Truth is what matters website

Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Truth is what matters website

I'd like to invite folks to check out a blog I have started that will include youtube video discussions. I invite you to make your comments at the site and I invite you to discuss here your views about subjects we raise there from week to week. I will gladly try to defend my views with you here at Rational Responders.

The site is http://www.truthiswhatmatters.com

Please respect our site in that I am not expecting the comments there to be rude or an attempt to bring our site to its knees. It's like inviting you to my house to invite you there. However feel free here to ask me to debate you in full about any topic I raise at my site. And feel free to put links back to this forum in your comments you make at my site.

I also invite Rook to give a review of this site as he did likewise in the past for my previous site which went down a year ago. www.bibledoor.com That site is up again but will eventually serve mostly as a site to sell books that I have authored.

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
All I can say is that it is

All I can say is that it is a very very misleading website title, it should be renamed, truth as per christian views, not truth matters. Because what I have read, truth doesn't seem to matter at all.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1581
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Fossils were once organisms

 

Quote:
  Submitted by latincanuck on July 7, 2012 - 4:50pm,.

 

 on by Ray Luff                                  Re:: Fossils were once the indications of actual organisms.

                I know you missed the PhD on hand; he "got his doctorate in Theology". Even careful observation of a hand specimen under a magnifying glass can be wrongly interpreted if it does not fit one’s preconceptions. With the anti-christian bias rampant, to fever pitch,  I do not think they'd allow him anywhere near the in the World's leading collections of fossils. Besides how might he be qualified to comment on fossils, I immediately shut down my browser and left him unwatched, biased I fear.  The only fossil I (briefly) saw as the guy with YEC/Deluge Myth arguments of 30 and 35 years-ago.

   Nobody get me wrong,  If the OP wants to bring it to the forum, people are always willing to examine it, I know I would. 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:All I can

latincanuck wrote:

All I can say is that it is a very very misleading website title, it should be renamed, truth as per christian views, not truth matters. Because what I have read, truth doesn't seem to matter at all.

We attempted to bring up the point you are making in one of our articles at the www.truthiswhatmatters.com.

The argument goes like this,

If I discuss what I believe is right and you discuss what you believe is right. We have both done something. That is we have left God out of the equation. If God exists then we must find out what He thinks is right. Only what He thinks matters after that.

In another one of the posts related to there is no truth without Jesus we brought up this topic again,

We have observed that most people tend toward disbelief in absolute truth. But we also observe that those calling themselves Christians tend to believe in Absolute Truth. When we examine their scriptures we find that Jesus said "I am the Truth, the Way and the Life" - John 14.6. Jesus didn't say "a Truth". It therefore makes sensce to us that those that Know Jesus know the absolute truth and those that do not know Him do not know there is truth. The Apostle Paul said, "God our Saviour (Jesus) desires that all men might be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth".  Jesus said, "the Truth will set you free". So it makes sense to us that those that don't know the truth, don't believe in the truth.

The suggestion that we should make our website say our belief in relative terms however assumes a belief that truth is relative on your part. We basically believe that truth is absolute. Let me ask you this How do you know that the belief that truth is relative is a true belief?  Is it an absolutely true belief?

Ray,

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:  on

danatemporary wrote:

  on by Ray Luff

                                  Re:: Fossils were once the indications of actual organisms.

                I know you missed the PhD on hand; he "got his doctorate in Theology". Even careful observation of a hand specimen under a magnifying glass can be wrongly interpreted if it does not fit one’s preconceptions. With the anti-christian bias rampant, to fever pitch,  I do not think they'd allow him anywhere near the in the World's leading collections of fossils. Besides how might he be qualified to comment on fossils, I immediately shut down my browser and left him unwatched, biased I fear.  The only fossil I (briefly) saw as the guy with YEC/Deluge Myth arguments of 30 and 35 years-ago.

 Thanks for looking as much as you did. Try looking at the .pdf of the scanned letter that we were reading in the Youtube video under the section "Three reasons to reject Evolution".  Thanks,

Ray,

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1581
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Like I said dont get me wrong ..

 T0 : The OP :

    Ray your are a very gracious fellow, I would like to apologize for some of my remarks.  We have been experiencing a lack of participation, missed opportunities, for anti-evolutionists and YEC to field questions. I personally am finding it hard to recognize a Theist may simply not be gifted or motivated to do so.  Wrong of me clearly. I am so very sorry. 

 A picture is worth a thousand words ..


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote: T0 :

danatemporary wrote:

 T0 : The OP :

    Ray your are a very gracious fellow, I would like to apologize for some of my remarks.  We have been experiencing a lack of participation, missed opportunities, for anti-evolutionists and YEC to field questions. I personally am finding it hard to recognize a Theist may simply not be gifted or motivated to do so.  Wrong of me clearly. I am so very sorry. 

I used to debate at the Atheist Network and at Infidel Guy intensely. My posts here have been few but I have been just as intense in my activities while not posting here often. I realized I had to go away and do some homework while I was away. You will find some of the stuff I have authored and am promoting under STORE / FREEBIES at www.bibledoor.com  One of the things I went off to study was the issues relating to the correctness of the Bible. It prompted me to examine the KJV bible and produce a revision called the Simplified King James Version.

There are uncaring and unloving examples of Theists who come to your site and others. I recognized this in the past when my posts challenging other Theists to debate were moderated to a section called Theist vs Theist becuase I honestly believed these people needed to be taken on relentlessly to get them to stop misrepresenting the Christian faith by their attitudes.  I don't know if you have a Theist vs. Theist thread here at rational responders.

I was originally invited by Reginald Finely to his site because of the same lack of participation you experience here.

God says "Come let us reason together" but He knows that He will win the argument because He goes on to say "Though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow". God connects refusal to honestly debate Him with sin in a persons life. If you are wiling to debate Him knowing that you must turn from your sin if He wins the debate, He is up to the challenge.

Your fellow life travelor, No better than anyone here,

Ray,

www.truthiswhatmatters.com

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Whitefox wrote: God says

Whitefox wrote:

God says "Come let us reason together" but He knows that He will win the argument because He goes on to say "Though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow". God connects refusal to honestly debate Him with sin in a persons life. If you are wiling to debate Him knowing that you must turn from your sin if He wins the debate, He is up to the challenge.

I cannot have a relationship with a bully where I am always wrong and he is always right. If I don't "reason" with him he will hit me with cruel and unusual punishment. Got mafia?

I cannot have a debate with an imaginary being who doesn't have the courtesy of contacting me directly.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Be care ful when

Whitefox wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

 T0 : The OP :

    Ray your are a very gracious fellow, I would like to apologize for some of my remarks.  We have been experiencing a lack of participation, missed opportunities, for anti-evolutionists and YEC to field questions. I personally am finding it hard to recognize a Theist may simply not be gifted or motivated to do so.  Wrong of me clearly. I am so very sorry. 

I used to debate at the Atheist Network and at Infidel Guy intensely. My posts here have been few but I have been just as intense in my activities while not posting here often. I realized I had to go away and do some homework while I was away. You will find some of the stuff I have authored and am promoting under STORE / FREEBIES at www.bibledoor.com  One of the things I went off to study was the issues relating to the correctness of the Bible. It prompted me to examine the KJV bible and produce a revision called the Simplified King James Version.

There are uncaring and unloving examples of Theists who come to your site and others. I recognized this in the past when my posts challenging other Theists to debate were moderated to a section called Theist vs Theist becuase I honestly believed these people needed to be taken on relentlessly to get them to stop misrepresenting the Christian faith by their attitudes.  I don't know if you have a Theist vs. Theist thread here at rational responders.

I was originally invited by Reginald Finely to his site because of the same lack of participation you experience here.

God says "Come let us reason together" but He knows that He will win the argument because He goes on to say "Though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow". God connects refusal to honestly debate Him with sin in a persons life. If you are wiling to debate Him knowing that you must turn from your sin if He wins the debate, He is up to the challenge.

Your fellow life travelor, No better than anyone here,

Ray,

www.truthiswhatmatters.com

Revising the book. There are revisions that distort the original to meet/fit the mindset of what one wishes to propagate. In one case---- the book of rev--- a measurement is 144 cubits and a new version changes it to 216 feet. Today people can absorb the usage of "feet" but the number 216 is misleading. While 144 cubits equals 216 feet (depending upon whose arm is used as the base) the number 144 must remain. It's the number 144 that has the meaning not the 216. It means what a person measures up to as "a person" rather then any physical measurement,  usage as in --that guy doesn't measure up. The 144 is an attachment number to creation. nothing in creation totals to 216. There are 12 things "God" said. 12X12=144. ---12 in the light  and 12 in the dark = 24 elders-things of ancient times. 216 leads one outside the meanings. 144 must stay.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Revising the

Old Seer wrote:

Revising the book. There are revisions that distort the original to meet/fit the mindset of what one wishes to propagate. In one case---- the book of rev--- a measurement is 144 cubits and a new version changes it to 216 feet. Today people can absorb the usage of "feet" but the number 216 is misleading. While 144 cubits equals 216 feet (depending upon whose arm is used as the base) the number 144 must remain. It's the number 144 that has the meaning not the 216. It means what a person measures up to as "a person" rather then any physical measurement,  usage as in --that guy doesn't measure up. The 144 is an attachment number to creation. nothing in creation totals to 216. There are 12 things "God" said. 12X12=144. ---12 in the light  and 12 in the dark = 24 elders-things of ancient times. 216 leads one outside the meanings. 144 must stay.

