Since Knicks4lyfe has a defense and twisting mechanism for everything in the Bible that is controversial, and at times inaccurate, I'll develop my own twisting mechanism. For everyone that has been viewing this thread, stay tuned. It's going to be very funny and entertaining to see someone copy the way Knicks4lyfe manipulates things in the Bible.
Christianity in 30 Seconds
- Thread starter KnicksFan4Realz
- Start date
TunerAddict
Starter
Oh, I'm waiting...This is going to be good.
OGKnickfan
Enlightened
Evidence
So, lyfe, I have your evidence. First of all, when you asked how I knew you didn't have special access, that proved you were an egotist. How I know you have no special access is the result of having worked with various witnesses that either commit blatantly immoral acts or (most of the cases) have nothing extraordinary about them. You offer no insights, no life-changing revelations.
What you do is assure one another of being right and the rest of us being wrong. It's all sad, really, and brings you even further from true God than you already are.
As for your lack of a relationship with God, as I stated, your relationship is with your book, your watch tower, etc., all dead things. God is alive, and you sit in a room, reciting words that you won't even try to understand for yourself. Instead, you let others read to you, interpret for you and tell you how to think and feel.
I can't respect someone's decision, if it's one that leads to slavery, of the mind, body and spirit. If you were a free-thinking, perceptive Christian, I would respect, and even admire you, but you clearly lack self-responsibility and awareness, which is the undercurrent that's destroying the world, not Satan and the demons.
Your morals, as well, are upside down nonsense. You can't say "don't kill," and be effective, if you only threaten punishment to those who do. If you build spiritual intelligence, sensitivity, and a real understanding of sacrifice, along with other values, amongst people, they will not kill because they accept their place in the world, the gravity their actions can have on others, and the role: criminal, hero, friend, manipulator, that they truly play, with all honesty.
As for who people should follow, that's your mindset, not mine. You feel like following, you want someone to explain the world to you. The bottom line is that spirituality is not Mcdonald's, it's not "your way, right away," it requires study and contemplation, work! To directly answer your question, people should follow truth, in which all that has ever been lies: everything about oneself, creation, life/existence, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad, etc.
There need be no leaders, no followers. We can all work together, on equal terms, with mutual dignity and respect.
Because you don't understand any of this, you don't have any relationship with God, you lack innocence, as I've said before, because you carry the weight of a million lies and prejudices with you and cannot, as such, be moved by truth. You already know everything!
*Just want to add: abcd's quote clearly states that "God" could not force human beings out of the hills because they had iron chariots, bottom line. This is the omnipotent force you believe in, falling short to glorified go-carts. It makes it worse that the folks, later on, had to give up the land voluntarily, in order for "God's" purpose to be fulfilled, unless you mean destiny or fate, if this story's even real, when you use the word "God."
So, lyfe, I have your evidence. First of all, when you asked how I knew you didn't have special access, that proved you were an egotist. How I know you have no special access is the result of having worked with various witnesses that either commit blatantly immoral acts or (most of the cases) have nothing extraordinary about them. You offer no insights, no life-changing revelations.
What you do is assure one another of being right and the rest of us being wrong. It's all sad, really, and brings you even further from true God than you already are.
As for your lack of a relationship with God, as I stated, your relationship is with your book, your watch tower, etc., all dead things. God is alive, and you sit in a room, reciting words that you won't even try to understand for yourself. Instead, you let others read to you, interpret for you and tell you how to think and feel.
I can't respect someone's decision, if it's one that leads to slavery, of the mind, body and spirit. If you were a free-thinking, perceptive Christian, I would respect, and even admire you, but you clearly lack self-responsibility and awareness, which is the undercurrent that's destroying the world, not Satan and the demons.
Your morals, as well, are upside down nonsense. You can't say "don't kill," and be effective, if you only threaten punishment to those who do. If you build spiritual intelligence, sensitivity, and a real understanding of sacrifice, along with other values, amongst people, they will not kill because they accept their place in the world, the gravity their actions can have on others, and the role: criminal, hero, friend, manipulator, that they truly play, with all honesty.
As for who people should follow, that's your mindset, not mine. You feel like following, you want someone to explain the world to you. The bottom line is that spirituality is not Mcdonald's, it's not "your way, right away," it requires study and contemplation, work! To directly answer your question, people should follow truth, in which all that has ever been lies: everything about oneself, creation, life/existence, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad, etc.
There need be no leaders, no followers. We can all work together, on equal terms, with mutual dignity and respect.
Because you don't understand any of this, you don't have any relationship with God, you lack innocence, as I've said before, because you carry the weight of a million lies and prejudices with you and cannot, as such, be moved by truth. You already know everything!
*Just want to add: abcd's quote clearly states that "God" could not force human beings out of the hills because they had iron chariots, bottom line. This is the omnipotent force you believe in, falling short to glorified go-carts. It makes it worse that the folks, later on, had to give up the land voluntarily, in order for "God's" purpose to be fulfilled, unless you mean destiny or fate, if this story's even real, when you use the word "God."
Last edited:
Knicks4lyfe
Starter
The map of the bible contains parts of the world that biblical events took place, and effected during the time of writing. So that is why you don't see the other countries you request, because at that time, they did not come into play. Does not mean they did not exist, or that God overlooked them.
