Total Posts:146|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Christians - Kiling Jesus

Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 10:22:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Assuming for the moment that Jesus actually existed, suppose you were around on the day of the crucifixion and you had heard what Jesus said would happen. At the last moment, Pontias Pilate changed his mind and called off the execution.

As a time-traveler from the present, you have a gun. Would you -

A. Shoot Jesus to carry out God's plan?

B. Let Jesus live and take responsibility for your own actions?

C. Think up some lame evasion to avoid answering the question?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 10:25:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 10:22:03 PM, Beastt wrote:
Assuming for the moment that Jesus actually existed, suppose you were around on the day of the crucifixion and you had heard what Jesus said would happen. At the last moment, Pontias Pilate changed his mind and called off the execution.

As a time-traveler from the present, you have a gun. Would you -

A. Shoot Jesus to carry out God's plan?

B. Let Jesus live and take responsibility for your own actions?

C. Think up some lame evasion to avoid answering the question?

Shooting Him would not be carrying out Gods plan. This shows a profound ignorance of Scripture.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 10:29:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 10:25:42 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Shooting Him would not be carrying out Gods plan. This shows a profound ignorance of Scripture.

Okay, one person (so far) has selected Item C, "Think up some lame evasion to avoid answering the question?"
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 10:36:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 10:29:27 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:25:42 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Shooting Him would not be carrying out Gods plan. This shows a profound ignorance of Scripture.

Okay, one person (so far) has selected Item C, "Think up some lame evasion to avoid answering the question?"

Talk about lame. Your question is pretty lame. It shows a profound lack of knowledge of Scripture, and the premise, time travel, is an impossibility. My reply was not a lame evasion. I was stating a fact. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance offends me.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 10:47:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 10:36:39 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:29:27 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:25:42 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Shooting Him would not be carrying out Gods plan. This shows a profound ignorance of Scripture.

Okay, one person (so far) has selected Item C, "Think up some lame evasion to avoid answering the question?"

Talk about lame. Your question is pretty lame. It shows a profound lack of knowledge of Scripture, and the premise, time travel, is an impossibility. My reply was not a lame evasion. I was stating a fact. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance offends me.

If you don't want to answer, then don't answer. But don't pull the "you don't understand scripture" B.S. A 2010 PEW poll shows that atheists/agnostics scored higher in religious literacy than ANY of the theists in the study. We scored higher than the Mormons, who scored higher than the Jews, who scored higher than the Christians. I took that survey and scored above average for the atheist/agnostic group.

In addition to that, there are currently well over 38,000 officially recognized Christian denominations and they all differ in their understanding of scripture. So when you claim that I don't understand scripture (insinuating that you do), I can only chuckle at your ignorance.

By the way, a time travel machine is currently under construction and the plans and concept have been reviewed by a number of world-class physicists. None has been able to offer any reason why it shouldn't work. However, time travel to the future is currently thought to be impossible, while time travel to the past is theoretically feasible. So I'm afraid you are again, demonstrated to be spewing ignorance.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

All it requires is the ability to exceed the speed of light and theoretically, that shouldn't present a problem. Don't get in my face again, unless you want to be shown to be an idiot... again.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 10:50:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 10:31:32 PM, dee-em wrote:
D. Take back the Shroud of Turin and ask him to explain it.

I would expect, "I don't know... never seen it before."

The shroud has been replicated using a few different methods. It's essentially just a photographic (more accurately, a themographic). negative. And the fact that the Vatican screwed up the first attempt at dating it and has since refused to allow another attempt, makes it very likely that they're attempting to prevent their suspicions from being confirmed.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 11:21:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 10:47:55 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:36:39 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:29:27 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:25:42 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Shooting Him would not be carrying out Gods plan. This shows a profound ignorance of Scripture.

Okay, one person (so far) has selected Item C, "Think up some lame evasion to avoid answering the question?"

Talk about lame. Your question is pretty lame. It shows a profound lack of knowledge of Scripture, and the premise, time travel, is an impossibility. My reply was not a lame evasion. I was stating a fact. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance offends me.

If you don't want to answer, then don't answer. But don't pull the "you don't understand scripture" B.S. A 2010 PEW poll shows that atheists/agnostics scored higher in religious literacy than ANY of the theists in the study. We scored higher than the Mormons, who scored higher than the Jews, who scored higher than the Christians. I took that survey and scored above average for the atheist/agnostic group.

In addition to that, there are currently well over 38,000 officially recognized Christian denominations and they all differ in their understanding of scripture. So when you claim that I don't understand scripture (insinuating that you do), I can only chuckle at your ignorance.

You demonstrated your ignorance with your analysis (if one wants to call it that) of Heb 8: 4. It is a matter of record that Jesus was not, and did not claim to be, of priestly lineage. While on earth, He did not act as a priest, nor perform any priestly acts. Conclusion: while on earth, He was not a priest. Paul, with this in mind, wrote:

"Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all"

That's 100% true. He now serves as the Christian's high priest. Hence the conclusion is: he is not on earth. Nobody claims that He is.

What did YOU claim Paul said? Why, you told us that Paul was trying to inform people that He never was on earth! How dishonest can you be! Paul constantly preached the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus - yet you've discovered that He really meant that Jesus was never on earth.

Assuming for the moment that Jesus actually existed, suppose you were around on the day of the crucifixion and you had heard what Jesus said would happen. At the last moment, Pontias Pilate changed his mind and called off the execution.

As a time-traveler from the present, you have a gun. Would you -

A. Shoot Jesus to carry out God's plan?

B. Let Jesus live and take responsibility for your own actions?

C. Think up some lame evasion to avoid answering the question?


The question is ridiculous - but that fact as already been noted. You do not even provide a correct choice, to boot. The correct answer: you do nothing (which has nothing to do with option B up there.)
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 11:28:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 10:47:55 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:36:39 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:29:27 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:25:42 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Shooting Him would not be carrying out Gods plan. This shows a profound ignorance of Scripture.

Okay, one person (so far) has selected Item C, "Think up some lame evasion to avoid answering the question?"

Talk about lame. Your question is pretty lame. It shows a profound lack of knowledge of Scripture, and the premise, time travel, is an impossibility. My reply was not a lame evasion. I was stating a fact. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance offends me.

If you don't want to answer, then don't answer. But don't pull the "you don't understand scripture" B.S. A 2010 PEW poll shows that atheists/agnostics scored higher in religious literacy than ANY of the theists in the study. We scored higher than the Mormons, who scored higher than the Jews, who scored higher than the Christians. I took that survey and scored above average for the atheist/agnostic group.

