The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Testify on September 23, 2015, 12:05:02 PM
-
Many have questions about God. They may believe the Bible to hold contradictions, or for it to be imperfect.
I have been told by one who claims the Bible cannot be the word of God because it is too imperfect. Here is where you may justify that claim.
Ask, and I shall answer. Please, one question/problem per post, if you post a flood or a link to pages of proposed problems, I will either ignore you or respond to the most interesting. One at a time. I'll answer, and we can move on.
Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together
-
Leviticus 11:13-19
13 “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,[a] the vulture, the black vulture, 14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat."
Bats aren't birds......
-
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
So was Joseph's father Jacob or Heli...?
-
Leviticus 11:13-19
13 “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,[a] the vulture, the black vulture, 14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat."
Bats aren't birds......
If the Bible said the sky was blue, and in the 1700s someone rewrote the dictionary to switch the words 'green' and 'blue', would that make the Bible wrong, or is the flaw with the one who redefined?
-
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
So was Joseph's father Jacob or Heli...?
The genealogies of Jesus given in Matthew and Luke are very different. Many names are different, and the lengths are different as well. Much of this is explained simply by taking different routes through the genealogy. The question of grandfather is far more interesting.
There are many beliefs: that Luke in fact gave the family tree of Mary (showing that Christ had two links to King David), which was customarily done through the father even if it was the mother's family, or that Matthew only gave those who occupied the throne at some point while Luke gave the entire line.
The most likely one is that Luke gave the genealogy through Mary: this is what the 'as was supposed' in the verse refers to. Matthew addressed the Jews, and gave the legal line back to Abraham, while Luke addressed the people and gave the biological line back to Adam.
-
No they are quite clearly stating the father of Joseph and they contradict each other.
-
No they are quite clearly stating the father of Joseph and they contradict each other.
Applying the norm of today to two thousand years ago is not going to give an accurate picture. I have responded.
-
Since this has gone from "ask 'bout god" to "ask about the bible's incoherences and I will defend them because I think it is perfect":
Why is the creation account in the bible completelly wrong?
Why does the bible think pi = 3, when even the greeks knew that if the apothemic ratio of a shape is 3, its an hexagon, not a circle (1 Kings 7:23)?
The bible claims that the sky is actually a firmament of metal, tightened to the earth like a tent, with stars sticked on it. This is not the case. Why?
Why does Genesis I and Genesis II have two completelly oposite accounts of the creation?
etc.
-
Since this has gone from "ask 'bout god" to "ask about the bible's incoherences and I will defend them because I think it is perfect":
Why is the creation account in the bible completelly wrong?
Why does the bible think pi = 3, when even the greeks knew that if the apothemic ratio of a shape is 3, its an hexagon, not a circle (1 Kings 7:23)?
The bible claims that the sky is actually a firmament of metal, tightened to the earth like a tent, with stars sticked on it. This is not the case. Why?
Why does Genesis I and Genesis II have two completelly oposite accounts of the creation?
etc.
One question per post.
The pi argument barely bears examining as it is clearly rounding in the writing rather than detailing fractions.
On the Creation, the Bible's account is accurate. You have been mislead, but the depiction of the Bible is correct. Chapter 2 of Genesis simply delves into detail: the creation of man was mention in chapter 1, and explained properly in chapter 2. However, chapter 2 does appear odd because it explains an implication from God's perspective: animals were created so that man would not be alone, but God transcends time and so He created the animals first so that man would never be alone, which is logical.
The Bible does teach about God.
-
Since this has gone from "ask 'bout god" to "ask about the bible's incoherences and I will defend them because I think it is perfect":
Why is the creation account in the bible completelly wrong?
Why does the bible think pi = 3, when even the greeks knew that if the apothemic ratio of a shape is 3, its an hexagon, not a circle (1 Kings 7:23)?
The bible claims that the sky is actually a firmament of metal, tightened to the earth like a tent, with stars sticked on it. This is not the case. Why?
Why does Genesis I and Genesis II have two completelly oposite accounts of the creation?
etc.
One question per post.
Dont tell me what to do.
The pi argument barely bears examining as it is clearly rounding in the writing rather than detailing fractions.
The rounding is wrong. Of course I would expect no decimals from bronze-age jews. What I would expect, however, is for them to round up correctly.
On the Creation, the Bible's account is accurate.
Do you have any proof of that which does not require believing a religious book because the religious book tells you to?
You have been mislead, but the depiction of the Bible is correct.
How have I've been misled?
Chapter 2 of Genesis simply delves into detail: the creation of man was mention in chapter 1, and explained properly in chapter 2. However, chapter 2 does appear odd because it explains an implication from God's perspective: animals were created so that man would not be alone, but God transcends time and so He created the animals first so that man would never be alone, which is logical.
Actually, the problem is with plants. While in 2 plants were created after mankind (“no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up” (2:5)), while 1 claims that plants were created on the 3rd day.
The Bible does teach about God.
Of course. All religious texts teach about their gods, of course.
-
Genesis 2:4-5 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
The plants and shrubs had been created, but could not flourish or truly grow until man existed to tend to them.
I believe in God because I have prayed, and felt His Holy Spirit. You may do the same, if you honestly wish to seke the truth.
You have been misled by the demons who seek to draw people from God's path. They are the cause of the lies that make people doubt His truth: the flat world, the dome of sky.
-
Genesis 2:4-5 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
The plants and shrubs had been created, but could not flourish or truly grow until man existed to tend to them.
Oh, so God created the plant class, but didnt instance it. Then why did he plant.create()? That's just shitty OOP, man.
I believe in God because I have prayed, and felt His Holy Spirit. You may do the same, if you honestly wish to seke the truth.
So I can only know whether God exists or not if I believe he exists? Besides, every other religion gives me the same speech. What benefits does your God grant me, compared to, for example, Ahura Mazda?
You have been misled by the demons who seek to draw people from God's path.
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
They are the cause of the lies that make people doubt His truth: the flat world, the dome of sky.
Sure, why not.
-
Oh, so God created the plant class, but didnt instance it. Then why did he plant.create()? That's just shitty OOP, man.
He knew that He would make man.
So I can only know whether God exists or not if I believe he exists? Besides, every other religion gives me the same speech. What benefits does your God grant me, compared to, for example, Ahura Mazda?
God is real. There do not need to be benefits, only truth. You do not need to believe God exists to have an open heart, and to pray to Him.
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
God does not lie. Demons exist: there is second-hand information suggesting God has lied. As God does not lie, this information is a deceit. It is common knowledge as well, that demons seek to draw people away from the truth.
-
Oh, so God created the plant class, but didnt instance it. Then why did he plant.create()? That's just shitty OOP, man.
He knew that He would make man.
So I can only know whether God exists or not if I believe he exists? Besides, every other religion gives me the same speech. What benefits does your God grant me, compared to, for example, Ahura Mazda?
God is real.
[Proof needed]
There do not need to be benefits, only truth.
Truth is a benefit, but my local prophet tells me the word of Zoroaster is the truth. Who do I believe?
You do not need to believe God exists to have an open heart, and to pray to Him.
I kinda do have to believe to pray, dont I?. Most religions consider praying to another God a terrible sin. Reverse Pascal's wager tells me not to make any move at all is the best move.
Also, my heart pumps blood.
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
God does not lie.
How do you know? Who told you that? God?
Demons exist: there is second-hand information suggesting God has lied. As God does not lie, this information is a deceit. It is common knowledge as well, that demons seek to draw people away from the truth.
This is a circular argument.
-
A circular argument would be "It is a deceit because it is based on lies." My statement was based on the fact God does not lie. This is very different to the conclusion.
You simply need to have an open heart and to pray to know the truth. Do not believe me, believe God.
Do you have any further questions?
-
Who was Joseph's father? Jacob or Heli?
Answer the question. If you can't do this one simple thing then you cannot rely on a clearly flawed piece of writing.
-
Who was Joseph's father? Jacob or Heli?
Answer the question. If you can't do this one simple thing then you cannot rely on a clearly flawed piece of writing.
Jacob. I answered this.
Healthy Earth, if you have a question please make it clearer.
-
The Bible is indeed imperfect because it was translated into English by imperfect people. A perfect translation is something that's nearly impossible in most cases and these translation errors are why multiple versions of the Bible exist. The Bible also contains a lot of metaphors which can be very hard to translate.
-
The Bible is indeed imperfect because it was translated into English by imperfect people. A perfect translation is something that's nearly impossible in most cases and these translation errors are why multiple versions of the Bible exist. The Bible also contains a lot of metaphors which can be very hard to translate.
If man alone were responsible for the Bible, that would be true: but God inspired the writers, and God would maintain His words. He is not a fool.
-
If man alone were responsible for the Bible, that would be true: but God inspired the writers, and God would maintain His words. He is not a fool.
If God inspired the people who translated the Bible then they wouldn't have all done it differently.
-
If man alone were responsible for the Bible, that would be true: but God inspired the writers, and God would maintain His words. He is not a fool.
If God inspired the people who translated the Bible then they wouldn't have all done it differently.
You assume every translation was made with God's blessing. We need only one, the King James Version. Why would He repeat himself? Demons, fallen angels, live to deceive man: they would confuse by creating other versions to be ambiguous or outright wrong.
-
You assume every translation was made with God's blessing. We need only one, the King James Version. Why would He repeat himself? Demons, fallen angels, live to deceive man: they would confuse by creating other versions to be ambiguous or outright wrong.
Are you just making unsupported assertions or do you have so much as an iota of evidence to support you?
-
You assume every translation was made with God's blessing. We need only one, the King James Version. Why would He repeat himself? Demons, fallen angels, live to deceive man: they would confuse by creating other versions to be ambiguous or outright wrong.
Are you just making unsupported assertions or do you have so much as an iota of evidence to support you?
Logic is not an unsupported assertion. God provides us with all the answers we need in the Bible, but only a handful of them are explicit. From that, we may deduce what all the implicit answers are.
The King James Version of the Bible was the first translation intended to be accessible. We know this was what God wanted:
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Before this, demons had corrupted many supposed Christians to keep the word of God to themselves, and to preach, but not to allow others to read the Bible alone. They taught one path, seeking to suppress thought, and encourage a false path. Whenn this was no longer an option, logic dictates they would try to confuse the issue, claiming to be good and to translate again while concealing the truth. God would need only one work.
Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
God gives all the answers, if you open your heart and mind to Him.
-
Logic is not an unsupported assertion. God provides us with all the answers we need in the Bible, but only a handful of them are explicit. From that, we may deduce what all the implicit answers are.
The King James Version of the Bible was the first translation intended to be accessible. We know this was what God wanted:
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Before this, demons had corrupted many supposed Christians to keep the word of God to themselves, and to preach, but not to allow others to read the Bible alone. They taught one path, seeking to suppress thought, and encourage a false path. Whenn this was no longer an option, logic dictates they would try to confuse the issue, claiming to be good and to translate again while concealing the truth. God would need only one work.
Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
God gives all the answers, if you open your heart and mind to Him.
The Bible has many places where it apears to contradict it's self. Given this there are 3 possibilities: the Bible was written by man (which is unlikely because it tells of things that were later verified such as continental drift), God lies and he's really bad at it, or it was imperfectly translated by an imperfect human being.
I don't know if I have told you, but I am actually a Christian. There is no contradiction between Christianity and science. Science shows up what the universe does and religion is all about why it does that. God is very real and I must say that the vast and elegant universe he has created is very impressive. If you think that space travel is of the devil then you should look at the Apollo 8 Bible reading where the crew ofApollo 8 read a few verses out loud in Genesiswhile they were orbiting the Moon. NASA actually almost got sewed for it.