Like I said, pretty weak argument. That is someone just trying to find an excuse to dismiss God's word. Like I said, Be better off not trying to find feeble excuses like these, and just say I ain't wit it.
If you honestly think God's purpose was thwarted by chariots, You simply cannot be helped.
This is the same God that promised that a thriving world power would become a desolate waste and will never again be inhabited after becoming this desolate waste. If you went to Ancient Babylon right now, it would be a desolate uninhabitable wasteland.
Whatever God purposes happens. And there is nothing anyone who disagrees like you can do about it. No amount of false reasoning, no amount of wishful thinking changes what Jehovah purposes to happen.
Also, about us so called Bible twisters. Here is something that can't be twisted.
Jehovah said he will take out from the earth a people for his name. Only one people on earth worship Jehovah.
Jesus said in Luke 4:43 that he must declare the good news of the Kingdom. So then logically, a true follower of Christ would have to preach that same message if they are to be called a true disciple.
And he said in the time of the end in Mathew 24:14,"And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come."
The people preaching the Kingdom message will then be the witnesses of the Kingdom. Who's Kingdom is it? Jesus said in Luke 22: 29 and I make a covenant with YOU, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom.
So It's Jesus' Fathers Kingdom, that Jesus will rule over due to the covenant His Father apparently has made with him. What's his Father's name? Jehovah. Jesus calls himself the faithful and true witness(rev 3:14). Of who would Jesus be a witness of? In John 17:6 Jesus prayed to his Father
?I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word.
Jesus making his Father's name manifest, clearly means he gave a witness to men about his Father. The ones he gave this witness too, observed, not Jesus word, but his Father's word. So they are also Witnesses of Jesus Father, because like Jesus, they make the Fathers name manifest to men, and abide in his Father's word.
Therefore they are all, Jesus included....
Plain ole, dumb, bible twisting JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES :thumbsup:
Good day!
KnicksFan4Realz
Benchwarmer
Still working on that other post...
But from reading y'alls argument so far...seems like god is truly ****ing incompetent, and complacent. Did have knowledge of other nations? That's an assumption. He didn't talk about native Americans, South Americans, Austrailians, because he hadn't a ****ing clue.
God got defeated by iron chariots...what a pussy.
But from reading y'alls argument so far...seems like god is truly ****ing incompetent, and complacent. Did have knowledge of other nations? That's an assumption. He didn't talk about native Americans, South Americans, Austrailians, because he hadn't a ****ing clue.
God got defeated by iron chariots...what a pussy.
OGKnickfan
Enlightened
Again, your God could not destroy metal chariots. His purpose was achieved out of the charity of the people he was supposed to drive out. The fact that this is a cultural, ethnic God is evident in how he sides with one group of humans, consistently, for Israel's sake.
As for the JWs, they are but one denomination of Christianity. If we listen to your logic, then other Christians are illegitimate. In fact, without the earliest Christian groups: Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, your founder would have had no knowledge of scripture, no books which he could twist, and no people to enslave.
As for your theology on Jesus: Michael is Jesus, it's faulty and wrong. In fact, you've basically created a new religion. The bible makes no mention of Michael being Jesus. The bible also states, many times, that Jesus is God.
Like abcd and realz said, your "God" is clearly the regional, local God of israel, unable to tell his "prophets" about Native Americans, amongst many others, and their role in their local religion. Why? Because it's all bull.
As for the JWs, they are but one denomination of Christianity. If we listen to your logic, then other Christians are illegitimate. In fact, without the earliest Christian groups: Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, your founder would have had no knowledge of scripture, no books which he could twist, and no people to enslave.
As for your theology on Jesus: Michael is Jesus, it's faulty and wrong. In fact, you've basically created a new religion. The bible makes no mention of Michael being Jesus. The bible also states, many times, that Jesus is God.
Like abcd and realz said, your "God" is clearly the regional, local God of israel, unable to tell his "prophets" about Native Americans, amongst many others, and their role in their local religion. Why? Because it's all bull.
I.[Before I completely twist and manipulate Knicks4lyfe's post, I would like to clarify two things:]
1) Did you know that 10,619 Jehovah's Witnesses claim that they will go to heaven?
http://www.exjw.org.uk/strategy.html
"Y.: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1959), p. 197. As of Jan. 1, 1969, 10,619 J.W.'s now living claim to be among the 144,000. The Watchtower, (Jan. 1969), No. 1, Vol. XC, p. 25"
The problem with this? The Bible says that the 144,000 that will go to heaven are from ISRAEL. No, I've got to be lying. Right? Wrong.
Here's the direct quote from the Bible that says that the 144,000 that will be "be sealed" are from Israel.
Before I show you this quote, I would like for all of you to know that I am not Jewish; I am not from Israel, so this is not my bias. This directly comes form the book of Revelation.
Revelation-7:4 "And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel."
Not only that, the book of Revelation says that the 144,000 that will go to heaven will have to be able to recite a song. The Bible doesn't write the song, nor does it say how to sing it, so how can the JW's already have 10,619 of the people that are "destined" to go to heaven?
Revelation-14:3
"And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth."
2) Knicks4lyfe claims that the Bible is 100% accurate.