Define "religious literacy".

That's the most absurd little "questionnaire" I've ever seen. Heck, I didn't miss a single question, including the ones on Mormons. It measures only the most rudimentary knowledge. It is by no means a "Biblical literacy" test.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 11:31:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I take that back: I missed the question about Maimonides.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 11:32:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 10:50:43 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:31:32 PM, dee-em wrote:
D. Take back the Shroud of Turin and ask him to explain it.

I would expect, "I don't know... never seen it before."

The shroud has been replicated using a few different methods. It's essentially just a photographic (more accurately, a themographic). negative. And the fact that the Vatican screwed up the first attempt at dating it and has since refused to allow another attempt, makes it very likely that they're attempting to prevent their suspicions from being confirmed.

It was my lame attempt at making a joke of the inherent paradoxes in time travel to the past. I wasn't implying there was any validity to the shroud.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 11:37:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 11:21:01 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:47:55 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:36:39 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:29:27 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:25:42 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Shooting Him would not be carrying out Gods plan. This shows a profound ignorance of Scripture.

Okay, one person (so far) has selected Item C, "Think up some lame evasion to avoid answering the question?"

Talk about lame. Your question is pretty lame. It shows a profound lack of knowledge of Scripture, and the premise, time travel, is an impossibility. My reply was not a lame evasion. I was stating a fact. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance offends me.

If you don't want to answer, then don't answer. But don't pull the "you don't understand scripture" B.S. A 2010 PEW poll shows that atheists/agnostics scored higher in religious literacy than ANY of the theists in the study. We scored higher than the Mormons, who scored higher than the Jews, who scored higher than the Christians. I took that survey and scored above average for the atheist/agnostic group.

In addition to that, there are currently well over 38,000 officially recognized Christian denominations and they all differ in their understanding of scripture. So when you claim that I don't understand scripture (insinuating that you do), I can only chuckle at your ignorance.

You demonstrated your ignorance with your analysis (if one wants to call it that) of Heb 8: 4. It is a matter of record that Jesus was not, and did not claim to be, of priestly lineage. While on earth, He did not act as a priest, nor perform any priestly acts. Conclusion: while on earth, He was not a priest. Paul, with this in mind, wrote:

"Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all"

That's 100% true. He now serves as the Christian's high priest. Hence the conclusion is: he is not on earth. Nobody claims that He is.
I do wish you'd train that tiny brain of yours to stay on topic. Firstly, the verse doesn't say what you claim. It says "Had he been on Earth", not "had he been a priest". You're trying to invert what it says by using a latter translation, presented through additional bias.

What did YOU claim Paul said? Why, you told us that Paul was trying to inform people that He never was on earth! How dishonest can you be! Paul constantly preached the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus - yet you've discovered that He really meant that Jesus was never on earth.
Enough! Don't try to derail this thread again. I WILL report you if you do. I'll respond to those questions in the appropriate thread, NOT HERE!

Assuming for the moment that Jesus actually existed, suppose you were around on the day of the crucifixion and you had heard what Jesus said would happen. At the last moment, Pontias Pilate changed his mind and called off the execution.

As a time-traveler from the present, you have a gun. Would you -

A. Shoot Jesus to carry out God's plan?

B. Let Jesus live and take responsibility for your own actions?

C. Think up some lame evasion to avoid answering the question?


The question is ridiculous - but that fact as already been noted.
Incorrectly.

You do not even provide a correct choice, to boot. The correct answer: you do nothing (which has nothing to do with option B up there.)
That would be option-B, whether you like it or not. If Jesus provided salvation through his death, then if he didn't die, you wouldn't be provided salvation. Now do try to think rationally, apply yourself logically to the question, or simply don't bother responding.

What you have done so far is to admit that you could never imagine being responsible for your own actions, because given that as an option, you try to squirm out from under it.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 11:40:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 11:28:39 PM, annanicole wrote:
That's the most absurd little "questionnaire" I've ever seen. Heck, I didn't miss a single question, including the ones on Mormons. It measures only the most rudimentary knowledge. It is by no means a "Biblical literacy" test.
You silly girl. It wasn't presented as a "Biblical literacty" test. It is a "religious literacy" test. And you can say anything you like about the questions; atheists/agnostics still scored higher than Mormons, Jews, and you lowly Christians. And indeed, scored better than ANY religious group.

Now, would you like to answer the question in the O.P., or would you prefer not to respond further in this thread? (Only two options. - Second warning).
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 11:49:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 10:47:55 PM, Beastt wrote:

By the way, a time travel machine is currently under construction and the plans and concept have been reviewed by a number of world-class physicists. None has been able to offer any reason why it shouldn't work.

Hey beast, I hate to call you out on this but I don't believe it. Can you cite a source?

However, time travel to the future is currently thought to be impossible, while time travel to the past is theoretically feasible.

It's the other way around ...

So I'm afraid you are again, demonstrated to be spewing ignorance.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

... as the article you linked to explains.

All it requires is the ability to exceed the speed of light and theoretically, that shouldn't present a problem.

That should be approach the speed of light, not exceed it.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 11:49:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 10:47:55 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:36:39 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:29:27 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:25:42 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Shooting Him would not be carrying out Gods plan. This shows a profound ignorance of Scripture.

Okay, one person (so far) has selected Item C, "Think up some lame evasion to avoid answering the question?"

Talk about lame. Your question is pretty lame. It shows a profound lack of knowledge of Scripture, and the premise, time travel, is an impossibility. My reply was not a lame evasion. I was stating a fact. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance offends me.

If you don't want to answer, then don't answer. But don't pull the "you don't understand scripture" B.S. A 2010 PEW poll shows that atheists/agnostics scored higher in religious literacy than ANY of the theists in the study. We scored higher than the Mormons, who scored higher than the Jews, who scored higher than the Christians. I took that survey and scored above average for the atheist/agnostic group.

In addition to that, there are currently well over 38,000 officially recognized Christian denominations and they all differ in their understanding of scripture. So when you claim that I don't understand scripture (insinuating that you do), I can only chuckle at your ignorance.

By the way, a time travel machine is currently under construction and the plans and concept have been reviewed by a number of world-class physicists. None has been able to offer any reason why it shouldn't work. However, time travel to the future is currently thought to be impossible, while time travel to the past is theoretically feasible. So I'm afraid you are again, demonstrated to be spewing ignorance.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

All it requires is the ability to exceed the speed of light and theoretically, that shouldn't present a problem. Don't get in my face again, unless you want to be shown to be an idiot... again.

