*Alert* New Christian Member detected - depose now:

unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
*Alert* New Christian Member detected - depose now:

OK... I'm here now. I can reasonably and rationally answer your questions about God & the Bible - in that the Holy Spirit of God lives within me - and He's pretty smart.

Go!

(dibs! Burden of Proof)

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Does god have genitals and

Does god have genitals and if so, why?


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
No.  (Jhn 4:24)  Next.

No.  (Jhn 4:24)  Next.


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Then how did he rape

Then how did he rape Mary?

 


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
When I kill my newborn

When I kill my newborn children, to assure that they never have the chance to get themselves condemned to hell (I love them to much to allow them the opportunity to make mistakes that could cause them to burn for eternity, and there death is a small sacrifice as compared to the joy they will experience with their arrival in heaven), does that make me more holy than Jesus. He helped people get to heaven but knew that on his death he was going to get to go to a magic super happy land, whereas I, in my selfless way, am assuring my children a place in heaven while condemning myself to eternal suffering.

Signed, 

Bloody with love

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
He didn't.  She was still a

He didn't.  She was still a virgin after the Holy Spirit created the necessary atoms and molecules and dna needed to fertilize the egg inside her.  (concieved does not equal sex/rape etc)  Matt 1:20

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Re: Bloody with

Re: Bloody with Love:

 

No.  It does not make you more holy (the authority to take life rests with the creator of life or his appointed subordinates - as outlined in the manual)   Teach your children the Bible and give them the choice of free will that God gave you.  It's less bloody.

 

BTW: Jesus went to Hell after his crucifixion (speaking engagement --I Pe 3:19)

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I have no control over what

I have no control over what my children will do in their adult life no matter what I teach them. They are separate entities. It is best to be sure they go to heaven. How uncaring would I have to be to allow even the slightest possibility that they would suffer for eternity. That's a long time you know. Like forever times forever...  squared even. Sure I will have to suffer eternally, but I love them enough to shoulder burden. Saint Vessel, they will call me. 

 

BTW: Yeah, Jesus went to hell after his crucifixion in the same way I go to Atlanta everytime I fly to the northeast. Anyone can handle a layover when the destination is going to be so much fun.

Besides, that crucifixion thing is so overblown. Its not a sacrifice. It was a path to a desired end. That isn't sacrifice, its travel. Its holiday.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
"How uncaring would I have

"How uncaring would I have to be to allow even the slightest possibility"

 

It's not your choice unfortunately.  You can't choose which rules you want to follow (love & protect your children) and which ones are optional (do not murder) --  They are not "yours" anyway.  Their genetic code was passed to them from you, but their soul(s) were created by God for a purpose - and your genetic code really isn't yours either... it was a gift from your parents who got it from...............adam....who got it from the Author. 

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
New question. (I'll let the

New question. (I'll let the last one go for now).  Did Eve have sex with Cain in order to multiply?  And if not, how did the population grow?


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
I'm assuming you are a

I'm assuming you are a xtian.  If so I have one very large question for you.  You believe in god, and have called dibs on the burden of proof apparently.  Well then, provide the proof, logically and rationally valid proof.  I hope that you will realize that this requires you to actually provide proof in favor of your chosen position.  Don't attempt to disprove evolution,  because unless you happen to have an advanced degree in some biological field it won't turn out well.  Anyway disproving evolution (which you won't be able to do) will not prove your point.  Please just submit your proof for the existence of god, and no creation does not prove existence.

No Gods, Know Peace.


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
NinjaTux wrote:

NinjaTux wrote:
I'm assuming you are a xtian. If so I have one very large question for you. You believe in god, and have called dibs on the burden of proof apparently. Well then, provide the proof, logically and rationally valid proof. I hope that you will realize that this requires you to actually provide proof in favor of your chosen position. Don't attempt to disprove evolution, because unless you happen to have an advanced degree in some biological field it won't turn out well. Anyway disproving evolution (which you won't be able to do) will not prove your point. Please just submit your proof for the existence of god, and no creation does not prove existence.

 

 

dibs meant your side has the burden of proof (disproving accepted precedents from the beginning of recorded time)

 

However: God exists, He is IN me! He lives in me and all Christians that have accepted His grace through faith. You can't tell me that He's not living in me - you have no evidence! I do. I've seen me before and after.

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: It's not

unixrab wrote:
It's not your choice unfortunately.

 Actually, it is my choice. They are newborn infants so I am sure they will go to heaven. God does admit newborns who have not even lived enough life to have a cognizant thought, much less sin, doesn't he?

I have the power to kill them.

I have the will and I accept the consequences.

Looks to be my choice and quite a noble act. 

unixrab wrote:
You can't choose which rules you want to follow (love & protect your children) and which ones are optional (do not murder) --

I don't care about following the rules. I completely expect to go to hell for killing them. That doesn't mean it isn't the ultimate altruistic act. I will give eternity, suffer beyond human comprehension, to ensure them not having to take a chance at missing out on heaven and suffering that fate. What could possibly be more altruistic?

 

unixrab wrote:
They are not "yours" anyway. Their genetic code was passed to them from you, but their soul(s) were created by God for a purpose - and your genetic code really isn't yours either... it was a gift from your parents who got it from...............adam....who got it from the Author.

Well, if I kill them, obviously god created their souls so that their bodies could be killed by me and they could go to heaven, since he knew when he created them that it would happen, right? It seems that must be their purpopse, to be killed as newborns. And my purpose must be to be the ultimate example of selflessness. 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: God exists,

unixrab wrote:

God exists, He is IN me!