Aside from the fact that the Bible excludes Native Americans, Japanese, and Aborigines from the Bible, says that God and Judah couldn't remove the people of the valley, because they had iron chariots, and falsely predicts that Ethiopia, Algeria, and Libya will attack Israel, here's more fun flaws:
Jonah 1:17 "Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights."
Matthew 12:40 "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
Whales are mammals
Fish lay eggs
So, which one is it?
Jonas was in a fish's stomach(which lays eggs and have gills)?
Or a whale's stomach(which is a mammal and has lungs)?
Another error:
Mark 4:31 "It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth"
But orchid seeds are smaller than mustard seeds. What happened there?
II.[Now, on to twisting everything Knicks4lyfe wrote:]
Yes, but Jehovah is the creator of the Earth.
See: Genesis 1:31 "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."
By not forcing out the inhabitants of the plains, he is not showing them that he's the supreme being.
That imperfection, in humans, will make the people feel arrogant, and they'll go away from Jehovah.
God showed a sign of weakness, when he couldn't force out the inhabitants of the Valley.
See: Genesis 3:17 "And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life"
God is to be worshipped, as mentioned in the 10 commandments. Going away from God is not worship.
See: Exodus 20 "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Jehovah is the creator of the Earth. He wanted us to fill the Earth.
See: Genesis 1:28
"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
Therefore, he should not have hid the planet from us. This only slowed down our population growth. It took us 1,000s and 1,000s of years, before the population went up to 6.5 billion.
Last edited:
Knicks4lyfe said that the Bible never said Jesus is God:
Isaiah 9:6
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
John 14:9-11
"Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?"
1Timothy 3:16
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Revelation 22: 13-16
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. 16I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
And Jehovah's Witnesses also claim that they have the best version of the Bible, meaning that they feel the other Bibles have ERRORS in them (Something that Knicks4lyfe doesn't believe is in the Bible).
Isaiah 9:6
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
John 14:9-11
"Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?"
1Timothy 3:16
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Revelation 22: 13-16
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. 16I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
And Jehovah's Witnesses also claim that they have the best version of the Bible, meaning that they feel the other Bibles have ERRORS in them (Something that Knicks4lyfe doesn't believe is in the Bible).
LJ4ptplay
Starter
You forgot:
"I and my Father are ONE." --Jesus Christ, John 10:30
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: and THESE THREE ARE ONE." --1 John 5:7
OGKnickfan
Enlightened
Work of the Witnesses Bears Fruit
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-blood-transfusion-giving-birth-twins.html
This is what the JWs help to do to folks, all over the world.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-blood-transfusion-giving-birth-twins.html
This is what the JWs help to do to folks, all over the world.
Knicks4lyfe
Starter
Rest my case.
7:21 ?Not everyone saying to me, ?Lord, Lord,? will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will.
So the Christians that do the will of Jesus Father, are the ones who will enter into the Kingdom. Only one group of Christians on earth even Recognize Jesus' Father as God alone, and that is JW's. So logically, they are the only ones that does His Father's will. So logically they are the only ones who will enter into the Kingdom. It's not them making the Rules, It's Jesus' Father making the rules, and Jesus simply relaying what his father taught him, as we relay what Jesus teaches us.
What's most telling is that even though Jehovah's witnesses get the claim that they don't believe in Jesus, they are the only ones actually doing what Jesus says must be done. The preaching of the Kingdom was the theme of Jesus ministry, yet no other Christian sect seems to be interested in following in his footsteps. That is quite and indictment on their parts. If one is being objective. And if none of you are, Jesus and Jehovah are. And Ultimately, that is all that matters.
The name Michael appears only 5 times in the Bible. It refers to a spirit person as "one of the chief princes" "the great prince who has charge of your (Daniels) people," and as "the archangel." (Dan. 10:13, 12:1, Jude 9) Michael means "who is like God?" The name evidently designates Michael as the one who takes the lead in upholding Jehovah's sovereignty and destroying God's enemies.
at 1 Thessalonians 4:16, the command of Jesus Christ for the resurrection to begin is described as the "archangels call," and Jude 9 says that the archangel is Michael. Would it be appropriate to liken Jesus' commanding call to that of someone lesser in authority? Reasonably, then, the archangel Michael is Jesus Christ. (Interestingly, the expression "archangel" is never found in the plural in the Scriptures, thus implying that there is only one) Archangel also means Chief of the Angels.
Revelation 12:7-12 says that Michael and his angels would war against Satan and hurl him and his wicked angels out of heaven in connection with the conferring of kingly authority on Christ. Jesus is later depicted as leading the armies of heaven in war against the nations of the world. (Rev. 19:11-16) Is it not reasonable that Jesus would also be the one to take action against the one he described as "ruler of this world," Satan the Devil?(John 12:31) Daniel 12:1 associates the "standing up of Michael" to act with aurthority with "a time of trouble, such as never has been since there a nation till that time." That would certainly fit the experience of the nations when Christ as heavenly executioner takes action against them.
So the evidence indicates that the Son of God was known as Michael before he came to earth and is known also by that name since his return to heaven where he resides as the glorified spirit Son of God.
Very reasonable, and scriptural.
