A fallible human can never be absolutely certain about anything, right? If God were standing before me trying to convince me that he is the supreme being, he would probably have to grant me the power of infallibility for me to be convinced that he is what he says he is.
-
Your not really this ignorant are you?
Ignorance is not the problem. Fallibility is. A fallible human can never be absolutely certain about anything, right? If God were standing before me trying to convince me that he is the supreme being, he would probably have to grant me the power of infallibility for me to be convinced that he is what he says he is.
May I quote some more Scripture? Heck I'm going to do it anyways. Those who are of God know God. If you do not recognize him then what does that say about you and your relationship with God. Jesus defined this for us in John 10:14-18:
"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."
-
Kirk also knew that wasn't God. "Why does God need a starship?"
Exactly. A being standing before me and claiming to be God would have to perform feats way more impressive than burning a bush or two for me to believe that I'm standing before the supreme being.
...because you are sooo important that God must prove himself to you. :whatever:
-
Kirk also knew that wasn't God. "Why does God need a starship?"
Exactly. A being standing before me and claiming to be God would have to perform feats way more impressive than burning a bush or two for me to believe that I'm standing before the supreme being.
...because you are sooo important that God must prove himself to you. :whatever:
Exactly, H5. That is the common theme amongst most atheists. "There can't be anything more important or more all knowing than me."
-
Kirk also knew that wasn't God. "Why does God need a starship?"
Exactly. A being standing before me and claiming to be God would have to perform feats way more impressive than burning a bush or two for me to believe that I'm standing before the supreme being.
...because you are sooo important that God must prove himself to you. :whatever:
Exactly, H5. That is the common theme amongst most atheists. "There can't be anything more important or more all knowing than me."
Exactly. God requires faith. With proof there would be no need for faith.
-
Kirk also knew that wasn't God. "Why does God need a starship?"
Exactly. A being standing before me and claiming to be God would have to perform feats way more impressive than burning a bush or two for me to believe that I'm standing before the supreme being.
...because you are sooo important that God must prove himself to you. :whatever:
Exactly, H5. That is the common theme amongst most atheists. "There can't be anything more important or more all knowing than me."
Exactly. God requires faith. With proof there would be no need for faith.
That always bothered me about the TV show "Touched by an Angel." In the end, Roma would clearly demonstrate she was an angel (by miraculous glowing if nothing else) and basically force a epiphany. But if we empirically KNEW God existed, then our lives would be led as a cynical attempt to impress Him -- and we would not need faith, by which we are measured.
I do the (or at least try) right thing because I believe that is what God wants me to do. I don't do it to impress Him, I do it because he turns my heart that way. That is IMHO the nature of faith.
(FWIIW, "Highway to Heaven" was much more theologically sound IMHO -- Michael almost never revealed his angelic nature and just convinced or persuaded people to do the right thing).
-
Exactly, H5. That is the common theme amongst most atheists. "There can't be anything more important or more all knowing than me."
Atheists do not claim that none can be more important or knowledgeable than they.
-
...because you are sooo important that God must prove himself to you. :whatever:
My sense of doubt has nothing to do with how important I think I am.
Perhaps I should argue from the point of view of a believer...
Christians believe that Lucifer has the power to trick humans, right? If Lucifer has the power to trick humans, then humans should retain an amount of doubt, lest they be confronted by a demon pretending to be God.
-
...because you are sooo important that God must prove himself to you. :whatever:
My sense of doubt has nothing to do with how important I think I am.
Perhaps I should argue from the point of view of a believer...
Christians believe that Lucifer has the power to trick humans, right? If Lucifer has the power to trick humans, then humans should retain an amount of doubt, lest they be confronted by a demon pretending to be God.
Newsflash: We all have doubt. Our faith is never perfect no matter how hard we try.
Your strawman just went up in flames...again. :whatever:
-
Kirk also knew that wasn't God. "Why does God need a starship?"
Exactly. A being standing before me and claiming to be God would have to perform feats way more impressive than burning a bush or two for me to believe that I'm standing before the supreme being.
...because you are sooo important that God must prove himself to you. :whatever:
Exactly, H5. That is the common theme amongst most atheists. "There can't be anything more important or more all knowing than me."
:whatever:
If that where true I certainly wouldn't be wearing this uniform today.
-
...because you are sooo important that God must prove himself to you. :whatever:
My sense of doubt has nothing to do with how important I think I am.
Nothing can get in the way of how important you think you are. That is what makes you so -- unimportant.
-
Kirk also knew that wasn't God. "Why does God need a starship?"
Exactly. A being standing before me and claiming to be God would have to perform feats way more impressive than burning a bush or two for me to believe that I'm standing before the supreme being.
...because you are sooo important that God must prove himself to you. :whatever:
Exactly, H5. That is the common theme amongst most atheists. "There can't be anything more important or more all knowing than me."
:whatever:
If that where true I certainly wouldn't be wearing this uniform today.
Some of the most self centered people I've ever met wore a service uniform. Nice try, though.
-
Kirk also knew that wasn't God. "Why does God need a starship?"
Exactly. A being standing before me and claiming to be God would have to perform feats way more impressive than burning a bush or two for me to believe that I'm standing before the supreme being.
...because you are sooo important that God must prove himself to you. :whatever:
Exactly, H5. That is the common theme amongst most atheists. "There can't be anything more important or more all knowing than me."
:whatever:
If that where true I certainly wouldn't be wearing this uniform today.
Some of the most self centered people I've ever met wore a service uniform. Nice try, though.
So your saying I'm self centered now? :whatever: I've done nothing but serve others my whole life, but because I choose not to believe in a higher power I care only about myself and have a hugely inflated ego. Thanks for summing up my life.
