The Official Religion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dude Abides said:
Don't get pissy with me for trying to clear up your extremely bad and vague writing. Are you using neanderthal as a synonym for caveman?
Sorry! I thought I was being nice.

There's nothing vague about my writing though, you ARE reading too much into it considering the hypothesis is completely my imagination.

I guess I was making them synonymous but I'm simply interchaging the terms. The next one would have been Cro-Magnon. I merely bring them up to suggest that they weren't on par with modern man which is what the Bible concerns itself with. Since we know they existed and we know they existed prior to Adam & Eve, they may not have had a requirement for worship or at least not one that we related to.
 
JGS said:
Sorry! I thought I was being nice.

There's nothing vague about my writing though, you ARE reading too much into it considering the hypothesis is completely my imagination.

There is a lot that is vague about your writing. Here, for example, you apparently used the general colloquialism "cavemen" to in fact refer to something somewhat more precise: humanoid species that were not Homo sapiens. "Cavemen" generally refers to pre-historic humans, including Neanderthals, but also including Cro magnons. At least per Wikipedia, Cro-magnons were the first modern humans. Since you said the Bible concerned itself with "modern man" it should therefore concern itself with the Cro-magnons, i.e. cavemen. This kind of thing generates confusion.

Anyway, is it your position that every person living today is descended from Adam? Is it also your position that every civilization we know of consisted of humans who were also descended from Adam?
 
Dude Abides said:
There is a lot that is vague about your writing. Here, for example, you apparently used the general colloquialism "cavemen" to in fact refer to something somewhat more precise: humanoid species that were not Homo sapiens sapiens. "Cavemen" generally refers to pre-historic humans, including Neanderthals, but also including Cro magnons, . At least per Wikipedia, Cro-magnons the first modern humans. Since you said the Bible concerned itself with "modern man" it should therefore concern itself with the Cro-magnons, i.e. cavemen. This kind of thing generates confusion.

Anyway, is it your position that every person living today is descended from Adam? Is it also your position that every civilization we know of consisted of humans who were also descended from Adam?
That wasn't vaguery. I intermingled the terms, something you clearly picked up on because you've brought it up a few times. That's clear. It may be incorrect and I apologize for it.

To prepare yourself for constant disagreement with me, the point you continually miss is that I say that Adam & Eve were the start of God having a personal relationship with humans from what we know.

It doesn't matter to me (or the Bible) at all whether Cro-Magnon were considered intelligent or not, whether cavemen were in the picture or not, or even if there were some kind of side rules that God made with Cro-Magnon man. They still did not enter into the picture unless Adam & Eve were indeed Cro-Magnon. Sorry for the confusion.

As to your second question, I believe I said it's entirely possible because it is. Being religious regarding this subject, I would say yes, but regardless of the religious aspects it's still totally possible just from a population perspective.
 
JGS said:
That wasn't vaguery. I intermingled the terms, something you clearly picked up on because you've brought it up a few times. That's clear. It may be incorrect and I apologize for it.

To prepare yourself for constant disagreement with me, the point you continually miss is that I say that Adam & Eve were the start of God having a personal relationship with humans from what we know.

When you use a broad term to talk about something more specific, you're being vague.

Anyway, that's not a point I miss. It's a point I ignore because it's not relevant. Were Adam and Eve the first modern humans to exist or weren't they? That's what I'm asking. Which humans were the first to exist is my question, not which humans were the first to have a relationship with God.

As to your second question, I believe I said it's entirely possible because it is. Being religious regarding this subject, I would say yes, but regardless of the religious aspects it's still totally possible just from a population perspective.

I'm not asking if it's "entirely possible." I'm asking if it is in fact the case, in your view. This is essentially the same thing I asked above - were Adam and Eve the first humans, from whom all others are descended, or were they not?
 
1. Nowhere in Genesis does it ever imply that the serpent was Satan. That was retconned in later, in the book written by the dude tripping on peyote.

2. It is my understanding, and I can't be sure about this because my internet is down (yay smartphone), that cro-magnon man is virtually indistinguishable from the modern humans milling about today.

3. My handle isn't capitalized. Neither should be any abbreviation of it.

4. Is JGS now leading towards an attempt to combine evolution with a literal Adam and Eve? Because this is fascinating. Some of the finest mental gymnastics I've ever seen.
 
jdogmoney said:
1. Nowhere in Genesis does it ever imply that the serpent was Satan. That was retconned in later, in the book written by the dude tripping on peyote.

2. It is my understanding, and I can't be sure about this because my internet is down (yay smartphone), that cro-magnon man is virtually indistinguishable from the modern humans milling about today.

3. My handle isn't capitalized. Neither should be any abbreviation of it.

4. Is JGS now leading towards an attempt to combine evolution with a literal Adam and Eve? Because this is fascinating. Some of the finest mental gymnastics I've ever seen.

Isn't he referred to, or personified, as a dragon or serpent in other segments of the Bible? I think that along with the themes of temptation, sin and deception can imply the serpent to be the devil. God does curse it, but is he cursing serpents in general, that particular one or maybe who it's meant to represent?
 
jdogmoney said:
1. Nowhere in Genesis does it ever imply that the serpent was Satan. That was retconned in later, in the book written by the dude tripping on peyote.

2. It is my understanding, and I can't be sure about this because my internet is down (yay smartphone), that cro-magnom man is virtually indistinguishable from the modern humans milling about today.

3. My handle isn't capitalized. Neither should be any abbreviation of it.

4. Is JGS now leading towards an attempt to combine evolution with a literal Adam and Eve? Because this is fascinating. Some of the finest mental gymnastics I've ever seen.

1.You are correct. EDIT: Actually don't quite get the peyote reference but you do know so much more about the Good Book than I do.
me at my most smarmy said:
I suppose if you assume that the fight between man and snake began and ended in the Garden of Eden and we just go around stepping on their heads all day, you may have a point, but otherwise not really. There is clearly more to the story which is spelled out in pretty good detail throughout the Bible.
2. You may be correct. I will assume you are and refer you to my first post about this:
me said:
The Bible does not address how cavemen or ancient civilizations developed beyond Adam & his offspring so there's nothing to go on with that except conjecture (Anything I say at least on that is hypothetical).
3. I'll do what I want until you stop with the "What" or ":lol " jdOGmo..
sorta kidding.
4. Nope.
me said:
The Bible does not address how cavemen or ancient civilizations developed beyond Adam & his offspring so there's nothing to go on with that except conjecture (Anything I say at least on that is hypothetical).
 
Dude, I just :lol to keep from crying. Are you not suggesting that Adam and Eve may have been real, distinct people that came about on Earth through natural processes?

