What would it take to make you switch sides?

[Way Cool Jr]

I am an atheist, and am often asked what would it take to make you believe in god. I tell if god came to me, and I could see and talk to him, and he could prove that he was god, then I would change my mind.

Atheists, what would it take for you to believe in god.

Christians, what would it take for you to believe there is no god?

[exlude]

I just flat out don't believe in the supernatural, so it would take a pretty specific revelation/miracle to prove to me otherwise

[White trash wagon]

This will be interesting.

I'd guess an Athiest would believe if God visited them.

However, no lack of proof, no horrible tradegy, no plague, no genocide will deter the beliefs of those who have "faith".

I believe in God, but I also believe most popular religions aren't even close to accurate in how they view him.

Scott

[midniteblue5.0]

i belive u your going to hell! :)

[Phillystang]

This will be interesting.

I'd guess an Athiest would believe if God visited them.

However, no lack of proof, no horrible tradegy, no plague, no genocide will deter the beliefs of those who have "faith".

I believe in God, but I also believe most popular religions aren't even close to accurate in how they view him.

Scott
Where does your knowledge of God's attributes come from?

[Phillystang]

I am an atheist, and am often asked what would it take to make you believe in god. I tell if god came to me, and I could see and talk to him, and he could prove that he was god, then I would change my mind.

Atheists, what would it take for you to believe in god. Your eyes must be opened by the Spirit of God. Faith comes be hearing.

Romans 10:17
Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.


Christians, what would it take for you to believe there is no god?I cannot imagine anything...

[White trash wagon]

Where does your knowledge of God's attributes come from?

I didn't claim I have special knowledge as to God's mission or attributes.

But when I studied history & saw how organized religion has been manipulated & high jacked for political gain & pure greed, almost from day one........even the church's themselves are corrupt....I realized most who follow the herd don't have a clue. That's also true of secular life as well.

Scott

[Phillystang]

I didn't claim I have special knowledge as to God's mission or attributes.

But when I studied history & saw how organized religion has been manipulated & high jacked for political gain & pure greed, almost from day one........even the church's themselves are corrupt....I realized most who follow the herd don't have a clue. That's also true of secular life as well.

Scott

By what standard of truth then can you claim the below then?

Have you ever studied the protestant reformation? Luther and the other reformers opposed the corruption and manipulation of Rome.

I believe in God, but I also believe most popular religions aren't even close to accurate in how they view him.

[Way Cool Jr]

Your eyes must be opened by the Spirit of God. Faith comes be hearing.

Romans 10:17
Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.


“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” [Stephen F Roberts]

[flashstang04]

Nothing....even if one day they found a tomb and inside they found a body and said it was Christ's, I still wouldn't stop believing. Since I believe, I know there is an evil side as well, capable of deception.

Then again, I have the added "benefit" of supernatural experience long before I was a Christian. The idea of nothing is not an option for me.

[Mr Majestyk]

Maybe God uses faith as the path to Him as a means of getting man to realize there is more outside of Creation than what man can prove to exist within the limits of his five senses. Atheists seem to be driven to pigeonhole man's existence into something that can be quantified and explained by perceived rules, and will not accept that a Higher Power can exist outside of those rules without proof. Trouble is such proof would be limited to conforming to man's abilities of perception, and God can exist both within and outside of man's perceptions.

[Phillystang]

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” [Stephen F Roberts]
Cute saying, but I don't see the relevance to any of my posts.

[White trash wagon]

By what standard of truth then can you claim the below then?

Like so many Christian's with narrow view points you seem to think that if I don't believe in YOUR church or YOUR religion, I must be an athiest. Got news for you, 90% of the earth's population are NOT Baptists.

Scott

[Phillystang]

Like so many Christian's with narrow view points you seem to think that if I don't believe in YOUR church or YOUR religion, I must be an athiest. Got news for you, 90% of the earth's population are NOT Baptists.

Scott

You didn't answer the question. If other religions aren't even close in accurate of how they view God, then, by default, your view must be more accurate or true than theirs.

Then I asked you by what standard of truth can you make that claim.

[propellerhead]

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” [Stephen F Roberts]
So true.

I've asked my religious buddies what made them believe what they believe. They all said they let him in then they believed. I'm like wtf? So you believe in it without question then you will see? That's like me telling you to suck my dick because it's good for you and you believe me.

[Fox466]

Lol at the above post...


The only thing that would get me off the fence is if my dad tapped me on the shoulder and told me that there is a God. But since he's not going to be doing that, I'm thinking nothing will.

[Brain_Mach1]

As a child I believed what I was taught by my parents and my schooling.

As an adult, I realize that if pure evolution were the answer, there is nothing separating man from animals. There are no human rights, there is no good will, there is none of this since we are purely animals. This does not mean I do not believe in evolution, but I believe it is guided by a creator.

If a lion can kill the cubs of a pride because they are not his and he wants to pass his genes along, I can take a woman and kill her children so my genes are passed along. This is a part of nature.

Well, humans don't act this way, or it is not acceptable for them to do so since we know there are sociopath and such. That is because we are a higher life form. There are too many characteristics of the human nature, which Christians would say is man made in the image of God and not human creations.

I have not had a major conversion from some "evil" or destructive life because I never lived that kind of life. Think about the Prodigal Son story. The one son did not leave his father, but he was still learning about his father at the end of the story. I view myself as the second son. I get instructed and chastised, I still do wrong, but I did not have to completely leave my father in my sin.

Because I was raised with the education as a child, I know that I will not always get my way or understand God’s Plan for me, so I never strayed too far. I can’t think of anything which would make me not believe since I know I don’t understand God’s Will.

1. An individual’s act or a personal disaster won’t do it.
2. Some new found history won’t do it since it is the interpretation which would try to sway me and not a specific fact. This is how we have different Christian denominations. The fact is written, it is the interpretation that causes division.

[Brain_Mach1]

So true.

I've asked my religious buddies what made them believe what they believe. They all said they let him in then they believed. I'm like wtf? So you believe in it without question then you will see? That's like me telling you to suck my dick because it's good for you and you believe me.
I think what your friend's are trying to explain is Hope.

They "Hope" that the words they have heard are true. Based on this Hope they took a leap which led to Faith and other Graces. This hope does not stop there, but is starts there.

I have not read the entire thig, but Pope Benedict has his Encyclical Letter
SPE SALVI (In hope we are saved) on this link.

[poopnut2]

Couple million bucks.

[White trash wagon]

You didn't answer the question. If other religions aren't even close in accurate of how they view God, then, by default, your view must be more accurate or true than theirs.

Then I asked you by what standard of truth can you make that claim.

Okam's Razor, in the absence of proof, the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

Consider this, God created the entire universe right? In the observable universe (approx 22 billion light years horizon to horizon), there are at least 100 billion galaxies, each with approx 100 billion stars. Science now knows that at least 30% of stars have planets, so there are trillions of planets out there.....if even only one in a billion has intelligent life.....that's million of societies out there, some no doubt, more advanced than us. And what if these more advanced people don't look anything like us? Yet, we're made in God's image? How could WE be in God's image if there were people out there more advanced than us? So the Earth is actually just a spec in the ocean. And I'll bet that when we meet these more advanced people, they WON'T hand us a bible. But if the Bible is REALLY the universal code, you'ld think ALL planets & societies would use it, right?

Yet on Earth, you have at least 5 major religions, each divided into hundreds of sub sects & most disagree about the nature of God, which holy book to follow & the road to salvation. If we as a planet cannot agree on a doctrine of God ( and we're just one of millions of intelligent societies).....how accurate can these differing religious concepts be?

I'm going to speculate that sometime in the next 300 years we will find these other societies, and the major religions of the Earth will relegated to the history books like old Egyptian and Greek mythologies.

Scott

[Blown03_GT]

Okam's Razor, in the absence of proof, the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

Consider this, God created the entire universe right? In the observable universe (approx 22 billion light years horizon to horizon), there are at least 100 billion galaxies, each with approx 100 billion stars. Science now knows that at least 30% of stars have planets, so there are trillions of planets out there.....if even only one in a billion has intelligent life.....that's million of societies out there, some no doubt, more advanced than us. And what if these more advanced people don't look anything like us? Yet, we're made in God's image? How could WE be in God's image if there were people out there more advanced than us? So the Earth is actually just a spec in the ocean. And I'll bet that when we meet these more advanced people, they WON'T hand us a bible. But if the Bible is REALLY the universal code, you'ld think ALL planets & societies would use it, right?

Yet on Earth, you have at least 5 major religions, each divided into hundreds of sub sects & most disagree about the nature of God, which holy book to follow & the road to salvation. If we as a planet cannot agree on a doctrine of God ( and we're just one of millions of intelligent societies).....how accurate can these differing religious concepts be?

I'm going to speculate that sometime in the next 300 years we will find these other societies, and the major religions of the Earth will relegated to the history books like old Egyptian and Greek mythologies.

Scott
I'm with you on this one.

I try not to judge anyone for their beliefs or even comment on them, so long as they don't try and force me to share them, or say that I'm "damned to hell" because I don't share their beliefes.

I actually envy most of them that they can believe something so completely with absolutely no proof. Just a very long work of fiction that has been passed down (and no doubt changed) for thousands of years before it was ever written down. I just can't blindly believe something just because you think I should.

[DarkWolf]

As a child I believed what I was taught by my parents and my schooling.

As an adult, I realize that if pure evolution were the answer, there is nothing separating man from animals. There are no human rights, there is no good will, there is none of this since we are purely animals. This does not mean I do not believe in evolution, but I believe it is guided by a creator.

If a lion can kill the cubs of a pride because they are not his and he wants to pass his genes along, I can take a woman and kill her children so my genes are passed along. This is a part of nature.

Something bothers me with this statement. You take an extreme example, and state resolutely that we are not animals.

Yet you ignore animals such as dolphins that save swimmers from sharks, or the polar bear playing with husky dogs. And plenty of other instances where animals don't just blindly kill each other, or us, on a whim.

Well, here's an extreme example on our side: in China, families are limited to only 2 children, and some of them, if their first child is not male, will kill their first born daughter. So they can pass their name along. It's not even genes, it's pure selfishness and pride in something as intangible as one's name.

Survey says: we're not any different from animals.

[flashstang04]

Something bothers me with this statement. You take an extreme example, and state resolutely that we are not animals.

Yet you ignore animals such as dolphins that save swimmers from sharks, or the polar bear playing with husky dogs. And plenty of other instances where animals don't just blindly kill each other, or us, on a whim.

Well, here's an extreme example on our side: in China, families are limited to only 2 children, and some of them, if their first child is not male, will kill their first born daughter. So they can pass their name along. It's not even genes, it's pure selfishness and pride in something as intangible as one's name.

Survey says: we're not any different from animals.


The thing is we don't see obvious selfishness in animals.. we see base instinct such as fighting for ..or to keep...food, etc. We as humans are the only creatures that consciously make a selfish choice like that. What animals do does not always make sense, like the sited examples above...BUT, they are not conscious decisions. I don't believe that the bear makes a conscious decision not to attack the dogs, while a family in china does make one. They make an informed decision to "kill" as you said.

[White trash wagon]

As a child I believed what I was taught by my parents and my schooling.

As an adult, I realize that if pure evolution were the answer, there is nothing separating man from animals. There are no human rights, there is no good will, there is none of this since we are purely animals. This does not mean I do not believe in evolution, but I believe it is guided by a creator.

You ARE an animal, did you realize that 98% of your DNA is the same as a chimpanzee's?

Human rights, good will, right & wrong are human concepts, born in your mind, not concrete objects, or a part of your body. All concepts of value exist only in the human mind. Gold & diamonds are valuable only because we think they are, in reality they are just rocks.

The superior abilities of the human mind are the only substantial difference between us & all other mammals. But don't get too high & mighty about our place here, humans are the only species that kills for sport & prey's upon itself. WE're also the only species that has wiped out hundreds of other species.

Scott

[exlude]

FWIW, our "feelings" or morality, etc. can all be explained by evolutionary benefits. Just thought I'd throw that down, but that's for another thread I guess.

[flashstang04]

You ARE an animal, did you realize that 98% of your DNA is the same as a chimpanzee's?

Human rights, good will, right & wrong are human concepts, born in your mind, not concrete objects, or a part of your body. All concepts of value exist only in the human mind. Gold & diamonds are valuable only because we think they are, in reality they are just rocks.

The superior abilities of the human mind are the only substantial difference between us & all other mammals. But don't get too high & mighty about our place here, humans are the only species that kills for sport & prey's upon itself. WE're also the only species that has wiped out hundreds of other species.

Scott


We also share up to 80%, and bare minimum 60% with a banana.....does that make you a fruit? Or at least a little bit? Context, context..........

[exlude]

We also share up to 80%, and bare minimum 60% with a banana.....does that make you a fruit? Or at least a little bit? Context, context..........

Well, there are common genes among many different parts of life. I don't know if we share 60% of our genome with a banana, but I'll take your word for it in lack of evidence.

Nevertheless, if most organisms share something like 60%, then take into consideration the part we don't share. Say we look at that other 40% of which we are 0% banana, but 95% chimp.

[flashstang04]

Well, there are common genes among many different parts of life. I don't know if we share 60% of our genome with a banana, but I'll take your word for it in lack of evidence.

Nevertheless, if most organisms share something like 60%, then take into consideration the part we don't share. Say we look at that other 40% of which we are 0% banana, but 95% chimp.


Well we can both site evidence validating our statistics..... so where to go from there? I don't know. Most living things don't actually share that much, especially with us...bananas and certain worms.. (excluding primates) are very close to us in terms of DNA. Am I more worm or fruit? Or am I a fruity, wormy chimp? My point is that similarity to a chimpanzee is no basis for law....or even theory imo.

[White trash wagon]

We also share up to 80%, and bare minimum 60% with a banana.....does that make you a fruit? Or at least a little bit? Context, context..........

Actually, I was going to mention that 60% of our DNA is the same as a tree.......but 60% is a LONG from 98%.

The context your asking for it that DNA is kinda like digital code, a series of yes/no (or 1/0) instructions. Sharing 60% DNA with a tree means : we are both carbon based lie forms, that require water, iron, sucrose, carbohydrates, similar temperature range, atmosheric conditions, etc. Thus the higher the shared %, the more similar 2 life forms are.

Scott

[flashstang04]

Actually, I was going to mention that 60% of our DNA is the same as a tree.......but 60% is a LONG from 98%.

The context your asking for it that DNA is kinda like digital code, a series of yes/no (or 1/0) instructions. Sharing 60% DNA with a tree means : we are both carbon based lie forms, that require water, iron, sucrose, carbohydrates, similar temperature range, atmosheric conditions, etc. Thus the higher the shared %, the more similar 2 life forms are.

Scott

Then by your rationale..surely we would share more DNA with a dog, or a bear, than a worm and banana, which we don't.

[jones4stangs]

I'm not so difficult. I think if the content of the Bible made more sense to me, I'd be cool with joining "the flock". The New Testament isn't so bad, but the old one... oh my goodness. I just can't accept the tales as I've read in the bible. Also, the diversity of beliefs and organizations spawning from the same source doesn’t lead credibility to me. Oh yea, also the historical realities of how Christianity has grown and expanded throughout the world cast it in a poor light for me.

[Mr Majestyk]

Note that Jesus coming was prophesized in the Old Testament. Many of the other events in the Old Testament carry over to the New Testament as well, summed up by Isaiah who prophesied that Israel was to be a light unto the nations. The seemingly strict laws to which the early Jews were subject was likely appropriate for the time, and adherance to them forged the Covenant with God. Gentiles (like me) have it much easier; our Covenant with God only requires that we follow Jesus.

[Brain_Mach1]

Something bothers me with this statement. You take an extreme example, and state resolutely that we are not animals.

Yet you ignore animals such as dolphins that save swimmers from sharks, or the polar bear playing with husky dogs. And plenty of other instances where animals don't just blindly kill each other, or us, on a whim.

Well, here's an extreme example on our side: in China, families are limited to only 2 children, and some of them, if their first child is not male, will kill their first born daughter. So they can pass their name along. It's not even genes, it's pure selfishness and pride in something as intangible as one's name.

Survey says: we're not any different from animals.

I never said a animal must kill, I said they are allowed under the laws of nature. It is in the nature of the lion to kill the cubs which are not its own. Killing to amke sure it's genes are passed in not "blindly kill each other, or us, on a whim."

If we are guided only by nature, then what China (a communist country) does is acceptable.

I do not find it acceptable, but I am Christian. A Christian views abortion as evil. A communist does not have this view since there is no God.

Great example Darkhorse!

[Way Cool Jr]

I do not find it acceptable, but I am Christian. A Christian views abortion as evil. A communist does not have this view since there is no God.



Why do Christians view abortion as evil? Is it because it supposedly kills an unborn child? If that is the case, do Christians support the death penalty? In my opinion killing is killing, anyway you slice it.

[flashstang04]

Why do Christians view abortion as evil? Is it because it supposedly kills an unborn child? If that is the case, do Christians support the death penalty? In my opinion killing is killing, anyway you slice it.


Not to derail the thread, but it is a wild stretch to equate abortion with the death penalty. Convicted felons made choices to do what they did, and have to reap what they have sown. In an abortion setting, a baby is "innocent" and has no chance to run, do right or wrong, or defend itself... there is absolutely no similarity in the two. Killing IS killing, but not all killing is murder. Murder is irrational killing, not "deserved killing". Criminals are subject to the laws of man, the unborn are not, but still pay with their lives for being inconvenient.

[exlude]

Then by your rationale..surely we would share more DNA with a dog, or a bear, than a worm and banana, which we don't.

Where are you getting your numbers, might I ask? Would just like to see them...

[AdamLX]

Not to derail the thread, but it is a wild stretch to equate abortion with the death penalty. Convicted felons made choices to do what they did, and have to reap what they have sown. In an abortion setting, a baby is "innocent" and has no chance to run, do right or wrong, or defend itself... there is absolutely no similarity in the two. Killing IS killing, but not all killing is murder. Murder is irrational killing, not "deserved killing". Criminals are subject to the laws of man, the unborn are not, but still pay with their lives for being inconvenient.

So do Christians support the death penalty?

[Way Cool Jr]

So do Christians support the death penalty?

IMHO, they shouldn't, because "Thou shall not kill". Second, Jesus said "turn the other cheek"

[Mr Majestyk]

Christians as a rule are to support the laws of the land, so if state or federal law mandates the death penalty there is no compelling theological reason for a Christian to oppose it. Me personally, I'm not in favor of it because the possibility of human error, however remote, might result in the killing of an innocent person.

[AdamLX]

IMHO, they shouldn't, because "Thou shall not kill". Second, Jesus said "turn the other cheek"

That was going to be my original reply, but after reading his post a few times I realized he didn't answer your question.

I never remembered a footnote in the 10 Commandments stating "unless justified".

[AdamLX]

Christians as a rule are to support the laws of the land, so if state or federal law mandates the death penalty there is no compelling theological reason for a Christian to oppose it. Me personally, I'm not in favor of it because the possibility of human error, however remote, might result in the killing of an innocent person.

So the Laws of the Land supercede rules supposedly set forth directly by God?

[flashstang04]

Where are you getting your numbers, might I ask? Would just like to see them...


They are easy facts to obtain.. I get my numbers from books...but if you want sources that you can check right now, you can find some references here:
http://www.thingsyoudontneedtoknow.com/dnabananas.html

[flashstang04]

So the Laws of the Land supercede rules supposedly set forth directly by God?


Hebrews 13:17
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

[flashstang04]

That was going to be my original reply, but after reading his post a few times I realized he didn't answer your question.

I never remembered a footnote in the 10 Commandments stating "unless justified".


In the original translation it is translated "Thou shall not murder"
Which is completely different. We can also see this translation in Gen 8, where it says Cain "killed" his brother, when in the original languages, it said that he "murdered" his brother.

Again, context....



Christ was not alluding that we should not defend ourselves or our families...what he was speaking to was revenge, and that we should let wrongs to us roll of or just "turn the other cheek"


*sheesh guys, look into these things

[Mr Majestyk]

IMHO, they shouldn't, because "Thou shall not kill". Second, Jesus said "turn the other cheek"

The Commandment actually said you shall not murder.

Turn the other cheek is an admonition against personal vengeance, not an admonition against self-defense or a state's efforts to exact restraint or punishment on one who intentionally and with malice harms other members of his society.

[Mr Majestyk]

So the Laws of the Land supercede rules supposedly set forth directly by God?

Where do the laws of the land supercede any of the Ten Commandments?

[Way Cool Jr]

Hebrews 13:17
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

The old testament also says in Leviticus 11:10-12
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 22:11
"Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together."

Do you eat shrimp? Or clothing of a mix of fibers? The old testament says a lot of things....do you follow just parts of it, or the whole thing?

[flashstang04]

The old testament also says in Leviticus 11:10-12
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 22:11
"Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together."

Do you eat shrimp? Or clothing of a mix of fibers? The old testament says a lot of things....do you follow just parts of it, or the whole thing?


Are you serious?

I am not an old testament Jew, I am a Gentile under the new covenant.


.....next

Really, please study these things......

[Mr Majestyk]

The old testament also says in Leviticus 11:10-12
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 22:11
"Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together."

Do you eat shrimp? Or clothing of a mix of fibers? The old testament says a lot of things....do you follow just parts of it, or the whole thing?

Old Testament laws applied to Israel. This is another example of one quoting the Bible but obviously not understanding it.

[Way Cool Jr]

Where does it say that it only applies to Israel?

Didn't Jesus say that you must not ignore the laws and teachings of the old testament?

[flashstang04]

Where does it say that it only applies to Israel?

Didn't Jesus say that you must not ignore the laws and teachings of the old testament?


Christ came and FULFILLED the law, we are under a new covenant. Israel was under the old covenant.

If you have questions about Israel, and what applies and what doesn't and you seriously want to learn, I would recommend picking up a Strong's Concordance and reading up on it.

[Mr Majestyk]

Where does it say that it only applies to Israel?

Didn't Jesus say that you must not ignore the laws and teachings of the old testament?

It's part of the New Covenant. The laws of the Old Testament were specifically part of the first Covenant which God made with His chosen people. Would it be a bad thing to follow those laws today? No, but Jesus sacrifice made keeping those Old Testament laws no longer a requirement to being one with God for us Gentiles. The Old Testament is still filled nonetheless with valuable teachings from which we can still learn today.

[BrianC]

Old Testament laws applied to Israel. This is another example of one quoting the Bible but obviously not understanding it.

Ummm...no, that's not exactly true. Yes, it was given to Israel, but we are told that the Law was given to man to reveal sin in ANYONE. And the way the law is setup is such that if any nation actually followed its rules, it would prosper greatly, because the Law is basically God's rules and guidelines for the ultimate in Godly nations. Since the Hebrews were God's chosen people, they had to have a strict set of rules so that they would not embarrass God's good name around the earth. Had the Hebrews followed all of the Law and not gotten corrupt, the Law would've blessed the nation of Israel greatly and God's name would've been more well represented. But they didn't, and Israel kept going into captivity as punishment for straying from God's ways and laws.

The United States is a great example of this. The United States is built on Judao-Christian values and couched in many similar laws acquired from the Old Testament Law. The forefathers who constructed our governmental structure did it knowing full well that the Laws in the Bible were the way a nation is blessed by God. But they didn't want overbearing government, so they only took certain broad laws and implimented them. Their philosophy was to start with anarchy and insert just a little bit of government to help keep the order (confederate papers, I believe it was called). This wasn't quite enough government. So, they inserted JUST a tad bit more government, and we have the Constitution, which worked perfectly. It was JUST enough government to keep the peace, but just enough so the people wouldn't take advantage of the lack of government and order. And it worked beautifully for years, till the government tried to grow bigger.

As the government stayed small and went with the original plan, we grew wonderfully, and as such a new nation, using those principles, we grew to a super power in no-time flat and were unstoppable world-wide. Those principles God laid out in the old Law are very useable for producing a perfect government and flourishing people who are free. The U.S. proved it. The founders said that our survival as a nation depends on us being a religious and moral people. When religion and morals goes out the window, the nation will fail or turn into another government completely. That's exactly what we're seeing today. As our morals decline and religion is pushed to the side or twisted and used for worldly purposes, the nation has gone hard in the directin of socialism. We started out with very few taxes and no income tax or sales tax even. Now, we have every kind of tax you can think of, and we are taxed anywhere from 10% to 45% depending on income level. This is totally socialistic with wealth redistribution (income tax percentages) and the government growing bigger and bigger while the freedoms shrink more and more.

If you look up the American Communist Manifesto of 1963 I think it is, you'll see that they set out with about 45 goals to impliment in the U.S. Most all of them have been implimented to some degree in the U.S. today and are a reality now, thanks mostly to the Democratic party which has been being highjacked by communists (aka - socialists) since the 60's. Look at JFK, who was known for huge tax cuts and who was considering abolishing the IRS and the income tax. He got assassinated for who knows what reason, and ever since then, the Democratic party has shifted to resemble socialism (or as they call themselves: secular progressives).

So no, that law was not JUST for the Hebrews. It is something the nations of the world can look at and benefit from. And the commandment laws were what any person can abide by and know what sin is and how to live a blessed life, regardless of whether you're a Jew or not. God even said He will write His laws on our (Christians) hearts when they're born again. Apparently, the laws are pretty important. But we are not to be focused on them like the Jews were who twisted their meaning as if the Law could save them instead of God.

[propellerhead]

Atheists, what would it take for you to believe in god.
Nothing I read on a message board, for sure.

[BrianC]

It's part of the New Covenant. The laws of the Old Testament were specifically part of the first Covenant which God made with His chosen people. Would it be a bad thing to follow those laws today? No, but Jesus sacrifice made keeping those Old Testament laws no longer a requirement to being one with God for us Gentiles. The Old Testament is still filled nonetheless with valuable teachings from which we can still learn today.

You almost sound like you've made the same mistake Israel made in your assessment of what the Law was for (Hebrews says the Law saved no one). The Law was NEVER a requirement for Israel. Look at what King David said, who had the Holy Spirit just like we do today: Psalm 32:1-2 - How blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered! How blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity..."

Obviously, God saved people in the Old Testament through faith in Him just like Christians are today saved by faith. Look at what Paul in the New Testament says about Abraham: Romans 4:8-10 - "BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT (Paul quotes Psalm 32:1 here)." Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;"

So, as you see, Paul makes a key distinction here, that Abraham was saved APART from the Law (e.g. - Abraham was uncircumsized) through faith and not by obedience to the Law. Paul is making the case that the Law never saved anyone and was not required by God's people for them to be saved. He is making a case for faith being the active component in saving people, just like it is today.

Remember...God says He never changes. You would be surprized how little has changed since Adam and Eve. It's staggaring when you look at it in scripture what really has carried through since the garden and what little has changed.

[Mr Majestyk]

........So no, that law was not JUST for the Hebrews. It is something the nations of the world can look at and benefit from. And the commandment laws were what any person can abide by and know what sin is and how to live a blessed life, regardless of whether you're a Jew or not. God even said He will write His laws on our (Christians) hearts when they're born again. Apparently, the laws are pretty important. But we are not to be focused on them like the Jews were who twisted their meaning as if the Law could save them instead of God.

Re-read post below:
It's part of the New Covenant. The laws of the Old Testament were specifically part of the first Covenant which God made with His chosen people. Would it be a bad thing to follow those laws today? No, but Jesus sacrifice made keeping those Old Testament laws no longer a requirement to being one with God for us Gentiles. The Old Testament is still filled nonetheless with valuable teachings from which we can still learn today.

We are in agreement that following those laws would not be a bad thing for all of us. We are in disagreement that a strict following of those laws would have brought the Hebrew people into being one with God. Those laws are part of the Covenant that God made with them, and the Covenant is binding. God will certainly keep His part of any Covenant, the Hebrews could have kept their part by strict adherance to those laws.

The Ten Commandments are a different matter, and I am not including those with the detailed laws and statutes given to Moses to which I refer above. Following the Ten Commandments is certainly something everyone, both Jew and Gentile, must strive to do to be one with God.

[Mr Majestyk]

You almost sound like you've made the same mistake Israel made in your assessment of what the Law was for (Hebrews says the Law saved no one). The Law was NEVER a requirement for Israel. Look at what King David said, who had the Holy Spirit just like we do today: Psalm 32:1-2 - How blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered! How blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity..."

Obviously, God saved people in the Old Testament through faith in Him just like Christians are today saved by faith. Look at what Paul in the New Testament says about Abraham: Romans 4:8-10 - "BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT (Paul quotes Psalm 32:1 here)." Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;"

So, as you see, Paul makes a key distinction here, that Abraham was saved APART from the Law (e.g. - Abraham was uncircumsized) through faith and not by obedience to the Law. Paul is making the case that the Law never saved anyone and was not required by God's people for them to be saved. He is making a case for faith being the active component in saving people, just like it is today.

Remember...God says He never changes. You would be surprized how little has changed since Adam and Eve. It's staggaring when you look at it in scripture what really has carried through since the garden and what little has changed.

Remember though that Abraham, formerly Abram, pre-dated the laws given to Moses. We are not in total disagreement, other than I see the laws as being part of the Covenant that God made with the Hebrews, and following them thus would be a requirement for them to fulfill their part of the Covenant.

[Mr Majestyk]

Nothing I read on a message board, for sure.

Very true for the opposite side of this thread as well :D

Christians, what would it take for you to believe there is no god?

[BrianC]

What I love is that people can see definite proof in the prophecies I laid out, because it's impossible for them to happen so accurate as they did over thousands of years and to be so specific in their prophesy and fulfillment that anyone who saw that cannot deny there is a God. Yet, they do their best to deny absolutely everything and make up every excuse by calling the prophecies "vague" when they're specific, and saying, "anything could've fulfilled them" when clearly it would take God Himself working it out to make these come true so specifically, and mankind could not pull it off himself. It's absolutely, positively impossible, and there are no other explanations. Yet, they go against all logic, reason and statistics an simply say, "I don't believe you." That just blows my mind.

Guess the Bible was right when it said God will send them a strong delusion. lol This is about as blatant as it gets.

[Mr Majestyk]

That's another reason why the Old Testament remains such a valuable asset today.....prophecy after propechy fulfilled, example after example of true faith.

[Way Cool Jr]

What I love is that people can see definite proof in the prophecies I laid out, because it's impossible for them to happen so accurate as they did over thousands of years and to be so specific in their prophesy and fulfillment that anyone who saw that cannot deny there is a God. Yet, they do their best to deny absolutely everything and make up every excuse by calling the prophecies "vague" when they're specific, and saying, "anything could've fulfilled them" when clearly it would take God Himself working it out to make these come true so specifically, and mankind could not pull it off himself. It's absolutely, positively impossible, and there are no other explanations. Yet, they go against all logic, reason and statistics an simply say, "I don't believe you." That just blows my mind.

Guess the Bible was right when it said God will send them a strong delusion. lol This is about as blatant as it gets.

Question then....If scientists were able to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that evolution is true. If they could tell you exactly how it happened, with facts and proof. You would not change your mind?

[flashstang04]

Matthew 24:24, "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."

[flashstang04]

Question then....If scientists were able to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that evolution is true. If they could tell you exactly how it happened, with facts and proof. You would not change your mind?


You ask a loaded question, and Ill get flamed from you for this, but the answer is no. We as Christians believe that as children of God, we have a very REAL enemy, both spiritually and physically. In fact, Brian tried to talk about this in another thread and was called all kinds of names even though he put his neck out there and asked people to join him in yahoo messenger.

But as to your question, I believe that Satan can make things seem real to get people to fall away. I believe that while we see psychics in the news find bodies etc, that it is all demonic, and portrayed in such a fashion as to make people say "see it cant be bad because it saved a persons life!" or whatever the case may be. I relayed some other stories on some other threads talking of some of my personal experiences, and most of it was dismissed as well, but I think that you ask the wrong question, as evolution will never be proven. It's like global warming....it seems true because everyone has "facts and figures", but is impossible. I think the biggest faith question is that if the remains of "Christ" were found, would that make you lose your faith?" In that instance I still say no, because I know it would be fake, but so many would fall away. I have actually been expecting this for some time now.

[BrianC]

Remember though that Abraham, formerly Abram, pre-dated the laws given to Moses. We are not in total disagreement, other than I see the laws as being part of the Covenant that God made with the Hebrews, and following them thus would be a requirement for them to fulfill their part of the Covenant.

No where in the covenant does it say that the Hebrews have to keep the Laws to be saved. And the New Testament confirms this. That was not part of the covenant.

And regardless of Abraham pre-dating the law, David did not predate the law, and remember how David's statement is used in Hebrews when telling about Abraham and his righteousness apart from the Law?

Abraham was under the covenant, not the Law. Two very different things. Circumcision was part of the the Law. The reference to Abraham being saved APART from circumcision is pointing to the fact that the Law is not what saves you and is not part of the covenant. If Abraham was given a covenant from God, then that means the covenant has nothing to do with the Law and was not part of it. It came later to show the people how to live a blessed life and be good representatives of God on earth. It was used to reveal sin and show how to live a blessed, Godly life. That's it. It was never part of the requirement for salvation. I challenge you to find where in the scriptures it says it was a requirement. And then, you need to explain how Abraham could be saved by God's covenant to him, but apart from the law if the law was a requirement.

Besides, God's covenants aren't conditionally. He didn't say "if you break my laws, you are condemned." He said they'd be cursed with every disease and things like that, but those are all curses on earth, not in heaven. God gave a covenant to Abraham by which he could be saved through faith in God apart from the Law. Look at the fruit that gave mankind the knowledge of good and evil. That is the same as the Law. The Law was given to us to give us the knowledge of good and evil. And that knowledge produces sin in us and kills us spiritually. Paul said he was alive spiritually until he saw the law and died spiritually (because of the knowledge of sin). So, the fruit in the garden gave Adam the knowledge of good and evil too, and this caused spiritual death. The fruit was the original law. God wrote it on mankinds hearts when they ate the fruits. Abraham was under the law.

Cain and Able gave sacrifices, so God told them parts of the law apartently and about sin. They knew this stuff. Abraham knew it to some extent or he could not have lived a godly life. So, there was some sort of law in place that killed men through the knowledge of good and evil. How do we know this? Because Abraham needed to be saved, and his faith saved him and brought him to life spiritually. So, his knowledge of good and evil must've been what killed him originally. Does this make any sense?

[BrianC]

Question then....If scientists were able to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that evolution is true. If they could tell you exactly how it happened, with facts and proof. You would not change your mind?

Well, like the atheists in here, I would have to see one species change into another species, or I would have to see the bones of one species slowly change to another species. And then sure, I would certainly believe in it. But as of now, I know a LOT about evolution, and I know that it hasn't a shred of proof. In fact, it has holes and leaks like a cauldron. I've seen it completely disproved on many fronts. The science is all backwards.

It's about as bad, or worse, than global warming. Scientists say that the carbon levels cause the temperature to rise, yet we know that's completely bogus. As the temperature rises the ocean releases carbon, and as the ice melts, it releases carbon. That alone destroys global warming theory. Ever seen that great big ball of fire in the sky? That's what causes temperature fluxuation, and it's not caused by man. The New York Times of all papers just put out an article the other day by a used-to-be global warming advocate and said global warming is a fraud. The New York Times! Wow, that's crazy. Kyoto Treaty is just a ploy to redistribute wealth. How is paying for carbon credits so money can go to 3rd world countries going to clean up the atmosphere? It's not! It's all a wealth redistribution fraud. Most countries are sorry they signed Kyoto now, because it's hurting their economies badly.

Anyway, the point is that evolution is the same as global warming. It's got facts that show how incredibly false it is. That's why I don't believe in it. I know the theory well, and I know the facts against it well too. That's why I know they'll never prove it. And even if it were possible to prove it, then I'd assume God controlled it, because genetic data cannot increase. It only decreases and causes mutation or hinders versatility in adaptation. Adaptation works, but can cause genetic data loss over extended periods of time. This can cause either mutation or inability to adapt to old environments through the information loss. Either way... doesn't matter...

[Mr Majestyk]

No where in the covenant does it say that the Hebrews have to keep the Laws to be saved. And the New Testament confirms this. That was not part of the covenant.

And regardless of Abraham pre-dating the law, David did not predate the law, and remember how David's statement is used in Hebrews when telling about Abraham and his righteousness apart from the Law?

Abraham was under the covenant, not the Law. Two very different things. Circumcision was part of the the Law. The reference to Abraham being saved APART from circumcision is pointing to the fact that the Law is not what saves you and is not part of the covenant. If Abraham was given a covenant from God, then that means the covenant has nothing to do with the Law and was not part of it. It came later to show the people how to live a blessed life and be good representatives of God on earth. It was used to reveal sin and show how to live a blessed, Godly life. That's it. It was never part of the requirement for salvation. I challenge you to find where in the scriptures it says it was a requirement. And then, you need to explain how Abraham could be saved by God's covenant to him, but apart from the law if the law was a requirement.

Besides, God's covenants aren't conditionally. He didn't say "if you break my laws, you are condemned." He said they'd be cursed with every disease and things like that, but those are all curses on earth, not in heaven. God gave a covenant to Abraham by which he could be saved through faith in God apart from the Law. Look at the fruit that gave mankind the knowledge of good and evil. That is the same as the Law. The Law was given to us to give us the knowledge of good and evil. And that knowledge produces sin in us and kills us spiritually. Paul said he was alive spiritually until he saw the law and died spiritually (because of the knowledge of sin). So, the fruit in the garden gave Adam the knowledge of good and evil too, and this caused spiritual death. The fruit was the original law. God wrote it on mankinds hearts when they ate the fruits. Abraham was under the law.

Cain and Able gave sacrifices, so God told them parts of the law apartently and about sin. They knew this stuff. Abraham knew it to some extent or he could not have lived a godly life. So, there was some sort of law in place that killed men through the knowledge of good and evil. How do we know this? Because Abraham needed to be saved, and his faith saved him and brought him to life spiritually. So, his knowledge of good and evil must've been what killed him originally. Does this make any sense?

Leviticus 18:4-5 (NRSV) My ordinances you shall observe and my statutes you shall keep, following them: I am the Lord your God. You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances; by doing so one shall live: I am the Lord.

Levitcus 26:3-12 (NRSV) If you follow my statutes and keep my commandments and observe them faithfully......I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people.

I consider live and I will walk among you to being at one with God. Abraham, as well as Isaac and Jacob, had one on one personal encounters with God that their later descendants at the time of the Exodus did not. This one on one encounter allowed Abraham to become one with God, through his show of faith regarding the sacrifice of his son Isaac, in the absence of the subsequent laws given to Moses.

I agree with you that, according to Scripture, failing to follow the laws did not condemn the transgressors to anything greater than earthly tribulations. This shows me that the concept of forgiveness leading to salvation was already understood at the time of the Old Testament.

[BrianC]

Leviticus 18:4-5 (NRSV) My ordinances you shall observe and my statutes you shall keep, following them: I am the Lord your God. You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances; by doing so one shall live: I am the Lord.

Levitcus 26:3-12 (NRSV) If you follow my statutes and keep my commandments and observe them faithfully......I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people.

I consider live and I will walk among you to being at one with God.

Ahhh, now here's where you fall short. You "consider" live and I will walk with among you to mean "being at one with God." But that's strictly a theory and is not at all clear in scripture.

My wife takes a very sensible approach to the Bible. She says that if it's not stated clearly or cannot be proven 100%, then it must be a theory. And if it's a theory, then one should not believe in it, but rather, they should strictly hold that view as a theory, nothing more, and never teach it to someone else without stating it as unproven theory. She says she only sticks with things she can 100% prove, because that's the only way to stay away from being responsible for teaching someone false doctrines. I agree with her, but I still have a ton of theories and I make sure I state them as such.

I agree that "live" could mean what you say it means, but that would mean that the first commandment would be the only one that really matters. If you love God, He will save you, and then you will "live." However, "live" could mean that you will truly live a good life on earth with the blessings of God, because God said you would be blessed by following the law. God is just saying that if we submit to Him and His ways, He will not resist us but walk among us. But if we resist His ways (that's the definition of pride) and walk in our own ways instead, in pride, then He will resist us (God resists the prideful), and therefore, will not walk among us, in which case we will not be living life to the fullest or in happiness and joy and peace, but rather in sin, shame and guilt. Make sense?


Abraham, as well as Isaac and Jacob, had one on one personal encounters with God that their later descendants at the time of the Exodus did not. This one on one encounter allowed Abraham to become one with God, through his show of faith regarding the sacrifice of his son Isaac, in the absence of the subsequent laws given to Moses.

I don't agree that one needs a face-to-face or one-on-one encounter with God to become one with Him. God had to show Himself to Abraham eventually, but not before He simply spoke to Abraham and made him sacrifice his son to display his obedience. God showed Himself face-to-face after this event. Abraham saw God, one-on-one only AFTER becoming one with Him through faith and obedience.

I agree with you that, according to Scripture, failing to follow the laws did not condemn the transgressors to anything greater than earthly tribulations. This shows me that the concept of forgiveness leading to salvation was already understood at the time of the Old Testament.

Then the law is of no consequence in the Old or New Testament. It's all about loving God so that He will sanctify you. The Old Testament saints we hear about in scripture HAVE to be the Hebrews, because they would be the only ones that could've been sanctified, which is where the term "saint" comes from. They were saved just like we are, minus the revelation of Jesus Christ. They knew they had a Redeemer, and they speak of Him being in heaven, but they did not know His name. They MIGHT have, but no one knows for sure since Yeshuwah in Hebrew is how you spell Jesus, but it is also Hebrew for God's salvation or My salvation.

Psalm 91:14,16 says: "Because he has loved Me, therefore I will deliver him...and I will show him My salvation." It could read, "I will show him Jesus," and it actually does read that way, because the word there is Yeshuwah (Jesus). But it's the same as me calling a girl Rose, and her name meaning "a flower with torns called a rose." So, no one knows for sure.

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

it would take countless threads about life-saving dolphins, bad math, and asthma causing demons to make me believe in god

[Mr Majestyk]

I agree that "live" could mean what you say it means, but that would mean that the first commandment would be the only one that really matters. If you love God, He will save you, and then you will "live." However, "live" could mean that you will truly live a good life on earth with the blessings of God, because God said you would be blessed by following the law. God is just saying that if we submit to Him and His ways, He will not resist us but walk among us. But if we resist His ways (that's the definition of pride) and walk in our own ways instead, in pride, then He will resist us (God resists the prideful), and therefore, will not walk among us, in which case we will not be living life to the fullest or in happiness and joy and peace, but rather in sin, shame and guilt. Make sense?

The First Commandment is of course not the only one that matters, but it is the most important if such is perhaps possible. That is why it is the first, and if one follows it he/she will automatically follow the others, because if one truly loves God he/she will keep all of His Commandments.


I don't agree that one needs a face-to-face or one-on-one encounter with God to become one with Him. God had to show Himself to Abraham eventually, but not before He simply spoke to Abraham and made him sacrifice his son to display his obedience. God showed Himself face-to-face after this event. Abraham saw God, one-on-one only AFTER becoming one with Him through faith and obedience.

I never stated that one needs to have a face to face or one-on-one encounter with God to be one with Him. I only stated that Abraham, among others, did have such an encounter. It was after such a one-on-one encounter, where God spoke directly to Abraham (Genesis 22:1-2), that he showed his faith through his willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac.


Then the law is of no consequence in the Old or New Testament. It's all about loving God so that He will sanctify you. The Old Testament saints we hear about in scripture HAVE to be the Hebrews, because they would be the only ones that could've been sanctified, which is where the term "saint" comes from. They were saved just like we are, minus the revelation of Jesus Christ. They knew they had a Redeemer, and they speak of Him being in heaven, but they did not know His name. They MIGHT have, but no one knows for sure since Yeshuwah in Hebrew is how you spell Jesus, but it is also Hebrew for God's salvation or My salvation.

Psalm 91:14,16 says: "Because he has loved Me, therefore I will deliver him...and I will show him My salvation." It could read, "I will show him Jesus," and it actually does read that way, because the word there is Yeshuwah (Jesus). But it's the same as me calling a girl Rose, and her name meaning "a flower with torns called a rose." So, no one knows for sure.

The Old Testament laws were never done away with, rather they were a "temporary" means of becoming one with God until Jesus came. Hebrews 8:10 states For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

[BrianC]

The First Commandment is of course not the only one that matters, but it is the most important if such is perhaps possible. That is why it is the first, and if one follows it he/she will automatically follow the others, because if one truly loves God he/she will keep all of His Commandments.

Yes, but Jesus said there were only two commandments now, love God and love your neighbor as yourself. He said the Law is covered by those two things.

The Old Testament laws were never done away with, rather they were a "temporary" means of becoming one with God until Jesus came. Hebrews 8:10 states For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
I didn't say the Law is done away with, or I didn't mean to. The Law is still in place today and people that are not Christian are under the Law still. But Christians are no longer under it. It is written on their hearts, meaning when you're born again, you suddenly understand right from wrong. I know when I was born again, instantly, it was like a light switch came on and I understood good and evil on a whole new level, very black and white. I suddenly understood the world for what it really was. It was like I had all of this knowledge from out of now where, but didn't know how to put it into words. Very weird, but very cool.

[BrianC]

it would take countless threads about life-saving dolphins, bad math, and asthma causing demons to make me believe in god
The math was exceptionally good and percise, actually. But whatever floats your boat...

[FSON]

A 2008 ZR1 and a blonde, Hollywood, starlet, 36x24x36.

[flashstang04]

A 2008 ZR1 and a blonde, Hollywood, starlet, 36x24x36.



I bet you would be surprised at the amount of people that have those very things and are miserable inside..

[FSON]

I bet you would be surprised at the amount of people that have those very things and are miserable inside..
I would be so happy.

[Mr Majestyk]

Then work for it

[FSON]

Then work for it
That is not part of the equation.

[Mr Majestyk]

If you can get it given to you, then enjoy :D

[Preston]

I will pray for you. : )

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

The math was exceptionally good and percise, actually. But whatever floats your boat...


Okay then.

Life saving dolphins, asthma causing demons, and 365 days of stupid threads... and obviously by 'days' I mean 'years'.


water.... water floats my boat

[FSON]

Oh Lord,
I don't want a Mercedes Benz, Janis Joplin is driving one of those. I want a ZR1.

[Shoot To Kill]

interesting and entertaining...



<--- non believer

[89gt-stanger]

So do Christians support the death penalty?


i am christian and i DO support the death penalty.

but if i do support the death penalty, are you going to say that i am not truly a christian?

[Nestromo]

humans are the only species that kills for sport

That is because we are in the image of god. :D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v609/mithrastheprophet/forum/god-v-satan.png

Can I get an AMEN?!

[Shoot To Kill]

That is because we are in the image of god. :D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v609/mithrastheprophet/forum/god-v-satan.png

Can I get an AMEN?!
amen!

[flashstang04]

That is because we are in the image of god. :D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v609/mithrastheprophet/forum/god-v-satan.png

Can I get an AMEN?!


Thats just dumb.

Let's talk about sin that entered the world and depraved us to the point where we have wars, abortions, diseases, etc.

Satan wins that title.

[Mr Majestyk]

Adam & Eve are the ones that killed us, in this world.

[Nestromo]

Adam & Eve are the ones that killed us, in this world.

So Adam and Eve, then God, then Satan.

Check. :cool:

[Nestromo]

Thats just dumb.

Let's talk about sin that entered the world and depraved us to the point where we have wars, abortions, diseases, etc.

Satan wins that title.
Thank god for abortions. We already went forth and miltiplied, now we need to figure out a way to divide.

I say free abortions for all! That is one thing that I wouldn't mind my tax dollars paying for. :D

[Mr Majestyk]

Starting with you perhaps? :D

[Mr Majestyk]

So Adam and Eve, then God, then Satan.

Check. :cool:


No, Adam & Eve

Checkmate

[Nestromo]

Had I been aborted, I doubt I would mind much now. ;)


No, Adam & Eve


Checkmate

:confused:

So thau shalt not kill really doesn't mean much then. Shweet. Maybe god is just longwinded and threw that one out there to hear himself talk. :D

[Mr Majestyk]

The correct way to quote the 6th Commandment is "Thou shall not murder" (Exodus 20). "Murder" and "kill" do not mean the same thing, either in the Bible or in secular life today.

It means a lot, just like the other 9 Commandants. Could it be instead that you're longwinded and like to hear yourself talk? :D

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

The correct way to quote the 6th Commandment is "Thou shall not murder" (Exodus 20). "Murder" and "kill" do not mean the same thing, either in the Bible or in secular life today.

It means a lot, just like the other 9 Commandants. Could it be instead that you're longwinded and like to hear yourself talk? :D

Weird.

http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/romancatholic-tencommandments.html



If the religious folk can't even agree on what it actually says, then how are you supposed to be telling us non-believers what it says? I mean, shouldn't all the religions come to an agreement if that is really what happened/what was said/written?

[Mr Majestyk]

I can find and post a link that uses the word murder, so what? Murder and killing are two different things in the Old Testament, which if you had ever read you would realize, just like they are two different things today. I personally don't tell anyone what the Bible says.....that's for them to discover because it speaks to individuals in ways appropriate to their own relationship with God.

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

I can find and post a link that uses the word murder, so what? Murder and killing are two different things in the Old Testament, which if you had ever read you would realize, just like they are two different things today. I personally don't tell anyone what the Bible says.....that's for them to discover because it speaks to individuals in ways appropriate to their own relationship with God.


I know you can, that's my point.

[flashstang04]

One only has to study the original translations to see that it was meant as "murder". That is pretty easy to verify and leaves very little room for interpretation.

[Mr Majestyk]

I know you can, that's my point.

Our point is that the Commandment is against murder, as is revealed throughout the Old Testament. There is no conflicting interpretation.

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

Our point is that the Commandment is against murder, as is revealed throughout the Old Testament. There is no conflicting interpretation.

So what's the King James version all about? Or do we only go by one version, depending on which version best suits the needs of the discussion?

[Mr Majestyk]

We go by the Old Testament. The version of the Bible you use makes no difference, when you have read through the Old Testament you'll understand that the admonition is against murder.

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

We go by the Old Testament. The version of the Bible you use makes no difference, when you have read through the Old Testament you'll understand that the admonition is against murder.

Who is "we"?

So who uses the King James version then? Because that one clearly says 'kill'.

[Nestromo]

The correct way to quote the 6th Commandment is "Thou shall not murder" (Exodus 20). "Murder" and "kill" do not mean the same thing, either in the Bible or in secular life today.

Hmm... good catch. I still think god killing (or murdering) people just because they are a big 'ol city full of homofagtites counts as murder. That is if it had really happened.

It means a lot, just like the other 9 Commandants. Could it be instead that you're longwinded and like to hear yourself talk? :D

You might be on to something here. :confused:

[Nestromo]

Who is "we"?

So who uses the King James version then? Because that one clearly says 'kill'.

Well I'll be damned. No pun intended.

[poopnut2]

The ten commandments are B.S.

All of the laws spoken to Moses by "God" were already laws in most civilizations. It's not like murder or adultry were praised before that. You were always supposed to respect your elders and praise or "honor" god or the gods.

The ten commandments brought nothing new to the table and although it made for a pretty sweet movie, we could've done without them.

[Nestromo]

"From my cold dead hands"

[Mr Majestyk]

Who is "we"?

So who uses the King James version then? Because that one clearly says 'kill'.

"We" are those who have read and thus at least somewhat understand the Bible as a complete work. As long as you continue to myopically focus on one line that you find on an internet site, you'll never grasp what the Old Testament said regarding murder and killing. It also doesn't matter whether you use the King James version or not, the admonition in the Old Testament is clearly against murder. For example, Christians can serve in the military and/or in law enforcement, and they may have to kill in the line of duty, but they are not breaking the 6th Commandment.

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

"We" are those who have read and thus at least somewhat understand the Bible as a complete work. As long as you continue to myopically focus on one line that you find on an internet site, you'll never grasp what the Old Testament said regarding murder and killing. It also doesn't matter whether you use the King James version or not, the admonition in the Old Testament is clearly against murder. For example, Christians can serve in the military and/or in law enforcement, and they may have to kill in the line of duty, but they are not breaking the 6th Commandment.

From what I understand, it says 'kill' in the King James version of the bible. It probably does say 'murder' in the Old Testament, but why are there different versions (of commandments and bibles for that matter)?

[Brain_Mach1]

That is because we are in the image of god. :D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v609/mithrastheprophet/forum/god-v-satan.png

Can I get an AMEN?!
If you want to see the kind of death Satan is capable of, click the below link.

http://wquercus.com/millions.htm

But hey, if we kill of our citizens, we can just import people from Mexico to support us with labor.

The American family is not 2.4 children, it is 1.6 children. The American culture is destroying itself. I believe this is the work of satan. :D

[Nestromo]

Damn, multiply all of those dots by the amount we are saving in welfare and the number becomes even more staggering. :eek: :eek:

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

If you want to see the kind of death Satan is capable of, click the below link.

http://wquercus.com/millions.htm

But hey, if we kill of our citizens, we can just import people from Mexico to support us with labor.

The American family is not 2.4 children, it is 1.6 children. The American culture is destroying itself. I believe this is the work of satan. :D

Satan causes abortions?

[Nestromo]

Satan causes abortions?

Satan also donates to planned parenthood so that low income women can get good health care. I guess Satan is a liberal after all. :confused:

[flashstang04]

Make jokes if you want to , but when Gen x and Y can't get retirement because a whole generation has been wiped out, thus eliminating tax paying citizens, it won't be so funny. Abortion has destroyed our economy.

[Nestromo]

You have got to be kidding. I don't even know how to respond to that.

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

Make jokes if you want to , but when Gen x and Y can't get retirement because a whole generation has been wiped out, thus eliminating tax paying citizens, it won't be so funny. Abortion has destroyed our economy.

regardless of that, satan caused it?

[Mr Majestyk]

If you ascribe to the belief that abortion is evil, then yes, Satan is behind it. Some might go so far as to call it murder, which we've already touched upon in this thread.

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

If you ascribe to the belief that abortion is evil, then yes, Satan is behind it. Some might go so far as to call it murder, which we've already touched upon in this thread.

So I guess satan causes cancer then too?


What about the people that claim god made them kill their children? I guess the devil made them say that? The crazy jesus cults and Heavens Gate folks? Pretty convenient little scam.

[flashstang04]

You have got to be kidding. I don't even know how to respond to that.


If you care about increasing your knowledge...take the time to read this

http://www.nrlc.org/news/2001/NRL01/laura.html

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

If you care about increasing your knowledge...take the time to read this

http://www.nrlc.org/news/2001/NRL01/laura.html


I didn't see any mention of satan, granted I just browsed though.

[Nestromo]

If you care about increasing your knowledge...take the time to read this

http://www.nrlc.org/news/2001/NRL01/laura.html

Easy killer. If that is something based on fact I'm not interested in reading it. I go on faith alone, that way I don't ever have to prove anything. ;)

All jokes aside I'll check it out.

[Mr Majestyk]

Man brought on cancer and all the other dread diseases as a result of Adam and Eve's choice made in the Garden of Eden. That is, man attempted to set himself up as his own god, and obviously failed, and thus must endure the consequences of evil in the world on his own if he so chooses or he can turn to God and overcome it.

Know that demons can and do masquerade as being on the side of good, and those that are duped by them are liable to do most anything.

[Nestromo]

So in other words everything bad that happens to me is the result of my great x 2^26 grandfather and grandmothers' fault? Shitty. Especially considering how ancient some of the human bones that have been found are. That debt should have been paid in full by now, especially considering that Adam and Eve should have at least been Homo Erectus, which is one of the first humans to walk upright.

[flashstang04]

I didn't see any mention of satan, granted I just browsed though.


That wasn't referring to your comment clock, but feel free to read it if you want.

[Nestromo]

That wasn't referring to your comment clock, but feel free to read it if you want.

Eh, PM me if you want to discuss in private. Otherwise it is for everyones eyes.

Seriously, PM me if you want. Especially if you have any SN95 parts for sale.

[flashstang04]

Eh, PM me if you want to discuss in private. Otherwise it is for everyones eyes.

Seriously, PM me if you want. Especially if you have any SN95 parts for sale.


I have no idea what you mean. I don't have that many sn95 parts left actually.

[Mr Majestyk]

So in other words everything bad that happens to me is the result of my great x 2^26 grandfather and grandmothers' fault? Shitty. Especially considering how ancient some of the human bones that have been found are. That debt should have been paid in full by now, especially considering that Adam and Eve should have at least been Homo Erectus, which is one of the first humans to walk upright.

The original sin was committed by Adam and Eve, so yes, they are the ones who introduced mankind to sin. I wouldn't say that everything bad that happens to you is their fault; you are no doubt able and sometimes willing to commit sin all on your own are you not? The debt owed by man as a result of his sinfullness has indeed been paid in full, read the New Testament to learn all about it.

[Brain_Mach1]

So I guess satan causes cancer then too?

There have been many studies linking 1st pregnancy abortion to increased risk of breast cancer.

If Satan is linked to people killing their own children (I agree) than the cancer which might have been prevented by carrying the child would be caused by Satan.

Heck, if you love America, you would have children and raise them to be Americans. The fact that our birth rates will lead the US to disappear should scare any patriot. This is not even a religious point!

[Nestromo]

I see the link to abortion and the liklihood of breast cancer but you still haven't linked aboriton to satan.

[Mr Majestyk]

Do you not think that abortion carried out simply because a child would be an "inconvenience" to the parties involved is inherently evil?

[Nestromo]

Do you not think that abortion carried out simply because a child would be an "inconvenience" to the parties involved is inherently evil?

Lets say for a second that it is inherantly evil.

That still doesn't mean that it was caused by 'ol splitfoot.

<= Satans advocate

[Mr Majestyk]

If you're indeed Satan's advocate, you should already know him intimately and wouldn't need to be asking in a car forum whether or not he's behind abortion.

[Brain_Mach1]

Satan comes from Hebrew meaning adversary. By definition he apposes God. Since he cannot directly affect God, he attacks us.

Most of Satan's work at apposing God is not through demonic possession, but in convincing us humans that God's commands are not real. This is seen in Genesis Chapter 3 (yes, the serpent is Satan):

Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals that the LORD God had made. The serpent asked the woman, "Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?" The woman answered the serpent: "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, 'You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.'"
But the serpent said to the woman: "You certainly will not die!

Lying is the key.

The “Pro-Choice” people claim that the fetus is not a baby which is a lie. My daughter and my wife were all born pre-mature and yet they were real babies.

Above we hear that Planned Parenthood provides healthcare to low income woman, yet abortions increase the risk of breast cancer. This is not healthcare. Pregnancy is not a health issue on the scale of breast cancer.

Biblically, we are told that the unborn are real.

Jeremiah 1:5 says: Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you.

Luke 1:41-42: When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.

Unborn babies respond to light shined on the mother’s stomach, they respond to their parents’ voices.

In California, it is double murder if you kill a pregnant woman, even if she is planning an abortion. The law says the unborn child is a life.

Bible verse would have no affect on an atheist, but it is unfathomable that any “Christian” would ever support abortion. As Jesus said in Matthew 25:40 “And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'

Mary was a young woman who kept her baby even though she could have been stoned.

[exlude]

The “Pro-Choice” people claim that the fetus is not a baby which is a lie. My daughter and my wife were all born pre-mature and yet they were real babies.


Holy shit, your wife and daughter were born in the 10-12 week span? Damn.

[exlude]

There have been many studies linking 1st pregnancy abortion to increased risk of breast cancer.


Fwiw:
In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. A summary of their findings, titled Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop, can be found at http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report .


http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage

[exlude]

Also for what it's worth, I was reading the biological reasoning behind a supposed increase of breast cancer due to abortion and it does make sense. However, spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) would do the same thing. Seeing as how about 30% of all implanted zygotes are spontaneously aborted (many times without the knowledge of the mother), the number of spontaneous abortions far exceeds the number of induced abortions. Further, about 15% of all pregnancies fail in the first five months.

Given all this, more people would be getting cancer the "natural" way than as punishment for killing their first born as some people wish to hypothesize.

So I would say, desspite that there hasn't been a link found, the logic has been fairly destroyed on that approach.

[Nestromo]

If you're indeed Satan's advocate, you should already know him intimately and wouldn't need to be asking in a car forum whether or not he's behind abortion.

Come come now Majestyk... you know what Devil's Advocate means.

[Mr Majestyk]

The devil you say! :D

[Brain_Mach1]

Holy shit, your wife and daughter were born in the 10-12 week span? Damn.
I missed the math can you please elaborate?

[exlude]

I missed the math can you please elaborate?

You just made a fallicious statement about what the "pro-choice" people believe, I was given you shit for it. Letting you know, at the same time, a hint at the acceptable timespans.

[Brain_Mach1]

You just made a fallicious statement about what the "pro-choice" people believe, I was given you shit for it. Letting you know, at the same time, a hint at the acceptable timespans.
You made a fallacious statement about my wife and daughter because you don't believe the sources that link abortion and breast cancer.

Satan is the father of lies. Try to pull yourself above it if you expect to be taken seriously. We can disagree on different sources, but don’t make stuff up.

The NCI (government institute) disagrees with the links between breast cancer and abortions. They say that the studies were not consistent.

This is the same language that they use when talking about the links between “the Pill” and cancer. The NCI says “scrutiny has produced a wealth of data on OC use and the development of certain cancers, although results of these studies have not always been consistent.”

What is funny is that the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (government institute) includes steroidal estrogens used in oral contraceptives to its official list of "known" human carcinogens.

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/releases/news-archive/2002/10thrc.cfm

One government organization is being fallacious and one is not?

But I am sure Planned Parenthood tells clients that the Pill may or may not increase the users risk of cancer and that abortion may or may not increase the risk of cancer. All in the name of women’s health.

[Brain_Mach1]

As I looked at your source, I noticed that it says reviewed 05/30/2003 in the upper top right.

Checkout this link http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3740/25471/35813.aspx

Okay, I am not going to buy the report either, but here is some edits (Pro-life slant) from the report.

http://www.lifenews.com/nat2453.html

In the report is a list of "immutable medical risk factors associated with preterm birth" and "prior first-trimester abortion" is listed third among other risk factors that increase the risk of having a subsequent premature birth.
Interesting that WebMD has a link to a Harvard study which says there are no long term affects from abortions yet the IOM says there is? It appears they are only giving half the story, yet they aren’t they about health? Isn’t a woman entitled to all the information?

Does Planned Parenthood give both sides to the story?

It is easy to tell when a site is Pro-Life, they are open about it. Why do Pro-Choice sites tend to hide the fact they are Pro-abortion, almost fallaciously?

[exlude]

You made a fallacious statement about my wife and daughter because you don't believe the sources that link abortion and breast cancer.

Satan is the father of lies. Try to pull yourself above it if you expect to be taken seriously. We can disagree on different sources, but don’t make stuff up.

Holy shit, sarcasm is miles above your head apparently. News: I didn't really think your daughter and wife were born at 10-12 weeks. :rolleyes:

The NCI (government institute) disagrees with the links between breast cancer and abortions. They say that the studies were not consistent.

This is the same language that they use when talking about the links between “the Pill” and cancer. The NCI says “scrutiny has produced a wealth of data on OC use and the development of certain cancers, although results of these studies have not always been consistent.”

What is funny is that the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (government institute) includes steroidal estrogens used in oral contraceptives to its official list of "known" human carcinogens.

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/releases/news-archive/2002/10thrc.cfm

One government organization is being fallacious and one is not?

But I am sure Planned Parenthood tells clients that the Pill may or may not increase the users risk of cancer and that abortion may or may not increase the risk of cancer. All in the name of women’s health.

Why the change of topic? We were talking about abortion being linked with breast cancer. Just because two studies use similar language does not mean they have much in common.

[exlude]

As I looked at your source, I noticed that it says reviewed 05/30/2003 in the upper top right.

Yeah, I noticed that too. I looked around a bit to make sure it was still being upheld, and it is. The site has to be changed/updated for them to change that review date. If the findings still stand as true (or, not false), it won't be changed. Anyway, here is an article that references the same study dated 8/07:

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribut e_to_Breast_Cancer.asp

So we can conclude that NCI still stands behind those findings.


http://www.lifenews.com/nat2453.html

Interesting that WebMD has a link to a Harvard study which says there are no long term affects from abortions yet the IOM says there is? It appears they are only giving half the story, yet they aren’t they about health? Isn’t a woman entitled to all the information?


I found a link to the story that you were referencing.
http://women.webmd.com/news/20070423/abortion-and-breast-cancer-no-link

But you are twisting their words. Harvard says specifically, that there is no evidence that abortion leads to breast cancer. They don't say, "there are no long term affects from abortions." Two very different things, don't ya think? So IOM, Harvard, WebMD, and the NCI are all on the same page there. They all say that there is no verifyable link between abortions and breast cancer.

Now, who says there is such a link?
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/start/

Nah, they don't have an agenda (that's sarcasm, I know your detector is broked ;) )

Now, I'm not here to argue if abortion is right/wrong, who is evil/good. I was just correcting your science. The evidence and logic behind your original argument has been deconstructed fairly well.

[Thurston]

I wish I would have seen this thread earlier. I honestly believe that there is a larger number of atheists in the world than is thought to be.
For me to believe in a creator, I would have to see a supernatural account take place with my own two eyes.

[Thurston]

...and with that said, Im obviously not a believer in the devil either.