Trivial pursuit style knowledge is not the same thing as understanding. If you asked one of those atheists, who scored well, to actually explain something from the Bible, they would be lost. Their knowledge lacks understanding. Many atheists point out contradictions in the Bible. One is the two versions of the story of the Day of Pentecost. One account mentions the sixth hour, and the other the ninth. This appears to be a contradiction. But if you actually take the time to understand what you are reading, you will realize that the two accounts were written in different geographical locations for different groups of people. Each one had a different method of telling time. The contradiction disappears. It is the same for every other 'contradiction' in the Bible. Unbelievers read them without understanding them. They take them out of context, or apply their own preconceived bias to interpreting Scripture. Some Christians do this too. This is why there are so many denominations. Biblical study will not obtain an accurate understanding of Scripture without prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

And your article about a time machine was bogus. I didn't see anything about someone building one. So, you're not only ignorant, you're a liar.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 12:03:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 11:49:19 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:47:55 PM, Beastt wrote:

By the way, a time travel machine is currently under construction and the plans and concept have been reviewed by a number of world-class physicists. None has been able to offer any reason why it shouldn't work.

Hey beast, I hate to call you out on this but I don't believe it. Can you cite a source?
I sure can. And I'm betting you're making an assumption which leads you to disbelieve the claim. But here you go...
https://www.youtube.com...


However, time travel to the future is currently thought to be impossible, while time travel to the past is theoretically feasible.

It's the other way around ...
Incorrect. Watch the linked video. It specifies the past at 02:44.

So I'm afraid you are again, demonstrated to be spewing ignorance.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

... as the article you linked to explains.

It is interesting that the article and the documentary inverse the two. That's likely due to the difference in methodologies and the speed suggested.

All it requires is the ability to exceed the speed of light and theoretically, that shouldn't present a problem.

That should be approach the speed of light, not exceed it.
No, they're talking about exceeding the speed of light. There are numerous theoretical approaches to this.
We're already approaching the speed of light (99.99999% of the speed of light, in the case of hydrogen nuclei), at the LHC, and it doesn't produce time travel. It would be a distinct problem if it did.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 12:12:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 11:49:21 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:

LET'S START WITH A BASIC UNDERSTANDING. THIS ISN'T A FREE-FOR-ALL STYLE THREAD.

I'm asking that Christians who wish to do so, pick one of the three answers. Any who are not interested in doing so are welcome to leave without commenting.

Trivial pursuit style knowledge is not the same thing as understanding. If you asked one of those atheists, who scored well, to actually explain something from the Bible, they would be lost.
Just stow it. There is no confirmed understanding of the Bible, you Dork. It doesn't matter which of your parents, your teachers or clergy members of your church have assured you that they've provided you with the "one true" meaning, they're full of digestive waste! AGAIN, there are more than 38,000 different Christian denominations and they're ALL based on differences in interpretation of Bible scripture. For ANY Christian to then stand up and tell ANYONE else that they're misinterpreting the scripture is beyond laughable. When you guys come to a consensus, you let us know. Of course that will never happen because the number of interpretations (and therefore, the number of denominations), is continuing to grow, not shrink.

So suck it up, but the fact remains - the atheist's interpretation is no less valid than yours. And given that we're not trying to read into the Bible, the odds that our interpretation more closely matches the intentions of the actual author is much better than it is for Christians.

Their knowledge lacks understanding.
No more, and no less than does your own.

Many atheists point out contradictions in the Bible. One is the two versions of the story of the Day of Pentecost. One account mentions the sixth hour, and the other the ninth.
That's wonderful. Why don't you start a thread on that topic?

It is the same for every other 'contradiction' in the Bible.
That's pure bovine excrement. Go ahead, start yet another thread on Bible contradictions, and I'll give you some examples of quite valid contradictions from the Bible.

And your article about a time machine was bogus. I didn't see anything about someone building one. So, you're not only ignorant, you're a liar.
Look FT, don't call me a "liar". Here's a video which perhaps, even you can understand. Capisce?
https://www.youtube.com...

Now... did I lie? Don't call others "liars" simply because you would be prone to lying were you in their place. That's YOU, not ME.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 12:24:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 12:12:29 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/4/2014 11:49:21 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:

LET'S START WITH A BASIC UNDERSTANDING. THIS ISN'T A FREE-FOR-ALL STYLE THREAD.

I'm asking that Christians who wish to do so, pick one of the three answers. Any who are not interested in doing so are welcome to leave without commenting.

Trivial pursuit style knowledge is not the same thing as understanding. If you asked one of those atheists, who scored well, to actually explain something from the Bible, they would be lost.
Just stow it. There is no confirmed understanding of the Bible, you Dork. It doesn't matter which of your parents, your teachers or clergy members of your church have assured you that they've provided you with the "one true" meaning, they're full of digestive waste! AGAIN, there are more than 38,000 different Christian denominations and they're ALL based on differences in interpretation of Bible scripture. For ANY Christian to then stand up and tell ANYONE else that they're misinterpreting the scripture is beyond laughable. When you guys come to a consensus, you let us know. Of course that will never happen because the number of interpretations (and therefore, the number of denominations), is continuing to grow, not shrink.

So suck it up, but the fact remains - the atheist's interpretation is no less valid than yours. And given that we're not trying to read into the Bible, the odds that our interpretation more closely matches the intentions of the actual author is much better than it is for Christians.

Their knowledge lacks understanding.
No more, and no less than does your own.

Many atheists point out contradictions in the Bible. One is the two versions of the story of the Day of Pentecost. One account mentions the sixth hour, and the other the ninth.
That's wonderful. Why don't you start a thread on that topic?

It is the same for every other 'contradiction' in the Bible.
That's pure bovine excrement. Go ahead, start yet another thread on Bible contradictions, and I'll give you some examples of quite valid contradictions from the Bible.

And your article about a time machine was bogus. I didn't see anything about someone building one. So, you're not only ignorant, you're a liar.
Look FT, don't call me a "liar". Here's a video which perhaps, even you can understand. Capisce?
https://www.youtube.com...

Now... did I lie? Don't call others "liars" simply because you would be prone to lying were you in their place. That's YOU, not ME.

You claimed that someone was building a time machine, then provided a link. That link mentioned nothing about it. So, with the information you provided, I could only conclude that you were lying. As for your other comments, they are only opinions. My opinions are just a valid as yours.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 12:26:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"That's pure bovine excrement. Go ahead, start yet another thread on Bible contradictions, and I'll give you some examples of quite valid contradictions from the Bible."

OK. How about providing us with one of these 'valid' contradictions? Just one. I don't want to see a list a mile long. Just give me one, and I'll refute it.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 12:27:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 12:26:22 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
"That's pure bovine excrement. Go ahead, start yet another thread on Bible contradictions, and I'll give you some examples of quite valid contradictions from the Bible."

