Originally posted by Aneslayer:It doesn't address the fact that coneys are neither ruminants nor pratise refection, which is an observable and verifiable fact.
Seeing that your are parroting the same arguments from your link shows that you did not read the counter arguement of my link, or see the strawman attempts of what your link actually argue.
Where one sets any point to be reference, bias is also set....
I'm not even playing the devil's advocate... I'm just eager to rid the faux in objective truth.
Rather it shows that you FAILED to understand what the Christian apologists are saying. The problem is that you failed to appreciate that the Bible is not a science textbook, that it was written to people who lived thousands of years ago, and many things are written using the language of appearance to the ordinary Israelite folk. Had you lived back then you would have known nuts about terms like refection or regurgitation. It's not that the Bible is errant, but that skeptics like you impose a modernised restrictive meaning of a term onto the text and then declares that it is wrong. You FAILED to understand the Bible in its own context. The rabbit/hare is being understood as an animal that "chews the cud" because what it does is very similar to what ruminants do. That's the simple answer. But then again it would not surprise me if you choose to disregard the answers given because you are not truly interested in the answer at all.
Originally posted by alize:5. You need to show that the flat earth belief is a PROMINENT or PREVALENT view in Christianity in order to obligate me to defend it. Question is, can you? Tough luck to ya! On the other hand, I do know of many atheists who rally behind Richard Dawkins. You are probably one of them.
Whether Flat Earth theory is a prominent belief in Christianity is irrelevant. It is WRITTEN EXPLICITLY and REPEATEDLY in bible scripture.
YOU were the one who said if I I don't fully subscribe to "Dawkin's atheism" then I am not a true atheist.
According to your other posts, you don't consider tithing to be true Christian practice. But it is a prominent practice of millions of Christians. Does that simple fact make it representative of true Christianity? Or does it make you not a true Christian?
After you realised that you could not show that belief in a flat earth is a prominent belief in Christianity you decide to chuck it aside as irrelevant. What a convenient cop out!
You claimed that the doctrine of a flat earth written "explicitly" and "repeatedly" in the Bible. Show it then, and prove that the texts were ONLY teaching us about the physical characteristic of the planet earth and were not using metaphorical language or widely accepted idioms or figures of speech.
Dawkins is as vocal an atheist as possibly can be. So I'll be surprise if you do not believe most, if not all, the things he writes about in his books. He is the No. 1 defender and proclaimer of atheism you can get today. It used to be Anthony Flew but you know lah, Anthony Flew gave up his atheism when he realised that the scientific evidence goes against it. Too bad he's dead. It would be a sell-out event if Anthony Flew and Richard Dawkins would battle it out in a public debate.
Yes, I don't consider tithing to be Christian, even though millions of Christians practice it. I also don't consider the Prosperity Gospel to be Christian, even though millions of Christians believe it. But then again, millions of Christians don't believe tithing is part of the NT covenant too, and millions reject the Prosperity Gospel. And it's not about what millions of Christians practise, it's about whether what's being practiced can be justified by Scripture and proper exegesis.
Originally posted by laurence82:Actually its well known that Muslims treat jesus as a prophet, not son of god, or Jews dont even treat him as anyone significant
But you wouldnt find BIC coming down on them, coz he scared to offend Muslims or Jews
Trying to use spite and taunt eh? Getting me to say the things you don't dare say yourself, ya? The wiles of the village atheist is easy to spot and expose.
Originally posted by Tcmc:Actually in your religion, it also says nothing produced something.
Nothing produced god. Your argument backfires on yourself.
What? And you dare to claim that you were a Christian and were like me? Please don't embarrass yourself. It really does not look good for you at all.
The Bible teaches that God is ETERNAL. Please try to remember from your Sunday School days what that means. Which of your Sunday School teachers told you that God was produced by nothing? Name teacher and church please. Duh.....
Originally posted by Aneslayer:You describe as if God is cruel to the other lifeforms as well....
Elaborate please.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
After you realised that you could not show that belief in a flat earth is a prominent belief in Christianity you decide to chuck it aside as irrelevant. What a convenient cop out!You claimed that the doctrine of a flat earth written "explicitly" and "repeatedly" in the Bible. Show it then, and prove that the texts were ONLY teaching us about the physical characteristic of the planet earth and were not using metaphorical language or widely accepted idioms or figures of speech.
Dawkins is as vocal an atheist as possibly can be. So I'll be surprise if you do not believe most, if not all, the things he writes about in his books. He is the No. 1 defender and proclaimer of atheism you can get today. It used to be Anthony Flew but you know lah, Anthony Flew gave up his atheism when he realised that the scientific evidence goes against it. Too bad he's dead. It would be a sell-out event if Anthony Flew and Richard Dawkins would battle it out in a public debate.
Yes, I don't consider tithing to be Christian, even though millions of Christians practice it. I also don't consider the Prosperity Gospel to be Christian, even though millions of Christians believe it. But then again, millions of Christians don't believe tithing is part of the NT covenant too, and millions reject the Prosperity Gospel. And it's not about what millions of Christians practise, it's about whether what's being practiced can be justified by Scripture and proper exegesis.
I am not only questioning Flat Earth but also your logic.
Address the question about lumping atheists together. How can you bind me to a prominent atheist such as Richard Dawkins or call me an untrue atheist for not following?
If tithing is a prominent practice you don't follow, should you be bound to it or called an untrue Christian simply because it is prominent?
Dawkins is not the atheist Bible and does not bind us. If any one should be bound by their book, it is you Christians.
Originally posted by alize:I would say if there is a just god, a lot of good non-Christians would go to heaven and a lot of bad Christians would go to hell.
Except that this so-called "just God" would be an invention of your own mind.
Except that this so-called "just God" would be an invention of your own mind.
Then he is unjust. For letting good non-Christians go to hell and bad Christians to enter heaven.
Simple as that.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Rather it shows that you FAILED to understand what the Christian apologists are saying. The problem is that you failed to appreciate that the Bible is not a science textbook, that it was written to people who lived thousands of years ago, and many things are written using the language of appearance to the ordinary Israelite folk. Had you lived back then you would have known nuts about terms like refection or regurgitation. It's not that the Bible is errant, but that skeptics like you impose a modernised restrictive meaning of a term onto the text and then declares that it is wrong. You FAILED to understand the Bible in its own context. The rabbit/hare is being understood as an animal that "chews the cud" because what it does is very similar to what ruminants do. That's the simple answer. But then again it would not surprise me if you choose to disregard the answers given because you are not truly interested in the answer at all.
Tl;dr version : No_U.jpg
I'm ignoring all your pathetic ad hominems, and a strawman. Just answer this:
Can you accept that the badger/ coney is neither a ruminant nor practises refection? Remember, observable and verificable...
I'm always advocating the bible as not science text, (see here) and was implying to you not to....
edit: 3 of the 4 links in your link above return blank pages...
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Elaborate please.
The other lifeforms were created with mortality as the norm... Only human were made perfect originally...
Originally posted by alize:And why should you Christians mourn death? To you, life on earth is temporary and you are called home to be with the lord eternally. Why don't you be eager to leave this fallen world? How can you consistently say death is a curse?
Christians have every reason to see death as an enemy because that's what the Bible teaches. Death is a curse because that's what the Bible teaches. But I don't suppose you knew any of that. BTW, Jesus wept at Lazarus' tomb.
Yes, Christians mourn and grieve the death of loved ones. But we know that death is not the end for those who are in Christ. And I am sure you would like me to die sooner so the atheists can have a free run here ya? Don't worry, I'm not eager to die. I still got work to do on this forum! Somebody needs to stand up to your arguments, no matter how Neither does the Bible teach that we should all seek to die. We are live for Christ! In fact, don't you know that Christians "die to themselves" everyday? We are called to present ourselves to God as "living sacrifices". But then again I don't suppose you know what that means at all.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Christians have every reason to see death as an enemy because that's what the Bible teaches. Death is a curse because that's what the Bible teaches. But I don't suppose you knew any of that. BTW, Jesus wept at Lazarus' tomb.
Yes, Christians mourn and grieve the death of loved ones. But we know that death is not the end for those who are in Christ. And I am sure you would like me to die sooner so the atheists can have a free run here ya? Don't worry, I'm not eager to die. I still got work to do on this forum! Somebody needs to stand up to your arguments, no matter how Neither does the Bible teach that we should all seek to die. We are live for Christ! In fact, don't you know that Christians "die to themselves" everyday? We are called to present ourselves to God as "living sacrifices". But then again I don't suppose you know what that means at all.
In fact I wish you a long life here. For every person a Christian manages to convert, there are others who will be turned off. Your posts are a monument to flawed logic and serve this purpose nicely.
BIC
Actually, IF God's goodness IN HEAVEN is so INFINITELY GOOD, and being in god's presence is the BEST thing on earth, shouldn't christians wish to die earlier to be with god?
If you dont wanna die earlier, then arent you telling god that you want to delay being with him?
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC,
But to me your god seems to be a very bad planner with bad foresight. You mean he knew thousands of nonchristians will die every day and still he created everyone of us? And he knew that even wth his son dying, many people will still not believe because its nt convincing enough, yet he still did it....
And after he did so much, KNOWING his plans will FAIL still, many people still dont buy into his plans.
..? Failed?
Even as you type your "righteous sentences" here, BIC, remember, thousands of noncrhsitians are dying, young old babies, children.
You have a failed theology, Tcmc. You need someone to educate you with the right theology that you never had to begin with.
The Bible teaches that the original creation was PERFECT. There was no death. Death came about as a result of Adam's sin. That wasn't God's failure, it was Adam's failure to obey God's command. Did God foresee that? Of course He did. But read Revelation. Does that sound like God failed? Nope. In the end, those who kept the faith live with their Creator, while those who rebel against God are cast into eternal hell. God wins!
And why you worry about people dying? If you are truly that concerned, what are you doing about it? NOTHING. You should take more thought for the condition of your soul before you pretend to care for the souls of others.
Originally posted by Tcmc:No, you are really quite dim. I am not trying to stir shit between the two religions.
I am trying to show you that EVERY religion claims to have the true god and true way.
Your religion is NOT superior as much as you want it to be!
You totally missed the point.
Why deny the obvious?
If you are saying that every religion makes exclusive claims, what's new? Even atheism makes exclusive claims. Atheism declares ALL religions to be false, be it Christianity, Islam or Buddhism.
Originally posted by alize:Except that this so-called "just God" would be an invention of your own mind.
Then he is unjust. For letting good non-Christians go to hell and bad Christians to enter heaven.
Simple as that.
Who told you that bad Christians go to heaven?
There are Christians who deny the faith, deny Christ, and go apostate. Example is Charles Templeton. I do not believe he is in heaven.
Originally posted by alize:I am not only questioning Flat Earth but also your logic.
Address the question about lumping atheists together. How can you bind me to a prominent atheist such as Richard Dawkins or call me an untrue atheist for not following?
If tithing is a prominent practice you don't follow, should you be bound to it or called an untrue Christian simply because it is prominent?
Dawkins is not the atheist Bible and does not bind us. If any one should be bound by their book, it is you Christians.
No one is binding you to Dawkins. But logic demands that an atheist believes in certain things, which are basically those that Dawkins wrote about. At least he is upfront about what atheism entails and implies.
It is not the popularity of a practice that determines whether it is Christian, it is whether that practice is supported by Scripture properly exegeted. I am happy to be bound by the Scriptures. It is authoritative for me.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Why deny the obvious?
If you are saying that every religion makes exclusive claims, what's new? Even atheism makes exclusive claims. Atheism declares ALL religions to be false, be it Christianity, Islam or Buddhism.
BIC
I didnt even bring in atheism because its irrelevant. Atheism isnt a religion, as much as your deluded mind wants it to be.
I am just comparing the different religions for you to see, to show you that your excluse claim in christianity doesnt necessary make it "better" or superior".
Religion A says god A is good. Religion B says god B is good.
Atheism doesnt come into the picture because it doesnt claim that any god is good.
It's like comparing football and basketball and then you bring in "not playing football" as a sport to compare...
Originally posted by Aneslayer:Tl;dr version : No_U.jpg
I'm ignoring all your pathetic ad hominems, and a strawman. Just answer this:
Can you accept that the badger/ coney is neither a ruminant nor practises refection? Remember, observable and verificable...
I'm always advocating the bible as not science text, (see here) and was implying to you not to....
I don't need you to tell me that the Bible is not a science textbook. Creationists by and large already know that. See http://creation.com/but-the-bibles-not-a-science-textbook-is-it
Of course I can accept facts. But since when does "chewing the cud" can only mean the narrow sense as in modern day scientific understanding? It's like you telling me that if the word "gay" appears in the Bible it must refer to homosexuals because that's what it's meant today. That would be absurd. Like I said, Scripture writers employ the language of appearance. Even Linneaus classified the rabbit as one that "chews the cud" based on OBSERVATION of physical characteristics and behaviour.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:The other lifeforms were created with mortality as the norm... Only human were made perfect originally...
Wrong. At end of Day 6 God said it was all "VERY GOOD". There was no death before sin.
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
Actually, IF God's goodness IN HEAVEN is so INFINITELY GOOD, and being in god's presence is the BEST thing on earth, shouldn't christians wish to die earlier to be with god?
If you dont wanna die earlier, then arent you telling god that you want to delay being with him?
Didn't you learn in Sunday School that Christ lives in every believer? God is with us. So you see, once again I have exposed you for the fraud that you are.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:You have a failed theology, Tcmc. You need someone to educate you with the right theology that you never had to begin with.
The Bible teaches that the original creation was PERFECT. There was no death. Death came about as a result of Adam's sin. That wasn't God's failure, it was Adam's failure to obey God's command. Did God foresee that? Of course He did. But read Revelation. Does that sound like God failed? Nope. In the end, those who kept the faith live with their Creator, while those who rebel against God are cast into eternal hell. God wins!
And why you worry about people dying? If you are truly that concerned, what are you doing about it? NOTHING. You should take more thought for the condition of your soul before you pretend to care for the souls of others.
BIC
It is god's failure because
1. he is allknowing, he knew what he created would fail yet he still did it.
2. when a manufacturer produces faulty products, do you blame the manufacturer or the product? Moreover, the manufacturer (in this case god) KNEW that he was producing products that would go faulty.
3. he is allpowerful, meaning he could have rectify the fault but he didnt and then he pushed the blame to us.
Dont keep saying that he gave us a choice. THats not the issue.
The issue is, EVEN BEFORE he created us OR GAVE US CHOICE, he knew everything is gonna screw up.
So why did he still make such a foolish decision to create? assuming hes real.
you will never understand xtian beliefs, however how incoherent and illogical they are.
to me it doesnt make any sense. karl marx is spot on to say, religion is an opiate is very true.opium is addictive and harmful, but people still enjoy and addicted to it in the older days.
Originally posted by alize:In fact I wish you a long life here. For every person a Christian manages to convert, there are others who will be turned off. Your posts are a monument to flawed logic and serve this purpose nicely.
Then I am in good company. When Paul preached to the folks in Athens he started from Creation and then to the Cross. Many mocked and scoffed (like many here in this forum) but a FEW believed. While the Bible teaches that Christ died to save all it also teaches that not all want to be saved. For wide is the gate to destruction and narrow is the door to life.
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
It is god's failure because
1. he is allknowing, he knew what he created would fail yet he still did it.
2. when a manufacturer produces faulty products, do you blame the manufacturer or the product? Moreover, the manufacturer (in this case god) KNEW that he was producing products that would go faulty.
3. he is allpowerful, meaning he could have rectify the fault but he didnt and then he pushed the blame to us.
Dont keep saying that he gave us a choice. THats not the issue.
The issue is, EVEN BEFORE he created us OR GAVE US CHOICE, he knew everything is gonna screw up.
So why did he still make such a foolish decision to create? assuming hes real.
I already said this a few times, the issue of being omniscient and omnipotent.
same with SATAN. so does god know that lucifer will betray him and yet he created
lucifer, knowingly lucifer will betray and become SATAN. so whose fault is this? none other than the creator isnt it. same with the paradox of creating something god cant lift?