:ROTF: Sorry.  My mind is always in the gutter!


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: dibs meant

unixrab wrote:

dibs meant your side has the burden of proof (disproving accepted precedents from the beginning of recorded time)

 

However: God exists, He is IN me! He lives in me and all Christians that have accepted His grace through faith. You can't tell me that He's not living in me - you have no evidence! I do. I've seen me before and after.

[/quote wrote:

Um...... I don't know what you think dibs means, it generally means that you are, in advance, calling possession of something.  Like "Dibs on the front seat."   You also seem to have the wrong impression of burden of proof.  In the sense that you are speaking I could ask you for a burden of proof that Zeus does not exist.  You could never prove that he doesn't actually exist.  IIt's very simple, in logic based arguments the burden of proof lies with the person making a positive claim (i.e; if I say I have brown hair and you disagree, I have to prove I do have brown hair, not the other way around) if as you say god lives in you then go get a PET scan or a CAT scan of an MRI and show me god building a little house on your appendix.  That would be proof, saying something is not proof.

No Gods, Know Peace.


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote:  

Vessel wrote:

 

Actually, it is my choice. <snip>

no - it isn't. The Bible says do not do it.

Vessel wrote:
I have the power to kill them.

Power is not Authority - you have not been granted the authority to kill anyone.

Vessel wrote:
I have the will and I accept the consequences.

irrelevant really.

Vessel wrote:
Looks to be my choice and quite a noble act.

no. see above. Not your choice.

unixrab wrote:
You can't choose which rules you want to follow (love & protect your children) and which ones are optional (do not murder) --

Vessel wrote:
I don't care about following the rules. <snip>

oh. OK. let's move on. Can't really argue that logic.

unixrab wrote:
They are not "yours" anyway. Their genetic code was passed to them from you, but their soul(s) were created by God for a purpose - and your genetic code really isn't yours either... it was a gift from your parents who got it from...............adam....who got it from the Author.

Vessel wrote:
Well, if I kill them, obviously god created their souls so that their bodies could be killed by me and they could go to heaven, since he knew when he created them that it would happen, right? It seems that must be their purpopse, to be killed as newborns. And my purpose must be to be the ultimate example of selflessness.

 

God will accomplish His will and purpose regardless of what authority you take upon yourself and what commands you pick and choose. He has given you free-will to do and make choices. He can pick up any pieces of lives that you shatter and still accomplish His purpose. But He does not wish for you to murder your children - but is so powerful as to be able to accomplish His plan with your abuse of free-will in stride.

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
MarthaSplatterhead

MarthaSplatterhead wrote:
New question. (I'll let the last one go for now). Did Eve have sex with Cain in order to multiply? And if not, how did the population grow?

 

Most likely not with Cain - as he was banished after murdering his brother, but more likely one of her other sons (Seth) or grandsons that followed. (All of this being before the genetic code was corrupted by disease and sin prompting God to tell Moses to include the prohibitions regarding procreation with near relatives )

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: [All of

unixrab wrote:

[All of this being before the genetic code was corrupted by disease and sin prompting God to tell Moses to include the prohibitions regarding procreation with near relatives )

See this is another one of those things that require proof.  Just because you said it doesn't make it so.  ad hoc rationalizations do not constitute proof.  And since this isn't even in the bible, you can't even use that as supposed "proof" 

 if you say this is in the bible, I'll ask you for the chapter and verse where anyone uses the words "deoxyribonucleic acid". 

 

No Gods, Know Peace.


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Also, I'm still waiting on

Also, I'm still waiting on your proof requested from the previous post.  Not getting annoyed or testy or anything, Just trying to get an answer.

No Gods, Know Peace.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: He didn't.

unixrab wrote:
He didn't. She was still a virgin after the Holy Spirit created the necessary atoms and molecules and dna needed to fertilize the egg inside her. (concieved does not equal sex/rape etc) Matt 1:20

 

what evidence do you have for this? 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
NinjaTux wrote: Um...... I

NinjaTux wrote:
Um...... I don't know what you think dibs means, it generally means that you are, in advance, calling possession of something. Like "Dibs on the front seat."


Yeah..that's why I didn't add the "on the" in the statement. I coulda said "Dibs! {Your side gets the} burden of proof" But I just figured (and I'm seeing now that I shouldn't have) that you'd just assume I'd want *you* to have the burden of proof. Sorry. So... "Dibs! Your side has the burden of proof" OK. Moving on.

NinjaTux wrote:
You also seem to have the wrong impression of burden of proof. In the sense that you are speaking I could ask you for a burden of proof that Zeus does not exist. You could never prove that he doesn't actually exist. IIt's very simple, in logic based arguments the burden of proof lies with the person making a positive claim (i.e; if I say I have brown hair and you disagree, I have to prove I do have brown hair, not the other way around)


I don't think that's how it works if (*IF*) it's common knowledge that you have brown hair - the naysayer has the burden of proof - why should you have to prove you have brown hair if everyone has accepted for thousands of years that you do indeed have brown hair? It's on the challenger. The Bible (starting in 1700 B.C or so with the Law) has been commonly accepted as true by mankind for MUCH longer than people have been saying it now *isn't* true.

NinjaTux wrote:
if as you say god lives in you then go get a PET scan or a CAT scan of an MRI and show me god building a little house on your appendix. That would be proof, saying something is not proof.