Thanks for the good advice. I am trying to be very careful with this.  Let me know if you spot any concern in the Gospel of John available at my site as well.

http://bibledoor.wordpress.com/store-2/freebies/skjv-johns-gospel/

Also I have a book I authored called "Ilumination or Illusion - A comparitive study of Newer Bible Versions". I hope to make it available on Amazon soon. It can be ordered from my www.bibledoor.com site by emailing me bibledoor@rogers.com and I would email you back info on how to obtain it.  I discuss the pitfalls of over 160 English versions of the Bible to watch out for. However there always seems to be another one to watch out for such as the one you mention.

Ray,

www.truthiswhatmatters.com

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote: I cannot

ex-minister wrote:
I cannot have a relationship with a bully where I am always wrong and he is always right. If I don't "reason" with him he will hit me with cruel and unusual punishment. Got mafia? I cannot have a debate with an imaginary being who doesn't have the courtesy of contacting me directly.

LOL. God does have the final say. Didn't your father have a final say with you when you were in his house? Do you have a relationship with him? If not can you see the logic of someone having a final say in your life at least while you were young.

I can't say I understand this but God lowered himself to your level to become a man and dwell among us for the very reason you give. In fact he let us bully him instead.  He comes to you in a friendly way.

The Bible says "there is a friend that sticks closer than a brother" - prov 4.8

He says "Behold i stand at the door and knock if any man hears my voice and opens the door i will come in and dine with him and he with me." - Rev 3.20

I don't see any bullying there.

Jesus wants to contact you directly. He says there are many dwelling places in heaven that he is preparing for his disciples. He then says he wants to abide with us and manifest himself in our lives. - John 14 (That is direct contact) But he doesn't do home invasion. He knocks at the door. He doesn't break it down against your will. It is up to you whether He has direct contact with you.

If your child tries to put his hand on the burner of the stove do you not tell him not to. God tells you not to chose to be seperate from Him. He honours our choice to keep Him out of our life but there will come a final point where you are seperated from Him for all of eternity by your choice but you will no longer have the choice to change your mind about it.  He warns you about your choice now. Your choice will have cruel results for you but God does not force you to choose Him. I guess you could call his agenda for mankind "TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES" to draw on the gameshow name.

Ray,

www.truthiswhatmatters.com

 

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Whitefox wrote: The

Whitefox wrote:

 

The suggestion that we should make our website say our belief in relative terms however assumes a belief that truth is relative on your part. We basically believe that truth is absolute. Let me ask you this How do you know that the belief that truth is relative is a true belief?  Is it an absolutely true belief?

Ray,

If I was "absolutely certain" that truth was relative I would not make the assumption that truth was relative would I ? 

Nice try with the trick question but that one has been used before. 

 

You say that you "basically believe" that truth is absolute. So does that mean that you only believe it to be so ? 

Oh that's right, that falls into that "faith" category. Faith being a fancy way of saying "doubt". Because if you were absolutely certain that the bible and such were correct, then you would have no need of "faith" for it would no longer require a "belief" it would be knowledge. 

Plus there is zero evidence for your assertion that your "faith" is absolute nor true. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
I could see my dad and talk

I could see my dad and talk directly to him. He was a reasonable man and not always right and would not always have that final word. He agreed I was right sometimes. If I didn't believe in him he wouldn't burn me. Nor did he feel a need to commit suicide to save me. We had a real relationship.

I just checked and no one is at my door.

So you are saying god is like an absentee father. You are like the mother telling her abandoned child that yes his father loves him and while he cannot see him now his dad is in a far off place building him a wonderful home and when he dies he will get to be with his dad forever.

You have no cognitive dissonance on what you are telling me?

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Whitefox wrote: LOL. God

Whitefox wrote:

 

LOL. God does have the final say. Didn't your father have a final say with you when you were in his house? Do you have a relationship with him? If not can you see the logic of someone having a final say in your life at least while you were young.

No, god does not have the final say as he does not exist. You have no proof of a celestial dictator having the final say. No, my dad did not always have the final say in everything. Besides that, he was human, he was fallible, he made mistakes and he was not always right. 

Whitefox wrote:

I can't say I understand this but God lowered himself to your level to become a man and dwell among us for the very reason you give. In fact he let us bully him instead.  He comes to you in a friendly way.

So god had to send his son down to get executed, in order for people to be saved ? But ONLY if they believe that he did it right ? Hmm, be kinda weird if I had a bone to pick with someone and they told me " I'll tell you what, I'll let you kill my son and then all will be forgiven,". 

Whitefox wrote:

If your child tries to put his hand on the burner of the stove do you not tell him not to. God tells you not to chose to be seperate from Him. He honours our choice to keep Him out of our life but there will come a final point where you are seperated from Him for all of eternity by your choice but you will no longer have the choice to change your mind about it.  He warns you about your choice now. Your choice will have cruel results for you but God does not force you to choose Him. I guess you could call his agenda for mankind "TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES" to draw on the gameshow name.

Ray,

www.truthiswhatmatters.com

 

Love and worship me or be tortured forever ? Real nice guy this jesus. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Whitefox wrote:

 

The suggestion that we should make our website say our belief in relative terms however assumes a belief that truth is relative on your part. We basically believe that truth is absolute. Let me ask you this How do you know that the belief that truth is relative is a true belief?  Is it an absolutely true belief?

Ray,

If I was "absolutely certain" that truth was relative I would not make the assumption that truth was relative would I ? 

Nice try with the trick question but that one has been used before. 

 

You say that you "basically believe" that truth is absolute. So does that mean that you only believe it to be so ? 

Oh that's right, that falls into that "faith" category. Faith being a fancy way of saying "doubt". Because if you were absolutely certain that the bible and such were correct, then you would have no need of "faith" for it would no longer require a "belief" it would be knowledge. 

Plus there is zero evidence for your assertion that your "faith" is absolute nor true. 

LOL. I tried about the Absolute question.

LOL. Again you caught me not being as positive in my statement as  I should be. I stand corrected.

I absolutely believe there is absolute truth.

Regarding faith. Lets try that Cyclopaedia (Circle of truth regarding a topic according to the Greek meaning).

Men put their faith in what they believe to be absolutely true.  For example. There are some who are willing to put their faith in Evolution because they believe Evolution to be true. There are others that are willing to put their faith in Creation because they believe it to be true.

Therefore the real issue at your website is what will you put your faith in?

The Bible says that man tends to put his faith in himself rather than the God who created Him.  It makes no allowance that a person doesn't have faith. All persons have faith.  This website helps to bolster ones faith in Atheism for example. Albeit there are Theists who try to get you to switch your belief system so that you can put your faith in something that is absolutely true rahter than in something that is relatively true meaning there is no truth when you take it to its logical conclusion.

The cosmos itself indicates there is truth. In that there are physical laws that are never broken that cause the every material thing to exist and hold together. If the laws changed now and then there would be no reason for science. Science is an attempt to unravel the absolute truths of material things but it falls short of unravelling the spiritual things.

But just as there are physical laws there are also spiritual laws. God reveals the spiritual laws for us by his prophets who are the ones whos writings we have combined together in the Holy Bible. Prophets spanning a 1600 year period of time.

So the rehtorical quesition once again is do you have faith that your belief about faith not existing is true? Does it take just as much faith to believe there is no God as it does to believe there is a God?

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I think what we have here is

ex-minister wrote:
Whitefox wrote:
God says "Come let us reason together" but He knows that He will win the argument because He goes on to say "Though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow". God connects refusal to honestly debate Him with sin in a persons life. If you are wiling to debate Him knowing that you must turn from your sin if He wins the debate, He is up to the challenge.
I cannot have a relationship with a bully where I am always wrong and he is always right. If I don't "reason" with him he will hit me with cruel and unusual punishment. Got mafia? I cannot have a debate with an imaginary being who doesn't have the courtesy of contacting me directly.

the confusion of Euro Christianity verses the actual or real Christianity. Europeans adapted the book to their culture rather then adapt to the book , which would be an adaptation of the new Testament. Christianity was a new religion that took followers away from authorities. So they simply claimed the book for themselves to maintain position over the people. The basic common ground between the bible as a whole and other cultures is they are/were a civilization. The new testament doesn't establish any civilization, actually the goal is to get  rid of it. They did the same as before they acquired the book. They used the Name but didn't change anything. It's the European authorities that were at fault not Christianity. As any other civilization on the planet they did the same. Christianity had nothing to do with their actions, they did as they always did. Christianity gets the bad rap.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I would say

Whitefox wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

Whitefox wrote:

 

The suggestion that we should make our website say our belief in relative terms however assumes a belief that truth is relative on your part. We basically believe that truth is absolute. Let me ask you this How do you know that the belief that truth is relative is a true belief?  Is it an absolutely true belief?

Ray,

If I was "absolutely certain" that truth was relative I would not make the assumption that truth was relative would I ? 

Nice try with the trick question but that one has been used before. 

 

You say that you "basically believe" that truth is absolute. So does that mean that you only believe it to be so ? 

Oh that's right, that falls into that "faith" category. Faith being a fancy way of saying "doubt". Because if you were absolutely certain that the bible and such were correct, then you would have no need of "faith" for it would no longer require a "belief" it would be knowledge. 

Plus there is zero evidence for your assertion that your "faith" is absolute nor true. 

LOL. I tried about the Absolute question.

LOL. Again you caught me not being as positive in my statement as  I should be. I stand corrected.

I absolutely believe there is absolute truth.

Regarding faith. Lets try that Cyclopaedia (Circle of truth regarding a topic according to the Greek meaning).

Men put their faith in what they believe to be absolutely true.  For example. There are some who are willing to put their faith in Evolution because they believe Evolution to be true. There are others that are willing to put their faith in Creation because they believe it to be true.

Therefore the real issue at your website is what will you put your faith in?