The reason God prevented the tower of Babel from being built is because of why they were building it, not because it would have actually worked. Modern day towers are many times taller then the Tower of Babel could have ever been because modern day towers are designed by structural experts and they use steel instead of stone. Just think about modern day airplanes which go miles in the air, they certainly don't reach heaven and they are at least an order of magnitude higher then the tallest buildings. The Tower of Babel was built so people could get to heaven without being good people, which wouldn't have worked anyway. The reason people fly in space is to learn about this amazing universe we find ourselves in, and God has nothing against us learning.
-
The Bible has many places where it apears to contradict it's self. Given this there are 3 possibilities: the Bible was written by man (which is unlikely because it tells of things that were later verified such as continental drift), God lies and he's really bad at it, or it was imperfectly translated by an imperfect human being.
There are no true contradictions, only people who willfully ignore context and meaning, or who seek to misrepresent God's word.
I don't know if I have told you, but I am actually a Christian. There is no contradiction between Christianity and science. Science shows up what the universe does and religion is all about why it does that. God is very real and I must say that the vast and elegant universe he has created is very impressive. If you think that space travel is of the devil then you should look at the Apollo 8 Bible reading where the crew ofApollo 8 read a few verses out loud in Genesiswhile they were orbiting the Moon. NASA actually almost got sewed for it.
Many claim to be Christian. Anyone can read a Bible verse. A demon who seeks to fool us will do just that.
The reason God prevented the tower of Babel from being built is because of why they were building it, not because it would have actually worked. Modern day towers are many times taller then the Tower of Babel could have ever been because modern day towers are designed by structural experts and they use steel instead of stone. Just think about modern day airplanes which go miles in the air, they certainly don't reach heaven and they are at least an order of magnitude higher then the tallest buildings. The Tower of Babel was built so people could get to heaven without being good people, which wouldn't have worked anyway. The reason people fly in space is to learn about this amazing universe we find ourselves in, and God has nothing against us learning.
The attempt is not a problem: God does not worry about those who try to play God, for He knows they will fail, and they will face punishment after death. There are scientists who seek to create life from nothing even today: they are not struck down and they are not punished, because they will fail.
Humans aided by demons will accomplish more than humans alone. The Bible talks of speaking in tongues, such as Acts 2:4
Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Celestial beings and humans speak different languages: demons are fallen angels, so the tongues used to speak with God and His angels is the same tongue used by demons to converse with humans. From this we can see that the curse following the Tower of Babel would prevent humans and demons working together for any one aim quite so easily. Once we all spoke the same tongue: no longer.
The story of Babel makes far more sense when this is acknowledged. Severing language caused humans and demons to no longer work together. Had they been allowed to, the tower would have reached the Sun.
-
Your claim is:
God does not lie
You know this because : Demons try and deceive us
Which you know because: The bible is correct
Which you know because: God says so
My statement was based on the fact God does not lie.
You need to prove that God does, in fact, not lie.
You simply need to have an open heart and to pray to know the truth. Do not believe me, believe God.
So now you say I have to believe God to pray, which you told me was unnecesary, proving my point. If I believe in Ahura Mazda, I will get punished in Christianism. If I believe in the Christian god, I will get fucked up by every single other religion. Even some other christians will consider me an heretic. Who, and why, based in what evidence, should I believe?
-
Who was Joseph's father? Jacob or Heli?
Answer the question. If you can't do this one simple thing then you cannot rely on a clearly flawed piece of writing.
Jacob. I answered this.
Healthy Earth, if you have a question please make it clearer.
Why not Heli?
In the bible it says he is Joseph's father.
-
You need to prove that God does, in fact, not lie.
Demons lying was my conclusion. God does not lie by the definition of who God is: He is the greatest good.
So now you say I have to believe God to pray
I did not say that. I said you had only to pray, and if you do so with an open mind and heart, you will feel the Holy Spirit and you will then believe.
Why not Heli?
In the bible it says he is Joseph's father.
I explained this. The genealogy of Mary passed to Joseph, as was the custom at the time: everything that was the wife's becomes the husband. The 'as was supposed' demonstrates this. Heli was Mary's father, and what we would call Joseph's father-in-law.
-
You need to prove that God does, in fact, not lie.
Demons lying was my conclusion. God does not lie by the definition of who God is: He is the greatest good.
Deists disagree. Who do I believe?
So now you say I have to believe God to pray
I did not say that. I said you had only to pray, and if you do so with an open mind and heart, you will feel the Holy Spirit and you will then believe.
You are changing the words again, but ok. Did you ever prayed to Ahura Mazda?
-
You need to prove that God does, in fact, not lie.
Demons lying was my conclusion. God does not lie by the definition of who God is: He is the greatest good.
Deists disagree. Who do I believe?
So now you say I have to believe God to pray
I did not say that. I said you had only to pray, and if you do so with an open mind and heart, you will feel the Holy Spirit and you will then believe.
You are changing the words again, but ok. Did you ever prayed to Ahura Mazda?
If our faculties exist because of randomness, we cannot think. If our faculties come from a deceitful God, we could not find the truth. We can reach conclusions, and Anselm proved that God is the greatest.
I do not change my words, and I do not need to pray to another because I have found the truth.
-
You need to prove that God does, in fact, not lie.
Demons lying was my conclusion. God does not lie by the definition of who God is: He is the greatest good.
So now you say I have to believe God to pray
I did not say that. I said you had only to pray, and if you do so with an open mind and heart, you will feel the Holy Spirit and you will then believe.
Why not Heli?
In the bible it says he is Joseph's father.
I explained this. The genealogy of Mary passed to Joseph, as was the custom at the time: everything that was the wife's becomes the husband. The 'as was supposed' demonstrates this. Heli was Mary's father, and what we would call Joseph's father-in-law.
Yes but it doesn't replace Josephs genealogy. Heli is not his father, Jacob is, so why not say Jacob.
-
You need to prove that God does, in fact, not lie.
Demons lying was my conclusion. God does not lie by the definition of who God is: He is the greatest good.
Deists disagree. Who do I believe?
So now you say I have to believe God to pray
I did not say that. I said you had only to pray, and if you do so with an open mind and heart, you will feel the Holy Spirit and you will then believe.
You are changing the words again, but ok. Did you ever prayed to Ahura Mazda?
If our faculties exist because of randomness, we cannot think.
It is good, then, that our faculties exist thanks to the well-known proccess of natural selection. As someone who works almost daily with them, I can tell you neural networks can be specially well indicated for selection driven optimization.
If our faculties come from a deceitful God, we could not find the truth.
Correct, but you would reach conclussions, nevertheless. Either our logic or our basic axioms would be twisted, but we would not note the difference.
We can reach conclusions, and Anselm proved that God is the greatest.
Anselm's argument has been disproven time after time, but lets take it just for the sake of it, shall we? There is nothng in Anselm's argument that says that the abrahamic god is the god that exists. Also, Anselm's argument does not prove god is the greatest, it is the assumption that he uses to deduce (incorrectly) the existance of god. Even if the argument wasnt flawed, it would only prove a supremme truth, not the christian god.
I do not change my words, and I do not need to pray to another because I have found the truth.
How do you know that you found the truth, and not Angra Mainyu deceiving you into his army of evil?
-
You need to prove that God does, in fact, not lie.
Demons lying was my conclusion. God does not lie by the definition of who God is: He is the greatest good.
So now you say I have to believe God to pray
I did not say that. I said you had only to pray, and if you do so with an open mind and heart, you will feel the Holy Spirit and you will then believe.
Why not Heli?
In the bible it says he is Joseph's father.
I explained this. The genealogy of Mary passed to Joseph, as was the custom at the time: everything that was the wife's becomes the husband. The 'as was supposed' demonstrates this. Heli was Mary's father, and what we would call Joseph's father-in-law.
Yes but it doesn't replace Josephs genealogy. Heli is not his father, Jacob is, so why not say Jacob.
It doesn't replace: it was added to. The gospels were directed at different audiences: one to the Jewish people where the legal, paternal line was important, while the other gave the full picture. God wanted us to know a lot.
-
It is good, then, that our faculties exist thanks to the well-known proccess of natural selection. As someone who works almost daily with them, I can tell you neural networks can be specially well indicated for selection driven optimization.
Which is randomness. Our neural networks do work well, which is because they were created by an honest God.
If our faculties come from a deceitful God, we could not find the truth.
Correct, but you would reach conclussions, nevertheless. Either our logic or our basic axioms would be twisted, but we would not note the difference.
Randomness and deceit could not create a coherent system.
We can reach conclusions, and Anselm proved that God is the greatest.
Anselm's argument has been disproven time after time, but lets take it just for the sake of it, shall we? There is nothng in Anselm's argument that says that the abrahamic god is the god that exists. Also, Anselm's argument does not prove god is the greatest, it is the assumption that he uses to deduce (incorrectly) the existance of god. Even if the argument wasnt flawed, it would only prove a supremme truth, not the christian god.
I am not using Anselm as a proof of existence, I am using his argument to define God.
I do not change my words, and I do not need to pray to another because I have found the truth.
How do you know that you found the truth, and not Angra Mainyu deceiving you into his army of evil?
Pray with an open mind and open heart, and you will find out. Divinity can not be faked, there is only one God.
-
It is good, then, that our faculties exist thanks to the well-known proccess of natural selection. As someone who works almost daily with them, I can tell you neural networks can be specially well indicated for selection driven optimization.
Which is randomness. Our neural networks do work well, which is because they were created by an honest God.
So you either subscribe to the theory of lastfridaynism (meaning that god created an aged universe, for some reason), you believe in a tuner god like the Intelligent Design crowd do (life evolved via the mechanisms we know, but was supervised by god) or... (continue reading). I personally don't find anything specifically idiotic about this two, they are just beliefs, designed to be untestifyiable and unfalsafiable, so they are not science. As belief systems? Fine by me, as long as no one tries to pass them as science. The other missing posibility is that you think that, while all evidence points against it, you believe in the christian creation myth. Why would anyone do that mindboggles me. Anyway, I'll explain what I mean by "evolutionary driven neural networks". Are you familiar with the NEAT model? Basically, its a way of showing how neural networks can fit an objective via mutations, gene selection and spreading, etc, basically the same processes that occur in nature. This means neural networks do NOT need a system designer, a population of networks can evolve over time to fit. Which is preciselly what evolution predicts. This is not randomness, this is in fact the very opposite of that. Its like throwing coins to the air, but only picking up the ones that come heads. The outcome is NOT random. I know that the concept of information entropy is complex, but that's what we know happens in the real world, and in my little A-life solver.
With respect to whether neural networks work well, they are basically a mathematical model, so I guess you mean that god created logic so neural networks would work? Perhaps, of course. But that affirmation deals with metaphysical logic, and therefore is outside the scope of science. Feel free to believe what you want, but it is nothing but that. Belief.
If our faculties come from a deceitful God, we could not find the truth.
Correct, but you would reach conclussions, nevertheless. Either our logic or our basic axioms would be twisted, but we would not note the difference.
Randomness and deceit could not create a coherent system.
I still dont understand your usage of "Randomness". What do you mean by that?
And, yes, randomness and deceit can and do create coherent systems. The only requirement for a specific logical system to be coherent is that explosive axioms are not considered. In other words, if contradicting axioms like p->p and p->¬p are considered,
then the system will not be coherent, because from those premises, every single logical sentence can be proven to be true in the system. That's called principle of explosion. (We are assuming stable classical logic here, not systems where logic itself warps locally like quantum mechanics)
We can reach conclusions, and Anselm proved that God is the greatest.
Anselm's argument has been disproven time after time, but lets take it just for the sake of it, shall we? There is nothng in Anselm's argument that says that the abrahamic god is the god that exists. Also, Anselm's argument does not prove god is the greatest, it is the assumption that he uses to deduce (incorrectly) the existance of god. Even if the argument wasnt flawed, it would only prove a supremme truth, not the christian god.
I am not using Anselm as a proof of existence, I am using his argument to define God.
I know, but as I said, that definition is the assumption of the argument, not the conclusion. In other words, you just chose that definition, but neither you or Anselm have proven it.
