- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Lord’s Prayer opening may be ‘problematic’, says archbishop
Posted on 7/31/23 at 12:19 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 7/31/23 at 12:19 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Homo Neanderthalensis = human Homo Denisovan = human Homo Erectus = human
Very good.
What about Homo Habilis? Human body more or less that walked upright with the head and brain capacity similar to a chimpanzee. Is he human too?
quote:
Where a "sub species" of humans can breed with other humans to create more humans.
Makes sense. And geneticists have shown that modern human DNA does include the DNA of Neanderthals, Denisovans, and probably Erectus (since it has not yet been sequenced).
quote:
Probably Erectus was just a human being that diverged after Babel as populations became isolated and variations occurred.
So… you believe Adam and Eve were homo Erectus? With giant brow ridges and smaller brains than modern humans, among other major morphological differences? Besides Babel dispersal not being a real historical event, there no evidence of Erectus being on earth within the last 6,000 years. In fact the positive evidence does show that Erectus became extinct around 100,000 years ago.
quote:
Why do you assume that description of creation was maintained for forever (out space wasn't filled with water at any point from the Bible's description)?
The Bible clearly says there are waters above the firmament.
quote:
6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
And that it rains when the windows of the firmament were opened.
quote:
11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
The firmament was… well… firm. In Job 37 it’s described as a cast metal mirror or molten glass.
quote:
18Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?
Bible clearly stated there’s a hard glass-like dome above the earth that holds back the waters above, and that windows in this firmament are opened by God and angels to let it rain. I can only assume the firmament “still exists” because it was a fundamental part of creation of the earth and because it still rains sometimes and doesn’t rain most of the time. The Bible never says the firmament disappeared, so if you think that now, you’re making up your own ideas rather than trusting the Bible.
quote:
Whatever that firmament was, it likely dissipated during the flood when "the windows of the heavens were opened" (Gen. 7:11).
Wrong again. Let me show you.
Psalm 19:
quote:
1{To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.} The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Daniel 12:
quote:
3And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
Psalm 104:
quote:
2covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent.
Psalm 148:
quote:
4Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!
So you are completely wrong about what the Bible says about the firmament and waters above.
quote:
While I know some people believe the earth is flat and believe in geocentrism, there is no biblical reason to believe those things must be the case.
C’mon man. The flat earthers get their beliefs from the Bible. I don’t even believe you are that ignorant not to know that. There’s tens or maybe hundreds of references in the Bible to the pillars of the earth, earth being immovable on its foundations, the ends of the earth, how the earth moon and stars are smaller than the earth and under the tent/firmament… Jesus going on a high mountain and being able to see the entire earth. Do I really have to post every single one? Do your own research. Why was the church so pissed at Galileo when he stated publicly that the earth was not the center of the universe, but rather the earth revolved around the sun? Because geocentrism and flat earth nonsense are plain as day in the Bible.
I’m done arguing with you on atheism having no rational basis for morality - objective or subjective - or whatever. Your argument is mooted as there is no evidence for the Biblical god or gods existing in reality. So literally nothing can come from those imaginary gods. I’ve explained morality without “god” to you… a far better morality than the killing, rape, and slavery of God and Biblical leadership… and you disagree and that’s ok. No sense in arguing that subject anymore with you though because your biases and won’t allow you to understand the other point of view.
1
Posted on 7/31/23 at 12:44 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:Since you don't want to engage in a more fundamental and important debate on the philosophical nature of God's existence, I'm done arguing with you about the less important issue of false scientific conclusions based on faulty assumptions. I could go on and continue to answer your specific questions and objectives about Habilis, DNA, firmaments, etc., but you don't receive the truth no matter how clearly I present it to you and show you how your interpretation of the Scriptures is wrong.
Squirrelmeister
quote:The transcendental argument that I'm presenting to you is absolutely an evidence (and I'd say, a proof) that God does exist in reality. You just can't put 2 and 2 together, apparently. The whole point of me harping on this is to show you that you have a fundamental problem with interpreting reality and having knowledge of anything apart from the reality of the Christian God. You have to assume His existence in order to argue against His existence in the first place.
Your argument is mooted as there is no evidence for the Biblical god or gods existing in reality.
quote:You still don't get it. I'm talking about a more foundational point than the differences in morality. I'm talking about presuppositions that are necessary for even engaging in the discussion at all.
I’ve explained morality without “god” to you… a far better morality than the killing, rape, and slavery of God and Biblical leadership… and you disagree and that’s ok.
You have no rational basis for making judgements about any moral standards at all because you have rejected the only source for objective moral reasoning (God). You have forfeited all rational ability to make statements of "objective" condemnation when you reject God, and that's what I've been trying to drive home to yo in this discussion.