1 Tim 2:3 This is fine and acceptable in the sight of our Savior, God, 4 whose will is that all sorts of men should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth. True. But not because JW's say it, but because that is what the bible supports. Keep in mind, these other Christian faiths feel the same way JW's feel. That they are the true Christian faith. But Jesus clearly says this in Mathew
7:21 ?Not everyone saying to me, ?Lord, Lord,? will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will.
So the Christians that do the will of Jesus Father, are the ones who will enter into the Kingdom. Only one group of Christians on earth even Recognize Jesus' Father as God alone, and that is JW's. So logically, they are the only ones that does His Father's will. So logically they are the only ones who will enter into the Kingdom. It's not them making the Rules, It's Jesus' Father making the rules, and Jesus simply relaying what his father taught him, as we relay what Jesus teaches us.
What's most telling is that even though Jehovah's witnesses get the claim that they don't believe in Jesus, they are the only ones actually doing what Jesus says must be done. The preaching of the Kingdom was the theme of Jesus ministry, yet no other Christian sect seems to be interested in following in his footsteps. That is quite and indictment on their parts. If one is being objective. And if none of you are, Jesus and Jehovah are. And Ultimately, that is all that matters.
None of those Faiths preach the Kingdom message like Jesus did. But it is God's purpose that his word is able to reach the ends of the earth, so everyone can have an opportunity for life. So even those these faiths may not be doing God's will, his purpose was still served thanks to them preserving his word down from the centuries. God's purposes are always fulfilled. No matter what it takes.
The bible states that Jesus is A god. But it also states that Satan is A god. That does not make either ALMIGHTY God. Only one of those, which is why in John 17:3 Jesus calls Jehovah the ONLY TRUE GOD. That statement helps put into perspective the bible calling others god. Or at least it should to one being objective. Not many objective people these days though.
The name Michael appears only 5 times in the Bible. It refers to a spirit person as "one of the chief princes" "the great prince who has charge of your (Daniels) people," and as "the archangel." (Dan. 10:13, 12:1, Jude 9) Michael means "who is like God?" The name evidently designates Michael as the one who takes the lead in upholding Jehovah's sovereignty and destroying God's enemies.
at 1 Thessalonians 4:16, the command of Jesus Christ for the resurrection to begin is described as the "archangels call," and Jude 9 says that the archangel is Michael. Would it be appropriate to liken Jesus' commanding call to that of someone lesser in authority? Reasonably, then, the archangel Michael is Jesus Christ. (Interestingly, the expression "archangel" is never found in the plural in the Scriptures, thus implying that there is only one) Archangel also means Chief of the Angels.
Revelation 12:7-12 says that Michael and his angels would war against Satan and hurl him and his wicked angels out of heaven in connection with the conferring of kingly authority on Christ. Jesus is later depicted as leading the armies of heaven in war against the nations of the world. (Rev. 19:11-16) Is it not reasonable that Jesus would also be the one to take action against the one he described as "ruler of this world," Satan the Devil?(John 12:31) Daniel 12:1 associates the "standing up of Michael" to act with aurthority with "a time of trouble, such as never has been since there a nation till that time." That would certainly fit the experience of the nations when Christ as heavenly executioner takes action against them.
So the evidence indicates that the Son of God was known as Michael before he came to earth and is known also by that name since his return to heaven where he resides as the glorified spirit Son of God.
Very reasonable, and scriptural.
So unless you mean all of the world being that region, you are mistaken. God wants everyone to be saved. That would include Native Americans, and any others you can name.
I wonder why Knicks4lyfe couldn't respond to my two posts? lol
Is it because all of the direct quotes, that I got from the Bible, that prove my case overwhelm him? Possibly.
I also wonder why Knicks4lyfe has to spin the part of judges 1:19 that says that Judah and God couldn't move the people of the Valley, because they had Iron Chariots?
Is it because he knows that it makes no sense for an omnipotent being to not be able to remove people that have Iron Chariots?
I can't wait for Knicksfan4realz's post.
P.S.-Knicks4lyfe, if you plan on responding to my two posts, be sure to respond to all of the direct quotes that I got from the Bible, by analyzing all of the quotes. Not by using other quotes from the Bible that distract from the facts that I presented. Also, if you plan on responding, know that I will respond to you, in the same illogical manor that you respond to all of the other posters. I will divide my post into two segments. The first segment will have direct quotes from the Bible. The second segment will spin everything from your post. Enjoy.
Is it because all of the direct quotes, that I got from the Bible, that prove my case overwhelm him? Possibly.
I also wonder why Knicks4lyfe has to spin the part of judges 1:19 that says that Judah and God couldn't move the people of the Valley, because they had Iron Chariots?
Is it because he knows that it makes no sense for an omnipotent being to not be able to remove people that have Iron Chariots?
I can't wait for Knicksfan4realz's post.
P.S.-Knicks4lyfe, if you plan on responding to my two posts, be sure to respond to all of the direct quotes that I got from the Bible, by analyzing all of the quotes. Not by using other quotes from the Bible that distract from the facts that I presented. Also, if you plan on responding, know that I will respond to you, in the same illogical manor that you respond to all of the other posters. I will divide my post into two segments. The first segment will have direct quotes from the Bible. The second segment will spin everything from your post. Enjoy.