OK. How about providing us with one of these 'valid' contradictions? Just one. I don't want to see a list a mile long. Just give me one, and I'll refute it.

No problem. Start an appropriate thread and tell me what you called it.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 12:31:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 11:37:13 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/4/2014 11:21:01 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:47:55 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:36:39 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:29:27 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:25:42 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Shooting Him would not be carrying out Gods plan. This shows a profound ignorance of Scripture.

Okay, one person (so far) has selected Item C, "Think up some lame evasion to avoid answering the question?"

Talk about lame. Your question is pretty lame. It shows a profound lack of knowledge of Scripture, and the premise, time travel, is an impossibility. My reply was not a lame evasion. I was stating a fact. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance offends me.

If you don't want to answer, then don't answer. But don't pull the "you don't understand scripture" B.S. A 2010 PEW poll shows that atheists/agnostics scored higher in religious literacy than ANY of the theists in the study. We scored higher than the Mormons, who scored higher than the Jews, who scored higher than the Christians. I took that survey and scored above average for the atheist/agnostic group.

In addition to that, there are currently well over 38,000 officially recognized Christian denominations and they all differ in their understanding of scripture. So when you claim that I don't understand scripture (insinuating that you do), I can only chuckle at your ignorance.

You demonstrated your ignorance with your analysis (if one wants to call it that) of Heb 8: 4. It is a matter of record that Jesus was not, and did not claim to be, of priestly lineage. While on earth, He did not act as a priest, nor perform any priestly acts. Conclusion: while on earth, He was not a priest. Paul, with this in mind, wrote:

"Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all"

That's 100% true. He now serves as the Christian's high priest. Hence the conclusion is: he is not on earth. Nobody claims that He is.
I do wish you'd train that tiny brain of yours to stay on topic. Firstly, the verse doesn't say what you claim. It says "Had he been on Earth", not "had he been a priest". You're trying to invert what it says by using a latter translation, presented through additional bias.

Why, I'm using the American Standard Translation, the product of 101 of the ripest, most respected American Greek scholars, including Philip Schaaf, Henry Alford, and Dr. Thayer. I think I'd trust their rendering a little more than yours.

"Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all."

The KJV of 1611 says, "For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest"

In fact, I do not have any knowledge of a translation when reads, ""Had he been on Earth." Why don't you cite it for us?

What did YOU claim Paul said? Why, you told us that Paul was trying to inform people that He never was on earth! How dishonest can you be! Paul constantly preached the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus - yet you've discovered that He really meant that Jesus was never on earth.
Enough! Don't try to derail this thread again. I WILL report you if you do. I'll respond to those questions in the appropriate thread, NOT HERE!

Point #1: you ain't gonna respond to any of them. Point #2: you said, "So when you claim that I don't understand scripture (insinuating that you do), I can only chuckle at your ignorance." It is not "derailing a thread" to point out that you pervert scripture into something that NOBODY believes.

Assuming for the moment that Jesus actually existed, suppose you were around on the day of the crucifixion and you had heard what Jesus said would happen. At the last moment, Pontias Pilate changed his mind and called off the execution.

As a time-traveler from the present, you have a gun. Would you -

A. Shoot Jesus to carry out God's plan?

B. Let Jesus live and take responsibility for your own actions?

C. Think up some lame evasion to avoid answering the question?


The question is ridiculous - but that fact as already been noted.

Incorrectly.

You do not even provide a correct choice, to boot. The correct answer: you do nothing (which has nothing to do with option B up there.)

That would be option-B, whether you like it or not.

Option B reads: "Let Jesus live and take responsibility for your own actions". "Doing nothing" is now considered "your own actions"?

If Jesus provided salvation through his death, then if he didn't die, you wouldn't be provided salvation. Now do try to think rationally, apply yourself logically to the question, or simply don't bother responding.

I could care less for your bogus explanations. The correct answer is, "Do nothing." You asked a question. The question was answered. I understand that that's a novel concept for you.

What you have done so far is to admit that you could never imagine being responsible for your own actions, because given that as an option, you try to squirm out from under it.

You are approaching idiocy. The correct answer is still, "Do nothing". You seem to think you have posed a brilliant catch-22 question. Such is possible, but you haven't done it.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

(1) Yes, I have
(2) No, I haven't.
(3) Don't answer and thus evade the question

That's the type of nonsense you propose.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 12:34:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 11:40:38 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/4/2014 11:28:39 PM, annanicole wrote:
That's the most absurd little "questionnaire" I've ever seen. Heck, I didn't miss a single question, including the ones on Mormons. It measures only the most rudimentary knowledge. It is by no means a "Biblical literacy" test.
You silly girl. It wasn't presented as a "Biblical literacty" test. It is a "religious literacy" test. And you can say anything you like about the questions; atheists/agnostics still scored higher than Mormons, Jews, and you lowly Christians. And indeed, scored better than ANY religious group.

Now, would you like to answer the question in the O.P., or would you prefer not to respond further in this thread? (Only two options. - Second warning).

LMAO @ 2nd warning. The questions on that little questionnaire are ridiculous, and I can simply READ the questions, without even looking at the answers, and ascertain that Mormons would score higher. Reason: the average Christian knows nothing about Mormonism, but the "Bible questions" are so simple that anyone should be able to answer them. I can make out a test that'll produce difference results.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 12:34:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 12:24:45 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/5/2014 12:12:29 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/4/2014 11:49:21 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:

LET'S START WITH A BASIC UNDERSTANDING. THIS ISN'T A FREE-FOR-ALL STYLE THREAD.

I'm asking that Christians who wish to do so, pick one of the three answers. Any who are not interested in doing so are welcome to leave without commenting.

Trivial pursuit style knowledge is not the same thing as understanding. If you asked one of those atheists, who scored well, to actually explain something from the Bible, they would be lost.
Just stow it. There is no confirmed understanding of the Bible, you Dork. It doesn't matter which of your parents, your teachers or clergy members of your church have assured you that they've provided you with the "one true" meaning, they're full of digestive waste! AGAIN, there are more than 38,000 different Christian denominations and they're ALL based on differences in interpretation of Bible scripture. For ANY Christian to then stand up and tell ANYONE else that they're misinterpreting the scripture is beyond laughable. When you guys come to a consensus, you let us know. Of course that will never happen because the number of interpretations (and therefore, the number of denominations), is continuing to grow, not shrink.