Well that won't work... PET/CAT/MRI's don't show the dreams and aspirations that I also have inside me or that cool batman sequence that I imagined a few years back - The scans can't show the emotional scars that I have from not being able to get those cool Vans slip-ons when I was 10 and mom said "no." The scans also can't show the love I have for my kids - You telling me those things don't exist because they don't show up on a CAT scan?? In a court -an eye-witness is proof enough. Someone saying something is so, or something happened. Think... Jean-Luc Picard in "All Good Things..." even Data understood that Captain Picard's 'time shifting' claim should be accepted until disproved - and that claim was OUTRAGEOUS! (time shifting between alternate and disperate time lines!!! The nerve of that captain!) DISPROVE that God exists. Countless millions throughout history have testified to the fact that He does indeed exist and have witnessed healings and miracles (500 people alone saw the risen Christ at once a few days after He rose!) and other divine forms of intervention. To lump us all in some "mass-shared-delusion" category is illogical. Logically - our claims of God inhabiting us (as Christians) should be accepted by you until disproven.


/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


melchisedec
melchisedec's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
unixrab, I'm glad you are

unixrab,

I'm glad you are here, my question is relating to the bible and here it is.

It is said that Jesus belonged to the order of Melchisedec. I also believe if I can remember my bible, that Melchisedec appear to Abraham and was offered the first tithed. Now it is said this about Melchisedec:

" For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave the tenth part of all, being by interpretation, king of righteousness, after that also king of Salem, which means king of peace, without father, without mother, having neither beginning of days nor end of life; but made like unto the son of God abideth a priest continually." (Heb.7:1-3)

The passage implies that Melchisedec is immortal and was never created. Giving him almost the same attributes as God. So my question is who is Melchisedec and how can he have not been created?

 


melchisedec
melchisedec's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: The Bible

unixrab wrote:
The Bible (starting in 1700 B.C or so with the Law) has been commonly accepted as true by mankind for MUCH longer than people have been saying it now *isn't* true.

It's only fairly recent where people have started asking questions like "Who wrote the bible". Also once Christianity came into power for anyone to question it would have been met with a charge of heresy.  


Quote:
In a court -an eye-witness is proof enough.

Only if its a first hand account. What is known of the bible is that it was written well after the death of Jesus and his contemporaries. 


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
NinjaTux wrote: unixrab

NinjaTux wrote:
unixrab wrote:

[All of this being before the genetic code was corrupted by disease and sin prompting God to tell Moses to include the prohibitions regarding procreation with near relatives )

See this is another one of those things that require proof. Just because you said it doesn't make it so. ad hoc rationalizations do not constitute proof. And since this isn't even in the bible, you can't even use that as supposed "proof"

 

It's logical.  Adam and Eve lived for several hundred years - and had multiple children, this is documented.   (Gen 5:4)  Population of the Earth is a fact, it wasn't magic.  One can then make deductions on the strength of their DNA and the protection of the pre-flood canopy.  (knowing what we know today - about aging and the free-radical damage of our code)

NinjaTux wrote:
if you say this is in the bible, I'll ask you for the chapter and verse where anyone uses the words "deoxyribonucleic acid".

 

Psalm 139:16 talks about our "substance" and the plan book where all the code was written and then fashioned. 

 

 

 

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
melchisedec

melchisedec wrote:

unixrab,

I'm glad you are here, my question is relating to the bible and here it is.


The passage implies that Melchisedec is immortal and was never created. Giving him almost the same attributes as God. So my question is who is Melchisedec and how can he have not been created?

 

Pretty sure that Melchizedek was Shem - plot out the years he lived (Gen 11:11 and so on) over-against Abraham's life and you'll see.  The implication may be that he is "immortal" but I believe it refers to the fact that no one on earth was as long lived as he was... he was that "crazy old jedi" living in the desert that everyone knew about, but no one knew who he was or where he came from.

 

**HOWEVER** it's not beyond the pale that Melchizedek was simply a pre-incarnate appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ.  (like he appeared many other times in the Old Testament before the incarnation

 

HTH 

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
melchisedec wrote:

melchisedec wrote:


Quote:
In a court -an eye-witness is proof enough.

Only if its a first hand account. What is known of the bible is that it was written well after the death of Jesus and his contemporaries.

 

Well yeah...but when the court reporter takes down the testimony and writes it into the record - the transcript is enough.  Matthew was an eye-witness and wrote down his testimony, so were Mark & John -  even the Apostle Paul eye-witnessed the risen Christ and wrote it down.   If the written testimony means nothing because the witness testified and then died... a few years from now... what will become of the cases tried in court?  They aren't true because someone questions the transcript and that witness is  no longer around to re-witness?

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


melchisedec
melchisedec's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote:

unixrab wrote:
melchisedec wrote:

unixrab,

I'm glad you are here, my question is relating to the bible and here it is.


The passage implies that Melchisedec is immortal and was never created. Giving him almost the same attributes as God. So my question is who is Melchisedec and how can he have not been created?

 

Pretty sure that Melchizedek was Shem - plot out the years he lived (Gen 11:11 and so on) over-against Abraham's life and you'll see. The implication may be that he is "immortal" but I believe it refers to the fact that no one on earth was as long lived as he was... he was that "crazy old jedi" living in the desert that everyone knew about, but no one knew who he was or where he came from.

 

**HOWEVER** it's not beyond the pale that Melchizedek was simply a pre-incarnate appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ. (like he appeared many other times in the Old Testament before the incarnation

 

HTH

 

He clearly wasn't Shem. You failed to address the fact that he "having neither beginning of days, nor end of life", Shem was born. Melchisedec was never born, he never had a beginning. And he couldn't be Jesus because Jesus belong to the Priestly Order of Melchisedec. It also says that Melchisedec is the preist to God. So I am wondering how can Melchisedec have always existed such as God? 