Last edited:
KnicksFan4Realz
Benchwarmer
I'm still working on that post...it's near completion..it will be going up Sunday. Warning...it's massive...about 3-4 different postings will be used. Just so you folks now...I could've been nice about this but I reached a point where I am tired of religious people. Tired of this tolerance bullshit towards religion. People are just simply not entitled to their own facts.
Not all religious people are like Knicks4lyfe. Some Christians educate themselves, and they know about not only the Bible BUT ALSO History, Science, Math, English, the arts, love, friends, family, etc. Not all Christians are illogical, like Knicks4lyfe. Some Christians accept that the Bible is not perfect; they just have a strong belief in God, because they look at their sorroundings and come to that conclusion.
Knicks4lyfe takes things to another dimension, though. He not only believes in God, but he believes that everything in the Bible is 100% accurate, even though most, if not all of the Christian denominations plaigerize the Bible, change certain things that are in it, so that it matches their beliefs, and are written by humans(people that even the Bible says are imperfect). How someone can believe the Bible is 100% fact, when it was written by people that have different judgments, viewpoints, ideas, and writing styles is insane. How someone can also believe the Bible is 100% fact, when it excludes Native Americans, Chinese, Japaneze, Aborigines, western Europeans, etc. is also insane. I have no problem with someone believing in God, as long as they follow the Bible intelligently, and they understand that denominations have changed things in the Bible, therefore it is impossible for all of it to be true. God might be real, but everything in the Bible isn't real.
IE: JW's say Jesus is the son of God.
Catholics believe Jesus is God.
Both of them can't be right.
Therefore, it is impossible for the Bible to be perfect, when one, or possibly both of the books have a misinterpretation.
Another Ex: JW's believe Jesus died on a stake
Catholics believe he died on a cross.
It is impossible for both of them to be right, because the Bible doesn't say Jesus was crucified twice. Therefore, one of the books, if not both, have a misinterpretation.
I look forward to your post, Knicksfan4realz. Knicks4lyfe needs to be more logical and rational, and maybe your post will help.
Knicks4lyfe takes things to another dimension, though. He not only believes in God, but he believes that everything in the Bible is 100% accurate, even though most, if not all of the Christian denominations plaigerize the Bible, change certain things that are in it, so that it matches their beliefs, and are written by humans(people that even the Bible says are imperfect). How someone can believe the Bible is 100% fact, when it was written by people that have different judgments, viewpoints, ideas, and writing styles is insane. How someone can also believe the Bible is 100% fact, when it excludes Native Americans, Chinese, Japaneze, Aborigines, western Europeans, etc. is also insane. I have no problem with someone believing in God, as long as they follow the Bible intelligently, and they understand that denominations have changed things in the Bible, therefore it is impossible for all of it to be true. God might be real, but everything in the Bible isn't real.
IE: JW's say Jesus is the son of God.
Catholics believe Jesus is God.
Both of them can't be right.
Therefore, it is impossible for the Bible to be perfect, when one, or possibly both of the books have a misinterpretation.
Another Ex: JW's believe Jesus died on a stake
Catholics believe he died on a cross.
It is impossible for both of them to be right, because the Bible doesn't say Jesus was crucified twice. Therefore, one of the books, if not both, have a misinterpretation.
I look forward to your post, Knicksfan4realz. Knicks4lyfe needs to be more logical and rational, and maybe your post will help.
LJ4ptplay
Starter
For all the fellow free thinkers out there:
http://www.freethoughtradio.com/
It's a free thought (atheism, agnosticism, realist, skeptic) internet radio site. Good discussions on religion intermixed with humor. Check it out.
http://www.freethoughtradio.com/
It's a free thought (atheism, agnosticism, realist, skeptic) internet radio site. Good discussions on religion intermixed with humor. Check it out.
OGKnickfan
Enlightened
The case is not closed: your "God" was unable to defeat metal chariots. Success required human charity, without which your "God's" original failure would have stood. Explain that or simply give up.
As for Michael/Jesus, your citations are a stretch. As a former Christian, I know the scriptures of the NT, in particular, very well. The scripture says that Jesus will come with an Archangel's call, implying more than one archangel and not that Jesus is one of the archangels. Also, the scripture indicates that angels came to worship Jesus. In the bible, Jesus also says that he, as the word was with God, and that the word was God. Jesus also says that he and God are ONE. He says that he is the savior, and God says that he is the savior. He says he will judge, the he is the lord, and so does God. You omit much of the scripture to come to your own conclusion. Read the bible for yourself, try an American Standard version, which is an accurate bible translation.
I used to own a NWT bible, printed by your church, it alters the scripture to say that Jesus is a god, when it really says Jesus is God. Your bible also changes the word worship to obeisance. As for you comparing Satan to Jesus, that's another example of your warped view. There's no comparison within the context that this is used.
As for your bold and capitalization of the illegitimacy of other Christian groups, that doesn't make it true. I simply said that, if we listened to your logic, which we don't, it would be. You also proved, by highlighting this, that you don't respect other Christian groups and, once again, are an egotist.
