YART - Whats the point?

[HAL9000]

Rational according to you.

I believe I'm very rational and logical.

I believe people who don't believe in God are the irrational and foolish ones.

Prove me wrong.

Prove yourself right, proving something is, is far more important than proving something is not.

 

[zerocool84]

The suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is Israel.

Which did he say? My God, My God, why have you forsaken me(Mark)? or Father into your hands I commit my spirit(Luke)? It is finished(John)?

Did he carry the cross the whole way? Yes(John)? No, he was helped(Matthew, Mark, Luke)

What did the sign on the cross say? Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews(John)? This is Jesus, King of the Jews(Matthew)? The King of the Jews(Mark)? This is the King of the Jews(Luke)?

Who discovered the empty tomb? Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and some other peeps found two dudes there that told them he was gone(Luke)? Mary Magdalene, the "other" Mary find one dude there and see the tomb is empty(Matthew)? Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome meet one dude at the tomb(Luke)? Or was it just Mary Magdalene and one dude(John)?

These and other fairly large discrepancies about what is, really, the central mythology of the church make it hard for me to swallow. Based on what I've read, JC seemed like a pretty righteous dude, and he could always be counted on the bring some good stuff to the party, but he was the idea man. Without Paul to "tweak" his message (I think of Paul as the first Billy Mays) then I doubt that the religion would have grown the way it did.

If JC were to come back today I think he would drop some srs 'bows on 99.9% of the churches out there.

Anyone who takes the Bible seriously has some real mental health problems. It's all one big contradiction.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Prove yourself right, proving something is, is far more important than proving something is not.

I believe people who don't believe in God are the irrational and foolish ones.

Prove me wrong. <-Refers to the statement in italics.

No need to prove to myself that I'm right. You better prove me wrong. I know you can't prove that my belief in that statement is wrong.

 

[busydude]

No need to prove to myself that I'm right. You better prove me wrong. I know you can't prove that my belief in that statement is wrong.

Textbook example of strawman argument.

 

[zerocool84]

I believe people who don't believe in God are the irrational and foolish ones.

Prove me wrong. <-Refers to the statement in italics.

No need to prove to myself that I'm right. You better prove me wrong. I know you can't prove that my belief in that statement is wrong.

There is no god. You better prove me wrong. I know you can't prove that my belief in that statement is wrong.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Rationality is a matter of perspective.

Think about that statement for a while before replying.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Textbook example of strawman argument.

You don't even know what you are talking about.

I think you're stupid.


Edit:

For the bolded part :

I want to explain, since I doubt you are smart enough to understand this point, that a statement by itself doesn't really mean a lot. I can say you're stupid all I want but if I don't back it up it might not mean much to you.

Just how you can say "strawman" but it won't mean much to me without you backing it.

 

[zerocool84]

Rationality is a matter of perspective.

Think about that statement for a while before replying.

Are you even reading your own posts???

 

[Pray To Jesus]

There is no god. You better prove me wrong. I know you can't prove that my belief in that statement is wrong.

You are close to understanding the point.

However, I was talking about rationality and how it's all a matter of perspective.

One person can think his views are fully rational while another person can think the opposite of the same view point.

 

[zerocool84]

You are close to understanding the point.

However, I was talking about rationality and how it's all a matter of perspective.

Exactly so you can't say there is a god and I can't say there isn't.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Exactly so you can't say there is a god and I can't say there isn't.

No, you're wrong. You got the idea backwards.

Here is the correct way:

I can say there is a god and you can say there isn't.

Since there's no way to prove either of our beliefs wrong, we can say it.

Although I got to say eventually God will prove his own existence. You just wait and see.

 

[HAL9000]

No, you're wrong. You got the idea backwards.

Here is the correct way:

I can say there is a god and you can say there isn't.

Since there's no way to prove either of us wrong, we can say it.

Neither of us can know. Like you can't prove there are no unicorns you also can't prove there is a god.

 

[zerocool84]

No, you're wrong. You got the idea backwards.

Here is the correct way:

I can say there is a god and you can say there isn't.

Since there's no way to prove either of us wrong, we can say it.

Ahh ok my mistake. Just like every other religious nut out there, forgetting the basic teaching of your religion. Got it.

 

[Patterner]

Did you even read the definition you posted? You think it supports your argument when it clearly supports mine. Just read the bolded parts and then what I said.

And yes, God is the only one capable of doing what Jesus did on the cross, which is much more than just getting tortured and die.

Sigh, I don't like discussing things with stupid people. They don't think before saying things.

Other times they're just too stupid to understand deeper meanings.

Sure I can destroy their arguments but what's the point when they are clearly too stupid to even understand that their arguments got destroyed.

Edit: I'm going to assume you're too stupid to understand what I meant so I'll explain it more clearly.

The bolded parts all has to to with surrendering or losing something precious, but it doesn't say anything about that surrender or lost being permanent.

Jesus surrendered his life on the cross to his Father for man's sake. Since Jesus is God, and God's life being the most precious thing I can imagine, that act is the best sacrifice possible by infinity to the next best sacrifice.

It's only by the grace and mercy of God that man is allowed to live after sinning against God.