A mans religion does not determine who he is. Hell, my MiL is a die hard christian, but she's also a bigot. Her mother is a die hard Christian, and is a racist.
-
Kirk also knew that wasn't God. "Why does God need a starship?"
Exactly. A being standing before me and claiming to be God would have to perform feats way more impressive than burning a bush or two for me to believe that I'm standing before the supreme being.
...because you are sooo important that God must prove himself to you. :whatever:
Exactly, H5. That is the common theme amongst most atheists. "There can't be anything more important or more all knowing than me."
:whatever:
If that where true I certainly wouldn't be wearing this uniform today.
Some of the most self centered people I've ever met wore a service uniform. Nice try, though.
So your saying I'm self centered now? :whatever: I've done nothing but serve others my whole life, but because I choose not to believe in a higher power I care only about myself and have a hugely inflated ego. Thanks for summing up my life.
A mans religion does not determine who he is. Hell, my MiL is a die hard christian, but she's also a bigot. Her mother is a die hard Christian, and is a racist.
I don't know you from Adam's Housecat. I wasn't saying you are self centered. I was saying wearing the uniform doesn't automatically make you not self centered. I had friends in the Navy that were atheist, I really didn't care. I consider myself christian, but I wasn't a good one.
-
Kirk also knew that wasn't God. "Why does God need a starship?"
Exactly. A being standing before me and claiming to be God would have to perform feats way more impressive than burning a bush or two for me to believe that I'm standing before the supreme being.
...because you are sooo important that God must prove himself to you. :whatever:
Exactly, H5. That is the common theme amongst most atheists. "There can't be anything more important or more all knowing than me."
:whatever:
If that where true I certainly wouldn't be wearing this uniform today.
Some of the most self centered people I've ever met wore a service uniform. Nice try, though.
So your saying I'm self centered now? :whatever: I've done nothing but serve others my whole life, but because I choose not to believe in a higher power I care only about myself and have a hugely inflated ego. Thanks for summing up my life.
A mans religion does not determine who he is. Hell, my MiL is a die hard christian, but she's also a bigot. Her mother is a die hard Christian, and is a racist.
I don't know you from Adam's Housecat. I wasn't saying you are self centered. I was saying wearing the uniform doesn't automatically make you not self centered. I had friends in the Navy that were atheist, I really didn't care. I consider myself christian, but I wasn't a good one.
Then don't hand out blanket criticisms like that. I for one find it very offensive when you attack my religious choices like that. I'll be the first to agree that there are Atheists out there who are so full of themselves it's sickening. But that in no way proves that "most Atheists" are like that. Thats like me looking at that Wright fellow and calling all Christians racists hate mongers. I know that would piss a lot of people off.
-
Kirk also knew that wasn't God. "Why does God need a starship?"
Exactly. A being standing before me and claiming to be God would have to perform feats way more impressive than burning a bush or two for me to believe that I'm standing before the supreme being.
...because you are sooo important that God must prove himself to you. :whatever:
Exactly, H5. That is the common theme amongst most atheists. "There can't be anything more important or more all knowing than me."
:whatever:
If that where true I certainly wouldn't be wearing this uniform today.
Some of the most self centered people I've ever met wore a service uniform. Nice try, though.
So your saying I'm self centered now? :whatever: I've done nothing but serve others my whole life, but because I choose not to believe in a higher power I care only about myself and have a hugely inflated ego. Thanks for summing up my life.
A mans religion does not determine who he is. Hell, my MiL is a die hard christian, but she's also a bigot. Her mother is a die hard Christian, and is a racist.
I don't know you from Adam's Housecat. I wasn't saying you are self centered. I was saying wearing the uniform doesn't automatically make you not self centered. I had friends in the Navy that were atheist, I really didn't care. I consider myself christian, but I wasn't a good one.
Then don't hand out blanket criticisms like that. I for one find it very offensive when you attack my religious choices like that. I'll be the first to agree that there are Atheists out there who are so full of themselves it's sickening. But that in no way proves that "most Atheists" are like that. Thats like me looking at that Wright fellow and calling all Christians racists hate mongers. I know that would piss a lot of people off.
Man, get your panties out of a wad. If you saw Christians lined up in the media looking down their noses saying atheists are just ignorant and hold on to superstition trying to take away any symbol of atheism displayed in a public place, I would say I understand why you feel that way. Until then, chill out and know that you are not that way.
-
I also do not think that the end--if there be one--would come from a triumph of atheism--but the consensus that God did indeed exist but mankind choosing to reject Him regardless. It's just one bunny's opinion but it seems to accord with the calamities that have befallen those who openly rejected God throughout the balance of scripture.
An interesting idea, but... I have difficulty imagining why someone who is given incontrovertible proof that the supreme being exists would reject it. Then again, I have always imagined that if I were ever to have a meeting with the supreme being that it would go extremely badly because I would probably handle it like Captain Kirk did at the end of Star Trek V...
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=WYW_lPlekiQ&feature=related
Most people tend to handle meeting God up close and personal in the same general way:
Exodus 3:6 Then he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.
Judges 13:20-22 As the flame blazed up from the altar toward heaven, the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame. Seeing this, Manoah and his wife fell with their faces to the ground. When the angel of the LORD did not show himself again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realized that it was the angel of the LORD.
"We are doomed to die!" he said to his wife. "We have seen God!"
Ezekiel 1:26-28 Above the expanse over their heads was what looked like a throne of sapphire, and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him.
This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking.
Matthew 17:6-7 When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. But Jesus came and touched them. "Get up," he said. "Don't be afraid."
