Everything that man touches he pollutes...a revisited post.
Michael Christ
I have been very reluctant to accept this but I am afraid it is necessary, a
lot of the New Testament has been added to and taken away from.
Words, meanings, perspectives have slipped into the shape of thinking of
religious men and their ways.
Words like 'perfect' have been conveniently changed to things vague like
'mature'. What the hell is 'mature', mature according to what? According
to what man regards as mature?!
Meanings like 'have become' have been conveniently changed to things vague
like 'becoming'. What the hell is 'becoming', becoming according to what?
According to what man regards as becoming?!
Perspectives like 'losing one's life' have been conveniently changed to
things vague like 'in the process'. What the hell is 'in the process', in
the process according to what? According to what man regards as in the
process?!
You see, it is all about man and not God!!!
And so it has become with the translations of the New Testament.
Only a true relationship in spirit with the Lord can save a man, a
relationship with a bible cannot save.
For the record the Lord originally led me to the KJV, hence it is the best
in these times. Even so, like He did with me, the bible will have to be put
aside when you move into life in the Spirit with the Lord.
Michael Christ
Thommadura
> What else would you expect from sinners?!
>
People who make statements - need to support them with facts.
PROVIDE proof that "sin" exists - noting that sin is supposed to be an
offence against a "god".
SO you will need to prove a god exists first
OTherwise - your entire post is unsupported since there is no such thing
as sin that YOU can establish to be.
Michael Christ
(personal atheistic preferences snipped)
You cannot prove there is no God, so your comments are discarded.
However you may continue with the monotonous circular intellectually
challenged reasoning, and subsequent ad nauseum and repetitious argument
Thommadura.
Nevertheless, come up with some rational unbigoted truly intelligent
thinking and your comments will be considered.
Michael Christ
The Doctor
Yoou hve to remember atheists are bigottedly stupid.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
For the latest World News go to http://www.cuttingedge.org/ - Lest we forget 2009 .
Fred Thomas
"Michael Christ" <Jesus...@Father.com> wrote in message
news:AKHJm.53309$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Thommadura wrote:
> (personal atheistic preferences snipped)
>
> You cannot prove there is no God, so your comments are discarded.
>
"No one can prove an unrestricted negative" is the reply usually given to those
who claim that science can prove that God does not exist. An unrestricted
negative is a claim to the effect that something doesn't exist anywhere. Since
no one can exhaustively examine every place in the universe, the reply goes, no
one can conclusively establish the non-existence of anything.
The principle that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, however, is itself
an unrestricted negative. It says, in effect, that there are no proofs of
unrestricted negatives. But, if there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives,
then no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative. And if no
one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, then it must be
logically possible to prove an unrestricted negative. So the claim that no one
can prove a universal negative is self-refuting-if it's true, it's false.
To prove that God does not exist, then, one only has to demonstrate that the
concept of God is inconsistent. Traditional theism defines God as a supreme
being-a being than which none greater can be conceived, as St. Anselm would have
it. We know, however, that there is no supreme number because such a notion
involves a logical contradiction. Every number is such that the number 1 can be
added to it. If there were a supreme number, it would be such that the number 1
can and cannot be added to it, and that's impossible. Many believe that the
notion of a supreme being is just as incoherent as the notion of a supreme
number.
Consider, for example, the claim that god is all-good and thus both perfectly
merciful and perfectly just. If he is perfectly just, he makes sure that
everyone gets exactly what's coming to them. If he is perfectly merciful, he
let's everyone off. But he can't do both. So the notion of a supreme being may
be internally inconsistent.
This is just one of many inconsistencies that have been found in the traditional
concept of God. Theists, of course, will claim that, properly understood, there
is no contradiction. What if they're right? What if it's logically possible for
the God of traditional theism to exist? Does that mean that one cannot prove
that he does not exist? No, for in order to prove that something does not exist,
one need not show that it is logically impossible. One need only show is that it
is epistemically unnecessary-that it is not required to explain anything.
Science has proven the non-existence of many things in this way, such as
phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan. Scientific proofs,
unlike logical proofs, do not establish their conclusions beyond any possibility
of doubt. But they are proofs nonetheless, for they establish their conclusions
beyond a reasonable doubt and that is all that is needed to justify them.
Fred Thomas
"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:hd7hua$lj2$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> In article <AKHJm.53309$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> Michael Christ <Jesus...@Father.com> wrote:
>>Thommadura wrote:
>>(personal atheistic preferences snipped)
>>
>>You cannot prove there is no God, so your comments are discarded.
>>
>>However you may continue with the monotonous circular intellectually
>>challenged reasoning, and subsequent ad nauseum and repetitious argument
>>Thommadura.
>>
>>Nevertheless, come up with some rational unbigoted truly intelligent
>>thinking and your comments will be considered.
>>
>>
>>
>>Michael Christ
>>
>
> Yoou hve to remember atheists are bigottedly stupid.
And that from a small minded theist. See any ghosts lately?
The Doctor
Fred Thomas
Do not have to, I see how small minded you are.
Michael Christ
The reality this you can't prove there is no God so all you are doing is
wasting your time.
Very precious time I might add.
Michael Christ
"Fred Thomas" <fr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:hd7iqi$164$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
Fred Thomas
"Michael Christ" <Jesus...@Father.com> wrote in message
> Well that is all wonderful rhetoric Fred, but it goes nowhere as usual.
>
> The reality this you can't prove there is no God so all you are doing is
> wasting your time.
>
sad part of that reality, is you can not accept truth.
> Very precious time I might add.
>
Time for what? A drink?
gabriel
<Jesus...@Father.com> wrote:
: What else would you expect from sinners?!
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:58:22 GMT, "Michael Christ"
<Jesus...@Father.com> wrote:
: Heard this before but maybe you haven't...
:
: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
:
: A man and his ever-nagging wife went on vacation to Jerusalem. While they
: were there, the wife passed away.
:
: The undertaker told the husband, "You can have her shipped home for $5000,
: or you can bury her here, in the Holy Land, for $150."
:
: The man thought about it and told him he would just have her shipped home.
:
: The undertaker asked, "Why would you spend $5000 to ship your wife home,
: when it would be wonderful to be buried here and you would spend only $150?"
:
: The man replied, "A long time ago a man died here, was buried here, and
: three days later he rose from the dead. I just can't take that chance."
:
:
:
: :-).
:
: Michael Christ
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 04:03:40 GMT, "Michael Christ"
<Jesus...@Father.com> wrote:
: [..]
: Holiness, righteousness and purity, without which a man will never be with
: God...has it registered yet? Or, are you just going to ignore it like an
: idiot while glorying in your awesome theological correctness?
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:16:00 GMT, "Michael Christ"
<Jesus...@Father.com> wrote:
:
: You must think the Lord is a complete blind dickhead.
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 02:26:35 GMT, "Michael Christ"
<Jesus...@Father.com> wrote:
: ..
: You walk as though God is a blind complete dickhead.
:
:
:
: Michael Christ
The Doctor
Fred Thomas
The lunatic with it's fingers in it's ears yelling "I can't here you!". With so
many religions available why did you pick Christianity and how do you know that
you've made the right choice? Are you the religion you are because most people
accept the same religion as their parents? Why was Jesus so similar to the other
saviors of mythology? Do you believe in any of the other virgin births,
resurrection and savior myths recorded in other ancient literature? How is it
that so many Christian rituals and ceremonies, such as baptism, eating the body
and drinking the blood of their gods,etc. have been adopted from older pagan
religions?
Why were the defining doctrines of Christianity assimilated from pagan cults?