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
melchisedec wrote:   He

melchisedec wrote:

 

He clearly wasn't Shem.

 

Um.  OK.  But Shem was around (still alive at this time) .

 

 

melchisedec wrote:
You failed to address the fact that he "having neither beginning of days, nor end of life", Shem was born. Melchisedec was never born, he never had a beginning. And he couldn't be Jesus because Jesus belong to the Priestly Order of Melchisedec.

 

Why is that?  God started (implemented) both the priestly lines - I didn't see that rule anywhere that if you appear under the name Melchizedek, King of Peace - you can't be incarnated a few thousand years later under the order that you yourself initiated in pre-incarnate form?  Where's that at? 

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


melchisedec
melchisedec's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: Well

unixrab wrote:

Well yeah...but when the court reporter takes down the testimony and writes it into the record - the transcript is enough. Matthew was an eye-witness and wrote down his testimony, so were Mark & John - even the Apostle Paul eye-witnessed the risen Christ and wrote it down. If the written testimony means nothing because the witness testified and then died... a few years from now... what will become of the cases tried in court? They aren't true because someone questions the transcript and that witness is no longer around to re-witness?

The question always goes back to do we know for certain that those accounts were written by the disciples. Even among scholars there is a contention on exactly who wrote those accounts. I'm not sure what evidence exist for either assertions.


melchisedec
melchisedec's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
So you are holding

So you are holding essentially that Melchisedek is God but just in another form like Jesus, The Holy Spirt, ect?

EDIT:

One thing I'd like to add is that how could it be Shem, considering we know his geneology and in the bible it clearly states we not know of Melchisedek's? 


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
LeftofLarry wrote: unixrab

LeftofLarry wrote:

unixrab wrote:
He didn't. She was still a virgin after the Holy Spirit created the necessary atoms and molecules and dna needed to fertilize the egg inside her. (concieved does not equal sex/rape etc) Matt 1:20

 

what evidence do you have for this?

 

Matt 1:20 - 25 

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
melchisedec wrote: The

melchisedec wrote:

The question always goes back to do we know for certain that those accounts were written by the disciples. Even among scholars there is a contention on exactly who wrote those accounts. I'm not sure what evidence exist for either assertions.

 

It's not **unreasonable** to take the eye-witness accounts of Matthew and John and Mark at face value being examined so many times through the years and not having found DEFINITIVE proof of forgery.  This is what I'm talking about with the burden of proof.  There's no reason to disbelieve Matthew -- as of now.  

 

 

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
  melchisedec wrote: So

 

melchisedec wrote:
So you are holding essentially that Melchisedek is God but just in another form like Jesus, The Holy Spirt, ect?

 

No, not exactly.   The second person of the Godhead, known to most as Jesus, the Son of God, made several pre-incarnate appearances prior to his birth in Israel.   Jesus did not pop into existence in Bethlehem, He's always been.  These appearences prior to his incarnation are known as Theophanies... 

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
melchisedec wrote: One

melchisedec wrote:

One thing I'd like to add is that how could it be Shem, considering we know his geneology and in the bible it clearly states we not know of Melchisedek's?

 

Oh.. I don't know that it definitely was Shem...it's just another theory - in that -  if that passage about Melchizedek  figurative.   **I** think it was Shem, just because by that time no one would have known who the heck he was, some 600 year old guy living inj/around (future) Jerusalem.   But (and if) that passage is literal - then the only person that could fit the bill would be Christ pre-incarnate.  

 

I would be OK with either. 

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Where is it actually stated

Where is it actually stated what the nature of hell is? Eternal torment and all that crap.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote:

unixrab wrote:
no - it isn't. The Bible says do not do it.

Does man have freewill in your god story? If so, then it is my choice, whether it is condoned or not by the bible. You can continue to say "no", but until you explain why, it is just a childish example of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "na,na,na".

 

unixrab wrote:
Power is not Authority - you have not been granted the authority to kill anyone.

 

Not having authority does not make it a non-altruistic act. If I was in a concentration camp and sacrificed myself to help people escape, this would be a selfless altruistic act even though Hitler did not grant me the authority to do so.

unixrab wrote:
irrelevant really.

 

Not irrelevant at all. I am making a conscious decision, understanding the consequences and murdering my children because I love them and because I am that selfless.


 

unixrab wrote:
Vessel wrote:
I don't care about following the rules. <snip>

oh. OK. let's move on. Can't really argue that logic.

 

It is made obvious that you can't argue with any logic by the fact that you leave the opening sentence and snip the point I was making.

unixrab wrote:
unixrab wrote:
They are not "yours" anyway. Their genetic code was passed to them from you, but their soul(s) were created by God for a purpose - and your genetic code really isn't yours either... it was a gift from your parents who got it from...............adam....who got it from the Author.

Vessel wrote:
Well, if I kill them, obviously god created their souls so that their bodies could be killed by me and they could go to heaven, since he knew when he created them that it would happen, right? It seems that must be their purpopse, to be killed as newborns. And my purpose must be to be the ultimate example of selflessness.

 

God will accomplish His will and purpose regardless of what authority you take upon yourself and what commands you pick and choose. He has given you free-will to do and make choices. He can pick up any pieces of lives that you shatter and still accomplish His purpose. But He does not wish for you to murder your children - but is so powerful as to be able to accomplish His plan with your abuse of free-will in stride.

