Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:31-60|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The "christ" actually "sacrificed" NOTHING

ThinkFirst
Posts: 2,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 10:18:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/30/2015 10:09:37 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/28/2015 4:43:37 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
1) The majority of the christian world believes the bible to be incontrovertibly infallible.
2) The majority of the christian world believes in a "triune" deity.
3) The majority of the christian world believes this deity is "eternal."
4) The majority of the christian world believes the "christ" to have been "perfect."


And as usual, the majority are wrong, and completely against scripture.

Your typical "Everybody is wrong except for us" rhetoric is old, tired, false (demonstrably) and inane. You said NOTHING that refutes anything in the OP, and I really have no interest in anything you post, any more. Until the day you present something (ANYTHING) in the way of evidence to support your myriad of assertions about your "knowledge" (faith), nothing you post is of any value or meaning, to me.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 10:22:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/30/2015 12:30:10 AM, Serato wrote:

If I cannot educate you, then please help educate my ignorance to evolution. Please give me an example of evolution. Do not cite an example of adaptation, but rather a change of kinds, such as a brand new species.

I would suspect that you should probably start from the very beginning so that you can understand how evolution works.

I will win this debate. I will win every debate, no matter the topic. Initiates to the Truth speak freely, and with insightful advancements you'd yet to understand. There is a process one goes through, and it is necessary. Lies survive by the whisper, while the truths can shout.

Such modesty.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 10:26:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/30/2015 1:05:24 AM, Serato wrote:

I get what you're saying. You wish to call evolution a scientific fact that takes more than faith to believe millions of years, from fossil to fossil, adding the ones and two's and three's, while many of these fossils are doctored and fake

Please provide citations showing many of the fossils found are fake?

and take enormous imagination to construct their appearance from fragments of lies.

What lies?

But let's go ahead and make up a story that says fossil x had sex with another fossil x, and out popped a baby fossil B.

You may want to try and understand how evolution works before making childish comments.

And while we're living in the land of imagination, let's call this scientific fact and just ignore its true definition, consisting of observable evidence that can be tested. And when we test legitimate fossils, let's pretend the carbon dating proves they're no older than 100,000 years. C'mon now, I can go on and on with this and that. Evolution is a lie, and the Bible explains why there are those seeking to brainwash you.

You are free to show us that evolution is a lie, but I suspect you have no clue as to how it works, which shows in your comments here.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
ThinkFirst
Posts: 2,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 11:09:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/30/2015 10:09:40 AM, TN05 wrote:

So, in other words, since you don't believe in something, you choose to willfully misunderstand and misrepresent. Got it. Real intellectually honest of you, "enlightened" atheist.

You attribute motivation that you could not possibly justify, wrap it in ad hominem, and get it wrong (agnostic, not atheist). I really wish all you bible/torah/qur'an thumpers would get it right, once in a while.

Understood. This makes the "death" nothing but metaphorical, and therefore eliminates any concept of sacrifice.

No, it does not, as explained earlier.

You've explained nothing.

I have read the bible. It is obvious what was sacrificed: Nothing.

From your arguments, I doubt that. And saying something over and over does not repeat it.

Your doubt is meaningless and yes... repeating something over and over DOES "repeat it." It's the very definition of "repeat it."

If the "son" was "forsaken," why was he resurrected (according to the mythical tale)?

1. He was resurrected as the first fruit of mankind. In Leviticus, Israel could not harvest crops until they brought the first fruits to the priest to sacrifice to God. In the same way, mankind now can find forgiveness with God as Jesus was sacrificed to open the way.

Sacrifice -- meaningless to an omnipotent entity, and a practice handed down from religion to religion, over time. Most deities invented have required sacrifice, in one form or another. It's the way superstition works.

2. It confirms his deity in two ways: from fulfilling what he told his disciples, and accomplishing a feat that is not humanly possible.

Even his existence is in question. His deity is not "confirmed" in any way. It is believed, but never confirmed.

When has any Christian theologian even made 'length of death' an issue? That's an issue you imagine to be one when no Christian ever claims his sacrifice was great because he died. Dying in and of itself is not really that significant. It's how, why, and when he died, as well as who his death redeems, that is significant.

What a christian theologian considers and issue is meaningless. Further, the dying absolutely IS significant to the faith. The significance is attributed by the believers of the story, and still makes no sense. If there was a sacrifice, that which is sacrificed is lost. If it is returned (virtually instantaneously), it is not a sacrifice. It is temporarily relinquished.

Classic straw man. You are using your wrong logic to disprove a claim no Christian makes. The exemption of Jesus from sin (which, depending on if you are Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant can be from the Immaculate Conception, doctrine of original sin, or idea of ancestral sin) did not change the fact that he was fully human and, as consequence of the actions of Adam and Eve, was subject to the same pains we all face. The Bible itself notes the pains he went through. Your imaginary complaint is utter nonsense.

You need to brush up on the meaning of "straw man." If he was subject to the consequences of the actions of Adam and Eve, he could not have wiped them out. Get your story straight. He was either perfect (exempt from sin), or he was subject to the "sin" of Adam and Eve. It cannot be both, according to your bible myth look.

Interpretation happens with literally anything.

And? Juggling and re-juggling reduces believability; it does not increase it.

I doubt you've actually read the Bible, or at least the gospels.

You may doubt it all you wish. I have read it, more than once. I still read parts of it, today.

You don't seem to have even a basic understanding of it, so I doubt it. Disliking the Bible and not understanding it are not one and the same.

I dislike it BECAUSE I understand it. Regurgitating your (along with many before you) accusations does nothing to refute the truth of my assessment.

Jesus was both fully Man and fully God.

Like "fully alive and fully dead?" Or like fully sighted and fully blind? Or like fully awake and fully asleep? Or like fully real and fully fictional? I get the concept you are attempting to convey. It is an inherent paradox, and I reject it. The "christ" was not "fully man and fully god." The "christ" was a made up legend. Nothing more.

It is a paradox, and is difficult to comprehend. That is what makes it so impressive.

No, I get it... I reject it. It's not impressive.

You may accept that. I do not. Sin is a useless concept.

That's fine for you to do. However, if you are trying to refute something, using your false logic and misinterpretations to do so gets you absolutely nowhere.

It is neither false nor a "misinterpretation." It is an assessment of value and veracity.

If you were formally debating a halfway decent apologist, they would demolish your arguments.

If I was debating a halfway decent apologist, it would have been a formal presentation, with biblical citation, and full analysis. I'm not debating anyone; I've dumbed it down for the purposes of the forum.

You fundamentally misunderstand Christianity and hence your arguments refuting it are worthless. Any good apologist of any religion (be it Christianity, Islam, or irreligion) understands the religion they seek to refute, and you do not.

Repeating your assertion does not solidify its veracity. I fully understand christianity, and reject it as stupid and false.

Then he was not perfect.

See above.

I already have.

How is that "useless"? It demonstrably demonstrates your argument is wrong. By the internal logic of the Bible (which you attempt to refute), Jesus felt pain and was afflicted with what humans are afflicted with. Ergo, your argument he could not feel pain is wrong.

"Demonstrably demonstrates?" LOL. "Internal logic of the bible?" Double LOL. Your literary and argumentation skills have failed you...

I know, my arguments earlier were quite profound. I'm sorry you don't seem able to comprehend them.

Cute. Wrong, but cute.

No, you lack understanding. You are making dumb arguments that can easily be refuted, with little effort, from the book you seek to refute.

You have yet to offer a valid attempt. Further, arguing the "truth" of the bible from is meaningless. It is the value and veracity of the bible that I reject. Using the bible to refute it is a study in futility and circular, at best.

Because of that, your attempts to refute it fail outright and are of no value to any serious atheist seeking to rebut Christians.

They do not fail, you just don't like them.

There are substantial issues to debate on (sin, the justness of God, the problem of evil, why hell exists) an you instead think you know more about Christian theology than 2000 years of Christian scholars, when you know basically nothing.

No, junior, this thread merely points out that "sacrifice" is not "sacrifice," if that which is sacrificed is returned almost immediately. It does not fit even the rudimentary definition of "sacrifice." It was not SACRIFICED. It was temporarily suspended. The very fact that the "christ" got it right back is what invalidates it as a sacrifice!

No, it is ridiculous to anyone who has:

A. Read the gospels.
or
B. Has a basic understanding of Christian doctrinal teaching.

I have read the gospels and I understand christian doctrine. It is not ridiculous to me. You state that I don't have "understanding." What you really mean is that I don't have YOUR understanding. YOUR understanding also encompasses BELIEF. Mine does not.
You can keep saying it, but it doesn't become more accurate, with repetition.

Your entire argument is of no value.

Only to deluded believers such as yourself.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
TN05
Posts: 4,796
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 11:56:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/30/2015 11:09:41 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
You attribute motivation that you could not possibly justify, wrap it in ad hominem, and get it wrong (agnostic, not atheist). I really wish all you bible/torah/qur'an thumpers would get it right, once in a while.

