Proof of God

[ILOVEJESUS]

Oh...and a bleated HIYA to Kate, Psycho and Barney. If you are still in Northamptonshire Barney PM me. I have moved here now from the paradise that is Luton/Beds.

[mondrian]

redbeardjon wrote

Hello again everyone, thanks for joining the discussion. There are too many replies for me to address so I will talk about some of the more interesting ones to keep the conversation going.

I did watch the entire “Miracles for Sale” mentioned by Michael earlier. I must say I was worried that it would be very convincing, but it wasn’t. The program focused primarily on people making money in the church through deception. I believe this is a real problem so did Peter in the New Testament when he said “Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up.” Even supposing that the healing I cited earlier was deception, there are two other examples I shared that were not among the common healings explained by Derren Brown. I do agree that there are fake healers however.

Concerning the young woman interpretation of Isaiah as opposed to virgin, in the culture in which Isaiah was written young woman who were not virgins were very rare. Even if it means young woman, it does not mean that she was not a virgin. Isaiah may have used that word to emphasize that in addition to being a virgin she would be young. Does either interpretation really make it an incorrect prophecy? No.

On another interesting note, perhaps we can cut through the round and round arguments that you guys mention. I think this next question goes to the roots of both of our beliefs. Can something just exist? If any of you hold the big bang theory to be true, what is the origin of the matter and energy involved? If any of you say “It just was,” then your entire belief is not based on more evidence that my belief.

Here's a quote for you son of a preacher man:

Give me the child until he is seven and I'll give you the man.

That was the Jesuit motto, alleged to be attributed to Francis Xavier, the co-founder of the Jesuit Order. The implication is that the best opportunity to indoctrinate a person in a lifetime of belief and devotion to religious dogma is when they are young.

You are a prime example of someone who was indoctrinated when young.

Ask yourself this - was it fair of your father to inflict his beliefs on you? Would it not have been better to give you both sides of the god argument and then let you decide for yourself? Isn't that what decent parents do?

[Node18]

this banally indoctrinated fuckwit is just as convincing as the ones before him.

did i say convincing? i meant devoid of cognitive ability

[mondrian]

Node18 wrote

this banally indoctrinated fuckwit is just as convincing as the ones before him.

did i say convincing? i meant devoid of cognitive ability

Hope that wasn't aimed at me Node18?

[Node18]

mondrian wrote

Hope that wasn't aimed at me Node18?

course not

[Barney]

So Red.

The Hindu Gods. All poly-armed and mighty of Trunk. Are they imaginary silly childish pagan idols with no power. If so, how come that miracles happen each day that their beleivers pray to them. Sometimes they will help them find their keys and on the odd occassion, they will cure cancer or another terminal disease.

Is Yaweh as powerful as them? Is he better? Is he Real? How do their miracles work?

I know the answer to this, but I would like you to think about it for a bit. Lets see if that mind of yours has completley seized up aged 22 from its steady diet of high-repertition-low freedom of personal thought, diet that ol' Dad has stuffed into you since birth.

[psychodiva]

wonder when it's going to come up with the age old (read boring) argument that the Big Bang and the existence of a god are connected *yawn*

[abeeching1]

God did not create morality as many theists have previously tried to tell me. Morality was formed through social development over thousands of years. You theists like to think of your God(s) as being so almighty and powerful well they're not. Society has adapted God, not the other way round. For example the Bible, it comprises of an Old Testament and a New Testament. People used to believe the old but now they belive the new and if people say they belive the old then they are lying, unless they're incredibly discreet or in jail for mass murder. People have had to stop believing in the Old Testament because it doesn't fit in with what modern society deems to be OK so society has changed God, meaning morality is not God's gift unto us

[redbeardjon]

abeeching1 wrote

God did not create morality as many theists have previously tried to tell me. Morality was formed through social development over thousands of years. You theists like to think of your God(s) as being so almighty and powerful well they're not. Society has adapted God, not the other way round. For example the Bible, it comprises of an Old Testament and a New Testament. People used to believe the old but now they belive the new and if people say they belive the old then they are lying, unless they're incredibly discreet or in jail for mass murder. People have had to stop believing in the Old Testament because it doesn't fit in with what modern society deems to be OK so society has changed God, meaning morality is not God's gift unto us