Luke 5:8 When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!"
Revelation 1:17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.
FlaGator, awesome post. I was reading The Knowledge of the Holy last night by A. W. Tozer about this very issue. I was so struck by this fact, that modern man does not have awe and reverence and FEAR toward God. We banter about this foolishness about his existence whereas, the men of the Old & New Testament feared God, fully believed in his presence and firey being. You missed the account of Daniel's vision of the Lord. I'd recount it, but do not have the text here with me. It was incredible. Blows me away.
I see God differently today. I must pity the one who has the veil covering their eyes. That they do not see does not change the reality.
Amity
-
Men of the old testament had no way of explaining lightning, earthquakes, swarms of locusts, eclipses, etc...
Thats a big part of why mankind isn't nearly as god fearing as it was 2,000 years ago. We've learned more about our environment, and we're more apt to look for an explanation then to just label it as divine happenstance.
-
Men of the old testament had no way of explaining lightning, earthquakes, swarms of locusts, eclipses, etc...
Thats a big part of why mankind isn't nearly as god fearing as it was 2,000 years ago. We've learned more about our environment, and we're more apt to look for an explanation then to just label it as divine happenstance.
Yes, that is a huge part of it. We now look to nature for the explanation. What a loss for so much of mankind. Looking at the creation for the answer rather than the creator.
Gaia anyone?
-
Yes, that is a huge part of it. We now look to nature for the explanation. What a loss for so much of mankind. Looking at the creation for the answer rather than the creator.
Are you kidding? Had scientists not looked to nature for the cause of disease, the human race would be so much worse off right now.
Gaia anyone?
No, thanks. People who subscribe to the Gaia hypothesis are just as goofy as people who think that God controls the weather.
-
Men of the old testament had no way of explaining lightning, earthquakes, swarms of locusts, eclipses, etc...
Thats a big part of why mankind isn't nearly as god fearing as it was 2,000 years ago. We've learned more about our environment, and we're more apt to look for an explanation then to just label it as divine happenstance.
Yes... The fact that the Bible contains no scientific knowledge beyond what was known by mankind during the span of time it was written in is, I think, strong evidence that it was written by men.
-
Men of the old testament had no way of explaining lightning, earthquakes, swarms of locusts, eclipses, etc...
Thats a big part of why mankind isn't nearly as god fearing as it was 2,000 years ago. We've learned more about our environment, and we're more apt to look for an explanation then to just label it as divine happenstance.
Yes... The fact that the Bible contains no scientific knowledge beyond what was known by mankind during the span of time it was written in is, I think, strong evidence that it was written by men.
It was transcribed by men -- it was written by God.
The Bible was never intended to be a guide to science -- it is meant to be a guide to Life.
-
Gaia anyone?
No, thanks. People who subscribe to the Gaia hypothesis are just as goofy as people who think that God controls the weather.
As a weather forecaster, I will say that there are times I'm left wondering if someone up there is messing with the weather.
Thats why we keep a number of sacrificial goats in the back room. :-)
-
Gaia anyone?
No, thanks. People who subscribe to the Gaia hypothesis are just as goofy as people who think that God controls the weather.
As a weather forecaster, I will say that there are times I'm left wondering if someone up there is messing with the weather.
Thats why we keep a number of sacrificial goats in the back room. :-)
BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
(http://www.peacebuttons.info/E-News/images/KarlRove.gif)
-
Men of the old testament had no way of explaining lightning, earthquakes, swarms of locusts, eclipses, etc...
Sure they did.
Thats a big part of why mankind isn't nearly as god fearing as it was 2,000 years ago. We've learned more about our environment, and we're more apt to look for an explanation then to just label it as divine happenstance.
So we're too smart to believe in God now? :whatever:
-
Gaia anyone?
No, thanks. People who subscribe to the Gaia hypothesis are just as goofy as people who think that God controls the weather.
As a weather forecaster, I will say that there are times I'm left wondering if someone up there is messing with the weather.
Thats why we keep a number of sacrificial goats in the back room. :-)
I thought forecaster just tossed a bunch of old chicken bones on a table.
*runs*
-
Men of the old testament had no way of explaining lightning, earthquakes, swarms of locusts, eclipses, etc...
Sure they did.
Thats a big part of why mankind isn't nearly as god fearing as it was 2,000 years ago. We've learned more about our environment, and we're more apt to look for an explanation then to just label it as divine happenstance.
So we're too smart to believe in God now? :whatever:
I was waiting for someone to twist the words like that.
No, that is not at all what I was saying. It's just that a lot of the items that people saw as being caused by the divine are now explained in scientific manner.
Unless you still think a Titan is responisible for holding the heavens up?
If anything, today religion is more about faith then it was 2000 years ago.
-
Gaia anyone?
No, thanks. People who subscribe to the Gaia hypothesis are just as goofy as people who think that God controls the weather.
As a weather forecaster, I will say that there are times I'm left wondering if someone up there is messing with the weather.
Thats why we keep a number of sacrificial goats in the back room. :-)
I thought forecaster just tossed a bunch of old chicken bones on a table.
*runs*
Thats our backup for when the Magic 8 Ball stops working.
-
Men of the old testament had no way of explaining lightning, earthquakes, swarms of locusts, eclipses, etc...
Sure they did.
Thats a big part of why mankind isn't nearly as god fearing as it was 2,000 years ago. We've learned more about our environment, and we're more apt to look for an explanation then to just label it as divine happenstance.
So we're too smart to believe in God now? :whatever:
I was waiting for someone to twist the words like that.
No, that is not at all what I was saying. It's just that a lot of the items that people saw as being caused by the divine are now explained in scientific manner.
