CreedFeed Community - View Single Post

uncertaindrumer · 02-20-2006, 10:41 PM

Quote: (Originally Posted by Anarkist) Here is a small example of the illogicalness of Christianity.

DT 6:5, MT 22:37, MK 12:30, LK 10:27 Love God.
DT 6:13, PS 33:8, 34:9, 111:10, 115:13, 128:1, 147:11, PR 8:13, 16:6, 19:23, 22:4, IS 8:13, LK 12:5, 1PE 2:17 Fear God.
1JN 4:18 There is no fear in love.

Different uses of the same word. You know that "muse" can mean a thoughtful state or, on a completely different note, a source of inspiration? In the same way, you can use fear in different ways. The Christian idea of "fearing" God is not trembling in anticipation of the next great terrible catyclysm.

Quote: PR 30:5 Every word of God proves true.
1KI 22:23, 2CH 18:22, JE 4:10, JE 20:7, EZ 14:9 God deceives some of the prophets.

or

JE 8:8 The scribes falsify the word.
2TH 2:11-12 God deceives the wicked (to be able to condemn them).
(Note: Every word of God cannot prove true if God deceives anyone at all; the Bible cannot be trusted if the scribes falsify the word. The first reference is mutually exclusive with the other three. Thus, the Bible cannot be the perfect work of a perfect and loving God since one or more of the above references is obviously untrue. Note also: Some versions use the word "persuade" rather than "deceives." The context makes clear, however, that deception is involved.)

As a note on the scribes: the idea is that the inspired word of God is not reliant upon scribes but upon the Holy Spirit. Now of course you do not believe in the Holy Spirit but that is the thought process behind a Christian's reasoning. Also, the context of that passage is that the Scribes reject the Word of the Lord. By writing contrary to the World of the Lord they falsify the Word. That is no different than a heretic preaching contrary to the Gospel of Jesus. Does tha heretics error make the original gospel forfeit? I would think not.

or

Quote: EZ 20:25 God says that he intentionally gave out bad laws. (This means that God-given laws or commandments are sometimes suspect.)

Again you seem to have trouble wrapping your head around the concept of a just God. This makes sense. The Christian God is a very difficult One to accept. This is only His justice at work, repaying those evil to Him. It does not make for any break of logic.

Quote: LK 1:26-38 The angel who appears to Mary to foretell the birth of Jesus says that Jesus will be given the throne of David, that he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and that his kingdom will never end. (None of this took place nor can it now be fulfilled.)

I believe you are making the fundamentalist mistake of interpreting everything literally. Even THEN, it can still be fulfilled and already has been; Jesus' kingdom (the kingdom of Heaven) is at hand. He is risen. He is king. You can't see Him, but that doesn't negate his existance. As for the "throne of David", well first of all, that could mean many thing,s but secondly, if we take it literally, at Jesus' second coming He would than assume the "Throne of David".

Quote: MT 16:28, MK 9:1, LK 9:27 Jesus says that some of his listeners will not taste death before he comes again in his kingdom. This was said almost 2000 years ago. (Note: This and many other passages indicate that Jesus was to come again in a relatively short period of time and not just "quickly" as present day Biblicists assert. All of his listeners are now dead, yet Jesus has not come again in his kingdom. All of the alleged words of Jesus recorded in the Bible are therefore suspect.)

Coming into His kingdom refers to His resurrection, not his second coming. We are getting into areas here where, doctrinally, a lot of Christians disagree, but still, I think most can agree He was referring to His Resurrection.

Quote: MK 16:17-18 A believer can handle snakes or drink poison and not experience any harm. (Note: Many unfortunate believers have died as a result of handling snakes and drinking poison. This kind of assertion negates the Bible as a useful guidebook for life.)

Come on. Seriously. You have better arguments than this.

Quote: What evidence there was no source quoted I mean if I were to say the shy is blue because a smurf pissed in it once upon a time is that considered evidence? No I would have to provide a notable scientific source he never provided a source so he got no response from me (and if he did provide a source I must have missed it but I never did see a source.)

Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree here. I think a lot of internet "sources" are untrustworhty at best. Yes, obviously proof is needed but if it is an assertion he makes, one has to prove his assertion is wrong. Well, I suppose one doesn't HAVE to, one doesn't HAVE to argue at all, lol. But to further the discussion it would seem useful. I don't think his evidence was wrong. I know we do find many of the things he has reffered to in land areas. I also know that a lot of the Earth that is now land used to be underwater. I also know that the problem is not that science hasn't "proved" a flood. I need no proof. As long as science has not proven there never was a flood, I'm fine. And science will never prove that, I believe.

Quote: Yes this type of argument has been made before and has been debunked before and if you would really like I can dig the link back up for you if you would so like (yes I would do that for you)

Argument debunked? How can one debunk the argument that there *might* have formerly been area of land now exposed, underwater? Maybe we are just not talking about the same things...

Quote: When these people actually learn to back their assertions up with evidence I will gladly challenge them with counter evidence (I have said this before). But some of the things they are claiming require mental gymnastics beyond any logic and reason. I am not trying to be a "big jerk" it comes naturally (j/k) but seriously I will admit I do not take kindly to people spouting what they believe to be true off the top of their head, I (as I have said already in this post) Like to see some corroboration.

Well seeing as this is a Faith based religion, no scientific evidence has to be offered to prove its truth. It can't. science doesn't DO that. If the burden of proof is on someone, it is the other half who has to prove unequivically. that the believer's idea of events could not have happened.

Anyway, unfortunately, if posts are going to be this long all the time I won't be able to post much, but hopefully I can contribute my two cents here and there. If I missed something, I apologize. Don't have time like I used to.

Cheers everyone.