Why is Christmas, Easter, Lent, rogation days, and others, derived from pagan
holidays. Didn't Christianity have any legitimate calendar of commemorations of
its own?
Thurisaz, warrior of Thor
> I have been very reluctant to accept this but I am afraid it is necessary,
> a lot of the New Testament has been added to and taken away from.
Enlighten us then - where exactly does/did it say "thou shalt lie for your
lawd and be proud of it"?
Of course the morontheist will not answer. It knows that it has lost.
QED.
--
Thurisaz, warrior of Thor, natural enemy of morontheism
The judgment of morontheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
bob young
Michael Christ wrote:
> Thommadura wrote:
> (personal atheistic preferences snipped)
>
> You cannot prove there is no God, so your comments are discarded.
What childish lunacy
bob young
The Doctor wrote:
> In article <AKHJm.53309$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> Michael Christ <Jesus...@Father.com> wrote:
> >Thommadura wrote:
> >(personal atheistic preferences snipped)
> >
> >You cannot prove there is no God, so your comments are discarded.
> >
> >However you may continue with the monotonous circular intellectually
> >challenged reasoning, and subsequent ad nauseum and repetitious argument
> >Thommadura.
> >
> >Nevertheless, come up with some rational unbigoted truly intelligent
> >thinking and your comments will be considered.
> >
> >
> >
> >Michael Christ
> >
>
> Yoou hve to remember atheists are bigottedly stupid.
You have to remember that theists who are harassed
and stressed by any group that questions their lunacy,
generally fail to avoid, in their insecurity,
starting a post with two typo's.
Every picture tells a story
Thommadura
> In article <AKHJm.53309$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> Michael Christ <Jesus...@Father.com> wrote:
>> Thommadura wrote:
>> (personal atheistic preferences snipped)
>>
>> You cannot prove there is no God, so your comments are discarded.
>>
>> However you may continue with the monotonous circular intellectually
>> challenged reasoning, and subsequent ad nauseum and repetitious argument
>> Thommadura.
>>
>> Nevertheless, come up with some rational unbigoted truly intelligent
>> thinking and your comments will be considered.
>>
>>
>>
>> Michael Christ
>>
>
> Yoou hve to remember atheists are bigottedly stupid.
YOu mix up theists with atheists
I am still an agnostic - and I have all PROVEN TRUTH on my side
IF you had any PROVEN truth - you would be posting it here
I still see no proof a god exists.
Thommadura
> Well that is all wonderful rhetoric Fred, but it goes nowhere as usual.
>
> The reality this you can't prove there is no God so all you are doing is
> wasting your time.
>
Actually - we can PROVE that a god - as defined by religion - does not
exist.
THe Baltimore Catechism - as well as the Quran - describes god as being
ALL JUST, ALL KNOWING - and ALL GOOD - and Almighty - and eternal.
However - in BOTH cases (Different gods obviously) - the religion have
only ONE creator - and that creator had to create everything - both good
and evil.
Something that is ALL good would be unable to create EVIL - so a god of
the christian and islamic definition cannot exist.
Obviously - you claim the christ was a god - however - since the god is
ETERNAL - then the christ could not actually DIE on a cross - again -
the christ as defined by the religion cannot be true. IF you say the
christ was totally human on earth - then you admit that the bible
stories of miracles are WRONG - since a HUMAN is unable to bring a
rotting corpse back from the dead (We can resuscitate viable humans -
but not rotting corpses). Again - the story cannot be true in some way.
THe story of religion and a "choice" also cannot be true if a god is all
knowing. If a god is all knowing - he KNEW what we would do - before we
were born. IF that is the case - the "choice'' was made in his mind
before we were born and we had no choice. Again the story of religion
has to be wrong.
OF course - an ALL KNOWING god - cannot be Almighty either. IF a god
knows everything that will happen forever - which is the claim of
religion - then he is incapable of changing anything he already knows
will happen - and therefore is not almighty. IF he CAN change
something - then he is not all knowing - and therefore does not exist in
the definition of religion either.
The Doctor
Like the failure of Cimmunism the GRAND ARchitect of Atheism.
Thommadura
>
> Like the failure of Cimmunism the GRAND ARchitect of Atheism.
Non-belief in gods started long before the christ MYTH was created by
humans - Both Confucianism and Buddhism have no "gods". WHile both are
venerated as wise men - neither are claimed to be gods either.
Communism - on the other hand - was a form of political government - not
a part of non-belief.
Reading the bible is a great way to promote atheism - all you need to do
is count the millions of women and children your all loving god ordered
to be killed (Genocide) compared to the handful the evil satan killed -
at your gods request too! THen - note the instructions on how to
PROPERLY sell your daughter into slavery - and how to STONE to death a
misbehaving son.
At least we KNOW that the god of the christians cannot be real.
THe christians describe their god as Almighty - all knowing - all good -
all merciful - all just - all everything else - and ETERNAL (No
beginning and no end)
A god that is eternal (YOU only have ONE god remember) cannot die.
Therefore the story of the christ is wrong.
IF you claim the one god was totally human while the christ was on earth
- then the bible is wrong - since a human cannot raise a rotting corpse
from the dead. (we can Resuscitate a viable body - but not a rotting corpse)
An all knowing god cannot be almighty - since he cannot do anything he
does not already know he is going to do. That also eliminates the
"choice" of humans - since we could only do what god already knew what
we were going to do before creation ever happened. IF the decision was
known before we were born - we did not make it.
Fred Thomas
"Thommadura" <tomm...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4af850d0$0$31286$607e...@cv.net...
> The Doctor wrote:>>> For the latest World News go to
> http://www.cuttingedge.org/ - Lest we forget 2009 .
>>
>> Like the failure of Cimmunism the GRAND ARchitect of Atheism.
>
> Non-belief in gods started long before the christ MYTH was created by humans -
> Both Confucianism and Buddhism have no "gods". WHile both are venerated as
> wise men - neither are claimed to be gods either.
>
> Communism - on the other hand - was a form of political government - not a
> part of non-belief.
>
bob young
The Doctor wrote:
The architect of atheism was religion and religions were around thousands of years prior
to communist dictatorships. If there were no religions there would be no need for the
logic of atheism - think about it [!]
ALL dictators fear religion because it provides a means to revolt among the public, they
have two choices, ban it, or get religion on side.
"I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a
pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the
natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted
by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings of
Providence." - Adolph Hitler, speech July 5, 1944
You lose again doc.
The Doctor
Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin were akin as they denied reality
and the God of Creation. Thanks for playing BIG loser.
bob young
The Doctor wrote:
Apparently from that post you are not only a loser, but a poor one to boot,
if that weak childish response of yours is anything to go by !
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from
a delusion, it is called Religion." [ Robert M. Pirsig]
Thommadura
Sorry - but Adolf Hitler was a Catholic - who claimed that the christ
was not only on his side - but was the inspiriation for his works
AS we already know -the god of christianity - as defined by their
religion - cannot exist. YOu are the big loser
SwordoZ
> http://www.cuttingedge.org/ - Lest we forget 2009 .
>>
>> Like the failure of Cimmunism the GRAND ARchitect of Atheism.
>
> Non-belief in gods started long before the christ MYTH was created by
> humans - Both Confucianism and Buddhism have no "gods".
WHile both are
> venerated as wise men
- neither are claimed to be gods either.
SoZ:
The fact that whenever "humans" become the center of religion ... religion
invariable venerates(worships) that "human" as it's god ... including
Confucianism and Buddhism as well.
> Communism - on the other hand - was a form of political government - not a
> part of non-belief.