You have no ability to compare two or more standards of ethics and morality and say that any are better or worse than the others, because you have rejected a single objective standard to point to to make such comparisons. All you are left with are your own subjective opinions, which don't mean anything outside of yourself. Who cares if you think rape is wrong? The rapist thinks it's perfectly fine. Who is objectively right between you and the rapist? Neither of you can be "right" in a true sense, because rape is just something one purposeless accident in time and space does to another purposeless accident in time and space. This is what you haven't grasped yet. Your worldview destroys the ability to participate in objective moral reasoning.
quote:I understand other points of view very well; I'm not stupid. I don't have to agree with other points of view in order to understand them. What you seem to not understand is that all people have biases, axioms, and presuppositions that color how they interpret reality, including you.
No sense in arguing that subject anymore with you though because your biases and won’t allow you to understand the other point of view.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 1:18 pm to Mr. Misanthrope
quote:
Your assertion of that Paul’s letters predate the gospels by 20-100 years looks like this. 50-90 gospels 50-68 Paul’s epistles
What’s the argument? What’s 90 minus 50? 40. Is 40 between 20 and 100 on the number line?
I believe your dating for Paul’s letters are very late and your dating for the gospels is very early. Obviously Mark 13:2 “predicting” the destruction of the temple in 70CE means the gospels are post 70CE, as the other gospels are plagiarisms of Mark. You probably don’t realize that Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thes were probably not written by Paul, and that Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews were definitely not written by Paul.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 1:30 pm to Smeg
quote:
Church of England’s ruling body
Don't care.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 2:08 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I'm done arguing with you about the less important issue of false scientific conclusions based on faulty assumptions. I could go on and continue to answer your specific questions and objectives about Habilis, DNA, firmaments, etc.,
I know you hate being proven wrong by an atheist using your own scripture.
You were wrong about what the Bible says about the firmament and waters above, and you’re wrong about dinosaurs on the ark which never existed. Never thought I’d ever hear anything dumber than the fantasy of Homo Erectus at the Tower of Babel (which also did not exist).
Posted on 7/31/23 at 2:54 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Probably Erectus was just a human being that diverged after Babel as populations became isolated and variations occurred.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 5:00 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:No.
Obviously Mark 13:2 “predicting” the destruction of the temple in 70CE means the gospels are post 70CE,
quote:No.
I believe your dating for Paul’s letters are very late
quote:No.
your dating for the gospels is very early.
quote:7 of 13 (14 if you include the possibility of a lost letter) are undisputed. Critics of the disputed letters ignore stylistic differences accounted for by “secretaries” penning what St. Paul dictated to them and upon rereading approving the letter so long as the message conveyed is correct. This more than accounts for vocabulary, stylistic differences, and variations critics employ to dispute the 6 letters in question.
You probably don’t realize that Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thes were probably not written by Paul, and that Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews were definitely not written by Paul.
Critics fail to recognize differences in the audience Paul’s letters are addressed to as well as taking note of the particular issues he was addressing. Both require different wording and stylistic nuances and should be given credibility by critics.
Critics are all over the board in these matters. Some deny the traditional authorship of the Gospels because they are anonymous while denying Pauline authorship of his 13 Epistles because they are not anonymous.
About all I can say with certainty is that who wrote Hebrews is legitimately disputed. Anonymous or written by Paul or by one of his disciples it remains a magnificent explanation of who Christ is and what he has accomplished. It really does not matter who wrote it.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 5:10 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:I'm still waiting for that to happen.
I know you hate being proven wrong by an atheist using your own scripture.
Meanwhile, I've refuted your lies dozens of times over the past few months, and instead of proving me wrong, you ignore it and move on to another lie. The cycle continues over and over again. I'd say I'm surprised that you're still going at it, but I'm not. Your hatred for your creator knows no limits, apparently.
quote:All you do is make unfounded assertions and then claim victory. Try actually refuting something for a change.
You were wrong about what the Bible says about the firmament and waters above, and you’re wrong about dinosaurs on the ark which never existed. Never thought I’d ever hear anything dumber than the fantasy of Homo Erectus at the Tower of Babel (which also did not exist).
In terms of the firmament, it's not actually known what it really is other than a location or space in the sky (could be everything from the air above the ground all the way to the out edge of space). The specific reference could be to a water canopy that enveloped the earth prior to the flood (which is what I was referring to, though I'm open to other theories that align with biblical teaching on the matter) or something else. Honestly, it doesn't really matter what exactly it is as the Scriptures talk about it in somewhat different ways depending on the context, whether it be the sky, the atmosphere (which the people didn't have a word for) or outer space, or all of the above at the same time.
You're trying to show a contradiction of specificity when the true understanding isn't clear. I'm fine to be wrong in my supposition (even my wording in response to you wasn't that of clear conviction because of the nature of the language used).