I'm a bible thumper? LOL.

You've explained nothing.

You repeat your inane arguments so much and there are not enough characters to repeat my arguments multiple times. Go back and read.

Your doubt is meaningless and yes... repeating something over and over DOES "repeat it." It's the very definition of "repeat it."

I meant to write 'make it true'. My bad. And my doubt is legitimate since your misunderstanding of scripture is so profound that you have literally no idea what it actually teaches.

Sacrifice -- meaningless to an omnipotent entity, and a practice handed down from religion to religion, over time. Most deities invented have required sacrifice, in one form or another. It's the way superstition works.

No real rebuttal from you, just deflection. Jesus was a sacrifice, the perfect sacrifice for sin. Far from meaningless, it is quite meaningful.

Even his existence is in question. His deity is not "confirmed" in any way. It is believed, but never confirmed.

LOLOLOLOLOL, we have a Jesus myther here. Any serious historical scholar would laugh you out of the room. It is almost universally accepted that Jesus existed, was baptized, and was crucified.

When has any Christian theologian even made 'length of death' an issue? That's an issue you imagine to be one when no Christian ever claims his sacrifice was great because he died. Dying in and of itself is not really that significant. It's how, why, and when he died, as well as who his death redeems, that is significant.

What a christian theologian considers and issue is meaningless. Further, the dying absolutely IS significant to the faith. The significance is attributed by the believers of the story, and still makes no sense. If there was a sacrifice, that which is sacrificed is lost. If it is returned (virtually instantaneously), it is not a sacrifice. It is temporarily relinquished.

Actually, it's very meaningful. You are raising complaints that are utterly nonsensical because Christians do not believe them, or believe the exact opposite. Length of death is not an issue.

What was sacrificed was lost for a time. Jesus died, and left his bodily form. In the same way we will be resurrected, so was he. The big thing is what his sacrifice (in the Old Testament sense) accomplished.

You need to brush up on the meaning of "straw man." If he was subject to the consequences of the actions of Adam and Eve, he could not have wiped them out. Get your story straight. He was either perfect (exempt from sin), or he was subject to the "sin" of Adam and Eve. It cannot be both, according to your bible myth look.

All of mankind and the world is subject to the consequences of fall. Being sinless does not change that. Your lack of understanding of this shows how little you actually know.

Interpretation happens with literally anything.

And? Juggling and re-juggling reduces believability; it does not increase it.

Nothing is being juggled here, beyond how you have to juggle what you are saying with what scripture actually teaches.

You don't seem to have even a basic understanding of it, so I doubt it. Disliking the Bible and not understanding it are not one and the same.

I dislike it BECAUSE I understand it. Regurgitating your (along with many before you) accusations does nothing to refute the truth of my assessment.

No, you dislike it because you dislike it. I haven't seen a shred of evidence you have any actual understanding of any Christian teaching.

It is a paradox, and is difficult to comprehend. That is what makes it so impressive.

No, I get it... I reject it. It's not impressive.

You can do that. Amazing, huh?

That's fine for you to do. However, if you are trying to refute something, using your false logic and misinterpretations to do so gets you absolutely nowhere.

It is neither false nor a "misinterpretation." It is an assessment of value and veracity.

No, it is false logic and misrepresentation. I haven't seen a substantiative complaint in this thread.

If you were formally debating a halfway decent apologist, they would demolish your arguments.

If I was debating a halfway decent apologist, it would have been a formal presentation, with biblical citation, and full analysis. I'm not debating anyone; I've dumbed it down for the purposes of the forum.

LOLOLOLOL

Your argument isn't dumbed down - it is just dumb.

You fundamentally misunderstand Christianity and hence your arguments refuting it are worthless. Any good apologist of any religion (be it Christianity, Islam, or irreligion) understands the religion they seek to refute, and you do not.

Repeating your assertion does not solidify its veracity. I fully understand christianity, and reject it as stupid and false.

Give me some evidence you actually understand Christianity, because I sure haven't seen anything here that demonstrates it.

How is that "useless"? It demonstrably demonstrates your argument is wrong. By the internal logic of the Bible (which you attempt to refute), Jesus felt pain and was afflicted with what humans are afflicted with. Ergo, your argument he could not feel pain is wrong.

"Demonstrably demonstrates?" LOL. "Internal logic of the bible?" Double LOL. Your literary and argumentation skills have failed you...

If you are attempting to refute the Bible, making claims it does not make and then attacking it for not meeting those claims is not a reasonable argument. As I noted, the Bible says Jesus felt pain. How hard is that for you to understand?

I know, my arguments earlier were quite profound. I'm sorry you don't seem able to comprehend them.

Cute. Wrong, but cute.

No, you lack understanding. You are making dumb arguments that can easily be refuted, with little effort, from the book you seek to refute.

You have yet to offer a valid attempt. Further, arguing the "truth" of the bible from is meaningless. It is the value and veracity of the bible that I reject. Using the bible to refute it is a study in futility and circular, at best.

Once again - if you are trying to refute something, you have to judge it by the claims it makes. You are making up claims, saying it doesn't meet them, and then declaring it false. That is dumb.

They do not fail, you just don't like them.

No, I've outright disproven your complaints.

There are substantial issues to debate on (sin, the justness of God, the problem of evil, why hell exists) an you instead think you know more about Christian theology than 2000 years of Christian scholars, when you know basically nothing.

No, junior, this thread merely points out that "sacrifice" is not "sacrifice," if that which is sacrificed is returned almost immediately. It does not fit even the rudimentary definition of "sacrifice." It was not SACRIFICED. It was temporarily suspended. The very fact that the "christ" got it right back is what invalidates it as a sacrifice!

You do not seem to understand the word 'sacrifice' has many meanings.

I have read the gospels and I understand christian doctrine. It is not ridiculous to me. You state that I don't have "understanding." What you really mean is that I don't have YOUR understanding. YOUR understanding also encompasses BELIEF. Mine does not.

You don't have to believe something to understand it. What you've demonstrated is you lack both belief and understanding.

You can keep saying it, but it doesn't become more accurate, with repetition.

Your entire argument is of no value.
Only to deluded bel
We, homo sapiens of the planet Earth, are the people of Debate.org, an online debating website owned by Juggle, and will aspire to increase the quality of debates, polls, mafia on said website, to be sufficient, meeting high standards of success and satisfaction in all areas, to consider it as "great", or superb and spectacular, again for the first time in years
Serato
Posts: 743
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 2:55:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Anyone wishing to place Poe's law to this: http:// hubblerevealscreation.com/genesis/
they would be a laughing fool.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 7:43:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/30/2015 10:18:21 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 5/30/2015 10:09:37 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/28/2015 4:43:37 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
1) The majority of the christian world believes the bible to be incontrovertibly infallible.
2) The majority of the christian world believes in a "triune" deity.
3) The majority of the christian world believes this deity is "eternal."
4) The majority of the christian world believes the "christ" to have been "perfect."


And as usual, the majority are wrong, and completely against scripture.

Your typical "Everybody is wrong except for us" rhetoric is old, tired, false (demonstrably) and inane. You said NOTHING that refutes anything in the OP, and I really have no interest in anything you post, any more. Until the day you present something (ANYTHING) in the way of evidence to support your myriad of assertions about your "knowledge" (faith), nothing you post is of any value or meaning, to me.

No, it is not demonstrably false, the exact opposite for those who are not too scared to accept the evidence for what it is.

It is not me that is right, it is nto "us" that is right, it is God who is right, and will, as Paul said, "be found true, though every man be proved a liar".

Yes of course it's old. It is as old as truth itself, since it is part of the truth.

When the time comes, just don't say nobody told you, because I have, and I don't doubt others have also.

Of course, if you think it is demonstrable, you are more than welcome to try. I'm not running away anywhere.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 2,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 4:43:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/30/2015 11:56:48 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/30/2015 11:09:41 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
You attribute motivation that you could not possibly justify, wrap it in ad hominem, and get it wrong (agnostic, not atheist). I really wish all you bible/torah/qur'an thumpers would get it right, once in a while.

I'm a bible thumper? LOL.

Just a standard term I use, the same way you and others here tend to use "atheist," even when it's neither accurate nor appropriate.

You've explained nothing.

You repeat your inane arguments so much and there are not enough characters to repeat my arguments multiple times. Go back and read.

I didn't say you hadn't replied, I was merely stating that your refutation was not effective. I still contend that everything I stated in the OP is a valid assessment of the bible, and of the "sacrifice."

Your doubt is meaningless and yes... repeating something over and over DOES "repeat it." It's the very definition of "repeat it."

I meant to write 'make it true'. My bad. And my doubt is legitimate since your misunderstanding of scripture is so profound that you have literally no idea what it actually teaches.