Because that's all "cavemen" are. Our most recent ancestors that had ancestors of their own and so on all the way back to the first self-replicating chemical. If you don't think humans evolved, you don't think "cavemen" existed.

But I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say. People existed before Adam and Eve, but because they are mentioned in the Bible they don't matter?

So the idea of God breathing life into a mound of dust is dismissed, but the results of that (a man who had no concept of good, evil, right, or wrong, but still somehow had the capacity to reason and the ability to exert free will) is still a fact?


Hey, there's another reason why the account of Creation can't be literally true. The concept of a man not knowing what right and wrong are but still having free will is incoherent. Free will is sometimes explained as the ability to disobey, but that's completely meaningless if the subject doesn't know that it is wrong to disobey*. How can Adam be said to have free will if (a) he doesn't realize that actions have consequences (which is what "right and wrong" really boils down to) and (b) the only choice with any sort of meaning behind it is heavily punished if he chooses the option that God doesn't like? Not to mention, how is it meaningful in any way to have free will if you only use it to decide one thing one of two ways? Free will is about choices. You can choose more than 31 different flavors at Baskin-Robbins. You also choose the size of your ice cream. tyou can choose not to get anything at all. You can choose to ironically ask the girl behind the counter out for ice cream, like a hipster. Etc. The point is free will is about the ability to choose options from a staggering number of choices, not just two.



*which it isn't, in and of itself, but that's what the Bible is trying to teach, so we'll work from that assumption.
 
JGS' support for Genesis is a bunch of conjecture. A bunch of bullshit, in fact. The verses don't support what your saying.

You're just making shit up.
 
threenote said:
JGS' support for Genesis is a bunch of conjecture. A bunch of bullshit, in fact. The verses don't support what your saying.

You're just making shit up.
threenote, I don't even know you and you are officially onenote.

What part of support are you referencing?:
1. The caveman stuff which I clearly said there is no support for
2. The serpent = Satan that ois clearly supported thoughout the Bible or
3. The Serpent/Satan lying which is supported right there in Genesis 3.

The loon awaits your answer.
jdogmoney said:
Dude, I just :lol to keep from crying. Are you not suggesting that Adam and Eve may have been real, distinct people that came about on Earth through natural processes.
I don't think I ever said anything different that Adam & Eve being real did I?
 
jdogmoney said:
Because that's all "cavemen" are. Our most recent ancestors that had ancestors of their own and so on all the way back to the first self-replicating chemical. If you don't think humans evolved, you don't think "cavemen" existed.
When did I say humans don't evolve?

Further, it sounds like you are telling me what I should believe again. Are you telling me what I believe jdog
money
?

jdogmoney said:
But I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say. People existed before Adam and Eve, but because they are mentioned in the Bible they don't matter?
Your not understanding something is not new, but there are all kinds of things not mentioned in the Bible so by default, yes they don't matter too much for what the Bible's purpose is. This is sort of like you arguing with me about Hellfire, and the Bible must be interpretted as literal, & any number of whacky assumptions you make that you continually get wrong. You then punk out and don't continue them which is another annoying thing about you.

Rather than discuss, you know...religion, you go back to you silly little philosophical debates that could be taken apart by a 2 year old. Case in point...
jdogmoney said:
Hey, there's another reason why the account of Creation can't be literally true. The concept of a man not knowing what right and wrong are but still having free will is incoherent.
Incorrect. Nearly every animal on the planet has no concept of right and wrong but still have the ability to act on what their brains tell them they can do. Humans can have any number of abilities that allow them to choose actions in the absence of morality.

jdogmoney said:
Free will is sometimes explained as the ability to disobey, but that's completely meaningless if the subject doesn't know that it is wrong to disobey*. How can Adam be said to have free will if (a) he doesn't realize that actions have consequences (which is what "right and wrong" really boils down to) and (b) the only choice with any sort of meaning behind it is heavily punished if he chooses the option that God doesn't like?
Now, the free will definition is incorrect. Free will is the ability to decide for yourself. There is more to life than right and wrong and free will handles all of the areas. Life did not have much of a purpose for Adam & Eve unless the followed God who determined for them what was right and wrong and it was a short list.

a. Adam knew what was right and wrong on the basis of what was commanded. One does not have to kill someone to know that murder is wrong by law. Fortunately most people are smart enough to figure that out. Are you? Adam likewise could easily see that the guy who made him told him not to do something so it was a good idea for him not to do it.

b. There is no meaning in the ability to sin. In fact, it is totally idiotic to do something simply because you're not allowed to. In fact, that's about the dumbest argument I've heard and I pray that you didn't pay money for the class that may have taught you that.

However, in both cases, Adam had the choice. He made his choice and he croaked.

jdogmoney said:
Not to mention, how is it meaningful in any way to have free will if you only use it to decide one thing one of two ways? Free will is about choices. You can choose more than 31 different flavors at Baskin-Robbins. You also choose the size of your ice cream. tyou can choose not to get anything at all. You can choose to ironically ask the girl behind the counter out for ice cream, like a hipster. Etc. The point is free will is about the ability to choose options from a staggering number of choices, not just two.
Clearly your Bible reading prowess has failed you. They had any number of choices and options during their life and only ONE resulting in death. The fact that they chose the one thing leading to death was the epitome of stupid and not verification that free will was lacking.

Going back to, you know...religion, please try to explain things in the context of your vast knowledge of your Biblical wisdom since your pure reasoning skills are lacking & you have yet to score with...oh idk actual religious thought in the debate.
 
JGS said:
1. Nope. He said quite clearly what would happen.
2. They were mortal. Of course they could die. That does not mean they would die.
Yes he would, that's what it means to be mortal. He died from old age in the end after living over 900 years. It's clear God meant he would die from eating the fruit. Which he didn't.

Immortality and everlasting life are not the same thing.
Not enough lols in the world. Holy crap, seriously? That's it I'm out... can't argue with this kind of warped logic.

Why is it that when religious people no longer have any valid points to present they try to twist the meanings of basic words?
 
jdogmoney said:
If "nearly every animal" has the same free will as humans, what makes us so special?

Animals were not created in the image of God like we were.

Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us."
 
Nocebo said:
That's exactly my point. Game Analyst claims Eve added a bit to what God had said. However how can you be sure of that when not everything that has been said was recorded? Perhaps later God added they were not to even touch the fruit either?
Also it all still doesn't explain how the snake was being deceptive for telling the truth while God was the one deceiving Adam and Eve.

PS: can't you guys read? Sheesh.

Well, technically, your proposition that God didn't talk to Eve would be just as unsupported (at the very least) as the proposition that he did.