SoZ:
Communism is a collective belief in intellectualism ... as it's god ...
being the cure-all for the ills of the peasantry.
> Reading the bible is a great way to promote atheism - all you need to do
> is count the millions of women and children your all loving god ordered to
> be killed (Genocide)
>compared to the handful the evil satan killed - at your gods request too!
SoZ:
You throw "millions" around like a drunken sailor. How have you concluded
that (plural) figure killed?
THen - note the instructions on how to
> PROPERLY sell your daughter into slavery
SoZ:
Please elucidate on PROPERLY?
- and how to STONE to death a
> misbehaving son.
SoZ:
Human reasoning misses the point again, as usual.
> At least we KNOW that the god of the christians cannot be real.
SoZ:
But are "we" humanistically reasoning God out of existence based on
mainstream xianity's perceptions?
> THe christians describe their god as Almighty - all knowing - all good -
> all merciful - all just - all everything else - and ETERNAL (No beginning
> and no end)
> A god that is eternal (YOU only have ONE god remember) cannot die.
> Therefore the story of the christ is wrong.
SoZ:
I agree according to gentile xian theology . Refer to my reply concerning
Confucianism and Buddhism.
> IF you claim the one god was totally human while the christ was on earth -
> then the bible is wrong
SoZ:
Gentile xian theologians are wrong ... not the bible.
My question has always been WHY do the "we" (agnostics/atheists) judge the
verasity of the bible as being fallacy based on the erroneous
mis-perceptions of gentile religionists?
- since a human cannot raise a rotting corpse
> from the dead.
SoZ:
The $64,000 question is ... did the human entity (Christ) raise the rotting
corpse or did the spiritual entity ("all knowing") do the raising?
>(we can Resuscitate a viable body - but not a rotting corpse)
SoZ:
That's the difference between "we" and the "all knowing".
> An all knowing god cannot be almighty - since he cannot do anything he
> does not already know he is going to do.
SoZ:
The distinctive mark of God Almighty is bringing the "all knowing" into a
state of being.
Humanity doesn't possess "all knowing" ... humanity merely builds on
what is given to mankind by the "all knowing" at specifiic intervals of
time.
That also eliminates the
> "choice" of humans - since we could only do what god already knew what we
> were going to do before creation ever happened.
IF the decision was
> known before we were born - we did not make it.
SoZ:
No way eliminates "choice". It comes down to an "all knowing" knowing ...
but we "not knowing". That's where choices come into play .
The "prophet" stated in John 5:28-29 the choices were either "life" or
"damnation".
5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are
in the graves shall hear his voice, 5:29 And shall come forth; they that
have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil,
unto the resurrection of damnation.
SoZ
Thommadura
Read the bible - the numbers aactually mentioned add up to 2,391,421 -
and that does not include deaths ordered for which NO numbers are supplied
>
>
> THen - note the instructions on how to
>> PROPERLY sell your daughter into slavery
>
> SoZ:
> Please elucidate on PROPERLY?
Since slavery is OBVIOUSLY wrong - that a bible would include ANY
directions condemns it. However - the directions state the process you
must follow to sell your own daughter into slavery - apparently YOU have
never read the bible
>
>
> - and how to STONE to death a
>> misbehaving son.
>
> SoZ:
> Human reasoning misses the point again, as usual.
What point is that?
When would it be proper to stone to death a misbehaving son?
(we are not talking about a son who has commited a crime here)
>
>
>
>> At least we KNOW that the god of the christians cannot be real.
>
> SoZ:
> But are "we" humanistically reasoning God out of existence based on
> mainstream xianity's perceptions?
Since all gods so far - have been created by humans - their
"definitions" of the gods - have to actually be possible. WHen their
definition include things that contradict themselves - and cannot
co-exist in reality - we can dismiss the gods as not being physically
possible
>
>
>> THe christians describe their god as Almighty - all knowing - all good -
>> all merciful - all just - all everything else - and ETERNAL (No beginning
>> and no end)
>> A god that is eternal (YOU only have ONE god remember) cannot die.
>> Therefore the story of the christ is wrong.
>
> SoZ:
> I agree according to gentile xian theology . Refer to my reply concerning
> Confucianism and Buddhism.
Since neither claim gods or claim to be gods- they are simply an example
of the origin of morals and ethics - which are HUMAN traits.
>
>
>> IF you claim the one god was totally human while the christ was on earth -
>> then the bible is wrong
>
> SoZ:
> Gentile xian theologians are wrong ... not the bible.
Tell where the place is HIGH enough that I can see ALL of the Kingdoms
of the earth from? THe bible claims that - and since the earth is a
sphere - it cannot be done - the bible is WRONG.
The earth is not "unmoving" in the sky and is not built on pillars - THe
sun does not move over the earth during the day - and then "HURRIES"
back to where it must come up again in the morning.
The SUN is the center of the solar sytem - the earth not only moves
(orbits) around the sun - BUT ALSO - the earth SPINS on its axis in
relation to the sun - causing morning and evening.
That proves a number of things wrong in the bible as well. FOr instance
- in the order of creation- 1 - Since morning and evening require the
sun (THe bible does not say darkness and light) - then there was NO
morning and evening until the sun existed - making the first three days
of the creation story WRONG.
>
>
> My question has always been WHY do the "we" (agnostics/atheists) judge the
> verasity of the bible as being fallacy based on the erroneous
> mis-perceptions of gentile religionists?
>
>
> - since a human cannot raise a rotting corpse
>> from the dead.
>
> SoZ:
> The $64,000 question is ... did the human entity (Christ) raise the rotting
> corpse or did the spiritual entity ("all knowing") do the raising?
Either they are ONE god - or they are NOT.
IF you are claiming that the christ was not part of the ONE GOD - then
you disclaim the religion itself.
>
>
>> (we can Resuscitate a viable body - but not a rotting corpse)
>
> SoZ:
> That's the difference between "we" and the "all knowing".
Obviously - we KNOW better than the all knowing's WORD show then.
>
>
>> An all knowing god cannot be almighty - since he cannot do anything he
>> does not already know he is going to do.
>
> SoZ:
> The distinctive mark of God Almighty is bringing the "all knowing" into a
> state of being.
Since it is physically IMPOSSIBLE for a god to be all knowing and
almighty -it cannot happen
>
> Humanity doesn't possess "all knowing" ... humanity merely builds on
> what is given to mankind by the "all knowing" at specifiic intervals of
> time.
Never claimed that humanity is all knowing - the definitions of their
gods alone - proves that one.
>
>
> That also eliminates the
>> "choice" of humans - since we could only do what god already knew what we
>> were going to do before creation ever happened.
> IF the decision was
>> known before we were born - we did not make it.
>
> SoZ:
> No way eliminates "choice". It comes down to an "all knowing" knowing ...
> but we "not knowing". That's where choices come into play .
Sorry - but if a choice is KNOWN before we make it - it is not OUR choice.
IF a god is all knowing - then we can ONLY do what he already KNOWS we
are going to do - and therefore NO choice existed.
OF course - IF we actually HAD a choice - then your god would not have
KNOWN what that was UNTIL we made the choice - making him NOT all
knowing as well.
Either way - the god's definition is wrong.
Michael Christ
Atheist!
You come here pretending to be something else.
You are the fraud you accuse others of being.
Michael Christ
Thommadura
> You changed the subject title, Thommadura.
Since your god is the depraved pervert - he is the obvious choice.
All the GOOD works done on earth are by HUMANS.
>
> Atheist!
Sorry - still an agnostic - and YOU still present NO Proof as well.
ANd YOU are the fraud who claims to have evidence - but never actually
present any.