I do not change my words, and I do not need to pray to another because I have found the truth.
How do you know that you found the truth, and not Angra Mainyu deceiving you into his army of evil?
Pray with an open mind and open heart, and you will find out. Divinity can not be faked, there is only one God.
Who do I pray to? Ahura Mazda? The Great Juju up the mountain? All gnostic religions ever (like catholicism) claim that I can know the truth if I follow their steps, and all agnostic ones claim that I can know their deity by following their commands. Who do I believe? Did you prayed to Ahura Mazda? Because Mr.Prophet here claims he didnt, but he doesnt need to, because he has found the truth of The triumphant, Broad end of all, Lord-Master of the Universe, Incomprehensible by anyone, Comprehensible of all, Reason of reasons.
-
So you either subscribe to the theory of lastfridaynism (meaning that god created an aged universe, for some reason), you believe in a tuner god like the Intelligent Design crowd do (life evolved via the mechanisms we know, but was supervised by god) or... (continue reading). I personally don't find anything specifically idiotic about this two, they are just beliefs, designed to be untestifyiable and unfalsafiable, so they are not science. As belief systems? Fine by me, as long as no one tries to pass them as science. The other missing posibility is that you think that, while all evidence points against it, you believe in the christian creation myth. Why would anyone do that mindboggles me.
I believe God does not lie: the story He tells us is accurate. Demons try to draw us away from it, but it remains true. You have been conditioned to believe it unlikely, but it is not so: God knows far more of the world than a mortal.
I still dont understand your usage of "Randomness". What do you mean by that?
Randomness is an ungoverned process. Nature only produces randomness, even if that randomness is subject to certain laws. Life forming relationships that fit together like puzzle pieces is nonsensical. Either evolution would make great changes which we should observe, or it makes changes too small to make a difference because they would vanish as much as continue, because the process is governed by randomness.
I know, but as I said, that definition is the assumption of the argument, not the conclusion. In other words, you just chose that definition, but neither you or Anselm have proven it.
It is not an assumption: it is a concept that is tested. If there exists such a being, it is God. God exists, so there is such a being.
Who do I pray to? Ahura Mazda? The Great Juju up the mountain? All gnostic religions ever (like catholicism) claim that I can know the truth if I follow their steps, and all agnostic ones claim that I can know their deity by following their commands. Who do I believe? Did you prayed to Ahura Mazda? Because Mr.Prophet here claims he didnt, but he doesnt need to, because he has found the truth of The triumphant, Broad end of all, Lord-Master of the Universe, Incomprehensible by anyone, Comprehensible of all, Reason of reasons.
Pray to know the truth. You do not need to pray to a deity by name; God would not only inspire faith in those that already have it. God wishes all to come to Him. If you ask with an open heart and an open mind to know the truth, to know whether He or any creature is real, His Holy Spirit will cme to you and you will know.
-
So you either subscribe to the theory of lastfridaynism (meaning that god created an aged universe, for some reason), you believe in a tuner god like the Intelligent Design crowd do (life evolved via the mechanisms we know, but was supervised by god) or... (continue reading). I personally don't find anything specifically idiotic about this two, they are just beliefs, designed to be untestifyiable and unfalsafiable, so they are not science. As belief systems? Fine by me, as long as no one tries to pass them as science. The other missing posibility is that you think that, while all evidence points against it, you believe in the christian creation myth. Why would anyone do that mindboggles me.
I believe God does not lie: the story He tells us is accurate. Demons try to draw us away from it, but it remains true. You have been conditioned to believe it unlikely, but it is not so: God knows far more of the world than a mortal.
How the hell you know all that? You make a lot of assertions, but give no proof.
I still dont understand your usage of "Randomness". What do you mean by that?
Randomness is an ungoverned process. Nature only produces randomness, even if that randomness is subject to certain laws. Life forming relationships that fit together like puzzle pieces is nonsensical. Either evolution would make great changes which we should observe, or it makes changes too small to make a difference because they would vanish as much as continue, because the process is governed by randomness.
Randomness is not a process, and it is not ungoverned. Nature does NOT only produce randomness, in fact nature usually tends to favour harmonic progressions, and other non-random processes. In fact, most random sources are not random at all, just terribly complex, to the point of being almost impossible to predict (like thermal noise), but it is not random. And evolution makes great changes, of course, over the course of millions and millions of years. Viruses (which are not living beings), people, microscopic nylon eating bacteria, and nuclear reactors are all the outcome of nature (yes, we are part of nature). If you just call everything nature does "random", you are going to miss the point that it isnt. And the process ISNT driven by randomness, it is an objective driven process. As I said, information entropy is a complex subject to understand, but I will give you an example so you can get it.
Imagine you have 20 coins. Then, I tell you: "Flip those coins, and you have to get exactly, with H being head and C being cross:
HHCHCCHHCHCCCHCHHCCH "
That is a random process. The chances of that happening, are minnimal.
Imagine you have 20 +1 coins. Then, I tell you: "Flip those coins. If what you got matches the objective, you flip the coin 6 times. If you get 1 or more heads(0), it stays, else, you change it. If what you got does not match the objective, flip the coin 6 times. If you get 5 or more heads(0), it stays, else, you change it. Now count how many iterations does it take you to get the objective"
In fact, Im going to try it myself, with a true random generator, to get the sequence:
00101100101110100110
First try,with stay values: (S)tay or (N)ot:
01010000110100011011
00101100101110100110<-------Objective
11111101000000111110
11101101100100011100
10111000110001100101
11101000011110011001
11101100011000101111
00111110011000100110
54636412243211434533, resulting in:
00000100101100100010 (only 4 different bits from 00101100101110100110)
Second generation:
00000100101100100010
00101100101110100110<-------Objective
10011000011011111011
10000101101001001011
01101011000101101111
00110001011100001110
11001001010111011110
11110011110111100110
43333125243435325463, resulting in:
00101000101110100110 (One diferent bit from 00101100101110100110)
Two generations, and we have 95% accuracy. Information can be extracted from randomness, it is just thermodynamically inefficient. Which doesnt matter because Earth has a power source called the sun.
I know, but as I said, that definition is the assumption of the argument, not the conclusion. In other words, you just chose that definition, but neither you or Anselm have proven it.
It is not an assumption: it is a concept that is tested. If there exists such a being, it is God. God exists, so there is such a being.
No, it is not. The argument pressuposes that in order to "prove" that a god exists. Try reading the sylogism yourself, you will see that it is a premise, not the conclussion. The conclussion is that there is a god.
Who do I pray to? Ahura Mazda? The Great Juju up the mountain? All gnostic religions ever (like catholicism) claim that I can know the truth if I follow their steps, and all agnostic ones claim that I can know their deity by following their commands. Who do I believe? Did you prayed to Ahura Mazda? Because Mr.Prophet here claims he didnt, but he doesnt need to, because he has found the truth of The triumphant, Broad end of all, Lord-Master of the Universe, Incomprehensible by anyone, Comprehensible of all, Reason of reasons.
Pray to know the truth. You do not need to pray to a deity by name; God would not only inspire faith in those that already have it. God wishes all to come to Him. If you ask with an open heart and an open mind to know the truth, to know whether He or any creature is real, His Holy Spirit will cme to you and you will know.
But what do I ask? How? I ask nature to tell me the truth, through testing, though science. Do you call that praying, too? Because, as far as I know, praying consists in telepathically calling a deity, for forgiveness, or something, that depends on the religion. It usually involves using a formula such as the Lord's Prayer, which is specifical to a religion. Some religions require to do some stuff while praying, like how muslims orientate towards the Meca. Most, if not all of those formulas cant be done at the same time. I cant pray in Allah's name using the Lord's prayer, that's heresy in Islam. And praying to Jesus Christ using Salat is heresy in Christianism. Reverse Pascal Wager.
-
I am not going to debate. This thread is for questions to be answered, and it is fats becoming unreadable. I specified 'one question per post' at the start: and at this stage very little of what you say is a question, and there is far more than one point a post.
I know what I say from God's word and the logical faculties He gave us all.
You do not need to pray to anyone, as I said. You do not need a name, you do not need to do anything specific. Prayer involves no telepathy: God is everywhere, He will hear you no matter where you are and what you say. If you ask, with an open mind and an open heart, to hear the truth, He will confirm it to you.
You do not need to address any religion. It would be a poor God who could not recognize a prayer merely because he was not called by name. If a God can only hear you if you speak certain words, or look a certain way, he is not God.
If you have questions relevant to learning of God, I will be happy to answer.
-
I am not going to debate. This thread is for questions to be answered, and it is fats becoming unreadable. I specified 'one question per post' at the start: and at this stage very little of what you say is a question, and there is far more than one point a post.
I know what I say from God's word and the logical faculties He gave us all.
You do not need to pray to anyone, as I said. You do not need a name, you do not need to do anything specific. Prayer involves no telepathy: God is everywhere, He will hear you no matter where you are and what you say. If you ask, with an open mind and an open heart, to hear the truth, He will confirm it to you.
You do not need to address any religion. It would be a poor God who could not recognize a prayer merely because he was not called by name. If a God can only hear you if you speak certain words, or look a certain way, he is not God.
If you have questions relevant to learning of God, I will be happy to answer.
I once did what you said, call for truth. The only answer I got was a clinical depression. And I didnt say gods dont hear you otherwise. Religions claim that doing it wrong gets them angry, which is a bad thing to do. My question still stands.
-
I once did what you said, call for truth. The only answer I got was a clinical depression. And I didnt say gods dont hear you otherwise. Religions claim that doing it wrong gets them angry, which is a bad thing to do. My question still stands.
You need an open mind and an open heart. Clearly, at present, you do not have that.
If you blaspheme and say another deity is real, then you insult God who gave you life. He is justified in anger. Why is this relevant? I was not asking you to claim any deity is real.
You seem to be misunderstanding the concept of prayer. It serves many purposes. Some pray to God in order to get help in their life: this may be done at any time and any place, it is merely speaking to God. Some prayers are ritualistic. These are typically Pagan in performance, such as facing towards Mecca. Some prayer, such as the Lord's Prayer, is performed to be closer to God.
A prayer for truth is none of these. You would be asking whoever is there to reveal themselves to you, which God would do with His Holy Spirit, but you do not need to ask God Himself directly.
Prayer serves many purposes. Not every prayer is identical, nor should be.
A god who would punish you with damnation or anger because you did not follow his rules for prayer when you did not believe, is no god to follow. The God I worship, and that is real, is no such God.
2 Timothy 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.
1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
-
Many claim to be Christian. Anyone can read a Bible verse. A demon who seeks to fool us will do just that.
Wow, this is becoming a classic witch hunt.
-
Many claim to be Christian. Anyone can read a Bible verse. A demon who seeks to fool us will do just that.
Wow, this is becoming a classic witch hunt.
I was not making a claim about anyone specific, simply giving an extreme case. This should be clear.
-
I once did what you said, call for truth. The only answer I got was a clinical depression. And I didnt say gods dont hear you otherwise. Religions claim that doing it wrong gets them angry, which is a bad thing to do. My question still stands.
You need an open mind and an open heart. Clearly, at present, you do not have that.
My father used to say "keep your mind fully open, and crap will get inside". I dont even know what an open heart is supposed to be. Do I have to get surgery, or something?. And isnt it really vain of you to say whether I do or I do not have an open mind/heart? It was in the past, as I said, though. It didnt work, and it only made me fell deeper in depression. Perhaps I would have to do it more than once? I once meditated, and I managed to pass out from concentration. Perhaps that is what you mean? I trully dont understand your thing, man.
If you blaspheme and say another deity is real, then you insult God who gave you life. He is justified in anger. Why is this relevant? I was not asking you to claim any deity is real.
Then who do I listen? To you, or to the other religious people? Do I pray to one, or many? Do I pray to Him, to Her, to Them? I need details on the procedure, because as I said earlier, just asking "what is the point anyway" didnt work for me.