Understood. I've been guilty of failing to proofread, myself (I think we all have). Nonetheless, though repetition does not make accuracy (I agree), but your assessment is incorrect. You see, one person's "understanding" of scripture may conflict with even a fellow believer's "understanding." Until one "understanding" of scripture becomes universal, and denominations no longer point at one another and claim that the "understanding" of the other is incorrect, those of us that don't believe will continue to dismiss your accusation of "lack of understanding." You see, whenever something is pointed out about the bible that theists don't like, the standard (ubiquitous) assertion that we're not "reading it the right way," or we have "taken it out of context," or that we "don't really UNDERSTAND" scripture and the "spiritual" MEANING. The fact of the matter is that the interpretation of all that the bible contains is such that there is no agreement on it actual meaning. The doctrine of vicarious redemption is one that I find disgusting, anyway. No more than human courts would allow one person to serve the sentence (accept accountability) for another, for a (perfect) deity to permit it is simply perverse.

I understand that the "christ" took on the "sins of the world" and "washed them away." I understand that christians believe that he became a way of approaching god's glory. I understand christians believe that the "spiritual significance" of the "greater Adam" means that a perfect life was "given" for the perfection lost by Adam and Eve. I understand that not all people believe that pain was non-existent prior to "the fall." I understand that christians believe that there was actual suffering on the part of the "christ." I understand that christians believe that the death (for some) was meaningful. I am simply stating that if such an act is so temporally fleeting as to be insignificant to that being, nothing was really "given up." Even among different christian denominations there is disagreement as to whether or not Adam felt any pain. Don't tell me that I don't understand something, simply because I have a different view of it. The hubris of that stance is beyond description.

Sacrifice -- meaningless to an omnipotent entity, and a practice handed down from religion to religion, over time. Most deities invented have required sacrifice, in one form or another. It's the way superstition works.

No real rebuttal from you, just deflection. Jesus was a sacrifice, the perfect sacrifice for sin. Far from meaningless, it is quite meaningful.

Again, it has only the meaning that a believer reads into it. In terms of ACTUAL significance, the absence of pain and the virtual instantaneous return of something temporarily suspended removes it significance. Nothing was actually ever surrendered. It was a temporary suspension. Nothing more. That it has meaning TO YOU is of no consequence, on the whole.

Even his existence is in question. His deity is not "confirmed" in any way. It is believed, but never confirmed.

LOLOLOLOLOL, we have a Jesus myther here. Any serious historical scholar would laugh you out of the room. It is almost universally accepted that Jesus existed, was baptized, and was crucified.

No, not a myther. Just undecided. There is not enough evidence to make a decision in either direction. And the only "scholar" that would "laugh me out of the room" is one that actually believes, despite the absolute lack of any real evidence of his existence, let alone his deity. Those scholars that have superficial passages MENTIONING jesus are not at all conclusive (if you have actually done any research), to conclude that his existence was both concrete and diving.

What a christian theologian considers and issue is meaningless. Further, the dying absolutely IS significant to the faith. The significance is attributed by the believers of the story, and still makes no sense. If there was a sacrifice, that which is sacrificed is lost. If it is returned (virtually instantaneously), it is not a sacrifice. It is temporarily relinquished.

Actually, it's very meaningful. You are raising complaints that are utterly nonsensical because Christians do not believe them, or believe the exact opposite. Length of death is not an issue.

Once again, it is only meaningful to believers. Moreover, the length of death is EXACTLY what makes it so meaningless. He had his life returned, immediately, never to lose it again (according to believers). You may not want length of death to be significant, but it is. Again, you will dismiss it, but you have offered no real rebuttal or cogent argument to the contrary. That you ASSERT significance is without value. You have yet to state WHY there is significance; opting, instead, to attack my "understanding" of scripture. Try stating WHY you think length of death is inconsequential. Marginalizing the impact of a statement rather than refuting with contrary data and/or evidence (at least a compelling argument) serves far better than attacking someone's understanding.

What was sacrificed was lost for a time. Jesus died, and left his bodily form. In the same way we will be resurrected, so was he. The big thing is what his sacrifice (in the Old Testament sense) accomplished.

According to belief, it was:
* Fulfillment of prophecy
* Fulfillment of the law
* Completion of redemption
* Negation of bondage to sin

Yes, I get it. I don't believe it, but I get it. He only gave up existing in physical form, for three days. This is not a sacrifice.

You need to brush up on the meaning of "straw man." If he was subject to the consequences of the actions of Adam and Eve, he could not have wiped them out. Get your story straight. He was either perfect (exempt from sin), or he was subject to the "sin" of Adam and Eve. It cannot be both, according to your bible myth look.

All of mankind and the world is subject to the consequences of fall. Being sinless does not change that. Your lack of understanding of this shows how little you actually know.

Listen to yourself. If every human is "born with sin" because of Adam and Eve's actions, then how does being sinless still subject him to the consequences? He is either sinless, or born in sin. If he is sinless, he is not subject to the consequences. You can't have it both ways. I fully understand how you are attempting to meld the two, but they are mutually exclusive. It's not a lack of understanding, it is the arrival at a different perspective. Your lack of understanding of this shows that you haven't the wherewithal to be objective.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ThinkFirst
Posts: 2,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 4:43:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/30/2015 11:56:48 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/30/2015 11:09:41 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
Interpretation happens with literally anything.

And? Juggling and re-juggling reduces believability; it does not increase it.

Nothing is being juggled here, beyond how you have to juggle what you are saying with what scripture actually teaches.

Incorrect and disingenuous. Your inherent incoherence is demonstrated by the fact that you attribute the consequences of sin to a sinless entity who, additionally, wipes out sin with the sacrifice of his "perfect" and "sinless" temporary meat suit. It's not a lack of "spiritual understanding." It's plainly and simply the fact that what the bible postulates (via your "understanding") is logically incoherent. That's the one perception or "understanding" you are not even willing to consider. Analogous to what you are saying, the claim that two plus two is both four AND five is the equivalent in terms of logical coherence.

You don't seem to have even a basic understanding of it, so I doubt it. Disliking the Bible and not understanding it are not one and the same.

I dislike it BECAUSE I understand it. Regurgitating your (along with many before you) accusations does nothing to refute the truth of my assessment.

No, you dislike it because you dislike it. I haven't seen a shred of evidence you have any actual understanding of any Christian teaching.

You keep coming back to that because it brings you comfort. The only way you can present any kind of defense is to reduce it all to "lack of understanding." It is you that simply doesn't understand the logical contradiction within your own claims and assertions.

It is a paradox, and is difficult to comprehend. That is what makes it so impressive.

No, I get it... I reject it. It's not impressive.

You can do that. Amazing, huh?

Not really. It's called thinking. It's what some humans instead of accepting ridiculous doctrines on faith. Faith and reason are mutually exclusive.

That's fine for you to do. However, if you are trying to refute something, using your false logic and misinterpretations to do so gets you absolutely nowhere.

It is neither false nor a "misinterpretation." It is an assessment of value and veracity.

No, it is false logic and misrepresentation. I haven't seen a substantiative complaint in this thread.

You have seen one; you simply don't recognize it. Asserting the opposing view without have offered a single bit of evidence or cogent argument still leaves your position untenable.
If you were formally debating a halfway decent apologist, they would demolish your arguments.

If I was debating a halfway decent apologist, it would have been a formal presentation, with biblical citation, and full analysis. I'm not debating anyone; I've dumbed it down for the purposes of the forum.

LOLOLOLOL

Your argument isn't dumbed down - it is just dumb.

No, sir. What is dumb is exercising faith in that which makes no sense, for which there is no evidence, and subjugating reason to faith.

You fundamentally misunderstand Christianity and hence your arguments refuting it are worthless. Any good apologist of any religion (be it Christianity, Islam, or irreligion) understands the religion they seek to refute, and you do not.

Repeating your assertion does not solidify its veracity. I fully understand christianity, and reject it as stupid and false.

Give me some evidence you actually understand Christianity, because I sure haven't seen anything here that demonstrates it.

What would qualify as "evidence," to you? Let me know and I will provide it. It's been there, despite you not having "seen it."

How is that "useless"? It demonstrably demonstrates your argument is wrong. By the internal logic of the Bible (which you attempt to refute), Jesus felt pain and was afflicted with what humans are afflicted with. Ergo, your argument he could not feel pain is wrong.

"Demonstrably demonstrates?" LOL. "Internal logic of the bible?" Double LOL. Your literary and argumentation skills have failed you...

If you are attempting to refute the Bible, making claims it does not make and then attacking it for not meeting those claims is not a reasonable argument. As I noted, the Bible says Jesus felt pain. How hard is that for you to understand?

This is not a refutation of the bible. It is the arrival at a different conclusion regarding the value of that which the "christ" was supposed to have "sacrificed." That we have different perspectives on something open to interpretation does not show a lack of understanding. It's not as if we are arguing over something that is empirically demonstrable, anyway. If I was arguing against the law of gravity or the heliocentric model of our solar system, that would be one thing. The whole of the bible is just one of countless supreme being stories. You can't even prove yours more valid that the Judean or Islamic faiths. You can no more substantiate your beliefs above those of the Greek Olympian. Still, you insist it is my "understanding." The perhaps if I "understood" what it was ACTUALLY stating I might be inclined to believe? Not bloody likely...

