I hate it how Christians attribute random events of life to "miracles."

[IEC]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: dopcombo
This thread smells of flamebait....

Why not consider just telling them you're offended?

Also, it's interesting to note that actually those christians who don't behave the way those 2 are behaving, are actually not living up to the full requirements of their religion. It's like "moderate" muslims are actually muslims who failed to obey all of their god's words. Christians who don't start crusades against non-believers are failing their god as well.

It's interesting that you bring up the crusades. Usually if one encounters a typical modern christians about the horrible atrocities of crusades, they will argue that those christians that participated in crusades aren't real christians. Typical christians today will associate anything negative about their religion to not really being a part of their religion.

Maybe because the crusaders violated one of the Ten Commandments: You shall not murder

Murder is inexcusable. Next.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
the only time relgion is good is when you sign your mates up for jehova's witnesses and they come round their houses to regal them with BS.

I wouldn't do that even to an enemy. Their religiosity is astounding.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: petrek

You said matter of factly that "none do"

So ye clearly contradicted the words of the only wise God and Saviour, the all powerful, the all knowing, the all present Almighty God.

The contradiction is within your own dogma. It is a fact that an omnipotent being gets what it wants. If elsewhere in your dogma it stipulates that individuals are damned against God's will, then the inconsistency is yours, not mine.

{snip self-righteous tirade}

No, only an omnipotent being with your desires gets everything he wants.

You're not understanding the point. Any event that transpires is within the realm of influence of an omnipotent being. If event X transpires, it must be because of the fact that the omnipotent being did not want a different event to transpire. If that omnipotent being wanted the different event to transpire, it could have easily made it happen.

Just because someone has the power to do something doesn't mean he will.

When God fails to act to affect the course of events, the event which do transpire cannot be said to contravene his will. If those events were truly against his will, he would've made them different because there is nothing stopping him except his will.

Just because God may have the power to save us all doesn't mean he will.

Then it can't be said that God wants all to be saved. If he wanted it, he would make it be.

{snip rest}

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: petrek
"And that resolves your contradiction in what way, exactly?"

Your argument isn't with me, I didn't write the Bible, God did. I simply believe it because I recognized 13 or so years ago that I was a wretched evil sinner who had no hope of Salvation outside of the cross and blood of Christ. Repentance is the only way to be Saved. It was more self righteous for me to go on beleiving I was smarter than an all knowing God, than to recognize I am a wretched sinner who has no hope of salvation except to turn from my evil ways to the Gospel of Jesus Christ which is the power of God unto Salvation.

Dave

Ok, your obvious dodge aside, then how does what you posted resolve the Bible's inconsistency?

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Kanalua
from my expierience Liberal-atheists are the most intolerant class of persons I've ever been around.

(lived in Ireland, Norther Ireland, Utah...and now living in Hawaii, going to a heavily liberal slanted law school).

Funny, because I've never met ONE atheist that has been intolerant... meanwhile my In-laws are religious nuts that we had to move out of the state to avoid... I have had 4 people knock on my door trying to convert me to their religion this year alone! I;ve never had a single problem when dealing with "atheists".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

*breathe*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

*gasp*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

*wipes away tears*

*catches breath*

And I'm agnostic. LOL! You're not intolerant... but you had to move out of state because you couldn't stand for other people to express their beliefs. That's fsckin' golden! I have officially read it all here now.

Ah the hypocrisy of many "atheists".

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Then why did John later write the Gospel of John?

This is wrong. Revelation was the last book written by John while exiled on Patmos about 96 A.D. However, I am sure you have a preterist's view of the date of writing. I recommend you read these links

The Date of the Book of Revelation

Six Points Refuting the Early Writing of Revelation

With that being said, the date of the writing of the Gospel of John is somewhere between 85-90 A.D., effectively meaning that it was written at least several years before the Book of Revelation.

When were the gospels written and by whom?

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
You interpret that verse to mean what you think it does, even though every evidence supports that it means something entirely different. John was putting an end to the book of revelations, not the Bible. Look at the verse.

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Is he talking about the plagues written in a book that didn't even exist yet? NO. He was talking about the book he was currently writting and the plagues written about in the book of Revelations. And after that, he moved on to the Gospel that he wrote. If it means what you think, he's in violation of his own words.

The phrase closes the revelation, or in other words, the book that contains the revelation. The revelation is even called a book in the title.

