um because I was rebuking an argument?

Additionally, you don't have to be religious to realise there are some wise words in the Bible that are well worth reading.

Also, differing interpretations of scripture causes so much conflict that affects unbelievers as well as believers so if we can highlight the absurdities of scriptures to others it well worth doing so.

Other unbelievers would likely feel the same way you do, so why bother trying to convince them? I am certain that a diverse group of unbelievers would be able to find enough common ground to be able to mock the Christians together, so it's an issue that really needs no convincing.

As far as convincing the believer goes, you would not be able to change my (or any other believer's, for that matter) way of thinking any more than I would be able to change yours by my own effort. It would be a pointless exercise for everyone involved.

The most I can do present the truth (whether it sticks or not is up to God) and present myself as an example.

WOW. Way too go to continue a fight. Now its gonna take me a whole bloody day to read up on every post and still see if I need to post or not.

I may not be able to convince you PageWizard but there are those who've been raised as religious who just haven't been given the proper opportunities to think about the matter clearly. I think you are mistaken about being unable to change somebody's beliefs.

In fact I would say the ability to drastically change your own world view in the face of evidence and reason is a sign of true humility and a great virtue.

If you can say you would not at least consider becoming an unbeliever in the face of a stronger argument than the one that makes you currently believe you are either a liar or a fool. This is not a personal attack, this is fundamental to being a reasoning being.

There are those people who are raised in a church someplace and later break away when they first get out on their own. I would not count these people as true believers since they so easily depart despite being taught the truth all their lives. This kind of person simply knows how to act like a Christian outwardly (because of parental expectations, or for other reasons) but they remain unchanged inwardly. Therefore, it is no surprise that they would wander away.

A true believer is irrevocably changed when God calls them, and as such they cannot go back to what they were before, even if they want to at times. Men like Peter and Paul were willing to die for their beliefs. A Christian lives by faith rather than by logic. As a Christian, my ways are inevitably different than your ways. I am called to stand firm in my beliefs no matter how much evidence to the contrary you throw at me, and I will do exactly that as much as I can. I may not have proof for my beliefs that you are able to accept, but I believe in the work that Christ has produced in me, and that is ultimately what matters.

Many, many atheists were raised as Christians and used to think exactly like you do.


Wow, this is so ridiculous I don't know where to begin. Take Detty's example, he could say the same thing about the Bobble, but it wouldn't be true, since nothing in the Bobble is true. The only evidence you have for this argument is the Bible itself.

Oh, so I was just never a "true believer"? How the hell can you know that? I was certain that God existed, I loved him, I talked to him, and I believed that he loved me and talked to me as well.


The trouble with personal experiences is that you can never truly know that they are genuine. How do you know it's not all just a manifestation of your beliefs, which may not be valid? You don't know, and you never can.

When you live your life by logic, your viewpoints can be externally analyzed and judged, removing personal bias. That's what makes it so powerful.

You're just mad because you have an assload of words to look up on dictionary.cm.

So what happened? It is obvious that you feel differently now.



I know that I am a new creation because I can see the changes in my own life. You can tell a true believer by their actions.

Regarding proof, you never can know. That is what faith is all about.

I don't think I put much trust in the taochristianist.


Where is morthog when you want him to unleash a massive post of total awesome?

The problem is that you think that the teachings are read externally and then applied externally, like a book of laws and regulations. You're looking at it backwards. The real situation is that the teachings of the Bible are generated internally from within the Christian (by the Holy Spirit working through a believer's own regenerated spirit that has been remade according to God's own righteousness) and then the products of that knowledge is applied externally for all to see. Because of a Christian's new spirit, we desire to do the things listed in the Bible by default (although our flesh still hinders us somewhat and keeps us from doing it perfectly in this life), and that right there is the proof of salvation and of God's work in a believer.

This is the very core of Christianity that very few manage to fully grasp.