So sure, the "firmament" (aka, expanse) could be a few different things and could be there or not be there depending on the context of how it's used in the Scriptures. However, even if it were used in whatever way you want it to be used, it still doesn't mean that outer space is filled with water. At worst (or best?) it means that there would be some sort of water surrounding space.
I know that it isn't a solid dome. That language is pulled from the Hebrew word that means to spread out or flatten out metal, as with a hammer. The word is talking about the action, not the substance. Job 37 is a metaphor, as it clearly isn't a "mirror" where we can see our own reflections when we look into it. The idea is that God spread out the heavens/skies, as a sheet of metal is spread out through a hammering process. Other places in Job it speaks of storehouses for the rain and snow in the skies, and the sun and moon, which would be above this supposed metal dome, so no, it's not talking about a literal metal (or even a glass-like) dome.
ETA:
When are you going to admit that your atheistic worldview can't account for the objective moral reasoning that you keep trying to engage in?
This post was edited on 7/31/23 at 5:11 pm
Posted on 7/31/23 at 5:52 pm to Smeg
Church of England, LOL
Posted on 7/31/23 at 6:19 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:This is disingenuous legerdemain. Now you see them, now you don’t. Clever but disingenuous nevertheless.
What’s the argument? What’s 90 minus 50? 40. Is 40 between 20 and 100 on the number line?
Only one gospel, John’s, falls into the criteria you established, and it’s nowhere near the 100 years you tossed out . You’re off the mark by 40 to 50 years.
You confidently asserted that all of the gospels were written 20 to 100 years after Paul’s letters. I pointed out to you that it’s very possible, perhaps likely, the synoptic gospels and the Pauline epistles were being written and circulated contemporaneously. To remind you of your argument:
quote:
His letters pre-date the four canonical gospels by 20 to 100 years.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 8:35 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I'm still waiting for that to happen.
Wait no longer. Simply scroll up to my previous post where I quoted you as stating there were no waters above the firmament. You also claimed the firmament may have been magically eliminated in “the flood”. Then I subsequently quoted from your Bible to show that it states that there were waters above the firmament and that the firmament was referenced as existing by many writers and scribes post-flood. You know this is true, yet you claim it is not. Therefore you are a liar.
quote:
Meanwhile, I've refuted your lies dozens of times over the past few months, and instead of proving me wrong, you ignore it and move on to another lie.
“Refutations” without evidence should be ignored due to lack of evidence. I can be convinced of something that is evidently true. You have provided no verifiable facts.
quote:
Your hatred for your creator knows no limits, apparently.
Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Oh, you don’t? That means you hate the FSM.
quote:
All you do is make unfounded assertions and then claim victory. Try actually refuting something for a change.
You said earlier Homo Erectus probably came forth from the Tower of Babel dispersion. Probably. You made an unfounded assertion. Without evidence. A really stupid one at that. There is no verifiable evidence or facts which point to the biblical Tower of Babel story as historical or real. However, I have the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that Homo Erectus became extinct around 100,000 years ago. You believe science is a conspiracy, and that the earth is 6,000 years old. Your beliefs are fantasy, whereas mine are based on verifiable reality.
quote:
So sure, the "firmament" (aka, expanse) could be a few different things and could be there or not be there depending on the context of how it's used in the Scriptures. However, even if it were used in whatever way you want it to be used, it still doesn't mean that outer space is filled with water. At worst (or best?) it means that there would be some sort of water surrounding space.
Well I quoted the scripture of the firmament being solid. The same basic story is told in the Enuma Elish, a Babylonian creation myth the predated the Bible by a couple thousand years. In it, the god Marduk (who is in your Bible by the way) kills Tiamat (the great sea dragon) and uses the two halves of the body to make the sky and the earth and he separates the waters into the waters above and below. Ba’al does the same action of creation in the Ugaritic myths. So is it really made out of molten glass like in the Bible or is it the corpse of a dead water dragon? The truth is it doesn’t exist and there’s no water above the firmament because there is no firmament. We’ve sent probes into space past Pluto and haven’t hit a hard glass-like object yet.
quote:
Job 37 is a metaphor, as it clearly isn't a "mirror" where we can see our own reflections when we look into it.
Don’t bother to check the Hebrew or other English translations. It’s hard like a motel glass mirror. It doesn’t say it’s a mirror, Mr. Strawman. But hey why don’t you tell us all how stating it’s hard like molten glass is a metaphor. Do you know what a metaphor is?
quote:
Other places in Job it speaks of storehouses for the rain and snow in the skies, and the sun and moon, which would be above this supposed metal dome, so no, it's not talking about a literal metal (or even a glass-like) dome.
