Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marquis Naryshkin
First off, condescending PMs aren't particularly nice. I'll drag out discussion on a topic as long as I like, because some things need to be discussed. You can't gloss over everything like you seem to want to do. Also, if your "theology" and the theology of half a dozen Christiain thinkers can't convince me, why will some lame music do the trick?
Where is this mysterious condescending PM? You can drag out anything you like, but if you repeat yourself and not respond to what was said, you're just a clanging bell (violating Board Etiquette #6, worthy of an Infraction). What have I glossed over, you don't show anything? The reason why pure logic does not work with you time and time again is because there is a problem underneath the faulty logic of yours. That is why Christian music can help you to touch your emotion and stony heart. Your stony heart rationalizes anything as long as that anything is against God of the Bible. This is your mission. You're a creature of habit committed to a position of hostility to your creator. You don't even know why you behave the way you do, but you continue on in your fight of belligerency. This is the very nature of the devil, and he will never repent. NEVER! My prayer for you is that one day you do repent and come to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior and become a brother in Christ.
Quote:
Quote:
Both statements are true, for if you were still holding the ball, it would not drop. The point of this exercise is to show there is cause and effect in all things in nature as you wanted an example and you can't find anything that is without a cause. This gives glory to God, because if nothing happens all by itself then the ultimate cause must be that which is uncaused who would be God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ. Alas, I am repeating myself which falls on deaf ears.
I'm sorry, this is one IMMENSE non sequitur.
How is this a non sequitur? You don't say. You would be wrong, because you can't show it. Come on now, don't be coy.
Quote:
Quote:
Where did I say Brownian motion is not the cause of diffusion? You asked for an example of something in nature, and I gave you the example of a ball dropping to show something in nature not happening all by itself, and neither you nor I can find a thing in nature that happens all by itself. To think otherwise, speaks poorly of your knowledge of reality and science and need for evidence.
Argument from ignorance, also, this whole cause thing is still rather unproven.
Ignorance how so? You don't say. We as human being can cite trillions of effects that have a cause, but where can you find even one thing that has no cause? Giving the weight of the evidence of over a trillion to one, isn't your idea rather unproven and fictitious?
Quote:
Your god has to be better than others else you wouldn't believe in it. You say that by virtue of your position. The Bible's proof a priori assumes the existence of god etc, as does your "perfect" proof(which does so by virtue of its acceptance of sin. You can't have sin without a god(and the Christain one loves it. Also, verses plzkthxbai.
The Bible does not first assume the existence of God, but proves it since it tells us nothing in nature happens all by itself; there is always a cause so that nothing in nature can be the ultimate cause. As I said,
"I don't say God of the Bible is better than some god, but it is proven. That is why by comparison it can always be shown. Why misrepresent the Christain position? The Bible does not say it is right because it says it is right. Not at all. It first proves itself, by showing you that nothing in nature happens all by itself; hence, the ultimate cause is the uncaused who is God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ."
Why misread the Bible, for that just makes you look bad. Alas, I am repeating myself, and you are not responding to what I have said, but repeat yourself like a clanging bell. Please read Board Etiquette #6 if you want to continue this conversation without receiving Infractions that lead to Moderation which leads to a Temporary Ban which leads to Permanent Ban or Removal, as I have no interest in repeating myself to someone who is mindlessly belligerent.
Regarding sin, you can have sin without any mention of God, for if you commit a crime, you go to jail, and your sin sends you to jail. You're filled with mistaken assumptions, making claims you can't back up, such as saying sin does not exist. If you murder, steal or commit some other crime, you have sinned. Now, not all sin will put you in jail, but it is enough for us to point out here there is some sin that will put you in jail.
Since the definition of sin we are using, as stated in the 4 Step Proof for God, is one that has no requirement first mentioning God, why are you asking for proof for sin's existence in the Bible if you assume that sin requires the existence of God and you think the Bible first assumes God's existence? That's a contradiction. You're asking for something as proof which you would not accept anyway. You're sloppy in your thoughts.