What happens if you take away or add to Revelation? You take away or add to the Bible as a whole. Revelation is the end of the canon of Scripture. Period. Dot. There are no more inspired Words of God to be added. It is complete. The individual books of the Bible are separate yet united. The Bible is sixty-six books combined into the one Book we have today. Adding to an individual book means adding to the Book itself. Subtracting from an individual book means subtracting from the Book itself. God has made it clear throughout the Bible that no one is to tamper with his Words. He has promised us that he would preserve his Word perfectly, which means that it would remain pure of imperfections brought about by human alteration. Revelation 22:18-19 does not just apply to Revelation, it applies to the Bible as a whole.

 

[RapidSnail]

*whoops*

 

[Beev]

The fact that I read all 15 pages of this drivel is a miracle.

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: petrekFirst it?s important to remember that the Bible was written over the span of 1500 years, and is made up of 66 Books penned by 40 or so men of God who came from all walks of life (Fishermen to Kings). Secondly, even though many if not most of the men that penned the Bible never actually met each other, their witness is in complete agreement with each other. Thirdly, the Bible is the only religious text that could reasonably be considered as the Word of God because of it?s historical, scientific, and prophetic accuracy (100% accurate in all matters), as well as it being the oldest religious text (as it was started in 1500BC, and as one would expect if a loving God did exist who wanted us to know Him personally, he would be the first to provide mankind with knowledge and proof of Him as Creator).

i dont really care about this argument, because i have my own interpretation on religious texts, and dont care to discuss it.

but this statement, that all books of the bible are in agreement, is entirely incorrect. i suggest you do some reading.

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/Bible/outside.stm

what is included and isnt included is entirely up to your religion. a lot of books were left out of the bible for a variety of reasons.

and when you make statements covering "the bible", you should define old testament vs new testament. the old testament is the book all 3 main religons (judaism, christianity, and islam) are based on. from there out, christianity and islam have different prophets, and christianity's prophet they believe to be divine.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: petrek

You said matter of factly that "none do"

So ye clearly contradicted the words of the only wise God and Saviour, the all powerful, the all knowing, the all present Almighty God.

The contradiction is within your own dogma. It is a fact that an omnipotent being gets what it wants. If elsewhere in your dogma it stipulates that individuals are damned against God's will, then the inconsistency is yours, not mine.

{snip self-righteous tirade}

No, only an omnipotent being with your desires gets everything he wants.

You're not understanding the point. Any event that transpires is within the realm of influence of an omnipotent being. If event X transpires, it must be because of the fact that the omnipotent being did not want a different event to transpire. If that omnipotent being wanted the different event to transpire, it could have easily made it happen.

Just because someone has the power to do something doesn't mean he will.

When God fails to act to affect the course of events, the event which do transpire cannot be said to contravene his will. If those events were truly against his will, he would've made them different because there is nothing stopping him except his will.

Just because God may have the power to save us all doesn't mean he will.

Then it can't be said that God wants all to be saved. If he wanted it, he would make it be.

{snip rest}

God never fails to act.
The flaw in thinking of both theists and atheists alike is that they think of God as something that exists outside existence, somehow looking in from the outside of something that has no outside. Of course, such a thing is simply not possible, an utter absurdity, as nothing exists outside existence, and nothing observes with participation, but that doesn't stop the theists and atheists from arguing over it. I suppose it's easier to argue a fantasy, so long as the rules of the fantasy arguing game are agreed upon beforehand, than to argue observations of reality and truth themselves.
Ah, but the simplicity of the truth is matched only by the horror and denial by which most people face it. Suffice to say, God does not want all to be saved, because not all want to be saved. God allows evil to exist because those who commit evil want evil to exist and so create it. Everything is perfect, we just don't like what perfection looks like. And that's easy to do, when you pretend that you're outside looking in.

 

[clickynext]

On the subject of attributing events to acts of god:

I'm an agnostic and perhaps an atheist. When I look at your argument, there is one thing that you are assuming is true: that everything in life happens by chance and by peoples' actions. At that point, you have already eliminated any other causes as possibilities, making an argument on that basis impossible.

Why must it be true that all things just happen by chance? That's what they teach in schools (or at least suggest) but why is it automatically fact when some people tell you it's fact? Yes, there are things that appear to be explained by mathematical calculations. And there are things that appear impossible to explain when you use a conventional scientific method. What proof have you seen that god does not exist? The existence of another possible interpretation does not disprove god.