Wrong again. The ancient people didn’t understand weather and thought that god hurled lightning bolts and made it snow. There’s no metaphor there. And you couldn’t be more wrong about the sun and moon being above the firmament. They are “in” the firmament in KJV”. They are “in” the expanse in the ESV. The sun and moon clearly travel underneath the firmament in the expanse of the sky below the upper waters according to the Bible. Go ahead and make unfounded assertions though. Ignore the plain text of the Bible that you claim to believe.
quote:
When are you going to admit that your atheistic worldview can't account for the objective moral reasoning that you keep trying to engage in?
Neither can yours because the “objective” evil morals which form the basis of your morality are not based on anything real, due to your “god” not being real. Ethics are quasi-objective but there are some degrees of subjectivity. Murdering someone without cause is objectively immoral. Having a child multilateral their body to try to look like the opposite sex is in the grey area of subjectivity unfortunately. Morals change over time and morality is generally determined by society. There is a field of study called “ethics” and people argue about the grey areas. By modern standards of morality, the god of the Bible would be objectively immoral.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 8:54 pm to evil cockroach
There are factions now claiming God is queer
Posted on 7/31/23 at 9:00 pm to joeyjoejoeshabadoo
quote:
He has to go.
I don't understand why the church doesn't dump his arse on the road the second he says something like this.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 10:56 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Paul literally states the “Rulers” are heavenly beings and that they killed Jesus.
Right. In the same sense that a mob boss orders a hit. Show me where Paul denies the physical crucifixion of Jesus. To the contrary, Paul repeatedly proclaims the message of the cross:
1 Corinthians 2:2 (NASB95): For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
1 Corinthians 1:18 (NASB95): For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
Hebrews 12:2 (NASB95): fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Philippians 2:8 (NASB95): Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
I don’t mean to be rude, but it’s beyond ridiculous to suggest that Paul doesn’t mention the crucifixion, or somehow denies the physical cross. Forgive me if I have misunderstood your point.
quote:
Funny how Paul never mentions any of the crucifixion stories of the gospels, including no mention of of the disciples or the Marys or anyone being present and no mention of Pilate or the Romans or Jews even being responsible for Jesus’ death
Perhaps not. But, they do mention him.
2 Peter 3:15–16 (NASB95): and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
And, all throughout Acts (authored by Luke). As the Apostle to the Gentiles, there was no need for him to give a history lesson on current events that all believers were well aware of.
quote:
Your problem with NASB95 is that it’s a poor translation. Even my trusty ESV lets me down on this verse. For this I’m going to go to the KJV which actually gets it right.
The irony here is palpable. For someone who proclaims the superiority of mainstream scholarship, I would think that you would be well aware that nearly all of your precious scholars agree that the NASB is the most accurate English translation we have.
quote:
Check the Greek. “Seed” is a translation of “spermatos”. Sperm. It literally says Jesus’ body was manufactured of the sperm of David. There’s nothing in the Greek about being “born” nor of a “descendant” or David.
Yes, we are all aware of how babies are made. Are you not the descendant of your great grandfather’s spermatos?
quote:
I really suggest if you’re going to make arguments that you check the Greek and or Hebrew originals so that you can understand them better.
Good point. I do have a copy of Strong’s new expanded exhaustive concordance of the Bible, but I admit that I rarely use it. Thanks for the reminder.
quote:
A parallel myth is the story of Zarathustra (Zoroaster) - when he died, some of his semen was kept by Ahura Mazda in a lake, and a virgin will one day bathe in the lake and become pregnant with their savior. There are parallel Greek myths as well.
Right. And I assume that the promoters of this myth were willing to die horrible deaths- rather than admit they made it up? Where is the church of Zarathustra today? You stand a better chance of buying new car with counterfeit bills than making into a counterfeit heaven by the counterfeit savior of a counterfeit myth.
quote:
For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel
Interesting. Let’s see what your “trusty ESV” says.
“For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.”
Sorry, I had to throw that one in there. Let’s stick with the NASB.
quote:
There’s only one archangel
Says who? Sure, Michael is referred to as the archangel, but not as the only archangel. To the contrary, Daniel says:
Daniel 10:13 (NASB95): But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia.
One of. Hmm. Let’s continue.
quote:
This is why Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that Jesus was/is the archangel Michael.
It seems that atheism makes for some strange bedfellows.
quote:
Paul calls Jesus the archangel
No, he does not. If scripture taught us that Jesus was coming back- alone, or that Paul’s letters were not in accordance with the Gospels- then you might have had a point. Let’s look at scripture, to interpret scripture.
Matthew 24:30–31 (NASB95): And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.
31 “And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His ?elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
So, Jesus will return with His angels. I don’t think Jesus is the one shouting, or sounding the trumpet. I’m pretty sure Michael will be there- it’s kinda his thing.
To be continued…
Posted on 7/31/23 at 10:58 pm to Squirrelmeister
Continued
Well, I wish you would get started- because we’ve been at this for a couple of weeks and the only thing you’ve proven is that you fit the Bible’s description of you.