So suck it up, but the fact remains - the atheist's interpretation is no less valid than yours. And given that we're not trying to read into the Bible, the odds that our interpretation more closely matches the intentions of the actual author is much better than it is for Christians.

Their knowledge lacks understanding.
No more, and no less than does your own.

Many atheists point out contradictions in the Bible. One is the two versions of the story of the Day of Pentecost. One account mentions the sixth hour, and the other the ninth.
That's wonderful. Why don't you start a thread on that topic?

It is the same for every other 'contradiction' in the Bible.
That's pure bovine excrement. Go ahead, start yet another thread on Bible contradictions, and I'll give you some examples of quite valid contradictions from the Bible.

And your article about a time machine was bogus. I didn't see anything about someone building one. So, you're not only ignorant, you're a liar.
Look FT, don't call me a "liar". Here's a video which perhaps, even you can understand. Capisce?
https://www.youtube.com...

Now... did I lie? Don't call others "liars" simply because you would be prone to lying were you in their place. That's YOU, not ME.

You claimed that someone was building a time machine, then provided a link. That link mentioned nothing about it. So, with the information you provided, I could only conclude that you were lying. As for your other comments, they are only opinions. My opinions are just a valid as yours.

Great!
It seems you're starting to understand that your "opinions" about what the Bible is saying, are no more valid than the "opinions" expressed by others. Now learn to take into account the fact that the Bible is of no authority to me so I don't really care what it says. Much of what it says is purely false. So I'm not presenting it's contents as any form of authority, while you are. And that being the case, I have nothing to lose if it makes statements I believe to be untrue. You - on the other hand - teeter very precariously focused precisely upon what it says. So you have much more at stake, and are therefore, far more likely to take editorial license in trying to get it to say what you want it to say.

You could have concluded that the link I provided was to demonstrate that leading physicists have concluded that time travel is possible (that was the focus of your statement when YOU claimed it is impossible). Instead, you confirmed what I have long found to be true with people - they tend to expect from others, what they would expect of themselves. Since you might well expect yourself to lie in a tight debate situation, you assumed the same of me. You were wrong. And I still haven't seen an apology. I don't take the allegation lightly.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 12:39:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 12:31:19 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/4/2014 11:37:13 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/4/2014 11:21:01 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:47:55 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:36:39 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:29:27 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:25:42 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Shooting Him would not be carrying out Gods plan. This shows a profound ignorance of Scripture.

Okay, one person (so far) has selected Item C, "Think up some lame evasion to avoid answering the question?"

Talk about lame. Your question is pretty lame. It shows a profound lack of knowledge of Scripture, and the premise, time travel, is an impossibility. My reply was not a lame evasion. I was stating a fact. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance offends me.

If you don't want to answer, then don't answer. But don't pull the "you don't understand scripture" B.S. A 2010 PEW poll shows that atheists/agnostics scored higher in religious literacy than ANY of the theists in the study. We scored higher than the Mormons, who scored higher than the Jews, who scored higher than the Christians. I took that survey and scored above average for the atheist/agnostic group.

In addition to that, there are currently well over 38,000 officially recognized Christian denominations and they all differ in their understanding of scripture. So when you claim that I don't understand scripture (insinuating that you do), I can only chuckle at your ignorance.

You demonstrated your ignorance with your analysis (if one wants to call it that) of Heb 8: 4. It is a matter of record that Jesus was not, and did not claim to be, of priestly lineage. While on earth, He did not act as a priest, nor perform any priestly acts. Conclusion: while on earth, He was not a priest. Paul, with this in mind, wrote:

"Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all"

That's 100% true. He now serves as the Christian's high priest. Hence the conclusion is: he is not on earth. Nobody claims that He is.
I do wish you'd train that tiny brain of yours to stay on topic. Firstly, the verse doesn't say what you claim. It says "Had he been on Earth", not "had he been a priest". You're trying to invert what it says by using a latter translation, presented through additional bias.

Why, I'm using the American Standard Translation, the product of 101 of the ripest, most respected American Greek scholars, including Philip Schaaf, Henry Alford, and Dr. Thayer. I think I'd trust their rendering a little more than yours.

"Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all."

The KJV of 1611 says, "For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest"

In fact, I do not have any knowledge of a translation when reads, ""Had he been on Earth." Why don't you cite it for us?

What did YOU claim Paul said? Why, you told us that Paul was trying to inform people that He never was on earth! How dishonest can you be! Paul constantly preached the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus - yet you've discovered that He really meant that Jesus was never on earth.
Enough! Don't try to derail this thread again. I WILL report you if you do. I'll respond to those questions in the appropriate thread, NOT HERE!

Point #1: you ain't gonna respond to any of them. Point #2: you said, "So when you claim that I don't understand scripture (insinuating that you do), I can only chuckle at your ignorance." It is not "derailing a thread" to point out that you pervert scripture into something that NOBODY believes.

Assuming for the moment that Jesus actually existed, suppose you were around on the day of the crucifixion and you had heard what Jesus said would happen. At the last moment, Pontias Pilate changed his mind and called off the execution.

As a time-traveler from the present, you have a gun. Would you -

A. Shoot Jesus to carry out God's plan?

B. Let Jesus live and take responsibility for your own actions?

C. Think up some lame evasion to avoid answering the question?


The question is ridiculous - but that fact as already been noted.

Incorrectly.

You do not even provide a correct choice, to boot. The correct answer: you do nothing (which has nothing to do with option B up there.)

That would be option-B, whether you like it or not.

Option B reads: "Let Jesus live and take responsibility for your own actions". "Doing nothing" is now considered "your own actions"?

If Jesus provided salvation through his death, then if he didn't die, you wouldn't be provided salvation. Now do try to think rationally, apply yourself logically to the question, or simply don't bother responding.

I could care less for your bogus explanations. The correct answer is, "Do nothing." You asked a question. The question was answered. I understand that that's a novel concept for you.

What you have done so far is to admit that you could never imagine being responsible for your own actions, because given that as an option, you try to squirm out from under it.

You are approaching idiocy. The correct answer is still, "Do nothing". You seem to think you have posed a brilliant catch-22 question. Such is possible, but you haven't done it.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

(1) Yes, I have
(2) No, I haven't.
(3) Don't answer and thus evade the question

That's the type of nonsense you propose.

And if I choose not to answer and simply don't respond to the thread, nothing is lost.

NOW.... THIRD WARNING, Anna! You've been told what this thread IS ABOUT, and what it ISN'T ABOUT.