I never said he wished for me to murder my children, but if he is truly omniscient then he must have known I would murder them and yet he created their little souls anyway.

 

 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote: Where is it

KSMB wrote:
Where is it actually stated what the nature of hell is? Eternal torment and all that crap.

 

 

Mark.  Chapter 9: 44-48 talks about the fire never being quenched. But Revelation 20:10 is the quentessential one. " And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. "

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: He didn't.

unixrab wrote:
He didn't. She was still a virgin after the Holy Spirit created the necessary atoms and molecules and dna needed to fertilize the egg inside her. (concieved does not equal sex/rape etc) Matt 1:20

You're making this up as you go along. Exactly what part of the bible mentions electrons, protons and neutrons? Can you demonstrate and falsify this making of atoms that got a 9-14 year old girl pregnant? "God did it" doesnt wash with us bud. BTW, You think it's ok for a girl that young to get pregnant?

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: unixrab

Vessel wrote:

unixrab wrote:
no - it isn't. The Bible says do not do it.

Does man have freewill in your god story? If so, then it is my choice, whether it is condoned or not by the bible. You can continue to say "no", but until you explain why, it is just a childish example of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "na,na,na".

 

Well I'm not trying to say "na na na" - I mean you don't have the right to make that choice - it's not given to you by the Bible or the Government. On the multiple choice list of parental responsibilities - murder isn't one of them. You can still do it (free will).

 

unixrab wrote:
Power is not Authority - you have not been granted the authority to kill anyone.

 

Vessel wrote:
Not having authority does not make it a non-altruistic act. If I was in a concentration camp and sacrificed myself to help people escape, this would be a selfless altruistic act even though Hitler did not grant me the authority to do so.

Yes. But not mercy-killing the other prisoners.

unixrab wrote:
irrelevant really.

Vessel wrote:

Not irrelevant at all. I am making a conscious decision, understanding the consequences and murdering my children because I love them and because I am that selfless.

"The only winning move is not to play." Murder is not the manifestation of Love or selflessness. In this increasingly hypothetical debate, I'd say don't have kids in the first place (that would be the ultimate selfless act), and if you do have kids, do not murder them out of your "love" for them, but take the slightly harder road of 'training up your child in the way they should go' and trust the God that you want to pre-maturely send them to, to do His will with their lives and souls.


 

Vessel wrote:
I don't care about following the rules. <snip>

{quote=unixrab]oh. OK. let's move on. Can't really argue that logic.

 

Vessel wrote:
It is made obvious that you can't argue with any logic by the fact that you leave the opening sentence and snip the point I was making.

 

Ouch. OK.

unixrab wrote:
They are not "yours" anyway. Their genetic code was passed to them from you, but their soul(s) were created by God for a purpose - and your genetic code really isn't yours either... it was a gift from your parents who got it from...............adam....who got it from the Author.

Vessel wrote:
Well, if I kill them, obviously god created their souls so that their bodies could be killed by me and they could go to heaven, since he knew when he created them that it would happen, right? It seems that must be their purpopse, to be killed as newborns. And my purpose must be to be the ultimate example of selflessness.

 

 

God will accomplish His will and purpose regardless of what authority you take upon yourself and what commands you pick and choose. He has given you free-will to do and make choices. He can pick up any pieces of lives that you shatter and still accomplish His purpose. But He does not wish for you to murder your children - but is so powerful as to be able to accomplish His plan with your abuse of free-will in stride.

I never said he wished for me to murder my children, but if he is truly omniscient then he must have known I would murder them and yet he created their little souls anyway.

 

 

 

Foreknowledge is not the same thing as fate or fatalism. That He knows what you are going to do, does not make you do it. You still have a choice that He allows you to have in real-time so that your free-will is intact when you face Judgement for the killings.

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

You're making this up as you go along.

Hey! No I'm not. These are questions that I've asked myself long ago.

 

Brian37 wrote:
Exactly what part of the bible mentions electrons, protons and neutrons?

Genesis 1:1 - everything that exists was brought into existence by God. Including quarks and leptons and gluons. But I see no reason that the Bible must specifically mention atomic particles by name. God is the creator. Master of all matter. It's a little thing for the Creator to create.

 

Brian37 wrote:
Can you demonstrate and falsify this making of atoms that got a 9-14 year old girl pregnant? "God did it" doesnt wash with us bud.

 

One simply needs to properly align, attache and repeat the proper sequence of the 4 protiens of the DNA molecule from the necessary atoms (not a stretch for an all-powerful God) Then (we do this all the time ) insert the genetic code into the awaiting egg - - without sex - without rape.

 

Brian37 wrote:
BTW, You think it's ok for a girl that young to get pregnant?

I certainly wouldn't want my daughter married and pregnant @ 14, but my Great-grandmother was 14 when she got married and had a baby.. but that doesn't really matter. Society was different then. And Mary was older.

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: Well I'm not

unixrab wrote:
Well I'm not trying to say "na na na" - I mean you don't have the right to make that choice - it's not given to you by the Bible or the Government. On the multiple choice list of parental responsibilities - murder isn't one of them. You can still do it (free will).

So, authority figures, those in power, do not give me the right to make that choice is the point you are making?

Be that as it may, I can still make the choice and there is nothing inherently wrong with disobeying authority, especially if it accomplishes something as wonderous as allowing some precious children to enter the kingdom of god when, if left to their own devises, they could possibly end up causing themselves to be eternally condemned. 