The Bible says that man tends to put his faith in himself rather than the God who created Him.  It makes no allowance that a person doesn't have faith. All persons have faith.  This website helps to bolster ones faith in Atheism for example. Albeit there are Theists who try to get you to switch your belief system so that you can put your faith in something that is absolutely true rahter than in something that is relatively true meaning there is no truth when you take it to its logical conclusion.

The cosmos itself indicates there is truth. In that there are physical laws that are never broken that cause the every material thing to exist and hold together. If the laws changed now and then there would be no reason for science. Science is an attempt to unravel the absolute truths of material things but it falls short of unravelling the spiritual things.

But just as there are physical laws there are also spiritual laws. God reveals the spiritual laws for us by his prophets who are the ones whos writings we have combined together in the Holy Bible. Prophets spanning a 1600 year period of time.

So the rehtorical quesition once again is do you have faith that your belief about faith not existing is true? Does it take just as much faith to believe there is no God as it does to believe there is a God?

that Atheism has faith (if any) based in the material sciences within the realm of physics. An Apostle covers the faith deal in somewhat like this. What good is faith if you have the facts. Faith needs to be attached to something that is an unknown, otherwise faith has no bearing. OK, faith in immortality. While one can't understand how that can be an instructor points out the possibility if such an occurance has taken place. One then has faith that ---that it is or can be true without any actual facts to prove the possibility. The faith is based on JC was ressurected giving one something to go on without being present to see or experience the event-then one operates the belief on faith. Faith remains until proven at some time in the future. Upon proof faith in this case is no longer needed as a fact has been established by witnessing a new event. After proof we then have fact. Fact needs no faith attached. Faith is for an unknown or unproven. For instance-I have faith that the world will someday be peaceful. At present a peaceful world is not a fact. Once the world is peaceful I don't need faith in that item.


 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Whitefox, I was directing

Whitefox, I was directing this to you

ex-minister wrote:
I could see my dad and talk directly to him. He was a reasonable man and not always right and would not always have that final word. He agreed I was right sometimes. If I didn't believe in him he wouldn't burn me. Nor did he feel a need to commit suicide to save me. We had a real relationship.

I just checked and no one is at my door.

So you are saying god is like an absentee father. You are like the mother telling her abandoned child that yes his father loves him and while he cannot see him now his dad is in a far off place building him a wonderful home and when he dies he will get to be with his dad forever.

You have no cognitive dissonance in telling me this?

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Whitefox wrote:We attempted

Whitefox wrote:

We attempted to bring up the point you are making in one of our articles at the www.truthiswhatmatters.com.

The argument goes like this,

If I discuss what I believe is right and you discuss what you believe is right. We have both done something. That is we have left God out of the equation. If God exists then we must find out what He thinks is right. Only what He thinks matters after that.

In another one of the posts related to there is no truth without Jesus we brought up this topic again,

We have observed that most people tend toward disbelief in absolute truth. But we also observe that those calling themselves Christians tend to believe in Absolute Truth. When we examine their scriptures we find that Jesus said "I am the Truth, the Way and the Life" - John 14.6. Jesus didn't say "a Truth". It therefore makes sensce to us that those that Know Jesus know the absolute truth and those that do not know Him do not know there is truth. The Apostle Paul said, "God our Saviour (Jesus) desires that all men might be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth".  Jesus said, "the Truth will set you free". So it makes sense to us that those that don't know the truth, don't believe in the truth.

The suggestion that we should make our website say our belief in relative terms however assumes a belief that truth is relative on your part. We basically believe that truth is absolute. Let me ask you this How do you know that the belief that truth is relative is a true belief?  Is it an absolutely true belief?

Ray,

Well from what I have read it is basically a bunch of ignorance, half truths and misinformation or plain out lies. Such Dr. Etheridge, used in the part of the three reasons to reject evolution....which I assume is dr robert etheridge that died back in 1903 who in reality was assistant keeper of geology in the british museum, he wasn't the foremost expert in fossilology, he had exceptional knowledge of british fossils. If that is the case why use such an out of date statements other than to mislead the reader and even worse make the person they are quoting out to be a far more expert than they really, again other than to deceive the reader? This is what I am talking about...no truths, the website name is misleading. Even worse is that the false science of evolution is filled with even MORE out of date information. All of this leads me to believe that it is not out for truth but for christian beliefs in god to used as truths, not evidence, facts and scientific method to prove truths, but faith and falsehoods.


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: that Atheism

Old Seer wrote:

that Atheism has faith (if any) based in the material sciences within the realm of physics. An Apostle covers the faith deal in somewhat like this. What good is faith if you have the facts. Faith needs to be attached to something that is an unknown, otherwise faith has no bearing. OK, faith in immortality. While one can't understand how that can be an instructor points out the possibility if such an occurance has taken place. One then has faith that ---that it is or can be true without any actual facts to prove the possibility. The faith is based on JC was ressurected giving one something to go on without being present to see or experience the event-then one operates the belief on faith. Faith remains until proven at some time in the future. Upon proof faith in this case is no longer needed as a fact has been established by witnessing a new event. After proof we then have fact. Fact needs no faith attached. Faith is for an unknown or unproven. For instance-I have faith that the world will someday be peaceful. At present a peaceful world is not a fact. Once the world is peaceful I don't need faith in that item.

I think you are refering to the Bible quote from Hebrews,

Quote:

Hebrews 11 - 1 

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders achieved a strongtestimony.
3 Through faith we understand that the ages were planned by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made from things which do appear.

I find it rather interesting that the Bible is proven correct that things that are seen were not made from things that appear.  Isn't this the same message as is being learned currently regarding the "God Particle"? We are being asked to believe in things that appear from things that do not appear in the Bible. Are we not being asked to believe the same thing by Science today?

Quote:

Rom 1 - 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness; 19 because that which may be known of God is made known in them; for God has shown it to them. 20 For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead (Holy Trinity); so that they are without excuse: 21 Because, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their reasonings [imaginations], and their foolish hearts were darkened.  (SKJV - available at www.bibledoor.com)

The Bible has a lot to say about invisible things being revealed to men making them without excuse for rejecting the creator of those invisible things.  It should amaze men that the Bible knows about things that appear being based on things that do not appear.  Certainly it knew this before science knew it.

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: that Atheism

Old Seer wrote:

that Atheism has faith (if any) based in the material sciences within the realm of physics. An Apostle covers the faith deal in somewhat like this. What good is faith if you have the facts. Faith needs to be attached to something that is an unknown, otherwise faith has no bearing. OK, faith in immortality. While one can't understand how that can be an instructor points out the possibility if such an occurance has taken place. One then has faith that ---that it is or can be true without any actual facts to prove the possibility. The faith is based on JC was ressurected giving one something to go on without being present to see or experience the event-then one operates the belief on faith. Faith remains until proven at some time in the future. Upon proof faith in this case is no longer needed as a fact has been established by witnessing a new event. After proof we then have fact. Fact needs no faith attached. Faith is for an unknown or unproven. For instance-I have faith that the world will someday be peaceful. At present a peaceful world is not a fact. Once the world is peaceful I don't need faith in that item.

I think you are refering to the Bible quote from Hebrews,

Quote:

Hebrews 11 - 1 

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders achieved a strongtestimony.
3 Through faith we understand that the ages were planned by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made from things which do appear.

I find it rather interesting that the Bible is proven correct that things that are seen were not made from things that appear.  Isn't this the same message as is being learned currently regarding the "God Particle"? We are being asked to believe in things that appear from things that do not appear in the Bible. Are we not being asked to believe the same thing by Science today?

Quote:

Rom 1 - 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness; 19 because that which may be known of God is made known in them; for God has shown it to them. 20 For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead (Holy Trinity); so that they are without excuse: 21 Because, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their reasonings [imaginations], and their foolish hearts were darkened.  (SKJV - available at www.bibledoor.com)

The Bible has a lot to say about invisible things being revealed to men making them without excuse for rejecting the creator of those invisible things.  It should amaze men that the Bible knows about things that appear being based on things that do not appear.  Certainly it knew this before science knew it.

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:Whitefox,

ex-minister wrote:

Whitefox, I was directing this to you

ex-minister wrote:
I could see my dad and talk directly to him. He was a reasonable man and not always right and would not always have that final word. He agreed I was right sometimes. If I didn't believe in him he wouldn't burn me. Nor did he feel a need to commit suicide to save me. We had a real relationship.

I just checked and no one is at my door.

So you are saying god is like an absentee father. You are like the mother telling her abandoned child that yes his father loves him and while he cannot see him now his dad is in a far off place building him a wonderful home and when he dies he will get to be with his dad forever.

You have no cognitive dissonance in telling me this?

When you read the context of this. The Israelites (Not Christians who follow Christ) were used of God to punish nations who disobeyed God. These nations also punished the Jews when they disobeyed God. God pulls the strings on History (His Story) with mankind. When you study ancient human history you find that these nations being punished by the Jews were being punished for their rejection of God.

It's a misnomer to believe that God is only a God of Love. He is also a God of Justice  and He is also a God of Wrath. When the Bible says we should fear God it is literally true that we should fear Him. The 19th century had a false gospel that was being presented by the majority of preachers. It was the false gospel that God is only a God of Love.  It was a century in which God was reduced to being an optional extra and a choice that we can make to suit our lifestyles and a candy daddy that is there only to give us things that we ask for.

Following Christ is much more serious than that. He tells his followers to be disciplined (disciples) and he says for them to pick up a cross to follow Him. But the last century had a lot of people thinking they came to Christ without their being asked if they would follow him to the death as he requires.  Many did not make a real or serious committment to Him. Many here in these forums have rejected a form of committment which was really only a committment to themselves and not to God.