I just got home and when I read this, it sounded so wrong. In order to have FAITH, you must first BELIEVE. Many people believe in God but have no faith, and fail him.

What am I getting at?

Faith is based on Belief. Belief is based on point of view. Some points of view are more accurate then others. If we want to follow God as best we can, we will be searching the most accurate points of view on all kinds of subjects. The "evidence" that is usually presented to show that your belief may be wrong or slightly misguided, is usually biblical evidence. You and I FIRMLY BELIEVE and HAVE FAITH that the BIBLE is THE WORD OF GOD.

Let us say we differ on the name of God(Just an example). My point of view may in this case appear more logical, complete, and biblical. If you decide to neglect my point of view, then you are pretty much proving faithful to an
inaccurate belief, and faithless in the word of god.

This is how I view things, and thats why I personally study a subject for weeks before I come to a safe conclusion.

This is only what a person who is truly in search of the truth would do, making sure that he is always doing the right thing. Which is good, because it opens me up to others opinions and points of view, and sometimes I need to correct my own, when I find out that maybe they are a little off or something.



No thats not what faith is about. Faith is about standing by your beliefs. Believing is about considering something is true or proved. Theres our difference. My beliefs are proved, therefore they are solid, and I can have faith in them.

Of course people are going to fail God... even the most spiritually mature of Christians struggle with the flesh since the physical body has not been saved yet and as such is impossible to perfect. The very best we can do is present our bodies as living sacrifices to be used for God's work. Anything more requires a new, perfect body.

One day, God will give all Christians regenerated, incorruptible bodies to match the regenerated souls that we have now.

By having faith in Christ as my savior, I have been permanently justified before God, just as Paul teaches in Romans 5. It is impossible for me to lose this justification, even if I stumble in my faith, since Christ constantly intercedes for the sin my flesh produces.




God is known under many aliases, Jehovah is simply one of them: Jesus Christ, Yahweh, Elohim, The Great I Am, The Most High, The First and the Last, Wonderful Counselor, Prince of Peace, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Ancient of Days, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Immanuel, The Holy Spirit, and the Lord. (There are many more, these are just the ones that come to mind at the moment)

Just because your opinion is more logical does not mean it is correct. I simply teach what the Bible says as God has revealed it to me through the Holy Spirit.

Really? Where do you base that from?

Faith in a Christian sense is trusting in something other than yourself, not by standing by what you know. I have been saved through faith in Jesus Christ, since I believe that He died for my sins,was resurrected , and now sits at the right hand of God. Throughout scripture, the word faith is used in that very same context.

You are missing the point. My point is, yes we stumble, but we should correct or course when we see evidence that it is off. Not doing this is failing to seek the truth as a treasure (a very well known scripture) and proving faithful to an innacurate belief.



Again you are missing the point. I was not arguing Gods name, I was arguing that you blindly believe in something that you will not accept no matter what, that it could be wrong. Holy Spirit is one thing, but complete blind faith is doomed to fail.


To Obi Kwiet:

The fact that Jesus was "born" indicates that he had a beginning, and that he was God's first creation. Thats is why he is called the first born of creation.

Whats more, the article I wrote can not be analyzed in the way you analyzed it. It has a BIG picture that you need to step back and look at. What I was trying to point out is that there are MANY similarities between Jesus and the Archangel. Its reasonable to conclude that they are the same person. Thats how I view it, and it makes perfect sense. The fact that the Archangel "stands up" in the end times, and battles Satan (who was not cast out before Earth was created, he was cast out to Earth in 1914, even though before he could come down and tempt people, but thats a HUGE subject that would take a LOT more writing to do) in the same manner that Jesus does, would indicate that they are the same person. God has many names and titles, so did Satan, and so does Jesus. Jesus is an Earthly name, and I believe, from what I have seen, that his spiritual name was Michael the Archangel, God's Chief Spokesman. God used Michael in the same way he used Jesus to deliver messages. Why would he use any lesser angel to do so in past events (to Moses, which needed to be an angel as God cannot be seen by any imperfect man), its still logical, and indicated that they are the same person. Nothing really makes them separate beings except the fact that the bible does not read: Michale the Archangel is Jesus. Why would Jesus have a spiritual name? Well do not the 144000 anointed ones receive new names when they ascend to heaven? Which indicates that those in heaven would have spiritual names and titles that differ from those when they descend to Earth.