By the way, every time you mention a "god" which is not "God" of the Bible, you are violating Step 3 of the Proof, because nowhere in the Bible will you find God referred to as god. So, Step 3 implores you if you want to argue against God of the Bible, don't argue against some god, for that is foolish. Try to stay on topic.
Quote:
Links or you lose credibility.
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/garyhabermas.htm
Study 3 books, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, The Historical Jesus, and Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus, all by Gary R. Habermas, today's leading scholar on the resurrection of Christ.
Quote:
Quote:
When you place this next to the documentation of the emperor of Rome who died the same time Jesus died, you find that Jesus is documented four times more within say the first 150 years of their deaths.
I've looked and there is no such documentation.
I guess you didn't look very hard, for it is documented in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.
Quote:
Quote:
Nobody in antiquity is more well documented than Jesus and with papyrus still preserved so close to the events that took place.
The Roman Emperors beg to disagree. And the Japanese Emperors. The Egyptians did a pretty good job too.
I've given you one example of the Roman emperor who died the same time as Jesus and Jesus was documented four times more than him within the first 150 years of their deaths, and you cite no specific example. Looks like you have nothing.
Quote:
Quote:
The Iliad's, for example, earliest preserved document that still exists is over a thousand years after their alleged events. Our earliest known papyrus from Scripture is from 95 to 105 AD[sic] (see Case for Faith and Case for Christ by Lee Strobel).
Apparently you don't know the meaning of the word contemporary. In this instance it means "existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time." According to your only source that you've cited so far Jesus died around 33 CE. That is most certainly NOT contemporary.
In the future, you should add words to someone you quote such as when you added "[sic]", because that gives the false impression I actually said that when I didn't.
I was not using the contemporary usage to the time of when Jesus was alive, but when the apostles and second generation apostles were alive of the earliest church period the Bible calls the "Ephesus" church period. I don't know of any writings when Jesus was still alive about Jesus' ministry for three and a half years. I can't say when they put their experiences to pen only that they had done so. I don't think it is reasonable for you to expect writings about Jesus before His ministry started or for the apostles to be taking notes when Jesus was ministering. They probably didn't have pens, and when Jesus wrote in the sand, the wind blew it away. But I can assure you that writings of Scripture were on the hearts of their writers daily before their final completion in the first century, and the 17 non-Christian sources are well testified of the historical Jesus. 12 of those non-Christian sources speak of Jesus' death and 7 of them mention Him as a deity. However, that's like going to a criminal for his testimony on reality. It is not reality or righteous to be a criminal.
I am surprised your contemporary argument is for writings when Jesus was alive, for I thought that was common knowledge there was none, nor is it reasonable there would be. Most would have considered Jesus of no account and His words would have fallen on deaf ears.
Quote:
The passage by Tacitus was arguably written in to the Annals by Christain scribes as neither Tertullian, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Eusebius, nor Augustine of Hippo mention the passage. Luke didn't mention the persecution of Christians in Rome in Acts. There probably weren't very many at ALL in Rome, certainly not the number alluded to in the passage (enough to be at fault for the fire). Also, the passage was, if genuine, written circa 119 CE, also NOT contemporary, and makes merely passing reference to a "Christus," who was mistreated by the "procurator"[sic] of Judea which spawned a religion. Not much of substance there at all.
It is not required these men mention what Tacitus said specifically about Nero and Christians, for these various other writers hardly said anything about Jesus at all as it is.
Suetonius refers to a wave of riots which broke out in a large Jewish community in Rome during the year 49 AD. As a result, the Jews were banished from the city. This has an interesting corroboration with Acts 18.2 which relates that Paul met with a Jewish couple from Pontus named Aquila and his wife Priscilla, who had recently left Italy because Claudius had demanded that all the Jews leave Rome.
The second reference in Suetonius is again to the Christians who were tortured by emperor Nero. "After the great fire in Rome...Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief."