SwordoZ
SoZ:
Any numbers as to the population which existed at that time?
>> THen - note the instructions on how to
>>> PROPERLY sell your daughter into slavery
>>
>> SoZ:
>> Please elucidate on PROPERLY?
> Since slavery is OBVIOUSLY wrong - that a bible would include ANY
> directions condemns it.
SoZ:
Aren't we all slaves (servants) ... male and female ... in servitude to our
families, our children, our employers, our government, our environment and
our neighbor if he needs a helping hand?
What's "OBVIOUSLY wrong" in your eyes in accepting responsibility as a slave
(servant) concerning the above?
However - the directions state the process you
> must follow to sell your own daughter into slavery - apparently YOU have
> never read the bible
SoZ:
Enlighten me.
>> - and how to STONE to death a
>>> misbehaving son.
>> SoZ:
>> Human reasoning misses the point again, as usual.
> What point is that?
SoZ:
Mush-brained rebellion.
> When would it be proper to stone to death a misbehaving son?
> (we are not talking about a son who has commited a crime here)
SoZ:
You don't believe rebellion is a crime?
FYI-
During that time and circumstances ... when due warnings were ignored
concerning a sons misbehavoral attitude towards parental respect and
authority ... "stoning to death" was the consequence for such actions.
Otherwise that attitude would begin to grow like a cancerous tumor amongst
the other future "sons" of Israel within the tribal community.
>>> At least we KNOW that the god of the christians cannot be real.
>>
>> SoZ:
>> But are "we" humanistically reasoning God out of existence based on
>> mainstream xianity's perceptions?
> Since all gods so far - have been created by humans - their "definitions"
> of the gods - have to actually be possible.
SoZ:
What do you believe the "all knowing" Almighty God has to do to show you he
has NOT been created by humans?.
WHen their
> definition include things that contradict themselves - and cannot co-exist
> in reality - we can dismiss the gods as not being physically possible
SoZ:
Such as ...?
>>> THe christians describe their god as Almighty - all knowing - all good -
>>> all merciful - all just - all everything else - and ETERNAL (No
>>> beginning
>>> and no end)
>>> A god that is eternal (YOU only have ONE god remember) cannot die.
>>> Therefore the story of the christ is wrong.
>>
>> SoZ:
>> I agree according to gentile xian theology . Refer to my reply concerning
>> Confucianism and Buddhism.
> Since neither claim gods or claim to be gods-
they are simply an example
> of the origin of morals and ethics - which are HUMAN traits.
SoZ:
Nice try ... refer and read reply concerning such again?
>>> IF you claim the one god was totally human while the christ was on
>>> earth -
>>> then the bible is wrong
>> SoZ:
>> Gentile xian theologians are wrong ... not the bible.
> Tell where the place is HIGH enough that I can see ALL of the Kingdoms of
> the earth from?
THe bible claims that - and since the earth is a
> sphere - it cannot be done - the bible is WRONG.
SoZ:
Please clarify what you specifically are in reference of?
> The earth is not "unmoving" in the sky and is not built on pillars - THe
> sun does not move over the earth during the day - and then "HURRIES" back
> to where it must come up again in the morning.
> The SUN is the center of the solar sytem - the earth not only moves
> (orbits) around the sun - BUT ALSO - the earth SPINS on its axis in
> relation to the sun - causing morning and evening.
>
> That proves a number of things wrong in the bible as well. FOr instance -
> in the order of creation- 1 - Since morning and evening require the sun
> (THe bible does not say darkness and light) - then there was NO morning
> and evening until the sun existed - making the first three days of the
> creation story WRONG.
SoZ:
What IF the entire scenario as recorded in Genesis 1:1-3 has its basis
rooted in human perception?
What IF the entire scenario as recorded in Genesis 1:1-3 was simply the
re-establishment of this earth's environment to be conducive to existing
life as we know ... rather than an *actual* creation?
>> My question has always been WHY do the "we" (agnostics/atheists) judge
>> the verasity of the bible as being fallacy based on the erroneous
>> mis-perceptions of gentile religionists?
>> - since a human cannot raise a rotting corpse
>>> from the dead.
>> SoZ:
>> The $64,000 question is ... did the human entity (Christ) raise the
>> rotting
>> corpse or did the spiritual entity ("all knowing") do the raising?
> Either they are ONE god - or they are NOT.
SoZ:
One entity being the manifestation of ... the other entity being the ONE
God.
> IF you are claiming that the christ was not part of the ONE GOD
SoZ:
Claimed no such thing.
- then
> you disclaim the religion itself.
SoZ:
"Religion is mankinds search to understand WHO, WHAT, WHY, WHERE and HOW
concerning man's existence." It is for *those* who search to understand
themselves.
>>> (we can Resuscitate a viable body - but not a rotting corpse)
>> SoZ:
>> That's the difference between "we" and the "all knowing".
> Obviously - we KNOW better than the all knowing's WORD show then.
>>> An all knowing god cannot be almighty - since he cannot do anything he
>>> does not already know he is going to do.
>> SoZ:
>> The distinctive mark of God Almighty is bringing the "all knowing" into a
>> state of being.
> Since it is physically IMPOSSIBLE for a god to be all knowing and
> lmighty -it cannot happen
SoZ:
What do you think I'm stating? You are not reading with comprehension as to
what is being presented.
>> Humanity doesn't possess "all knowing" ... humanity merely builds on
>> what is given to mankind by the "all knowing" at specifiic intervals of
>> time.
> Never claimed that humanity is all knowing - the definitions of their gods
> alone - proves that one.
SoZ:
There is nothing in the statement I made that says you claimed such. Your
shooting from the lip rather than reading to understand what's being stated.
>> That also eliminates the
>>> "choice" of humans - since we could only do what god already knew what
>>> we
>>> were going to do before creation ever happened.
>> IF the decision was
>>> known before we were born - we did not make it.
>> SoZ:
>> No way eliminates "choice". It comes down to an "all knowing" knowing
>> ... but we "not knowing". That's where choices come into play .
> Sorry - but if a choice is KNOWN before we make it - it is not OUR choice.
> IF a god is all knowing - then we can ONLY do what he already KNOWS we are
> going to do - and therefore NO choice existed
> OF course - IF we actually HAD a choice - then your god would not have
> KNOWN what that was UNTIL we made the choice - making him NOT all knowing
> as well.
SoZ:
Any dictionary will inform that *choice* is an ACT or INSTANCE which
involves picking, selecting, electing or opting to choose a course of
action.
Choice has nothing to do with what someone already "knows", doesn't "know"
or ownership of such.
You can sparse words to convolute the meaning of the term "choice" to suit
your agenda till the cows come in from the north forty ... matters nothing
to me. Your verbage though reveals a "choice" to deceive through
convoluting terminology.
> Either way - the god's definition is wrong.
SoZ:
Either way - when reality is compromised - fallacy appears.
SoZ
Thommadura
No - those who wrote the bible did not know about all of the population
of the world.
>
>
>
>>> THen - note the instructions on how to
>>>> PROPERLY sell your daughter into slavery
>>> SoZ:
>>> Please elucidate on PROPERLY?
>> Since slavery is OBVIOUSLY wrong - that a bible would include ANY
>> directions condemns it.
>
> SoZ:
>
> Aren't we all slaves (servants) ...
No - we are not slaves or servants - since we are not OWNED by those
people - we do that with some choice.
Slaves are physical property of their owners.
male and female ... in servitude to our
> families, our children, our employers, our government, our environment and
> our neighbor if he needs a helping hand?
>
> What's "OBVIOUSLY wrong" in your eyes in accepting responsibility as a slave
> (servant) concerning the above?