If you look at the other side and make the assumption that god exists (as you have assumed that he does not), then you will see that there are many things that can be explained by religion, some of which leave science completely baffled thus far. There's actually a pretty interesting book about faith, called "The Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel, which may shed a bit of light about how people can believe those things. It's worth a read, IMO.

Now, I can understand that you're annoyed by them constantly talking about it; they might want to respect other peoples' views by perhaps not sharing theirs so blatantly.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Garth

You're not understanding the point. Any event that transpires is within the realm of influence of an omnipotent being. If event X transpires, it must be because of the fact that the omnipotent being did not want a different event to transpire. If that omnipotent being wanted the different event to transpire, it could have easily made it happen.

That's still not true. Just because something bad happens to us doesn't mean that it happened because God wanted it to. He gave you free will, and you used it. So why is that his fault that he let an event happen as a result of your decisions? You can't have free will without the opportunity to make a choice.

When God fails to act to affect the course of events, the event which do transpire cannot be said to contravene his will. If those events were truly against his will, he would've made them different because there is nothing stopping him except his will.

Again, don't see it. If events go into motion that put us into a certain position, we still have the opportunity to determine how we are going to act. There are certain things that God wants us to do, but if we're not willing to do them, he'll simply find someone else. Doesn't mean we won't get the chance, but it does if we don't take the opportunity, it will be given to someone else. His will will be done, with or without our help.

Then it can't be said that God wants all to be saved. If he wanted it, he would make it be.

Sure, he wants everyone to be saved, but he gave everyone a choice. Plain and simple. It's up to you. He'll give you the opportunity to be saved, but it's still up to you whether you are or not. An all powerful being that grants free will to his children must still live by the rules of free will. Otherwise, he is a contradiction to himself, and God is not a contradiction.

 

[edmundoab]

I saved everytime I create a file just in case of black out
just joking

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

This is wrong. Revelation was the last book written by John while exiled on Patmos about 96 A.D. However, I am sure you have a preterist's view of the date of writing. I recommend you read these links

The Date of the Book of Revelation

Six Points Refuting the Early Writing of Revelation

With that being said, the date of the writing of the Gospel of John is somewhere between 85-90 A.D., effectively meaning that it was written at least several years before the Book of Revelation.

When were the gospels written and by whom?

No, actually it's right, and even these link seems to verify it. They all place the Gospel of John in the 90's, and then fight to move revelations from the 60-70 era back to the 90. Even if they are correct, that doesn't prove or state anything as to which was written first. So at best, you *might* be write, but chance are, and most people agree, that you are not. But nice try.

What happens if you take away or add to Revelation? You take away or add to the Bible as a whole. Revelation is the end of the canon of Scripture. Period. Dot. There are no more inspired Words of God to be added. It is complete. The individual books of the Bible are separate yet united. The Bible is sixty-six books combined into the one Book we have today. Adding to an individual book means adding to the Book itself. Subtracting from an individual book means subtracting from the Book itself. God has made it clear throughout the Bible that no one is to tamper with his Words. He has promised us that he would preserve his Word perfectly, which means that it would remain pure of imperfections brought about by human alteration. Revelation 22:18-19 does not just apply to Revelation, it applies to the Bible as a whole.

So I will ask you the same question I ask the other gentleman, who still refuses to respond. Let see how you do.

What about the scripture that was not included? Why did it take 4 times to "get it right"? Where those men inspired to do what they did and did they have the authority to do what they did?

If you add a book to the Bible, you are adding to the Bible, not the Book of Revelations, so what's the problem?

 

[petrek]

i dont really care about this argument, because i have my own interpretation on religious texts, and dont care to discuss it.

but this statement, that all books of the bible are in agreement, is entirely incorrect. i suggest you do some reading.

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/Bible/outside.stm

what is included and isnt included is entirely up to your religion. a lot of books were left out of the bible for a variety of reasons.

My faith isn't based on philosophy and vain deceit, nor after the tradition of men, nor after the rudiments of the world, but in Christ. When I read my KJ Bible, I don't wonder whether my Lord got it right, whether everything He said and wanted me to know is included, or whether it contains error that may lead me astray. I know because of my faith in the Lord God Almighty, that the Bible I hold in my hands contains the pure words of God.

and when you make statements covering "the bible", you should define old testament vs new testament. the old testament is the book all 3 main religons (judaism, christianity, and islam) are based on. from there out, christianity and islam have different prophets, and christianity's prophet they believe to be divine.