Faith in him also demands that you keep his word, and constantly seek the truthfulness of his word, as if it were a hidden treasure, which it is.

If a believer gets caught in long-term unrepentant sin, God has ways of bringing that person back. I know from experience (and from seeing it happen to others) that God will only allow someone to stray so far before bringing them back, and God often employs other believers to do this. If the unrepentant believer fails to listen to these people, then that person's salvation may be questionable, since someone who sins without remorse even after being confronted has probably always been an unbeliever.

My point is, it is God who ultimately controls my destiny, no matter what I do or how many mistakes that I make along the way.




Where did I mention blind faith? I only abide by what is found in scripture. No more, no less.



Why is it so difficult for you to accept that Jesus was in the beginning with God? The scripture says so very plainly, and I have already referenced it.

Mary was specifically instructed to bestow the name of Jesus on her son by the Angel Gabriel. It was hardly an earthly origin for the name.

God in his FULL GLORY could not be seen by mortal man. It was God who appeared to Moses in the burning bush (I'm not sure where you got the angel from) God has always appeared to people in reduced glory just so they could survive the encounter. When Moses was up in Sinai, simply being in close proximity to God's reduced presence made his face glow with light. Jesus's transfiguration was as close as anyone has ever gotten to seeing God fully glorified. God will only be shown fully glorified for people to see in the New Jerusalem.

Also, Jesus came to this earth to die for the sins of those God had chosen, not to deliver a message like the angels did in the old testament. He did do some ministry here, but that was not the main objective. If Christ had come only to teach and not save, God would still have had to throw everyone into Hell afterward. The Law and prophets had already been sent to condemn by revealing the depravity of man, thereby fulfilling their purpose.

The 144,000 specifically applies to people selected by God from the nation of Israel. Christians are under a different covenant altogether.



Hidden to the unbeliever, but not to me or any other Christian. (Colossians 1:26)
As I have previously stated, Christians have no trouble keeping the word of God because of the new nature given to us by God and because of the work of the Holy Spirit within us.

No, I know what you mean. You don't know what I'm talking about.

What I'm saying is that any religious experiences cannot be trusted. This is verifiable by modern psychology.

You can keep your psychology, then. I have no use for it.

You just repeated what you said last time. It's like you didn't even
read what I said. Let me make this abundantly simple for you.

People who are trying to demonstrate inconsistencies in the Bible are automatically at a disadvantage because they are up against thousands of years of people who try to demonstrate otherwise.

There! It's not that hard. In fact it's actually a concession toward your side! What you are doing is not argumentation. It's simply arrogant dismissal which is ironic and hypocritical. I may not have a whole lot of respect for SF_Gold, but at least he makes actual argument even if they are bad.

And Gold, this is the only line of your post I had time to read for now.


Look up the word incarnation.

He was incarnated when he came to Earth, and that would not make him the first incarnation of creation (nephilim), if thats what you are referring to, because the scripture isn't, its referring to when Jesus was born, or as the word born literally means, "brought into existence.". Jesus was brought into existence, the first creation of God.

That's simply the English definition.

Jesus was "born" in a physical sense, but He has always existed as part of the Trinity.

The nephilim were a corrupted race of demon/human hybrids. Christ has nothing to do with that.

Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation, since He was not part of the line of Adam. Christians have already been regenerated into this new creation in spirit, and in the meantime we groan inwardly (in Paul's words), waiting for the redemption of our flesh in like manner.

