Free Speech
FSA Ticket | Today | Join | Member | Search | Who's On | Help | Sign In | |
FSA > Theology and Spirtuality > This life and the after life Go to subcategory:
Author Content
Tomlapaz
  • From:USA

Date Posted:01-04-2018 06:27:08Copy HTML

A descendant of David was born in Bethlehem (as foretold by the Jewish prophet Micah), died for the sins of his people and raised from the dead (as foretold by the Jewish prophet Isaiah and Jewish King David), 2000 years ago (in the time as foretold by the Jewish prophet Daniel). And because of this descendant of David, men and women everywhere have the means of finding peace with the Creator of the heavens and the earth. The forgiveness of sins.

Jesus: For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you believe not his writings, how shall you believe my words? Psalm 37:21 The wicked borrows and does not pay back, But the righteous is gracious and gives.
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #31
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:08-04-2018 04:33:59Copy HTML

 1- At one time the places written had NO evidence they existed. Science later showed that to be true.

______________________

The same is true for many archaeological sites and past kings (Egyptian, Mayan, etc).  What does this prove?....it proves we found written evidence of a place prior to finding archaeological evidence.  Nothing more.

Many ancient Egyptian kings are discussed in hieroglyphics where we had no evidence they existed, and are later found....."by science"  Oh my.  What exactly does this mean?  Does it mean they were in fact the almighty sons and daughters of Ra, Isis, Osirus or Horus as was also written???   Since we found them as was written in ancient hieroglyphics, and those same heiroglypics said they were gods themselves....then they must have been gods right???

If you accept that the finding of an archaeological site described in the bible means that Jesus is the son of god and all else is true, so too must you accept that ancient Egyptian kings that were discovered must be the son of the sun god or Rah.

Do you?

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #32
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:08-04-2018 04:45:30Copy HTML

 You realized you posted 3 things wale...didnt you tell Yobbo you couldn't respond to a dump?  lol


Lets now look at number 2.

2- Scientific facts continue to be found in the BIBLE long before their actual dates of discovery, showing the BIBLE more accurate before "science":

Scientific Fact or Principle Bible reference               Date of discovery by man

Water cycle Ecclesiastes 1:7                                     17th Century

All things flow to the se, but the sea is never full.  Newsflash...science had already known this in spite of several stupid people believing they fell off the end of a flat earth. This was known in the 6th century BC, not modern science.


Life originated in the sea Genesis 1                           19th Century

Genesis also said life was created before there was a sun (light).  lol 

The bible also said there was a global flood.  Cant discuss that one can you?


Lightning and thunder are related Job 38:25              19th Century

Again, known long before the bible was written. I wonder how they figured that out. Since one always follows the other and never occurs without the other.  You must think people were pretty stupid. There was no need for science to explain they occurred to together. There was a need to explain how they occurred, which the bible could not do in spite of god being so smart.

Job 38.25 said God created lightning and thunder.  Untrue.


Human beings were the last living things Genesis 1    15th Century

This is false.  I assume you mean the last living things created???  Many new species have evolved since that time.  Many.


Want to talk about all the things in the bible that are scientifically ludicrous....like a global flood?  Of course you don't.


"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #33
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:08-04-2018 04:53:47Copy HTML

3- Yes, we can argue the accuracy of the BIBLE on the flood. As we've shown, TIME has shown the BIBLE to be more and more accurate.


we???  LOL  We have shown no such thing.

 What YOU are having a problem with is that YOU want God, and his WORD, explained to YOU within YOUR understanding and in YOUR time frame and it doesn't work that way. '

I want no such thing.  Its all hogwash written by man.  Are some nice things in there? Sure, but it was written by men.  It is a primitive book with no understanding of science.  If it was written by a guy who knew everything, someone must have changed it to be full of crap.

GOD is omniscient and omnipotent, humans are NOT. They are limited, finite human beings and believe it or not so is science. An OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT and INFINITE being cannot be contained inn, or explained WITHIN the limited scope of finite human understanding. What you, as MANY do, is to say something like " If I cannot frame the subject within MY thinking, then it doesn't exist OR I reject it."

Thank you for the refresher of the God of the Gaps argument.  You are basically saying "I cant understand it...so Ill just accept it"  lol

How much has science not discovered yet?

