You are correct that it is better to use our own word, however that first long post (which is from the below listed link) does present some valid points.
http://www.abundantbiblestudies.com/Documents/Bible_Desk/proof_bible_true.htm
Ok So Some People Do Not Believe In God..............
- Thread starter Agent51
- Start date
http://www.abundantbiblestudies.com/Documents/Bible_Desk/proof_bible_true.htm
Welcome to sciforums, Kython!
Scripture does not agree:
Mark 4:9
And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
4:10
And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
4:11
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
4:12
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.[/quote]
And, less importantly, Matthew 13:10
SAB, KJV.
Besides, why would he create hell if he did not want to send people there?
Correct, that is one of the few things that most Xtians agree on.
Scripture does not agree:
Mark 4:9
And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
4:10
And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
4:11
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
4:12
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.[/quote]
And, less importantly, Matthew 13:10
SAB, KJV.
Besides, why would he create hell if he did not want to send people there?
Correct, that is one of the few things that most Xtians agree on.
Kython13,
Welcome to Secifourms
What on earth youare talking about?
Lets define "Forgive" shall we?
Using this online dictionary I get this term.
Main Entry: for·give
Pronunciation: f&r-'giv, for-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): for·gave /-'gAv/; for·giv·en /-'gi-v&n/; -giv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English forgifan, from for- + gifan to give
Date: before 12th century
transitive senses
1 a : to give up resentment of or claim to requital for <forgive an insult> b : to grant relief from payment of <forgive a debt>
2 : to cease to feel resentment against (an offender) : PARDON <forgive one's enemies>
intransitive senses : to grant forgiveness
synonym see EXCUSE
- for·giv·able /-'gi-v&-b&l/ adjective
- for·giv·ably /-blE/ adverb
- for·giv·er noun
By this very definition, what you just said made no sense. God doesn't need me to decide if I want to be forgiven, in order for him to forgive me. That is something he can do purely on his own, and doesn't need my consent at all.
Why? Why did God have to do anything beyond think about it? If God had to do anything more, than God has limits. And if God has limits, then God is not God.
Thats baloni. Why God casted out the angels he wanted no longer ( rather than just destory them ) is another topic altogether.
And to suggest that God treats people fairly is an insult to fairness. Sending someone to hell, for eternity,, for any reason, doesn't even belong in the same sentence as the word fair
Assuming their was a sacrifice to begin with, God has to first answer why he must make any kind of a "sacrifice" in order to bestow his forgiveness.
I would address the other points, but I don't see that they have any value to reason. Does God have to explain his way of justice? Is he required to abide by any law? Is he required to treat Angels better/worse than his followers?
Sorry, but until you adequately address the first problem with this line of reasoning, the rest of your points are moot.
Welcome to Secifourms
What on earth youare talking about?
Lets define "Forgive" shall we?
Using this online dictionary I get this term.
Main Entry: for·give
Pronunciation: f&r-'giv, for-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): for·gave /-'gAv/; for·giv·en /-'gi-v&n/; -giv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English forgifan, from for- + gifan to give
Date: before 12th century
transitive senses
1 a : to give up resentment of or claim to requital for <forgive an insult> b : to grant relief from payment of <forgive a debt>
2 : to cease to feel resentment against (an offender) : PARDON <forgive one's enemies>
intransitive senses : to grant forgiveness
synonym see EXCUSE
- for·giv·able /-'gi-v&-b&l/ adjective
- for·giv·ably /-blE/ adverb
- for·giv·er noun
By this very definition, what you just said made no sense. God doesn't need me to decide if I want to be forgiven, in order for him to forgive me. That is something he can do purely on his own, and doesn't need my consent at all.
Why? Why did God have to do anything beyond think about it? If God had to do anything more, than God has limits. And if God has limits, then God is not God.
Thats baloni. Why God casted out the angels he wanted no longer ( rather than just destory them ) is another topic altogether.
And to suggest that God treats people fairly is an insult to fairness. Sending someone to hell, for eternity,, for any reason, doesn't even belong in the same sentence as the word fair
Assuming their was a sacrifice to begin with, God has to first answer why he must make any kind of a "sacrifice" in order to bestow his forgiveness.