However, given the textual evidence that he did talk to Adam, I would say that the proposition that he talked to Eve has greater support.

@Meus Resistance:

First of all, I'm still not sure of the need for Jesus to have died to redeem us for our Original Sin, and not just for our sins in general.

Secondly, I'm not sure of the need to consider the whole of Genesis as part-literal and part-allegorical (or metaphorical). Why can't it be considered as wholly allegorical?

I view a Christian scientific account of creation like this: God creates the universe with the conditions to support life, on an "if-then" basis that, if intelligent life evolves that could worship God, that intelligent life should worship God. At one point this intelligent life (homo sapiens) does evolve, and things are good. However, at another, later point, man's relationship changes with God such that mankind is now in a removed relationship with him. Then, X years later, Jesus dies to atone for such sins (be they sins in general, if not necessarily the "Original Sin") and make salvation possible for humanity once more.

Perhaps such teaching isn't suitably "Christian", and my knowledge of Christian teaching subsequently significantly limited. Nevertheless, I'm really not sure what your hang up is.
 
Nocebo said:
Yes he would, that's what it means to be mortal. He died from old age in the end after living over 900 years. It's clear God meant he would die from eating the fruit. Which he didn't.

Not enough lols in the world. Holy crap, seriously? That's it I'm out... can't argue with this kind of warped logic.

Why is it that when religious people no longer have any valid points to present they try to twist the meanings of basic words?

If I understand it correctly, eating the fruit (sin) caused a spiritual death or separation from God. Sin brought a curse on man which included death, disease, weeds, vicious wild animals, pain in childbirth etc. Because Adam ate the fruit, God had to remove them from Eden, lest they live forever (from being able to keep eating from the Tree of Life) in their sinful state. Because of the sin, God required sacrifices for atonement until the messiah would come and completely pay the penalty for sin in their place.
 
Game Analyst said:
Animals were not created in the image of God like we were.

Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us."

JGS, please still answer.

Game Analyst, in that case, I have to wonder who "us" is.
 
jdogmoney said:
JGS, please still answer.

Game Analyst, in that case, I have to wonder who "us" is.

The Trinity:

40971_1493725537092_1052646049_1454765_3876101_n.jpg


Who created man?

The Father: "And yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, and you are the potter. We all are formed by your hand."

The Son: "Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation, for through him God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth. He made the things we can see and the things we can’t see—such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world. Everything was created through him and for him."

The Holy Spirit: "For the Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life."
 
jdogmoney said:
JGS, please still answer.
It was never my intention not to answer, I just have a life outside the forums that commands my time every so often. I enjoy these little debates of nothingness.
jdogmoney said:
wow

Okay. Short replies, because on phone.

If "nearly every animal" has the same free will as humans, what makes us so special?
I didn't say they did have the same free will. They have free will governing by their far punier brains. If you had spent time actualy looking at what I've already said instead of only mocking it, you would see the difference involves God's involvement with us. I know that's the way you respond to stuff, asking stuff based on an incorrect presumed answer, but you suck at actual comprehension. If I suck at writing comprehension, then why assume anything? Simply ask for clarity.
Dude Abides said:
But were they the first modern humans and is every modern human a descendant of them?
Biblically speaking, they were the first the first human couple that had to answer to God. Are we descendant of them? Yes, I think so.
Dude Abides said:
When you use a broad term to talk about something more specific, you're being vague.
First, I was never talking in specifics. You were wanting them which is why you keep asking questions. It's like me saying something is red and you want to know what type of red. Obviously I viewed all cavemen as the same. No vaguery at all except that you wanted more detail. By your definition everything is vague until it's defined by your specifications. No wonder you're so often disappointed.

I was describing a fantasyland completely invented in my mind and you seem to want to debate it which is fine as it helps fuel my imagination some more. I think I'll throw Puff the Magic Dragon in there somehwere next time.

Also, the point is not a lead in question that you've asked more than once now. If you have something to disprove, then do it so you won't have to wait 12+ hours for my answer.
Nocebo said:
Yes he would, that's what it means to be mortal. He died from old age in the end after living over 900 years. It's clear God meant he would die from eating the fruit. Which he didn't.
This is incorrect. He did die from eating the fruit and that death sentence was immediate. Satan still lied because he said they would not die period, that would be like God period. But please continue defending him as I like a good laugh in the morning.

Now onto your other mistakes.

Mortality does not mean death. It means you can die. Living forever is linked to biology/aging in the Bible. On the other hand, immortality is a whole other creation. Unless you are a vampire, you are alive and mortal right now. Even if you never aged, you still would need to eat, drink, & sleep in order to keep living.

It was clear in Genesis that Adam had to continue doing these things because it was a part of the benefits of living in the garden- eat whatever plant you want (& a side benefit is have sex with your wife! Not a bad command). The simple fact of it's existence in the garden means that the tree of life would have probably been available to him to eat eventually if he hadn't been an idiot. We also know that he was going to stick around for a because he was specifically assigned to fill the earth (Woohoo! More sex!). Unless perfect sperm begets millions of kids, he was going to be around for a while at least & Eve, with no birth pains, was able to pop those kids out indefinitely. Basically, Adam was supposed to live forever while needing the things God provided.

Immortality on the other hand involves being self-sustaining and only two people in the Bible could be referred to as immortal (Incorruptible) at the time of the Bible's completion- God & Jesus after his ressurrection. Every other living thing in existence needed something by God to keep living.
Nocebo said:
Why is it that when religious people no longer have any valid points to present they try to twist the meanings of basic words?
The arrogance of you saying that is amazing considering all you've done is giggle like a little schoolgirl and quote verses with no context. You remind me of my 10 year old who only thinks he knows more than grown-ups. The only difference is he's actually smart enough to understand the Genesis account.

It just shows you have no idea how to read as anything other than a strict literalist which makes you worse than even the most fundamental of fundamentalists. The difference between you and them is you think Genesis 1-3 is the beginning and end of the Bible! I believe that makes you your own religion. You are a umm, let's see,...a Mega Strict Fundamentalist Literalist Atheist. But whatever religion floats your boat...

Listen, if you want to believe that God in the first few chapters lied, propped a snake up as a hero of truth, and never actually said another word to either Adam or Eve until after they were made better by a snake's heroic championing of the truth, thus allowing them to have the abilties of God..that is until they croaked 900 years later, which thanks to the saint of a snake again, was better than what they had since God was going to kill them anyway (Or maybe since they were mortal they were already dead?) but not on the same exact day and minute which is clearly what God was saying and lied about because everyone knows God wears a Seiko to actually time immediate death (phew!), then have at it.