No, you don’t. You have opinions and conjecture. The best you could do is to agree with me, in that neither of us can prove anything beyond doubt.
So, literally every culture has their own version of the Great Flood- and you dismiss it out of hand? So, everybody’s wrong? Absolutely no one got it right?
Right. This is what I have been trying to tell you. You can’t prove that God doesn’t exist.
No. It hasn’t. People have tried, and failed, for thousands of years. It’s really quite impressive. Even an uneducated man, such as myself, can provide logical, reasonable explanations to the plethora of word-twisting, half-truth claims made by atheists.
Back atcha.
Then how do you explain this :
“ The only previously discovered archaeological evidence comes from a 1968 Jerusalem excavation performed by Vassilios Tzaferis of tombs from a massive Second Temple Jewish cemetery (2nd century BCE to 70 CE)…”
“ On the heel bone of the older male was discerned a 18 cm (7-inch) nail, upon which was found some 1-2 cm of olive wood — remnants of the cross from which he was hung, researchers concluded. Upon publication, the world heralded this unique proof of the historicity of crucifixion.”
My friend, your foolishness is showing again. Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, and (ironically) Bart Ehrman would disagree. As well as the vast majority of scholars. Christ mythology is a safe space for kooks.
I’m not offering proof. I recognize the intentional impossibility of such. All I’m offering is a reasonable defense of the Christian worldview that most accurately reflects reality as we know it.
And Darwin developed his “theory” of evolution with today’s equivalent of a third grader’s understanding of the complexity of the human cell. I think it’s good that we’re all still learning.
This out of context quote is classic Squirrelmeister! Let’s look at the scripture in question.
Matthew 15:1–3 (NASB95): Then some Pharisees and scribes *came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,
2 “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”
3 And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
Matthew 15:10–11 (NASB95): ?After Jesus called the crowd to Him, He said to them, “Hear and understand.
11 “It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”
This was not about physical illness- and you know that. When you consider that He also said:
Matthew 10:28 (NASB95): Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in ?hell.
… it makes perfect sense.
Perfectly? With Paul’s letters- or with your desired misinterpretation of Paul’s letters? It’s legit? Because it was copied in several languages? Dianetics has been copied into 54 languages. Yet it is still outright dismissed as incredulous pulp fiction by psychologists and scientists. Are you a Scientologist? Would you apply the same methods and standards to the dissemination of Scientology that you do to Christianity?
quote:
Negative, chief. I can prove that most of the relevant material in the Bible is wrong
Well, I wish you would get started- because we’ve been at this for a couple of weeks and the only thing you’ve proven is that you fit the Bible’s description of you.
quote:
I have the overwhelming preponderance of physical evidence on my side that
No, you don’t. You have opinions and conjecture. The best you could do is to agree with me, in that neither of us can prove anything beyond doubt.
quote:
just for one example, that there was no global flood, and that the Noah myth is a ripoff of an earlier Sumerian myth.
So, literally every culture has their own version of the Great Flood- and you dismiss it out of hand? So, everybody’s wrong? Absolutely no one got it right?
quote:
I can’t prove a negative.
Right. This is what I have been trying to tell you. You can’t prove that God doesn’t exist.
quote:
It has been irrefutably debunked
No. It hasn’t. People have tried, and failed, for thousands of years. It’s really quite impressive. Even an uneducated man, such as myself, can provide logical, reasonable explanations to the plethora of word-twisting, half-truth claims made by atheists.
quote:
An allegation made without evidence is not considered a refutation.
Back atcha.
quote:
An enemy of Rome would have been left to rot, and no one would have been permitted to take down any bodies
Then how do you explain this :
“ The only previously discovered archaeological evidence comes from a 1968 Jerusalem excavation performed by Vassilios Tzaferis of tombs from a massive Second Temple Jewish cemetery (2nd century BCE to 70 CE)…”
“ On the heel bone of the older male was discerned a 18 cm (7-inch) nail, upon which was found some 1-2 cm of olive wood — remnants of the cross from which he was hung, researchers concluded. Upon publication, the world heralded this unique proof of the historicity of crucifixion.”
quote:
There was no empty tomb… hell Jesus wasn’t even out in the tomb. It’s very likely there was no historical Jesus.
My friend, your foolishness is showing again. Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, and (ironically) Bart Ehrman would disagree. As well as the vast majority of scholars. Christ mythology is a safe space for kooks.
quote:
Just because we don’t know how we got here isn’t proof that your particular anthropomorphic magic spirit in the sky created the cosmos.