You seem to be misunderstanding the concept of prayer. It serves many purposes. Some pray to God in order to get help in their life: this may be done at any time and any place, it is merely speaking to God. Some prayers are ritualistic. These are typically Pagan in performance, such as facing towards Mecca. Some prayer, such as the Lord's Prayer, is performed to be closer to God.
A prayer for truth is none of these. You would be asking whoever is there to reveal themselves to you, which God would do with His Holy Spirit, but you do not need to ask God Himself directly.
Prayer serves many purposes. Not every prayer is identical, nor should be.
A god who would punish you with damnation or anger because you did not follow his rules for prayer when you did not believe, is no god to follow. The God I worship, and that is real, is no such God.
2 Timothy 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.
1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Sure, it is Paganistic to pray towards Mecca, but not to eat the blood and flesh of a human. Or to bathe the newborn in deified water. Or to believe all of a book is true, even when the evidence says it isnt wholy true.
-
My father used to say "keep your mind fully open, and crap will get inside". I dont even know what an open heart is supposed to be. Do I have to get surgery, or something?. And isnt it really vain of you to say whether I do or I do not have an open mind/heart? It was in the past, as I said, though. It didnt work, and it only made me fell deeper in depression. Perhaps I would have to do it more than once? I once meditated, and I managed to pass out from concentration. Perhaps that is what you mean? I trully dont understand your thing, man.
An open heart is a heart not hardened by distrust or arrogance. An answer will only be received if you will accept the answer when it is given. Many people claim this, few truly possess it. If you have an experience of God, would you do what you could in order to rationalize or ignore it?
Then who do I listen? To you, or to the other religious people? Do I pray to one, or many? Do I pray to Him, to Her, to Them? I need details on the procedure, because as I said earlier, just asking "what is the point anyway" didnt work for me.
Pray to none in particular until you know which to pray to. Pray to the abstract, and He will hear. This was explained in my past message. Tehre are no details to give because what is asked for is not a formal prayer.
Sure, it is Paganistic to pray towards Mecca, but not to eat the blood and flesh of a human. Or to bathe the newborn in deified water. Or to believe all of a book is true, even when the evidence says it isnt wholy true.
I said much more than just that. I explained the answer you were looking for above. Do not ignore this.
The Bible is true, but demons deceive. Communion is a similar lie: Ezekiel 4 describes bread baked such that it would truly be part of the baker. The Last Supper was similar to this. Demons have corrupted it.
Baptism is the second birth.
-
(http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/4545098228642205743cf3921a771044976e99aa92f6.jpg)
please , ask your god what he think about that system :
(http://)
(http://)
Please , don't deceive me , answer the question
You posted an image, a 45 minute documentary, and inexplicably a song. If you have a question, please write it down rather than expect me to read your mind.
-
You are a deceiver , people like you always turn around and never speak the truth .
you have another chance :
is war justified by your god ?
(http://)
I speak the truth: I simply cannot ask a question that has not been asked. You ask what God thinks of an unspecified system, and offer a song as clarification.
If your question is about war, then this is a complex topic.
It is commonly believed Christ was a pacifist: this is not so.
Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
War is sometimes justified: even encouraged. The correct response to aggression is not to do nothing, it is to react. For example, one commonly misinterpreted passage of the Bible is:
Matthew 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
This is in fact advice on how to fight back. It specifies the right cheek, and there were very specific customs at play in those times. The left hand was not used to beat, and a backhand blow would be how a superior strikes an inferior. If one was struck with the front of the hand, it would be to acknowledge them as an equal: and this is what turning the other cheek would cause.
There is also much to say on, for example, going the second mile.
Matthew 5:41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.
Roman law permitted soldiers to make civilians carry their gear for one mile: and one mile only. If the civilian kept carrying, the soldier would either be put in the undignified position of wrestling to get his equipment back, or the soldier would be disciplined for having their gear carried a second mile.
There is a reason Christ was viewed as enough of a threat by the Romans, to be crucified. He was not a silent, passive figure. What he taught was aggression: the only form of aggression available to the downtrodden. You cannot strike with fists he who is armoured and armed, but this does not prevent you from resisting in other ways.
What Christ taught was war: war against the oppressors, rather than mere survival.
Blessed are the peacemakers, because peace is wrought by resistance. You can have no peace when some are persecuted.
Matthew 5:25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
Even 'love thy enemy' was for purely practical purposes.
Christ taught us the way to wage war, so war is often justified, when it is tackling the aggressor. Unprovoked war, such as Stalin on his own people, or Hitler on the Jews, those are not justified. War for a cause, whether it be to save another or to save yourself, is both justified and blessed. God Himself has fought many wars:
1 Samuel 15:2-3 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
-
'' real '' muslims , will tell you that they absolutely don't want peace .
It is a good thing I make no claims to be a real Muslim, or indeed a Muslim of any kind. Why is Islam under discussion suddenly?
Islam is a scapegoat, no more and no less. There are real problems in the world: power-mad humans, demons, corrupted fools, people who follow blindly. Islam has been chosen as the scapegoat in the present, just as Christianity was chosen in the Crusades. Demons want you to blame men: men are not the source of all evil. Even in Eden it was Satan who was to blame.
you tell your system don't want peace too .
Christianity does want peace, but peace cannot be attained through doing nothing. That way only leads to subjugation and genocide. If victims do nothing, oppressors will continue: when their genocide is complete, another target will be found. How is this peace?
Peace is the goal of Christianity. There will still be peace even should many not accept God's word, for teachings should not be spread by the sword. Indeed, the concept of forcing Christianity onto someone is absurd: a choice means nothing if it is not freely made.
for you , do you think this man is an infidel , or a man with a soul and a brain to think
Everyone is able to think. Wars for the sake of improvement are justified and encouraged; wars to spread God's word are a bastardization put forth by demons, and one of the blackest blasphemies.
-
Why not Heli?
In the bible it says he is Joseph's father.
I explained this. The genealogy of Mary passed to Joseph, as was the custom at the time: everything that was the wife's becomes the husband. The 'as was supposed' demonstrates this. Heli was Mary's father, and what we would call Joseph's father-in-law.
You evidently did not explain it correctly, because that was NOT custom then, nor is it custom now. According to Jewish Law, Jesus WAS a Jew because his mother was one. However, he HAD no paternity that could be qualified as such, since Christians claim that he was the son of the Deity, which by Jewish standards is blasphemy. And given that Jesus was born as a borderline "wrong-side-of-the-blanket" baby anyway, even if we accept that Joseph WAS his father, although he was not TECHNICALLY a bastard, the manner of his birth would have been looked upon VERY unfavourably, and words such as "mamzer" would have been thrown around for most of his life. Finding a mate who was worth more than guttersnipe would have been virtually impossible. Nobody would have wanted their daughter to be with such a man.
This is probably why Jesus never married. He was a social pariah, and always had been. He happened to have considerable rhetorical skills. He was able to attract a following among people that were considered to be of his own social class (namely, other pariahs, and very poor people, who are inclined to listen to about anyone who promises something better).
However, the NT turns into pure BS when it starts talking about him going into the Temple and overturning the table of the moneychangers, and things like that. However laudable a goal that would have been, the fact remains that the Temple was guarded by a very formidable Legionary Guard, which was doubled (and sometimes TRIPLED) on major Jewish festivals. If he had tried to raise a ruckus at the Temple in such a manner, the fucker would have been turned into Swiss cheese by an ever vigilant Roman Guard. It is that simple.
There are plenty of other places where the NT turns into BS as well. I shan't catalogue them all here. But suffice it to say that Jesus was a borderline bastard child of a Joseph and a Mary, if he was anything. Because of his questionable birth, he wasn't going to inherit a damn thing, let alone the Throne of David. And if in fact G-d did decide to be his Divine Parent in some unusual way that he is not with the rest of us (which is blasphemous, but for the sake of argument), then Jesus has NO claim to the Throne of David, since such a claim runs through the father's line, not the mother's, and adoption is not sufficient for that purpose, according to Jewish Law, then or now.
I have considerable disagreement with my atheist friends on this board. They know that, and I know it. But watching them turn you into minced meat is rather funny.
Incidentally, the question about bats being birds? Its a good one. I think the reason the Bible called them birds is not because they are in the scientific sense (they clearly are not, being members of the family Rodenta), but because the Bible is NOT a science book, and it was HIGHLY unlikely that a Jew was going to see a bat up close unless he deliberately tried to catch one. Call it a bird, say, "Don't eat it," and no Jew will hunt it. Simple enough. G-d was not trying to teach us about taxonomy in the Bible, he was teaching us about what to hunt and eat, or not to hunt and eat. I think for his purposes and ours, classifying the bat with the birds was sufficient 3800 years ago. IMHO.
-
You evidently did not explain it correctly, because that was NOT custom then, nor is it custom now. According to Jewish Law, Jesus WAS a Jew because his mother was one. However, he HAD no paternity that could be qualified as such, since Christians claim that he was the son of the Deity, which by Jewish standards is blasphemy.
You begin with a lie, and end withs omething you have already been proven wrong on. Truth is not blasphemy: what God does cannot be blasphemy, by definition.
You insult Christ because you refise to accept God's word. This is your choice, but it is not truth.
However, the NT turns into pure BS when it starts talking about him going into the Temple and overturning the table of the moneychangers, and things like that. However laudable a goal that would have been, the fact remains that the Temple was guarded by a very formidable Legionary Guard, which was doubled (and sometimes TRIPLED) on major Jewish festivals. If he had tried to raise a ruckus at the Temple in such a manner, the fucker would have been turned into Swiss cheese by an ever vigilant Roman Guard. It is that simple.
Do you think God incompetent?
then Jesus has NO claim to the Throne of David, since such a claim runs through the father's line, not the mother's, and adoption is not sufficient for that purpose, according to Jewish Law, then or now.
Assuming Joseph's seed was not involved (mere transportation and blessing is hardly beyond God's power) and I doubt there is a throne in the world God Himself is not owed.
Psalm 24:1 A Psalm of David. The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.
I have considerable disagreement with my atheist friends on this board. They know that, and I know it. But watching them turn you into minced meat is rather funny.
Ephesians 4:29-31 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice
Incidentally, the question about bats being birds? Its a good one.
It is also one I answered very simply.
-
*GRIN* Thank you for doing my job for me. I don't have to make you look the fool. You've done that quite handily.
-
*GRIN* Thank you for doing my job for me. I don't have to make you look the fool. You've done that quite handily.
Believe what you wish. You have free will, as God gave us all. I ask only that you try to lessen the anger you so obviously feel. Wrath is a sin, and you have much of it: far more than one would expect to be roused by one you claim is a mere fool.
-
You are the only person in the world who can take the idea of a person laughing at another person's being made to look the fool and misconstrue it into the first person being "full of wrath". I submit that it is you who are wrathful at being made to look foolish, both by atheists on one hand, and by a Jew on the other. I would do something about that if I were you. Anger management classes? Meds, perhaps?
-
You are the only person in the world who can take the idea of a person laughing at another person's being made to look the fool and misconstrue it into the first person being "full of wrath". I submit that it is you who are wrathful at being made to look foolish, both by atheists on one hand, and by a Jew on the other. I would do something about that if I were you. Anger management classes? Meds, perhaps?
Proverbs 14:6-9 A scorner seeketh wisdom, and findeth it not: but knowledge is easy unto him that understandeth. Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge. The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way: but the folly of fools is deceit.
Fools make a mock at sin: but among the righteous there is favour.
-
I'm sorry, but there should be a crime in this country called "felony stupid". And anyone who commits it should be sentenced to hard labour in a penal camp. And anyone who attempts to call the Bible a science book, and the bat a bird, is guilty of that crime. It is that simple. They are not stupid themselves, but they are committing the crime of felony stupid. It is a violation of the Criminal Code, or should be.