I know, my arguments earlier were quite profound. I'm sorry you don't seem able to comprehend them.

Cute. Wrong, but cute.

No, you lack understanding. You are making dumb arguments that can easily be refuted, with little effort, from the book you seek to refute.

You have yet to offer a valid attempt. Further, arguing the "truth" of the bible from is meaningless. It is the value and veracity of the bible that I reject. Using the bible to refute it is a study in futility and circular, at best.

Once again - if you are trying to refute something, you have to judge it by the claims it makes. You are making up claims, saying it doesn't meet them, and then declaring it false. That is dumb.

I did not "make up" a single claim. Nor did I declare something false. I rendered something meaningless, from my interpretation. Show me just one thing that I made up that is not believed by at least a partial segment of christianity... Just one. Go ahead... I'll wait.

They do not fail, you just don't like them.

No, I've outright disproven your complaints.

No, you have claimed my lack of understanding. You disproved nothing.

There are substantial issues to debate on (sin, the justness of God, the problem of evil, why hell exists) an you instead think you know more about Christian theology than 2000 years of Christian scholars, when you know basically nothing.

No, junior, this thread merely points out that "sacrifice" is not "sacrifice," if that which is sacrificed is returned almost immediately. It does not fit even the rudimentary definition of "sacrifice." It was not SACRIFICED. It was temporarily suspended. The very fact that the "christ" got it right back is what invalidates it as a sacrifice!

You do not seem to understand the word 'sacrifice' has many meanings.

I do understand that. You don't seem to understand that interpretation, even within your own faith, varies from denomination to denomination. There are christians that view things just as I have stated my understanding of biblical doctrine to be. Convince them of their lack of understanding, first.

I have read the gospels and I understand christian doctrine. It is not ridiculous to me. You state that I don't have "understanding." What you really mean is that I don't have YOUR understanding. YOUR understanding also encompasses BELIEF. Mine does not.

You don't have to believe something to understand it. What you've demonstrated is you lack both belief and understanding.

Broken record, devoid o
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ThinkFirst
Posts: 2,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 4:49:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/31/2015 7:43:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/30/2015 10:18:21 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 5/30/2015 10:09:37 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/28/2015 4:43:37 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
1) The majority of the christian world believes the bible to be incontrovertibly infallible.
2) The majority of the christian world believes in a "triune" deity.
3) The majority of the christian world believes this deity is "eternal."
4) The majority of the christian world believes the "christ" to have been "perfect."


And as usual, the majority are wrong, and completely against scripture.

Your typical "Everybody is wrong except for us" rhetoric is old, tired, false (demonstrably) and inane. You said NOTHING that refutes anything in the OP, and I really have no interest in anything you post, any more. Until the day you present something (ANYTHING) in the way of evidence to support your myriad of assertions about your "knowledge" (faith), nothing you post is of any value or meaning, to me.

No, it is not demonstrably false, the exact opposite for those who are not too scared to accept the evidence for what it is.

And in typical fashion you fail to DEMONSTRATE that which you claim to be DEMONSTRABLE.

It is not me that is right, it is nto "us" that is right, it is God who is right, and will, as Paul said, "be found true, though every man be proved a liar".

How do you know? You are stating as fact and asserting that which you couldn't POSSIBLY know. Broken record.

Yes of course it's old. It is as old as truth itself, since it is part of the truth.

No, truth is a concept that GREATLY predates your ignorant desert nomads...

When the time comes, just don't say nobody told you, because I have, and I don't doubt others have also.

Why would I? What you assert will never happen. I would sooner place my faith in a set of fortune cookie lottery numbers than place any confidence in the words of an ignorant buffoon like you...

Of course, if you think it is demonstrable, you are more than welcome to try. I'm not running away anywhere.

No, of course not. Who needs to run when they have an impenetrable wall of faith, completely impervious to reason and logic? That would be tantamount to firing BB's at the Great Wall of China...
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
TN05
Posts: 4,796
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 6:52:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/1/2015 4:43:00 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 5/30/2015 11:56:48 AM, TN05 wrote:
I'm a bible thumper? LOL.

Just a standard term I use, the same way you and others here tend to use "atheist," even when it's neither accurate nor appropriate.

You repeat your inane arguments so much and there are not enough characters to repeat my arguments multiple times. Go back and read.

I didn't say you hadn't replied, I was merely stating that your refutation was not effective. I still contend that everything I stated in the OP is a valid assessment of the bible, and of the "sacrifice."

And I contend you are very clearly wrong.

I meant to write 'make it true'. My bad. And my doubt is legitimate since your misunderstanding of scripture is so profound that you have literally no idea what it actually teaches.

Understood. I've been guilty of failing to proofread, myself (I think we all have). Nonetheless, though repetition does not make accuracy (I agree), but your assessment is incorrect. You see, one person's "understanding" of scripture may conflict with even a fellow believer's "understanding." Until one "understanding" of scripture becomes universal, and denominations no longer point at one another and claim that the "understanding" of the other is incorrect, those of us that don't believe will continue to dismiss your accusation of "lack of understanding." You see, whenever something is pointed out about the bible that theists don't like, the standard (ubiquitous) assertion that we're not "reading it the right way," or we have "taken it out of context," or that we "don't really UNDERSTAND" scripture and the "spiritual" MEANING. The fact of the matter is that the interpretation of all that the bible contains is such that there is no agreement on it actual meaning. The doctrine of vicarious redemption is one that I find disgusting, anyway. No more than human courts would allow one person to serve the sentence (accept accountability) for another, for a (perfect) deity to permit it is simply perverse.

This isn't like a minor disagreement. This is fundamental stuff that basically any group that calls itself 'Christian' believes in. Your misunderstanding is literally creating interpretations nobody has ever found and are so absurd that they can be easily disproven from text.

No real rebuttal from you, just deflection. Jesus was a sacrifice, the perfect sacrifice for sin. Far from meaningless, it is quite meaningful.

Again, it has only the meaning that a believer reads into it. In terms of ACTUAL significance, the absence of pain and the virtual instantaneous return of something temporarily suspended removes it significance. Nothing was actually ever surrendered. It was a temporary suspension. Nothing more. That it has meaning TO YOU is of no consequence, on the whole.

No, it does not. Time is not an issue. Jesus is A sacrifice, and sacrificed his earthly life for sin. You are misunderstanding things and putting focus on things nobody puts focus on, because they don't exist.

LOLOLOLOLOL, we have a Jesus myther here. Any serious historical scholar would laugh you out of the room. It is almost universally accepted that Jesus existed, was baptized, and was crucified.

No, not a myther. Just undecided. There is not enough evidence to make a decision in either direction. And the only "scholar" that would "laugh me out of the room" is one that actually believes, despite the absolute lack of any real evidence of his existence, let alone his deity. Those scholars that have superficial passages MENTIONING jesus are not at all conclusive (if you have actually done any research), to conclude that his existence was both concrete and diving.

And that's blatantly absurd, because historians everywhere disagree with and in fact believe there is convincing evidence that he was born, baptized, and crucified.. Even Bart Ehrman believes Jesus existed.

Actually, it's very meaningful. You are raising complaints that are utterly nonsensical because Christians do not believe them, or believe the exact opposite. Length of death is not an issue.

Once again, it is only meaningful to believers. Moreover, the length of death is EXACTLY what makes it so meaningless. He had his life returned, immediately, never to lose it again (according to believers). You may not want length of death to be significant, but it is. Again, you will dismiss it, but you have offered no real rebuttal or cogent argument to the contrary. That you ASSERT significance is without value. You have yet to state WHY there is significance; opting, instead, to attack my "understanding" of scripture. Try stating WHY you think length of death is inconsequential. Marginalizing the impact of a statement rather than refuting with contrary data and/or evidence (at least a compelling argument) serves far better than attacking someone's understanding.

I've explained why length does not matter. You have ignored it and pushed absurdities nobody cares about. Do you honestly think that bearing the weight of all sins from everybody, ever, is not significant? How about being tortured and killed, and knowing that would happen for 33 years? How about being forsaken by God (the punishment for sin)? How about actually dying - the one thing everyone dreads? You make the issue about the death, placing the idea that losing his body was the worst thing that happened. It was not.

What was sacrificed was lost for a time. Jesus died, and left his bodily form. In the same way we will be resurrected, so was he. The big thing is what his sacrifice (in the Old Testament sense) accomplished.

According to belief, it was:
* Fulfillment of prophecy
* Fulfillment of the law
* Completion of redemption
* Negation of bondage to sin

Yes, I get it. I don't believe it, but I get it. He only gave up existing in physical form, for three days. This is not a sacrifice.

Yes, it is a sacrifice in the Old Testament sense. It is also a sacrifice in the sense of losing as well.

All of mankind and the world is subject to the consequences of fall. Being sinless does not change that. Your lack of understanding of this shows how little you actually know.