This sounds like something from Dungeons and Dragons.

Which shows how a literal interpretation of the Bible is nothing short of devolution into irrationality, and, dare I say, animality. The problem is those who believe in Biblical literality don't believe in evolution, so they can't appreciate the irony.

Not much else is known about the nephalim, other than what Genesis reveals about their origin, so I am unable to elaborate.

Well, I think the Book of Enoch expands on the subject, but unless you're an extraordinarily lucky Ethiopian Star Wars fan with internet access, I kinda doubt you consider the book as canon.

You're right, I don't.

And literalists are holding the writings of an ancient civilization to be useful and applicable in the modern world. They go around saying evolution can't have happened because it's obvious magic man made us out of mud but have no problems realising that just maybe those ancient tribes got some things wrong when it comes to bats and birds?


That's rather convoluted thinking. Occam's razor would suggest that the Bible is simply wrong, that the author hadn't really bothered to take the time to count the legs on an insect. Only by assuming that the Bible has to be right could this not seem so laughable.

How do you know that? Where did you get that from? For a literalist, the Bible is perfect and inerrant remember? I don't dispute it's probably due to very rough measurements, I wouldn't expect people thousands of years ago to be very accurate. But if we can see they get these bits wrong due to our own rationalisations, why treat other parts of the Bible as totally true and without error?


Once again it doesn't actually say that. One says that "Jacob begat Jospeh" and the other says Joseph was son of Heli. There's no mention of Mary in there. You're inferring and contextualising things and I have no problem with that. It's just that there are plenty of us getting tired of people justifying imposing things on others purely from scripture.

JWs aren't the only ones guilty of using the OT arbitrarily. How often have you heard anti-gay rhetoric that references Leviticus yet the bits about diet are totally ignored?

"He has faith, which means he believes in something he knows aint so"
-Mark Twain, writer, philosopher, god.

A religion that comes of thought, and study, and deliberate conviction, sticks best. The revivalized convert who is scared in the direction of heaven because he sees hell yawn suddenly behind him, not only regains confidence when his scare is over, but is ashamed of himself for being scared, and often becomes more hopelessly and malignantly wicked than he was before.
- Mark Twain, Letter San Francisco Alta California, November 15,1868

If they'd been using inner diameter and outer circumference they'd have got a number bigger than pi, given the size of an average bowl i'd say about 3.3.

Using inner circumference and outer diameter would give you about 3, but that's the complete opposite to what you said. Also, nobody would measure using inner circumference since outer circumference is so much easier to measure accurately.

I totally agree. And where's landfish with the dancing lobsters?

ASKITH AND YOU SHALL RECEIVE...ITH

DO WHAT YOU WANT CUZ YOUR SOUL IS FREE - YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN!

Romans 1 condemns homosexuality as well.

Christians are not under Jewish law, (we live under grace instead) so the parts about dietary law are irrelevant.

So you can gaybash AND eat all the pork you want?

I just happen to leave a thread for a while and the [people with differing opinions] invade. I wish rabid dogs were attracted to them. (waits for some [one] to turn the joke around on me, like [they] always do).

.

EDIT: Oh your God, Gold. I think malevolence is the last thing your Savior would have wanted. Hypocrite.

Needs more Dimmu Borgir

OOooooh, is this like Mad Libs?

#1 (noun, plural): ____________
#2 (noun): ____________
#3 (noun, plural): __________

I just happen to leave a thread for a while and the [#1] invade. I wish rabid dogs were attracted to them. (waits for some [#2] to turn the joke around on me, like [#3] always do).

Here's my go:

#1: carrots
#2: Johnny Appleseed
#3: Nazis



(I do appreciate the humor of only wanting people who agree with you joining in a discussion. Perhaps you can start a CNN debate about atheists and why the cause hate in America.)

Haha...we should make our swear filter that way. >.>

It's a lot more fun when you just throw your own words into his post...