Now I shall do what thy quote adviseth and go from the presence of a foolish man (thou), since I perceive not in thee the lips of knowledge. I shall use unto thee the familiar form, since thou deservest not the formal form of respect. Thou art a fool, deserving only of scorn. Thou deservest only that which is most base, and lacking in dignity. I suspect that thou canst not communicate in this most noble form of the language, except for rote memorisation. Thou canst likely not write unto thyself original thoughts therein. That would require that thou wouldst possess intelligence, which thou hast none of.
-
I'm sorry, but there should be a crime in this country called "felony stupid". And anyone who commits it should be sentenced to hard labour in a penal camp. And anyone who attempts to call the Bible a science book, and the bat a bird, is guilty of that crime. It is that simple. They are not stupid themselves, but they are committing the crime of felony stupid. It is a violation of the Criminal Code, or should be.
Now I shall do what thy quote adviseth and go from the presence of a foolish man (thou), since I perceive not in thee the lips of knowledge. I shall use unto thee the familiar form, since thou deservest not the formal form of respect. Thou art a fool, deserving only of scorn. Thou deservest only that which is most base, and lacking in dignity. I suspect that thou canst not communicate in this most noble form of the language, except for rote memorisation. Thou canst likely not write unto thyself original thoughts therein. That would require that thou wouldst possess intelligence, which thou hast none of.
I do not call bats birds, by the modern definitions. The moden definition did not exist then. If the Bible said the sky was blue, and five years ago someone rewrote the dictionaries and replaced blue and green, would the Bible be wrong?
Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
-
I'm sorry, but there should be a crime in this country called "felony stupid". And anyone who commits it should be sentenced to hard labour in a penal camp. And anyone who attempts to call the Bible a science book, and the bat a bird, is guilty of that crime. It is that simple. They are not stupid themselves, but they are committing the crime of felony stupid. It is a violation of the Criminal Code, or should be.
Now I shall do what thy quote adviseth and go from the presence of a foolish man (thou), since I perceive not in thee the lips of knowledge. I shall use unto thee the familiar form, since thou deservest not the formal form of respect. Thou art a fool, deserving only of scorn. Thou deservest only that which is most base, and lacking in dignity. I suspect that thou canst not communicate in this most noble form of the language, except for rote memorisation. Thou canst likely not write unto thyself original thoughts therein. That would require that thou wouldst possess intelligence, which thou hast none of.
I do not call bats birds, by the modern definitions. The moden definition did not exist then. If the Bible said the sky was blue, and five years ago someone rewrote the dictionaries and replaced blue and green, would the Bible be wrong?
Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
Well, I should follow the Proverb, but I won't, for a moment. Are you trying to tell me that no ancient Jew ever brought down a bird and a bat and a rat, and didn't compare the three, and notice that a bat has much more in common with a rat than it does with a bird?! My G-d, you are looking more and more foolish every time you open your mouth!
-
I'm sorry, but there should be a crime in this country called "felony stupid". And anyone who commits it should be sentenced to hard labour in a penal camp. And anyone who attempts to call the Bible a science book, and the bat a bird, is guilty of that crime. It is that simple. They are not stupid themselves, but they are committing the crime of felony stupid. It is a violation of the Criminal Code, or should be.
Now I shall do what thy quote adviseth and go from the presence of a foolish man (thou), since I perceive not in thee the lips of knowledge. I shall use unto thee the familiar form, since thou deservest not the formal form of respect. Thou art a fool, deserving only of scorn. Thou deservest only that which is most base, and lacking in dignity. I suspect that thou canst not communicate in this most noble form of the language, except for rote memorisation. Thou canst likely not write unto thyself original thoughts therein. That would require that thou wouldst possess intelligence, which thou hast none of.
I do not call bats birds, by the modern definitions. The moden definition did not exist then. If the Bible said the sky was blue, and five years ago someone rewrote the dictionaries and replaced blue and green, would the Bible be wrong?
Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
Well, I should follow the Proverb, but I won't, for a moment. Are you trying to tell me that no ancient Jew ever brought down a bird and a bat and a rat, and didn't compare the three, and notice that a bat has much more in common with a rat than it does with a bird?! My G-d, you are looking more and more foolish every time you open your mouth!
I'm simply saying that's not relevant. The definition of 'bird' used was clearly 'creature with wings' or something akin to that: this was the only definition that existed then. What word would you suggest they use? A word has been redefined between now and when the Bible was written. This does not make the Bible wrong.
Proverbs 10:14 Wise men lay up knowledge: but the mouth of the foolish is near destruction.
-
the jihad of jesus in the bible , someone can explain me ?
Please be more specific.
Also, it isn't necessary to add images every time you post. At best they add nothing: more often they mystify.
-
The Bible also says that rabbits (which the KJV translates as "coney") chew their cud, when in fact they do not. Like I said, it is NOT a science book, but rather a book fo great spiritual wisdom. I wouldn't expect you to realise this, of course.
-
'' real '' muslims , will tell you that they absolutely don't want peace .
It is a good thing I make no claims to be a real Muslim, or indeed a Muslim of any kind. Why is Islam under discussion suddenly?
Islam is a scapegoat, no more and no less. There are real problems in the world: power-mad humans, demons, corrupted fools, people who follow blindly. Islam has been chosen as the scapegoat in the present, just as Christianity was chosen in the Crusades. Demons want you to blame men: men are not the source of all evil. Even in Eden it was Satan who was to blame.
you tell your system don't want peace too .
Christianity does want peace, but peace cannot be attained through doing nothing. That way only leads to subjugation and genocide. If victims do nothing, oppressors will continue: when their genocide is complete, another target will be found. How is this peace?
Peace is the goal of Christianity. There will still be peace even should many not accept God's word, for teachings should not be spread by the sword. Indeed, the concept of forcing Christianity onto someone is absurd: a choice means nothing if it is not freely made.
for you , do you think this man is an infidel , or a man with a soul and a brain to think
Everyone is able to think. Wars for the sake of improvement are justified and encouraged; wars to spread God's word are a bastardization put forth by demons, and one of the blackest blasphemies.
(http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/209473nobelpeaceprizejpg70a89ab8e4a1cada.jpg)
the jhiad of jesus in the bible , i want an explanation please
(http://)
I do not know what you are referring to. Please can you write a question clearly rather than posting images, youtube videos and vague sentences I have already queried and expecting me to puzzle it out.
-
The Bible also says that rabbits (which the KJV translates as "coney") chew their cud, when in fact they do not. Like I said, it is NOT a science book, but rather a book fo great spiritual wisdom. I wouldn't expect you to realise this, of course.
Book, chapter and verse please. It is impossible to address criticism unless you offer context.
The Bible is a book of truth. What is within it, is truth. Its primary goal is to allow us to forge a relationship with God, but God would not do this by telling us a lie. God does not lie. The science contained within it is accurate, so long as one does the obvious thing and consider the limitations and evolution of language.
-
The Bible also says that rabbits (which the KJV translates as "coney") chew their cud, when in fact they do not. Like I said, it is NOT a science book, but rather a book fo great spiritual wisdom. I wouldn't expect you to realise this, of course.
Book, chapter and verse please. It is impossible to address criticism unless you offer context.
The Bible is a book of truth. What is within it, is truth. Its primary goal is to allow us to forge a relationship with God, but God would not do this by telling us a lie. God does not lie. The science contained within it is accurate, so long as one does the obvious thing and consider the limitations and evolution of language.
You aren't that bright. Deuteronomy 14:7 QUOTE-Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.-END QUOTE KJV
Neither the hare nor the coney (rabbit) chew the cud. This verse does not bother me. It appears as though they do. In fact, they do not, but for a Jew 3800 years ago, the appearance was sufficient, and the book is not a science book. Ergo, the appearance was what was at stake. But to say that it actually DOES chew the cud, or ever did, is simply idiotic.
GTG now. I shall be back to torment you later.
-
I'm leaving for the day.
Healthy Earth, it is impossible to answer a question I do not understand. I have asked you about this before. I am not sure why you feel the need to make every post in the same baffling format, it is impossible to determine your meaning. You may think you are being clear but I do not share your thought processes so I cannot understand you are saying.
if you are going to ask about part of the Bible, the basic thing to do should be to include the chapter and verse (if it is a specific bit). If it is an aspect of overall Christianity you are asking about, please refer to Christianity. Jihad is a Muslim term, it is very hard to cross-reference. Jihad, too, means multiple things: an internal struggle against sin, or an external war. Jesus was involved in the former and not the latter in the Bible, but I don't know what you could be asking about that.
If you are going to clarify, please do not use images or links to youtube vides. Please use your own words, and please do not simply repeat "The Jihad of Jesus please explain." I do not know what Jihad you are referring to, or what aspect you want explained.
If you simply post more images and youtube links I will ignore you. This is an advance warning so you will be aware of the consequence, and it is entirely your choice what you do.
The Bible also says that rabbits (which the KJV translates as "coney") chew their cud, when in fact they do not. Like I said, it is NOT a science book, but rather a book fo great spiritual wisdom. I wouldn't expect you to realise this, of course.
Book, chapter and verse please. It is impossible to address criticism unless you offer context.
The Bible is a book of truth. What is within it, is truth. Its primary goal is to allow us to forge a relationship with God, but God would not do this by telling us a lie. God does not lie. The science contained within it is accurate, so long as one does the obvious thing and consider the limitations and evolution of language.
You aren't that bright. Deuteronomy 14:7 QUOTE-Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.-END QUOTE KJV
Neither the hare nor the coney (rabbit) chew the cud. This verse does not bother me. It appears as though they do. In fact, they do not, but for a Jew 3800 years ago, the appearance was sufficient, and the book is not a science book. Ergo, the appearance was what was at stake. But to say that it actually DOES chew the cud, or ever did, is simply idiotic.
You insult when I ask you to do the most basic thing when asking a question: be clear. Consider why that is. I respond kindly and clearly, and every time you resort to insults.
Chew the cud means something very different. In a certain fashion, rabbits do: 'chewing the cud' is when an animal regurgitates predigested food to chew it again. Rabbits do eat predigested food, it merely goes out the other end first. You are again using human redefinition as an argument against God's word. This is flawed.
-
That is without a doubt the most ridiculous response to the problem I have ever heard. So, the fact that the rabbit eats its own shit means that it chews cud? Your first quote was correct out of Proverbs. Paraphrased, it basically said, never argue with a fool. I am inclined to agree that arguing with you is a bad idea. You can't reinterpret chewing the cud as eating your own shit! Even if doing so is helpful from a nutritional POV, it still does NOT mean the same same thing, and to argue that it does is to play games with English. Chewing the cud means, and has ALWAYS meant, to have a ruminant stomach. It does not mean, and has never meant, to shit and then turn around and eat it. There are separate concepts for that in Hebrew (vs being a ruminant) and there always have been. Moses would have written the difference had he known the difference. The fact is, to HIM it looked as though the Rabbit and the Hare were chewing their cud. That was sufficient for G-d's purpose.
The same is true of Birds vs. Bats. A bat is not, and never has been, a bird. No Jew who has ever looked at the two up close, and then a rat, up close, would ever mistake the the three. But the thing flies, and that was sufficient for G-d's purpose. But Hebrew has always had a distinction between Rodents and Avians. And the fact is the Bat is a Rodent, NOT an Avian. To suggest otherwise, and to suggest that the word has somehow magically redefined itself to suit your pet theories of theology, is simply to make an ass of yourself.
As for calling names, I note that you have quoted Scripture to your purpose (which the devil may do, as well as the saint) to insinuate that I am a fool, in spite of the fact that in two threads now I have made you look a fool. Sounds like one of us has some personal problems. Cans we say the word "transferance"? Try hard now. Trans-fer-ance. Good boy!
Christianity is a perverse faith to begin with, with the whole idea that G-d becomes man. This is blasphemous in and of itself. It is basically idolatry to the extreme. Worshiping a man as G-d is so offensive it cannot even be contemplated. According to Halacha (Jewish Law), the punishment for it is death on the spot, without question. You are merely lucky not to live in a Halachic State, and two that, even if you did, Jews have always given Christians a pass, simply because we know that, however perverse this belief may be, there is still an intent to worship the One True G-d.