Why don't you answer everything I said? Why don't you explain your group's failure to do anything important for anyone? Why don't you explain your group's role in a young mother bleeding to death? You're a part of that, by the way. You want to be special, different and better, but you're not. You, and your group can believe whatever you like, and it still will not be what you wish. Truth is not a matter of personal will, it's a matter of fact and reality, irrespective of whatever you believe or are told to believe.
You, and your organization are self-righteous and cannot be an instrument of God, because you lack humility and the meekness that Jesus demonstrated. You simply reinforce each other, make each other believe in one another's accuracy and strength: the blind leading the blind, patting one another on the back. Jesus said that he would reveal the truth, not an organization.
Bottom line is that truth goes way beyond your book, which is written to the benefit of the culture it comes from: the Jews. People all over the world had their own Gods, own traditions, own saviors and own beliefs. They have as much evidence as you do, when they talk about Allah, the Great Spirit, Gya, Mother Earth, the World mind, or anything else.
Literally, people like you are destroying the world, and have been for a long time. You won't listen to the truth, you won't search, you don't see the need. This is why the world is doomed and has already ended.
As for Michael/Jesus, your citations are a stretch. As a former Christian, I know the scriptures of the NT, in particular, very well. The scripture says that Jesus will come with an Archangel's call, implying more than one archangel and not that Jesus is one of the archangels. Also, the scripture indicates that angels came to worship Jesus. In the bible, Jesus also says that he, as the word was with God, and that the word was God. Jesus also says that he and God are ONE. He says that he is the savior, and God says that he is the savior. He says he will judge, the he is the lord, and so does God. You omit much of the scripture to come to your own conclusion. Read the bible for yourself, try an American Standard version, which is an accurate bible translation.
I used to own a NWT bible, printed by your church, it alters the scripture to say that Jesus is a god, when it really says Jesus is God. Your bible also changes the word worship to obeisance. As for you comparing Satan to Jesus, that's another example of your warped view. There's no comparison within the context that this is used.
As for your bold and capitalization of the illegitimacy of other Christian groups, that doesn't make it true. I simply said that, if we listened to your logic, which we don't, it would be. You also proved, by highlighting this, that you don't respect other Christian groups and, once again, are an egotist.
Why don't you answer everything I said? Why don't you explain your group's failure to do anything important for anyone? Why don't you explain your group's role in a young mother bleeding to death? You're a part of that, by the way. You want to be special, different and better, but you're not. You, and your group can believe whatever you like, and it still will not be what you wish. Truth is not a matter of personal will, it's a matter of fact and reality, irrespective of whatever you believe or are told to believe.
You, and your organization are self-righteous and cannot be an instrument of God, because you lack humility and the meekness that Jesus demonstrated. You simply reinforce each other, make each other believe in one another's accuracy and strength: the blind leading the blind, patting one another on the back. Jesus said that he would reveal the truth, not an organization.
Bottom line is that truth goes way beyond your book, which is written to the benefit of the culture it comes from: the Jews. People all over the world had their own Gods, own traditions, own saviors and own beliefs. They have as much evidence as you do, when they talk about Allah, the Great Spirit, Gya, Mother Earth, the World mind, or anything else.
Literally, people like you are destroying the world, and have been for a long time. You won't listen to the truth, you won't search, you don't see the need. This is why the world is doomed and has already ended.
Knicks4lyfe
Starter
Now I am replying to you first, because you are the only one really willing to engage in an honest sense so far. Now what I will do is reply to your questions, and then ask some of my own that I will ask you to please respond to in your reply post. Thanks in advance.
When saying, "I and the Father are one," did Jesus mean that they were equal? Some Trinitarians say that he did. But at John 17:21, 22, Jesus prayed regarding his followers: "That they may all be one," and he added, "that they may be one even as we are one." He used the same Greek word (hen) for "one" in all these instances. Obviously, Jesus’ disciples do not all become part of the Trinity. But they do come to share a oneness of purpose with the Father and the Son, the same sort of oneness that unites God and Christ.
You can't have it both ways. If John 17 21, 22 don't apply in the same manner as John 10:30, then there is a contradiction. Clearly this then cannot be used as evidence of a trinity.
1 John 5:7, 8:
KJ reads: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." (Dy also includes this Trinitarian passage.) However, NW does not include the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth." (RS, NE, TEV, JB, NAB also leave out the Trinitarian passage.)
Regarding this Trinitarian passage, textual critic F. H. A. Scrivener wrote: "We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim."—A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge, 1883, third ed.), p. 654.
Now. That I have taken time to reply to your post, I have a question of my own to ask you.
If YOU were a believer of the Bible, and read things like this, would the trinity still make sense to you?
Does the Bible teach that none of those who are said to be included in the Trinity is greater or less than another, that all are equal, that all are almighty?
Mark 13:32, RS: "Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?)
Matt. 20:20-23, RS: "The mother of the sons of Zebedee . . . said to him [Jesus], ‘Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.’ But Jesus answered, . . . ‘You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.’" (How strange, if, as claimed, Jesus is God! Was Jesus here merely answering according to his "human nature"? If, as Trinitarians say, Jesus was truly "God-man"—both God and man, not one or the other—would it truly be consistent to resort to such an explanation? Does not Matthew 20:23 rather show that the Son is not equal to the Father, that the Father has reserved some prerogatives for himself?)