The preaching of Hell has fallen out of fashion because many have refashioned the message of the Bible to suit themselves.  They don't want to hear about God's judgement.  I am glad that you are familliar that God is a God of judgment. He does not let sin go unpunished.

The wages of sin is death -  Romans 6.23

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Well from

latincanuck wrote:

Well from what I have read it is basically a bunch of ignorance, half truths and misinformation or plain out lies. Such Dr. Etheridge, used in the part of the three reasons to reject evolution....which I assume is dr robert etheridge that died back in 1903 who in reality was assistant keeper of geology in the british museum, he wasn't the foremost expert in fossilology, he had exceptional knowledge of british fossils. If that is the case why use such an out of date statements other than to mislead the reader and even worse make the person they are quoting out to be a far more expert than they really, again other than to deceive the reader? This is what I am talking about...no truths, the website name is misleading. Even worse is that the false science of evolution is filled with even MORE out of date information. All of this leads me to believe that it is not out for truth but for christian beliefs in god to used as truths, not evidence, facts and scientific method to prove truths, but faith and falsehoods.

LOL. Evolution is based on even older information. Much of our education is based on old information from a bunch of dead guys.

Even evolutionists try to explain to me that Darwinian evolution is outdated. Yet the Darwininian lies still exist in the text books such as Nebrasca Man who was proven to be a pigs tooth and Neandrethal man which by DNA was proven to be a race of giant homosapiens but not a seperate species. Yet the charts in the text books continue to present these false links. Even the new text books continue to tell these lies.

I have challenged you that realtive thinking causes someone to believe that nothing is true.  If I believe there is absolute truth and you do not believe this is it not my right to present what I believe is absolute truth as absolute truth?

If you believe that there is no absolute truth, do you not have the right to absolutely believe that and to present that belief as an absolute truth as well?

In the battle for truth do we not have the right to defend and explain the faith that we have placed in the absolute truths that each of us have decided to adhere to? Does not the Evolutionist have the right to claim that his faith in Evolution is because he thinks it is absolutely true?

Does someone have to be dishonest to present the absolute truth that they have put their faith in?

If you review the videos about the Bible Proves it is a true book. You will hear my arguments in support of my belief that the Bible is absolutely true. I would appreciate hearing your comments about that claim if you watch it.

http://truthiswhatmatters.com/2012/07/04/the-bible-is-proven-true-by-fulfilled-prophecy/

Finally, I would not think anyone is lying about what they beleive is true. Either you or myself.

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Whitefox wrote:ex-minister

Whitefox wrote:

ex-minister wrote:

Whitefox, I was directing this to you

ex-minister wrote:
I could see my dad and talk directly to him. He was a reasonable man and not always right and would not always have that final word. He agreed I was right sometimes. If I didn't believe in him he wouldn't burn me. Nor did he feel a need to commit suicide to save me. We had a real relationship.

I just checked and no one is at my door.

So you are saying god is like an absentee father. You are like the mother telling her abandoned child that yes his father loves him and while he cannot see him now his dad is in a far off place building him a wonderful home and when he dies he will get to be with his dad forever.

You have no cognitive dissonance in telling me this?

When you read the context of this. The Israelites (Not Christians who follow Christ) were used of God to punish nations who disobeyed God. These nations also punished the Jews when they disobeyed God. God pulls the strings on History (His Story) with mankind. When you study ancient human history you find that these nations being punished by the Jews were being punished for their rejection of God.

It's a misnomer to believe that God is only a God of Love. He is also a God of Justice  and He is also a God of Wrath. When the Bible says we should fear God it is literally true that we should fear Him. The 19th century had a false gospel that was being presented by the majority of preachers. It was the false gospel that God is only a God of Love.  It was a century in which God was reduced to being an optional extra and a choice that we can make to suit our lifestyles and a candy daddy that is there only to give us things that we ask for.

Following Christ is much more serious than that. He tells his followers to be disciplined (disciples) and he says for them to pick up a cross to follow Him. But the last century had a lot of people thinking they came to Christ without their being asked if they would follow him to the death as he requires.  Many did not make a real or serious committment to Him. Many here in these forums have rejected a form of committment which was really only a committment to themselves and not to God.

The preaching of Hell has fallen out of fashion because many have refashioned the message of the Bible to suit themselves.  They don't want to hear about God's judgement.  I am glad that you are familliar that God is a God of judgment. He does not let sin go unpunished.

The wages of sin is death -  Romans 6.23

It is quite clear you have not come to "reason" but only preach. You didn't talk to any of my points. A one way street that leads to a dead end. That is christianity. Nothing new for 2000 years, a walking zombie that only looks for brains to eat.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:Whitefox

ex-minister wrote:

Whitefox wrote:

ex-minister wrote:

Whitefox, I was directing this to you

ex-minister wrote:
I could see my dad and talk directly to him. He was a reasonable man and not always right and would not always have that final word. He agreed I was right sometimes. If I didn't believe in him he wouldn't burn me. Nor did he feel a need to commit suicide to save me. We had a real relationship.

I just checked and no one is at my door.

So you are saying god is like an absentee father. You are like the mother telling her abandoned child that yes his father loves him and while he cannot see him now his dad is in a far off place building him a wonderful home and when he dies he will get to be with his dad forever.

You have no cognitive dissonance in telling me this?

When you read the context of this. The Israelites (Not Christians who follow Christ) were used of God to punish nations who disobeyed God. These nations also punished the Jews when they disobeyed God. God pulls the strings on History (His Story) with mankind. When you study ancient human history you find that these nations being punished by the Jews were being punished for their rejection of God.

It's a misnomer to believe that God is only a God of Love. He is also a God of Justice  and He is also a God of Wrath. When the Bible says we should fear God it is literally true that we should fear Him. The 19th century had a false gospel that was being presented by the majority of preachers. It was the false gospel that God is only a God of Love.  It was a century in which God was reduced to being an optional extra and a choice that we can make to suit our lifestyles and a candy daddy that is there only to give us things that we ask for.

Following Christ is much more serious than that. He tells his followers to be disciplined (disciples) and he says for them to pick up a cross to follow Him. But the last century had a lot of people thinking they came to Christ without their being asked if they would follow him to the death as he requires.  Many did not make a real or serious committment to Him. Many here in these forums have rejected a form of committment which was really only a committment to themselves and not to God.

The preaching of Hell has fallen out of fashion because many have refashioned the message of the Bible to suit themselves.  They don't want to hear about God's judgement.  I am glad that you are familliar that God is a God of judgment. He does not let sin go unpunished.

The wages of sin is death -  Romans 6.23

It is quite clear you have not come to "reason" but only preach. You didn't talk to any of my points. A one way street that leads to a dead end. That is christianity. Nothing new for 2000 years, a walking zombie that only looks for brains to eat.

I apologize. Perhaps I replied to your signature which pointed out that God condoned killing in the Old Testament of people who He wished to punish. I thought I had responded to one of your points when I did this.

I didn't realize that you wanted me to take seriously that you went to the door to see if Jesus was there. Surely you realize that the Bible uses metaphor. You I think are trying to take the Bible more literally than any student of the Bible would.  The metaphore Jesus is using when he talks about being at the door is that you have locked him out of your home, your spirit will not allow His spirit to comune with your spirit.

The anlaogy of a father expecting to have the final say in his house still holds. However you are right that our earthly fathers are not perfect wheras the heavenly father is perfect. But that does not alter the argument that I made that a father expects to have the final say with us when we are children. The bible invites us to be children of God and God expects to have a final say over His children.  You have the right not to be adopted into God's familly and not to allow Him to have a final say over your life. That is your God-given right.

Jesus did not committ suicide that would be cowardly. He allowed us to kill Him, that was heroic.

I find it interesting that you apeal to morals in rejecting God. You wish to have no morals in rejecting Him but you wish to cling to morals in rejecting Him. I find that an interesting dilema.  Actually I think you want to impose your morals rather than to accept God's morals.  You can put your faith in your own morals as being the absolutely true morals to follow however if it turns out you are not absolutely right in your choice you will have eternal regret according to the Bible.

Daniel 11.2 - Some will awake to eternal life, others to eternal contempt.

Regarding preaching. Is that not what is done to promote Atheism? Did not Darwin preach that we have evolved? What you mean is that I am trying to share with you the information that I know to be absolutely true and you are trying to counter that with what you know to be relatively true but you wish to alter the rules so that I do not have a level playing field in the debate by taking away my right to present my argument as I see fit.

 

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Whitefox wrote:  Men put

Whitefox wrote:

 

 

Men put their faith in what they believe to be absolutely true.  For example. There are some who are willing to put their faith in Evolution because they believe Evolution to be true. There are others that are willing to put their faith in Creation because they believe it to be true.

Therefore the real issue at your website is what will you put your faith in?

People need not "believe" in evolution, there are mountains of evidence to support the claim of it's existence. I don't go to my local atheist church and hold hands and say " I believe in evolution, I believe in evolution." 

Does it require an act of "faith" for me to believe that my computer will turn on in the morning ? Only partially. I maintenance it, run virus and spyware scams, and am fairly confident that it will turn on in the morning. IF on the other hand, sometimes it started and sometimes it did not, then some sort of "faith" would be required. 

Like Stephen Hawking once quoted " Why is it that people who believe in pre-destination always look both ways before they cross the street ?," 

My lack of belief requires no faith. Does it require faith to not believe in Santa Claus ? 

Whitefox wrote:

The Bible says that man tends to put his faith in himself rather than the God who created Him.  It makes no allowance that a person doesn't have faith. All persons have faith.  This website helps to bolster ones faith in Atheism for example. Albeit there are Theists who try to get you to switch your belief system so that you can put your faith in something that is absolutely true rahter than in something that is relatively true meaning there is no truth when you take it to its logical conclusion.