It certainly saves some time from reading the rest of the Bible. At least now I know your secret of Bible wisdom- Just stop reading it after the first few pages.
 
JGS, I've always been very civil to you. I don't know why you think my questions are mocking you. If I were to mock you, believe me, you'd be able to tell. I'm just trying to see which parts of the Bible and Christianity you happen to subscribe to.

That's another difference between you and a non-believer. We don't believe in any of it, and you believe in some of it*, and it takes a while to pin down exactly what you believe, which I think helps in fostering a rational discussion.

*
I'm sure you believe all of the "real" Christianity, and yours happens to be the right interpretation, and every other version is the version that gets it wrong. That's not the point. The point is that we don't know what the version that you think is the right one is.
 
JGS said:
At some point, all animals came from a similar source and inbreeding simply wasn't an issue. This would make sense if you started out with a couple people close to biological perfection anyway. There would not be any defects to begin with.

In a very short period of time we can see the results in the mixing of races. In as short as one generation, you can literally have a different mix of people with no hinderance to reproduction. However, because of our nature, they are not holed up in particular geographic areas. They can literally go anywhere they want and adapt accordingly even with little technology (Except maybe Antartica).

All major civilizations came about in a relatively short period of time in relation to the age of the Earth and also in a bracnhing out fashion. It's pretty clear that man can grow and become varied at a much faster rate simply because we can choose our adaptations to an extent

Even if Adam and Eve had no genetic defects, the mere fact that there was only two of them makes for a huge lack in genetic variability. The effects of there being merely two human beings on this earth several thousand years ago should be seen by looking at our DNA, but it isn't. You really would have to also specify what you mean by several thousand years. Is it the common 6000-10000 years? Or 50 000-100 000 years? We've even found sculptures and cave paintings made by man more than 10000 years ago. Were they made by our extinct, non-human relatives?

You said that races can mix without any problem. I agree. Races mixing does not cause a hinderance in reproduction. I'm just puzzled as to what part of my post you thought this was in response to. My claim was that if humanity had it's genesis several thousand years ago with two people of the same race, there wouldn't have been enough time for all the diversity we see evolve. I'm not talking about already existant races mixing together. I'm talking about one race that consists of two people eventually branching off into several different races. Again, if this had been the case, I think we should have genetic evidence of this fact.

JGS said:
I didn't say they did have the same free will. They have free will governing by their far punier brains. If you had spent time actualy looking at what I've already said instead of only mocking it, you would see the difference involves God's involvement with us. I know that's the way you respond to stuff, asking stuff based on an incorrect presumed answer, but you suck at actual comprehension. If I suck at writing comprehension, then why assume anything? Simply ask for clarity.

So... Animals have souls?
 
JGS said:
I didn't say they did have the same free will. They have free will governing by their far punier brains. If you had spent time actualy looking at what I've already said instead of only mocking it, you would see the difference involves God's involvement with us. I know that's the way you respond to stuff, asking stuff based on an incorrect presumed answer, but you suck at actual comprehension. If I suck at writing comprehension, then why assume anything? Simply ask for clarity.

Hey, I didn't notice this earlier. At least I'm gradually coming to realize that you can subscribe to two different, conflicting ideas at the same time without it hurting your head, which does help me understand your view of the Bible better.


Your definition of free will, though, still is beyond my grasp. Are you saying free will = consciousness?
 
JGS said:
Biblically speaking, they were the first the first human couple that had to answer to God. Are we descendant of them? Yes, I think so.

That was not my question. I did not ask if they were the first human couple that had to answer to God. I asked if they were the first human couple to exist. Do you understand the difference?

First, I was never talking in specifics. You were wanting them which is why you keep asking questions. It's like me saying something is red and you want to know what type of red. Obviously I viewed all cavemen as the same. No vaguery at all except that you wanted more detail. By your definition everything is vague until it's defined by your specifications. No wonder you're so often disappointed.

Actually, I keep asking questions because you don't answer the questions. Instead you answer a question that I didn't ask (see above) or your answer is so vague that it isn't an answer at all.
 
I was having a discussion with a cristian friend at work today about Jesus and I was saying how in islam he is seen as a prophet without divinity. Obviously he believes in the Trinity and I told him that I have seen nothing in the bible that confirms this. I explained how Jesus never said he was God or asked people to worship him and how this issue of divinity was started by Paul and not Jesus or the earlier followers of Jesus.

My friend said Jesus does claim divinity but he could not remember where. Can any christians let me know where in the bible this is as I need to check it myself.

I am not looking for an argument guys. I just wanna see if I missed it!
 
kobashi100 said:
Obviously he believes in the Trinity and I told him that I have seen nothing in the bible that confirms this.

"For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body." Colossians 2:9

Jesus came and told his disciples, “I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." Matthew 28:18-19

"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." 1 John 5:7

"May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." 2 Corinthians 13:14

"But when the Father sends the Advocate as my representative—that is, the Holy Spirit—he will teach you everything and will remind you of everything I have told you." John 14:26

"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?' Hebrews 9:14


kobashi100 said:
I explained how Jesus never said he was God or asked people to worship him and how this issue of divinity was started by Paul and not Jesus or the earlier followers of Jesus.

Jesus said He was "I AM", forgave sins, God was in Him and that He was one with God:

"The Father and I are one.” Once again the people picked up stones to kill him. Jesus said, “At my Father’s direction I have done many good works. For which one are you going to stone me?” They replied, “We’re stoning you not for any good work, but for blasphemy! You, a mere man, claim to be God.” John 10:30-33

"Your father Abraham rejoiced as he looked forward to my coming. He saw it and was glad.” The people said, “You aren’t even fifty years old. How can you say you have seen Abraham?” Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am!” John 8:56-58

Jesus replied, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don’t know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking me to show him to you? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I speak are not my own, but my Father who lives in me does his work through me. Just believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me. Or at least believe because of the work you have seen me do." John 14:9-11

"You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and you are right, because that’s what I am." John 13:13

"Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralyzed man, “My child, your sins are forgiven.” But some of the teachers of religious law who were sitting there thought to themselves, “What is he saying? This is blasphemy! Only God can forgive sins!” Mark 2:5-7

"Then Jesus led them to Bethany, and lifting his hands to heaven, he blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up to heaven. So they worshiped him and then returned to Jerusalem filled with great joy. And they spent all of their time in the Temple, praising God." Luke 24:50-53

"Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and look at my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side. Don’t be faithless any longer. Believe!” “My Lord and my God!” Thomas exclaimed." John 20:27-28
 
Sorry, I haven't been in the mood to argue (Still not), but I'll attempt this answering questions again.
Dude Abides said:
That was not my question. I did not ask if they were the first human couple that had to answer to God. I asked if they were the first human couple to exist. Do you understand the difference?
I answered this already. FDrom my previus response, you know that I believe there were cavemen around. Understand that?