I’m not offering proof. I recognize the intentional impossibility of such. All I’m offering is a reasonable defense of the Christian worldview that most accurately reflects reality as we know it.
quote:
At one time people thought earthquakes were caused by God’s anger. We now know it to be caused by movement of tectonic plates
And Darwin developed his “theory” of evolution with today’s equivalent of a third grader’s understanding of the complexity of the human cell. I think it’s good that we’re all still learning.
quote:
Jesus says not to wash hands before eating because what you put in your mouth can’t hurt you… poor “Jesus” didn’t even know about germs.
This out of context quote is classic Squirrelmeister! Let’s look at the scripture in question.
Matthew 15:1–3 (NASB95): Then some Pharisees and scribes *came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,
2 “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”
3 And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
Matthew 15:10–11 (NASB95): ?After Jesus called the crowd to Him, He said to them, “Hear and understand.
11 “It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”
This was not about physical illness- and you know that. When you consider that He also said:
Matthew 10:28 (NASB95): Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in ?hell.
… it makes perfect sense.
quote:
there’s a gospel that fits perfectly with Paul’s 7 legitimate letters. It’s called the Ascension of Isaiah. It describes how Jesus was an archangel, had a body made for him by god, went down through the layers of the heavens (from the 7th to the firmament) and is killed by demons in the sky. It doesn’t fit well the Mark through John so the church didn’t like it. You can get it on Amazon - it’s a translation mostly from old Coptic Egyptian but we know it’s legit as fragments were found in Latin, Greek, Aramaic, and Slavonic that match. We know it was written around the time of Paul.
Perfectly? With Paul’s letters- or with your desired misinterpretation of Paul’s letters? It’s legit? Because it was copied in several languages? Dianetics has been copied into 54 languages. Yet it is still outright dismissed as incredulous pulp fiction by psychologists and scientists. Are you a Scientologist? Would you apply the same methods and standards to the dissemination of Scientology that you do to Christianity?
Posted on 8/1/23 at 12:18 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:Re-read the post that I you just responded to. I said that there are different interpretations of what is meant by "firmament" (otherwise translated as "expanse") and it can range from the space above the ground all the way to the edge of the cosmos.
Wait no longer. Simply scroll up to my previous post where I quoted you as stating there were no waters above the firmament.
You aren't interested in truth. You are just trying to find "gotchas", as if the definition of "firmament" disproves the truthfulness of the Bible or the existence of God.
quote:You keep claiming to be using the Christian Bible to refute Christian beliefs. In that sense, you are claiming the Bible, itself, is evidence against its own authority and truthfulness. However, when I use that same Bible to show how your interpretations are patently absurd and untenable, you pivot to say that I have no evidence for such a refutation. I'm using the same standard of evidence (the Bible) that you are using to argue against my beliefs. Why is it that the Bible is only considered evidence when it supposedly proves your point but not when it proves mine? Sounds like you've got quite the double standard.
“Refutations” without evidence should be ignored due to lack of evidence. I can be convinced of something that is evidently true. You have provided no verifiable facts.
quote:The FSM doesn't exist, but God does, and He explains your hatred of Him perfectly. You spend a considerable amount of time trying to argue against a being that doesn't exist and a belief that you think is stupid and crazy. For an atheist who claims to make the most of this life, you seem to be wasting a lot of time arguing against fairy tales. Why aren't you eating, drinking, and being merry, since tomorrow we die and nothing really matters?
Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Oh, you don’t? That means you hate the FSM.
i know why. It's because you know deep down inside that there is a God, and you are accountable to Him. You hate Him like the criminal hates the police and the judge. You will be judged for your rejection against your creator, as you suppress the truth in your unrighteousness.
quote:The Bible, itself, is historical evidence. You just reject it as such. It's an eye-witness account from the creator of the universe.
You said earlier Homo Erectus probably came forth from the Tower of Babel dispersion. Probably. You made an unfounded assertion. Without evidence. A really stupid one at that. There is no verifiable evidence or facts which point to the biblical Tower of Babel story as historical or real. However, I have the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that Homo Erectus became extinct around 100,000 years ago.
And your "overwhelming preponderance of evidence" is not what you think it is. We all have the same "facts" and evidence. The issue isn't with a fossil, but with how it's interpreted. There are many assumptions made within the realm of science that if untrue, would create a lot of false interpretations. We disagree on those assumptions that go into the interpretations of the evidence. You are not neutral.
quote:Again, the language is metaphorical. Your entire rant here is meaningless, but I'll continue below.
Well I quoted the scripture of the firmament being solid... So is it really made out of molten glass like in the Bible or is it the corpse of a dead water dragon? The truth is it doesn’t exist and there’s no water above the firmament because there is no firmament. We’ve sent probes into space past Pluto and haven’t hit a hard glass-like object yet.
quote:Let's go to the ESV, which you seem to favor.
Don’t bother to check the Hebrew or other English translations. It’s hard like a motel glass mirror. It doesn’t say it’s a mirror, Mr. Strawman. But hey why don’t you tell us all how stating it’s hard like molten glass is a metaphor. Do you know what a metaphor is?
Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?
Or are you going to keep pretending you have a favorite or "better" translation of a book you think is full of fairy tales?
quote:You haven't demonstrated you've had a singular right interpretation of the Bible yet. You use it like a whore, to satisfy your own perverse desires. You are the one who keeps making unfounded assertions.
Wrong again. The ancient people didn’t understand weather and thought that god hurled lightning bolts and made it snow. There’s no metaphor there. And you couldn’t be more wrong about the sun and moon being above the firmament. They are “in” the firmament in KJV”. They are “in” the expanse in the ESV. The sun and moon clearly travel underneath the firmament in the expanse of the sky below the upper waters according to the Bible. Go ahead and make unfounded assertions though. Ignore the plain text of the Bible that you claim to believe.
Regarding the firmament and expanse, it depends how it's used. Within Genesis 1, it seems clear that the "firmament" includes everything above the waters that are on/under the earth (Gen 1:7) and into space itself (v. 8, 14). Birds fly in above the earth in the same firmament as the sun, moon, and stars (v. 14 15, 20), so the "skies" are the firmament, which is everything from the air above the ground into the atmosphere, and into outer space, to the edge of the universe. Where is this glassy bowl, then? Where is this metal mirror? Is it just above the ground? Is it into the atmosphere? Is it in space beyond the sun, moon, and stars? Since "firmament" can apply to any and all of those options, which is it?
quote:Again, I don't think you understand the words you are using. You don't seem to understand what "objective" means, as you deny morality from God is objective while using "modern standards" to say that the biblical God would be "objectively immoral".
Neither can yours because the “objective” evil morals which form the basis of your morality are not based on anything real, due to your “god” not being real.
Any moral standard that originates from the human mind is by definition subjective. If God doesn't exist, then there is absolutely no objective moral standard in existence, which makes morality entirely arbitrary and irrational.
quote:Again, you are demonstrating that you don't know what the word "objective" means.
Ethics are quasi-objective but there are some degrees of subjectivity.
quote:According to what objective standard?
Murdering someone without cause is objectively immoral.
quote:According to what objective standard?
Having a child multilateral their body to try to look like the opposite sex is in the grey area of subjectivity unfortunately.
quote:That is the definition of subjectivity. How are you talking about objective morality?
Morals change over time and morality is generally determined by society.
quote:Based on subjective opinions.
There is a field of study called “ethics” and people argue about the grey areas.
quote:Modern standards of morality are subjective, therefore they cannot make "objective" moral claims about the Bible or God.
By modern standards of morality, the god of the Bible would be objectively immoral.
And that is my point: when you abandon God as an objective moral standard, all you are left with are opinions and preference, but no rational basis for making meaningful statements about what is and is not actually "moral".
Posted on 8/1/23 at 8:31 am to Smeg
quote:Kill everyone who uses this word.
problematic
Posted on 8/1/23 at 11:06 am to FooManChoo
Hope this helps.
This YouTube video (by a religious science-denying nut) is a very good explanation of what the Bible says is the firmament. I think it’ll help you to correct your ignorance on the subject.
Firmament in scripture
No, that’s literally you.
Arguing by stating known observable and repeatable scientific facts doesn’t work on nutcases. You wouldn’t believe in hard proven sciences of evolution or genetics or geology if it slapped you in the face. The strategy is to find something you believe that really does exist, and show you the Bible refutes your own beliefs.
How can you make that statement? You can’t prove FSM doesn’t exist.
you are the dumbest person on this message board. Sorry.
No, we don’t. My views are based on scientific facts. Your beliefs are from faith, because you have no evidence, but if you did and the evidence was verifiable, it wouldn’t be faith any longer.
I already told you 10 times there is subjective morality. Go back and re-read my posts.
quote:
Re-read the post that I you just responded to. I said that there are different interpretations of what is meant by "firmament" (otherwise translated as "expanse") and it can range from the space above the ground all the way to the edge of the cosmos.
This YouTube video (by a religious science-denying nut) is a very good explanation of what the Bible says is the firmament. I think it’ll help you to correct your ignorance on the subject.
Firmament in scripture
quote:
You aren't interested in truth.
No, that’s literally you.
quote:
You keep claiming to be using the Christian Bible to refute Christian beliefs. In that sense, you are claiming the Bible, itself, is evidence against its own authority and truthfulness.
Arguing by stating known observable and repeatable scientific facts doesn’t work on nutcases. You wouldn’t believe in hard proven sciences of evolution or genetics or geology if it slapped you in the face. The strategy is to find something you believe that really does exist, and show you the Bible refutes your own beliefs.
quote:
The FSM doesn't exist,
How can you make that statement? You can’t prove FSM doesn’t exist.
quote:
It's because you know deep down inside that there is a God, and you are accountable to Him.
you are the dumbest person on this message board. Sorry. quote:
And your "overwhelming preponderance of evidence" is not what you think it is. We all have the same "facts" and evidence.