Answer the question... or don't. Choose one or the other. The next post you present in this thread which is off-topic, gets you reported directly to a mod. I hate to sound like Neutral but you have a very, VERY bad habit of trying derail threads. Sometimes I don't mind. But since I have asked you, warned you, and now warned you again, it would be appropriate for you to respect the forum rules in this case.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 1:06:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 12:03:36 AM, Beastt wrote:

I sure can. And I'm betting you're making an assumption which leads you to disbelieve the claim. But here you go...
https://www.youtube.com...

No assumptions, but you are linking to a self-promoting youtube video. I don't find it convincing. Do you have anything more credible such as a scientific paper?

Incorrect. Watch the linked video. It specifies the past at 02:44.

I was referring to the article you had linked to. I had no knowledge of this (dubious) video at that point.

It is interesting that the article and the documentary inverse the two. That's likely due to the difference in methodologies and the speed suggested.

I think I will hang my hat with Stephen Hawking rather than Vikas Kumar. No offense.

We're already approaching the speed of light (99.99999% of the speed of light, in the case of hydrogen nuclei), at the LHC, and it doesn't produce time travel. It would be a distinct problem if it did.

Why is that? Time dilation effects certainly do occur from the point of view of a proton (if it had one!) in the LHC, but it causes no real problem to any experiment in progress. Time dilation even occurs with the orbiting GPS satellites and adjustments have to be made to cope with the very minor difference in time between the Earth and space. Time dilation equates to time travel (slightly) into the future.
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 1:15:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 12:39:25 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/5/2014 12:31:19 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/4/2014 11:37:13 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/4/2014 11:21:01 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:47:55 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:36:39 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:29:27 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/4/2014 10:25:42 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Shooting Him would not be carrying out Gods plan. This shows a profound ignorance of Scripture.

Okay, one person (so far) has selected Item C, "Think up some lame evasion to avoid answering the question?"

Talk about lame. Your question is pretty lame. It shows a profound lack of knowledge of Scripture, and the premise, time travel, is an impossibility. My reply was not a lame evasion. I was stating a fact. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance offends me.

If you don't want to answer, then don't answer. But don't pull the "you don't understand scripture" B.S. A 2010 PEW poll shows that atheists/agnostics scored higher in religious literacy than ANY of the theists in the study. We scored higher than the Mormons, who scored higher than the Jews, who scored higher than the Christians. I took that survey and scored above average for the atheist/agnostic group.

. So when you claim that I don't understand scripture (insinuating that you do), I can only chuckle at your ignorance.

You demonstrated your ignorance with your analysis (if one wants to call it that) of Heb 8: 4. It is a matter of record that Jesus was not, and did not claim to be, of priestly lineage. While on earth, He did not act as a priest, nor perform any priestly acts. Conclusion: while on earth, He was not a priest. Paul, with this in mind, wrote:

"Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all"

That's 100% true. He now serves as the Christian's high priest. Hence the conclusion is: he is not on earth. Nobody claims that He is.
I do wish you'd train that tiny brain of yours to stay on topic. Firstly, the verse doesn't say what you claim. It says "Had he been on Earth", not "had he been a priest". You're trying to invert what it says by using a latter translation, presented through additional bias.

Why, I'm using the American Standard Translation, the product of 101 of the ripest, most respected American Greek scholars, including Philip Schaaf, Henry Alford, and Dr. Thayer. I think I'd trust their rendering a little more than yours.

"Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all."

The KJV of 1611 says, "For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest"

In fact, I do not have any knowledge of a translation when reads, ""Had he been on Earth." Why don't you cite it for us?

What did YOU claim Paul said? Why, you told us that Paul was trying to inform people that He never was on earth! How dishonest can you be! Paul constantly preached the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus - yet you've discovered that He really meant that Jesus was never on earth.
Enough! Don't try to derail this thread again. I WILL report you if you do. I'll respond to those questions in the appropriate thread, NOT HERE!

Point #1: you ain't gonna respond to any of them. Point #2: you said, "So when you claim that I don't understand scripture (insinuating that you do), I can only chuckle at your ignorance." It is not "derailing a thread" to point out that you pervert scripture into something that NOBODY believes.

Assuming for the moment that Jesus actually existed, suppose you were around on the day of the crucifixion and you had heard what Jesus said would happen. At the last moment, Pontias Pilate changed his mind and called off the execution.

As a time-traveler from the present, you have a gun. Would you -

A. Shoot Jesus to carry out God's plan?

B. Let Jesus live and take responsibility for your own actions?

C. Think up some lame evasion to avoid answering the question?


The question is ridiculous - but that fact as already been noted.

Incorrectly.

You do not even provide a correct choice, to boot. The correct answer: you do nothing (which has nothing to do with option B up there.)

That would be option-B, whether you like it or not.

Option B reads: "Let Jesus live and take responsibility for your own actions". "Doing nothing" is now considered "your own actions"?

If Jesus provided salvation through his death, then if he didn't die, you wouldn't be provided salvation. Now do try to think rationally, apply yourself logically to the question, or simply don't bother responding.

I could care less for your bogus explanations. The correct answer is, "Do nothing." You asked a question. The question was answered. I understand that that's a novel concept for you.

What you have done so far is to admit that you could never imagine being responsible for your own actions, because given that as an option, you try to squirm out from under it.

You are approaching idiocy. The correct answer is still, "Do nothing". You seem to think you have posed a brilliant catch-22 question. Such is possible, but you haven't done it.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

(1) Yes, I have
(2) No, I haven't.
(3) Don't answer and thus evade the question

That's the type of nonsense you propose.

And if I choose not to answer and simply don't respond to the thread, nothing is lost.

NOW.... THIRD WARNING, Anna! You've been told what this thread IS ABOUT, and what it ISN'T ABOUT.

Answer the question... or don't. Choose one or the other. The next post you present in this thread which is off-topic, gets you reported directly to a mod. I hate to sound like Neutral but you have a very, VERY bad habit of trying derail threads. Sometimes I don't mind. But since I have asked you, warned you, and now warned you again, it would be appropriate for you to respect the forum rules in this case.

Good grief. Your little question was answered.

You asked:

Assuming for the moment that Jesus actually existed, suppose you were around on the day of the crucifixion and you had heard what Jesus said would happen. At the last moment, Pontias Pilate changed his mind and called off the execution.

As a time-traveler from the present, you have a gun. Would you -


I said three times that the correct answer is: a disciple of Christ witnessing the hypothetical events you described would DO NOTHING. He would DO NOTHING to alter the transpiring of events.

I answered your little question. Suppose we report YOU for every time you respond without answering a single question sent in your direction? Why, you'd get reported on every post on every topic because you never answer anything. That's intended as an hyperbole, but I honestly cannot recall you answering a single question. And I assume 'tis because you can't.