And you, with your even stranger ideas to add to the whole thing, make Christianity even more perverted than it already is (if that is even possible to do). You have added another layer of idolatry, namely, bibliolatry, idolatry of the Bible, specifically in its Authorised King James Version. Anyone who claims that the text of the Authorised Version is without error should be arrested, again for the offence of Felony Stupid, and sentenced to Hard Correctional Labour in a Penal Camp for at least five years. Afterword they should be sentenced to lifetime House Arrest and denied use of the phone or Internet so they cannot infect others with this form of Felonious Stupidity.
I have even shown you a couple of the errors IN the Authorised Version, and yet you are still unwise enough to hold to such a primitively, ridiculously, stupid argument. You have issues. Severe ones, that should be checked out by doctors, both on the medical side to make sure you don't have lesions on your brain or something, and mentally, to make sure you are not suffering from mental retardation or some form of mental illness that affects your reasoning capacity. I can recommend very good doctors, psychiatrists, and psychologists if you tell me where you live and it happens to be in the United States.
-
That is without a doubt the most ridiculous response to the problem I have ever heard. So, the fact that the rabbit eats its own shit means that it chews cud? Your first quote was correct out of Proverbs. Paraphrased, it basically said, never argue with a fool. I am inclined to agree that arguing with you is a bad idea. You can't reinterpret chewing the cud as eating your own shit! Even if doing so is helpful from a nutritional POV, it still does NOT mean the same same thing, and to argue that it does is to play games with English. Chewing the cud means, and has ALWAYS meant, to have a ruminant stomach. It does not mean, and has never meant, to shit and then turn around and eat it. There are separate concepts for that in Hebrew (vs being a ruminant) and there always have been. Moses would have written the difference had he known the difference. The fact is, to HIM it looked as though the Rabbit and the Hare were chewing their cud. That was sufficient for G-d's purpose.
The same is true of Birds vs. Bats. A bat is not, and never has been, a bird. No Jew who has ever looked at the two up close, and then a rat, up close, would ever mistake the the three. But the thing flies, and that was sufficient for G-d's purpose. But Hebrew has always had a distinction between Rodents and Avians. And the fact is the Bat is a Rodent, NOT an Avian. To suggest otherwise, and to suggest that the word has somehow magically redefined itself to suit your pet theories of theology, is simply to make an ass of yourself.
If the Bible said the sky was blue, and someone rewrote the dictionaries and switched blue and green, would this make the Bible wrong? 'Chew the cud' did not mean anything so technical as you claim when it was used. 'Bird' did not mean anything so technical as you claim when it was used. I find yoru hypocrisy astonishing: your explanation of the bats-and-birds passage was the exact same, and yet it is unacceptable when I state it.
Language changes with time. The fault is not with the writer of a text, it is with the foolish reader who refuses to acknowledge this.
As for calling names, I note that you have quoted Scripture to your purpose (which the devil may do, as well as the saint) to insinuate that I am a fool, in spite of the fact that in two threads now I have made you look a fool. Sounds like one of us has some personal problems. Cans we say the word "transferance"? Try hard now. Trans-fer-ance. Good boy!
Proverbs 12:16 A fool's wrath is presently known: but a prudent man covereth shame.
I am not the fool.
Christianity is a perverse faith to begin with, with the whole idea that G-d becomes man. This is blasphemous in and of itself. It is basically idolatry to the extreme. Worshiping a man as G-d is so offensive it cannot even be contemplated. According to Halacha (Jewish Law), the punishment for it is death on the spot, without question. You are merely lucky not to live in a Halachic State, and two that, even if you did, Jews have always given Christians a pass, simply because we know that, however perverse this belief may be, there is still an intent to worship the One True G-d.
And you, with your even stranger ideas to add to the whole thing, make Christianity even more perverted than it already is (if that is even possible to do). You have added another layer of idolatry, namely, bibliolatry, idolatry of the Bible, specifically in its Authorised King James Version. Anyone who claims that the text of the Authorised Version is without error should be arrested, again for the offence of Felony Stupid, and sentenced to Hard Correctional Labour in a Penal Camp for at least five years. Afterword they should be sentenced to lifetime House Arrest and denied use of the phone or Internet so they cannot infect others with this form of Felonious Stupidity.
Truth is not blasphemy. God used a man's form: why would this be beyond God's power? He has spoken through man before, and He has manifested in far more humble forms, such as a burning bush. And why is it perverted to state that God would let us understand His word?
I have even shown you a couple of the errors IN the Authorised Version, and yet you are still unwise enough to hold to such a primitively, ridiculously, stupid argument. You have issues. Severe ones, that should be checked out by doctors, both on the medical side to make sure you don't have lesions on your brain or something, and mentally, to make sure you are not suffering from mental retardation or some form of mental illness that affects your reasoning capacity. I can recommend very good doctors, psychiatrists, and psychologists if you tell me where you live and it happens to be in the United States.
You have made false claims in your effort to discredit God's word. This does not mean you have pointed out an error. If you will refuse to accept that they are not errors, merely a result of language changing with time, this is your decision, but it is not truth.
-
please , don't deceive me another time , and don't answer me like a politician , a politician don't care about the truth , isn't it so ?
all the informations you asked for are in this very clear video , the chapter , the verse and all that you need to think before you answer me about jesus telling to slay his ennemies in front of him .
(http://)
i wait for your answer .
I do not deceive. I answer questions. You do not pose questions, you expect me to puzzle out your meaning when you are being incredibly ambiguous. You do not need to link to images or videos. Indeed, I specifically asked you not to.
All you need write down is "Please can you explain Luke 19:27?" Why is this difficult? Why is all you do posting whole videos and songs and images?
The explanation is trivial, regardless. It is not Christ talking, he was quoting another in a parable.
-
Thank you for proving my point. Case closed. ;D ;D
-
luke 19 : 27
But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”
Trivial to kill people ?
No. I did not say anything that could even be remotely construed as that. You are simply ignoring what I said.
Christ did not command that, he was quoting another in a parable. It was not his command.
Ignorance is your choice, but do not lie.
-
who was he quoting and where have you seen that , reference , text .
It is Luke 19. It begins below.
Luke 19:11-12 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return...
You are welcome to read the rest. It is known as the Parable of the Ten Minas. It focuses on the topic of serving God: if you do not, you will be damned to Hell. This is the death refered to: Hell is the second death.
-
you don't say a parable that you are not in harmony with it .
if you are in harmony with butchery , there you are .
to hide behind a parable or the word god don't change the facts .
muslims butchers hides behind the word god to kill , they say this is god will and that they serve god by doing that .
I am in harmony with the parable because, by the definition of parable, it is not a literal story. It simply states that those who do not do as God asks will be punished: a punishment likened to a death so that man will understand it.
Your claim about Muslims is a dangerous one. There are extremists everywhere, in every religion, Islam is simply the scapegoat of this time. Not long ago it was communists.
-
I will make it simple for you , because people like you refuse the lie evidence .
So ,
your god is the real god ....
muslims claim to have the one an only god too ,
houston , we have a problem , someone lie , and he do it in the sacred name of love , who is it ?
who of you or muslims lie , can you tell me such a trivial thing without importance at all ?
Why must you preface a query with an insult? I do not ignore evidence: I rely upon it. Not all evidence is equally valid, however. Some come from dishonest sources.
There is a difference between telling a lie, and simply being mistaken or deceived. A 'lie' is a term only to be used in certain situations. It is wholly possible neither Christians nor Muslims lie, generally speaking.
In answer to the question I believe you intend to ask, as to whether what I say, or what a Muslim says, is accurate, why would you listen to my word? Instead, I ask you to ask God. Pray with an open mind and an open heart to know the truth, and you will feel the Holy Spirit come inside you, and you will feel the truth of the Bible be expressed to you.
The Bible is accurate. Nothing I say will serve as evidence of this, however, which is why God has given you the means to verify it for yourself.
-
Healthy Earth, if you have anything intelligible or relevant to say, or any further questions, I am here. Your posts are never as clear as you seem to believe. Images and inexplicable songs confuse rather than clarify.
-
when the soup is too hot , the politician answer is always on the menu .
Think about it .
You offer nothing to think about. Do not complain about the quality of answer you get, when your 'questions' are songs and images. Why are you unable to simply write down what it is you want to say, without referring to newspaper cartoons and singers?
-
You definitely have to remove your blinders , and stop hiding you behind obscur scriptures and see the truth as it is
I do. God is the one that tells us the truth. Scripture is not obscure, it is available to everyone, and if you read it without being influenced by what claimed humans claim to know, it is clear.
in the name of god
Humans sin. This is no surprise.
in the past , ( let's try to find what they may have in common )
(http://)
That is a movie.
And , after seeing the truth , with your great wisdom , tell me if it must stay like that forever .
But if a little piece of life and conciousness still remains in your heart , and you are tired of all these butchery ,
Tell me what is the solution to restore peace in this world
I ask again, what truth? This time you link to open fiction as though it is evidence. Why do you not speak for yourself? Why can you not simply write what it is you believe clearly? I am not the one being obscure he. You persistently and cosntantly refuse to offer any clarity whatsoever.
Humans are sinful creatures. Religion is not to blame for that, we are. People will sin in the name of anything: do not blame the scapegoat, blame man.
-
When you have questions that you can actually write, I will answer.
-
Since this has gone from "ask 'bout god" to "ask about the bible's incoherences and I will defend them because I think it is perfect":
Why is the creation account in the bible completelly wrong?
Why does the bible think pi = 3, when even the greeks knew that if the apothemic ratio of a shape is 3, its an hexagon, not a circle (1 Kings 7:23)?
The bible claims that the sky is actually a firmament of metal, tightened to the earth like a tent, with stars sticked on it. This is not the case. Why?
Why does Genesis I and Genesis II have two completelly oposite accounts of the creation?
etc.
They where measuring the inside of the basin just like you would measure the inside if the door frame. The brass was a hand breath think on those things.
-
Since this has gone from "ask 'bout god" to "ask about the bible's incoherences and I will defend them because I think it is perfect":
Why is the creation account in the bible completelly wrong?
Why does the bible think pi = 3, when even the greeks knew that if the apothemic ratio of a shape is 3, its an hexagon, not a circle (1 Kings 7:23)?
The bible claims that the sky is actually a firmament of metal, tightened to the earth like a tent, with stars sticked on it. This is not the case. Why?
Why does Genesis I and Genesis II have two completelly oposite accounts of the creation?
etc.
They where measuring the inside of the basin just like you would measure the inside if the door frame. The brass was a hand breath think on those things.
Doesnt dismiss the fact that the ratio given is not coherent with a circle, but a hexagon. But it was described as a circular basin.
-
Since this has gone from "ask 'bout god" to "ask about the bible's incoherences and I will defend them because I think it is perfect":
Why is the creation account in the bible completelly wrong?
Why does the bible think pi = 3, when even the greeks knew that if the apothemic ratio of a shape is 3, its an hexagon, not a circle (1 Kings 7:23)?
The bible claims that the sky is actually a firmament of metal, tightened to the earth like a tent, with stars sticked on it. This is not the case. Why?
Why does Genesis I and Genesis II have two completelly oposite accounts of the creation?
etc.
They where measuring the inside of the basin just like you would measure the inside if the door frame. The brass was a hand breath think on those things.
Doesnt dismiss the fact that the ratio given is not coherent with a circle, but a hexagon. But it was described as a circular basin.
Double the handbreath (since there's a handbreath on each side of the circle) and use the cubit (elbow to fingertip) and do the formula for a circle and its perfect the way it is.
-
Since this has gone from "ask 'bout god" to "ask about the bible's incoherences and I will defend them because I think it is perfect":
Why is the creation account in the bible completelly wrong?