Listen to yourself. If every human is "born with sin" because of Adam and Eve's actions, then how does being sinless still subject him to the consequences? He is either sinless, or born in sin. If he is sinless, he is not subject to the consequences. You can't have it both ways. I fully understand how you are attempting to meld the two, but they are mutually exclusive. It's not a lack of understanding, it is the arrival at a different perspective. Your lack of understanding of this shows that you haven't the wherewithal to be objective.

I've explained that different Christians will give answers on why Christ did not have original sin. Protestants and Catholics believe that sin is specifically carried through Adam. Since Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and thus had no human father (who carries the original sin), he did not have original sin. Orthodox believe that everyone carries the consequences of sin (foremost being death), but only Adam and Eve are strictly guilty of it. Everyone has a tendency to sin, however, because they inherit their flawed nature.

But regardless, you are conflating 'consequence' with 'guilt'. I have explained this multiple times and your reaction is to deflect and just repeat your claim. There is nothing contradictory in the fact that Jesus, in human form, went through the same things we do, and yet was sinless and thus not subject to our punishment. In fact, that's the whole point.
We, homo sapiens of the planet Earth, are the people of Debate.org, an online debating website owned by Juggle, and will aspire to increase the quality of debates, polls, mafia on said website, to be sufficient, meeting high standards of success and satisfaction in all areas, to consider it as "great", or superb and spectacular, again for the first time in years
TN05
Posts: 4,796
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 6:52:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/1/2015 4:43:03 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 5/30/2015 11:56:48 AM, TN05 wrote:
And? Juggling and re-juggling reduces believability; it does not increase it.

Nothing is being juggled here, beyond how you have to juggle what you are saying with what scripture actually teaches.

Incorrect and disingenuous. Your inherent incoherence is demonstrated by the fact that you attribute the consequences of sin to a sinless entity who, additionally, wipes out sin with the sacrifice of his "perfect" and "sinless" temporary meat suit. It's not a lack of "spiritual understanding." It's plainly and simply the fact that what the bible postulates (via your "understanding") is logically incoherent. That's the one perception or "understanding" you are not even willing to consider. Analogous to what you are saying, the claim that two plus two is both four AND five is the equivalent in terms of logical coherence.

Once again - have you read Leviticus? Do you understand how sacrifice works there? Let me spell it out for you: ""For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one"s life." (Lev. 17:11)

I dislike it BECAUSE I understand it. Regurgitating your (along with many before you) accusations does nothing to refute the truth of my assessment.

No, you dislike it because you dislike it. I haven't seen a shred of evidence you have any actual understanding of any Christian teaching.

You keep coming back to that because it brings you comfort. The only way you can present any kind of defense is to reduce it all to "lack of understanding." It is you that simply doesn't understand the logical contradiction within your own claims and assertions.

Lol. You can't disprove something you don't understand.

You can do that. Amazing, huh?

Not really. It's called thinking. It's what some humans instead of accepting ridiculous doctrines on faith. Faith and reason are mutually exclusive.

LOL.

No, it is false logic and misrepresentation. I haven't seen a substantiative complaint in this thread.

You have seen one; you simply don't recognize it. Asserting the opposing view without have offered a single bit of evidence or cogent argument still leaves your position untenable.

No, it does not. I reject your arguments as invalid and incoherent because they are invalid and incoherent. The way to resolve this is to present valid and coherent arguments.

LOLOLOLOL

Your argument isn't dumbed down - it is just dumb.

No, sir. What is dumb is exercising faith in that which makes no sense, for which there is no evidence, and subjugating reason to faith.

No evidence that you accept, and no reason that you accept.

Give me some evidence you actually understand Christianity, because I sure haven't seen anything here that demonstrates it.

What would qualify as "evidence," to you? Let me know and I will provide it. It's been there, despite you not having "seen it."

Since we are discussing the death and atonement of Jesus, I would expect adequate understanding of:
*Levitical sacrifice
*Nature of sin
*Function of Jesus in sacrifice
*Understanding of the trinity

I do not see evidence you have remotely competent understanding of these, which is particularly interesting given your claims to have read the whole Bible.

If you are attempting to refute the Bible, making claims it does not make and then attacking it for not meeting those claims is not a reasonable argument. As I noted, the Bible says Jesus felt pain. How hard is that for you to understand?

This is not a refutation of the bible. It is the arrival at a different conclusion regarding the value of that which the "christ" was supposed to have "sacrificed." That we have different perspectives on something open to interpretation does not show a lack of understanding. It's not as if we are arguing over something that is empirically demonstrable, anyway. If I was arguing against the law of gravity or the heliocentric model of our solar system, that would be one thing. The whole of the bible is just one of countless supreme being stories. You can't even prove yours more valid that the Judean or Islamic faiths. You can no more substantiate your beliefs above those of the Greek Olympian. Still, you insist it is my "understanding." The perhaps if I "understood" what it was ACTUALLY stating I might be inclined to believe? Not bloody likely...

This whole paragraph is nothing but nonsense and completely avoids my point. When backed into a corner, you don't respond with logic, but try and demean my faith. Nice try.

Once again - if you are trying to refute something, you have to judge it by the claims it makes. You are making up claims, saying it doesn't meet them, and then declaring it false. That is dumb.

I did not "make up" a single claim. Nor did I declare something false. I rendered something meaningless, from my interpretation. Show me just one thing that I made up that is not believed by at least a partial segment of christianity... Just one. Go ahead... I'll wait.

Just from your first post:

*This means that only ONE of THREE parts of the deity actually "sacrificed" anything. If two thirds of the triune entity remained intact,
*Within the parameters of the story told about the "first humans" (Adam and Eve), these "perfect" creatures did not even feel pain, until they were expelled from the garden of eden. If this is the case, and the "christ" was born with the same "perfection," that would mean that he likely "suffered" NOTHING AT ALL. If the "perfect" human did not feel any pain, then he wasn't really "tormented," now, was he?
*If the "infallible" biblical tale is to be taken in its entirety, that means that one third of the deity experienced ZERO pain/suffering, and "surrendered" his consciousness (in carnal form) for an absolutely INSIGNIFICANT amount of time, and got back INFINITELY MORE than it had, prior to its "death."

No, I've outright disproven your complaints.

No, you have claimed my lack of understanding. You disproved nothing.

Lol.

You do not seem to understand the word 'sacrifice' has many meanings.

I do understand that. You don't seem to understand that interpretation, even within your own faith, varies from denomination to denomination. There are christians that view things just as I have stated my understanding of biblical doctrine to be. Convince them of their lack of understanding, first.

You are increasing shrinking back your claim. You can't defend your views, and so are asking me to ask nonexistent people instead. No thanks. Defend them yourself!!
We, homo sapiens of the planet Earth, are the people of Debate.org, an online debating website owned by Juggle, and will aspire to increase the quality of debates, polls, mafia on said website, to be sufficient, meeting high standards of success and satisfaction in all areas, to consider it as "great", or superb and spectacular, again for the first time in years
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 8:31:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/1/2015 4:49:58 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 5/31/2015 7:43:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/30/2015 10:18:21 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 5/30/2015 10:09:37 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/28/2015 4:43:37 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
1) The majority of the christian world believes the bible to be incontrovertibly infallible.
2) The majority of the christian world believes in a "triune" deity.
3) The majority of the christian world believes this deity is "eternal."
4) The majority of the christian world believes the "christ" to have been "perfect."


And as usual, the majority are wrong, and completely against scripture.

Your typical "Everybody is wrong except for us" rhetoric is old, tired, false (demonstrably) and inane. You said NOTHING that refutes anything in the OP, and I really have no interest in anything you post, any more. Until the day you present something (ANYTHING) in the way of evidence to support your myriad of assertions about your "knowledge" (faith), nothing you post is of any value or meaning, to me.

No, it is not demonstrably false, the exact opposite for those who are not too scared to accept the evidence for what it is.

And in typical fashion you fail to DEMONSTRATE that which you claim to be DEMONSTRABLE.

I don't need to, you demonstrate it perfectly for me, since you are a case in point.

I can however give you the scriptural support for it.

Matthew 13:15
ASV(i) 15 For this peoples heart is waxed gross, And their ears are dull of hearing, And their eyes they have closed; Lest haply they should perceive with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And should turn again, And I should heal them.

That is you, and those like you to a "T", you can't see teh evidence which is right before your eyes.

Why?

2 Corinthians 4:3-4
ASV(i) 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish: 4 in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.

You simply help prove those two scriptures to be 100% accurate ion your case.


It is not me that is right, it is nto "us" that is right, it is God who is right, and will, as Paul said, "be found true, though every man be proved a liar".

How do you know? You are stating as fact and asserting that which you couldn't POSSIBLY know. Broken record.

It is possible to know, and scripture, you know the thing that you refuse to accept as the reliable evidence it is, proves it.

Both science and history prove that we are at this point, prophesied 1900 years or so ago.