Just because God the Father resurrected Jesus the Son doesn't mean that Jesus did not perform the ultimate sacrifice, giving his divine life, for man.

Wow, you believe in something that's essentially unprovable, but *I'm* the one that's stupid? Let me see if I can wade through the ad hominem attacks and counter the parts that I'm too stupid to understand.

You assume that something more than pretty righteous dude got killed there, but there's no possible way to determine that, since the accounts we have (which were *not* eyewitness accounts) don't mention anything special other than an earthquake, and that's only mentioned in one.

Your understanding of sacrifice go against the understood meaning of the word for about 3000 years before JC was even on the scene. I don't think the Jews got to apply at the temple to get their sacrifices back after three days.

You assume that Jesus is God, which is an assumption that I don't share and that the person in question never spoke about to confirm. The idea of sacrifice is that *you* are giving up something, but the historical record indicates that most people didn't even know who Jesus was, so how was that a sacrifice for them? It doesn't matter how precious something is, if I'm not the one sacrificing it, it doesn't mean jack all for me.

Most people that I hear describe the sacrifice was that he was sacrificing his human self and not his divine self. If the divine part was killed does that mean he's fully human now?

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Neither of us can know. Like you can't prove there are no unicorns you also can't prove there is a god.

Knowledge is a matter of perspective. I know God exists.

I can't prove it to you using science.

I know you have to admit through the myriad physical and testimonial evidence that there are things in this Universe which Science has not or cannot explain.

God alone is the only one who can prove Himself to you.

 

[HAL9000]

Knowledge is a matter of perspective. I know God exists.

I can't prove it to you using science. I know you have to admit through the myriad evidence that there are things in this Universe which Science has not or cannot explain.

God alone is the only one who can prove Himself to you.

This is my point, you can't believe in god unless you want to. You can't prove god exists to me using science or anything else for that matter.

 

[Patterner]

You are close to understanding the point.

However, I was talking about rationality and how it's all a matter of perspective.

One person can think his views are fully rational while another person can think the opposite of the same view point.

Rationality is not a matter of perspective. Either one idea follows from another, or it doesn't. Since the ideas of Christianity aren't even self consistent, they are not rational. A rational idea is not something you have to believe, it's something you can prove.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

BLAH BLAH BLAH

I called you stupid because you posted the definition of sacrifice to defend your idea of sacrifice requiring losing something permanently without realizing that the definition posted supports my point.

I consider people who do that stupid since they're not intelligent enough to defend their ideas correctly.

We were talking about how sacrifice doesn't have to be permanent and your definition posted doesn't say anything about permanence.

Don't try to change the topic to something else when I destroyed your argument for that part.

 

[HAL9000]

Rationality is not a matter of perspective. Either one idea follows from another, or it doesn't. Since the ideas of Christianity aren't even self consistent, they are not rational. A rational idea is not something you have to believe, it's something you can prove.

Very true, logic is absolute.

 

[Patterner]

I called you stupid because you posted the definition of sacrifice to defend your idea of sacrifice requiring losing something permanently without realizing that the definition posted supports my point.

I consider people who do that stupid since they're not intelligent enough to defend their ideas correctly.

We were talking about how sacrifice doesn't have to be permanent and your definition posted doesn't say anything about permanence.

Don't try to change the topic to something else when I destroyed your argument for that part.

You forgot to bold a word in my definition (since it disagrees with your asinine point): a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else

In that definition destruction is held as equal weight with surrender and therefore implies that the loss of the thing in question is permanent.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

This is my point, you can't believe in god unless you want to. You can't prove god exists to me using science or anything else for that matter.

The nature of God is such that science can never prove that God exists.

Bolded:

No one will believe in anything unless they want to believe it. That fact is obvious. It's an effect of the free will which God has given man.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Whatever we decide about Jesus, we had better decide soon: the Age of Jesus (Pisces) ends in 2012, and as far as I can tell, nobody has come up with his successor.

When was Jesus Christ born?

About 2012 the sun will enter the Age of Aquarius. Then it can be said that the Age of Jesus has past.

This is why there are so many doomsday predictions for 2012....

 

[Pray To Jesus]

You forgot to bold a word in my definition (since it disagrees with your asinine point): a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else

In that definition destruction is held as equal weight with surrender and therefore implies that the loss of the thing in question is permanent.

It's an or not an and. Or = One or the other can be correct, but not both at the same time in a particular scenario.

This is why I call you stupid. Sigh. . . you're just confirming my viewpoint.

 

[HAL9000]

The nature of God is such that science can never prove that God exists.

Bolded:

No one will believe in anything unless they want to believe it. That fact is obvious. It's an effect of the free will which God has given man.

That is definitely not the case, I never wanted to believe in anything, until those things were proven to me. If someone proves a maths proof to you, you don't have to want to believe in it in order for it to be proven to you.

 

[Patterner]

It's a or not an and. This is why I call you stupid. Sigh. . . you're just confirming my point.

You can't destroy *and* surrender something. The idea is that if either is true, then it meets the definition of a sacrifice, thus implying that said loss is permanent.