Irrelevant.  But if we haven't discovered something, shouldn't we find it in the bible?  After all, your argument is we keep finding things in the bible with science don't we??  Will we discover the earth is actually a few thousand years old?  No.  Will we discover there was a global flood? No   I could go on all day.

How much was rejected until "science" discovered it?

Lots.  Humans used to think God created lightning for instance.  It was rejected when science discovered it.  Humans used to believe the silly flood story, it was rejected when science discovered it.  Humans used to believe women were created from a rib.....Again, I could go on all day.

Does that mean it didn't exist until 'science" discovered it?

No.  Of course lightning existed when we though God created it.  Of course we all believed the global flood until science disproved it.  Of course we all thought billions of years of earth history didn't exist until science discovered the bible was waaaaaay wrong.   Did you think you had a Point?

It is going to take awhile for the BIBLE to be completely shown to be exactly what it says it is, not on YOUR schedule but on God's.

But it takes no time at all to show the bible is full of shit on many counts.  We know this to be fact today.  Nothing you will discover in the future will ever show that animals did not evolve over millions of years, there was actually a global flood, etc etc.

" For God in HIS wisdom made it IMPOSSIBLE for people to know him by means of their OWN wisdom"
1 Corinthians 1:21


When a religious person quotes the bible as an argument that the bible is true, they have lost the argument.

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #34
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:08-04-2018 05:30:00Copy HTML

Yes, we can argue the accuracy of the BIBLE on the flood. As we've shown, TIME has shown the BIBLE to be more and more accurate.

____


If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting science is wrong about the global flood, and given the proven accuracy of the bible (lol) we are likely to find someday that it actually happened?

It didn't happen.  It is like saying we might find out someday the moon is made of cheese.  We will not.


"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
Yobbo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #35
  • From:New_zealand

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:08-04-2018 06:57:55Copy HTML

Concerning the flood, I posted on a thread on this subject. My post outlines most of the "explanations" in the bible are nonsense.

http://forum2.aimoo.com/FSA/This-life-and-the-after-life/All-knowing-God-screws-up-with-Global-Flood-3-1349092.html

"Les hommes ne font jamais le mal si complètement et joyeusement que lorsqu'ils le font par conviction religieuse." Blaise Pascal
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #36
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:08-04-2018 07:24:16Copy HTML

 But the bible is so sciencey, that science hasn't even figured it out yet.  Just wait, it will all be proven true.
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
Tomlapaz Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #37
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:08-04-2018 08:41:36Copy HTML

Wale63 - welcome btw.


Just a heads up - two challenges you will find with these fellows are as follows:

1.They confuse scientific evidence with interpretation of said evidence based on their world view.  They have been pretty indoctrinated into such also.

2.If you do clearly show where they are wrong, they are not likely to acknowledge it.  Be it the Bible, science, or even the dictionary.   That is actually common on the board here I think, but it may be more common with these two.


Again, welcome and enjoy!

Jesus: For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you believe not his writings, how shall you believe my words? Psalm 37:21 The wicked borrows and does not pay back, But the righteous is gracious and gives.
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #38
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:08-04-2018 09:07:51Copy HTML

Reply to skwanderer

3- Yes, we can argue the accuracy of the BIBLE on the flood. As we've shown, TIME has shown the BIBLE to be more and more accurate.


we???  LOL  We have shown no such thing.

 What YOU are having a problem with is that YOU want God, and his WORD, explained to YOU within YOUR understanding and in YOUR time frame and it doesn't work that way. '

I want no such thing.  Its all hogwash written by man.  Are some nice things in there? Sure, but it was written by men.  It is a primitive book with no understanding of science.  If it was written by a guy who knew everything, someone must have changed it to be full of crap.

GOD is omniscient and omnipotent, humans are NOT. They are limited, finite human beings and believe it or not so is science. An OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT and INFINITE being cannot be contained inn, or explained WITHIN the limited scope of finite human understanding. What you, as MANY do, is to say something like " If I cannot frame the subject within MY thinking, then it doesn't exist OR I reject it."

Thank you for the refresher of the God of the Gaps argument.  You are basically saying "I cant understand it...so Ill just accept it"  lol

How much has science not discovered yet?

Irrelevant.  But if we haven't discovered something, shouldn't we find it in the bible?  After all, your argument is we keep finding things in the bible with science don't we??  Will we discover the earth is actually a few thousand years old?  No.  Will we discover there was a global flood? No   I could go on all day.

How much was rejected until "science" discovered it?

