God's warriors
- Started
- Last post
- 703 Responses
- flagellum0
How bout raising his son from the dead for numerous eye-witnesses to report? And which caused 12 cowards to suddenly forsake their lives and turn the world upside with the message of the event.
How bout fulfilling the prophecy of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD?
How bout transforming countless hearts and lives with the message of the risen Christ?
I think he has sufficiently demonstrated his existance and power.
and if he were to "prove" himself, that would elimate freewill and thus, faith. He doesn't want robots.
- Brookoioioi0
Man you are so full of shit you must squeak when you go round corners.
- gramme0
incog, you hit the the nail on the head. Brook, it's obvious that nothing I say could ever cause you to stand back and wonder "hm, he might have a point there." You have clearly proven that you were entirely shut off to the possibility of God's existence, the gospel message and the notion of creationism. It's pretty sad and it proves nothing except your bitterness and illogical hatred of people who believe in things that don't make sense to Brookoioioi Almighty.
You know what? Faith doesn't make sense to people outside of it. God is by nature supernatural and thus superlogical, above and beyond the limits of our logic and limited mental faculties.
That being said, I think it is worthwhile to address some of your thoughts, as I find it necessary to answer such blasphemy and attempt to pacify such vehemence.
""fallacious claims? Prove it. I've said before that I can't fully prove my belief in creationism because NO ONE WAS THERE WHEN IT HAPPENED. You can't fully prove your belief in Darwinism because NO ONE WAS THERE WHEN IT HAPPENED."
Fallacious claim number 1.
This is such a pitiful argument, murders happen when no-one was there to see them, police investigate the crime scene, forensics and such, maybe find some DNA and identify the killer. Doe you really expect me to believe someone has to see something happen to work out what happened?
----------------------
Any fool can see that when a court of law finds enough evidence against a murderer, even if there were no eyewitnesses, the defendant is determined to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Without witnesses, however, no crime can ever be proven absolutely. There is always the possibility of misread evidence (i.e. Darwinism), and suspects being framed (i.e. people such as yourself who predetermine the outcome of an argument).
When the evidence against a suspect is compelling enough, the court's collective mind is at ease knowing that there isn't a large margin for error in their judgment. You however, refuse to accept the possibility of a biblical God who created the world because you don't like the idea from the get-go. God help me from ever being tried by such a jury if I am ever put on trial for a crime.
--------------------
""There simply isn't a need to belittle someone's intelligence or to say that God is a myth when you CANNOT prove such a notion."
Fallacious claim number 2
The burden of proof is on you to prove gods existence, not in the form of voices in peoples heads or a warm fuzzy feeling inside you but with solid evidence that can be examined independently."
----------------------
Thankfully, the burden to prove God's existence is not on me. He does that well enough himself. Your blindness makes it impossible for you to see that. I can try to explain things to you until I am blue in the face, but ultimately it is not my job to produce God or any god for that matter. If there is a God or gods, he/they will prove themselves to those with eyes to see.
Have a read of Scripture, all of it. It is without flaw. Every loophole that entrepreneuring skeptics have found can be resoundingly disproven. I speak in general terms here since you have not yet made a specific claim about any part of Scripture being false. If you do choose to present possible loopholes that you come across, I am happy to discuss your findings. I will often have answers, but sometimes I will not. This goes back to my point above that God is superlogical and cannot be fully understood by us humans until our minds are perfected and the mortal veil is removed.
------------------
"Forget all your science, there is a fundamental, untenable flaw in the Darwinist model that deflates the whole framework of theory, right down at the root of it all. Darwinism at its core is a philosophy, and a very poor one at that."
Fallacious claim number 3
There is mountains of evidence supporting Darwinism, literally mountains. If it wasn't so it would be rejected by the scientific community, thats what science is about. Just because you haven't read or understood the volumes upon volumes of real, hard, verifiable evidence doesn't mean it isn't there and accurate.
There are so many more asinine and scrambled ideas in your posts i hardly know where to begin, but to bring it back to the beginning, someone claiming to be a deity incarnate is not evidence, if god exists, he could demonstrate it in a undeniable way that would leave doubters like me no option but to believe. All the anecdotes of personal experience of god are not evidence of anything except self delusion.
Brookoioioi
(Aug 27 07, 15:15)-------------------
The above rebuttal can be directed back to my courtroom analogy. I believe that the physical historical record has been misread by Darwinists. Flagellum has pointed you to numerous places where this has been brought to light. Thus the verdict, while accepted by the general court of scientific "law", may have been proven in most minds but still has a margin for error. Face it, absolute truth has not been created by Darwinism. There are too many missing links, too many ambiguous fossil records, too many inconsistent findings from the antiquated method of carbon dating (too much room for error there).
While I believe in the God of the Bible and a world created by him, I cannot prove it to you beyond a reasonable doubt. You are right that someone claiming to be deity does not a God prove. Completely correct. This was however not the thrust of my point. The God-proving in his coming to earth was in his death and resurrection. His subsequent 40 days among the living has been documented by many: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res…
...Of course, as you may see in this wiki entry, there are theories attempting to poke holes in it, and some with stronger arguments than others. As hard as many people have tried (see James Cameron's recent efforts) to debunk the resurrection story, it has yet to be disproven. After 2000 years.
You obviously are not impressed by such things. At the end of the day, I am happy to be a fool for Christ. I can sleep soundly at night knowing that there is a truth out there that is bigger than me, and that it will prove itself in spite of my best efforts and worst mistakes.