No, we don’t. My views are based on scientific facts. Your beliefs are from faith, because you have no evidence, but if you did and the evidence was verifiable, it wouldn’t be faith any longer.
quote:
According to what objective standard?
I already told you 10 times there is subjective morality. Go back and re-read my posts.
Posted on 8/1/23 at 11:17 am to Smeg
The only way this makes a sliver of sense is for those who have been sexually abused by the church (their “father” priest). And that’s a stretch.
But that would be the fault of the church and their burden to make right. Not the fault of the prayer.
But that would be the fault of the church and their burden to make right. Not the fault of the prayer.
Posted on 8/1/23 at 11:39 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
Right. In the same sense that a mob boss orders a hit.
Paul doesn’t state that. He says the archons killed the lord of glory. He doesn’t say they ordered a hit.
quote:
Show me where Paul denies the physical crucifixion of Jesus.
I never said he denies the physical crucifixion. I think Paul really believed Jesus was crucified physically. I just don’t believe he believed it was on earth. We know there is a gospel - the Ascension of Isaiah - which has the lord of glory descending down from heaven in a body manufactured of the sperm of David and specifically killed in heaven. I think this gospel lines up with Paul’s beliefs. The Jews believed there were buildings, temples, thrones, etc in the heavens. In fact, they believed the temple on earth was a less glorious reflection of the temple in heaven.
quote:
Hebrews 12:2 (NASB95): fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
That’s fine, but Paul didn’t write Hebrews so this passage is irrelevant to what Paul believed.
quote:
Philippians 2:8 (NASB95): Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
This is Paul. Notice “appearance as a man”. He didn’t say he was a man. This again aligns with the gospel Ascension of Isaiah whereby El Elyon tricks the archons into killing his beloved archangel by giving him a manufactured body of flesh to be killed in the lowest heaven by the archons. The archons didn’t know about the master plan, but if they had known, they wouldn’t have crucified the lord of glory. After being crucified by the archons in heaven, El Elyon raised his believes lord of glory and exalted him and bestowed on him the name Jesus.
quote:
I don’t mean to be rude, but it’s beyond ridiculous to suggest that Paul doesn’t mention the crucifixion, or somehow denies the physical cross. Forgive me if I have misunderstood your point.
Yes, you misunderstood. My point is Paul never mentions where Jesus was crucified. But he did mention the archons of this aeon crucified Jesus. The archons lived in the lowest heaven, so it’s reasonable for me to assume that’s where they killed Jesus as he was descending from the highest heaven. Paul doesn’t write about Pilate or Jews crucifying Jesus or anything of the sort found in the 4 canonical gospels.
quote:
The irony here is palpable. For someone who proclaims the superiority of mainstream scholarship, I would think that you would be well aware that nearly all of your precious scholars agree that the NASB is the most accurate English translation we have.
Irrelevant. NASB is highly ranked and so is the ESV. Also irrelevant. If you read into it he Septuagint and the Dead Sea scrolls, you’ll see the NASB got it wrong, and the ESV got it right. The last line of Deut 32:8 is supposed to be “sons of El”… not “sons of Israel.”
quote:
Yes, we are all aware of how babies are made. Are you not the descendant of your great grandfather’s spermatos?
They had words for “descendant” but chose not to use it. I am from the sperm of my father, not my great grandfather. I think the same logic applies to this Bible verse.
quote:
an archangel
I checked the Greek. There doesn’t appear to be an (definite) article. You might be right on this. “An” might be correct. The issue is most translations use “the”. Perhaps this is because archangel means “chief angel”. Maybe there’s only supposed to be one chief. If so, use of “the” is most appropriate.
quote:
So, Jesus will return with His angels. I don’t think Jesus is the one shouting,
That’s odd. I read this:
For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel
And I interpret that to mean the lord will cry out with his voice being of an/the archangel. You read this as the lord will cry out… and separately the archangel will then shout too? I can see how you might read it that way but I think my interpretation is more accurate.
ETA: how would it make any sense for Jesus to be descended from David? Joseph was not his biological father. He was miraculously conceived according to Luke and Matthew. Why do the two conflicting genealogies go back to David when Jesus isn’t the biological offspring of any of them and certainly not Joseph. It would make sense that “made of the sperm of David” meant that Jesus was biologically descended through Joseph from David, because the myth says Joseph wasn’t his biological father. The only thing that makes sense to me is the authors of myths literally wrote that Jesus had a body made of the sperm of David because that’s literally what they believed or pretended to believe.
This post was edited on 8/1/23 at 2:13 pm
Page 14 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News