Remember when I stated, "The evidence for the existence of Jesus, historically, has got to be much greater than for practically anyone else of his era, aside from perhaps a few political figures."

You tackled that challenge, ole boy! Yes sirree. You named a religious and political leader, Philo of Alexandria. And almost nothing is known of his life other than his political activities before Caligula. Do you want us to report you for offering a stupid answer?

In closing, be my guest. Go right ahead and make a further laughing stock out of yourself.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 1:45:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 1:06:28 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/5/2014 12:03:36 AM, Beastt wrote:

I sure can. And I'm betting you're making an assumption which leads you to disbelieve the claim. But here you go...
https://www.youtube.com...

No assumptions, but you are linking to a self-promoting youtube video. I don't find it convincing. Do you have anything more credible such as a scientific paper?
And I am supposed to know what YOU will find to be convincing, and what you won't? I've seen the entire documentary and it's quite credible. But if you wish to disbelieve it, then disbelieve it.

Incorrect. Watch the linked video. It specifies the past at 02:44.

I was referring to the article you had linked to. I had no knowledge of this (dubious) video at that point.
Why do you suggest that the video is "dubious"?

It is interesting that the article and the documentary inverse the two. That's likely due to the difference in methodologies and the speed suggested.

I think I will hang my hat with Stephen Hawking rather than Vikas Kumar. No offense.
I think you should note that the person who posted the video didn't produce the video. It's part of a science documentary on time, and features a number of very credible, highly respected physicists. I believe that clip is also featured in "Do You Know What Time It Is?", narrated by Dr. Brian Cox who left his job at Fermilab working on the Tevitron, to take a job at CERN to work on the LHC.

We're already approaching the speed of light (99.99999% of the speed of light, in the case of hydrogen nuclei), at the LHC, and it doesn't produce time travel. It would be a distinct problem if it did.

Why is that? Time dilation effects certainly do occur from the point of view of a proton (if it had one!) in the LHC, but it causes no real problem to any experiment in progress. Time dilation even occurs with the orbiting GPS satellites and adjustments have to be made to cope with the very minor difference in time between the Earth and space. Time dilation equates to time travel (slightly) into the future.

I'm familiar with the LHC but I have to admit I haven't encountered much information on the time dilation effects. I'm more familiar with time dilation in regard to GPS satellites and it did cause problems. The satellite clocks had to be adjusted to compensate for the lesser effects of gravity at 12,000 miles above Earth.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 2:01:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 1:15:42 AM, annanicole wrote:

Good grief. Your little question was answered.
It's not a "little question". it's simply a question. And you refused to answer it. The answer matching not doing anything would have been B. But that wasn't good enough for you because as a Christian, you seem to feel you should NEVER be held responsible for your own actions.

I said three times that the correct answer is: a disciple of Christ witnessing the hypothetical events you described would DO NOTHING. He would DO NOTHING to alter the transpiring of events.
And in doing nothing, you would assume responsibility for your own actions. Yet you purposefully avoided selecting the corresponding answer (B).

I answered your little question. Suppose we report YOU for every time you respond without answering a single question sent in your direction?
The difference is that YOU are violating the forum rules, and I only avoid answering your questions when I'm busy on other threads, or when you're attempting to derail a thread by asking me questions unrelated to the topic of the thread in which you ask.

Why, you'd get reported on every post on every topic because you never answer anything. That's intended as an hyperbole, but I honestly cannot recall you answering a single question. And I assume 'tis because you can't.
And yet, you have quite a habit of telling me that my answers are wrong. So first they're wrong, and then the answers I provide don't even exist? I have to tell you that I'm not at all surprised that you're lying yet again. That's one thing I find quite prominent among Christians in debate - they lie as often as they respond.

And the conclusive evidence for this is here in this same post, as first you claim that you can't remember me EVER responding, and with your very next breath you talk about my response in regard to you stating that we have more evidence for a historical Jesus than any other non-political character of his time. I named four (I believe), which were not political and two who were. Therefore, I answered your assertion, and I demonstrated you to be wrong. And now somehow, I've both answered that question, and never answered a question. I guess when you live by a book of contradictions, you stop recognizing the problem with contradictions.

Remember when I stated, "The evidence for the existence of Jesus, historically, has got to be much greater than for practically anyone else of his era, aside from perhaps a few political figures."

You tackled that challenge, ole boy! Yes sirree. You named a religious and political leader, Philo of Alexandria. And almost nothing is known of his life other than his political activities before Caligula. Do you want us to report you for offering a stupid answer?
What I pointed out, Anna; is that we have writings of Philo. We have mention of him by historians who actually lived in his time, and we have him inextricably linked to other figures of that time. And none of those three factors are true in regard to Jesus. Why do you want me to keep pointing out that you were wrong?

So... are you willing to accept that you will go to Hell if you do not shoot Jesus? And WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING, do you still choose not to shoot him?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 2:18:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 2:01:50 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/5/2014 1:15:42 AM, annanicole wrote:

Good grief. Your little question was answered.
It's not a "little question". it's simply a question. And you refused to answer it. The answer matching not doing anything would have been B. But that wasn't good enough for you because as a Christian, you seem to feel you should NEVER be held responsible for your own actions.

That's a ridiculous statement. Want us to report it. Your protestations aside, "inaction" is not "action".

I said three times that the correct answer is: a disciple of Christ witnessing the hypothetical events you described would DO NOTHING. He would DO NOTHING to alter the transpiring of events.

And in doing nothing, you would assume responsibility for your own actions. Yet you purposefully avoided selecting the corresponding answer (B).

How can anyone assume responsibility for their actions - when they performed no actions?

I answered your little question. Suppose we report YOU for every time you respond without answering a single question sent in your direction?

The difference is that YOU are violating the forum rules, and I only avoid answering your questions when I'm busy on other threads, or when you're attempting to derail a thread by asking me questions unrelated to the topic of the thread in which you ask.

With you, I've never found it to be of much consequence where the questions were asked.

Why, you'd get reported on every post on every topic because you never answer anything. That's intended as an hyperbole, but I honestly cannot recall you answering a single question. And I assume 'tis because you can't.

And yet, you have quite a habit of telling me that my answers are wrong. So first they're wrong, and then the answers I provide don't even exist? I have to tell you that I'm not at all surprised that you're lying yet again. That's one thing I find quite prominent among Christians in debate - they lie as often as they respond.

Lying about what? And can you provide some examples which confirm these "lies"?