Since your statement is incorrect - the conclusion is also incorrect
What is OBVIOUSLY wrong is a human being the complete physical property
of another human. Remember - back then - humanitarian laws did not apply
to slaves.
>
>
> However - the directions state the process you
>> must follow to sell your own daughter into slavery - apparently YOU have
>> never read the bible
>
> SoZ:
> Enlighten me.
>
>
>>> - and how to STONE to death a
>>>> misbehaving son.
>>> SoZ:
>>> Human reasoning misses the point again, as usual.
>> What point is that?
>
> SoZ:
> Mush-brained rebellion.
So - YOU are in favor of stoning a misbehaving child to death
>
>
>> When would it be proper to stone to death a misbehaving son?
>> (we are not talking about a son who has commited a crime here)
>
> SoZ:
> You don't believe rebellion is a crime?
No - that is NOT specific. Misbehaving does not reach the level of a crime.
>
> FYI-
> During that time and circumstances ... when due warnings were ignored
> concerning a sons misbehavoral attitude towards parental respect and
> authority ... "stoning to death" was the consequence for such actions.
>
> Otherwise that attitude would begin to grow like a cancerous tumor amongst
> the other future "sons" of Israel within the tribal community.
In whose opinion?
Stoning itself is an unconscionable action - doing it to a child is
abuse - and would result in the ADULT being charged today.
>
>
>>>> At least we KNOW that the god of the christians cannot be real.
>>> SoZ:
>>> But are "we" humanistically reasoning God out of existence based on
>>> mainstream xianity's perceptions?
>
>
>> Since all gods so far - have been created by humans - their "definitions"
>> of the gods - have to actually be possible.
>
> SoZ:
> What do you believe the "all knowing" Almighty God has to do to show you he
> has NOT been created by humans?.
Again - let him appear - prove his own existence - and his powers - and
his past action - and then them him enforce his own rules on himself.
>
>
> WHen their
>> definition include things that contradict themselves - and cannot co-exist
>> in reality - we can dismiss the gods as not being physically possible
>
> SoZ:
> Such as ...?
>
>
>
>>>> THe christians describe their god as Almighty - all knowing - all good -
>>>> all merciful - all just - all everything else - and ETERNAL (No
>>>> beginning
>>>> and no end)
>>>> A god that is eternal (YOU only have ONE god remember) cannot die.
>>>> Therefore the story of the christ is wrong.
>>> SoZ:
>>> I agree according to gentile xian theology . Refer to my reply concerning
>>> Confucianism and Buddhism.
>
>
>> Since neither claim gods or claim to be gods-
> they are simply an example
>> of the origin of morals and ethics - which are HUMAN traits.
>
> SoZ:
> Nice try ... refer and read reply concerning such again?
Sorry - but your reply that the christ is WRONG - has nothing to do with
a non-deity based belief like Confucianism or Buddhism.
>
>
>>>> IF you claim the one god was totally human while the christ was on
>>>> earth -
>>>> then the bible is wrong
>>> SoZ:
>>> Gentile xian theologians are wrong ... not the bible.
Sorry - but there are indeed things in the bible that are physically
wrong. They have been posted here in this group constantly - do your own
homework
>
>> Tell where the place is HIGH enough that I can see ALL of the Kingdoms of
>> the earth from?
> THe bible claims that - and since the earth is a
>> sphere - it cannot be done - the bible is WRONG.
>
>
> SoZ:
> Please clarify what you specifically are in reference of?
That simply is proof that YOu have never read the bible
Matthew 4:8
Again the devil taketh him up onto an exceeding high mountain - and
showeth him ALL the kingdoms of the world
>
>
>
>> The earth is not "unmoving" in the sky and is not built on pillars - THe
>> sun does not move over the earth during the day - and then "HURRIES" back
>> to where it must come up again in the morning.
>> The SUN is the center of the solar sytem - the earth not only moves
>> (orbits) around the sun - BUT ALSO - the earth SPINS on its axis in
>> relation to the sun - causing morning and evening.
>>
>> That proves a number of things wrong in the bible as well. FOr instance -
>> in the order of creation- 1 - Since morning and evening require the sun
>> (THe bible does not say darkness and light) - then there was NO morning
>> and evening until the sun existed - making the first three days of the
>> creation story WRONG.
>
> SoZ:
> What IF the entire scenario as recorded in Genesis 1:1-3 has its basis
> rooted in human perception?
Since that would prove the bible is NOT the inspired word of a god - I
can easily agree
>
> What IF the entire scenario as recorded in Genesis 1:1-3 was simply the
> re-establishment of this earth's environment to be conducive to existing
> life as we know ... rather than an *actual* creation?
Genesis is clearly the writings of early humans - describing things as
they believed them to be
However - religion claims that the bible is the inerrant word of a god -
Pope Pius XII (1943): in his 1943-SEP-30 encyclical "Divino Afflante
Spiritu" (On the Most Opportune Way to Promote Biblical Studies ), he
compared the inerrancy of the Bible to the sinlessness of Jesus:
"For as the substantial Word of God became like to men in all
things, except sin, so the words of God, expressed in human language,
are made like to human speech in every respect, except error."
He also condemned the concept of limited inerrancy. He wrote:
"The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that
'the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be
read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin
edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.' ... When, subsequently,
some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic
doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the 'entire
books with all their parts' as to secure freedom from any error
whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to
matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the
domain of physical science or history, as "obiter dicta" and - as they
contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal
memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter 'Providentissimus Deus' ...
justly and rightly condemned these errors."
Since there are provable errors in the accounts of the earth in the
bible - the claim of inerrancy calls to question the god itself. IF ALL
the BOOKS with ALL THEIR PARTS - are the inspired words of a god - who
supposedly created everything - WHY WOULD he allow things in it that are
NOT TRUE?
>>> mis-perceptions of gentile religionists?
> >> - since a human cannot raise a rotting corpse
>>>> from the dead.
>>> SoZ:
>>> The $64,000 question is ... did the human entity (Christ) raise the
>>> rotting
>>> corpse or did the spiritual entity ("all knowing") do the raising?
IF the one god became totally human - then there was NO spiritual entity
to do it
IF the spiritual entity existed along with the christ - then the story
is wrong
>
>
>> Either they are ONE god - or they are NOT.
>
> SoZ:
> One entity being the manifestation of ... the other entity being the ONE
> God.
Sorry - there is NO difference in your claim above
EITher there is ONE god - or there is NOT
>
>
>> IF you are claiming that the christ was not part of the ONE GOD
>
> SoZ:
> Claimed no such thing.
Then you claim the three gods to be separate then?
>
>
>
> - then
>> you disclaim the religion itself.
>
> SoZ:
> "Religion is mankinds search to understand WHO, WHAT, WHY, WHERE and HOW
> concerning man's existence." It is for *those* who search to understand
> themselves.
Sorry - but SCIENCE is that - religion is NOT.
IF we are searching for TRUTH - then it must be something we can prove
is true. Religion is based on MYTH and LEGEND - and is not proven truth.
>
>
>
>>>> (we can Resuscitate a viable body - but not a rotting corpse)
>>> SoZ:
>>> That's the difference between "we" and the "all knowing".
>> Obviously - we KNOW better than the all knowing's WORD show then.
>
>>>> An all knowing god cannot be almighty - since he cannot do anything he
>>>> does not already know he is going to do.
>>> SoZ:
>>> The distinctive mark of God Almighty is bringing the "all knowing" into a
>>> state of being.