Unless you still think a Titan is responisible for holding the heavens up?
If anything, today religion is more about faith then it was 2000 years ago.
It's not nice to confuse an old man.
-
Yes, that is a huge part of it. We now look to nature for the explanation. What a loss for so much of mankind. Looking at the creation for the answer rather than the creator.
Are you kidding? Had scientists not looked to nature for the cause of disease, the human race would be so much worse off right now.
And they can do that because there is a God directing all that is seen and unseen. But, I was thinking of questions about the creation act, not the busyiness within the creation itself.
Gaia anyone?
No, thanks. People who subscribe to the Gaia hypothesis are just as goofy as people who think that God controls the weather.
Well, of course they are! Read Gaia for DUmmies :naughty:
-
What I'm saying is, that 2,000 years ago, there was a lot more "proof" for the divine because of the ignorance of mankind.
If you had never heard of tectonic plates, what would you have thought caused an earthquake? And angry god maybe?
With so much understanding that mankind now has of the physical environment, a lot more pure faith is required to believe in God, because all of that "proof" that existed for our ancestors has been explained as other things.
I'm not in anyway trying to sleight religion here. If anything, in my thinking, it's a lot purer today then in was in the past.
-
What I'm saying is, that 2,000 years ago, there was a lot more "proof" for the divine because of the ignorance of mankind.
If you had never heard of tectonic plates, what would you have thought caused an earthquake? And angry god maybe?
With so much understanding that mankind now has of the physical environment, a lot more pure faith is required to believe in God, because all of that "proof" that existed for our ancestors has been explained as other things.
I'm not in anyway trying to sleight religion here. If anything, in my thinking, it's a lot purer today then in was in the past.
Science today does a much better job of explaining how things work (or at least we think how things work) today than they did 2000 years ago. We are no closer to explaining why though.
^^^ Something I learned in a high school physics class a few hundred years ago. Science tries its best to explain what and how, but never why.
-
An interesting idea, but... I have difficulty imagining why someone who is given incontrovertible proof that the supreme being exists would reject it.
You mean like the Hebrews at Mt Sinai?
If it is one biblical principle proven time and again it is that humans will act selfishly, irrationally and against their own best interests "like a dog returns to its vomit" if I may borrow a turn of phrase; just to prove he can master his own destiny in a godless world. Marxism Socialism Liberalism Progressivism is a perfect example.
Then again, I have always imagined that if I were ever to have a meeting with the supreme being that it would go extremely badly because I would probably handle it like Captain Kirk did at the end of Star Trek V...
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=WYW_lPlekiQ&feature=related
It's an idiotic and poorly scripted movie...so yeah, you would act exactly like that.
-
Exactly. God requires faith. With proof there would be no need for faith.
How I see it, religion and faith are two different things.
-
You mean like the Hebrews at Mt Sinai?
Well, sure... if you're the type of person who believes that even the most fantastical accounts in the Bible are factual, then of course you consider the Biblical account of the incident at Mt. Sinai to be proof of something, but to me, it is just a story and is in no way a reliable account.
If it is one biblical principle proven time and again it is that humans will act selfishly, irrationally and against their own best interests "like a dog returns to its vomit" if I may borrow a turn of phrase; just to prove he can master his own destiny in a godless world. Marxism Socialism Liberalism Progressivism is a perfect example.
That men often act against their own interest has been proven many times, but proof or even evidence of how mankind might react when confronted by God is something we don't have.
-
You mean like the Hebrews at Mt Sinai?
Well, sure... if you're the type of person who believes that even the most fantastical accounts in the Bible are factual, then of course you consider the Biblical account of the incident at Mt. Sinai to be proof of something, but to me, it is just a story and is in no way a reliable account.
If it is one biblical principle proven time and again it is that humans will act selfishly, irrationally and against their own best interests "like a dog returns to its vomit" if I may borrow a turn of phrase; just to prove he can master his own destiny in a godless world. Marxism Socialism Liberalism Progressivism is a perfect example.
That men often act against their own interest has been proven many times, but proof or even evidence of how mankind might react when confronted by God is something we don't have.
So in your first rebuttal you dismiss the Mt Sinai account out of hand. There is one interesting point of the Mt Sinai account: the recorders present an extremely unflattering account of themselves. Generally, when people lie they flatter themselves. Here the Jews speak of themselves as scared, cowardly, disobedient, conceited, arrogant, depraved, malicious, ungrateful...
Compare that with your average Mohammedan or liberal.
In your second rebuttal you dismiss a general, time-proven evidence of humanity's folly in order to affirm an untested faith that were humans confronted with God they would suddenly fall in line.
All without the slighest hint of a sense of irony or self-contradiction.
-
So in your first rebuttal you dismiss the Mt Sinai account out of hand. There is one interesting point of the Mt Sinai account: the recorders present an extremely unflattering account of themselves. Generally, when people lie they flatter themselves. Here the Jews speak of themselves as scared, cowardly, disobedient, conceited, arrogant, depraved, malicious, ungrateful...
Compare that with your average Mohammedan or liberal.
In your second rebuttal you dismiss a general, time-proven evidence of humanity's folly in order to affirm an untested faith that were humans confronted with God they would suddenly fall in line.
All without the slighest hint of a sense of irony or self-contradiction.
Regardless of how convincing you believe the Bible to be, the fact remains that it is not hard evidence of anything other than what some people wrote in the past. The Bible is, at the very most, testimony.