From my answer to you before you know that I think Adam & Eve were a seperate creation from them. Understand that?

So the fact that I believe they are the first human couple to answer to God means they are the first human couple. Understand that?

Hopefully so. Now please link away now because the answer isn't ging to be dumbed down any further for you.

Dude Abides said:
Actually, I keep asking questions because you don't answer the questions. Instead you answer a question that I didn't ask (see above) or your answer is so vague that it isn't an answer at all.
I've answered every question posed quite clearly. You are asking for details my answers were never meant to provide in the first place. You can deconstruct as much as you want to. That doesn't mean I should have been expected to comply.
jdogmoney said:
Hey, I didn't notice this earlier. At least I'm gradually coming to realize that you can subscribe to two different, conflicting ideas at the same time without it hurting your head, which does help me understand your view of the Bible better.


Your definition of free will, though, still is beyond my grasp. Are you saying free will = consciousness?
I have no idea how or why you think I'm conflicted. It's clear as day to me. The only reason you could possibly think otherwise is because you have a presumption of Christian belief as well as a presumption of what I should believe. That has nothing to do with what actually is.

My definition of free will is common sense and dictionary definitions. So it may be too simple for you to grasp that if you choose it, you had the free will to do so. I get your version too I guess. Since gravity keeps us on the ground, we don't have the free will to fly or something ike that maybe? On second thought, I don't know.
 
The conflict I pointed out was you berating me for asking questions and then, in the same breath, telling me I should ask questions.

You should meet up with my ex and trade tips on sending out mixed signals.


How on Earth is my asking about your particular view of Christianity evidence that I have an idea of what Christianity should be? I don't. I have an idea of the meaning of the word "Christian", that is, someone who believes Jesus had magical powers since he was God, but that doesn't mean I have preconceptions about what is or is not the "right" kind of Christianity. Again, I ask only because we have to have a common ground to have a dialogue, and it helps me to know where you stand.


I haven't offered up my definition, but I will, so that you don't put words in my mouth, which is something of a bad habit of yours.

To me, a useful definition is "the ability to make choices".

What would be your definition?
 
jdogmoney said:
The conflict I pointed out was you berating me for asking questions and then, in the same breath, telling me I should ask questions.

You should meet up with my ex and trade tips on sending out mixed signals.
To be cear, I have no problems with you asking questions.

The problem I have is with the quote of an entire paragraph of text with a:

What?

You can ask whatever you want and as I answer. No miuxed signals unless your question is too inane to get what your problem is.

=jdogmoney said:
How on Earth is my asking about your particular view of Christianity evidence that I have an idea of what Christianity should be? I don't. I have an idea of the meaning of the word "Christian", that is, someone who believes Jesus had magical powers since he was God, but that doesn't mean I have preconceptions about what is or is not the "right" kind of Christianity. Again, I ask only because we have to have a common ground to have a dialogue, and it helps me to know where you stand.
Jesus wasn't his father.

You can ask about my particular view. But once you get it you can't say the view (free will for example) is incorrect. Otherwise, you might as well tell me what my view is and spare me the time.


You can't tell me my view of free will is incorrect as if there is no basis.

You can't tell me how long a creative day is as if my interpretation has no basis.

You can't tell me that Hellfire is a doctrine of the Bible while dismissing my view of it as having no basis.

Everything I believe (Except when I say it's my imagination) has a basis. I have no problems with you disagreement which is a given considering our very different views on life, but dimissiveness is silly.

=jdogmoney said:
I haven't offered up my definition, but I will, so that you don't put words in my mouth, which is something of a bad habit of yours.

To me, a useful definition is "the ability to make choices".

What would be your definition?
If that is truly your definition, then what the heck is wrong with my view that you can't grasp?

If you never offered up your definition, then why have an issue with mine in the first place?
 
JGS said:
If you never offered up your definition, then why have an issue with mine in the first place?

Because I have no freaking way of knowing what it is!

You STILL haven't done anything so straightforward as saying "yes, well, this is what I believe:" in ANY respect.

We only have some idea of what you think because of your smarmy-ass replies. I'm going to delineate everything we've learned about your view of the Bible:

1. Slavery - not necessarily a bad thing.
2. A day doesn't have to mean a day.
3. Jesus was not God.
4. Hell doesn't exist.

This is everything that you've told us.


Is this wrong somehow? Does it not represent your view? I certainly hope so.

So correct me.


Stop evading, stop putting words in my mouth and then taking exception, stop everything except actually freaking be honest and forthright with your belief.

Fuck, I'll start.

I believe that the Bible is a collection of parables and stories with a fair amount of exaggeration. Jesus Christ, if he existed, was a religious teacher that had some radical ideas, but he was generally a good person.

Now it is your turn.
 
A interesting study on Hell:

A Topical Study of
Isaiah 66:22-24

“And they all lived happily ever after.” That’s the way we like our stories to end. And as we come to the last chapter of Isaiah, that is partially the case, for we read of a new heaven and a new earth where God will wipe away all of our tears, where everything will be right.

It would be wonderful if Isaiah had stopped right there. But there’s one more verse. The final verse of Isaiah is not so wonderful, not quite as joyful, for in it he speaks not of the bliss of the thousand-year kingdom or the incredible glory of the new heaven and earth, but of fire and worms that will never die.

I love to talk about the mercy, love, and grace of God, the coming of Christ, and the glories of heaven. Hell is a topic not as pleasant to speak about, but one I must because Jesus gave more teachings on hell than He did on heaven. Why? He knew its reality. So God the Father inspired the prophet Isaiah to end his message not just with the hope of the coming kingdom and the glories of a new heaven, but with a warning about the reality of eternal damnation.

Hell. Many people don’t believe in it. The rationalist says, “I can’t believe that a God who is supposed to be love would actually send people to hell.” Intellectually, people have a hard time accepting it. In fact, they spend much of their time building a case to deny it. And yet the Lord states very clearly that it is a place to be reckoned with, that it is reality.