- TheBlueOne0
So the best an all powerful creator can muster is hints in a book.
Brookoioioi
(Aug 28 07, 07:12)Well, see right there you have the iimpetuous behind modern science. It really was a quest, with the medieval catholic church as background, to answer that problem. And Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, et al. were trying to find the creators hints in their observations of the physical. (The Church got pissed because they were losing their monopoly on being able to tell everyone what this whole God business was about. No good for you to tell the peasantry that God wanted them to do X because it was written in this book here..especially if they could find god's message outside their window through observation)
- gramme0
who locked copernicus into a cellar agian for believing the earth is round and the sun is center of the sun...
right..the church...
tank
(Aug 28 07, 06:54)Yep, and the church fucked up royally on that one. I have no trouble admitting that.
- gramme0
What we call "science" is really a heretically movement against the Church in Europe that became successful because it received the backing of political entities that were trying to break away from the Catholic church's sole and found science useful in both propaganda terms and in it's utilitarian function (the King that actually made use of physics equations were able to build more effective canon than say his "faith based" neighbor._
TheBlueOne
(Aug 28 07, 07:08)For the record, this movement was strongly supported by the Protestant churches of the time, for what it's worth. Puritans, Hueguenots, etc. etc.
Some of the New England Puritans were not so strong however on their ability to tell a witch from a non-witch :(
- flagellum0
The founders of modern science were theists working under the assumption that God created the heavens and the earth.
- tank0
The founders of modern science were theists working under the assumption that God created the heavens and the earth.
flagellum
(Aug 28 07, 07:31)kinda proves the point of a good scientist, no?
open for other opinions if presented through research...
- TheBlueOne0
The founders of modern science were theists working under the assumption that God created the heavens and the earth.
flagellum
(Aug 28 07, 07:31)True..but also heretics to the Church as well..and they all knew it to certain extents. And the furthering of scientific knowledge evolved over time to reduce the "god/theist" bit to smaller and smaller region of knowledge until today we can shrug and say "Yeah, sure, there could be a god. We just don't know and it's not a scientific question."
- TheBlueOne0
Look...for me the Biblical tradition is just one of a vast kaledioscope of understandings in humanities past. There is nothing you can say that will prove otherwise to me. History itself is the record.
Religions have come and gone and what they shared in similarity have more to do with the inherent needs of the human species rather than anything resembling a transcendent Truth.
And christianity has a distinct history - a beginning point, a crisis period, an adoption by the Roman Empire (and secular success) and one day it will have an end. Christinaity pops up after about 105,000 odd years of man being around. If you want to extrapolate that belief forward and backward to give you some comfort facing the Void, knock youself out.
And Flegellum, don't bother arguing with me cause I have you on ignore and I've heard all the arguments since I was 12 years old otherwise. It's comic book fantasy interpretations of an otherwise spiritual book. American christianity is so lightweight...
- flagellum0
blueONe: I think it has been more of a wave. We have to keep in mind that there have been philosophical trends which have caused us to force-fit the evidence into certain presuppositions. And the branch of science is a factor too. For instance, in Physics, the assumption of design never really left the table. In biology and related soft extensions of the hard sciences, design left the table in favor of philosophical naturalism. Now, in light of the last 50 years of discovery, it is back on the table. It's just that the religious elitists of the soft-sciences don't like it. They don't like this sort of change.
- tank0
well.
the bible is a good book,
but all stories in there are parabels and should be understood in a different way..jezus didn't heal the blind, the 'blind' were the non believers and he converted him.
lazarus didn't raise from the dead, but his faith did...i was raised very catholic, but from an early age i already got that.
- flagellum0
blueONe: I have no interest in Christianity as "religion" or a set of traditions. My interest is in the life-transforming power of the person: Jesus Christ. The resurrection life which is the thrust of the New Covenant.
It's a dynamic roller-coaster ride, really.
- tank0
reading about the bible and making a judgement over Jezus is like reading a book about George Bush written by Cheney.
Nevertheless i like the idea he stodd for (Jezus) and i think he would be ashamed what his followers are doin' now in his name...
- lemmys_wart0
blueONe: I have no interest in Christianity as "religion" or a set of traditions. My interest is in the life-transforming power of the person: Jesus Christ. The resurrection life which is the thrust of the New Covenant.
It's a dynamic roller-coaster ride, really.
flagellum
(Aug 28 07, 07:45)you are an infidel.
jews and muslims know knowlegde of god is only gained through the prophets.
...as the torah states.
the vast majority christians choose belive what feels good to them (like flage).
biblical endorsement of slavery for instance...
- lemmys_wart0
and lol at christians in general....
from the people who brought you the crusade in iraq...
- gramme0
the vast majority christians choose belive what feels good to them (like flage).
biblical endorsement of slavery for instance...
lemmys_wart
(Aug 28 07, 07:57)Well I for one believe what the Bible says. Not what I want it to say. My belief is clarified by studying the Bible through both historical and current event paradigms, and through listening to preaching and teaching by people wiser than me, who also believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God.
- flagellum0
Nice try, Lemming, but every protestant Christian agrees that Biblical Christianity = faith alone in Christ alone, hold the liturgy and ceremony. And this is where I stand as well.
We all just differ on the non-essential peripheral issues.
Which is why we have the motto: Unity in the essentials, liberty in the non-essentials.
Got that? Write that down.
- mrdobolina0
"the infallible word of god"
how do you come to this conclusion?