-
So in your first rebuttal you dismiss the Mt Sinai account out of hand. There is one interesting point of the Mt Sinai account: the recorders present an extremely unflattering account of themselves. Generally, when people lie they flatter themselves. Here the Jews speak of themselves as scared, cowardly, disobedient, conceited, arrogant, depraved, malicious, ungrateful...
Compare that with your average Mohammedan or liberal.
In your second rebuttal you dismiss a general, time-proven evidence of humanity's folly in order to affirm an untested faith that were humans confronted with God they would suddenly fall in line.
All without the slighest hint of a sense of irony or self-contradiction.
Regardless of how convincing you believe the Bible to be, the fact remains that it is not hard evidence of anything other than what some people wrote in the past. The Bible is, at the very most, testimony.
this is getting annoying, TNO.
I am not willing to discuss whether or not God exists. He does. I say so. and on this board, that is good enough.
I am ready to discuss the nuances of religion, and I look forward to you continuing your relationship with
our website along those lines.
-
I am ready to discuss the nuances of religion, and I look forward to you continuing your relationship with
our website along those lines.
If the owners of CC adopt a DU/CU style of management which prohibits certain points of view, then I will see no reason for me to continue posting at this site.
Owners, let me know what you want to do.
-
So in your first rebuttal you dismiss the Mt Sinai account out of hand. There is one interesting point of the Mt Sinai account: the recorders present an extremely unflattering account of themselves. Generally, when people lie they flatter themselves. Here the Jews speak of themselves as scared, cowardly, disobedient, conceited, arrogant, depraved, malicious, ungrateful...
Compare that with your average Mohammedan or liberal.
In your second rebuttal you dismiss a general, time-proven evidence of humanity's folly in order to affirm an untested faith that were humans confronted with God they would suddenly fall in line.
All without the slighest hint of a sense of irony or self-contradiction.
Regardless of how convincing you believe the Bible to be, the fact remains that it is not hard evidence of anything other than what some people wrote in the past. The Bible is, at the very most, testimony.
Testimonies are legal statements. Testimony can be overturned if the witness is shown to be unreliable or self-interested. That's an established legal standard far more worthy of--say--the peer review process of the Nobel committee.
Really, these "conversations" with you are getting rather tedious because you puff yourself up as being all scientificalish but you fail to understand even the rudiments of logic, evidence or even basic definitions.
-
Testimonies are legal statements. Testimony can be overturned if the witness is shown to be unreliable or self-interested. That's an established legal standard far more worthy of--say--the peer review process of the Nobel committee.
I'm not using the words testimony and evidence in a legal sense and I'm not suggesting that testimony is not evidence. What I'm saying is that testimony is not hard evidence.
Really, these "conversations" with you are getting rather tedious because you puff yourself up as being all scientificalish but you fail to understand even the rudiments of logic, evidence or even basic definitions.
Which definition have I misunderstood?
-
I am ready to discuss the nuances of religion, and I look forward to you continuing your relationship with
our website along those lines.
If the owners of CC adopt a DU/CU style of management which prohibits certain points of view, then I will see no reason for me to continue posting at this site.
Owners, let me know what you want to do.
Oh, please don't take away our Bobo!
(http://www.cchs-petshelter.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/PetSmartAd.jpg)
-
Testimonies are legal statements. Testimony can be overturned if the witness is shown to be unreliable or self-interested. That's an established legal standard far more worthy of--say--the peer review process of the Nobel committee.
I'm not using the words testimony and evidence in a legal sense and I'm not suggesting that testimony is not evidence. What I'm saying is that testimony is not hard evidence.
Really, these "conversations" with you are getting rather tedious because you puff yourself up as being all scientificalish but you fail to understand even the rudiments of logic, evidence or even basic definitions.
Which definition have I misunderstood?
The evidence is all around you, but you refuse to acknowledge it. Your refusal does not mean it does not exist.
(http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b293/aggie8387/Ostrich.jpg)
-
The evidence is all around you, but you refuse to acknowledge it. Your refusal does not mean it does not exist.
When crop circles gained noteriety, many people became absolutely convinced that they were too elegant and too intricate to be of human origin. So, they became convinced that crop circles had to be the work of extraterrestrials. Of course, now we all know that crop circles were a clever hoax perpetrated by pranksters using crude tools in clever ways. Sometimes, what we think is evidence of one thing is actually evidence of something else.
-
The evidence is all around you, but you refuse to acknowledge it. Your refusal does not mean it does not exist.
When crop circles gained noteriety, many people became absolutely convinced that they were too elegant and too intricate to be of human origin. So, they became convinced that crop circles had to be the work of extraterrestrials. Of course, now we all know that crop circles were a clever hoax perpetrated by pranksters using crude tools in clever ways. Sometimes, what we think is evidence of one thing is actually evidence of something else.
Your statement proves absolutely nothing.
:whatever:
-
Testimonies are legal statements. Testimony can be overturned if the witness is shown to be unreliable or self-interested. That's an established legal standard far more worthy of--say--the peer review process of the Nobel committee.
I'm not using the words testimony and evidence in a legal sense and I'm not suggesting that testimony is not evidence. What I'm saying is that testimony is not hard evidence.
Really, these "conversations" with you are getting rather tedious because you puff yourself up as being all scientificalish but you fail to understand even the rudiments of logic, evidence or even basic definitions.
Which definition have I misunderstood?