"If anyone gives you even a cup of water because you belong to the Messiah, I tell you the truth, that person will surely be rewarded. But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone hung around your neck. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It’s better to enter eternal life with only one hand than to go into the unquenchable fires of hell with two hands. If your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It’s better to enter eternal life with only one foot than to be thrown into hell with two feet. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out. It’s better to enter the Kingdom of God with only one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 ‘where the maggots never die and the fire never goes out." Mark 9:41–48

Every one of us is in one of two categories. There are those who say, “Thy will be done, Lord” and there are those who say, “My will be done. With my foot, I’ll walk where I want. With my hand, I’ll touch what I want. With my eyes, I’ll see things from my perspective. I’ll do it my way.” God won’t send these people to hell. But if they are absolutely determined to do their own will, He will allow them to go there. That is why hell is not a contradiction to God’s love but rather a confirmation of it. Because God is love, He won’t force man to do His will. He will let man have his way—but it will invariably, without exception, lead him to hell.

That is why Jesus said, “I implore and beseech you to cut out your eye, cut off your hand, do whatever is necessary to get off the path that will lead to destruction, to hell itself both presently and eternally.” If God means nothing to you and rightness has no appeal for you, if you want to walk and touch and see the way you want, He’ll say, “Your will be done. I won’t force My way upon you.” And you will begin the long, terrible descent into hell itself.

When the multitude rejected Him, Jesus wasn’t angry. He didn’t raise His fist and shout, “To hell with you!” He wept (Luke 19:41). Therefore, we know that it’s a brokenhearted, loving Father who say, “If you absolutely insist that your will be done, I won’t force you to receive My Son.”

Who will be in hell? Satan and his angels, for whom it was created. According to Acts 1:20, Judas Iscariot will be there. Revelation 20:10 says that the antichrist—the world leader that will be indwelt by Satan himself—will be in hell as will the false prophet, his right-hand man. But there is another group of people who will be there, as well…

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Revelation 21:8

“I’m not a murderer,” you say. But Jesus said that if you’ve been angry with your brother without cause, you’re guilty of murder (Matthew 5:21, 22). “I’m not a whoremonger,” you protest. But Jesus said that if you’ve looked at a woman with lust in your heart, you’ve committed adultery (Matthew 5:28). And who of us would have the audacity to say we’ve never lied or stretched the truth?

"Then the devil, who had deceived them, was thrown into the fiery lake of burning sulfur, joining the beast and the false prophet. There they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. And I saw a great white throne and the one sitting on it. The earth and sky fled from his presence, but they found no place to hide. I saw the dead, both great and small, standing before God’s throne. And the books were opened, including the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to what they had done, as recorded in the books. The sea gave up its dead, and death and the grave gave up their dead. And all were judged according to their deeds. Then death and the grave were thrown into the lake of fire. This lake of fire is the second death. And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire." Revelation 20:10–15

Hell is cast into the lake of fire. Death is cast into the lake of fire. What is this lake of fire? The word, gehenna, comes from Hinnom—a physical location right outside the eastern wall of Jerusalem which has a very colorful but brutal past. It was in the valley of Hinnom that a wicked king named Ahaz constructed idols to Moloch upon which babies were sacrificed. In the days of Jesus, the valley of Hinnom was a garbage dump where all of the refuse of Jerusalem burned day and night. We read in Matthew 27 that, after Judas betrayed Jesus, he hung himself outside of the temple. We are then told in Acts 1 that his body fell down to an area of Hinnom known as the potter’s field—an area where potters would throw the broken pieces of their pottery. In a.d. 70, when the Romans began to destroy Jerusalem, it was into the valley of Hinnom that they threw the bodies of the 600,000 Jews they slaughtered.

So when gehenna was used, people associated it with sizzling flesh, burning garbage, death, and slaughter. It was a terrible place. Yet people today are dumb enough to say, “If I go to hell, that’s okay with me. My buddies will be there and we’ll play poker and watch videos.” Not so. The Greek word used for fire is pur, the same word used in Matthew 17 to describe the fire into which the demonized boy threw himself. We’re not talking about spiritualized fire. It’s literal. But Jesus also said it is outer darkness. In other words, the fire will burn, but no light will come forth. How is this possible? Astronomists have told us that perhaps one-tenth of the universe has been consumed by black holes. Black holes form from an imploding star whose mass is so great, whose gravitational pull is so strong that they are like disposals in your sink. Things go in but are never seen again. Even light, as it’s sucked into these cosmic “disposals,” never comes out. Could it be that somehow these black holes relate to eternal damnation?

There will be no buddies, no poker, no videos. There will be worms and wailing and fire. Revelation goes on to describe hell in conjunction with a bottomless pit. If you’re an unbeliever, enjoy life now because this is as good as you’re ever going to have it. Everything from here on is downhill, a bottomless pit. On the other hand, if you’re a believer, take hope. This is as bad as it’s ever going to be. The struggles with our flesh, the disappointments, the heartaches are real now. But we’re going to heaven where there will be no more tears or sorrow.

What does it mean that at the great white throne God will judge those who are resurrected and they will be cast into this lake of fire, into gehenna? Where are they right now? And what does it mean that hell itself is cast into this lake of fire?

People are not in the lake of fire right now. That will happen at the great white throne judgment. Once the Millennium is over, God will resurrect the unbelieving dead to stand before Him at the great white throne. Perhaps they’ll say, “I’m a pretty good guy. You can’t allow me to spend eternity in outer darkness.” But as He opens the books of their lives, the thoughts no one knew they were thinking will be revealed. The reason behind all their “good deeds” will come to light. Sins they thought were long forgotten will be exposed. At that point, I believe no one will argue or even wait to hear God tell them to depart from Him, but will flee themselves, knowing of their sin and horrendous iniquity.
Where are these people presently? We find the answer in Luke 16…

"Jesus said, “There was a certain rich man who was splendidly clothed in purple and fine linen and who lived each day in luxury. At his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus who was covered with sores. As Lazarus lay there longing for scraps from the rich man’s table, the dogs would come and lick his open sores. Finally, the poor man died and was carried by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried,and his soul went to the place of the dead. There, in torment, he saw Abraham in the far distance with Lazarus at his side. The rich man shouted, ‘Father Abraham, have some pity! Send Lazarus over here to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue. I am in anguish in these flames.’ But Abraham said to him, ‘Son, remember that during your lifetime you had everything you wanted, and Lazarus had nothing. So now he is here being comforted, and you are in anguish. And besides, there is a great chasm separating us. No one can cross over to you from here, and no one can cross over to us from there." Luke 16:19–26

Before Jesus died, when a person died, he went to one of two sides of hades. One side was called Abraham’s bosom, or paradise—a place that was pleasant, a place that was heavenly but not heaven. The other side was what we call hell. Ephesians 4:8, 9 tell us that when Jesus died, before He ascended, He first descended into the lower parts of the earth and led captivity captive. That is, He took the believers from paradise into heaven where they could now live because the price for their sin was paid. When a believer dies now, he goes straight to heaven, for to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8). The unbelieving dead still go to the second compartment of hades or hell, the place of torment, to await the great white throne judgment before they will be sent to gehenna itself.