The cosmos itself indicates there is truth. In that there are physical laws that are never broken that cause the every material thing to exist and hold together. If the laws changed now and then there would be no reason for science. Science is an attempt to unravel the absolute truths of material things but it falls short of unravelling the spiritual things.

 

The idea that the laws of the universe have never changed could easily be thrown out by the existence of black holes and a number of other things. Granted, based on millions of years of past history, it is entirely reasonable to believe that the sun will arise in the morning. 

 

Whitefox wrote:

But just as there are physical laws there are also spiritual laws. God reveals the spiritual laws for us by his prophets who are the ones whos writings we have combined together in the Holy Bible. Prophets spanning a 1600 year period of time.

So the rehtorical quesition once again is do you have faith that your belief about faith not existing is true? Does it take just as much faith to believe there is no God as it does to believe there is a God?

It requires no faith to disbelieve. There is no evidence for the existence of a god and therefore I see no reason to believe that. I see no evidence for any type of spiritual axioms. Can you provide some ? What spiritual laws and where do they exist ? Can they be measured, tested or at least observed ? 

My own personal reason for being on this site is not to disprove god, I like being around people that think like me and are tired of religious institutions trying to push agendas into law. 

If people wish to believe in god, I could care less. Provided they do not try and "witness" to me. You don't see any Atheists knocking on doors and asking people " Have you heard the good news ? Darwin was right ! ," 

Let me ask you this : Why do you presume if their was the existence of a deity, that it would be the one of the bible ? What if the Islamic extremists are right ? What if the Hindus are right ? What if the ancient pagans were truly right ? What if the Wiccans are right ? What if the Buddhists are right ? What if the Sufi Muslims are right ? Even something like christianity, can not agree on the SAME book that all branches "claim" to follow. Catholics and Baptists hate one another for example. Each denomination all claims that they have the monopoly on the "true" version of christianity? How would you know that your version is correct ? How much are you willing to bet on that ? This is why Pascal's Wager fails. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3662
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Whitefox wrote:Jesus did not

Whitefox wrote:

Jesus did not committ suicide that would be cowardly. He allowed us to kill Him, that was heroic.

 

   So Jesus basically just established the precedent for suicide by cop whereby the victim provokes a lethal response from a second party in order to accomplish their own death.   There was actually a Christian sect called the Circumcellions  ( www.rotten.com/library/religion/heresy/circumcellions/ ) who embraced this heroic style of "martyrdom."

 

Whitefox wrote:
... Actually I think you want to impose your morals rather than to accept God's morals.

 

Okay, I'll accept God's moral standard.  Next time I come across some homosexuals I'll stone them to death.  Also I've got a couple of first cousins who are also sisters.  They are really beautiful and I'd like to marry them both so I think I'll follow Jacob's godly example and make them my wives.   And all those black Americans who complained about the past injustices of institutionalized slavery, we'll I'll just remind them that God himself embraced the practice so they should just shut the hell up.

 

 

http://theatheistconservative.com/

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.
"I love humanity but I hate people." Edna St. Vincent Millay


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

Whitefox wrote:
... Actually I think you want to impose your morals rather than to accept God's morals.

 

Okay, I'll accept God's moral standard.  Next time I come across some homosexuals I'll stone them to death.  Also I've got a couple of first cousins who are also sisters.  They are really beautiful and I'd like to marry them both so I think I'll follow Jacob's godly example and make them my wives.   And all those black Americans who complained about the past injustices of institutionalized slavery, we'll I'll just remind them that God himself embraced the practice so they should just shut the hell up.

 

 

Don't forget, you have to kill people for eating shellfish, burn people for gathering sticks on the sabbath, and let's not forget that a good moral compass for god's compassion for his children was that he drowned them all when he got a little irritated. 

Kinda reminds me of all those 1980's slasher flicks. The teens that drank whiskey, had sex, did some drugs, or god forbid, indulged in some skinny dipping, deserved to die some really horrifying ( and stupid) deaths at the hands of some maniacal killer. Everyone gets killed except for the shy little virgin girl that doesn't partake in any "immoral" activities and becomes the hero at the very end ( odd, no virgin sacrifices in those stupid movies) until the killer returns in the sequel. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Whitefox wrote: When you

Whitefox wrote:

 

When you read the context of this. The Israelites (Not Christians who follow Christ) were used of God to punish nations who disobeyed God. These nations also punished the Jews when they disobeyed God. God pulls the strings on History (His Story) with mankind. When you study ancient human history you find that these nations being punished by the Jews were being punished for their rejection of God.

It's a misnomer to believe that God is only a God of Love. He is also a God of Justice  and He is also a God of Wrath. When the Bible says we should fear God it is literally true that we should fear Him. The 19th century had a false gospel that was being presented by the majority of preachers. It was the false gospel that God is only a God of Love.  It was a century in which God was reduced to being an optional extra and a choice that we can make to suit our lifestyles and a candy daddy that is there only to give us things that we ask for.

Following Christ is much more serious than that. He tells his followers to be disciplined (disciples) and he says for them to pick up a cross to follow Him. But the last century had a lot of people thinking they came to Christ without their being asked if they would follow him to the death as he requires.  Many did not make a real or serious committment to Him. Many here in these forums have rejected a form of committment which was really only a committment to themselves and not to God.

The preaching of Hell has fallen out of fashion because many have refashioned the message of the Bible to suit themselves.  They don't want to hear about God's judgement.  I am glad that you are familliar that God is a God of judgment. He does not let sin go unpunished.

The wages of sin is death -  Romans 6.23

So we are under the rule of a dictator that monitors our every thought and action and have no choice in the matter ? I'd rather go to hell, if such a place existed, which it does not. Hell was an invention of the church to keep the masses in fear. It's a good control tool. 

 

Whitefox wrote:

The anlaogy of a father expecting to have the final say in his house still holds. However you are right that our earthly fathers are not perfect wheras the heavenly father is perfect. But that does not alter the argument that I made that a father expects to have the final say with us when we are children. The bible invites us to be children of God and God expects to have a final say over His children.  You have the right not to be adopted into God's familly and not to allow Him to have a final say over your life. That is your God-given right.

Jesus did not committ suicide that would be cowardly. He allowed us to kill Him, that was heroic.

I find it interesting that you apeal to morals in rejecting God. You wish to have no morals in rejecting Him but you wish to cling to morals in rejecting Him. I find that an interesting dilema.  Actually I think you want to impose your morals rather than to accept God's morals.  You can put your faith in your own morals as being the absolutely true morals to follow however if it turns out you are not absolutely right in your choice you will have eternal regret according to the Bible.

Daniel 11.2 - Some will awake to eternal life, others to eternal contempt.

Empathy, compassion and sympathy is an emergent property of biological evolution. It's what has enabled the human race to survive and is rather universal, even in non-christian nations.  Iran/Iraq is full of people that possess those traits and can not speak out for fear of the consequences of the religious tyranny they live under. 

Jesus didn't ALLOW anything if you wish to go by the Bible, the only way that god could have the propensity to "forgive" men was to send down a son to be killed. What sort of logical creator would even need to do that ? Why not just forgive everyone ? ( What they needed to be forgiven for is still a mystery to me). If the painting is bad, do you blame the paint or the painter ? If the watch does not keep correct time, do you stamp the watch to pieces ? Or do you blame it upon the watch manufacturers ? It stands to reason that if the creator views all his "children" as being inherently flawed without him, then the creator is inherently flawed to design it as such. 

Whitefox wrote:

Regarding preaching. Is that not what is done to promote Atheism? Did not Darwin preach that we have evolved? What you mean is that I am trying to share with you the information that I know to be absolutely true and you are trying to counter that with what you know to be relatively true but you wish to alter the rules so that I do not have a level playing field in the debate by taking away my right to present my argument as I see fit.

 

Darwin preached nothing. Darwin was going by the evidence he uncovered. Darwin is not the final authority on evolution either. Many of his theories have been re-examined and had to be restructured due to recent discoveries and our new scientific technology. No one has to preach evolution as it is self-evident. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Whitefox wrote:  I have

Whitefox wrote:

 

 

I have challenged you that realtive thinking causes someone to believe that nothing is true.  If I believe there is absolute truth and you do not believe this is it not my right to present what I believe is absolute truth as absolute truth?

 

You have the right to do whatever you like. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Whitefox wrote:LOL.

Whitefox wrote:

LOL. Evolution is based on even older information. Much of our education is based on old information from a bunch of dead guys.

However when those dead guys get it wrong, it is corrected, we don't use wrong data once it is found to be wrong. Continue and I will show you.

Quote:

Even evolutionists try to explain to me that Darwinian evolution is outdated. Yet the Darwininian lies still exist in the text books such as Nebrasca Man who was proven to be a pigs tooth and Neandrethal man which by DNA was proven to be a race of giant homosapiens but not a seperate species. Yet the charts in the text books continue to present these false links. Even the new text books continue to teltl these lies.

What text books use Nebraska man? Everything I have ever read regarding evolution does not have nebraska man, what I know about nebraska man is that it was a misclasification that was done in 1922 and found to be wrong in 1925......what modern text book are you using that state nebraska man as part of evolution of modern humans? As for neanderthal man....giant homosapiens? Really because the DNA states otherwise as does the mDNA soo....your pulling this information out of your ass or you are using ignorant and completely wrong information. Please provide said evidence that they are giant modern homosapiens since the latest information shows them being between 5 foot and 5.5 foot tall......wow....what the hell is shaquile o neal then because he is WAY taller than that, heck I am taller than that at 5'10". Again I see that you are using wrong and ignorant information.