Actually testimony is evidence and as with all evidence it is up to the jury to determine the importance or relevence of the evidence presented. There is much testimony about the life and existence of Jesus Christ. Some of it is hard to refute. At the time when Paul was writing his epistles he is citing events that had happened in the life time of his readers. Events that anyone witnessing could easily have disputed had Paul been lying. Paul's first epistles where written around 20 years after the death of Christ. There were many people still alive who witnessed the curcifixion and not one called him a liar. That, to some degree, validates Paul's testimony. Also, if Paul and the other Apostles had been knowingly lying about the events that they describe do you think that they would have being willing to die and become martyrs for that lie? All but one of the Apostles were executed for their beliefs. None is recorded as recanting their position that Christ died upon the cross, was buried and then rose from the dead. Would you be willing to die for a lie you told if by telling the truth you could spare yourself a horrible death?
-
I'm not using the words testimony and evidence in a legal sense and I'm not suggesting that testimony is not evidence. What I'm saying is that testimony is not hard evidence.
To a Godless cretin like yourself...NOTHING will ever be "hard evidence". You lack the imagination or depth of thought to even accept the possibility that there is a force greater than anything you've ever known or can fathom that is in control of everything and is influencing everything you do...good...bad...or otherwise.
You're of the belief that if you can't see it touch it or taste it...it doesn't exist...therefore anyone who DOES believe in that undeen force we call God...are just a bunch of nutty fools.
You try to act all tough and brave and claim logic this and proof that...but it doesn't mask the fact that the thought of your life...your soul...being in control of anyone other than yourself frightens the every loving sh*t out of you.
And if you don't want to believe...fine...that's your life...everyone must live with their decisions.
But why come here like some petchulant child and taunt people who DO believe?
If you are right and we are wrong we have lost nothing. Because there won't be an afterlife in which to complain about what happened.
But if YOU are wrong and the majority of us are right...I feel really sorry for you and the bad choices you've made where faith and belief in God is concerned.
Which definition have I misunderstood?
All of them.
-
Actually testimony is evidence and as with all evidence it is up to the jury to determine the importance or relevence of the evidence presented.
I know that testimony is a form of evidence. What I wrote is that testimony is not hard evidence.
There is much testimony about the life and existence of Jesus Christ. Some of it is hard to refute. At the time when Paul was writing his epistles he is citing events that had happened in the life time of his readers. Events that anyone witnessing could easily have disputed had Paul been lying. Paul's first epistles where written around 20 years after the death of Christ. There were many people still alive who witnessed the curcifixion and not one called him a liar. That, to some degree validates Paul's testimony. Also, if Paul and the other Apostles had been knowingly lying about the events that they describe do you think that they would have being willing to die and become martyrs for that lie? All but one of the Apostles were executed for their beliefs. None is recorded as recanting their position that Christ died upon the cross, was buried and then rose from the dead. Would you being will to die for a lie you told if by telling the truth you could spare yourself a horrible death?
I have little doubt that Jesus Christ was a real person or at least a figure based on a real person or persons. But even if we find hard evidence that Christ existed that evidence doesn't prove his alleged divinity.
-
Actually testimony is evidence and as with all evidence it is up to the jury to determine the importance or relevence of the evidence presented.
I know that testimony is a form of evidence. What I wrote is that testimony is not hard evidence.
There is much testimony about the life and existence of Jesus Christ. Some of it is hard to refute. At the time when Paul was writing his epistles he is citing events that had happened in the life time of his readers. Events that anyone witnessing could easily have disputed had Paul been lying. Paul's first epistles where written around 20 years after the death of Christ. There were many people still alive who witnessed the curcifixion and not one called him a liar. That, to some degree validates Paul's testimony. Also, if Paul and the other Apostles had been knowingly lying about the events that they describe do you think that they would have being willing to die and become martyrs for that lie? All but one of the Apostles were executed for their beliefs. None is recorded as recanting their position that Christ died upon the cross, was buried and then rose from the dead. Would you being will to die for a lie you told if by telling the truth you could spare yourself a horrible death?
I have little doubt that Jesus Christ was a real person or at least a figure based on a real person or persons. But even if we find hard evidence that Christ existed that evidence doesn't prove his alleged divinity.
The testimony of the Apostles verify that Christ rose from the dead is a validation of His divine nature. As I stated in my previous post, do you believe that they would have made this tale up and then allowed themselves to be horribly executed for something that they new to be a lie? Allow me to ask the question another way. If you had met someone and He proved to you beyond all doubt that He was God your creator, would you recant what you know to be the truth just to save your own life or would you hold fast to that truth as you were crucified upside down or stoned to death or flayed alive?
-
Actually testimony is evidence and as with all evidence it is up to the jury to determine the importance or relevence of the evidence presented.
I know that testimony is a form of evidence. What I wrote is that testimony is not hard evidence.
<snip>
By the way, there is no such thing as hard evidence. There is just evidence that is more or less believable. The prosecution thought that they had "hard evidence" in the OJ trial but in the end just how "hard" was that evidence since a jury did not believe it?
-
To a Godless cretin like yourself...NOTHING will ever be "hard evidence". You lack the imagination or depth of thought to even accept the possibility that there is a force greater than anything you've ever known or can fathom that is in control of everything and is influencing everything you do...good...bad...or otherwise.
Not true. I don't completely rule out the possibility that something which could be described as a supreme being has evolved during the many billions of years that the Universe has been around. If the ocean of time which has so far passed has led to us, then who knows what else it has led to.
You're of the belief that if you can't see it touch it or taste it...it doesn't exist...
Not true. I consider the probability that the Universe is populated by technological civilizations to be high. I have no evidence that the Universe is populated by technological civilizations or even life in general, but the Drake equation leads me to believe that mankind is, at the very least, not alone in the Universe and, at the very most, one of many technological civilizations.
therefore anyone who DOES believe in that undeen force we call God...are just a bunch of nutty fools.
I do not consider believers to be fools. I see no reason to look down on anyone for choosing to believe improbable explanations for what science cannot explain.