When I make statement covering my Bible, I make statement based on my faith, not yours. The fact that most Jews reject Christ, and Mohammed started his new religion by copying some of what God said in the Bible, doesn't change my belief that the Bible is one complete Book, as God has always intended it to be. Genesis clearly defines the beginning, and Revelation clearly defines the end. One Book, one Word of God, one complete revelation from God to man from beginning to end. My faith is in the only wise God and Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. It is my faith, it is my faith in Christ Jesus, that I am defining and defending for His sake, not yours.

Dave

 

[petrek]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: petrek
"And that resolves your contradiction in what way, exactly?"

Your argument isn't with me, I didn't write the Bible, God did. I simply believe it because I recognized 13 or so years ago that I was a wretched evil sinner who had no hope of Salvation outside of the cross and blood of Christ. Repentance is the only way to be Saved. It was more self righteous for me to go on beleiving I was smarter than an all knowing God, than to recognize I am a wretched sinner who has no hope of salvation except to turn from my evil ways to the Gospel of Jesus Christ which is the power of God unto Salvation.

Dave

Ok, your obvious dodge aside, then how does what you posted resolve the Bible's inconsistency?

The simple truth is that it is our lack of knowledge, not God's perfect knowledge, that makes His Word look inconsistent to us. The more one reads and studies His Word with the sincere desire to understand it, the more willing one is to heed His voice, the more obvious and consistent His Word becomes to us.
There is simply no way around the obvious fact that we are the ones who are lacking in knowlege and understanding, not God.

Dave

 

[petrek]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: petrek
Your right, both verses refer to the person as a "fool", but there is obviously more than one type of fool. One can be a fool because they are acting foolish, and one can be a fool because they are simply ignorant.

Cheers, Dave

Being a fool is definitely not the same thing as being ignorant. Being a fool because you are acting foolish... Well obviously you know that you can't define a term with a variant of itself. A fool is a simpleton, one who lacks the mental capacity to make logical decisions. One who is ignorant is NOT a fool, but someone who chooses to "ignore" certain facts which run counter to their beliefs. I'm sorry but the tween never shall meet.

Doing a quick internet search, the terms foolish one, ignorant one, idiot, etc are at times used synonomously, which is why I used those terms synonomously to further define the point I was trying to get across as far as my understanding of those verses. In our case I would have been better suited to use other words.

Cheers, Dave

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: petrek

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: petrek
Your right, both verses refer to the person as a "fool", but there is obviously more than one type of fool. One can be a fool because they are acting foolish, and one can be a fool because they are simply ignorant.

Cheers, Dave

Being a fool is definitely not the same thing as being ignorant. Being a fool because you are acting foolish... Well obviously you know that you can't define a term with a variant of itself. A fool is a simpleton, one who lacks the mental capacity to make logical decisions. One who is ignorant is NOT a fool, but someone who chooses to "ignore" certain facts which run counter to their beliefs. I'm sorry but the tween never shall meet.

Doing a quick internet search, the terms foolish one, ignorant one, idiot, etc are at times used synonomously, which is why I used those terms synonomously to further define the point I was trying to get across as far as my understanding of those verses. In our case I would have been better suited to use other words.

Cheers, Dave

I wouldn't expect him to agree with you, SlitheryDee. To do so, he'd have to further incriminate himself, and based upon his current track record, that would be a bad thing to do, even for one so foolish as he.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Garth

You're not understanding the point. Any event that transpires is within the realm of influence of an omnipotent being. If event X transpires, it must be because of the fact that the omnipotent being did not want a different event to transpire. If that omnipotent being wanted the different event to transpire, it could have easily made it happen.

That's still not true.

Which part?

Just because something bad happens to us doesn't mean that it happened because God wanted it to. He gave you free will, and you used it.

You're still not understanding. Consider this: If you stood in front of a person's gun, knowing that they were going to pull the trigger, you don't get to say that you didn't want to be shot. If you didn't want to get shot, you'd move out of the way.

So why is that his fault that he let an event happen as a result of your decisions?

He could've made it different if he didn't want it to happen. There is nothing stopping him.

You can't have free will without the opportunity to make a choice.

The idea of free will itself is incompatible with the existence of an omnipotent being, because implicit in its omnipotence is infallible foreknowledge.