>
>
>> Since it is physically IMPOSSIBLE for a god to be all knowing and
>> lmighty -it cannot happen
>
> SoZ:
> What do you think I'm stating? You are not reading with comprehension as to
> what is being presented.
Oh - I understand the double talk alright - I was a theist once.
However YOUR statement is NONSENSE - in reality ALL KNOWING and Almighty
cannot exist in one being - period.
>
>
>
>>> Humanity doesn't possess "all knowing" ... humanity merely builds on
>>> what is given to mankind by the "all knowing" at specifiic intervals of
>>> time.
>
>
>> Never claimed that humanity is all knowing - the definitions of their gods
>> alone - proves that one.
>
> SoZ:
> There is nothing in the statement I made that says you claimed such. Your
> shooting from the lip rather than reading to understand what's being stated.
YOU SAID =- "Humanity doesn't posess "all knowing"
ANd I simply agreed - providing an example
IT is YOU who are shooting from the lip without undertstanding what is
stated.
>
>
>
>>> That also eliminates the
>>>> "choice" of humans - since we could only do what god already knew what
>>>> we
>>>> were going to do before creation ever happened.
>>> IF the decision was
>>>> known before we were born - we did not make it.
>>> SoZ:
>>> No way eliminates "choice". It comes down to an "all knowing" knowing
>>> ... but we "not knowing". That's where choices come into play .
>
>
>> Sorry - but if a choice is KNOWN before we make it - it is not OUR choice.
>> IF a god is all knowing - then we can ONLY do what he already KNOWS we are
>> going to do - and therefore NO choice existed
>> OF course - IF we actually HAD a choice - then your god would not have
>> KNOWN what that was UNTIL we made the choice - making him NOT all knowing
>> as well.
>
> SoZ:
> Any dictionary will inform that *choice* is an ACT or INSTANCE which
> involves picking, selecting, electing or opting to choose a course of
> action.
> Choice has nothing to do with what someone already "knows", doesn't "know"
> or ownership of such.
Sorry - but if the choice was made BEFORE I existed - then I did not
make that choice.
I do not claim that there were options - I simply say that the choice
was NOT given to humans
>
> You can sparse words to convolute the meaning of the term "choice" to suit
> your agenda till the cows come in from the north forty ... matters nothing
> to me. Your verbage though reveals a "choice" to deceive through
> convoluting terminology.
Again - you are the one who is convoluting MY statement
YOUR verbage does not change the fact that a human could ONLY do what
the ALL KNOWING god already knows it is going to do BEFORE they existed.
That means the choice was NOT made by the human
>
>
>
>> Either way - the god's definition is wrong.
>
> SoZ:
> Either way - when reality is compromised - fallacy appears.
>
Indeed - the fallacy of religion and gods is OBVIOUS
SwordoZ
SoZ:
Oh ... then what terminology would you use to describe someone who is *not*
owned but willingly chooses to serve?
> Slaves are physical property of their owners.
SoZ:
Oh ... who owns you?
> male and female ... in servitude to our
>> families, our children, our employers, our government, our environment
>> and our neighbor if he needs a helping hand?
>> What's "OBVIOUSLY wrong" in your eyes in accepting responsibility as a
>> slave (servant) concerning the above?
> Since your statement is incorrect - the conclusion is also incorrect
> What is OBVIOUSLY wrong is a human being the complete physical property of
> another human.
SoZ:
You are a "slave/servant" to whomever is the provider and sustainer of your
physicality and owns you ... whether you want to admit that fact or not.
Remember - back then - humanitarian laws did not apply
SoZ:
As the preacher saith ... there is nothing new under the sun ... everything
changes but doesn't change ... it just takes on another color.
And ... *who* do you believe is responsible for those humanaritan laws?
> to slaves.
>> However - the directions state the process you
>>> must follow to sell your own daughter into slavery - apparently YOU have
>>> never read the bible
>> SoZ:
>> Enlighten me.
>>>> - and how to STONE to death a
>>>>> misbehaving son.
>>>> SoZ:
>>>> Human reasoning misses the point again, as usual.
>>> What point is that?
>> SoZ:
>> Mush-brained rebellion.
> So - YOU are in favor of stoning a misbehaving child to death
SoZ:
Absolutely not ... but your statement reveals the shallow comprehension you
possess concerning OT theology.
>>> When would it be proper to stone to death a misbehaving son?
>>> (we are not talking about a son who has commited a crime here)
>>
>> SoZ:
>> You don't believe rebellion is a crime?
> No - that is NOT specific. Misbehaving does not reach the level of a
> crime.
SoZ:
No .... but the attitude eventually leads into a crime and punishment
scenario.
>> FYI-
>> During that time and circumstances ... when due warnings were ignored
>> concerning a sons misbehavoral attitude towards parental respect and
>> authority ... "stoning to death" was the consequence for such actions.
>>
>> Otherwise that attitude would begin to grow like a cancerous tumor
>> amongst the other future "sons" of Israel within the tribal community.
> In whose opinion?
SoZ:
The ONE responsible for instituting it.
> Stoning itself is an unconscionable action - doing it to a child is
> abuse - and would result in the ADULT being charged today.
SoZ:
Other than the stoning part of it ... gentiles face the same issue which
Israel had.
>>>>> At least we KNOW that the god of the christians cannot be real.
>>>> SoZ:
>>>> But are "we" humanistically reasoning God out of existence based on
>>>> mainstream xianity's perceptions?
>>
>>
>>> Since all gods so far - have been created by humans - their
>>> "definitions" of the gods - have to actually be possible.
>>
>> SoZ:
>> What do you believe the "all knowing" Almighty God has to do to show you
>> he has NOT been created by humans?.
> Again - let him appear - prove his own existence - and his powers - and
> his past action
SoZ:
Done all of the above as recorded once. Your *choice* was/is to reject it.
- and then them him enforce his own rules on himself.
SoZ:
If it didn't, you and I wouldn't be hitting those keys on our keyboards.
>> WHen their
>>> definition include things that contradict themselves - and cannot
>>> co-exist in reality - we can dismiss the gods as not being physically
>>> possible
>> SoZ:
>> Such as ...?
>>>>> THe christians describe their god as Almighty - all knowing - all
>>>>> good -
>>>>> all merciful - all just - all everything else - and ETERNAL (No
>>>>> beginning
>>>>> and no end)
>>>>> A god that is eternal (YOU only have ONE god remember) cannot die.
>>>>> Therefore the story of the christ is wrong.
>>>> SoZ:
>>>> I agree according to gentile xian theology . Refer to my reply
>>>> concerning Confucianism and Buddhism.
>>> Since neither claim gods or claim to be gods-
>> they are simply an example
>>> of the origin of morals and ethics - which are HUMAN traits.
>> SoZ:
>> Nice try ... refer and read reply concerning such again?
> Sorry - but your reply that the christ is WRONG - has nothing to do with a
> non-deity based belief like Confucianism or Buddhism.
SoZ:
Biasness in support of your beliefs just doesn't cut it.
>>>>> IF you claim the one god was totally human while the christ was on
>>>>> earth -
>>>>> then the bible is wrong
>>>> SoZ:
>>>> Gentile xian theologians are wrong ... not the bible.
> Sorry - but there are indeed things in the bible that are physically
> wrong. They have been posted here in this group constantly - do your own
> homework
.>> Tell where the place is HIGH enough that I can see ALL of the Kingdoms
of
>>> the earth from?
>> THe bible claims that - and since the earth is a
>>> sphere - it cannot be done - the bible is WRONG.
>> SoZ:
>> Please clarify what you specifically are in reference of?