Matt. 12:31, 32, RS: "Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." (If the Holy Spirit were a person and were God, this text would flatly contradict the Trinity doctrine, because it would mean that in some way the Holy Spirit was greater than the Son. Instead, what Jesus said shows that the Father, to whom the "Spirit" belonged, is greater than Jesus, the Son of man.)
John 14:28, RS: "[Jesus said:] If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I."
1 Cor. 11:3, RS: "I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God." (Clearly, then, Christ is not God, and God is of superior rank to Christ. It should be noted that this was written about 55 C.E., some 22 years after Jesus returned to heaven. So the truth here stated applies to the relationship between God and Christ in heaven.)
1 Cor. 15:27, 28 RS: "‘God has put all things in subjection under his [Jesus’] feet.’ But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection under him,’ it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one." (How can God subject himself to himself?
The Hebrew word Shad·dai´ and the Greek word Pan·to·kra´tor are both translated "Almighty." Both original-language words are repeatedly applied to Jehovah, the Father. (Ex. 6:3; Rev. 19:6) Neither expression is ever applied to either the Son or the holy spirit.
Does the Bible teach that each of those said to be part of the Trinity is God?
Jesus said in prayer: "Father, . . . this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." (John 17:1-3, RS; italics added.) (Most translations here use the expression "the only true God" with reference to the Father. NE reads "who alone art truly God." He cannot be "the only true God," the one "who alone [is] truly God," if there are two others who are God to the same degree as he is, can he? Any others referred to as "gods" must be either false or merely a reflection of the true God.)
1 Cor. 8:5, 6, RS: "Although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’—yet for us (True Christians)there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." (This presents the Father as the "one God" of Christians and as being in a class distinct from Jesus Christ.)
1 Pet. 1:3, RS: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!" (Repeatedly, even following Jesus’ ascension to heaven, the Scriptures refer to the Father as "the God" of Jesus Christ. At John 20:17, following Jesus’ resurrection, he himself spoke of the Father as "my God." Later, when in heaven, as recorded at Revelation 3:12, he again used the same expression. But never in the Bible is the Father reported to refer to the Son as "my God," nor does either the Father or the Son refer to the holy spirit as "my God.")
I ask again, If YOU were a believer of the Bible, and read things like this, would the trinity still make sense to you?
John 10:30:
When saying, "I and the Father are one," did Jesus mean that they were equal? Some Trinitarians say that he did. But at John 17:21, 22, Jesus prayed regarding his followers: "That they may all be one," and he added, "that they may be one even as we are one." He used the same Greek word (hen) for "one" in all these instances. Obviously, Jesus’ disciples do not all become part of the Trinity. But they do come to share a oneness of purpose with the Father and the Son, the same sort of oneness that unites God and Christ.
You can't have it both ways. If John 17 21, 22 don't apply in the same manner as John 10:30, then there is a contradiction. Clearly this then cannot be used as evidence of a trinity.
1 John 5:7, 8:
KJ reads: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." (Dy also includes this Trinitarian passage.) However, NW does not include the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth." (RS, NE, TEV, JB, NAB also leave out the Trinitarian passage.)
Regarding this Trinitarian passage, textual critic F. H. A. Scrivener wrote: "We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim."—A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge, 1883, third ed.), p. 654.
Now. That I have taken time to reply to your post, I have a question of my own to ask you.
If YOU were a believer of the Bible, and read things like this, would the trinity still make sense to you?
Does the Bible teach that none of those who are said to be included in the Trinity is greater or less than another, that all are equal, that all are almighty?
Mark 13:32, RS: "Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?)
Matt. 20:20-23, RS: "The mother of the sons of Zebedee . . . said to him [Jesus], ‘Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.’ But Jesus answered, . . . ‘You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.’" (How strange, if, as claimed, Jesus is God! Was Jesus here merely answering according to his "human nature"? If, as Trinitarians say, Jesus was truly "God-man"—both God and man, not one or the other—would it truly be consistent to resort to such an explanation? Does not Matthew 20:23 rather show that the Son is not equal to the Father, that the Father has reserved some prerogatives for himself?)
Matt. 12:31, 32, RS: "Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." (If the Holy Spirit were a person and were God, this text would flatly contradict the Trinity doctrine, because it would mean that in some way the Holy Spirit was greater than the Son. Instead, what Jesus said shows that the Father, to whom the "Spirit" belonged, is greater than Jesus, the Son of man.)
John 14:28, RS: "[Jesus said:] If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I."
1 Cor. 11:3, RS: "I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God." (Clearly, then, Christ is not God, and God is of superior rank to Christ. It should be noted that this was written about 55 C.E., some 22 years after Jesus returned to heaven. So the truth here stated applies to the relationship between God and Christ in heaven.)
1 Cor. 15:27, 28 RS: "‘God has put all things in subjection under his [Jesus’] feet.’ But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection under him,’ it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one." (How can God subject himself to himself?
The Hebrew word Shad·dai´ and the Greek word Pan·to·kra´tor are both translated "Almighty." Both original-language words are repeatedly applied to Jehovah, the Father. (Ex. 6:3; Rev. 19:6) Neither expression is ever applied to either the Son or the holy spirit.