Why does the bible think pi = 3, when even the greeks knew that if the apothemic ratio of a shape is 3, its an hexagon, not a circle (1 Kings 7:23)?
The bible claims that the sky is actually a firmament of metal, tightened to the earth like a tent, with stars sticked on it. This is not the case. Why?
Why does Genesis I and Genesis II have two completelly oposite accounts of the creation?
etc.
They where measuring the inside of the basin just like you would measure the inside if the door frame. The brass was a hand breath think on those things.
Doesnt dismiss the fact that the ratio given is not coherent with a circle, but a hexagon. But it was described as a circular basin.
Double the handbreath (since there's a handbreath on each side of the circle) and use the cubit (elbow to fingertip) and do the formula for a circle and its perfect the way it is.
Its not. The measures are internal. It not like it is any important, but to claim the bible is ALL correct is dumb
-
Genesis 2:4-5 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
The plants and shrubs had been created, but could not flourish or truly grow until man existed to tend to them.
Oh, so God created the plant class, but didnt instance it. Then why did he plant.create()? That's just shitty OOP, man.
I believe in God because I have prayed, and felt His Holy Spirit. You may do the same, if you honestly wish to seke the truth.
So I can only know whether God exists or not if I believe he exists? Besides, every other religion gives me the same speech. What benefits does your God grant me, compared to, for example, Ahura Mazda?
You have been misled by the demons who seek to draw people from God's path.
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
They are the cause of the lies that make people doubt His truth: the flat world, the dome of sky.
Sure, why not.
I didn't know you were a programmer! Nice to know that there's at least one other person here who actually knows about programming.
-
So you either subscribe to the theory of lastfridaynism (meaning that god created an aged universe, for some reason), you believe in a tuner god like the Intelligent Design crowd do (life evolved via the mechanisms we know, but was supervised by god) or... (continue reading). I personally don't find anything specifically idiotic about this two, they are just beliefs, designed to be untestifyiable and unfalsafiable, so they are not science. As belief systems? Fine by me, as long as no one tries to pass them as science. The other missing posibility is that you think that, while all evidence points against it, you believe in the christian creation myth. Why would anyone do that mindboggles me.
I believe God does not lie: the story He tells us is accurate. Demons try to draw us away from it, but it remains true. You have been conditioned to believe it unlikely, but it is not so: God knows far more of the world than a mortal.
I still dont understand your usage of "Randomness". What do you mean by that?
Randomness is an ungoverned process. Nature only produces randomness, even if that randomness is subject to certain laws. Life forming relationships that fit together like puzzle pieces is nonsensical. Either evolution would make great changes which we should observe, or it makes changes too small to make a difference because they would vanish as much as continue, because the process is governed by randomness.
I know, but as I said, that definition is the assumption of the argument, not the conclusion. In other words, you just chose that definition, but neither you or Anselm have proven it.
It is not an assumption: it is a concept that is tested. If there exists such a being, it is God. God exists, so there is such a being.
Who do I pray to? Ahura Mazda? The Great Juju up the mountain? All gnostic religions ever (like catholicism) claim that I can know the truth if I follow their steps, and all agnostic ones claim that I can know their deity by following their commands. Who do I believe? Did you prayed to Ahura Mazda? Because Mr.Prophet here claims he didnt, but he doesnt need to, because he has found the truth of The triumphant, Broad end of all, Lord-Master of the Universe, Incomprehensible by anyone, Comprehensible of all, Reason of reasons.
Pray to know the truth. You do not need to pray to a deity by name; God would not only inspire faith in those that already have it. God wishes all to come to Him. If you ask with an open heart and an open mind to know the truth, to know whether He or any creature is real, His Holy Spirit will cme to you and you will know.
There is no such thing as randomness. Everything can be predicted given enough information.
-
Since this has gone from "ask 'bout god" to "ask about the bible's incoherences and I will defend them because I think it is perfect":
Why is the creation account in the bible completelly wrong?
Why does the bible think pi = 3, when even the greeks knew that if the apothemic ratio of a shape is 3, its an hexagon, not a circle (1 Kings 7:23)?
The bible claims that the sky is actually a firmament of metal, tightened to the earth like a tent, with stars sticked on it. This is not the case. Why?
Why does Genesis I and Genesis II have two completelly oposite accounts of the creation?
etc.
They where measuring the inside of the basin just like you would measure the inside if the door frame. The brass was a hand breath think on those things.
Doesnt dismiss the fact that the ratio given is not coherent with a circle, but a hexagon. But it was described as a circular basin.
Double the handbreath (since there's a handbreath on each side of the circle) and use the cubit (elbow to fingertip) and do the formula for a circle and its perfect the way it is.
Its not. The measures are internal. It not like it is any important, but to claim the bible is ALL correct is dumb
That's what I've been saying but didnt said it properly. And it's up to you to prove the Bible wrong since the text can't defend itself.
-
So you either subscribe to the theory of lastfridaynism (meaning that god created an aged universe, for some reason), you believe in a tuner god like the Intelligent Design crowd do (life evolved via the mechanisms we know, but was supervised by god) or... (continue reading). I personally don't find anything specifically idiotic about this two, they are just beliefs, designed to be untestifyiable and unfalsafiable, so they are not science. As belief systems? Fine by me, as long as no one tries to pass them as science. The other missing posibility is that you think that, while all evidence points against it, you believe in the christian creation myth. Why would anyone do that mindboggles me.
I believe God does not lie: the story He tells us is accurate. Demons try to draw us away from it, but it remains true. You have been conditioned to believe it unlikely, but it is not so: God knows far more of the world than a mortal.
I still dont understand your usage of "Randomness". What do you mean by that?
Randomness is an ungoverned process. Nature only produces randomness, even if that randomness is subject to certain laws. Life forming relationships that fit together like puzzle pieces is nonsensical. Either evolution would make great changes which we should observe, or it makes changes too small to make a difference because they would vanish as much as continue, because the process is governed by randomness.
I know, but as I said, that definition is the assumption of the argument, not the conclusion. In other words, you just chose that definition, but neither you or Anselm have proven it.
It is not an assumption: it is a concept that is tested. If there exists such a being, it is God. God exists, so there is such a being.
Who do I pray to? Ahura Mazda? The Great Juju up the mountain? All gnostic religions ever (like catholicism) claim that I can know the truth if I follow their steps, and all agnostic ones claim that I can know their deity by following their commands. Who do I believe? Did you prayed to Ahura Mazda? Because Mr.Prophet here claims he didnt, but he doesnt need to, because he has found the truth of The triumphant, Broad end of all, Lord-Master of the Universe, Incomprehensible by anyone, Comprehensible of all, Reason of reasons.
Pray to know the truth. You do not need to pray to a deity by name; God would not only inspire faith in those that already have it. God wishes all to come to Him. If you ask with an open heart and an open mind to know the truth, to know whether He or any creature is real, His Holy Spirit will cme to you and you will know.
There is no such thing as randomness. Everything can be predicted given enough information.
That is not (EDIT: necesarilly) true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem)
-
If god is all good and loving, why did he create parasites? I'm thinking especially of this worm that can only survive by eating the eyes of little childeren from the inside out, only to nest inside and lay offspring. My first thought was that the world could actually be a better place whitout this worm, don't you agree?
-
If god is all good and loving, why did he create parasites? I'm thinking especially of this worm that can only survive by eating the eyes of little childeren from the inside out, only to nest inside and lay offspring. My first thought was that the world could actually be a better place whitout this worm, don't you agree?
It wouldn't be better for the worm.
-
If god is all good and loving, why did he create parasites? I'm thinking especially of this worm that can only survive by eating the eyes of little childeren from the inside out, only to nest inside and lay offspring. My first thought was that the world could actually be a better place whitout this worm, don't you agree?
It wouldn't be better for the worm.
He could change or create the worm in such a way that its reproduction requires no external suffering. Many worms reproduce without the need of a host.
-
If god is all good and loving, why did he create parasites? I'm thinking especially of this worm that can only survive by eating the eyes of little childeren from the inside out, only to nest inside and lay offspring. My first thought was that the world could actually be a better place whitout this worm, don't you agree?
It wouldn't be better for the worm.
He could change or create the worm in such a way that its reproduction requires no external suffering. Many worms reproduce without the need of a host.
Then it wouldn't be the same worm.
I'm not saying I necessarily believe this, but it's a very human-centric viewpoint: if there's a God, there's no reason to think our comfort would be prioritized over the life of that worm.
-
If god is all good and loving, why did he create parasites? I'm thinking especially of this worm that can only survive by eating the eyes of little childeren from the inside out, only to nest inside and lay offspring. My first thought was that the world could actually be a better place whitout this worm, don't you agree?
It wouldn't be better for the worm.
He could change or create the worm in such a way that its reproduction requires no external suffering. Many worms reproduce without the need of a host.
Then it wouldn't be the same worm.
I'm not saying I necessarily believe this, but it's a very human-centric viewpoint: if there's a God, there's no reason to think our comfort would be prioritized over the life of that worm.
You are right, but a God that, given the choice of doing worms a particular way, and creating them in a diferent way that causes no harm, and does the former, is not a prefectly good and loving God. And dont tell me "Oh, but maybe the consequences were worse", because God, being omnipotent, can counter every possible consequence. Omnniscience and Omnipotency, a world where pain exists, and a perfectly good and loving God are incompatible. At least one of this must be false.
-
If god is all good and loving, why did he create parasites? I'm thinking especially of this worm that can only survive by eating the eyes of little childeren from the inside out, only to nest inside and lay offspring. My first thought was that the world could actually be a better place whitout this worm, don't you agree?
It wouldn't be better for the worm.
He could change or create the worm in such a way that its reproduction requires no external suffering. Many worms reproduce without the need of a host.
Then it wouldn't be the same worm.
I'm not saying I necessarily believe this, but it's a very human-centric viewpoint: if there's a God, there's no reason to think our comfort would be prioritized over the life of that worm.
You are right, but a God that, given the choice of doing worms a particular way, and creating them in a diferent way that causes no harm, and does the former, is not a prefectly good and loving God. And dont tell me "Oh, but maybe the consequences were worse", because God, being omnipotent, can counter every possible consequence. Omnniscience and Omnipotency, a world where pain exists, and a perfectly good and loving God are incompatible. At least one of this must be false.
Omnipotence isn't that clear cut: can God create a rock so heavy even he acnnot lift it? If something is ultimately impossible (and you don't know for certain that this isn't the best of all possible worlds) it's easy to define a God that can't do that which is logically impossible. And if you let God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it, then he can perform logical contardictions, and so can be loving while still doing what you say. Omnipotence is a source of fun paradoxes, more than logical deduction.
The real crux is: what is loving? Maybe he's being particularly loving to the worm, giving it a perfect host: maybe the pain is important, maybe it doesn't register.
-
If god is all good and loving, why did he create parasites? I'm thinking especially of this worm that can only survive by eating the eyes of little childeren from the inside out, only to nest inside and lay offspring. My first thought was that the world could actually be a better place whitout this worm, don't you agree?
It wouldn't be better for the worm.
He could change or create the worm in such a way that its reproduction requires no external suffering. Many worms reproduce without the need of a host.
Then it wouldn't be the same worm.
I'm not saying I necessarily believe this, but it's a very human-centric viewpoint: if there's a God, there's no reason to think our comfort would be prioritized over the life of that worm.
You are right, but a God that, given the choice of doing worms a particular way, and creating them in a diferent way that causes no harm, and does the former, is not a prefectly good and loving God. And dont tell me "Oh, but maybe the consequences were worse", because God, being omnipotent, can counter every possible consequence. Omnniscience and Omnipotency, a world where pain exists, and a perfectly good and loving God are incompatible. At least one of this must be false.