 

unixrab wrote:
Yes. But not mercy-killing the other prisoners.

The point was that not having the authority to do something does not in and of itself mean that what one does is "wrong". There has to be some other reason that killing my children to ensure they go to heaven is wrong.  

 But, lets go with mercy killing the other prisoners anyway. If I know that if I do not kill them they will suffer and die in the concentration camp, but if I do kill them they will go to a paradise, is killing them not the right thing to do?

unixrab wrote:
"The only winning move is not to play." Murder is not the manifestation of Love or selflessness. In this increasingly hypothetical debate, I'd say don't have kids in the first place (that would be the ultimate selfless act), and if you do have kids, do not murder them out of your "love" for them, but take the slightly harder road of 'training up your child in the way they should go' and trust the God that you want to pre-maturely send them to, to do His will with their lives and souls.

Not having kids in the first place may at first seem like the best option , but this heaven place is supposed to be so wonderous. Wouldn't I want to beget as many children as possible and kill them immediately afterwards so that they would have a chance to experience this heaven place.

We all know for a fact that no matter a parents intentions one can not be 100% certain that their children will do the right thing. If one has kids, there is always a chance those kids will end up going to hell, no matter what the parent teaches them. My grandmother was a devout Southern Baptist. I bet she would be very sad that her beloved grandson is going to hell for non-belief despite her best efforts.


unixrab wrote:
unixrab wrote:
God will accomplish His will and purpose regardless of what authority you take upon yourself and what commands you pick and choose. He has given you free-will to do and make choices. He can pick up any pieces of lives that you shatter and still accomplish His purpose. But He does not wish for you to murder your children - but is so powerful as to be able to accomplish His plan with your abuse of free-will in stride.
 

Vessel wrote:
I never said he wished for me to murder my children, but if he is truly omniscient then he must have known I would murder them and yet he created their little souls anyway.

 Foreknowledge is not the same thing as fate or fatalism. That He knows what you are going to do, does not make you do it. You still have a choice that He allows you to have in real-time so that your free-will is intact when you face Judgement for the killings.

 Well, I disagree but that would lead down another, overly travelled, road. So, even if that was correct, even if his pre-knowledge does not fate me to kill them, he still pre-knows that I will kill them and creates them anyway. He creates them knowing they will be killed. Therefor ,how could their purpose not be to be killed by me?

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: LeftofLarry

unixrab wrote:
LeftofLarry wrote:

unixrab wrote:
He didn't. She was still a virgin after the Holy Spirit created the necessary atoms and molecules and dna needed to fertilize the egg inside her. (concieved does not equal sex/rape etc) Matt 1:20

 

what evidence do you have for this?

 

Matt 1:20 - 25

 

 That's not evidence, that's a circular argument.  You can't use the source of the assertion to prove that assertion.  It'skinda like defining a word by using that same word in the definition.. nope...need independent proof.  Prove to me that the holy spirit commands atoms.  I want you to show me right now.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: Brian37

unixrab wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

You're making this up as you go along.

Hey! No I'm not. These are questions that I've asked myself long ago.

 

Brian37 wrote:
Exactly what part of the bible mentions electrons, protons and neutrons?

Genesis 1:1 - everything that exists was brought into existence by God. Including quarks and leptons and gluons. But I see no reason that the Bible must specifically mention atomic particles by name. God is the creator. 

 

Brian37 wrote:
Can you demonstrate and falsify this making of atoms that got a 9-14 year old girl pregnant? "God did it" doesnt wash with us bud.

 

One simply needs to properly align, attache and repeat the proper sequence of the 4 protiens of the DNA molecule from the necessary atoms (not a stretch for an all-powerful God) Then (we do this all the time ) insert the genetic code into the awaiting egg - - without sex - without rape.

 

Brian37 wrote:
BTW, You think it's ok for a girl that young to get pregnant?

I certainly wouldn't want my daughter married and pregnant @ 14, but my Great-grandmother was 14 when she got married and had a baby.. but that doesn't really matter. Society was different then. And Mary was older.

Nice dodges bud. You know you are full of crap. "God did it" does not wash bud. Your bible was not written by people who knew what an atom was. S.O.L.

Your grandmother was 14? So. If it was ok for her to be 14 then why wouldn't have been ok for Mary to be 14? And where is your "evidence" (*cough cough*) as to her exact age? 

You claim your god did it. SO WHAT. 6 billion people on this planet and you want to make a claim that your god did it and the only thing you can quote is your bible? 

That is called circular reasoning. "I'll use my own book to prove my own book". Hate to burst your bubble but their is more than one religion on this planet. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ahhh  too many people

ahhh  too many people responding...hang on.. I'll go in order...


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: NinjaTux

unixrab wrote:
NinjaTux wrote:
unixrab wrote:

[All of this being before the genetic code was corrupted by disease and sin prompting God to tell Moses to include the prohibitions regarding procreation with near relatives )

See this is another one of those things that require proof. Just because you said it doesn't make it so. ad hoc rationalizations do not constitute proof. And since this isn't even in the bible, you can't even use that as supposed "proof"

 

It's logical. Adam and Eve lived for several hundred years - and had multiple children, this is documented. (Gen 5:4) Population of the Earth is a fact, it wasn't magic. One can then make deductions on the strength of their DNA and the protection of the pre-flood canopy. (knowing what we know today - about aging and the free-radical damage of our code)

NinjaTux wrote:
if you say this is in the bible, I'll ask you for the chapter and verse where anyone uses the words "deoxyribonucleic acid".

