Learn About God

Quote from: Conker on September 24, 2015, 02:44:56 PM

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.

Quote

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.

Quote from: Mainframes on September 24, 2015, 03:08:06 PM

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.

Quote from: Conker on September 24, 2015, 03:32:24 PM

Quote from: Testify on September 24, 2015, 03:21:21 PM

Quote from: Conker on September 24, 2015, 02:44:56 PM

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?

Quote

Quote

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?

Quote from: Testify on September 24, 2015, 03:21:21 PM

Quote from: Conker on September 24, 2015, 02:44:56 PM

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.

Quote

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.

Quote from: Mainframes on September 24, 2015, 03:08:06 PM

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote from: Conker on September 25, 2015, 02:11:42 AM

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.

Quote

Quote

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)

Quote

Quote

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.

Quote

Quote

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.

Quote from: Conker on September 25, 2015, 05:12:29 AM

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote from: Testify on September 24, 2015, 12:44:40 PM

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.

Quote from: Conker on September 25, 2015, 02:23:27 PM

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.

Quote from: healthy earth on September 25, 2015, 06:32:54 PM

please , ask your god what he think about that system :

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

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 ?

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

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.

Quote from: Mainframes on September 24, 2015, 03:08:06 PM

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.

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on September 27, 2015, 10:19:16 AM

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!

Quote from: Testify on September 27, 2015, 10:37:45 AM

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on September 27, 2015, 10:19:16 AM

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.

Quote from: Testify on September 27, 2015, 05:48:29 AM

Quote from: healthy earth on September 26, 2015, 07:11:03 PM

'' 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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

the jhiad of jesus in the bible , i want an explanation please

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

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.