-
The testimony of the Apostles verify that Christ rose from the dead is a validation of His divine nature. As I stated in my previous post, do you believe that they would have made this tale up and then allowed themselves to be horribly executed for something that they new to be a lie?
An excellent question. Here is my take...
Assuming that the story of the apostles testifying that Jesus Christ had risen from the dead is true, it does not prove that the resurrection of Christ took place. What it proves is that the apostles deeply believed that the resurrection took place.
I have no doubt that people who claim to have had religious experiences truly believe they happened. I just don't consider their subjective experiences to be sufficient evidence that what they think happened actually happened.
-
The testimony of the Apostles verify that Christ rose from the dead is a validation of His divine nature. As I stated in my previous post, do you believe that they would have made this tale up and then allowed themselves to be horribly executed for something that they new to be a lie?
An excellent question. Here is my take...
Assuming that the story of the apostles testifying that Jesus Christ had risen from the dead is true, it does not prove that the resurrection of Christ took place. What it proves is that the apostles deeply believed that the resurrection took place.
I have no doubt that people who claim to have had religious experiences truly believe they happened. I just don't consider their subjective experiences to be sufficient evidence that what they think happened actually happened.
So logic tells you that the first assumption of corraborating personal testimony is: they shared a mass hallucination to the exact details?
-
So logic tells you that the first assumption of corraborating personal testimony is: they shared a mass hallucination to the exact details?
If a group of people testify to experiencing some event which cannot be explained rationally, then of course we should suspect a hoax or a mass hallucination. Consider accounts of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens... People of various backgrounds and geographies all reporting strikingly similar stories of being abducted and examined by aliens.
-
I thought we talked about this.
-
I thought we talked about this.
I wrote in post #76 that I will wait for the owner of CC to tell me if I can express an atheistic point of view or not. If you are the owner or are speaking for the owner, then you need to tell me that you are.
-
I thought we talked about this.
I wrote in post #76 that I will wait for the owner of CC to tell me if I can express an atheistic point of view or not. If you are the owner or are speaking for the owner, then you need to tell me that you are.
I am the owner. or I am one of them.
-
I am the owner. or I am one of them.
Okay. Thanks. I will assume that you speak for all the owners of CC and that all are in agreement that CCers, like CUers, are delicate people who must be shielded from certain points of view.
I will be at the NU if anyone would like to continue discussing some of the points I brought up in this thread.
Goodbye.
:greet:
-
I am the owner. or I am one of them.
Okay. Thanks. I will assume that you speak for all the owners of CC and that all are in agreement that CCers, like CUers, are delicate people who must be shielded from certain points of view.
I will be at the NU if anyone would like to continue discussing some of the points I brought up in this thread.
Goodbye.
:greet:
hasta la vista.
-
So logic tells you that the first assumption of corraborating personal testimony is: they shared a mass hallucination to the exact details?
If a group of people testify to experiencing some event which cannot be explained rationally, then of course we should suspect a hoax or a mass hallucination. Consider accounts of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens... People of various backgrounds and geographies all reporting strikingly similar stories of being abducted and examined by aliens.
So you are saying that the Apostles and others mass hallucinated for 40 days and then suddenly stopped? That's a leap of faith isn't it? Actually I don't believe that there has been a single validated case of mass hallucination in recorded history. Interesting isn't it. It seems that mass hallucination is what skeptics fall back on when they can not explain away events that are beyond their grasp. Apparently it is easier to make up an explaination than it is to further investigate the events. Skeptics, instead of looking for proof that the event happened or simply looking at the event with unbiased eyes, look for reasons that it couldn't happen and thus eliminate potential avenues of explaination.
-
Not true. I don't completely rule out the possibility that something which could be described as a supreme being has evolved during the many billions of years that the Universe has been around. If the ocean of time which has so far passed has led to us, then who knows what else it has led to.
Not true. I consider the probability that the Universe is populated by technological civilizations to be high. I have no evidence that the Universe is populated by technological civilizations or even life in general, but the Drake equation leads me to believe that mankind is, at the very least, not alone in the Universe and, at the very most, one of many technological civilizations.
I do not consider believers to be fools. I see no reason to look down on anyone for choosing to believe improbable explanations for what science cannot explain.
Then it comes down to one simple fact that you chose to avoid in all of this.
The thought of an all powerful force controlling your life whether you realize it on a daily basis frightens the sh*t out of you.
And instead of trying to understand it or accept it you deny it and use that denial as a mask for your fear.
-
it does not prove that the resurrection of Christ took place.
Explain the Shroud of Turin then.
-
I am the owner. or I am one of them.
Okay. Thanks. I will assume that you speak for all the owners of CC and that all are in agreement that CCers, like CUers, are delicate people who must be shielded from certain points of view.
I will be at the NU if anyone would like to continue discussing some of the points I brought up in this thread.
Goodbye.
:greet:
Boo hoo! Boo hoo! You guys were mean to me!
Hey, sonny boy, don't ket the door hit you in the ass. You can PM Rebel to nuke your account if this was really an opus. And if you post again, what little credibility you had will be gone.
-
Boo hoo! Boo hoo! You guys were mean to me!
Hey, sonny boy, don't ket the door hit you in the ass. You can PM Rebel to nuke your account if this was really an opus. And if you post again, what little credibility you had will be gone.
Yeah we can go to NU where the rest of his atheist buddies can ambush us with the same innane blabber that he's tried unsuccessfully to spout here.
There's about three or four others there than he can fall back on for back up over there.
Here he doesn't have SDJ...Christopher and others to rah rah him on this subject.