 

Psalm 139:16 talks about our "substance" and the plan book where all the code was written and then fashioned.

 

 

 

just so you know "substance" does not equal "deoxyribonuleic acid".  and what is this pre-flood canopy business.  You have to be making this up as you go along.  I was asking for a specific reference that requires no interpretation or assumption. And you give me a vaque reference.

No Gods, Know Peace.


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: unixrab

Vessel wrote:

unixrab wrote:
Well I'm not trying to say "na na na" - I mean you don't have the right to make that choice - it's not given to you by the Bible or the Government. On the multiple choice list of parental responsibilities - murder isn't one of them. You can still do it (free will).

So, authority figures, those in power, do not give me the right to make that choice is the point you are making?

Be that as it may, I can still make the choice and there is nothing inherently wrong with disobeying authority, especially if it accomplishes something as wonderous as allowing some precious children to enter the kingdom of god when, if left to their own devises, they could possibly end up causing themselves to be eternally condemned.

 

Except that you are playing God, disregarding His rules about parenting,  and murder and denying your children what you have been given - freewill.    But I'll agree you could do all those things, if that's what you want me to say.   But sending your kids straight to heaven, denying them choice and free-will, while robbing them of the joys of this life in marrying and having their own children seems wrong to me...as a dad. 

 

Vessel wrote:

unixrab wrote:
Yes. But not mercy-killing the other prisoners.

The point was that not having the authority to do something does not in and of itself mean that what one does is "wrong". There has to be some other reason that killing my children to ensure they go to heaven is wrong.

God defines right and wrong - Truth is not relative.  He's made Truth known to us by the Bible.  The Bible says murder is wrong.  That's all I got for you.  It is simplistic - but it comes down to your standard of truth.  Absolute or Relativistic.   

Vessel wrote:
But, lets go with mercy killing the other prisoners anyway. If I know that if I do not kill them they will suffer and die in the concentration camp, but if I do kill them they will go to a paradise, is killing them not the right thing to do?

 

No.  Murder is wrong.  God designates life and death. 

Vessel wrote:
unixrab wrote:
"The only winning move is not to play." Murder is not the manifestation of Love or selflessness. In this increasingly hypothetical debate, I'd say don't have kids in the first place (that would be the ultimate selfless act), and if you do have kids, do not murder them out of your "love" for them, but take the slightly harder road of 'training up your child in the way they should go' and trust the God that you want to pre-maturely send them to, to do His will with their lives and souls.

Not having kids in the first place may at first seem like the best option , but this heaven place is supposed to be so wonderous. Wouldn't I want to beget as many children as possible and kill them immediately afterwards so that they would have a chance to experience this heaven place.

We all know for a fact that no matter a parents intentions one can not be 100% certain that their children will do the right thing. If one has kids, there is always a chance those kids will end up going to hell, no matter what the parent teaches them.

Heaven is wonderous.  And every kid you kill will go there - but you are burning both ends against the middle.  If there is a Heaven, there is a God, if there is a God - He says "don't murder (anyone)"  Killing is wrong - denying anyone their right to free will is wrong - it's not your place to deny your children their right to free will.   

Vessel wrote:
My grandmother was a devout Southern Baptist. I bet she would be very sad that her beloved grandson is going to hell for non-belief despite her best efforts.

Southern Baptist does not a Christian make, but I am sure, if she was a true follower of Christ, she is very sad that you are headed for hell.. but all is not lost.... you still have time... and I may have been sent to this crazy forum just to tell you that God loves you, and your grandmother wants to see you again....and that despite any youtube video or sin you've committed there is pardon and grace available to you if you will repent and turn from your sin to embrace the Lord Jesus Christ and accept His life.     


unixrab wrote:
unixrab wrote:
God will accomplish His will and purpose regardless of what authority you take upon yourself and what commands you pick and choose. He has given you free-will to do and make choices. He can pick up any pieces of lives that you shatter and still accomplish His purpose. But He does not wish for you to murder your children - but is so powerful as to be able to accomplish His plan with your abuse of free-will in stride.

Vessel wrote:
I never said he wished for me to murder my children, but if he is truly omniscient then he must have known I would murder them and yet he created their little souls anyway.

Foreknowledge is not the same thing as fate or fatalism. That He knows what you are going to do, does not make you do it. You still have a choice that He allows you to have in real-time so that your free-will is intact when you face Judgement for the killings.

Well, I disagree but that would lead down another, overly travelled, road. So, even if that was correct, even if his pre-knowledge does not fate me to kill them, he still pre-knows that I will kill them and creates them anyway. He creates them knowing they will be killed. Therefor ,how could their purpose not be to be killed by me?

 

He allows you to create them. (procreation) -- He's awesome that way... allowing you the free will you would deny these hypothetical kids.   

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote:It's not

unixrab wrote:

It's not **unreasonable** to take the eye-witness accounts of Matthew and John and Mark at face value

Yes it is. It's utterly unreasonable, because known of those 'gospels' can be shown to be eyewitness accounts in the first place.

The dating of the origin of the 'four' 'gospels' (notice how I have to put everything in 'questionable quotes&#39Eye-wink all are very likely to be after the fall of the temple in jeruseulm:

  • Mark: c. 70–73
  • Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view
  • Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
  • John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

There's no rational way that anyone could suppose that any of these works, appearing decades after the supposed time of 'jesus' could be an eyewitness account. In fact, it is not legitimate to even describe these works as 'eyewitness accounts', they exist to propagandize the christian religion. 