If what Tacitus said was added by Christians, surely someone would have indicated this addition. Just like today if someone added a book to the Bible, everyone would take note of it, but nobody said anything about the Annals after it was given; not even one of those men that you mentioned did anything, so you know the Annals is truly from Tacitus. Consequently, Rev. 9.18 mentions the number of a most evil man who is the Antichrist, which is revived Nero. In Aramaic, the language of Christ, Neron Kaisar adds up to the number 666. This takes wisdom to appreciate we are told. Nero was the most evil man who ever lived, killing many of his family members and rounding up Christians in accusing them.
How many Christians were there in Rome? Enough to call them the saints in Rome. However many there are is no great issue, for Christians are always considered the little flock. Even today, though the number of people who say they are Christians is over 2 billion, only a very small percentage are actually born-again as the little flock.
Quote:
I think there was plenty of motive, if Christians were being persecuted as you might have us believe(but that's a topic for another day). At any rate, I doubt people considered Jesus a threat, since he was sort of dead. And while a record was certainly in order, there hasn't been an uncontestably genuine one found.
I am not the source of telling you Christians are being persecuted, but the documentation tells us they are being persecuted. Tradition tells us the apostles were all martyred, Christ died on the cross, and this is reported from the early church fathers and early eyewitnesses. I don't think most people gave much thought to Jesus or considered Him a threat, so I would agree with you, but this in no way discounts Him. What it shows is people are lost in the world and could care less. Since you could find no fault with the earliest 45 source documents about Jesus, and your issue with Tacitus does not hold up, because someone would have mentioned the addition, then so far, in all that you have said, gives you no grounds for rejecting Christ. You could not contest even one of these documents, and still, you find no fault anywhere in the testimonies of Scripture.
Quote:
My faith in the god of no-god-ism? This makes little sense. It's not faith if modern science(not just biology, physics too) supports it. Please, realize that scientists aren't investigating such things to extol the virtues of your god or ANY god, they're doing it to dispel ignorance like the stuff that populates these forums.
Since biology and physics do not support your idea of no creator, then you would be wrong. Since you could find no ignorance on this forums other than what you write or those who remain similarly confused, then what have you?
Quote:
Quote:
I've already given you the scientific finding in which we can cite trillions of things that have a cause in nature,
If by that you mean that you've told me that nothing in nature is without cause(which I suppose is true in a deterministic universe, with the exception of the big bang[when the "normal" laws of physics didn't apply]), then yes.
Since the big bang is part of nature, then there is no reason to think it does not follow the laws of nature and would not require a cause, so you would be wrong. Your whole faith is based on assuming puff the magic dragon, but you have no evidence and all the evidence points against you. A deterministic universe is simply one that has cause and effects, where nothing happens all by itself, and that is exactly what we observe.
Quote:
Quote:
Radioactive-dating does not deny the account of creation in Bible.
What bible do you read? It blatantly contradicts ANY literal reading of genesis, and if you don't read genesis literally, why read any of the bible literally(like those bits about Jesus, the flood, etc.)?
I read the RSV, ASV, NLT and KJV mostly. There is no contradiction of any literal reading and Genesis, nor could you find any. Yes, there really was a local flood, and yes, the Bible really is the Word of God embodying Jesus on paper. It's all about Him, not just some bits. All of it! In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word is God.
Quote:
Quote:
The problem with evolution is that it is just a limited teaching, for it can't explain what came before the first biological creature. That's why we go to the
4 Step Proof for God of the Bible which is more encompassing.
No, that's why we go to physics.
And the 4 Step Proof addresses physics where nothing in physics happens all by itself, so why overlook this fact, for this is the very proof for God.
Quote:
Yes, and when trying to determine where the studs in a wall are, a chainsaw does little good. Science is not just evolution, there's a whole lot of physics behind the naturalist view.
There is no evidence in physics for the naturalistic view for nothing in nature happens all by itself. Naturally and scientifically speaking, nature proves the uncreated.
Quote:
Quote:
The Big Bang agrees with the Bible for Gen. 1.1 does not say how long God took to create.
See my point on literal reading of the bible etc.