I do understand what you are saying but your understanding of the the Old Testament and New Testament is incorrect. Some have twisted the Bible to fit modern society and it is unfortunate that they have done so. The Old Testament was a shadow of what was to come in the new so they are aligned perfectly. You may have heard that in the OT priests had to sacrifice animals for the sins of the people. You may also have heard that in the OT people were supposed to be put to death for certain sins. The sacrifice of animals in the OT was a shadow of what Jesus would be on the cross, a final sacrifice for the sins of those who would believe in Him. The old system of sacrificing animals was done away with at this point. It is the same for people being put to death. No longer are people put to death for their sins because Christ was put to death for their sins. Furthermore, much of OT law was specifically prescribed to the Jewish people, by God, and not the Gentiles who would later be included in God's plan through the spread of His Word by His disciples. This is why Gentiles were never required to be circumcised as the Jews were required to. Of course there are still many moral laws from the OT that stand for Christians today such as the Ten Commandments. We still should not lie, steal, kill, or commit adultery. What is interesting is that Jesus expanded on the Ten Commandments saying even those who lust after a woman have already committed adultery with her in their heart. That is why people would say "Who then can be saved?" It seemed almost impossible and Jesus replied "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." The morality of men will not save them. Jesus is the only way. No honest Christian has put aside the OT because if not for the OT we would not know what sin is. The OT law defined sin. Some people do say morality was formed over thousands of years but I say this "morality" will never reach perfection. This morality will not be perfected to the point that all men will stand in unity doing no harm to each other. No nation of men will ever have a law that keeps it standing forever, but there is a kingdom coming that will stand forever. And who does it have as its head? Jesus.

[Smellyoldgit]

redbeardjon wrote

It is the same for people being put to death. No longer are people put to death for their sins ....

Are you really this dim? I'll arrange visits to a few death rows - your horseshit will be most welcome

[lostsheep]

Oh we've got a live one?! Wonder how long s/he will survive here.

[Smellyoldgit]

redbeardjon wrote

The Old Testament was a shadow of what was to come in the new so they are aligned perfectly.

Perfectly
It's almost as if the compilers of bullshit hadn't come across proofreading.

It amazes me (but not much) how the OT scribblings of goat herders are so "perfectly" aligned with the fabricated bullshit of the NT - after all, the NT fabricators had so much time to cross check and get their fucking stories right.

Bible school assignment for visiting fool, Fail.

[Simoon]

Isaiah wrote sometime between 700 and 680 B.C. that “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son.” People in Isaiah’s time did not have a full understanding of what he was talking about, but sometime around 7-2 B.C. (we know this because the Bible says Herod the Great was ruling the area), God sent an angel to a virgin named Mary and said “You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.

There is zero prophecy of Jesus in Isaiah 7:14.

The word “virgin”does not appear in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. The author of the first Gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word הָעַלְמָה (ha’almah) as “a virgin.” This Hebrew word, however, does not mean “a virgin.” It simple means “the young woman”.

The word Almah is used quite a few times in the Bible, in none of them is it used to mean virgin. The Hebrew word for virgin is Bet'hula.

The 7th book of Isaiah describes the Syro-Ephraimite War, a military crisis that threatened Ahaz, King of the Southern Kingdom of Judah.

The House of David was facing imminent destruction at the hands of the northern Kingdom of Israel and Syria. These two armies had laid siege to Jerusalem. The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. Accordingly, Yahweh sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand, that Yahweh would protect him, the deliverance of his citizens was assured, and the formidable armies of Syria and the Northern Kingdom of Israel would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem.

Chapters 15 and 16 go on to state that by the time the child (named Immanuel, not Jesus) born to the young woman reaches maturity, the 2 armies will be defeated.

This above wass the prophecy, not the birth of Jesus. Why would King Ahaz be comforted and assured by the birth of a child 7 centuries later? His kingdom was surrounded at that time. That was his concern.

But to make things even worse for Isaiah being a prophecy for the birth of Jesus, the prophecy for the defeat of the invading armies was fulfilled in II Kings 15 and 16.

[Sinfidel]

[The Evil Fred]

Oh, I know it is true cos I feel it in my heart!!!!!

What stupidity!!!!