Revelation 11:18
ASV(i) 18 And the nations were wroth, and thy wrath came, and the time of the dead to be judged, and the time to give their reward to thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and to them that fear thy name, the small and the great; and to destroy them that destroy the earth.

Soon Jehoovah will allow his son to step in and do just that.


Yes of course it's old. It is as old as truth itself, since it is part of the truth.

No, truth is a concept that GREATLY predates your ignorant desert nomads...

However it does not pre-date the God of Truth, Jehovah. However to understand the concept of truth properly you also have to be open to the evidence, which you are most definitely not.


When the time comes, just don't say nobody told you, because I have, and I don't doubt others have also.

Why would I? What you assert will never happen. I would sooner place my faith in a set of fortune cookie lottery numbers than place any confidence in the words of an ignorant buffoon like you...

Of course, if you think it is demonstrable, you are more than welcome to try. I'm not running away anywhere.

No, of course not. Who needs to run when they have an impenetrable wall of faith, completely impervious to reason and logic? That would be tantamount to firing BB's at the Great Wall of China...

My "impenetrable wall of faith" is impenetrable only because it is built on bricks of logic and reason on top of a foundation of known facts.

That is the only way to achieve faith. Reason and Logic show that, read correctly, Genesis 1 is 100% true in every one of the few details it gives us, based on scientific knowledge , and working from there.

The only way you can say otherwise is by ignoring what the words really mean, and the context they were written in.

But of course that is your wall of paper and ignorance. Deliberate ignorance because you refuse to consider the evidence accurately.

If you want to know what evidence, we can start with Genesis 1.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 9:24:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2015 8:31:31 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
However it does not pre-date the God of Truth, Jehovah.

Your god yahweh was invented by the Canaanites if not adapted from earlier tribes.
You really need to understand the history of your gods before you make such uninformed claims.
BTW what ever happened to Asherah?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 11:34:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2015 9:24:19 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/2/2015 8:31:31 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
However it does not pre-date the God of Truth, Jehovah.

Your god yahweh was invented by the Canaanites if not adapted from earlier tribes.
You really need to understand the history of your gods before you make such uninformed claims.
BTW what ever happened to Asherah?

Only in rather distorted histories, not in reality.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 11:24:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2015 11:34:55 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/2/2015 9:24:19 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/2/2015 8:31:31 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
However it does not pre-date the God of Truth, Jehovah.

Your god yahweh was invented by the Canaanites if not adapted from earlier tribes.
You really need to understand the history of your gods before you make such uninformed claims.
BTW what ever happened to Asherah?

Only in rather distorted histories, not in reality.

Nah sorry old fella but yahweh was a member of the Canaanite pantheon of gods before his weights were put up by the breakaway Canaanite tribe who would come to be known as the Jews.
You didn't answer my question regarding Asherah.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 6:07:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2015 11:24:04 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/2/2015 11:34:55 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/2/2015 9:24:19 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/2/2015 8:31:31 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
However it does not pre-date the God of Truth, Jehovah.

Your god yahweh was invented by the Canaanites if not adapted from earlier tribes.
You really need to understand the history of your gods before you make such uninformed claims.
BTW what ever happened to Asherah?

Only in rather distorted histories, not in reality.

Nah sorry old fella but yahweh was a member of the Canaanite pantheon of gods before his weights were put up by the breakaway Canaanite tribe who would come to be known as the Jews.
You didn't answer my question regarding Asherah.

You are welcome to believe what you want to believe, but that is simply not true Baby boy. It's just what some historian wants you to believe.

No, you are right I didnl;t

Asherah was a goddess of fertility, and truly was a Canaanite goddess. Like so many of her ilk she has disappeared into obscurity, though her Babylonian and Assyrian counterparts Astarte and Ishtar, are commemorated to this day in the supposedly "Christianised" Pagan celebration we know as Easter, which still uses fertility symbols such as eggs, and the buns with crosses on that we now call hot cross buns.

Unfortunately you cannot "Christianise" a pagan festival, it's against the rules, so all you end up doing is corrupting the faiths that celebrate them.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 9:35:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2015 6:07:12 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/2/2015 11:24:04 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/2/2015 11:34:55 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/2/2015 9:24:19 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/2/2015 8:31:31 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
However it does not pre-date the God of Truth, Jehovah.

Your god yahweh was invented by the Canaanites if not adapted from earlier tribes.
You really need to understand the history of your gods before you make such uninformed claims.
BTW what ever happened to Asherah?

Only in rather distorted histories, not in reality.

Nah sorry old fella but yahweh was a member of the Canaanite pantheon of gods before his weights were put up by the breakaway Canaanite tribe who would come to be known as the Jews.
You didn't answer my question regarding Asherah.

You are welcome to believe what you want to believe, but that is simply not true Baby boy. It's just what some historian wants you to believe.

No, you are right I didnl;t

Asherah was a goddess of fertility, and truly was a Canaanite goddess. Like so many of her ilk she has disappeared into obscurity, though her Babylonian and Assyrian counterparts Astarte and Ishtar, are commemorated to this day in the supposedly "Christianised" Pagan celebration we know as Easter, which still uses fertility symbols such as eggs, and the buns with crosses on that we now call hot cross buns.

Unfortunately you cannot "Christianise" a pagan festival, it's against the rules, so all you end up doing is corrupting the faiths that celebrate them.

You left out the part where Asherah was Yahweh's consort, something you're trying to hide?
TN05
Posts: 4,796
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 10:07:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2015 9:35:42 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/3/2015 6:07:12 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/2/2015 11:24:04 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/2/2015 11:34:55 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/2/2015 9:24:19 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/2/2015 8:31:31 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
However it does not pre-date the God of Truth, Jehovah.

Your god yahweh was invented by the Canaanites if not adapted from earlier tribes.
You really need to understand the history of your gods before you make such uninformed claims.
BTW what ever happened to Asherah?

Only in rather distorted histories, not in reality.

Nah sorry old fella but yahweh was a member of the Canaanite pantheon of gods before his weights were put up by the breakaway Canaanite tribe who would come to be known as the Jews.
You didn't answer my question regarding Asherah.

You are welcome to believe what you want to believe, but that is simply not true Baby boy. It's just what some historian wants you to believe.

No, you are right I didnl;t

Asherah was a goddess of fertility, and truly was a Canaanite goddess. Like so many of her ilk she has disappeared into obscurity, though her Babylonian and Assyrian counterparts Astarte and Ishtar, are commemorated to this day in the supposedly "Christianised" Pagan celebration we know as Easter, which still uses fertility symbols such as eggs, and the buns with crosses on that we now call hot cross buns.

Unfortunately you cannot "Christianise" a pagan festival, it's against the rules, so all you end up doing is corrupting the faiths that celebrate them.

You left out the part where Asherah was Yahweh's consort, something you're trying to hide?

She was most identified with Anu and El. And, further. The Bible never says the Israelites were purely monotheistic... that's one of the big conflicts if you've actually read the Old Testament. Idolatry was rampant and is condemned throughout it. So the Israelites worshipping idols really doesn't do anything other than reinforce the Biblical narrative.
We, homo sapiens of the planet Earth, are the people of Debate.org, an online debating website owned by Juggle, and will aspire to increase the quality of debates, polls, mafia on said website, to be sufficient, meeting high standards of success and satisfaction in all areas, to consider it as "great", or superb and spectacular, again for the first time in years
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 8:16:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2015 9:35:42 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/3/2015 6:07:12 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/2/2015 11:24:04 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/2/2015 11:34:55 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/2/2015 9:24:19 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/2/2015 8:31:31 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
However it does not pre-date the God of Truth, Jehovah.

Your god yahweh was invented by the Canaanites if not adapted from earlier tribes.
You really need to understand the history of your gods before you make such uninformed claims.
BTW what ever happened to Asherah?

Only in rather distorted histories, not in reality.

Nah sorry old fella but yahweh was a member of the Canaanite pantheon of gods before his weights were put up by the breakaway Canaanite tribe who would come to be known as the Jews.
You didn't answer my question regarding Asherah.

You are welcome to believe what you want to believe, but that is simply not true Baby boy. It's just what some historian wants you to believe.

No, you are right I didnl;t

Asherah was a goddess of fertility, and truly was a Canaanite goddess. Like so many of her ilk she has disappeared into obscurity, though her Babylonian and Assyrian counterparts Astarte and Ishtar, are commemorated to this day in the supposedly "Christianised" Pagan celebration we know as Easter, which still uses fertility symbols such as eggs, and the buns with crosses on that we now call hot cross buns.

Unfortunately you cannot "Christianise" a pagan festival, it's against the rules, so all you end up doing is corrupting the faiths that celebrate them.

You left out the part where Asherah was Yahweh's consort, something you're trying to hide?

That's because the real Yahweh has never had a consort, such things are not even possible in the spirit realm.

Just goes to prove that the one you claim was Yahweh was a Satanically inspired counterfeit copy of the real Yahweh.