God never intended anyone to be in hell. And even when we chose to do our own will, He didn’t give up on us. He sent Jesus Christ, His Son, to die on the Cross of Calvary. As Jesus was slaughtered on the Cross for my sin, He descended to the lower parts of the earth. He paid the price for my sin. He took the heat of hell for me and you.

We’re all sinners, murderers, whoremongers, liars—there is no exception for all have sinned, every one. But He who knew no sin took our sin upon Himself, died in our place, and went to hell for us. He paid the price completely and if we simply believe this, we will be saved eternally.

Courson, J. (2006). Jon Courson's application commentary : Volume two : Psalms-Malachi (470). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
 
JGS said:
Sorry, I haven't been in the mood to argue (Still not), but I'll attempt this answering questions again.

I answered this already. FDrom my previus response, you know that I believe there were cavemen around. Understand that?

From my answer to you before you know that I think Adam & Eve were a seperate creation from them. Understand that?

So the fact that I believe they are the first human couple to answer to God means they are the first human couple. Understand that?

Hopefully so. Now please link away now because the answer isn't ging to be dumbed down any further for you.

Lol. "There were cavemen around" doesn't answer the question. What the fuck is a "separate creation"? You're simply terrible at expressing yourself. Is English your first language? I hope you work primarily with numbers for your employer's sake.
 
Game Analyst said:
A interesting study on Hell:

Personally, I think falling in a bottomless pit for eternity wouldn't be so bad. Like skydiving with my buddies forever! : D


Heaven and Hell are both concepts that don't work for me. If we are somehow able to not go insane from the same thing for eternity, good or bad, then something will have changed in us after death, and I don't really think we'd be who we are anymore.

Not to mention, of course, the inability to enjoy heaven (at least for me) if I knew my friends and loved ones were in hell.
 
Dude Abides said:
Lol. "There were cavemen around" doesn't answer the question. What the fuck is a "separate creation"? You're simply terrible at expressing yourself. Is English your first language? I hope you work primarily with numbers for your employer's sake.
I think that JGS beleif is similiar to how things are in Gaiman's Sandman.
In that comic, God created a earth where things happened biblically.
And on another earth, life evolved just as science has discovered it to.

So all the stuff that we believe to be metaphores, they actually did happen on this other earth which ended up merging with the earth where life evolved on. And this happened around the point where adam and eve was expelled from the garden - and thus would simply join an earth where humans were already roaming around (perfectly avoiding the incest dilemma).
 
heh, this is one of those religious quotes that when you actually think about it, sounds creepy as fuck

It doesn't matter if you use: soap, clorox, purex, clr, oxi-clean, pine sol, or ajax; the only thing that can clean and wash you white as snow is the BLOOD of JESUS. Stop trying to do it yourself.
 
jdogmoney said:
Because I have no freaking way of knowing what it is!
This is because you are guilty of everything I accuse you of. Seriously, your list is lame, but for the definitive version from which to work on, I'll reanswer them:

1. Slavery - not necessarily a bad thing.
I've said at least a hundred times that slavery was not a moral issue in Bible times. Slavery is one now because we made it so. Slavery could be a bad thing in Bible times based on the treatment of the slave.
2. A day doesn't have to mean a day.
A day always means a day, it just doesn't have to mean 24 hours.
3. Jesus was not God.
What's confusing about this one? Jesus is not God.
4. Hell doesn't exist.
This is incorrect. Hell does exists but not as a place of eternal torment which I do not believe.

How are any of these things remotely difficult for you to grasp? Are you slow? Hopefully you can link to these things and find solace unless you just will never get it.

jdogmoney said:
This is everything that you've told us.
No silly, we've talked about more, but it's over your head apparently.

jdogmoney said:
Fuck, I'll start.

I believe that the Bible is a collection of parables and stories with a fair amount of exaggeration. Jesus Christ, if he existed, was a religious teacher that had some radical ideas, but he was generally a good person.

Now it is your turn.
I believe the Bible was inspired by God and written by men in ancient times. I believe there's no reason for them to know evolutionary theory and the primarfy concern was God's sovreignty, not whether we came from monkeys. I believe that the Bible is true and uses history, prophecy, allegories, & symbols to explain God, man, Jesus, Satan, & the organizations they control.

There, I've boiled all the mysteries you have about me into a nice concise reply. If you don't use this as an outline for any other discussions on this subject, then you're wasting time for both of us.

Instead of telling me my beliefs, ask the question and you'll get an answer. How silly of you to think I avoided answering questions I spent pages answering in the past, bit if one post helps you focus, I'm here to help you out buddy.
 
Dude Abides said:
Lol. "There were cavemen around" doesn't answer the question. What the fuck is a "separate creation"? You're simply terrible at expressing yourself. Is English your first language? I hope you work primarily with numbers for your employer's sake.
Dudes, again I have no idea about cavemen. I was presenting an idea that was purely conjecture. Could you please explain to me why you think I should have wrriten a book about it by now? On second thought don't do that.

Let's say you win this one & I retract since you simply won't let it go. Bonus points for grammar insults even.
Shanadeus said:
I think that JGS beleif is similiar to how things are in Gaiman's Sandman.
In that comic, God created a earth where things happened biblically.
And on another earth, life evolved just as science has discovered it to.

So all the stuff that we believe to be metaphores, they actually did happen on this other earth which ended up merging with the earth where life evolved on. And this happened around the point where adam and eve was expelled from the garden - and thus would simply join an earth where humans were already roaming around (perfectly avoiding the incest dilemma).
Almost, but it's simpler than that. Not crazy enough to bring up the
cavemen
angle again, but I think that the focus of the Bible is simply what it brings out. It didn't have a concern for others beyond the ones that affected God's purposes, which is all mankind as it was known at the time of writing. God obviously created things prior to man that have no salvation hope such as the animals or the angels who have a different purpose. If there were more ancient civilizations, then they may not have mattered at all in relation to God's purposes for mankind that was made in his image. In other words they just croaked like the rest of earthly creation eventually does.

There wasn't really an incest issue so I imagine the first official kids were still doing it with their siblings at first. The Earth's a big place and the Scriptures assume that Adam & Eve had a large portion of it all to themselves beyond the Garden of Eden.