And the conclusive evidence for this is here in this same post, as first you claim that you can't remember me EVER responding, and with your very next breath you talk about my response in regard to you stating that we have more evidence for a historical Jesus than any other non-political character of his time. I named four (I believe), which were not political and two who were. Therefore, I answered your assertion, and I demonstrated you to be wrong. And now somehow, I've both answered that question, and never answered a question. I guess when you live by a book of contradictions, you stop recognizing the problem with contradictions.

That particular question wasn't even asked of you. The conversation, i. e. your response, centered around Philo.

Remember when I stated, "The evidence for the existence of Jesus, historically, has got to be much greater than for practically anyone else of his era, aside from perhaps a few political figures."

You tackled that challenge, ole boy! Yes sirree. You named a religious and political leader, Philo of Alexandria. And almost nothing is known of his life other than his political activities before Caligula. Do you want us to report you for offering a stupid answer?

What I pointed out, Anna; is that we have writings of Philo. We have mention of him by historians who actually lived in his time, and we have him inextricably linked to other figures of that time. And none of those three factors are true in regard to Jesus. Why do you want me to keep pointing out that you were wrong?

Why point it out when I specifically excluded political characters?

So... are you willing to accept that you will go to Hell if you do not shoot Jesus? And WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING, do you still choose not to shoot him?

Absurdity. That's not an "understanding". That's pure stupidity. Jesus not dying on the cross would have done NOTHING regarding my salvation. Nothing at all. It would have merely proven that He was not the promised Messiah. Nonetheless, the OT being true, the true one would have had to appear. Shooting Him would have been the stupidest thing to do - which I suppose explains why you are touting its benefits.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 2:33:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 2:18:14 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/5/2014 2:01:50 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/5/2014 1:15:42 AM, annanicole wrote:

Good grief. Your little question was answered.
It's not a "little question". it's simply a question. And you refused to answer it. The answer matching not doing anything would have been B. But that wasn't good enough for you because as a Christian, you seem to feel you should NEVER be held responsible for your own actions.

That's a ridiculous statement. Want us to report it. Your protestations aside, "inaction" is not "action".
Awareness of the consequences of one's inactions is what is being suggested.
And if you wish to report it, be my guest. The difference is that I'm not violating any forum rules, and you are. You act like you've been raised in a sheltered and privileged environment. You're incensed over the fact that you have been asked (multiple times), to please observe the rules.

I said three times that the correct answer is: a disciple of Christ witnessing the hypothetical events you described would DO NOTHING. He would DO NOTHING to alter the transpiring of events.

And in doing nothing, you would assume responsibility for your own actions. Yet you purposefully avoided selecting the corresponding answer (B).

How can anyone assume responsibility for their actions - when they performed no actions?
Let's take you back to step one. I thought you had a basic grasp of Christianity.
1. The Bible claims the wages of sin is death
2. Through the "sacrifice" of Jesus, your sins are atoned for (he died instead of you).
3. If Jesus doesn't atone for your sins, then you must be held responsible for them.

Get it?


I answered your little question. Suppose we report YOU for every time you respond without answering a single question sent in your direction?

The difference is that YOU are violating the forum rules, and I only avoid answering your questions when I'm busy on other threads, or when you're attempting to derail a thread by asking me questions unrelated to the topic of the thread in which you ask.

With you, I've never found it to be of much consequence where the questions were asked.
You've never paid much attention to where you are when you ask them. And that's curious since I've pointed out to you that you tend to do this quite often, and that each time you're shown to be wrong, you simply shift the goal posts. And you usually do this by wanting to talk about the last 12-verses of Mark in the middle of a thread on whether or not Jesus existed, (for instance) or something equally misplaced.

Why, you'd get reported on every post on every topic because you never answer anything. That's intended as an hyperbole, but I honestly cannot recall you answering a single question. And I assume 'tis because you can't.

And yet, you have quite a habit of telling me that my answers are wrong. So first they're wrong, and then the answers I provide don't even exist? I have to tell you that I'm not at all surprised that you're lying yet again. That's one thing I find quite prominent among Christians in debate - they lie as often as they respond.

Lying about what? And can you provide some examples which confirm these "lies"?
I just did that! Wow!

You claimed that you couldn't remember me EVER answering any questions.
In the very next statement you referenced my answers regarding people with more historical evidence than Jesus, from the time of Jesus.

And the conclusive evidence for this is here in this same post, as first you claim that you can't remember me EVER responding, and with your very next breath you talk about my response in regard to you stating that we have more evidence for a historical Jesus than any other non-political character of his time. I named four (I believe), which were not political and two who were. Therefore, I answered your assertion, and I demonstrated you to be wrong. And now somehow, I've both answered that question, and never answered a question. I guess when you live by a book of contradictions, you stop recognizing the problem with contradictions.

That particular question wasn't even asked of you. The conversation, i. e. your response, centered around Philo.
I still answered, Anna.

Remember when I stated, "The evidence for the existence of Jesus, historically, has got to be much greater than for practically anyone else of his era, aside from perhaps a few political figures."

You tackled that challenge, ole boy! Yes sirree. You named a religious and political leader, Philo of Alexandria. And almost nothing is known of his life other than his political activities before Caligula. Do you want us to report you for offering a stupid answer?

What I pointed out, Anna; is that we have writings of Philo. We have mention of him by historians who actually lived in his time, and we have him inextricably linked to other figures of that time. And none of those three factors are true in regard to Jesus. Why do you want me to keep pointing out that you were wrong?

Why point it out when I specifically excluded political characters?
Because not everyone I mentioned was a political character. Your claim that Philo was a political character is easily disputed. By your own statement, our information regarding him personally, is quite limited.

So... are you willing to accept that you will go to Hell if you do not shoot Jesus? And WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING, do you still choose not to shoot him?

Absurdity. That's not an "understanding". That's pure stupidity. Jesus not dying on the cross would have done NOTHING regarding my salvation. Nothing at all. It would have merely proven that He was not the promised Messiah. Nonetheless, the OT being true, the true one would have had to appear. Shooting Him would have been the stupidest thing to do - which I suppose explains why you are touting its benefits.
But you claim that Jesus is the messiah and the entire question is quite obviously based on that premise. One would have to be an absolute babbling moron not to see that.

So... Jesus (hypothetically, being the messiah), if Pontias Pilate canceled the execution and was going to free Jesus, would you be more willing to accept your responsibility for your sins (landing you in Hell), or would you be more willing to shoot Jesus to assure that he died to atone for your sins?

Again;
A. You would shoot Jesus
B. You would not shoot Jesus and be willing to accept responsibility for your sins
C. You still want to find some lame excuse to avoid admitting that you can't handle the concept of being responsible for yourself?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire