Prove to you There's a God?
- Thread starter Marlboro47
- Start date
MixedMelodyMindBender
Active Member
Wowzers...I just read this entire thread....someone is a dick and should get a award for that super long post 10 pages ago. I noted a post that some said that the majority of scientific evidence points to christ never even walking the planet.....Well, brother, without giving you a minor in history I will say this : The evidence science does hold proves he was alive and walking on earth at one point in human history. What evidence does not prove is that he is God Almighty himself.
When the pilgrims came from the plymouth rock, on the mayflower...they cared a sacred chalice that was sacred because it was used to catch the first blood of Jesus after his death on the cross. We have since recovered a chalice and it still had positive remnants of human blood in the pores of the metal.... Through science, we can look back and indeed conclude Jesus Christ of Nazareth was a person, did walk earth, and proclaimed to be the son of god. . There are many artifacts that prove his very existence. However, nothing yet has proven his proclamations were authentic, and indeed to be the son of god.
No I do not believe Jesus in any shape or form, what so ever, is god, was god, or ever will be god. I think at best, he was the best bullshitter of all times, his legend still lives, and with science that is all we can say as of today....He is a legend at best! At the worst end....he was a clever, con who bullshitted his way to his own fatality. Way to go...after all...god(s) don't die, and its not a good thing to say your a god when someone can shoot you dead in the face, on the spot.
When the pilgrims came from the plymouth rock, on the mayflower...they cared a sacred chalice that was sacred because it was used to catch the first blood of Jesus after his death on the cross. We have since recovered a chalice and it still had positive remnants of human blood in the pores of the metal.... Through science, we can look back and indeed conclude Jesus Christ of Nazareth was a person, did walk earth, and proclaimed to be the son of god. . There are many artifacts that prove his very existence. However, nothing yet has proven his proclamations were authentic, and indeed to be the son of god.
No I do not believe Jesus in any shape or form, what so ever, is god, was god, or ever will be god. I think at best, he was the best bullshitter of all times, his legend still lives, and with science that is all we can say as of today....He is a legend at best! At the worst end....he was a clever, con who bullshitted his way to his own fatality. Way to go...after all...god(s) don't die, and its not a good thing to say your a god when someone can shoot you dead in the face, on the spot.
blazinkill504
Well-Known Member
i can get that, but what i dont get is why god lets innocence suffer. why is that? a small child has no kind of comprehension what sin is so he is pure, but yet god lets them starve, die of disease, die via gun shooting whats your answer to that?
sen.c
Active Member
It rains on the just and unjust alike. If you are asking what the Bible says the reason is for than you need to read Genesis. Adam was made according to the Bible in Gods own image and God created a helper for Adam which was Eve at the time because they were created in God's image they were perfect and had dominion over everything. The only thing God told them not to do was take from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Eve was tempted by the surpent and when Adam found her taking of the tree she tempted Adam and he took as well. At that moment, sin entered the world and God told them "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." With that being said Adam and Eve's offspring were born in the image on sin and not in the image of God due to what Adam and Eve did in the garden. Before this happened there was no sickness and man was perfect and created in the image of God and had dominion over all things birds of the air, creatures of the sea, all land dwelling animals even the plants. Once sin entered the world through Adam and Eve breaking the one law that God gave them sickness, death and everything else came upon mankind. God said the wages of sin is death, he did not put an age limit or restriction on it.
blazinkill504
Well-Known Member
im sorry but i dont buy that at all. so somethin that literally doesnt know what sin is is automatically full of sin enterin the world? to me that doesnt sound like somethin a just and lovin god would do. and do you really believe in a story that has a talkin snake in it?
sen.c
Active Member
You asked the question, I am sorry if you don't like the response you'll have to take that up with your maker some day so your issue is not with me. Yes we are born into sin, it is mans nature and to deny that fact is a massive fail on anyones part believer or not. The heart and mind are wicked and capable of just those things, are you denying that?
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
I don't think he had a problem with the implications of your response so much as the inconsistent logic and the suggestion that god is coldhearted and vengeful. Drawing a literal methodology from a mythical story doesn't sit well with some. That is, unless you believe the story is not myth and therefore snakes can talk, in which case his problem is with fantasy.
That is what I got from his post.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
He actually pointed out what makes God coldhearted and vengeful. The fact that he gave us free will to individually follow or break this law, and then holds us all accountable for actions we had no control over. That part is indeed to be taken up with the bible and God.
The beef with you is that you might actually believe in a talking snake, or that we should derive incontrovertible morals from a story involving a talking snake, or failing to think things through.
sen.c
Active Member
So you do admit that we have free will, he put in place laws for us to follow, and that he does hold us accountable. We have control over our actions, just like your parents told us growing up as kids "just because your buddy jumps off a bridge does that mean you have to" or how about another one "No body can make you do anything you don't want to." Moral law is written on everyone's heart whether you admit to it or not it is there. A man does what he does because he wants to not because he had no choice. The fact that we do anything we do is proof enough that we made a choice, does that mean that all choices we make are going to be right.
Would you rather be created as a robot that has no ability to rationalize and think for yourself or have free will to understand, solve problems and so on. Free will is a double edged sword it is both the greatest gift and can be the greatest downfall we have.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
I was simply playing along with your premise for the sake of simplicity. I believe we have covered my criticism of the premise thoroughly in the past. If it is to be taken up with god, then why are you defending it? You seem to want to posit these things with certainty, but be exempt from offering validation. This allows you to hold whatever pompous opinions you want while using god as a scapegoat to avoid accountability.
olylifter420
Well-Known Member
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Nice deflection. Of course I was talking about being accountable for the things you posit. You assert that someone is born with sin, and when someone says they don't believe it, you avoid accountability for that accusation by telling them to take it up with god. That is the furthest thing from being accountable of yourself. This allows you to say whatever you want without having to show merit. Your merit amounts to an idea of an invisible man and a book which has all the earmarks of being written by mortals ignorant of modern knowledge.
LightningMcGreen
Active Member
I would just lie to point out, IMO, this isn't a fair comparison. It's called Artificial Intelligence for a reason; it's not natural intelligence in the human sense, as it's pre-programmed to do specific tasks...or, in a biblical sense, lacks a soul and concious decision.
olylifter420
Well-Known Member
wow, really? are you being serious dude? deflection?
seems you dont see what you do
sen.c
Active Member
I am accountable for everything I say or do as I posted earlier and don't dodge or deflect it in any way. All I said was the truth I hold at the base of my principles, if it bothered you ar offended you in some way I am sorry but still will not change my feelings about my core values. So there it is, I have no problem being accountable for what I said you can't please everybody right. So if you or anyone else want to fire back at me for my statement that was made I accept that and I knew it would happen before I hit the post button, so in knowing that as I pressed the post button I made the decision to accept responsibility for the statement I was posting.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
All you've done is rehash your earlier deflection, and included a denial of deflection.
I'm talking about taking responsibility for the things you imply and the feelings you provoke when you tell someone they were born with sin and are thus damned to burn forever unless they accept salvation. That is a rather extreme claim to make and it is only natural that someone would question it. It describes a mentally ill deity who punishes people for not excepting him based on actions of people we didn't know, and you cited it as justification for suffering in the world. When the poster questioned your claim, you offered no further context or support for this assertion but instead passed the buck onto god before reasserting that man is wicked and doomed without salvation. Indeed the poster wasn't even confining his questions to the implications, but also expressing that he couldn't understand why someone would consider a deity to be just and loving based on such a story.
You made an accusation extending from your belief; an accusation that favors prejudging guilt over innocence, and you offered no accountability for this accusation other than the scapegoat of god. That is not what is considered to be taking responsibility. Why do you spread these ideas, ideas which cause guilt, fear, apprehension, and bewilderment, if you have no rationale for them other than some words some people wrote a long time ago?
I'm talking about taking responsibility for the things you imply and the feelings you provoke when you tell someone they were born with sin and are thus damned to burn forever unless they accept salvation. That is a rather extreme claim to make and it is only natural that someone would question it. It describes a mentally ill deity who punishes people for not excepting him based on actions of people we didn't know, and you cited it as justification for suffering in the world. When the poster questioned your claim, you offered no further context or support for this assertion but instead passed the buck onto god before reasserting that man is wicked and doomed without salvation. Indeed the poster wasn't even confining his questions to the implications, but also expressing that he couldn't understand why someone would consider a deity to be just and loving based on such a story.
You made an accusation extending from your belief; an accusation that favors prejudging guilt over innocence, and you offered no accountability for this accusation other than the scapegoat of god. That is not what is considered to be taking responsibility. Why do you spread these ideas, ideas which cause guilt, fear, apprehension, and bewilderment, if you have no rationale for them other than some words some people wrote a long time ago?
sen.c
Active Member
Like I said, I took responsibility for my statement before I posted it. Sorry if you don't like my answer or the God I place my faith in but it doesn't matter what you think really. My statement causes no more Guilt, Fear, Apprehension, and Bewilderment than some of your scientific views so what exactly makes you right and me wrong. Like I said before the moral law is written on everyones heart, if you feel any of the above assertions you made it is a sign that moral law is indeed written on your heart or you wouldn't have them at all. I don't feel any of your asserted feelings as stated above when you say the things of science that I don't prescribe to even when I research them and give them a chance. Not everything is Science, but you always try and push things to that arena so that you feel better but it doesn't have to be that way.
I need not offer any further context to support my statement, I said it was in the Bible and it contains all the context I need. Kinda like the old saying "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Authoring a post is not the same as taking responsibility for your assertions. My liking or not liking the post is beside the point of it having no intellectual merit.
I hold no views which assert guilt, promise indefinite torture, and offer salvation in exchange for their belief. The views I do hold I will go to painstaking lengths to explain and support, and I openly submit them for criticism. This does not make me right, it makes me intellectually accountable for what I posit. What makes you wrong is that you have not given the slightest thought to the validation of your claim, yet hold others to it's standards. Your accusation is inserted into every life by implication, no matter how wholesome and fulfilling that life may be, and creates a dilemma that can only be solved by submitting to one of the most asinine and unsupported ideas in existence.
Ad hominem attack, not surprising. Your belief makes a number of scientific claims. The virgin birth is a claim of biology. Walking on water is a claim of physics. Healing the sick is a claim of physiology. Even prayer suggests a substantial declaration about extra sensory mental communication. Religion makes no attempts to stay outside of science, despite constantly pleading that science leave it outside.
So again, spreading with certainty the belief of original sin which entails prejudice, guilt, torture, and employs manipulation does not warrant to you any more justification than some words from an old book which gives no evidence whatsoever of being written by anything other than mortals oblivious to any rational sense of how reality operates. This is your idea of accountability?