See my point in response to your point on the literal reading of the Bible.
Quote:
Quote:
Gen. 2.7 says our bodies were formed from dust,
Which is patently false, and Islam's view of biological creation adheres more closely to fact than Christianity.
It is in fact true, our bodies are formed from the elements of the stars, summarized as the "dust". Whatever Islam says about how our bodies are formed is irrelevant, since their god is false due to the fact they have no evidence in their claim over six hundred years later for claiming Jesus never died.
Quote:
Quote:
create man in God's image 6000 years ago. However, one things you can say of the length of time is the wondrous patience God has.
Why are there indications of humans(tools, footprints, etc.) from as early as 130000 years ago?
Always your problem is reading the Bible with a darkened mind-your perspective is twisted. What the Bible considers those footprints 130,000 years to be is pre-Adamic man (part of the "dust") who did not have a spirit of God-consciousness and were not made in God's image as were all women and men since approximately 4000 BC.
Nothing in this link should cause you to believe the time of a person's existence determines their truthfulness. I am glad you couldn't show it.
Quote:
Quote:
First off you should not believe in the god of Islam because he lies to you. He comes 600+ years later and says Jesus didn't die on the cross when all the documentation we have He did die on the cross. Nobody in the first century thought otherwise. Can you find anyone who thought otherwise? What about the second century?
Quote:
Mohammed contrived his religion, and this is proven by the fact that over 600 years later he said Jesus never died.
That bit was from this topic.
You brought it up.
Quote:
Quote:
Since all the documentation we have points to Jesus dying on the cross
The bible?
Including the Bible, Christian writings and non-Christian writings. Altogether we have 24 source documents that talk about His death.
If you still don't think Jesus lived in person on earth then that issue can be tackled elsewhere. We have "129 reported facts concerning the life, person, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus, plus the disciples' earliest message. We have examined 45 ancient sources for the life of Jesus, which includes 19 early creedal, four archaeological, 17 non-Christian, and five non-New Testament Christian sources. Of our 45 sources, 30 record this teaching [deity of Jesus], which surprisingly includes seven of the 17 secular sources" [Historical Jesus, Gary Habermas, 250-251]. Jesus Himself said He was God with such titles as "Son of God" and "Son of Man" [Ibid., chapter 27].
"Of all the events in Jesus' life, more ancient sources specifically mention his death than any other single occurrence. Of the 45 ancient sources, 28 relate to this fact, often with details. Twelve of those sources are non-Christian, which exhibits an incredible amount of interest in this event. Not only is Jesus' death by crucifixion of major concern to these authors..." [Ibid., p. 252].
"Of our 45 sources, 18 specifically record the resurrection" [Ibid., p. 253].
Quote:
Quote:
and nobody in the first century saying otherwise
That's about as irrelevant as potatoes.
Nobody was saying Jesus did not exist early on, for no such notion would seem reasonable, but today, far removed people try to fathom the idea to no avail. Those closer to the time of the events that took place, surely somebody would have suggested Jesus did not exist if it was even possible. So any such notion is disregarded. The question becomes how do we explain the eyewitness accounts of His resurrection? And how can this be possible if He is not God, for He said He is God and there are no similar types of resurrections preceding Christ?
Quote:
Not really. I mean, the going to hell bit is probably right, but that's just because he's not Christian. I don't get where the hostility to Christianity bit came from; he was preaching the same things with the exception of the whole jesus died for your sins bit(which does seem just a bit silly upon reflection).
Christ died on the cross, this is a certainty, so to say He didn't when it is the clearest of teachings is entirely hostile to the Creator. Since sin leads to death and needs to be punished and can not escape consequence, then in order to be redeem from the sin nature a sacrifice is needed, and only a perfect sacrifice would do, for a sinner can not atone for another sinner. Hence, only God could be the perfect ransom. A faith that denies this is a false faith of works and self, and of many trying to save himself by his own efforts rather than relying on God's Son for the free gift of eternal life. People who want to remain disconnected from God will certainly deny the death, resurrection and deity of Christ, for there is no love in their hearts for what Jesus did on the cross for them. It is silly to them, and such an attitude shows how cold your heart is. A Christian can only pity you.