I would address the other points, but I don't see that they have any value to reason. Does God have to explain his way of justice? Is he required to abide by any law? Is he required to treat Angels better/worse than his followers?
Sorry, but until you adequately address the first problem with this line of reasoning, the rest of your points are moot.
Will someone plz give me feedback on my "Religious Viewpoint argument" Earlier in this post?
On my way to salvation...
I repent!! heck I don't know from what, but I still repent, from been human, from been happy, from enjoying sex, cusing, drinking, looking at pretty women etc...
So which way do I go now for salvation?
http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=192
Heck forget it's just plainly to confusing!!
I repent!! heck I don't know from what, but I still repent, from been human, from been happy, from enjoying sex, cusing, drinking, looking at pretty women etc...
So which way do I go now for salvation?
http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=192
Heck forget it's just plainly to confusing!!
[/QUOTE]
I believe you are misinterptering Mark 4:12
"'they may be ever seeing but never percieving,
and ever hearing but never understanding,
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!"
Mark 4:12 (NIV)
Lines 1 and 2 : people may see and hear what God is saying, but they aren't understanding what he is saying, thus Jesus speaks in parables to help clarify, and if you don't understand the parables, that is also understandable because they were written for people who lived two thousand years ago and thus the references made in them can be rather obscure in modern days.
Line 3: they see and hear but don't understand, otherwise (i.e. if they did understand) they might decide to be forgiven
As for creating hell and banishing the angels instead of destroying them, I honestly do not know the answer to that. I cannot puzzle out God's motivations, but merely try to interpret and/or clarify the word.
Feedback!!
(going on the belief God exists, which I'm not sure about) No I don't think God is infallable, therefore he created the Earth and had to learn about our nature and the scary thing the nature of free will with us. So God created sin as a realization we would do things to each other and against him that shouldn't be promoted as a whole for the good of Earth. God chose to go through the complicated process of creating sin/forgiveness by creating something based upon the rules of the universe he created. Like a computer programer doesn't change a whole program just to change one thing that he could do within the rules he created. The question arises why didn't God just create sin and cange the universe. Well, maybe hes not as omnipitent as we think..... maybe that would have been harder for him.
Once again I don't uphold these beliefs, so don't attack me/my beliefs just my argument please. Thanks ~ Cactus [/B][/QUOTE]
First of all why would an omnipotent god need to learn of our nature? is he not omnipotent? This is a contradiction!. What sort of being would create evil? An evil being!!
Comparing god to a computer programer, can the computer programer change the program? yes, why does this god keep the same program if it went bad? instead *it* lies to us sends an angel Jesus, then *it* has him crusified for our inadeguacies? What kind of BS is that?
(going on the belief God exists, which I'm not sure about) No I don't think God is infallable, therefore he created the Earth and had to learn about our nature and the scary thing the nature of free will with us. So God created sin as a realization we would do things to each other and against him that shouldn't be promoted as a whole for the good of Earth. God chose to go through the complicated process of creating sin/forgiveness by creating something based upon the rules of the universe he created. Like a computer programer doesn't change a whole program just to change one thing that he could do within the rules he created. The question arises why didn't God just create sin and cange the universe. Well, maybe hes not as omnipitent as we think..... maybe that would have been harder for him.
Once again I don't uphold these beliefs, so don't attack me/my beliefs just my argument please. Thanks ~ Cactus [/B][/QUOTE]
First of all why would an omnipotent god need to learn of our nature? is he not omnipotent? This is a contradiction!. What sort of being would create evil? An evil being!!
Comparing god to a computer programer, can the computer programer change the program? yes, why does this god keep the same program if it went bad? instead *it* lies to us sends an angel Jesus, then *it* has him crusified for our inadeguacies? What kind of BS is that?
Xev, just wondering...
Did you see the link?
However instead of sending you the money I rather be the one sleeping!!
Originally posted by Xev
Godless:
Well, you start by giving me all your money. Then, from my private bungalow in Tahiti, while my man is sleeping and my daquiri blending, I will send you a short e-mail saying:
"SUCKER!"
Did you see the link?
However instead of sending you the money I rather be the one sleeping!!
Kython13,
Firstly, if you don't know what it is your wishing to prove, then please don't even open your mouth. " If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. "
Secondly, if you can't answer for God, then I expect ( Nay, I DEMAND ) that he reveal himself to me, NOW
If God really is this lovey-dovey all-father that so many Christians presume, and since his followers are too incompetant to answer for him, AND if he REALLY cares about me, the very least he can do is bring his almighty behind off his throne, and talk to me.
If he doesn't do anything less, then I'm not obligated in any which way to believe any bit of crap his believer spew at me.
I'm sorry if I sound really bitter, but I'm very cynical toward people who make claims, and then skirt away when they can't answer them, and just shrug their shoulders stupidly.
Firstly, if you don't know what it is your wishing to prove, then please don't even open your mouth. " If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. "
Secondly, if you can't answer for God, then I expect ( Nay, I DEMAND ) that he reveal himself to me, NOW
If God really is this lovey-dovey all-father that so many Christians presume, and since his followers are too incompetant to answer for him, AND if he REALLY cares about me, the very least he can do is bring his almighty behind off his throne, and talk to me.
If he doesn't do anything less, then I'm not obligated in any which way to believe any bit of crap his believer spew at me.
I'm sorry if I sound really bitter, but I'm very cynical toward people who make claims, and then skirt away when they can't answer them, and just shrug their shoulders stupidly.
But you can refuse. For example: Let's suppose you and your best friend both like the same girl, and your friend is going out with her exclusively. Then you go out with the girl despite the fact she is your friend's girlfriend. You and your friend get in this huge fight over it and now hate each other. Then, your friend decides to put it behind him, forgive you for going out with his girlfriend. You still have the option of accepting his forgiveness or telling him to fuck off. Your friend wants to forgive you but you won't let him. *(by the way, Christians can curse, they just can't use the Lord's name in vain)
God does send people to hell, but they chose to go there. It's not like you have to meet some special qualifications, all you have to do is accept his outstreached hand. Its like a person hanging from a cliff. They start to slip, but someone reaches down and offers to pull them up. It is the hanging persons choice as to whether they grab they hand or fall to ther death. Did that person deserve to die?
There was a sacrifice. If you can't accept that Jesus was God, or that Jesus was God's son, surely you can at least accept that Jesus was a part of God. In the first sentence of Genesis "In the beginning, God ...". The original hebrew translation for the word God there actually means three in one, however in English we say it as God. Jesus was a part of God. Thus when Jesus came to earth and died on the cross, he did make a sacrifice.
Re: Feedback!!
Well first part of my point is that God isn't as omnipotent as we suspect "The question arises why didn't God just create sin and change the universe. Well, maybe hes not as omnipitent as we think..... maybe that would have been harder for him." Like it's easier to work within the confines of his program and he cannot see into the future, nor understand the nature of what he creates (think about free will). Second the crucifiction could be the way of changing things within the program. Also how did *it* "lie to us"?
P.S. ~ Thanks for the feedback, am much appreciative.
Well first part of my point is that God isn't as omnipotent as we suspect "The question arises why didn't God just create sin and change the universe. Well, maybe hes not as omnipitent as we think..... maybe that would have been harder for him." Like it's easier to work within the confines of his program and he cannot see into the future, nor understand the nature of what he creates (think about free will). Second the crucifiction could be the way of changing things within the program. Also how did *it* "lie to us"?
P.S. ~ Thanks for the feedback, am much appreciative.
Godless: Yes, I saw the link, I have it bookmarked now.
If you care to be the one sleeping, I'll drop you a line once I find somone stupid enough to buy my story.
Kython:
Not exactly, since God sends people to hell for stupid reasons. It's not simply a matter of rejecting help, it's a matter of rejecting the rule of an evil tyrant.
Not only that, but you can be sure that there is a person offering you a hand. Can't be sure that there is a God.
*Paging Dr.Cris, Paging Dr.Cris.*
What exactly did God sacrifice?
If you care to be the one sleeping, I'll drop you a line once I find somone stupid enough to buy my story.
Kython:
Not exactly, since God sends people to hell for stupid reasons. It's not simply a matter of rejecting help, it's a matter of rejecting the rule of an evil tyrant.
Not only that, but you can be sure that there is a person offering you a hand. Can't be sure that there is a God.
*Paging Dr.Cris, Paging Dr.Cris.*
What exactly did God sacrifice?
Wanted Dead or Alive: Radical individualists!