As for the DNA it has been mapped out as well as the mDNA, it proves that they are a separate species, even though it may have been possible for neanderthal man to interbreed with modern man it appears that only the male neanderthal man was able to interbreed with humans, as female neanderthals were not able to breed with male humans according the mDNA findings. Now provide the evidence to the contrary, I like to see proper scientific evidence that you provide and not out of date information that you have used.

Quote:

I have challenged you that realtive thinking causes someone to believe that nothing is true.  If I believe there is absolute truth and you do not believe this is it not my right to present what I believe is absolute truth as absolute truth?

Sure if it was out of ignorance but what you are presenting is not absolute truth, it has no truth as I have shown above already, you have presented lies and misinformation, that is not absolute truth.

Quote:

If you believe that there is no absolute truth, do you not have the right to absolutely believe that and to present that belief as an absolute truth as well?

In the battle for truth do we not have the right to defend and explain the faith that we have placed in the absolute truths that each of us have decided to adhere to? Does not the Evolutionist have the right to claim that his faith in Evolution is because he thinks it is absolutely true?

Does someone have to be dishonest to present the absolute truth that they have put their faith in?

If you review the videos about the Bible Proves it is a true book. You will hear my arguments in support of my belief that the Bible is absolutely true. I would appreciate hearing your comments about that claim if you watch it.

http://truthiswhatmatters.com/2012/07/04/the-bible-is-proven-true-by-fulfilled-prophecy/

Finally, I would not think anyone is lying about what they beleive is true. Either you or myself.

Truth is based on evidence, logic and in many cases testing, you have not presented any evidence, like I said about Dr. Etheridge which is basically old out of date information and actually misleading information, he was not the british museums leading fossilologist or anthropologist. Sure people lie about the so called truth all the time, especially in the religous camps as it is further their agenda, like the kent hovids of the creationist and yec's camps, they lie all the time claiming it to be truths. Here let me give it out straight, if it can be proven the evolution is wrong, then present the proper scientific evidence, if you can do this and it passes the testing required, then you can and will become very famous, possibly even winning a noble prize as this would be huge information. It is what science does, it tries to prove information about our understanding of the world or subject at hand wrong, if it can't be proven wrong than it is treated as truth until future data can proven it wrong. If no information (and 150 years later and tons and tons and tons of information, evidence and testing) has not proven evolution wrong.

Yes someone has to be dishonest when they present evidence like you have on that website.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
The best I can explain this

harleysportster wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

Whitefox wrote:
... Actually I think you want to impose your morals rather than to accept God's morals.

 

Okay, I'll accept God's moral standard.  Next time I come across some homosexuals I'll stone them to death.  Also I've got a couple of first cousins who are also sisters.  They are really beautiful and I'd like to marry them both so I think I'll follow Jacob's godly example and make them my wives.   And all those black Americans who complained about the past injustices of institutionalized slavery, we'll I'll just remind them that God himself embraced the practice so they should just shut the hell up.

 

 

Don't forget, you have to kill people for eating shellfish, burn people for gathering sticks on the sabbath, and let's not forget that a good moral compass for god's compassion for his children was that he drowned them all when he got a little irritated. 

Kinda reminds me of all those 1980's slasher flicks. The teens that drank whiskey, had sex, did some drugs, or god forbid, indulged in some skinny dipping, deserved to die some really horrifying ( and stupid) deaths at the hands of some maniacal killer. Everyone gets killed except for the shy little virgin girl that doesn't partake in any "immoral" activities and becomes the hero at the very end ( odd, no virgin sacrifices in those stupid movies) until the killer returns in the sequel. 

You are mixing the OT and the NT together. They are distinctly different religions. The Old Testament and Europeanism are the same religion, or same type---that being of the exterior/material/the superficial. The The new testament (Christianity) is belief of/in the interior/spiritual. The Euros were never Christians, they merely claimed to be. The Euros did the same as the floks in the OT.You'll find before the persecutions of Christians they weren't killing anyone. The killing started after civil authorities claimed Christianity for themselves and perverted it for their own uses. True Christianity rejects authority over others. The world today is a victim of Europeanism, not Christianity. The OT is the Isrealite religion and as of today the Jews don't profess to being Christian.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Whitefox wrote:
... Actually I think you want to impose your morals rather than to accept God's morals.

 Okay, I'll accept God's moral standard.  Next time I come across some homosexuals I'll stone them to death.  Also I've got a couple of first cousins who are also sisters.  They are really beautiful and I'd like to marry them both so I think I'll follow Jacob's godly example and make them my wives.   And all those black Americans who complained about the past injustices of institutionalized slavery, we'll I'll just remind them that God himself embraced the practice so they should just shut the hell up.

The Bible is not so selective as to single out homosexuals for God's wrath.  First of all let's make it clear your wrath is not permitted. "Vengence is mine says the Lord". But concerning God's wrath He does not select one sin above another. He certainly does not single out homosexuals any more than He singles out liars.

Quote:

1 Cor 6 - 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor those who verbally assault, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but you are washed, and you are sanctified (made holy), and you are justified in the name of the LORD Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Regarding slavery the Bible recognizes it's existance in the Roman empire but does not encourage it's practise. It gives instruction to slaves how to work as though God himself is their master but it also tells them and their owners to seek freedom from slavery if at all possible.

The Bible tells us that David sinned by committing Adultery with Bathsheba and by having Uriah her husband killed. The fact that this is recorded in the Bible does not mean God condoned these activities to give another example.

Also you will notice that God does not even judge those that enter into the catagory of "And such were some of you".  So even God doesn't even condemn these sins. He only does so if you do not change your direction and become one of the "And such were some of you" repentent  disciples of the LORD Jesus Christ.  But certainly he makes no provision for you or I to excercise His judgment on anyone. 

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:You are

Old Seer wrote:

You are mixing the OT and the NT together. They are distinctly different religions. 

 

There is a distinction between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The New Testament / Covenant is one of Grace. It is often refered to as the dispensation of Grace. It ushers in a time when the Heathen Nations (Everyone other than the Jews) are invited to be grafted into the true vine. We are called the wild vine. The cultured vine the Jews have been somewhat sidelined at this time but God still has a future purpose for them. He will graft them back into the vine.  During the current dispensation of Grace God has ushered in a period of time in which he is not authorizing the same brutality that he allowed under the Old Covenant.  Under the Old Covenant God allowed the Just punishment of nations that disobeyed Him. Under the current dispensation he tells Christians to turn the other cheek and leave judgment to Him.  It's a switch in His modus operandi but He is just if he punishes sin and he is also just if he ignores it for a season which for the most part He has chosen to ignore it today.

There will however be a great white throne Judement (Rev 21). At the Great white throne God will make his final judgment on those that are not living. The non living ones will experience the second death which is the lake of fire. A place meant for Satan and his angels.

To recap ushered in by the New Testament is an age of grace. The rules are different in the New Testament over what they were in the Old Testament. We now turn the other cheek. We forgive the one taken in adultery, etcetera.

Finally, I find it fascinating that those that do not want to be bound by morals wish to appeal to morals in rejecting the giver of morality.

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1581
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Remember people are tracked on this website .. ..

Whitefox wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

You are mixing the OT and the NT together. They are distinctly different religions. 

 

 Under the Old Covenant God allowed the Just punishment of nations that disobeyed Him. Under the current dispensation he tells Christians to turn the other cheek and leave judgment to Him.  It's a switch in His modus operandi but He is just if he punishes sin and he is also just if he ignores it for a season which for the most part He has chosen to ignore it today.

To recap ushered in by the New Testament is an age of grace. The rules are different in the New Testament over what they were in the Old Testament. We now turn the other cheek. We forgive the one taken in adultery, etcetera.

Finally, I find it fascinating that those that do not want to be bound by morals wish to appeal to morals in rejecting the giver of morality.

  You are making a mistake. There is a presumptuousness that everyone on the site is the same. If you would hunt around some more this is clearly not the case. There are Atheists and Agnostics, a Buddhist (I still hope), the recently de-converted, and the three deists and almost a half a dozen Theists, too lengthy to get into.  I have talked to Old Seer, I rather doubt you ever have.  The point is dont assume we are all the same, the differences are more than you could care to begin to realize. Spend less time focused on your goals and more finding out about who you are talking to.

 

 

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Whitefox wrote:Finally, I

Whitefox wrote:

Finally, I find it fascinating that those that do not want to be bound by morals wish to appeal to morals in rejecting the giver of morality.

 

One of the reasons I left the church was the lousy morals christians have.  Sorry, you lose on this one.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3662
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Whitefox wrote:The Bible is

Whitefox wrote:

The Bible is not so selective as to single out homosexuals for God's wrath. 

 

   No, he reserved the death penalty for numerous other "sins",  ...like killing a rebellious son or someone who picked up sticks on the Sabbath.

 

Whitefox wrote:
First of all let's make it clear your wrath is not permitted.

 

  No, wrath has nothing to do with it , nothing at all.  Those who picked up stones to murder homosexuals were simply obeying God's explicit instructions as given in Leviticus 20:13.   Obedience to God's word, not wrath.

 

Whitefox wrote:
"Vengence is mine says the Lord". But concerning God's wrath He does not select one sin above another. He certainly does not single out homosexuals any more than He singles out liars.

 

  Why are you dancing around the fact that God's justice required his followers to be the agents of that justice ?   The people ...not God...did the killing.  Yes, he had them killed for many reasons often referring to forbidden behaviors as "abominations".

 

 

Whitefox wrote:
Regarding slavery the Bible recognizes it's existance in the Roman empire...

