Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

toldailytopic: For those unsaved. If it turns out you were wrong and you face God in

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by voltaire View Post
    I would be very surprised
    indeed if factual references
    were never used in the
    Bible, but the supernatural
    parts have never been
    evidenced to my knowledge
    and probably never will be
    because they never
    happened imo.----Allwight. There is evidence that sodom and gomorrah existed. There is evidence of a volcanic eruption that destroyed those two cities. You would still dismiss this because volcanos are not supernatural. But if you write about it as a judgment from God shortly after the time that it happened, then that is evidence of the supernatural. Why would moses make up a story like that to describe a natural disaster?
    . . . your faulty reasoning leads to the conclusion that ALL "disasters" were/are the handywork of your particular deity . . .
    Last edited by Silent Hunter; April 8th, 2011, 10:57 PM.
    "The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest and objectively skeptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in anything supernatural, including god."

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
      . . . hold on there stud . . . you've got things backward. I don't reject the supernatural because I reject your particular version of a deity . . . rather I reject the supernatural because there is no evidence it exists . . . if your deity is supernatural I therefore then reject your particular version of a deity.

      . . . [patiently awaiting the evidence of your version of deity and the supernatural]
      So you are an omniscient god who knows for sure there is no evidence of the supernatural? Outside of your finite knowledge and sphere of existence, the supernatural certainly may exist with verification.

      The historical resurrection of Jesus is the ultimate supernatural event.
      Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

      They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
      I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

      Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

      "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

      The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by godrulz View Post
        So you are an omniscient god who knows for sure there is no evidence of the supernatural?
        . . . I didn't say that . . . that's your strawman.

        Outside of your finite knowledge and sphere of existence, the supernatural certainly may exist with verification.
        . . . it indeed may . . . when have i ruled out the possibility.

        The historical resurrection of Jesus is the ultimate supernatural event.
        . . . we skeptics keep asking for the evidence of this "event" (the Bible isn't evidence) . . . so far [crickets chirping].
        "The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest and objectively skeptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in anything supernatural, including god."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
          . . . I didn't say that . . . that's your strawman.

          . . . it indeed may . . . when have i ruled out the possibility.

          . . . we skeptics keep asking for the evidence of this "event" (the Bible isn't evidence) . . . so far [crickets chirping].
          The Bible is evidence if it is truly the Word of God. Perhaps you should tell us why it cannot be divine revelation?
          Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

          They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
          I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

          Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

          "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

          The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by godrulz View Post
            The Bible is evidence IF it is truly the Word of God.
            . . . that's a big if gr.

            Perhaps you should tell us why it cannot be divine revelation?
            . . . this is called shifting the burden of proof. I don't have a responsibility of proving the Bible is not divinely authored . . . it is your job to prove that it is . . . so far . . . [insert your latest unsubstantiated assertion/declaration here].
            "The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest and objectively skeptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in anything supernatural, including god."

            Comment


            • http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...&postcount=360

              Originally posted by Town Heretic
              No real sense in using an inferior place holder for the same essential and undivided notion, but I never said all men believe, only that they were their own bar to it, that disbelief is neither inevitable nor anything more or less than a fundamental choice. And all choices have a measure of reason in them.
              Except beliefs are not a choice. You can only 'choose' what actually convinces you. I cannot be convinced of Christianity or any specific religious belief until I am actually convinced that it is true (and in some cases, moral).

              And if I plug my ears and sing loudly enough I will not know the song you're singing. But, again, God isn't hidden from men who refuse to avail themselves of the means by which He might be known.
              This is laced with the assumption that God is actually able to be known. The method by which you propose to know God is for all intents and purposes identical to becoming fluent in Christian theology. You yourself have embraced it wholeheartedly but in doing so you mistake your devotion towards it to literally understanding God.

              I'd imagine you would, given the implications.
              The implications don't come into it. It is the fact that it smears the very character of all non-theists.

              Rather you appear to have ignored two different addresses of the inappropriate use of the word here. I've given you an entirely coherent answer with an actual advancement of the why. I suppose I could have adopted your practice here instead and saved myself time.
              Yes, you've given a justification for hell. It was however underwhelming and laced in hyperbole. It also smeared those it referred to by suggesting that those who go to hell somehow choose it, or rather gain it as a consequence of their actions and/or desire (whatever that may be). It did not address the very core point that such a hell in the face of an allegedly omniscient and omnibenevolent God need not exist in the very first place.

              If you read my answer then you understand mercy would be an extension of the thing willfully rejected, and at that point would be unwanted.
              No-one is rejecting mercy. Many atheists do not count themselves as anti-theist such as I and even amongst anti-theists the majority would only reject a specific rendition of God rather than all Gods.

              Beans. And, to borrow,
              Originally posted by Me
              You're welcome to keep such a view.
              Yes. So? I didn't like the ideal that you espoused as moral.

              Or, you have a point you want out and my unconformity to the preset you had on hand isn't going to deter you.
              I already queried whether you believed heaven involved utopian ideals. You didn't actually answer rather than complain that I didn't support it.

              Well, no. It doesn't follow. It's a bit like you suggesting that the failure of particular, academic tests being offered in post graduate life invalidates the pursuit of advanced and particular understanding within an ivy encrusted confine.
              Not quite. For you suggested that life was meaningless without trial. If you view heaven as nothing but absolute perfection then one might query whether or not it would have meaning to you.

              You might as easily ask who on death row willfully put themselves in line for execution. The answer (assuming guilt) would be every man who put the selfish desire of his flesh above the right.
              You're skirting the question. No-one removes themselves from contention. Not an atheist, scientologist or vehement anti-theist. Millions of non-religious people don't see the relevance of Christianity and live mundane lives in apathy towards it. Do you say that they have removed themselves from contention?