> That simply is proof that YOu have never read the bible
> Matthew 4:8
> Again the devil taketh him up onto an exceeding high mountain - and
> showeth him ALL the kingdoms of the world
SoZ:
Parabolic.
>>> The earth is not "unmoving" in the sky and is not built on pillars - THe
>>> sun does not move over the earth during the day - and then "HURRIES"
>>> back to where it must come up again in the morning.
>>> The SUN is the center of the solar sytem - the earth not only moves
>>> (orbits) around the sun - BUT ALSO - the earth SPINS on its axis in
>>> relation to the sun - causing morning and evening.
>>> That proves a number of things wrong in the bible as well. FOr
>>> instance - in the order of creation- 1 - Since morning and evening
>>> require the sun (THe bible does not say darkness and light) - then there
>>> was NO morning and evening until the sun existed - making the first
>>> three days of the creation story WRONG.
>> SoZ:
>> What IF the entire scenario as recorded in Genesis 1:1-3 has its basis
>> rooted in human perception?
> Since that would prove the bible is NOT the inspired word of a god - I can
> easily agree
SoZ:
How have you come to surmise that "erroneous human perception" proves the
bible is *not* inspired?
>> What IF the entire scenario as recorded in Genesis 1:1-3 was simply the
>> re-establishment of this earth's environment to be conducive to existing
>> life as we know ... rather than an *actual* creation?
> Genesis is clearly the writings of early humans - describing things as
> they believed them to be
SoZ:
And the basis for your belief is ... human perception ... which you believe
to be fallacious ... yet your beliefs cling to the same erroneous hypothesis
concerning gen 1.
> However - religion claims that the bible is the inerrant word of a god -
> Pope Pius XII (1943): in his 1943-SEP-30 encyclical "Divino Afflante
> Spiritu" (On the Most Opportune Way to Promote Biblical Studies ), he
> compared the inerrancy of the Bible to the sinlessness of Jesus:
> "For as the substantial Word of God became like to men in all
> things, except sin, so the words of God, expressed in human language, are
> made like to human speech in every respect, except error."
> He also condemned the concept of limited inerrancy. He wrote:
> "The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that 'the
> entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in
> the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition,
> are to be held sacred and canonical.' ... When, subsequently, some
> Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine,
> by which such divine authority is claimed for the 'entire books with all
> their parts' as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to
> restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and
> morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical
> science or history, as "obiter dicta" and - as they contended - in no wise
> connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the
> Encyclical Letter 'Providentissimus Deus' ... justly and rightly condemned
> these errors."
> Since there are provable errors in the accounts of the earth in the bible
SoZ:
Provable errors based on human perception as I've argued.
Scientific facts point to the earth's existence as being milleniums of times
older than theologians surmuse. The basis of my argument "what IF" as
presented previously.
- the claim of inerrancy calls to question the god itself. IF ALL
> the BOOKS with ALL THEIR PARTS - are the inspired words of a god - who
> supposedly created everything - WHY WOULD he allow things in it that are
> NOT TRUE?
SoZ:
From my viewpoint one reason he allows it is to reveal human ineptness.
>>>> mis-perceptions of gentile religionists?
>> >> - since a human cannot raise a rotting corpse
>>>>> from the dead.
>>>> SoZ:
>>>> The $64,000 question is ... did the human entity (Christ) raise the
>>>> rotting
>>>> corpse or did the spiritual entity ("all knowing") do the raising?
> IF the one god became totally human - then there was NO spiritual entity
> to do it
SoZ:
No argument.
> IF the spiritual entity existed along with the christ - then the story is
> wrong
SoZ:
And your reference is to the gentile story?
>>> Either they are ONE god - or they are NOT.
>>
>> SoZ:
>> One entity being the manifestation of ... the other entity being the ONE
>> God.
> Sorry - there is NO difference in your claim above
> EITher there is ONE god - or there is NOT
SoZ:
When are you going to question your own "perception"?
>>> IF you are claiming that the christ was not part of the ONE GOD
>> SoZ:
>> Claimed no such thing.
> Then you claim the three gods to be separate then?
SoZ:
Where did I claim such??
>> - then
>>> you disclaim the religion itself.
>>
>> SoZ:
>> "Religion is mankinds search to understand WHO, WHAT, WHY, WHERE and HOW
>> concerning man's existence." It is for *those* who search to understand
>> themselves.
> Sorry - but SCIENCE is that - religion is NOT.
SoZ:
Oh ... can you present a rule that states the above is strictly the domain
of science?
> IF we are searching for TRUTH - then it must be something we can prove is
> true.
SoZ:
True science reveals that an "all knowing" Creator exists ... whether you
accept or reject makes no difference.
The only choice you have is to either accept or reject that conclusion based
on the factual truths of science.
Religion is based on MYTH and LEGEND - and is not proven truth.
SoZ:
Again as stated many times earlier ... that's your choice whether to accept
or reject that notion.
>>>>> (we can Resuscitate a viable body - but not a rotting corpse)
>>>> SoZ:
>>>> That's the difference between "we" and the "all knowing".
>>> Obviously - we KNOW better than the all knowing's WORD show then.
>>
>>>>> An all knowing god cannot be almighty - since he cannot do anything he
>>>>> does not already know he is going to do.
>>>> SoZ:
>>>> The distinctive mark of God Almighty is bringing the "all knowing" into
>>>> a state of being.
>>> Since it is physically IMPOSSIBLE for a god to be all knowing and
>>> lmighty -it cannot happen
>> SoZ:
>> What do you think I'm stating? You are not reading with comprehension as
>> to what is being presented.
> Oh - I understand the double talk alright - I was a theist once.
SoZ:
And you've demonstrated that trait ... admirably.
> However YOUR statement is NONSENSE - in reality ALL KNOWING and Almighty
> cannot exist in one being - period.
SoZ:
That depends on whether or not you choose to excuse that entity out of your
existence.
>>>> Humanity doesn't possess "all knowing" ... humanity merely builds on
>>>> what is given to mankind by the "all knowing" at specifiic intervals of
>>>> time.
>>> Never claimed that humanity is all knowing - the definitions of their
>>> gods alone - proves that one.
>> SoZ:
>> There is nothing in the statement I made that says you claimed such.
>> Your shooting from the lip rather than reading to understand what's being
>> stated.
> YOU SAID =- "Humanity doesn't posess "all knowing"
> ANd I simply agreed - providing an example
> IT is YOU who are shooting from the lip without undertstanding what is
> stated.
SoZ:
My apologies if you agreed.
>>>> That also eliminates the
>>>>> "choice" of humans - since we could only do what god already knew what
>>>>> we
>>>>> were going to do before creation ever happened.
>>>> IF the decision was
>>>>> known before we were born - we did not make it.
>>>> SoZ:
>>>> No way eliminates "choice". It comes down to an "all knowing" knowing
>>>> ... but we "not knowing". That's where choices come into play .
>>> Sorry - but if a choice is KNOWN before we make it - it is not OUR
>>> choice.
>>> IF a god is all knowing - then we can ONLY do what he already KNOWS we
>>> are going to do - and therefore NO choice existed
>>> OF course - IF we actually HAD a choice - then your god would not have
>>> KNOWN what that was UNTIL we made the choice - making him NOT all
>>> knowing as well.
>> SoZ:
>> Any dictionary will inform that *choice* is an ACT or INSTANCE which
>> involves picking, selecting, electing or opting to choose a course of
>> action.
>> Choice has nothing to do with what someone already "knows", doesn't
>> "know" or ownership of such.
> Sorry - but if the choice was made BEFORE I existed - then I did not make
> that choice.
SoZ:
As I've stated in numerous replys in this argument ... ownership matters
*not* when it comes to choice.