 

Furthermore, there's good reason to hold that matthew, luke, and john to a lesser extent, merely build off of Mark, which again contradicts the idea that matthew/luke/john are eyewitness accounts of anything.

And if you knew anything about the book of Mark, you'd know that any resurrection claims found in chapter 16 are later interpolations.. they do not appear in the earliest greek versions of mark. 

 

Quote:
being examined so many times through the years and not having found DEFINITIVE proof of forgery.

You're completely wrong here. All of these 'gospels's are known to be anonymous, ergo the names attached to them do make them forgeries of one sort. They are NOT written by the names attributed to them.

Quote:

This is what I'm talking about with the burden of proof. There's no reason to disbelieve Matthew -- as of now.

Again, you're flat out wrong. The Matthew author invalidates himself as an eyewitness:

In chapter 27, "Matthew" writes:

27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

Unto this day... i.e. even until this time. I.e., this is being written many years after the supposed event.

Chapter 28

28:15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

 

You're spreading misinformation based on your ignorance of the situation. Please learn more before responding with such certainty.

 

Here's an examination of the gospels by Dr. Price:

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/BkrvSonofMan.htm

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
LeftofLarry wrote:  

LeftofLarry wrote:

 

That's not evidence, that's a circular argument. You can't use the source of the assertion to prove that assertion. It'skinda like defining a word by using that same word in the definition.. nope...need independent proof. Prove to me that the holy spirit commands atoms. I want you to show me right now.

 

The Bible is a textual photograph...a historical record.  It's record stands as a witness in a trial.   It's logically biased to discount the Bible's testimony.   There is no proof that the Bible is wrong in it's account of Mary.  The burden to disprove the historical record is on those who dispute it.   We can't both have the burden of proof.  The Bible is not an assertion: it is true.

 

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Sorry; you don't get out of

Sorry; you don't get out of burden of proof by calling dibs anyway.  You have one gaping error.  You should really study logic before coming to a forum devoted to debating. For one thing, no negative assertion can be logically proven (you can never prove that there isn't a toaster rotating around the sun that prints off winning lottery tickets), without an incredible amount of arguing and some rather indepth understanding of logic and rhetoric.  Since that won't be possible for a while, if you can prove (without using a scriptural source) using ONLY logic and/or empirically verifiable/falsifiable proof that Vishnu does not exist then you can come back and try this argument with me.

 You are also incorrect in assuming that the xtian version of "history" is "commonly accepted as true by mankind for MUCH longer than people have been saying it now *isn't* true."  I could find you atleast 4 billion people who would disagree with that assertion.  So by my count, they beat you by sheer volumes and you now have to believe that Mohammed flew to heaven on the back of a winged horse, sorry for the inconvenience. 

And technically fMRI machines can see thoughts (atleast the secondary implications of thoughts)of many kinds.

No Gods, Know Peace.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote:   The

unixrab wrote:

 

The Bible is a textual photograph...a historical record.

You're just going to keep asserting this nonsense, regardless of the facts, aren't you?

There is no legitimate reason to hold that the bible is a historical record of anything, other than the fact that it includes references to actual tribes and places, which any work of fiction would use.

 

Quote:
 

It's record stands as a witness in a trial.

Then it would be thrown out of court, because the near totality of the books are anonymous. Anonymous testimony is an oxymoron, because the value of testimony is related directly to the credibility of the author. And we cannot assess an anonymous person's credibility.

Quote:
 

It's logically biased to discount the Bible's testimony. There is no proof that the Bible is wrong in it's account of Mary. The burden to disprove the historical record is on those who dispute it. We can't both have the burden of proof. The Bible is not an assertion: it is true.

 

The bible is a set of conflicting, contradictory assertions. Just like your posts.  

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Nice dodges

Brian37 wrote:

Nice dodges bud. You know you are full of crap. "God did it" does not wash bud. Your bible was not written by people who knew what an atom was. S.O.L.

 Hey... so I'm constipated...that means.... ??? What?   ANYWAY.  The Bible *was* written by the Holy Spirit has He directed men of old to write it.  So in one sense, the Author (capitalized) knew... the scribes did not need to know...I'm confused as to the relevance of this point.

Brian37 wrote:
Your grandmother was 14? So. If it was ok for her to be 14 then why wouldn't have been ok for Mary to be 14? And where is your "evidence" (*cough cough*) as to her exact age?

I suppose it would have been OK if that was her age, my grandma turned out fine (great grandma),  and I have no idea her exact age.  She had a cousin that was extremely old, and she was espoused, and the Lord did choose her to bear His Son, whatever her age, she was emotionally (Luke 1:46) and physically the exact woman that God wanted to bring His Son into the world. And Mary's father gave her to be wed, and Joseph is said to be "a just man"  --- those circumstantial facts does seem to lend themselves to an "older" mary than a child mary.  Whatever her age, there was no problem in the existing society or with either of the families involved.  Sounds good to me.

Brian37 wrote:
You claim your god did it. SO WHAT. 6 billion people on this planet and you want to make a claim that your god did it and the only thing you can quote is your bible?

Yeah.  That sucks, I know.  But it's true.  Nothing in the bible is at any odds with existing knowledge, if that helps you any. 

Brian37 wrote:
That is called circular reasoning. "I'll use my own book to prove my own book". Hate to burst your bubble but their is more than one religion on this planet.

 

My bubble isn't burst, but you can't discount the bible on the basis of bias - that's not fair.  The bible is not just an assertion, it's truth.

 

 

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智