Quote:
Quote:
Buddhism and hinduism are false because you are not going to come back as a chicken or a dog if you sin and receive endless chances to be a human being again, back and forth like a yo yo without real consequences.
You've offered no proof other than your opinion. Also, there are consequences in both, people just have more chances. Seems a lot more positive than Christianity.
This is no mere opinion, but it is real tangible reasoning. If you have endless opportunities, then there is no real consequence. Moreover, in Step 1 of the 4 Step Proof we observe the exponential progression in conscience such that there would still not be sinning by now if there was this eternity of the past of cause and effects. This too proves buddhism and hinduism false because it goes against the idea of always possibly falling back into being a chicken or a dog. Not just a lot more chances, but an infinity of chances, is unrighteous, i.e., no real consequence which is vain and without purpose. In this life it doesn't matter because you get another chance for forever, so your conscience is lowered today by such false beliefs. Thank God's grace this is not the case, because it is quite negative to know that in a trillion trillion years from now I could be a dog in hinduism. That is not something to look forward to. You really ought to uplevel your conscience.
Quote:
Quote:
You get this one life to come to the cross and to believe in God. Even some person on some remote island who never read the Bible (the 66 books) or heard of it could still be saved if he looked up at the mountains and stars and believed in the Creator. Surely, if presented the Word of God, he would accept Christ as his Lord and Savior.
Your first sentence only works with an a priori acceptance of your god, and also, there are plenty of "[people] on some remote island[s]" who rejected your god. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Nope. The reason we know there is only this one opportunity is because the uncreated creator is proven, and we know Jesus to be Him because none can compare to Christ. And from these proofs, we listen to what Jesus said and what the prophets said in complete agreement to know that it is true-you get this one life to be saved. No opportunity exists after you die and are resurrected. I didn't say all people on some remote islands believed in God, so why would my non-existent bubble burst?
Quote:
Quote:
Buddhism also makes no commentary on an uncreated creator, thus shutting the person's mind down to the uncreated creator for selfish idol worship of gods that the flesh indulges itself and which remain a point of separation from God.
This sentence needs more grammar. Elaboration would be nice.
Buddhism is essential atheism though it is also polytheism and reincarnation. Complex sentences can be difficult to read for those who are not careful readers. Try this...Buddhism also makes no commentary on an uncreated creator, thus shutting the person's mind down to the uncreated creator for selfish idol worship of gods. The flesh indulges itself in these gods which remain a point of separation from God.
Quote:
Yes, I will be the first to admit that humans are unique among animals, but remember that we are just animals, and shared an ancestor with an ape
It stands to reason this would be the case since our bodies are derived from dust as the Bible says, but continue to realize how uniquely different and able man is above creatures of the earth. We would then not be just animals, but have an ability, admittedly, of worshipping God and have vast intellectual capability. To think this is by accident is fantastical.
Quote:
We have a propensity to worship because way back when, tribes with a god to die for and a paradise awaiting them had a better motivation to fight. Eventually, genes were selected that increased one's propensity for spirituality, and there you go.
A motivation to fight would suit a god of war, but a God who is righteous and holy is not a god of war and does not want war. This is God of the Bible. So your theory is wrong. As you read the Word of God you never find war as the motivation, but it is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth and peace. Since you could not make your case, you know you are wrong. Just think of yourself speaking forth but with the aid of the evil spirit's corrupted thoughts to try to misrepresent reality. What happened to genes? Exponential progression in conscience has transpired (Step 1 of the 4 Step Proof). Along this progression, still a person would need to choose the cross to be saved in this dispensation, because the sinner in his sins still needs atonement. During the 1000 years though the church period will have passed, one would still need to believe in Jesus reigning on Earth in Person as God, so salvation will still take place even then up to the point of the new city and new earth that follows wherein there will be no more sin; and there you go. You would be in hell for eternity because you can't be with those whom God has saved to be His own people.