 

  Oh, you are attempting to ignore the Hebrew practice of slavery by deflecting onto Roman slavery customs.  How very deceptive of you.  

 

Whitefox wrote:
...but does not encourage it's practise. It gives instruction to slaves how to work as though God himself is their master but it also tells them and their owners to seek freedom from slavery if at all possible.

 

 Oh yes, God doesn't encourage slavery but he did manage to throw in a few verses in Leviticus 25 that are clearly supportive of the practice:

  verse 44-45:  "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.  You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them SLAVES FOR LIFE, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

 

Whitefox wrote:
The Bible tells us that David sinned by committing Adultery with Bathsheba and by having Uriah her husband killed. The fact that this is recorded in the Bible does not mean God condoned these activities to give another example.

 

  I'm sure you know that David was living under Mosaic law ( Zadok his High Priest should have been a constant reminder ) and as such the law required that David be executed both for the sins of adultery and murder.  God's justice is capricious and arbitrary and allows exceptions for "immunity" which certainly violates the concept of fairness. 

 

Whitefox wrote:
Also you will notice that God does not even judge those that enter into the catagory of "And such were some of you".  So even God doesn't even condemn these sins. He only does so if you do not change your direction and become one of the "And such were some of you" repentent  disciples of the LORD Jesus Christ.  But certainly he makes no provision for you or I to excercise His judgment on anyone. 

  Makes no provision for you or I to exercise his judgement ?   Wow, you must have been asleep during history class. 

Christians by the millions have been "judging" and "executing" for God since they first began to gather power .  The Roman emperor Constantine ( a Christian ) certainly didn't see things your way and ther are  all the wars against "heretics", witches, Jews and any one else that Christianity put on it's hit list.   The practice of killing the enemies of Christianity even carried over from Europe into the American colonies where Bible verses mixed with Godly "wrath" sent many innocent victims to an early grave.

 

 

 

http://theatheistconservative.com/

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.
"I love humanity but I hate people." Edna St. Vincent Millay


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

 

 

People need not "believe" in evolution, there are mountains of evidence to support the claim of it's existence. I don't go to my local atheist church and hold hands and say " I believe in evolution, I believe in evolution." 

Baloney.  I've seen time and time again examples of atheists accepting without question any claims or findings if they go against Christianity.  For example, if I talk about the power of prayer, atheists will throw at me findings from a a SINGLE study which found that prayer doesn't work.  One study is not conclusive evidence.  Atheists will also accept without question the theory that NDE's are a result of hallucinations even though there is no "mountains of evidence" to support such a claim.  That's faith. 

 

 

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: harleysportster

TWD39 wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

People need not "believe" in evolution, there are mountains of evidence to support the claim of it's existence. I don't go to my local atheist church and hold hands and say " I believe in evolution, I believe in evolution." 

Baloney.  I've seen time and time again examples of atheists accepting without question any claims or findings if they go against Christianity.  For example, if I talk about the power of prayer, atheists will throw at me findings from a a SINGLE study which found that prayer doesn't work.  One study is not conclusive evidence.  Atheists will also accept without question the theory that NDE's are a result of hallucinations even though there is no "mountains of evidence" to support such a claim.  That's faith. 

 

I used to be christian - for that matter, so was harleysportster - and all I ever saw was people managing to fix things themselves.  If they "put it in the lap of Jesus", nothing happened.  If you have alternative double-blind studies (most of the ones I have seen that claim prayer really works aren't double-blind), that demonstrate prayer working, I'd be happy to look at them.  In the meantime, how is praying for world peace working for you?

NDE's can be caused by a number of different physical phenomenon.  Pilots training for high-g flying often have NDE's when the g-force gets to the point that they are not getting enough oxygen to their brain. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: Baloney. 

TWD39 wrote:

 

Baloney.  I've seen time and time again examples of atheists accepting without question any claims or findings if they go against Christianity.  For example, if I talk about the power of prayer, atheists will throw at me findings from a a SINGLE study which found that prayer doesn't work.  One study is not conclusive evidence.  Atheists will also accept without question the theory that NDE's are a result of hallucinations even though there is no "mountains of evidence" to support such a claim.  That's faith. 

 

 

There have been numerous studies that the power of prayer does not work. Theists even tried to dance around the issue by then claiming that religious people had more productive lives than those that were not religious. 

There are MOUNTAINS of evidence to prove that NDE's are hallucinations. For one thing, no one has ever returned from total death, NO ONE. "Near Death" as a phrase should sum the whole entire thing up quite nicely. 

Don't try and bullshit a bullshitter. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Whitefox wrote: Finally, I

Whitefox wrote:

 

Finally, I find it fascinating that those that do not want to be bound by morals wish to appeal to morals in rejecting the giver of morality.

Nothing fascinating about it . 

 

For one thing, since when does the christian church have the monopoly on morals ? What about the Islamic nations ? Buddhist nations, Hindu nations ? 

What gives any of these religions the right to claim the monopoly on morals ? 

NONE. 

I find absolutely nothing moral about religion. I find nothing of any use in the Ten Commandments other than perjury, stealing and murder, all which were laws that pre-date christianity and the only laws that are on the books today. 

No one is enforcing that people should " honor thy father and mother" even though that is a horrible commandment given the fact that their are mothers and fathers who physically, sexually and emotionally abuse and even kill their children. 

No one is enforcing a law about who/what you can worship ( unless your under a theocracy) or keeping "holy" the lord's day.

No one is enforcing laws to not "covet neighbors wives and goods either) unless you would like to have some sort of thought police ( oh wait a minute we have god to thank for that one). 

Funny that god did not mention "thou shalt not rape" or "thou shalt not molest little children" . 

Nope, most of his commandments were about honoring his slave religion and blind obedience. 

Funny how many times religion has ignored " thou shalt not kill".  The Crusades, the Inquisition, The Salem Witchcraft Trials, The Catholics collaborating with the Nazis, The conflict in Northern Ireland ( which is still going on to this day, although it has settled down somewhat).  9/11 and a whole bunch more. The Ku Klux Klan regards itself as a christian organization. (The use of the fiery cross is still on the front of most Methodist churches). Need I go on ? 

See, I find it fascinating that christians claim all of these "morals" that have to come from god and do not understand why people choose to reject such beliefs. 

Oh I know that most theists will say those are not " true" christians that do that ( no true scotsman fallacy) and I am sure that Old Seer will have to pipe in here and talk about Europeanism after this, but the fact of the matter is, no matter what the translation, text or version you would like to look at, the bible is a myth, written by primitives and a horribly poor moral framework. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
The book is correct

Whitefox wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

that Atheism has faith (if any) based in the material sciences within the realm of physics. An Apostle covers the faith deal in somewhat like this. What good is faith if you have the facts. Faith needs to be attached to something that is an unknown, otherwise faith has no bearing. OK, faith in immortality. While one can't understand how that can be an instructor points out the possibility if such an occurance has taken place. One then has faith that ---that it is or can be true without any actual facts to prove the possibility. The faith is based on JC was resurrected giving one something to go on without being present to see or experience the event-then one operates the belief on faith. Faith remains until pr oven at some time in the future. Upon proof faith in this case is no longer needed as a fact has been established by witnessing a new event. After proof we then have fact. Fact needs no faith attached. Faith is for an unknown or unproven. For instance-I have faith that the world will someday be peaceful. At present a peaceful world is not a fact. Once the world is peaceful I don't need faith in that item.

I think you are referring to the Bible quote from Hebrews,

[qu

Hebrews 11 - 1 

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders achieved a strongtestimony.
3 Through faith we understand that the ages were planned by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made from things which do appear.

I find it rather interesting that the Bible is pr oven correct that things that are seen were not made from things that appear.  Isn't this the same message as is being learned currently regarding the "God Particle"? We are being asked to believe in things that appear from things that do not appear in the Bible. Are we not being asked to believe the same thing by Science today?

Quote:

Rom 1 - 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness; 19 because that which may be known of God is made known in them; for God has shown it to them. 20 For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead (Holy Trinity); so that they are without excuse: 21 Because, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their reasonings [imaginations], and their foolish hearts were darkened.  (SKJV - available at www.bibledoor.com)

The Bible has a lot to say about invisible things being revealed to men making them without excuse for rejecting the creator of those invisible things.  It should amaze men that the Bible knows about things that appear being based on things that do not appear.  Certainly it knew this before science knew it.

on spiritual things not material things. It,s not about establishing material fact, it's about mental and/or spiritual fact.

You bring up those invisible things---OK. What in your interpretation of creation is invisible. Material is not invisible unless you point to sub-atomic particles etc. But that means that the Apostle had to have knowledge of physics at the atomic/particle level---not likely and an impossibility. Be careful in drifting off into JC and his people are somehow magical people--not so. Knowledge of God is not Knowledge of the material universe--it's the knowledge of the spiritual side of the total sum of universal contents. Now consider that biblical creation isn't about material construction----how about a spiritual construction. Spiritual things are invisible are they not. The Apostles see creation from a different perspective, and base of reason. Think about that.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
If there were any truth to

If there were any truth to be found....

Quote:
If I discuss what I believe is right and you discuss what you believe is right. We have both done something. That is we have left God out of the equation. If God exists then we must find out what He thinks is right. Only what He thinks matters after that.

By presupposing god, you commit a fallacy. Rendering the remainder of your belief as equally fallacious.

But if you want to believe that 1 + 1 = 9 (which is effectively the same thing), have fun with that.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:If there were

Vastet wrote:
If there were any truth to be found....
Quote:
If I discuss what I believe is right and you discuss what you believe is right. We have both done something. That is we have left God out of the equation. If God exists then we must find out what He thinks is right. Only what He thinks matters after that.
By presupposing god, you commit a fallacy. Rendering the remainder of your belief as equally fallacious. But if you want to believe that 1 + 1 = 9 (which is effectively the same thing), have fun with that.