Do/Are You:
1.) Believe people should find out what's wrong and right for themselves?
2.) Enjoying the meaning behind Marilyn Manson Songs?
3.) Enjoy the Writings of Nietzsche?
4.) A Satanitst.
5.) Get pissed on by people like Kython?
You might be a Radical Individualist, and hard core religous people (like kython) will always hate your guts. Because you don't agree with their "everything is a sin philosophy"
Do/Are You:
1.) Believe people should find out what's wrong and right for themselves?
2.) Enjoying the meaning behind Marilyn Manson Songs?
3.) Enjoy the Writings of Nietzsche?
4.) A Satanitst.
5.) Get pissed on by people like Kython?
You might be a Radical Individualist, and hard core religous people (like kython) will always hate your guts. Because you don't agree with their "everything is a sin philosophy"
Re: Feedback!!
First of all why would an omnipotent god need to learn of our nature? is he not omnipotent? This is a contradiction!. What sort of being would create evil? An evil being!!
Comparing god to a computer programer, can the computer programer change the program? yes, why does this god keep the same program if it went bad? instead *it* lies to us sends an angel Jesus, then *it* has him crusified for our inadeguacies? What kind of BS is that? [/B][/QUOTE]
Despite what Catus claims, I do not believe God created sin for that reason. I don't fully know why he created sin. What I do know is that all sin spawned from 1 act, and that was Adam and Eve eating of the tree of knowledge. This is where our sinful nature came from, from this first sin, and from the temptation presented by the sepent. As I have previously explained, man was not made sinful, he was made as a friend of God. Man was tainted by that sin and by Satan's temptations, and thus we are now sinful. I hope this answers your question about needing to learn our nature. He doesn't, and I don't know where Cactus came up with that.
First of all why would an omnipotent god need to learn of our nature? is he not omnipotent? This is a contradiction!. What sort of being would create evil? An evil being!!
Comparing god to a computer programer, can the computer programer change the program? yes, why does this god keep the same program if it went bad? instead *it* lies to us sends an angel Jesus, then *it* has him crusified for our inadeguacies? What kind of BS is that? [/B][/QUOTE]
Despite what Catus claims, I do not believe God created sin for that reason. I don't fully know why he created sin. What I do know is that all sin spawned from 1 act, and that was Adam and Eve eating of the tree of knowledge. This is where our sinful nature came from, from this first sin, and from the temptation presented by the sepent. As I have previously explained, man was not made sinful, he was made as a friend of God. Man was tainted by that sin and by Satan's temptations, and thus we are now sinful. I hope this answers your question about needing to learn our nature. He doesn't, and I don't know where Cactus came up with that.
Kython13,
You didn't even address my point.
My point was that GOD DOES NOT NEED TO PERFORM ANY ACTION BEYOND HIS OWN THOUGHTS TO FORGIVE SOMEONE! To suggest that he needs too, suggests that he has limits.
If God has limits, then God is not God.
Your analogy is logical- when it pretains to forgiveness in that format.
However, since you didn't even touch my orginal argument, your analogy is void.
Oh please. The classic " Blame-the-Victim ". God is not obligated to send anyone to hell. If he has the power to prevent anyone from going to hell, then the fact that he is not doing so ( By your own admission ) speaks poorly for the character of God.
Not only did you fail to provide evidence to support your claim, but you then made an assumption reguarding the Bible. Unless you can prove to me that I should take anything the Bible says worth salt, your argument is invalid.
You didn't even address my point.
My point was that GOD DOES NOT NEED TO PERFORM ANY ACTION BEYOND HIS OWN THOUGHTS TO FORGIVE SOMEONE! To suggest that he needs too, suggests that he has limits.
If God has limits, then God is not God.
Your analogy is logical- when it pretains to forgiveness in that format.
However, since you didn't even touch my orginal argument, your analogy is void.
Oh please. The classic " Blame-the-Victim ". God is not obligated to send anyone to hell. If he has the power to prevent anyone from going to hell, then the fact that he is not doing so ( By your own admission ) speaks poorly for the character of God.
Not only did you fail to provide evidence to support your claim, but you then made an assumption reguarding the Bible. Unless you can prove to me that I should take anything the Bible says worth salt, your argument is invalid.
Hahahahaha.