{snip}

Then it can't be said that God wants all to be saved. If he wanted it, he would make it be.

Sure, he wants everyone to be saved, but he gave everyone a choice.[/quote]
You might as well assert that circles have corners, because it makes about as much sense as this assertion. If God wants something, he can have it. There is nothing stopping him.

{snip}

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Garth

When God fails to act to affect the course of events...

God never fails to act.

My wording was poor. I should've said "When God doesn't act..."

The flaw in thinking of both theists and atheists alike is that they think of God as something that exists outside existence, somehow looking in from the outside of something that has no outside.

I do not regard God in such a way, except when I must contend with the god-concepts of others that so do.

{snip}

 

[Geocentricity]

To OP:

If you took apart a Boeing 747 and left it somewhere on the face of the earth, what are the chances that it will, by chance, become a functional 747 by all the "random" acts of nature?

Now think about the probability of life starting from unicellular organisms that eventually will become homo sapiens through "random" acts of evolution.

So how's life coming along thinking that every second of ours lives is random? Does it help you sleep at night?

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: Geocentricity
To OP:

If you took apart a Boeing 747 and left it somewhere on the face of the earth, what are the chances that it will, by chance, become a functional 747 by all the "random" acts of nature?

I hate the 747 analogy. A 747 is not alive. 747s do not reproduce. 747s do not have genetic codes to pass on.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Garth

Which part?

The part where he would have made it not happen. I've stated this already at least twice, but I'll do it again. Consider a baby learning to walk. Each time that baby falls in his attempt, is it your fault as his guardian that he fell? You knew he would, you knew it was inevitable. But is it your fault then since you had the foreknowledge to know that he was going to fall, and you still let him?

Everyone in life is presented with opportunities to grow and to prove themselves. God does not wish us to fall during these trial, but just as is the case with the baby learning to walk, he knows that opposition is a necessary component of growth. Think of it like lifting weights. And since God has promised us those opportunities, he can not reject his promise and remove them from us. So how does him being omnipotent and all-powerful therefore make him responsible for the choices we make?

You're still not understanding. Consider this: If you stood in front of a person's gun, knowing that they were going to pull the trigger, you don't get to say that you didn't want to be shot. If you didn't want to get shot, you'd move out of the way.

I'm really not sure I understand what you're saying there. Please explain that one.

He could've made it different if he didn't want it to happen. There is nothing stopping him.

But that is the flaw. There is something stopping him. His promise to let us grow and to become like him. As I said before, he is bound by promises that he makes to each of us. Look as all the promises that he makes in the scriptures. Could God be God if he didn't make good on all promises that he has made? At the same time, does the fact that he has promised not to interfer in certain ways take away from the idea of him being all-powerful? No. That's the thing you must understand. God is bound by certain agreements that he himself has made. Although there are events in life that will happen, the people involved in such events still have the freedom to determine whether they wish to take part.

Look at Christ in Gethsemane. He didn't want to suffer as he did, and who can blame him? But he knew it had to be done, and that God needed someone to do it, and he made the decision to be the one. Could God have found another way? I don't know. I can't imagine anyone wanting to see their son go through that if there was another way. But none of this in any way takes away from the all-powerful characteristic of God.

The idea of free will itself is incompatible with the existence of an omnipotent being, because implicit in its omnipotence is infallible foreknowledge.

As I just explain, it is not incompatible.

You might as well assert that circles have corners, because it makes about as much sense as this assertion. If God wants something, he can have it. There is nothing stopping him.

Again, yes there is. Once he has given his word, he can not go back on it, no matter how powerful he is.

Oh, and what's with the {snip} stuff? Is that supposed to actually mean something?

 

[clickynext]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: Geocentricity
To OP:

If you took apart a Boeing 747 and left it somewhere on the face of the earth, what are the chances that it will, by chance, become a functional 747 by all the "random" acts of nature?

I hate the 747 analogy. A 747 is not alive. 747s do not reproduce. 747s do not have genetic codes to pass on.

What about the fact that random non-living chemicals do not reproduce, do not have genetic codes to pass on, yet are thought to have formed the first living organisms under the "right conditions" completely by chance?

 

[sthaznpride17]

To put so much faith in a simple book and an intangible thing is foolhardy. This is why we have so much trouble in the world today. Make no mistake it will drive humanity into extinction.