Quote:
Quote:
Entering the point of calvinism as false is not a random comment but most applicable, because calvinism teaches a similar idea to the one you presented that you have to be saved first to be able to believe and believe in the proof of God in the 4 Step Proof.
You still ignored my statement that a proof is useless if it can't convince people(and there are some glaring fallacies in that "proof," though I sha'n't discuss them as you already shouted down and banned a person who did).
People are convinced; if it was not so, then nobody would ever be saved. I don't know what comment you made about a proof that can't convince people. Perhaps you can reproduce it here. Why would a proof for God not convince people? If they can't find anything wrong with it, and they search God with all their heart and mind, surely they will be drawn by the Holy Spirit to believe and receive the grace of forgiveness.
There was nobody banned for trying to discuss the 4 Step Proof, so why bear false witness? I am glad you can only be coy and still can't find anything wrong with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible. Praise the Lord! I love your testimony for God of the Bible.
Quote:
Quote:
I think you contradict yourself when you said, "I don't agree with the theology, but it makes sense". Why do you disagree with things that you think make sense?
Because I find it repulsive, like the other denominations of your religion.
Why are things that make sense to you repulsive? Satan has the same sense. I think what you are experiencing is a condition of independency from spiritual reality. Denominations are not called for in the Scriptures, yet the Bible warns about these things by saying not to say "I of Cephas" or "I of Apollos" which is like saying "I am Baptist". God never divides the body of Christ by denoms, but it is always according to Biblical locality. The church is always referred to in locality, not by a corporation styled organization. All denominations have some false teaching. Baptists teach baptism requires water, but the Bible teaches baptism is with or without water in burial and resurrection with Christ. Baptists are also wrong because they contradict themselves by being 2 part arminian and 3 part calvinists. These are glaring contradictions and impossible to reconcile.
Quote:
If a being knows what another being is going to do, it's predestination. Don't try to dance around words like that--Isn't honesty a virtue?
You're not understanding causing you to shut your mind down to the reality. There are two purported types of predestination. One in which the creator preprograms everything to cause some to be saved and others not
without first regard for their choice. The other type (the correct one) is God predestinates by foreknowing our free-choice as in Rom. 8.29. First God foreknows, and what He foreknows, He predestinates, that is, He declares as good according to His righteous way of doing things. It all hinges on our free-will as sovereign beings, and God wants to walk with man made in His image, not robots. It's really not that hard to understand. This is called osas arminian-it is possible for God to foreknow without causing our choice.
Quote:
You, Troy, seem to be an insufferable little zealot who sees a god where one is not, and refuses to let anyone even try to shatter your tiny little view of the world. I've seen how many people have had their accounts deleted. You're the sort who just shouts down anything another person is saying, and if they bring up points you can't refute, you ban them or repeat yourself "like a clanging bell" as you put it in a private message to me. You are one of the saddest things on the planet, and you insult others of your faith.
Let's summarize. You could find nothing in nature that happens all by itself, yet you still deny the uncreated creator which is the only possibility, for no other has been worthy of consideration. So just ask yourself the simple question, why shut your mind down as a Zombie for Satan? Just be intellectually honest with yourself that you are going to hell.
Aren't you a zealot for Satan then, given the above evidence? I don't recall shouting. Could you find any shouts? Where could you find someone who shattered my view? You couldn't could you? What have I been unable to refute where someone tried to argue against God of the Bible? Again, aren't you this "clanging bell" since you can't actually show it specifically? My brothers and sisters in Christ are most grateful for my work in the body of Christ, so you would be wrong that they are insulted. I do feel sad for you because I know you are going to hell. Often times what will end up leading a person to Christ where they would not otherwise come to the cross is great tragedy will need to befall them first before they could consider receive Jesus as Savior. If this happens to you one day, consider it God's grace to help lead you to Him. My prayers go out to you.
God entered into His creation to choose out a people for Himself. You're simply not one of those people, you admit.