*Again this is all conjecture, so please don't ask me how many toes another civilization might have had.
4
 
Atheists and Anger

Pretty long, but she just about nails it :lol

for the tl;dr crowd:

And you know what else? I think we need to have some goddamn perspective about this anger business. I mean, I look at organized Christianity in this country -- not just the religious right, but some more "moderate" churches as well -- interfering with AIDS prevention efforts, trying to get their theology into the public schools, actively trying to prevent me and Ingrid from getting legally married, and pulling all the other shit I talk about in this piece.

And I look at atheists sometimes being mean-spirited and snarky in blogs and books and magazines.

And I think, Can we please have some goddamn perspective?

Because the other thing I'm angry about is the fact that, in this piece, I've touched on -- maybe -- a hundredth of everything that angers me about religion. This piece barely scratches the surface. I know, almost without a doubt, that within five minutes of hitting "Post" and putting this piece on my blog, I'll think of six different things that I'd wished I'd put in. I could write an entire book about everything that angers me about religion -- other people certainly have -- and still not be finished.

Are you really looking at all of this shit I'm talking about, a millennia-old history of abuse and injustice, deceit and willful ignorance -- and then on the other hand, looking at a couple of years of atheists being snarky on the Internet -- and seeing the two as somehow equivalent? Or worse, seeing the snarky atheists as the greater problem?

If you're doing that, then with all due respect, you can blow me.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled attempts at civility.
 
It was the 5th of November a few days ago and so I decided to pick up a book that explored the social, political and religious climate that culminated in events like the gunpowder plot of the English parliament. History is so epic. When I was looking for some reading material, I came across an article about 'V for Vendetta' that described the film as a glorification of terrorism, and that the story of Fawkes' attempt to destroy the 'symbol of democracy' was another tale of terror. I wasn't surprised at that writers tact; the white elephant in the room, so to speak, were how the Catholic/Protestant tensions in England at that time had similarities to the current War on Terror. Any attempt to actually highlight Catholic persecution could have been seen as the humanising of people like Fawkes, and subsequently, modern day terrorists. I'm only a few chapters in but already I would recommend it to anyone who wants to understand how a nation can be fractured along religious lines to the point of open conflict.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0007156383/
 
Here are a few lectures on various religious subjects:

What Does it Mean to be Human?
Ravi Zacharias
Mayo Clinic
14 September 2010


http://vimeo.com/15891383

Religious Belief and Reason: A Talk and Discussion led by Two Really Smart Guys
Ian Hutchinson, Colin Adams
Williams College
23 April 2010


http://vimeo.com/16975267

The Journey: A Thinking Person's Quest for Meaning
Os Guinness
University of California, Los Angeles
7 April 2010


http://vimeo.com/10816110

'We Don't Do God'? Secularism and Faith in the Public Square
John Haldane, Christopher Hitchens
Oxford University
12 May 2010


http://vimeo.com/12410681

Can Science Explain Everything?
Ard Louis
Stanford University
26 January 2010


http://vimeo.com/17011941

Moral Mammals - Why do we Matter? - Does theism or atheism provide the best foundation for human worth and morality?
John Hare, Peter Singer, Eric Gregory
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
13 March 2009


http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/10

The Existence of Evil and the Problem of God
Alvin Plantinga, Richard Gale Ph.D.
University of Tennessee
31 December 2008


http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/17

A Conversation with Tim Keller: Belief in an Age of Skepticism?
Timothy J. Keller
University of California, Berkeley
4 March 2008


http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/25
 
Rumors of Resurrection: Is the Jesus of the Bible the Jesus of History?
D.A. Carson
University of Virginia
31 December 2006


http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/40

Is God Necessary for Morality? Part 1 of 2
William Lane Craig, Louise Antony
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
10 April 2008


http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/4

Belligerents or Brothers? Are Science and Christian Faith at Odds? Part 1 of 2
Ian Hutchinson, Ned Hall
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
2 March 2007


http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/20

The Nature and Necessity of Worldviews
Dallas Willard
University of California, Los Angeles
31 December 2003


http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/12

Can Man Live
Ravi Zacharias
University of Florida
31 December 1997


http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/36

The Resurrection: Fact or Fiction?
William Lane Craig
California State University, Fresno
31 December 2005


http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/41

Radical Marxist, Radical Womanist, Radical Love: What Mother Teresa Taught Me about Social Justice
Mary Poplin
Tufts University
4 March 2009


http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/5

The Value of Truth, and What Happens When U Don't Have It
Dallas Willard
Louisiana State University
17 February 2008


http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/258
 
Nocebo said:
By the way reading a bit of genesis again this bit was pretty funny:

This is after man and woman eat the fruit etc. but:
The serpent was telling the truth wasn't he? God was the one that was being deceiving :lol

Genesis is full of inconsistent dumb shit. Oh man's punishment was to toil the field? But he was made to toil the field a chapter earlier :lol

What?
 
Free 24/7 Live & On Demand video Bible studies

Live broadcast schedule

Sunday Morning Service - Sunday @ 7:45, 9:30, 11:15 AM
Sunday Evening Service - Sunday @ 7:00 PM
Monday Nights - Monday @ 7:30 PM
Wednesday Evening Bible Study - Wednesday @ 7:00 PM
Men's Bible Study - Thursday @ 7:00 PM
Joyful Life Women's Bible Study - Friday @ 9:30 AM
Saturday Nights - Saturday @ 7:00 PM


Two new University lectures are available to view online:

http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/978

Does Science Make Faith Obsolete? The Observations of One Scientist
Ard Louis
Johns Hopkins University
11 November 2010


Dr. Ard Louis, a theoretical physicist in bio-molecular self assembly from Oxford answers the question "Does science make Faith obsolete?"

"Why - This is the question scientists are always asking. You know who else asks that? Five-year-olds. Shows you the kind of mental development we're dealing with here, folks" - Stephen Colbert

Can science explain everything? Are science and religion compatible?


http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/979

Suffering... With a God of Love?
Raymond G. De Vries, Tim Grubbs Lowly, John Rapson
University of Michigan
28 October 2010


Is it possible to say something new about suffering? Do we drain suffering of meaning when we analyze it, objectify it, categorize it, look at it from a safe distance? We use the reflections of ethics and the vision of the visual arts and music to take a closer look at suffering. The goal of our forum is to consider together the contexts in which suffering is transformed, to ponder how insights about suffering can be used, and to discover what it is that prevents us from more deeply exploring our mutual fate.
 
Let's continue on the previously interesting topic

How does one reconcile Original Sin with evolution's perspective of the origin of our species?

*please read the previous pages on this discussion before contributing
 
Game Analyst said:
A interesting study on Hell:
I think you're confusing "interesting study" with "hysterical sermon." Seriously, that diatribe is the perfect encapsulation of the sickly and grotesque nature of the religious fundamentalist mindset.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom