Jesus Christ is the Son of God

Tony:
I'm not saying you're lying now.
I'm saying if you have ever lied, even once.
Click to expand...

Oh of course I have. Anyone who has ever gone shopping with other women learns to lie fast. :)

Gladzic:
There is no absolute right or wrong in religions...none stands out among the rest as the right one.
Click to expand...

Well there's no absolute right or wrong anywhere, that I've seen.

I wouldn't try to prove the non-relation now.
Click to expand...

Ec.9:5
Is.38:18

Tony reconciles this with Mt.25:46 by claiming that only the unrightous (non-Christian) are sent to eternal nothingness. It's a consistant argument.

But since you seem unable to argue against it, only to whinge that we're ignoring contradictory evidence, I'll leave you to it.

And for your further edification:
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/tbhell.html

*Edit*

Although I am curious, Tony, how you interpret Mt.25:46 in this light? The reference to "everlasting punishment" seems clear:

Mt. 25:46
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

If you interpret nothingness as a sort of punishment, how would you explain Mt 25:40-41?

25:40
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting
fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
 
Last edited:
Hmmm... I've read a lot of post in different strings and most of them seem to never be resolved due to fact that no one seems to be able prove by fact either the existince of god. Thus I seen a general assumption that no one can prove it. Also it would appear that another general assumption is that all of those who believe in god do not comprehend or are not willing to consider the reasoning or facts presented by those who don't.

As hopefully a solution to the endless debting I wish to open up a new string in free thoughts titled "Reason". The pupose of the new string would be to allow for the presentation of throughly composed questions and answers rather than impulsive rambling based on incomplete trains of thought.

I would also like to add that I do understand the seeming validity of most of the arguements either of doctrine or "Scientific fact" in most cases of the which I saw it in greater depth and detail than was given by the original post.

Although I could answer some of your questions about my post here I would rather abstain from it in order to avoid confusion by deviation to far from the original subject of the string.

If you would like me to prove by logical means the existance of god, I would prefer, to avoid confusion and allow for a more precise and descreet answer that you first present your view and reason in great enough perceptual detail that your stand may be clearly understood. (i.e. Facts etc.)
 
Re: Re: Tony1

*Originally posted by gladzic
However, I come into your defense that graves cannot be equated to hell.*

Too bad, because you'd both end up wrong.

Allow me to quote the definitions of the words that are trasnslated into "hell" in English.

The Hebrew word "sheol"
---07585 sh@'owl {sheh-ole'} or sh@ol {sheh-ole'}
from 07592; TWOT - 2303c; n f
AV - grave 31, hell 31, pit 3; 65
1) sheol, underworld, grave, hell, pit---

The Greek word "Hades"
---86 hades {hah'-dace}
from 1 (as negative particle) and 1492; TDNT - 1:146,22; n pr loc
AV - hell 10, grave 1; 11
1) name Hades or Pluto, the god of the lower regions
2) Orcus, the nether world, the realm of the dead
3) later use of this word: the grave, death, hell---

*They chose not to listen so I choose not to speak*

You're Zen Methodist, perhaps?

*Originally posted by Cris
Most historians also curse the stupidity of starting at 1 instead of zero; it makes the arithmetic very irritating. But then the religious were never known as being particularly logical.*

Neither are atheists.
The religious start counting at 1 the same as atheists.
You can't start counting at zero because you haven't got anything to count yet.
You're confused because you're a programmer and you can have zero-based arrays.

*And in global terms Christianity appears as just another imaginative myth alongside many others.*

And in global terms, atheism is one of the stupidest myths imaginable.
 
Tony,

But then the religious were never known as being particularly logical.

Neither are atheists.
Click to expand...
That pretty much demonstrates my point quite well. Someone irrational will be unable to recognize the logical arguments of atheism.

The religious start counting at 1 the same as atheists.
Click to expand...
So at the instant you were born you were already 1 year old then?

You can't start counting at zero because you haven't got anything to count yet.
Click to expand...
Yes, well done. There are indeed zero gods, so nothing to count.

And in global terms, atheism is one of the stupidest myths imaginable.
Click to expand...
So atheism doesn’t exist huh? Sounds like you can’t stand the strain of facing logical arguments so you have entered a phase of denial. :D

But then of course something mythical doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t exist, but I doubt you intended that nuance.
 
Gladzic,

Regarding - The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel...

These are books written by atheists who in their quest to disprove Jesus Christ's existence, found astonishing evidence that says otherwise. They are full-devoted atheists until the evidence can no longer be ignored and discarded.
Click to expand...
Re Lee Strobel - This is not true. From a careful reading (see the last two paragraphs at the bottom of page 14), he makes it quite clear that he wrote it as a fully committed Christian, "retracing" his spiritual path an indeterminate period of time after the fact. As such, it is yet another ordinary piece of apologetic axe-grinding.

This book consists largely of "interviews" of prominent Christian apologists – no secular scholars of any note, just apologists. This fact alone deems this book inadequate as an impartial and objective study of whether Jesus existed or not.

Written in a narrative style, designed for easy, laid-back reading that is familiar to readers of apologetic literature, it is intended to build a case that the historical record of the New Testament is accurate and believable. Its case is most powerfully made to those who already accept unquestioningly the authority of the gospels. In this sense, it is really preaching to the choir. For the rest of us, the author tries to get us hooked by demonstrating that authority early on - right in the first part of the book, in fact. It is often claimed by the proponents of this book that the author wrote it when he was an atheist, and was undergoing the conversion process. This is not true. See my comment above.

It has a logical sequence of interviews, ostensibly by a skeptical journalist, yet never once does he interview even a single skeptic, either first-line such as Michael Shermer or Steven Jay Gould, or any of the many more obscure, such as Thomas Mack, Earl Doherty or Dan Barker, any of who could have easily and quickly demolished the points raised by the apologists he so eagerly interviewed.

Reviews of “The Case for Christ”.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html

http://www.bidstrup.com/apologetics.htm

Sorry Gladzic but you have mis-represented the value of this book – it is useless as objective and independent research material. His dismissal and mis-quote of Q I found quite distasteful and dishonest.
 
Gladzic,

Re "Evidence which demands a Verdict"

A couple of quotes -

personally have never heard a single individual -- who has honestly considered the evidence -- deny that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of men. The evidence confirming the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ is overwhelmingly conclusive to any honest, objective seeker after truth. However, not all -- not even the majority -- of those to whom I have spoken have accepted Him as their Savior and Lord. This is not because they were unable to believe -- they were simply unwilling to believe![3]
Click to expand...

A careful and prayerful study of the material contained in this book will help the reader always to be prepared to make an intelligent and convincing presentation of the good news.
Click to expand...

Well there is no objectivity there at all. This is another hardcore apologetic. Another book that is simply preaching Christianity again.

Sorry Gladzic – this isn’t worth my time. An objective analysis would have been nice.
 
Originally posted by Xev
Profanity does not prove inability to communicate. I can well say

Energy and **** matter are **** equivalent

and be correct.

However, inability to understand the nuances of conversation or have a civilized discourse does prove inability to communicate.

In conclusion, closed **** systems tend towards **** disorder. :)

<font color="red">Moderator edit: Strong profanity is unnecessary.</font>
Click to expand...

*Note to the moderator: Please stop erasing every bit of swearing you see. Swearing is but one of the methods of expressing oneself, and I see NO PERSONAL ATTACKS whatsoever. To delete them randomly is irresponsible.
 
Re: Xev

Originally posted by Adam
After demonstrating your inability to grasp a logical point, and your display of truly disgusting and infantile language... Please just don't bother referring to, or talking to, me again.
Click to expand...

Give me a break Adam, this crap from someone with the finger as an avatar!?
 
Zero

Are you saying that my avatar nullifies not only my words, but logic in general? Wow, that's one powerful picture!
 
Zero

I like freedom of speech. And the best bit about freedom of speech is that I don't have to listen to it if it's absolute crap, such as we have seen here over the last couple of months from Xev. Why should one need to walk away from a discussion? Simply because many who enjoy freedom of speech lack the strength of character to balance their own enjoyment with respect for the sensibilities of others. For those who like to enjoy all freedoms and avoid all responsbilities, I offer the finger.
 
Originally posted by Binary
If you would like me to prove by logical means the existance of god, I would prefer, to avoid confusion and allow for a more precise and descreet answer that you first present your view and reason in great enough perceptual detail that your stand may be clearly understood. (i.e. Facts etc.) [/B]
Click to expand...

I would be real interested in this one binary...
 
Originally posted by Cris
Gladzic,

Regarding - The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel...

Re Lee Strobel - This is not true. From a careful reading (see the last two paragraphs at the bottom of page 14), he makes it quite clear that he wrote it as a fully committed Christian, "retracing" his spiritual path an indeterminate period of time after the fact. As such, it is yet another ordinary piece of apologetic axe-grinding.

True....he wrote it at a time he is already Christian. However, the subsequent interviews were conducted in order to put into writing what made him convert from atheism to Christianity. Sorry for my previous mispresentation of the writer. But it is true that he was one of the extreme atheists until the evidences he encountered made him easier to believe in the God that existed than not to believe he existed at all.

This book consists largely of "interviews" of prominent Christian apologists – no secular scholars of any note, just apologists. This fact alone deems this book inadequate as an impartial and objective study of whether Jesus existed or not.

Again, this is very true, that is why I said I am open for suggested readings for me to form a more balanced view on this.
I am quite disappointed that you did not read the book itself and chose to settle for second-hand information. Books are second-hand information indeed, as well as other forms of media. And it would be a real great opportunity for me if I have the leisure of time and resources to look into first-hand sources. For me, this would satisfy my intellectual pursuit. However, due to lack of time and resources, I settle for books (second-hand informations) at the moment...but I wouldnt settle for reviews. I'd rather encounter the book itself.
Click to expand...
 
gladzic,

I am quite disappointed that you did not read the book itself and chose to settle for second-hand information.
Click to expand...
Understandable, but there are a vast quantity of books on Christian thinking and very little that is either atheist or apparently impartial. I stand little chance of making a dent in such literature so I must be very selective of what I read if I am not to waste my time. To that end I must rely on reviewers who I trust.

But to conduct really thorough research into many of these areas could easily become a fulltime activity and career for some. I/we have little choice I think but to rely on the analyses of others who we respect or who have a proven track record.

One book I do recommend is the ‘The Lost Gospel (The book of Q and Christian origins) by Burton L Mack. This summarizes an exhaustive historical research project into Christianity that has been ongoing for the past 300 years. The intent is not about proving whether Jesus existed or not but looks closely at the sources of the gospels and their origins.

Burton L Mack is professor of New Testament at the Claremont School of Theology in California.
 
Cris is brainwashed to the max, hardcore...
Everytime she recommends a website, she dont reccomend just a historian or a scientist, but she posts ATHEISTS WEBPAGES, to brainwash teens and young innocent kids to the max...

http://www.atheistalliance.org/bookshelf/books-authors_m.html

check that webpage and youll see "Burton Mack" of who's book she reccomends...
Jesus is a myth? How can you say that despite all the evidence? Someone this stupid proves the devil must be real...
 
Moonman

You press the Russian red button, I'll press the Yank one, we'll nuke the world and none of us will have to read his crap again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top