Lots.  Humans used to think God created lightning for instance.  It was rejected when science discovered it.  Humans used to believe the silly flood story, it was rejected when science discovered it.  Humans used to believe women were created from a rib.....Again, I could go on all day.

Does that mean it didn't exist until 'science" discovered it?

No.  Of course lightning existed when we though God created it.  Of course we all believed the global flood until science disproved it.  Of course we all thought billions of years of earth history didn't exist until science discovered the bible was waaaaaay wrong.   Did you think you had a Point?

It is going to take awhile for the BIBLE to be completely shown to be exactly what it says it is, not on YOUR schedule but on God's.

But it takes no time at all to show the bible is full of shit on many counts.  We know this to be fact today.  Nothing you will discover in the future will ever show that animals did not evolve over millions of years, there was actually a global flood, etc etc.

" For God in HIS wisdom made it IMPOSSIBLE for people to know him by means of their OWN wisdom"
1 Corinthians 1:21


When a religious person quotes the bible as an argument that the bible is true, they have lost the argument.


Yes you actually do want things explained WITHIN your understanding and you reject that which does not fit, hence your unsupported statements that the BIBLE was "written by man" to which I take you mean CREATED by man. That is your fallback because you make statements based on the gaps and assumptions you claim the 'religious' do.

Its all hogwash written by man- OPINION unsupported

Will we discover the earth is actually a few thousand years old?  No - BIBLE doesn't say the earth is a few thousand years old

Humans used to think God created lightning for instance.  It was rejected when science discovered it.- SCIENCE only discovered that which was CREATED.

But it takes no time at all to show the bible is full of shit on many counts.  We know this to be fact today.  Nothing you will discover in the future will ever show that animals did not evolve over millions of years, there was actually a global flood, etc etc.- UNSUPPORTED OPINION that doesn't agree with your predetermined construct AND evolution STILL a theory, NOT settled science.


You cannot disprove God by merely stating unsubstantiated and predisposed opinions that do not coincide with the reality of God. It is self-evident that things that begin have a cause.
ALL science would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied.
The universe cannot be self-caused because nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity. Science can only observe and understand what has been created into existence.


" For God in HIS wisdom made it IMPOSSIBLE for people to know him by means of their OWN wisdom"
1 Corinthians 1:21



skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #39
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:08-04-2018 10:34:07Copy HTML

 Yes you actually do want things explained WITHIN your understanding and you reject that which does not fit,\

SCIENCE only discovered that which was CREATED.

---


I reject only that which is proven false.   You opinion it was created, no evidence.  Didn't you criticize me for that?  Lets stick to evidence then. 

Why not answer my question?  If you say that the archaeological evidence of places in the bible that we didn't know were real means the bible is real, you too must believe that all the Egyptian evidence we found in hieroglyphics and since discovered by science proves that the Egyptian rulers were gods, right?

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #40
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:08-04-2018 10:40:12Copy HTML

 the bible, while not precise about age, puts the earth in the thousands of years old...and not the truth which is about 4.5 billion. 

I'm happy to discuss the evidence.  Also happy to discuss the evidence as to why there was never a global flood, why the ark is a joke, the earth could never be populated with only two of each species, and much more. 

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #41
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:08-04-2018 10:40:48Copy HTML

 Its all hogwash written by man- OPINION unsupported


__  OK  a lot is hogwash easily disprovable.  But locations are real.

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #42
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:09-04-2018 12:52:51Copy HTML

Reply to skwanderer

 Yes you actually do want things explained WITHIN your understanding and you reject that which does not fit,\

SCIENCE only discovered that which was CREATED.

---


I reject only that which is proven false.   You opinion it was created, no evidence.  Didn't you criticize me for that?  Lets stick to evidence then. 

Why not answer my question?  If you say that the archaeological evidence of places in the bible that we didn't know were real means the bible is real, you too must believe that all the Egyptian evidence we found in hieroglyphics and since discovered by science proves that the Egyptian rulers were gods, right?


No you make a leap in illogic. Scientists will tell you that there is nothing in this existence that just existed with NO beginning and no end.  It is self-evident that things that begin have a cause. Einstein's general relativity, shows that time is linked to matter and space.
So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. The universe then has a beginning, which means there is a point it didn't exist.  The universe then  has a cause which brought about it's existence from non existence. The universe cannot be self-caused because nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence.
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #43
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:09-04-2018 12:54:13Copy HTML

Reply to skwanderer

 Its all hogwash written by man- OPINION unsupported


__  OK  a lot is hogwash easily disprovable.  But locations are real.


NONE is hogwash, except in your mind because you begin intellectually dishonest by not allowing the evidence to take you to the conclusion. You have the conclusion formulated before you begin.
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #44
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:09-04-2018 12:56:41Copy HTML

Reply to skwanderer

 the bible, while not precise about age, puts the earth in the thousands of years old...and not the truth which is about 4.5 billion. 

I'm happy to discuss the evidence.  Also happy to discuss the evidence as to why there was never a global flood, why the ark is a joke, the earth could never be populated with only two of each species, and much more. 


Once again you REPEAT a falsehood hoping it will eventually come true. the BIBLE does NOT put the earth about thousands of years old. THAT is a mistake made by a well intentioned but flawed cleric and over time opponents falsely tie the cleric to what the BIBLE states. Two separate issues.
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #45
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:10-04-2018 04:46:01Copy HTML

Reply to skwanderer

 Yes, you are correct Tomas.  Men made it up long ago....in the bible when they wrote it.  And they essentially copied it from Hammurabi's code in Egypt, which contained all the ten commandments and more over 1800 years before the bible was written.





Speculation, no evidence on your part.
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #46
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:10-04-2018 04:47:36Copy HTML

Reply to Tomlapaz

Wale63 - welcome btw.


Just a heads up - two challenges you will find with these fellows are as follows:

1.They confuse scientific evidence with interpretation of said evidence based on their world view.  They have been pretty indoctrinated into such also.

2.If you do clearly show where they are wrong, they are not likely to acknowledge it.  Be it the Bible, science, or even the dictionary.   That is actually common on the board here I think, but it may be more common with these two.


Again, welcome and enjoy!


Thanks for the welcome and I've encountered this type of confused thinking before.
Yobbo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #47
  • From:New_zealand

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:10-04-2018 08:12:06Copy HTML

Reply to wale63

Reply to skwanderer

 Yes, you are correct Tomas.  Men made it up long ago....in the bible when they wrote it.  And they essentially copied it from Hammurabi's code in Egypt, which contained all the ten commandments and more over 1800 years before the bible was written.





Speculation, no evidence on your part.

No evidence?  There are plenty of hieroglyphics concerning Hammurabi's code.  And dated before the bible.

"Les hommes ne font jamais le mal si complètement et joyeusement que lorsqu'ils le font par conviction religieuse." Blaise Pascal
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #48
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:10-04-2018 12:41:20Copy HTML

Reply to Yobbo

Reply to wale63

Reply to skwanderer

 Yes, you are correct Tomas.  Men made it up long ago....in the bible when they wrote it.  And they essentially copied it from Hammurabi's code in Egypt, which contained all the ten commandments and more over 1800 years before the bible was written.





Speculation, no evidence on your part.

No evidence?  There are plenty of hieroglyphics concerning Hammurabi's code.  And dated before the bible.


That is evidence that Hammurabi's code was written long ago. Similarity to something is not plagiarism, especially in those days. Nor is similarity to Hammurabi's code evidence that the words of the Bible originated with MAN, unless of course you are predisposed to making that conclusion BEFORE you ever began to 'investigate'
Bogus0Pomp Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #49
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:10-04-2018 03:11:46Copy HTML

That is evidence that Hammurabi's code was written long ago. Similarity to something is not plagiarism, especially in those days. Nor is similarity to Hammurabi's code evidence that the words of the Bible originated with MAN, unless of course you are predisposed to making that conclusion BEFORE you ever began to 'investigate'

Opinion, no evidence on your part.

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z "If you can read these 26 letters, there is nothing about the universe that you can't learn." -- Lambros D. Callimoahos
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #50
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:10-04-2018 03:20:10Copy HTML

Reply to Bogus0Pomp

That is evidence that Hammurabi's code was written long ago. Similarity to something is not plagiarism, especially in those days. Nor is similarity to Hammurabi's code evidence that the words of the Bible originated with MAN, unless of course you are predisposed to making that conclusion BEFORE you ever began to 'investigate'

Opinion, no evidence on your part.


no evidence of WHAT? You are very vague in your answers and should be MORE specific as to what you want answered.
Yobbo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #51
  • From:New_zealand

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:10-04-2018 06:14:30Copy HTML

Reply to wale63

Reply to Bogus0Pomp

That is evidence that Hammurabi's code was written long ago. Similarity to something is not plagiarism, especially in those days. Nor is similarity to Hammurabi's code evidence that the words of the Bible originated with MAN, unless of course you are predisposed to making that conclusion BEFORE you ever began to 'investigate'

Opinion, no evidence on your part.


no evidence of WHAT? You are very vague in your answers and should be MORE specific as to what you want answered.

You accuse Bogus of doing what you do.  Your religion has its origins centuries after others and it borrowed much of its basis from the preceding ones, particularly the religion outlined by Hammurabi's code.

"Les hommes ne font jamais le mal si complètement et joyeusement que lorsqu'ils le font par conviction religieuse." Blaise Pascal
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #52
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:10-04-2018 08:45:13Copy HTML

Reply to Yobbo

Reply to wale63

Reply to Bogus0Pomp

That is evidence that Hammurabi's code was written long ago. Similarity to something is not plagiarism, especially in those days. Nor is similarity to Hammurabi's code evidence that the words of the Bible originated with MAN, unless of course you are predisposed to making that conclusion BEFORE you ever began to 'investigate'

Opinion, no evidence on your part.


no evidence of WHAT? You are very vague in your answers and should be MORE specific as to what you want answered.

You accuse Bogus of doing what you do.  Your religion has its origins centuries after others and it borrowed much of its basis from the preceding ones, particularly the religion outlined by Hammurabi's code.


I asked HIM to be more specific in his question AND your assumption that similarity means Christianity borrowed from Hammurabi is an inaccurate guess and assumption on superficiality, which makes your conclusion superficial and incorrect.
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #53
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:12-04-2018 09:34:11Copy HTML

 No you make a leap in illogic. Scientists will tell you that there is nothing in this existence that just existed with NO beginning and no end.  It is self-evident that things that begin have a cause. Einstein's general relativity, shows that time is linked to matter and space.
So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. The universe then has a beginning, which means there is a point it didn't exist.  The universe then  has a cause which brought about it's existence from non existence. The universe cannot be self-caused because nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence.

___


I have already demonstrated this is false. Science will tell you, in the form of a Scientific Law.....That mass/energy cannot be created nor destroyed; hence was always here and will all always be here. Einstein's general relativity supports this Law.  It most certainly does not say since matter/space./time are related, then they had to have a beginning.  Since mass/energy cannot be created and was always here...so was time.  Clearly you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  It is embarrassing really...for you.

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #54
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:12-04-2018 09:38:04Copy HTML

Reply to skwanderer

 No you make a leap in illogic. Scientists will tell you that there is nothing in this existence that just existed with NO beginning and no end.  It is self-evident that things that begin have a cause. Einstein's general relativity, shows that time is linked to matter and space.
So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. The universe then has a beginning, which means there is a point it didn't exist.  The universe then  has a cause which brought about it's existence from non existence. The universe cannot be self-caused because nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence.

___


I have already demonstrated this is false. Science will tell you, in the form of a Scientific Law.....That mass/energy cannot be created nor destroyed; hence was always here and will all always be here. Einstein's general relativity supports this Law.  It most certainly does not say since matter/space./time are related, then they had to have a beginning.  Since mass/energy cannot be created and was always here...so was time.  Clearly you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  It is embarrassing really...for you.


There is an arrogance by those who place science at a higher level than is deserved. The thought is that SCIENCE is omnipotent,
omniscient and those who follow science are superior in understanding.
Science can only observe and understand what has been created.
Science hasn't even begun to completely understand the totality of what has been created, or even less than half.
What has been created comprises the entire universe.
Science is good. Science is A discipline but not the final one nor the complete one.
Human nature is SO arrogant as to believe that he can use finite tools and understanding to attempt to understand that which
is infinite and beyond the scope of science (in the grand scheme a discpline with limitations).
In other words, there is an arrogance that humans engage in where they feel that they, as the flawed and limited beings
(as compared to ALL creation-The universe) can superimpose their understanding upon that which is much greater in scope and comprehension.
.
" For God in HIS wisdom made it IMPOSSIBLE for people to know him by means of their OWN wisdom"
1 Corinthians 1:21
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #55
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:12-04-2018 09:41:13Copy HTML

 That is evidence that Hammurabi's code was written long ago. Similarity to something is not plagiarism, especially in those days. Nor is similarity to Hammurabi's code evidence that the words of the Bible originated with MAN, unless of course you are predisposed to making that conclusion BEFORE you ever began to 'investigate'

____________

You are correct.  Moses may not have plagiarized Hammurabi.  All it shows is that men were against things like theft, murder, kidnapping, adultery....long before god told them to be against them.  Hence, as many people say, we need religion for our morals...we do not.  Atheists and nonbelievers need no God to know what is right or wrong. Hammurabi's code demonstrates that.

Apparently we came up with God's Laws before God handed them down to us?  lol

And Tomas has never once any of us we were wrong about anything.  Ask him to give you an example. 

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #56
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:12-04-2018 11:42:22Copy HTML

Reply to skwanderer

 That is evidence that Hammurabi's code was written long ago. Similarity to something is not plagiarism, especially in those days. Nor is similarity to Hammurabi's code evidence that the words of the Bible originated with MAN, unless of course you are predisposed to making that conclusion BEFORE you ever began to 'investigate'

____________

You are correct.  Moses may not have plagiarized Hammurabi.  All it shows is that men were against things like theft, murder, kidnapping, adultery....long before god told them to be against them.  Hence, as many people say, we need religion for our morals...we do not.  Atheists and nonbelievers need no God to know what is right or wrong. Hammurabi's code demonstrates that.

Apparently we came up with God's Laws before God handed them down to us?  lol

And Tomas has never once any of us we were wrong about anything.  Ask him to give you an example


You again make ASSUMPTIONS, as if man's thinking is independent from God. There is more arrogance revealed as you place science HIGHER than it is .

smugness and arrogance ON YOUR PART WILL NOT SUBSTITUTE FOR THE REALITY OF GOD.

skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #57
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:13-04-2018 12:54:10Copy HTML

 There is an arrogance by those who place science at a higher level than is deserved. The thought is that SCIENCE is omnipotent,
omniscient and those who follow science are superior in understanding.
Science can only observe and understand what has been created.
Science hasn't even begun to completely understand the totality of what has been created, or even less than half.
What has been created comprises the entire universe.
Science is good. Science is A discipline but not the final one nor the complete one.
Human nature is SO arrogant as to believe that he can use finite tools and understanding to attempt to understand that which
is infinite and beyond the scope of science (in the grand scheme a discipline with limitations).
In other words, there is an arrogance that humans engage in where they feel that they, as the flawed and limited beings
(as compared to ALL creation-The universe) can superimpose their understanding upon that which is much greater in scope and comprehension.
.

____


Look, if your answer was I don't believe anything you say about science or any evidence presented by science...you should have said so at the beginning and I could have simply ignored you as a fucking idiot.

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #58
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:13-04-2018 12:56:17Copy HTML

 You again make ASSUMPTIONS, as if man's thinking is independent from God. There is more arrogance revealed as you place science HIGHER than it is .

smugness and arrogance ON YOUR PART WILL NOT SUBSTITUTE FOR THE REALITY OF GOD.

_______________

Hammurabi's code is not an assumption. That it came long before Moses is not an assumption.  These are facts.

If Hammurabi was inspired by God to have the same moral code as the bible.....then why didn't God write about him in the bible?  Why did he write about Moses instead.  I thought the bible was the unerring word of God.

There are no assumptions here Wale.  Your arguments are those of a complete moron. 

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #59
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:13-04-2018 12:59:22Copy HTML

 If by "assumption" you mean that I "assume" a fact to be a fact...then you are correct.  Re: Evolution...no assumptions.  We have observed it.  Witnessed it.  Watched it happen.  Is there are other way to say that this is the farthest thing from an assumption known to man?  Rhetorical.  There is not.
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
Tomlapaz Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #60
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:13-04-2018 02:25:35Copy HTML

And Tomas has never once any of us we were wrong about anything.  Ask him to give you an example


You have been clearly shown to be wrong by the argument you introduced in the original thread on Hillary not winning a majority (which other folk pointed out, and even the link you provided pointing that out).

Why on earth is there any reason to think you have the character to honestly deal with more complex topics,  where you have even more motive not to see the errors of your position?

Jesus: For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you believe not his writings, how shall you believe my words? Psalm 37:21 The wicked borrows and does not pay back, But the righteous is gracious and gives.
Copyright © 2000-2018 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.