Yes. the "IF" in the statement about God must first be discussed. It cannot be assumed. But if the "IF" is true then the rest of the statment I made equates.

Please bring back some comments from my website postings.  I had hoped this thread would discuss those postings. ie The three reasons to reject Evolution. Someone should comment on that.

Also I hope to address why I believe there is a God. Part of that address is in the program "Prophecy proves the word of God".

Thanks folks,

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:[quote =

Old Seer Wrote

Quote:

Whitefox Wrote

Quote:

The Bible says,

Quote:

 
Hebrews 11 - 1
 
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders achieved a strongtestimony.
3 Through faith we understand that the ages were planned by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made from things which do appear.

 
Rom 1 - 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness; 19 because that which may be known of God is made known in them; for God has shown it to them. 20 For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead (Holy Trinity); so that they are without excuse: 21 Because, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their reasonings [imaginations], and their foolish hearts were darkened.  (SKJV - available at www.bibledoor.com)
 


 
The Bible has a lot to say about invisible things being revealed to men making them without excuse for rejecting the creator of those invisible things.  It should amaze men that the Bible knows about things that appear being based on things that do not appear.  Certainly it knew this before science knew it.

on spiritual things not material things. It,s not about establishing material fact, it's about mental and/or spiritual fact.

You bring up those invisible things---OK. What in your interpretation of creation is invisible. Material is not invisible unless you point to sub-atomic particles etc. But that means that the Apostle had to have knowledge of physics at the atomic/particle level---not likely and an impossibility. Be careful in drifting off into JC and his people are somehow magical people--not so. Knowledge of God is not Knowledge of the material universe--it's the knowledge of the spiritual side of the total sum of universal contents. Now consider that biblical creation isn't about material construction----how about a spiritual construction. Spiritual things are invisible are they not. The Apostles see creation from a different perspective, and base of reason. Think about that.

The prophets of the Bible often did not understand what they were prophecying. They were curious about the outcome of their words. God Reveals future things through their words continually in the Bible. About 25% of the Bible is forward looking prophecy. About 12 percent of it has already been fulfilled.  Check out this topic at my website.

http://truthiswhatmatters.com/2012/07/04/the-bible-is-proven-true-by-fulfilled-prophecy/

Let me know what you think about the discussion we had on this. Thanks.

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I have not the time nor

I have not the time nor inclination to watch the videos (the claims alone are sufficient to know that I know everything they are going to say and why they are absolutely wrong).

1: There are no flaws in the fossil record.

2: Pre-homo-sapiens hominids are not frauds. At least, none discussed by scientists in the last 50 odd years are. There were a few frauds a good hundred years ago, but then everyone knows they are frauds today, and said frauds have nothing to do with the study of evolution.

3: Radiometric dating is not riddled with errors.

To close, despite the claims of that article, evolution has been directly observed on more than one occasion. The first I recall was a bacteria that evolved to consume plastic, a substance that did not in any way exist in the entire solar system until it was invented in the 20th century.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I have not the

Vastet wrote:
I have not the time nor inclination to watch the videos (the claims alone are sufficient to know that I know everything they are going to say and why they are absolutely wrong). 1: There are no flaws in the fossil record. 2: Pre-homo-sapiens hominids are not frauds. At least, none discussed by scientists in the last 50 odd years are. There were a few frauds a good hundred years ago, but then everyone knows they are frauds today, and said frauds have nothing to do with the study of evolution. 3: Radiometric dating is not riddled with errors. To close, despite the claims of that article, evolution has been directly observed on more than one occasion. The first I recall was a bacteria that evolved to consume plastic, a substance that did not in any way exist in the entire solar system until it was invented in the 20th century.

I thought plastic is made of oil?

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Oil is an ingredient, but

Oil is an ingredient, but oil is not plastic.

When you mix water with salt, it becomes mildly poisonous to most land based life. Yet both salt and water are required for that life to function.

The process of turning oil into plastic has, or had, a similar effect. Yet a substance once undigestable and non-nourishing to all life is now part of at least one form of bacteria's diet.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Whitefox wrote:

Finally, I find it fascinating that those that do not want to be bound by morals wish to appeal to morals in rejecting the giver of morality.

Nothing fascinating about it . 

For one thing, since when does the christian church have the monopoly on morals ? What about the Islamic nations ? Buddhist nations, Hindu nations ? 

What gives any of these religions the right to claim the monopoly on morals ? 

Since they have the only book proven by prophecy to be a revelation of God.  Check this episode

http://truthiswhatmatters.com/2012/07/04/the-bible-is-proven-true-by-fulfilled-prophecy/

....

Quote:

Funny that god did not mention "thou shalt not rape" or "thou shalt not molest little children" . 

The Bible does mention these. There is a lot more Bible to read than just one snippet called the 10 Commandments

Quote:

Funny how many times religion has ignored " thou shalt not kill".  The Crusades, the Inquisition, The Salem Witchcraft Trials, The Catholics collaborating with the Nazis, The conflict in Northern Ireland ( which is still going on to this day, although it has settled down somewhat).  9/11 and a whole bunch more. The Ku Klux Klan regards itself as a christian organization. (The use of the fiery cross is still on the front of most Methodist churches). Need I go on ? 

When you study the etymology of the word the word "MURDER" would be a better english equivalent.  The Bible says that the consequence of breaking this commandment not to murder is that your life must be taken by your fellow men, judiciously. You get your day in court but if you are found guilty you must have your life taken from you as punishment for your crime of disobeying this law of God. This is because the Bible cherishes human life.

I find it amuzing that people who lament the capital punishment of murderers don't have much to say about the murderees.  This argument is always raised when you want to put to death a murderer. Immediately Secular humanists want to protect the Murderer by missusing this snippet from the Scriptures. But they want to ignore the commands of the Bible to perform capital punishment of those that violate this commandment. It is precisely this same commandment of God that reminds us that the murderer has violated Gods commandment when he has taken the life of the murderee that he murdered and he must pay a consequece for this. The Bible teaches Capital punishment so that "JUSTICE" can be served.  Justice is another missing word in the vocabulary of those that wish to protect murderers. It is the lack of a sense of Justice that drives familees of murderees to attend parole hearings to keep murderers restrained from reentering society. It is a hardship for the Murderees familly when JUSTICE is not fully satisfied as it would be if the Bible solution was adhered to.

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Evolution

Whitefox wrote:

Please bring back some comments from my website postings.  I had hoped this thread would discuss those postings. ie The three reasons to reject Evolution. Someone should comment on that.

 

1. Obviously you have never had a geology course.  The land is not stable - it moves - up, down, sideways and it folds over.  So what was on the bottom of the ocean is now on top of the mountains.  My local example is the Cascade Mountains.  They are being pushed up by the subduction zone just off the coast of Washington/Oregon. If you had a geology course you could learn about fun things like plate tectonics.  If you took a paleontology class, you would better understand how fossils around the world are compared and dated.  Have you read about Glenn Morton?  http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

2. Punctuated equilibrium theory does not replace gradualism.  They are complementary.  Sometimes, species don't change for millions of years - hermit crabs, sharks, e.g.  Sometimes, they change in less than a million years.  In geologic terms, a million years is very fast. 

Also, we know the mechanisms for evolution - you yourself, right now, likely have over 200 mutations in your cells.  Most not in your reproductive cells, so you won't pass them on to your children.  But some are, and your children may have them.  For famous examples of mutations from a single instance, see Queen Victoria of England who did not have hemophilia, but many of her children and grandchildren did.  They have analyzed the family and determined she passed the mutation on to her children.  Elizabeth Taylor and her violet eyes?  A mutation.  Achondroplasia dwarfism?  It is a very common mutation - about 1 out of every 25,000 births.  All of these people could/can reproduce with people who do not have the mutation.  The mutation for dwarfism is dominant - that is, you only need one copy of the mutation to be a dwarf.  Any mutation will persist in the population if it is neutral or positive.  Therefore, if the environment changes, and it is always changing, the value of a particular mutation may change from neutral to positive.  In which case the population will drift towards the new mutation as those organisms with the mutation will reproduce better than those without the mutation.  And - a new species evolves.

And for transitional fossils, there are too many to list.  Start with Evolution: What the Fossils say and why it matters by Donald R Prothero.  Available from Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1341900968&sr=8-1&keywords=donald+r+...) and from your library.  Dr. Prothero is a paleontologist who has studied ungulates (cows, hippos, etc) in North America for many years.  His book has many pictures of many different transitional sequences of fossils for a number of species.  And it is only a sample.

3. "Hominids are a hoax."  Yes, there were a few hoaxes but the people who discovered that they were hoaxes were the scientists.  Also, there hasn't been an attempt at a hoax in years.  Scientific measurement and archaeological and paleontological methods have improved dramatically since Piltdown Man.  Any one foolish enough to try that now would be drawn and quartered at the next conference.  Why don't you look up some more recent research?

http://humanorigins.si.edu/research

4.  "Radiometric dating is riddled with errors."  Really?  And you have a physics degree?  Some college level physics?  Can you explain how radiometric dating is performed, how the instruments are calibrated, which isotope is preferred for which era?  No?  I'm tired of doing research for you, so you will have to look this one up yourself.

 

I don't have any hope you will actually attempt to get some education.  You won't look at the book or the websites I mentioned.  You will come back and spew more nonsense about science you don't understand and have no desire to learn.  Prove me wrong - I double dog dare you.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
I realize that is more than 3 points

But your videos were not clear about the boundaries of each point.