Of course people like you fall for it hook line and sinker because you want to believe what it says.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 8:19:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2015 10:07:04 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 9:35:42 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/3/2015 6:07:12 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/2/2015 11:24:04 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/2/2015 11:34:55 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/2/2015 9:24:19 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/2/2015 8:31:31 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
However it does not pre-date the God of Truth, Jehovah.

Your god yahweh was invented by the Canaanites if not adapted from earlier tribes.
You really need to understand the history of your gods before you make such uninformed claims.
BTW what ever happened to Asherah?

Only in rather distorted histories, not in reality.

Nah sorry old fella but yahweh was a member of the Canaanite pantheon of gods before his weights were put up by the breakaway Canaanite tribe who would come to be known as the Jews.
You didn't answer my question regarding Asherah.

You are welcome to believe what you want to believe, but that is simply not true Baby boy. It's just what some historian wants you to believe.

No, you are right I didnl;t

Asherah was a goddess of fertility, and truly was a Canaanite goddess. Like so many of her ilk she has disappeared into obscurity, though her Babylonian and Assyrian counterparts Astarte and Ishtar, are commemorated to this day in the supposedly "Christianised" Pagan celebration we know as Easter, which still uses fertility symbols such as eggs, and the buns with crosses on that we now call hot cross buns.

Unfortunately you cannot "Christianise" a pagan festival, it's against the rules, so all you end up doing is corrupting the faiths that celebrate them.

You left out the part where Asherah was Yahweh's consort, something you're trying to hide?

She was most identified with Anu and El. And, further. The Bible never says the Israelites were purely monotheistic... that's one of the big conflicts if you've actually read the Old Testament. Idolatry was rampant and is condemned throughout it. So the Israelites worshipping idols really doesn't do anything other than reinforce the Biblical narrative.

Ah someone who actually reads what the bible says. That at least makes a pleasant change.

Most people just read what they want to see in there.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 8:47:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/4/2015 8:19:49 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/3/2015 10:07:04 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 9:35:42 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/3/2015 6:07:12 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/2/2015 11:24:04 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/2/2015 11:34:55 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/2/2015 9:24:19 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/2/2015 8:31:31 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
However it does not pre-date the God of Truth, Jehovah.

Your god yahweh was invented by the Canaanites if not adapted from earlier tribes.
You really need to understand the history of your gods before you make such uninformed claims.
BTW what ever happened to Asherah?

Only in rather distorted histories, not in reality.

Nah sorry old fella but yahweh was a member of the Canaanite pantheon of gods before his weights were put up by the breakaway Canaanite tribe who would come to be known as the Jews.
You didn't answer my question regarding Asherah.

You are welcome to believe what you want to believe, but that is simply not true Baby boy. It's just what some historian wants you to believe.

No, you are right I didnl;t

Asherah was a goddess of fertility, and truly was a Canaanite goddess. Like so many of her ilk she has disappeared into obscurity, though her Babylonian and Assyrian counterparts Astarte and Ishtar, are commemorated to this day in the supposedly "Christianised" Pagan celebration we know as Easter, which still uses fertility symbols such as eggs, and the buns with crosses on that we now call hot cross buns.

Unfortunately you cannot "Christianise" a pagan festival, it's against the rules, so all you end up doing is corrupting the faiths that celebrate them.

You left out the part where Asherah was Yahweh's consort, something you're trying to hide?

She was most identified with Anu and El. And, further. The Bible never says the Israelites were purely monotheistic... that's one of the big conflicts if you've actually read the Old Testament. Idolatry was rampant and is condemned throughout it. So the Israelites worshipping idols really doesn't do anything other than reinforce the Biblical narrative.

Ah someone who actually reads what the bible says. That at least makes a pleasant change.

Most people just read what they want to see in there.

HAHA
The Canaanites who became the Jews were not monotheistic until about 200BCE. Asherah was a very real component of their belief system.
Have you ever read of trees?
You people are so ignorant of your belief systems that you might as well be the ignorant Canaanites from which you religion developed.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 10:54:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/4/2015 8:47:59 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/4/2015 8:19:49 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/3/2015 10:07:04 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 9:35:42 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/3/2015 6:07:12 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/2/2015 11:24:04 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/2/2015 11:34:55 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/2/2015 9:24:19 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/2/2015 8:31:31 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
However it does not pre-date the God of Truth, Jehovah.

Your god yahweh was invented by the Canaanites if not adapted from earlier tribes.
You really need to understand the history of your gods before you make such uninformed claims.
BTW what ever happened to Asherah?

Only in rather distorted histories, not in reality.

Nah sorry old fella but yahweh was a member of the Canaanite pantheon of gods before his weights were put up by the breakaway Canaanite tribe who would come to be known as the Jews.
You didn't answer my question regarding Asherah.

You are welcome to believe what you want to believe, but that is simply not true Baby boy. It's just what some historian wants you to believe.

No, you are right I didnl;t

Asherah was a goddess of fertility, and truly was a Canaanite goddess. Like so many of her ilk she has disappeared into obscurity, though her Babylonian and Assyrian counterparts Astarte and Ishtar, are commemorated to this day in the supposedly "Christianised" Pagan celebration we know as Easter, which still uses fertility symbols such as eggs, and the buns with crosses on that we now call hot cross buns.

Unfortunately you cannot "Christianise" a pagan festival, it's against the rules, so all you end up doing is corrupting the faiths that celebrate them.

You left out the part where Asherah was Yahweh's consort, something you're trying to hide?

She was most identified with Anu and El. And, further. The Bible never says the Israelites were purely monotheistic... that's one of the big conflicts if you've actually read the Old Testament. Idolatry was rampant and is condemned throughout it. So the Israelites worshipping idols really doesn't do anything other than reinforce the Biblical narrative.

Ah someone who actually reads what the bible says. That at least makes a pleasant change.

Most people just read what they want to see in there.

HAHA
The Canaanites who became the Jews were not monotheistic until about 200BCE. Asherah was a very real component of their belief system.
Have you ever read of trees?
You people are so ignorant of your belief systems that you might as well be the ignorant Canaanites from which you religion developed.

The Jews were not descended from the Canaanites, the descendants of Canaan, they were descended from the Shemites, hence the word Semitic.

Give up Baby boy, you are way out of your depth.

Mind you, intellectually you are out of your depth on a wet road.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 11:31:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/4/2015 10:54:04 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/4/2015 8:47:59 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/4/2015 8:19:49 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/3/2015 10:07:04 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 9:35:42 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/3/2015 6:07:12 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/2/2015 11:24:04 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/2/2015 11:34:55 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/2/2015 9:24:19 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/2/2015 8:31:31 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
However it does not pre-date the God of Truth, Jehovah.

Your god yahweh was invented by the Canaanites if not adapted from earlier tribes.
You really need to understand the history of your gods before you make such uninformed claims.
BTW what ever happened to Asherah?

Only in rather distorted histories, not in reality.

Nah sorry old fella but yahweh was a member of the Canaanite pantheon of gods before his weights were put up by the breakaway Canaanite tribe who would come to be known as the Jews.
You didn't answer my question regarding Asherah.

You are welcome to believe what you want to believe, but that is simply not true Baby boy. It's just what some historian wants you to believe.

No, you are right I didnl;t

Asherah was a goddess of fertility, and truly was a Canaanite goddess. Like so many of her ilk she has disappeared into obscurity, though her Babylonian and Assyrian counterparts Astarte and Ishtar, are commemorated to this day in the supposedly "Christianised" Pagan celebration we know as Easter, which still uses fertility symbols such as eggs, and the buns with crosses on that we now call hot cross buns.

Unfortunately you cannot "Christianise" a pagan festival, it's against the rules, so all you end up doing is corrupting the faiths that celebrate them.

You left out the part where Asherah was Yahweh's consort, something you're trying to hide?

She was most identified with Anu and El. And, further. The Bible never says the Israelites were purely monotheistic... that's one of the big conflicts if you've actually read the Old Testament. Idolatry was rampant and is condemned throughout it. So the Israelites worshipping idols really doesn't do anything other than reinforce the Biblical narrative.

Ah someone who actually reads what the bible says. That at least makes a pleasant change.

Most people just read what they want to see in there.

HAHA
The Canaanites who became the Jews were not monotheistic until about 200BCE. Asherah was a very real component of their belief system.
Have you ever read of trees?
You people are so ignorant of your belief systems that you might as well be the ignorant Canaanites from which you religion developed.

The Jews were not descended from the Canaanites, the descendants of Canaan, they were descended from the Shemites, hence the word Semitic.

Give up Baby boy, you are way out of your depth.

Mind you, intellectually you are out of your depth on a wet road.