              Rather, you're doing, as an anti-theist, precisely and inescapably that.
              How so?

              No. You understand it exists. You reject the application. And you are accountable for your actions.
              I understand that there are people who claim it exists. It does not mean that I understand the proposition itself actually exists.

              No. You're judged by perfection or forgiven by it, but not for failing a standard you can't meet, as I've set out prior, but as you will not meet it. And even then there's the grace you ignore.
              Can we meet perfection then?

              And the "grace I ignore" is the literal equivalent of a supernatural pardon based on belief - something that you can't will upon yourself.
              "Cast a light on the walls and lives of a Generation Online
              We excel at passing time, and we share our hearts and our minds
              Wake us up if they play our song and we might just sing along
              But until then we won’t wait, we have found our own place to belong"

              Comment


              • My first reaction however to
                that idea is that
                superstitious less
                informed people tend to
                attribute all natural
                disasters to godly wrath,
                but these days we really
                should be beyond such daft
                notions.------Alwight. Read what moses wrote concerning the event. He gives names of actual people involved in the event....abraham, lot, lot's wife, God. These people are all mentioned in other biblical genealogies. It is quite an elaborate story and quite unnecessary to be told if not true. Read the whole book of genesis. Why put a completely fictious story in that part of the book? Contemporaries of moses would have read it and been aware of the volcanic eruption. They would have known the story was full of crap if it was. Moses wrote 4 other books and strongly condemns such intentional storytelling in them. Blasphemy against God is serious business according to what moses wrote in those 5 books. Why would moses intentionally blaspheme God by making him a murderer of innocent children if the story was not true?

                Comment


                • for mad people the answers always seem to be in the OT
                  a voice crying in the wilderness :chrysost:

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by voltaire View Post
                    My first reaction however to
                    that idea is that
                    superstitious less
                    informed people tend to
                    attribute all natural
                    disasters to godly wrath,
                    but these days we really
                    should be beyond such daft
                    notions.------Alwight. Read what moses wrote concerning the event. He gives names of actual people involved in the event....abraham, lot, lot's wife, God. These people are all mentioned in other biblical genealogies. It is quite an elaborate story and quite unnecessary to be told if not true. Read the whole book of genesis. Why put a completely fictious story in that part of the book? Contemporaries of moses would have read it and been aware of the volcanic eruption. They would have known the story was full of crap if it was. Moses wrote 4 other books and strongly condemns such intentional storytelling in them. Blasphemy against God is serious business according to what moses wrote in those 5 books. Why would moses intentionally blaspheme God by making him a murderer of innocent children if the story was not true?
                    My explanation doesn't seem to ring true to you then, even though we know how people do tend to make up explanations for things not understood?
                    I realise that you may simply want to look for ways to believe that what you read is all somehow true, but I rather think that I am being the more rational and realistic here voltaire.
                    Moses may or may not have written stories himself but he certainly didn't write them for the Bible or about his own death I think.

                    A nastier tale of misogyny would be hard to find than is that of Lot and his daughters.
                    Though it is a theme echoed or plagiarised perhaps in Judges 19, even worse.
                    Do you really think Lot's wife actually did turn into a pillar of salt or wouldn't you suspect, initially at least, someone is spinning a yarn, however dutifully recorded in the Pentateuch no doubt.

                    Comment


                    • alwight. Ever seen the ruins of pompeii exhibit? Lots of people perfectly preserved in volcanic ash are there. Picture lot's wife as one of the people in the pompeii exhibit and you can see what moses meant by a pillar of salt. No, moses did not write all of the pentateuch but why should we attribute other writer to most of it?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by voltaire View Post
                        alwight. Ever seen the ruins of pompeii exhibit? Lots of people perfectly preserved in volcanic ash are there. Picture lot's wife as one of the people in the pompeii exhibit and you can see what moses meant by a pillar of salt. No, moses did not write all of the pentateuch but why should we attribute other writer to most of it?
                        . . . so . . . "Moses" didn't mean an actual pillar of salt?
                        "The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest and objectively skeptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in anything supernatural, including god."

                        Comment


                        • ---End Quote---
                          . . . so . . . "Moses" didn't mean
                          an actual pillar of salt?
                          ***************------SH. Yes moses meant exactly what he wrote in HEBREW. A pillar of salt is what the king james translators translated that hebrew phrase into. Moses may simply have meant to be solidified into a rock. Many rocks are made of metallic salts. whatever lots wife turned into , it was solid and contained minerals that the hebrew word accurately described for the knowledge of minerals in moses' day.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by chrysostom View Post
                            for mad people the answers always seem to be in the OT
                            huh? How would you answer alwight?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by voltaire View Post
                              ---End Quote---
                              . . . so . . . "Moses" didn't mean
                              an actual pillar of salt?
                              ***************------SH. Yes moses meant exactly what he wrote in HEBREW. A pillar of salt is what the king james translators translated that hebrew phrase into. Moses may simply have meant to be solidified into a rock. Many rocks are made of metallic salts. whatever lots wife turned into , it was solid and contained minerals that the hebrew word accurately described for the knowledge of minerals in moses' day.
                              . . . even though sodium cloride "salt" is the most common in that area . . . check.
                              "The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest and objectively skeptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in anything supernatural, including god."

                              Comment


                              • SH. If you are making chess analogies, you should have said checkmate if you think you have shut me down. It was more like an undefended pawn advance on the 6th row near a fully castled king. We still dont know the full range of meanings for the hebrew word. Why should NaCl be the assumed ingredient? They were thinking just as you were in 1611. They had knowledge of dead sea salt. Perhaps it looked like salt.The pompeii relics could pass for salt to the bronze age mind. What other word would a culture use that didnt have other words to describe other rocks that looked like salt?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X