02-20-2006, 10:41 PM	#73
uncertaindrumer USER INFO » Status: Wound Up Posts: 1,255 Joined: Dec 2004 Currently: Offline	Re: Proof that Christianity is the Way Quote: (Originally Posted by Anarkist) Here is a small example of the illogicalness of Christianity. DT 6:5, MT 22:37, MK 12:30, LK 10:27 Love God. DT 6:13, PS 33:8, 34:9, 111:10, 115:13, 128:1, 147:11, PR 8:13, 16:6, 19:23, 22:4, IS 8:13, LK 12:5, 1PE 2:17 Fear God. 1JN 4:18 There is no fear in love. Different uses of the same word. You know that "muse" can mean a thoughtful state or, on a completely different note, a source of inspiration? In the same way, you can use fear in different ways. The Christian idea of "fearing" God is not trembling in anticipation of the next great terrible catyclysm. Quote: PR 30:5 Every word of God proves true. 1KI 22:23, 2CH 18:22, JE 4:10, JE 20:7, EZ 14:9 God deceives some of the prophets. or JE 8:8 The scribes falsify the word. 2TH 2:11-12 God deceives the wicked (to be able to condemn them). (Note: Every word of God cannot prove true if God deceives anyone at all; the Bible cannot be trusted if the scribes falsify the word. The first reference is mutually exclusive with the other three. Thus, the Bible cannot be the perfect work of a perfect and loving God since one or more of the above references is obviously untrue. Note also: Some versions use the word "persuade" rather than "deceives." The context makes clear, however, that deception is involved.) As a note on the scribes: the idea is that the inspired word of God is not reliant upon scribes but upon the Holy Spirit. Now of course you do not believe in the Holy Spirit but that is the thought process behind a Christian's reasoning. Also, the context of that passage is that the Scribes reject the Word of the Lord. By writing contrary to the World of the Lord they falsify the Word. That is no different than a heretic preaching contrary to the Gospel of Jesus. Does tha heretics error make the original gospel forfeit? I would think not. or Quote: EZ 20:25 God says that he intentionally gave out bad laws. (This means that God-given laws or commandments are sometimes suspect.) Again you seem to have trouble wrapping your head around the concept of a just God. This makes sense. The Christian God is a very difficult One to accept. This is only His justice at work, repaying those evil to Him. It does not make for any break of logic. Quote: LK 1:26-38 The angel who appears to Mary to foretell the birth of Jesus says that Jesus will be given the throne of David, that he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and that his kingdom will never end. (None of this took place nor can it now be fulfilled.) I believe you are making the fundamentalist mistake of interpreting everything literally. Even THEN, it can still be fulfilled and already has been; Jesus' kingdom (the kingdom of Heaven) is at hand. He is risen. He is king. You can't see Him, but that doesn't negate his existance. As for the "throne of David", well first of all, that could mean many thing,s but secondly, if we take it literally, at Jesus' second coming He would than assume the "Throne of David". Quote: MT 16:28, MK 9:1, LK 9:27 Jesus says that some of his listeners will not taste death before he comes again in his kingdom. This was said almost 2000 years ago. (Note: This and many other passages indicate that Jesus was to come again in a relatively short period of time and not just "quickly" as present day Biblicists assert. All of his listeners are now dead, yet Jesus has not come again in his kingdom. All of the alleged words of Jesus recorded in the Bible are therefore suspect.) Coming into His kingdom refers to His resurrection, not his second coming. We are getting into areas here where, doctrinally, a lot of Christians disagree, but still, I think most can agree He was referring to His Resurrection. Quote: MK 16:17-18 A believer can handle snakes or drink poison and not experience any harm. (Note: Many unfortunate believers have died as a result of handling snakes and drinking poison. This kind of assertion negates the Bible as a useful guidebook for life.) Come on. Seriously. You have better arguments than this. Quote: What evidence there was no source quoted I mean if I were to say the shy is blue because a smurf pissed in it once upon a time is that considered evidence? No I would have to provide a notable scientific source he never provided a source so he got no response from me (and if he did provide a source I must have missed it but I never did see a source.) Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree here. I think a lot of internet "sources" are untrustworhty at best. Yes, obviously proof is needed but if it is an assertion he makes, one has to prove his assertion is wrong. Well, I suppose one doesn't HAVE to, one doesn't HAVE to argue at all, lol. But to further the discussion it would seem useful. I don't think his evidence was wrong. I know we do find many of the things he has reffered to in land areas. I also know that a lot of the Earth that is now land used to be underwater. I also know that the problem is not that science hasn't "proved" a flood. I need no proof. As long as science has not proven there never was a flood, I'm fine. And science will never prove that, I believe. Quote: Yes this type of argument has been made before and has been debunked before and if you would really like I can dig the link back up for you if you would so like (yes I would do that for you) Argument debunked? How can one debunk the argument that there might have formerly been area of land now exposed, underwater? Maybe we are just not talking about the same things... Quote: When these people actually learn to back their assertions up with evidence I will gladly challenge them with counter evidence (I have said this before). But some of the things they are claiming require mental gymnastics beyond any logic and reason. I am not trying to be a "big jerk" it comes naturally (j/k) but seriously I will admit I do not take kindly to people spouting what they believe to be true off the top of their head, I (as I have said already in this post) Like to see some corroboration. Well seeing as this is a Faith based religion, no scientific evidence has to be offered to prove its truth. It can't. science doesn't DO that. If the burden of proof is on someone, it is the other half who has to prove unequivically. that the believer's idea of events could not have happened. Anyway, unfortunately, if posts are going to be this long all the time I won't be able to post much, but hopefully I can contribute my two cents here and there. If I missed something, I apologize. Don't have time like I used to. Cheers everyone. __________________ Titans baby, Titans.