Choice is predicated upon acting through the process of ... picking,
choosing, selecting, etc ... a course of action whether physical or
spiritual in nature.
> I do not claim that there were options - I simply say that the choice was
> NOT given to humans
SoZ:
I have no problem with that. But *why" such hostility
and animosity towards an "all knowing" Creator, contray to your view, who
absolutely gives humans the choice to understand who and what they are from
the cradle to the grave.
You are *absolutely* out of touch with the reality of life my friend.
>> You can sparse words to convolute the meaning of the term "choice" to
>> suit your agenda till the cows come in from the north forty ... matters
>> nothing to me. Your verbage though reveals a "choice" to deceive through
>> convoluting terminology.
> Again - you are the one who is convoluting MY statement
SoZ:
Your own words beguile you - you've done a convoluting great job all by your
lonesome.
> YOUR verbage does not change the fact that a human could ONLY do what the
> ALL KNOWING god already knows it is going to do BEFORE they existed. That
> means the choice was NOT made by the human
SoZ:
Again ... ownership of choice matters *not*.
Why are you so enraged at an "all knowing" Creator just because he owns
choice, presents choice and your alternative is to either abide or not abide
by choices as presented? That's the premise of your entire argument.
Are you just as enraged towards your father, who through a likewise scenario
presented choices as as you grew up, knowing beforehand which choice you
would make?
Are you as much enraged towards your father; as you are towards an "all
knowing" Creator; your father doing likewise?
>>> Either way - the god's definition is wrong.
>>
>> SoZ:
>> Either way - when reality is compromised - fallacy appears.
> Indeed - the fallacy of religion and gods is OBVIOUS
SoZ:
SwordoZ
SoZ:
Walk the walk ... not the talk. Present those GOOD works which you claim.
Thommadura
> "Thommadura" <tomm...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4afb3a1d$0$22508$607e...@cv.net...
>> Michael Christ wrote:
>>> You changed the subject title, Thommadura.
>> Since your god is the depraved pervert - he is the obvious choice.
>> All the GOOD works done on earth are by HUMANS.
>>> Atheist!
Sorry - but HUMANS are the one who actually do things.
>> Sorry - still an agnostic - and YOU still present NO Proof as well.
>> ANd YOU are the fraud who claims to have evidence - but never actually
>> present any.
>
> SoZ:
> Walk the walk ... not the talk. Present those GOOD works which you claim.
>
>
>
I wish I had all the room here to do so -
I will use my father as an example
MY mother died when I was 7 - he raised 8 children by himself. He was a
scout leader and a little league coach. Seven of the local little league
football and baseball fields are on property he loans to the leagues.
He was a Volunteer EMT - and Volunteer Fireman - and on the local Zoning
Board (also Volunteer) until he had to retire because of age. He is
still a big brother.
For years- he has plowed the snow in all the driveways on our street -
and the street itself. Our town has no public snow removal - you are
responsible for the snow on the roads in front of your property.
He also was/is guardian for 6 children - and Foster parent for 8 more.
Most of them he has put through college at his expense - as well all of
us children as well (Some have not reached college age yet)
There is lots more - but FEW people have accomplished that much in a
lifetime. My father taught us that is not what you believe in life that
counts - it is what you actually do that counts. He certainly needs to
apologize to nobody.
Every one of his 8 Children - has either adopted or been a foster parent
- ALL of us.
How many children have YOU adopted?
I am tired of hearing that theists are ethical and moral - and
non-believers are not. The FACTS are - there is NO provable connection
between religion and moral behavior that has been proven - except one -
that WOMEN theist drivers over 80 are more likely to obey the speed
limit (Choke on that one for all I care)
THe BARNA GROUP - a CHRISTIAN research company - has published numerous
reports - showing that the more fundamental your religious belief is -
the MORE likely you are to commit murder or other crimes - commit
suicide - get a divorce or an abortion - or be executed for criminal
behavior. The highest murder rates in the USA are in the BIBLE BELT
states of Louisianna and Texas. They are actually twice that of the so
called LIBERAL states of the Northeast.
SwordoZ
> SwordoZ wrote:
>> "Thommadura" <tomm...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:4afb3a1d$0$22508$607e...@cv.net...
>>> Michael Christ wrote:
>>>> You changed the subject title, Thommadura.
>>> Since your god is the depraved pervert - he is the obvious choice.
>>> All the GOOD works done on earth are by HUMANS.
>>>> Atheist!
> Sorry - but HUMANS are the one who actually do things.
SoZ:
Yes I agree wholeheartily such as contention, wars, murder, greed, theivery,
rape, sexual abuse of children, abuse of power, hatred, lying, cheating,
deceitfulness, jealously, animosity, covetousness ... and on and on the
list goes.
And you consider these *things* as being GOOD ... huh?
>>> Sorry - still an agnostic - and YOU still present NO Proof as well.
>>> ANd YOU are the fraud who claims to have evidence - but never actually
>>> present any.
>>
>> SoZ:
>> Walk the walk ... not the talk. Present those GOOD works which you claim.
> I wish I had all the room here to do so -
SoZ:
Allow me to shorten your list considerably so you don't have to "walk" too
far ... *humans* are the epitome of the good, the bad and the ugly.
> I will use my father as an example
> MY mother died when I was 7 - he raised 8 children by himself. He was a
> scout leader and a little league coach. Seven of the local little league
> football and baseball fields are on property he loans to the leagues.
> He was a Volunteer EMT - and Volunteer Fireman - and on the local Zoning
> Board (also Volunteer) until he had to retire because of age. He is still
> a big brother.
> For years- he has plowed the snow in all the driveways on our street - and
> the street itself. Our town has no public snow removal - you are
> responsible for the snow on the roads in front of your property.
> He also was/is guardian for 6 children - and Foster parent for 8 more.
> Most of them he has put through college at his expense - as well all of us
> children as well (Some have not reached college age yet)
> There is lots more - but FEW people have accomplished that much in a
> lifetime. My father taught us that is not what you believe in life that
> counts - it is what you actually do that counts. He certainly needs to
> apologize to nobody.
SoZ:
Fine.
> Every one of his 8 Children - has either adopted or been a foster parent -
> ALL of us.
SoZ:
Fine ... ya'll had good training.
> How many children have YOU adopted?
SoZ:
None.
> I am tired of hearing that theists are ethical and moral - and
> non-believers are not.
SoZ:
To be fair and balanced ... from a non-believers perspective, theists are
accused of fostering everything from in-grown toenails to the holocaust.
The FACTS are - there is NO provable connection
> between religion and moral behavior that has been proven - except one -
> that WOMEN theist drivers over 80 are more likely to obey the speed limit
> (Choke on that one for all I care)
SoZ:
Doesn't choke a bit but tell me ... can you produce those FACTS which
support your contention??
> THe BARNA GROUP - a CHRISTIAN research company - has published numerous
> reports - showing that the more fundamental your religious belief is - the
> MORE likely you are to commit murder or other crimes - commit suicide -
> get a divorce or an abortion - or be executed for criminal behavior. The
> highest murder rates in the USA are in the BIBLE BELT states of Louisianna
> and Texas. They are actually twice that of the so called LIBERAL states of
> the Northeast.
SoZ:
Please produce *facts*, not personal heresy, which indicates that "MORE
likely" equates to the "actuality" of committing those acts ... concerning
fundamentalists?
SoZ
SwordoZ
"SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote in message
news:4afc76df$0$4070$cd3e...@news.enter.net...
SoZ:
Did some one castrate your tongue?
SwordoZ
SoZ:
And basis of humartian laws?