Oh little wannabe bikie produce some evidence that the alleged Jews conquered Canaan.
Yes I know you can't but you have never even tried to convince yourself, you just take teachers word for it.
Now lets get to Asherah the subject that you are so desperately trying to avoid.
As a self proclaimed biblical expert you would be aware of Asherah's importance in the bible, so why don't you tell me all about it?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 5:04:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/4/2015 11:31:18 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/4/2015 10:54:04 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/4/2015 8:47:59 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/4/2015 8:19:49 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/3/2015 10:07:04 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/3/2015 9:35:42 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/3/2015 6:07:12 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/2/2015 11:24:04 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/2/2015 11:34:55 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/2/2015 9:24:19 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/2/2015 8:31:31 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
However it does not pre-date the God of Truth, Jehovah.

Your god yahweh was invented by the Canaanites if not adapted from earlier tribes.
You really need to understand the history of your gods before you make such uninformed claims.
BTW what ever happened to Asherah?

Only in rather distorted histories, not in reality.

Nah sorry old fella but yahweh was a member of the Canaanite pantheon of gods before his weights were put up by the breakaway Canaanite tribe who would come to be known as the Jews.
You didn't answer my question regarding Asherah.

You are welcome to believe what you want to believe, but that is simply not true Baby boy. It's just what some historian wants you to believe.

No, you are right I didnl;t

Asherah was a goddess of fertility, and truly was a Canaanite goddess. Like so many of her ilk she has disappeared into obscurity, though her Babylonian and Assyrian counterparts Astarte and Ishtar, are commemorated to this day in the supposedly "Christianised" Pagan celebration we know as Easter, which still uses fertility symbols such as eggs, and the buns with crosses on that we now call hot cross buns.

Unfortunately you cannot "Christianise" a pagan festival, it's against the rules, so all you end up doing is corrupting the faiths that celebrate them.

You left out the part where Asherah was Yahweh's consort, something you're trying to hide?

She was most identified with Anu and El. And, further. The Bible never says the Israelites were purely monotheistic... that's one of the big conflicts if you've actually read the Old Testament. Idolatry was rampant and is condemned throughout it. So the Israelites worshipping idols really doesn't do anything other than reinforce the Biblical narrative.

Ah someone who actually reads what the bible says. That at least makes a pleasant change.

Most people just read what they want to see in there.

HAHA
The Canaanites who became the Jews were not monotheistic until about 200BCE. Asherah was a very real component of their belief system.
Have you ever read of trees?
You people are so ignorant of your belief systems that you might as well be the ignorant Canaanites from which you religion developed.

The Jews were not descended from the Canaanites, the descendants of Canaan, they were descended from the Shemites, hence the word Semitic.

Give up Baby boy, you are way out of your depth.

Mind you, intellectually you are out of your depth on a wet road.

Oh little wannabe bikie produce some evidence that the alleged Jews conquered Canaan.
Yes I know you can't but you have never even tried to convince yourself, you just take teachers word for it.
Now lets get to Asherah the subject that you are so desperately trying to avoid.
As a self proclaimed biblical expert you would be aware of Asherah's importance in the bible, so why don't you tell me all about it?

My teacher is the Christ, so yes, of course I take his word for it. He is my only leader and king.

Ashera has no importance in scripture, any more than any other false gods.

All my teachings come from Jehovah, through his son, scripture and holy spirit.

I am avoiding nothing, you are dragging in complete irrelevances.

John 6:45
ASV(i) 45 It is written in the prophets (Isaiah 54:13) , And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me.

I have listened to Jehovah, and have been drawn to Christ as a servant for him.

John 6:44
ASV(i) 44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.

True, I have accepted help and guidance from the JWs, and others at times, but the bible is the deciding factor. Anything taught me by anyone, which does not agree with scripture is rejected out of hand., Hence I truly am "taught by Jehovah".

You try to be so clever, and all you do is make yourself look ever more dumb.

There is no such thing as a self appointed expert on scripture. You are either appointed by Jehovah, or you never truly get to be an expert.

"Self" is a word which does not belong in the hearts and minds of followers of Christ, nor in their dictionaries. Self is what we have to abandon.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 12:34:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/4/2015 5:04:31 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
True, I have accepted help and guidance from the JWs, and others at times, but the bible is the deciding factor.
The whore of babylon's holy book is your final arbiter, wow.
What does sonny boy say about that when your bending his ear?
Oh that's right he ignores you like everyone else, well everyone who doesn't enjoy taking the piss outa ya like I do.
Oh I know it's unfair of me to destroy an unarmed opponent in a battle of wits, but sometimes I just can't help myself.
I laugh harder and longer at you than any world famous comedian.
Keep up the good work.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 1:06:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
If I put 100 bucks on a shelf, and not touch it for 3 days, I am not "sacrificing" it.

If I put 100 bucks on a shelf, claim its to be spent for insecticides to combat an infestation... THEN DON'T SPEND THE MONEY, the bugs aren't going anywhere.

If I put 100 bucks on a shelf, claim its to be spent for insecticides to combat an infestation, then don't spend the money, and instead, pick up the 100 bucks a few days later and am never heard from again all the while claiming that the bug infestation has been removed, or won't in any way be a detriment to you, provided you do nothing to invite more bugs, and am I am never heard from again...

You got conned.

A sacrifice infers something is given up, permanently. An immortal entity that tells you its going to "die" for you is selling you a bridge. More over, if that was some how the (sole) plan all along well before the sacrifice was made, this immortal entity that also has you convinced its omnipotent has sold you 2 bridges, three if it tells you its omniscient to boot.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2015 9:11:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/5/2015 1:06:37 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
If I put 100 bucks on a shelf, and not touch it for 3 days, I am not "sacrificing" it.

If I put 100 bucks on a shelf, claim its to be spent for insecticides to combat an infestation... THEN DON'T SPEND THE MONEY, the bugs aren't going anywhere.

If I put 100 bucks on a shelf, claim its to be spent for insecticides to combat an infestation, then don't spend the money, and instead, pick up the 100 bucks a few days later and am never heard from again all the while claiming that the bug infestation has been removed, or won't in any way be a detriment to you, provided you do nothing to invite more bugs, and am I am never heard from again...

You got conned.

A sacrifice infers something is given up, permanently. An immortal entity that tells you its going to "die" for you is selling you a bridge. More over, if that was some how the (sole) plan all along well before the sacrifice was made, this immortal entity that also has you convinced its omnipotent has sold you 2 bridges, three if it tells you its omniscient to boot.

That is true, but that is not what they Christ did.

He sacrificed the right to eternal human life on earth which was his birthright as the second Adam and a faithful one at that, and therefore could never come back in physical form.

Would he want to? I doubt it, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that he did indeed make that sacrifice, as was his intention long before he came to earth.

It was a real, a very real sacrifice, and one which cost him pain, suffering, and death, to achieve.

Drag it's value down at your peril, many of us will be only too glad to take advantage of it in the resurrection and accept the Adam-like bodies it has bought us the right to at that time.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2015 9:33:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/6/2015 9:11:56 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/5/2015 1:06:37 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
If I put 100 bucks on a shelf, and not touch it for 3 days, I am not "sacrificing" it.

If I put 100 bucks on a shelf, claim its to be spent for insecticides to combat an infestation... THEN DON'T SPEND THE MONEY, the bugs aren't going anywhere.

If I put 100 bucks on a shelf, claim its to be spent for insecticides to combat an infestation, then don't spend the money, and instead, pick up the 100 bucks a few days later and am never heard from again all the while claiming that the bug infestation has been removed, or won't in any way be a detriment to you, provided you do nothing to invite more bugs, and am I am never heard from again...

You got conned.

A sacrifice infers something is given up, permanently. An immortal entity that tells you its going to "die" for you is selling you a bridge. More over, if that was some how the (sole) plan all along well before the sacrifice was made, this immortal entity that also has you convinced its omnipotent has sold you 2 bridges, three if it tells you its omniscient to boot.

That is true, but that is not what they Christ did.

He sacrificed the right to eternal human life on earth which was his birthright as the second Adam and a faithful one at that, and therefore could never come back in physical form.

Having an omnipotent father, I assure you, such is not the case should any party want that, though considering Christ had a physical form when he rose from the grave, this renders your assertion incorrect.


It was a real, a very real sacrifice, and one which cost him pain, suffering, and death, to achieve.

Death has no consequence to a creature that is by definition immortal. That is an inconvenience, no different than you or I waiting in line at a fast food joint for our burger when hungry.

Drag it's value down at your peril, many of us will be only too glad to take advantage of it in the resurrection and accept the Adam-like bodies it has bought us the right to at that time.

"drag it down" is calling a spade a garden utensil, and just demonstrates how good of a salesmen these entities were than demonstrates how important the sacrafice was.

Hey, MCB, how much of a sacrifice is it for you to give up DDO for... say an hour? Heck, I will give up DDO for an hour if you agree to sig that I gave up DDO to atone for any perceived slight you may have caused to other people. Yes, you heard me right, I will lay down my DDO rights for an hour if you praise me for it, and in return, anytime you insult some one, it will be MY bad, even if the insult is perceived rather than given.

Cool? Dude, this is the deal of the century. Just point to me, and I will make it better. Some how. Mystery and such.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.