Omnipotence isn't that clear cut: can God create a rock so heavy even he acnnot lift it? If something is ultimately impossible (and you don't know for certain that this isn't the best of all possible worlds) it's easy to define a God that can't do that which is logically impossible. And if you let God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it, then he can perform logical contardictions, and so can be loving while still doing what you say. Omnipotence is a source of fun paradoxes, more than logical deduction.
The real crux is: what is loving? Maybe he's being particularly loving to the worm, giving it a perfect host: maybe the pain is important, maybe it doesn't register.
Maybe he did or maybe this is pure speculation. All I know is that in the bible god says he create the universe purely for mankind. Why would he do that if he loved the worm so much?
-
If god is all good and loving, why did he create parasites? I'm thinking especially of this worm that can only survive by eating the eyes of little childeren from the inside out, only to nest inside and lay offspring. My first thought was that the world could actually be a better place whitout this worm, don't you agree?
That worm could be a species of a kind of worm that didn't eat human eyes. Or maybe in the original creation that worm didn't eat human eyes. God created everything to the benifit of mankind. To compare today's world and ask God why he made it this way is like looking at a wrecked Chevy and asking Chevy why they built it that way.
-
If god is all good and loving, why did he create parasites? I'm thinking especially of this worm that can only survive by eating the eyes of little childeren from the inside out, only to nest inside and lay offspring. My first thought was that the world could actually be a better place whitout this worm, don't you agree?
That worm could be a species of a kind of worm that didn't eat human eyes. Or maybe in the original creation that worm didn't eat human eyes. God created everything to the benifit of mankind. To compare today's world and ask God why he made it this way is like looking at a wrecked Chevy and asking Chevy why they built it that way.
it sounds like you are saying the worm could have evolved, do you believe that could be true?
-
If god is all good and loving, why did he create parasites? I'm thinking especially of this worm that can only survive by eating the eyes of little childeren from the inside out, only to nest inside and lay offspring. My first thought was that the world could actually be a better place whitout this worm, don't you agree?
That worm could be a species of a kind of worm that didn't eat human eyes. Or maybe in the original creation that worm didn't eat human eyes. God created everything to the benifit of mankind. To compare today's world and ask God why he made it this way is like looking at a wrecked Chevy and asking Chevy why they built it that way.
it sounds like you are saying the worm could have evolved, do you believe that could be true?
Changing from one type of worm to another is a minor change between non living material turning into a worm. The only evolution I believe in is micro evolution, a kind splitting into species (like the canine turning into the fox, wolf, cayote, and dog).
-
If god is all good and loving, why did he create parasites? I'm thinking especially of this worm that can only survive by eating the eyes of little childeren from the inside out, only to nest inside and lay offspring. My first thought was that the world could actually be a better place whitout this worm, don't you agree?
That worm could be a species of a kind of worm that didn't eat human eyes. Or maybe in the original creation that worm didn't eat human eyes. God created everything to the benifit of mankind. To compare today's world and ask God why he made it this way is like looking at a wrecked Chevy and asking Chevy why they built it that way.
it sounds like you are saying the worm could have evolved, do you believe that could be true?
Changing from one type of worm to another is a minor change between non living material turning into a worm. The only evolution I believe in is micro evolution, a kind splitting into species (like the canine turning into the fox, wolf, cayote, and dog).
That's reasonable, and you would agree this could happen in a course of a few thousand years?
-
If god is all good and loving, why did he create parasites? I'm thinking especially of this worm that can only survive by eating the eyes of little childeren from the inside out, only to nest inside and lay offspring. My first thought was that the world could actually be a better place whitout this worm, don't you agree?
That worm could be a species of a kind of worm that didn't eat human eyes. Or maybe in the original creation that worm didn't eat human eyes. God created everything to the benifit of mankind. To compare today's world and ask God why he made it this way is like looking at a wrecked Chevy and asking Chevy why they built it that way.
it sounds like you are saying the worm could have evolved, do you believe that could be true?
Changing from one type of worm to another is a minor change between non living material turning into a worm. The only evolution I believe in is micro evolution, a kind splitting into species (like the canine turning into the fox, wolf, cayote, and dog).
That's reasonable, and you would agree this could happen in a course of a few thousand years?
I don't see why not. Most of the dogs for example were bred by humans for a specific task.
-
If god is all good and loving, why did he create parasites? I'm thinking especially of this worm that can only survive by eating the eyes of little childeren from the inside out, only to nest inside and lay offspring. My first thought was that the world could actually be a better place whitout this worm, don't you agree?
That worm could be a species of a kind of worm that didn't eat human eyes. Or maybe in the original creation that worm didn't eat human eyes. God created everything to the benifit of mankind. To compare today's world and ask God why he made it this way is like looking at a wrecked Chevy and asking Chevy why they built it that way.
it sounds like you are saying the worm could have evolved, do you believe that could be true?
Changing from one type of worm to another is a minor change between non living material turning into a worm. The only evolution I believe in is micro evolution, a kind splitting into species (like the canine turning into the fox, wolf, cayote, and dog).
That's reasonable, and you would agree this could happen in a course of a few thousand years?
I don't see why not. Most of the dogs for example were bred by humans for a specific task.
Then can you imagine what kind of changes that will occur in hundreds of million perhaps billions of years?
-
Well, first off, there are plenty of evidence that prove a young earth which I will provide a link for that later.
Second, there are limits in the gene code. By that logic I could say that we can get dogs as big as Texas because we have dogs as big as the Great Dane.
-
Here's an article on the young earth.
http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm (http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm)
Hopefully at the very least you'll agree that they give more evidence for a young earth than FEs with the flat earth.
-
Well, first off, there are plenty of evidence that prove a young earth which I will provide a link for that later.
Second, there are limits in the gene code. By that logic I could say that we can get dogs as big as Texas because we have dogs as big as the Great Dane.
Well, science has shown us that mutations allways occurs, because the moore complex a molecule gets, the bigger risk for a structural flaw. There are no reason to "believe" the genes have stopped mutating, and we know by observations that mutations occur in the human genome every day.
-
Well, first off, there are plenty of evidence that prove a young earth which I will provide a link for that later.
Second, there are limits in the gene code. By that logic I could say that we can get dogs as big as Texas because we have dogs as big as the Great Dane.
Well, science has shown us that mutations allways occurs, because the moore complex a molecule gets, the bigger risk for a structural flaw. There are no reason to "believe" the genes have stopped mutating, and we know by observations that mutations occur in the human genome every day.
I have no argument against mutations. They happen all the time. I do however object to them changing one kind of animal (let's say a dinosaur) and turn it into another (a bird). All mutations we see are scrambling existing information, not adding foreign or new information. Also all mutations are either neutral or negative to the organism.
-
Well, first off, there are plenty of evidence that prove a young earth which I will provide a link for that later.
Second, there are limits in the gene code. By that logic I could say that we can get dogs as big as Texas because we have dogs as big as the Great Dane.
Well, science has shown us that mutations allways occurs, because the moore complex a molecule gets, the bigger risk for a structural flaw. There are no reason to "believe" the genes have stopped mutating, and we know by observations that mutations occur in the human genome every day.
I have no argument against mutations. They happen all the time. I do however object to them changing one kind of animal (let's say a dinosaur) and turn it into another (a bird). All mutations we see are scrambling existing information, not adding foreign or new information. Also all mutations are either neutral or negative to the organism.
It seems you are overthinking this one, when a mutations happens, it can either be good, bad or neutral to the animal.
Good: the animal will produce more offspring (the mutations pass on)
Bad: the animal will produce less offspring (the mutations die off)
Neutral: no effect.
There's really not much more too it.
-
Have we seen a good mutation?
-
Have we seen a good mutation?
Blue eyes are one example.
My favourite is the fur on the polar bear.
-
Have we seen a good mutation?
Blue eyes are one example.
My favourite is the fur on the polar bear.
Those are examples of traits already in the gene pool being expressed. My definition of a mutation is a scrambling of existing or adding new information. White hair on polar bears is trait in the gene code being pronounced.
-
Have we seen a good mutation?
Blue eyes are one example.
My favourite is the fur on the polar bear.
Those are examples of traits already in the gene pool being expressed. My definition of a mutation is a scrambling of existing or adding new information. White hair on polar bears is trait in the gene code being pronounced.
Too bad we can't make up our own definitions on science. A mutation in biology and chemistry is the re-arrangement of the molecular structure of DNA. Those two examples are well known to be mutations in biochemistry. They are actually very well understood too. Basically one electron less or more in an atom in the DNA can cause nothing, or something. What the something is, is hard to say, because it might affect everything from intelligence to bigger nails.
The interesting thing is that if you compare the DNA of the ancestor of a polar bear, with the polar bear, you can see what the mutation is, because the rest of the genome is identical.
-
Ok, you're right about making definitions but the gene to make white was already in the gene pool. Maybe this video will help.
-
Hey, wanna agree to disagree?
I'm not going to watch a 30 minute video anyway:p
-
Hey, wanna agree to disagree?
I'm not going to watch a 30 minute video anyway:p
Sure, I'm right, your wrong, that settles it. ;)
But seriously though I think we can agree to disagree, besides I think we got off topic. The video is there whenever you want to watch. God bless.
-
There is a kind of bacteria that has been found to be able to eat nylon. The problem is, nylon was invented in 1935, and is a competelly synthetic plastic. One step further: when given a nylon rich enviroment, it has been shown that bacteria that did not have this mutation do eventually evolve this mutation.
-
There is a kind of bacteria that has been found to be able to eat nylon. The problem is, nylon was invented in 1935, and is a competelly synthetic plastic. One step further: when given a nylon rich enviroment, it has been shown that bacteria that did not have this mutation do eventually evolve this mutation.
This article explains that. In short, they lost information to be able to eat nylon.
http://www.icr.org/article/nylon-eating-bacteria-evolutionary-progress (http://www.icr.org/article/nylon-eating-bacteria-evolutionary-progress)
-
There is a kind of bacteria that has been found to be able to eat nylon. The problem is, nylon was invented in 1935, and is a competelly synthetic plastic. One step further: when given a nylon rich enviroment, it has been shown that bacteria that did not have this mutation do eventually evolve this mutation.
This article explains that. In short, they lost information to be able to eat nylon.
http://www.icr.org/article/nylon-eating-bacteria-evolutionary-progress (http://www.icr.org/article/nylon-eating-bacteria-evolutionary-progress)
That would violate conservation of information. Unless you are redefining the word information? Do you actually mean "lost pieces of their DNA"? Because that is a mutation, and by definition is changing the information of the system. Remember: there is not such a thing as a degradation in evolution, only fitter organism and less fit organisms. If a change in DNA makes bacteria fitter (such as in this case), then the trait is kept. If its detrimental under a particular selection pressure, it will result in a disadvantage, and will get cast away over time.
-
There is a kind of bacteria that has been found to be able to eat nylon. The problem is, nylon was invented in 1935, and is a competelly synthetic plastic. One step further: when given a nylon rich enviroment, it has been shown that bacteria that did not have this mutation do eventually evolve this mutation.
This article explains that. In short, they lost information to be able to eat nylon.
http://www.icr.org/article/nylon-eating-bacteria-evolutionary-progress (http://www.icr.org/article/nylon-eating-bacteria-evolutionary-progress)
That would violate conservation of information. Unless you are redefining the word information? Do you actually mean "lost pieces of their DNA"? Because that is a mutation, and by definition is changing the information of the system. Remember: there is not such a thing as a degradation in evolution, only fitter organism and less fit organisms. If a change in DNA makes bacteria fitter (such as in this case), then the trait is kept. If its detrimental under a particular selection pressure, it will result in a disadvantage, and will get cast away over time.
Throughout the thread when I said "information" I was reffering to the gene code. Also if you're saying that in the theory of evolution there's no such thing as degradation then I would agree with you, but if you're saying that there's no such thing in nature then I would disagree because the Neanderthals had a larger brain capacity and more muscle mass then is as the video I gave above explains.
-
I will teach you about God.
He doesn't exist.