-
Yeah we can go to NU where the rest of his atheist buddies can ambush us with the same innane blabber that he's tried unsuccessfully to spout here.
There's about three or four others there than he can fall back on for back up over there.
Here he doesn't have SDJ...Christopher and others to rah rah him on this subject.
I'm not running away. I'm following the rules. If I'm not allowed to express my point of view, then I have no way to engage in a debate. It is that simple.
If I were the type of person who needs a cheering section, would I have come here? I mean... honestly. Look at my BS rating. I really don't mind being the lone liberal. In fact, I rather like it.
Explain the Shroud of Turin then.
I would be happy to discuss the Shroud of Turin, but Wretched Excess has decided that you need to be protected from what I have to say.
-
Boo hoo! Boo hoo! You guys were mean to me!
Hey, sonny boy, don't ket the door hit you in the ass. You can PM Rebel to nuke your account if this was really an opus. And if you post again, what little credibility you had will be gone.
I see no need for me to be dramatic about leaving. All I'm saying is that I have no interest in participating under WE's CU style of administration.
-
Yeah we can go to NU where the rest of his atheist buddies can ambush us with the same innane blabber that he's tried unsuccessfully to spout here.
There's about three or four others there than he can fall back on for back up over there.
Here he doesn't have SDJ...Christopher and others to rah rah him on this subject.
I'm not running away. I'm following the rules. If I'm not allowed to express my point of view, then I have no way to engage in a debate. It is that simple.
If I were the type of person who needs a cheering section, would I have come here? I mean... honestly. Look at my BS rating. I really don't mind being the lone liberal. In fact, I rather like it.
Explain the Shroud of Turin then.
I would be happy to discuss the Shroud of Turin, but Wretched Excess has decided that you need to be protected from what I have to say.
Thought you made the decision to run back to the safety of NU?
Can't you stand by ONE thing you ever say?
-
Thought you made the decision to run back to the safety of NU?
Can't you stand by ONE thing you ever say?
Correct. I will be at NU from here on out. I just don't want to give the impression that I'm running away from a debate.
-
Correct. I will be at NU from here on out. I just don't want to give the impression that I'm running away from a debate.
Yes heaven forbid you actually admit to what you are doing when you can so easily pass the buck for your departure onto others.
:whatever:
You made the choice...no one else.
-
You made the choice...no one else.
Nonsense. WE laid down the law. If I'm not allowed to express my point of view, then there isn't much point in me being here.
Anyway, you should probably update the thread which cites my presence here as proof that CC is not an echo chamber.
-
this is getting annoying, TNO.
I am not willing to discuss whether or not God exists. He does. I say so. and on this board, that is good enough.
I am ready to discuss the nuances of religion, and I look forward to you continuing your relationship with
our website along those lines.
So do we now call you Gator Jr?
No other POV but your own?
-
So do we now call you Gator Jr?
No other POV but your own?
Don't be obtuse. You know exactly what he means. ESPECIALLY where the actions of TNO are concerned.
-
So do we now call you Gator Jr?
No other POV but your own?
Don't be obtuse. You know exactly what he means. ESPECIALLY where the actions of TNO are concerned.
No my dear...I don't know exactly what he means...
I'd say TNO can be an anoying little shit...But he does have a right to believe and say what he wants{unless the board is gonna become CU lite(with all the bullshit that goes with that)I thought this board was gonna be what CU isn't}
-
No my dear...I don't know exactly what he means...[/quote}
:-)
]I'd say TNO can be an anoying little shit...But he does have a right to believe and say what he wants{unless the board is gonna become CU lite(with all the bullshit that goes with that)I thought this board was gonna be what CU isn't}
And it is IMHO. But still TNO has no right or expectation to play the victim card when he KNOWINGLY comes to a Conservative board...tries to spew his Libtard crap and gets smacked for it.
He was perfectly happy to poke fun at Christians and demean religion as a whole until someone stood up to him and said enough.
Then all he wanted to do is cry about how mean and intolerant we are.
WE and others would have been perfectly happy to discuss religon with him...except that isn't what he REALLY wanted to do.
[/quote]
-
I say let the Owlish one stay. I just joined this conversation and I have put forth some questions I would like answered. Besides, God has made me more than capable of defending the faith and belief He has instilled in my heart.
-
I say let the Owlish one stay. I just joined this conversation and I have put forth some questions I would like answered. Besides, God has made me more than capable of defending the faith and belief He has instilled in my heart.
The problem is...is that TNO won't answer the questions. He never does.
-
I say let the Owlish one stay. I just joined this conversation and I have put forth some questions I would like answered. Besides, God has made me more than capable of defending the faith and belief He has instilled in my heart.
The problem is...is that TNO won't answer the questions. He never does.
Yup. He just tells you what he didn't tell you.
He's just a troll. I seriously doubt he will be able to keep himself away for long. Hi TNO :tongue:
-
Okay... WE and I worked out a compromise in which I am free to start topics with an atheistic bent as long as I avoid injecting an atheistic perspective into topics started by others. That way, anyone who wants to avoid reading my take on religious matters can do so. I think that policy is pretty fair.
-
Okay... WE and I worked out a compromise in which I am free to start topics with an atheistic bent as long as I avoid injecting an atheistic perspective into topics started by others. That way, anyone who wants to avoid reading my take on religious matters can do so. I think that policy is pretty fair.
*snip* I will be at NU from here on out. *snip*
Yeah, I'm just shocked that you're back. :whatever:
Nah. I decided to stop participating at CC because the owner has issued a decree prohibiting members from voicing an atheistic point of view. I posted a link to CC because I figure that some people here might like it.
Sound familiar?