Does the Bible teach that each of those said to be part of the Trinity is God?
Jesus said in prayer: "Father, . . . this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." (John 17:1-3, RS; italics added.) (Most translations here use the expression "the only true God" with reference to the Father. NE reads "who alone art truly God." He cannot be "the only true God," the one "who alone [is] truly God," if there are two others who are God to the same degree as he is, can he? Any others referred to as "gods" must be either false or merely a reflection of the true God.)
1 Cor. 8:5, 6, RS: "Although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’—yet for us (True Christians)there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." (This presents the Father as the "one God" of Christians and as being in a class distinct from Jesus Christ.)
1 Pet. 1:3, RS: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!" (Repeatedly, even following Jesus’ ascension to heaven, the Scriptures refer to the Father as "the God" of Jesus Christ. At John 20:17, following Jesus’ resurrection, he himself spoke of the Father as "my God." Later, when in heaven, as recorded at Revelation 3:12, he again used the same expression. But never in the Bible is the Father reported to refer to the Son as "my God," nor does either the Father or the Son refer to the holy spirit as "my God.")
I ask again, If YOU were a believer of the Bible, and read things like this, would the trinity still make sense to you?
Last edited:
OGKnickfan
Enlightened
I shudder at the idea of the world ever being composed exclusively of Jehovah's Witnesses. What an oppressive existence that would be!
Some scripture for you:
Deuteronomy Chapter 18 verses 18-22.
18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their kinsmen, and will put my words into his mouth; he shall tell them all that I command him. 19 If any man will not listen to my words which he speaks in my name, I myself will make him answer for it. 20 But if a prophet presumes to speak in my name an oracle that I have not commanded him to speak, or speaks in the name of other gods, he shall die.' 21 "If you say to yourselves, 'How can we recognize an oracle which the LORD has spoken?', 22 know that, even though a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if his oracle is not fulfilled or verified, it is an oracle which the LORD did not speak. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously, and you shall have no fear of him.
1799, 1874, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, 1948, 1975...
"The prophet has spoken it presumptuously, and you shall have no fear of him."
Some scripture for you:
Deuteronomy Chapter 18 verses 18-22.
18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their kinsmen, and will put my words into his mouth; he shall tell them all that I command him. 19 If any man will not listen to my words which he speaks in my name, I myself will make him answer for it. 20 But if a prophet presumes to speak in my name an oracle that I have not commanded him to speak, or speaks in the name of other gods, he shall die.' 21 "If you say to yourselves, 'How can we recognize an oracle which the LORD has spoken?', 22 know that, even though a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if his oracle is not fulfilled or verified, it is an oracle which the LORD did not speak. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously, and you shall have no fear of him.
1799, 1874, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, 1948, 1975...
"The prophet has spoken it presumptuously, and you shall have no fear of him."
Last edited:
KnicksFan4Realz
Benchwarmer
Why SCRIPTURE FAILS!!!
In scripture if someone says there shall be a beast with seven horns and ten crowns that will arise out of the west and plaque mankind...it's a far too subjective as to what this means. Most biblical scholars feel this was a reference not to a doomsday in the future, but referring specifically to the Roman empire..and that 666 is not the mark of the devil persay...but was in fact of Emperor Nero.
This is why scripture is the last refuse for many who try to claim it as a factual source, when in fact it is not. Just like if I asked where exactly is this "Eden"??...no one has an exact fix...or how much further into the stratosphere until you reach "heaven"....??
Nothing conclusive or empirical can be gained from reading scripture. Period. This is why scriptural passages are NOT, and NEVER can be considered evidence. Even the Catholics who've been at the forefront of this well before other sects evolved today will as well tell you this...scripture has no value when it comes to obtaining factual information.
But let's look at this more logically....
A. If there is adequate evidence that a god is the source (the divine revelation) for a particular book of scripture, then there's no reason for someone who believes in that god to engage in any other argument about its existence. Adequate evidence that god is the source of scripture is all thats needed. Arguments about first cause, intelligent design, and fine tuning of the universe, etc. are not relevant or necessary.
B. If there is not clear evidence that a god is the source for the Koran or Bible, then even if all the other arguments for existence of a god are true, they are only arguments for a generic hypothetical god, not the Christian or Muslim god.
C. There are only two types of information in religious scripture that, if true, would indicate a creator god was the scripture source. This would be information that could not be obtained solely by humans at the time the original scriptures were written. All other accounts, facts, stories are things people are capable of creating. The two types of information that only a god could have revealed are:
1. Specific detail information about prehistoric earth and life that is now confirmed by geology and paleontology. If the original scriptures had this Information, then that would be strong evidence that it came from an all-knowing creator that knew prehistoric conditions.
2. Accurate detailed prophecies about current, or historical events that are well documented. If these predictions were in original scripture versions, they would be evidence that a god revealed them to the authors. Specific dates, places, and names are the necessary detail.
D. The claims of prophecies and scientific facts revealed in scripture do not have enough specific detail to allow verification, and creative interpretation is necessary to match them with any current event or knowledge. An account of prophecy fulfillment written after the event occurred is not a prophecy. Stories of miracles are not evidence of divine revelation because these accounts can be created by people, and cannot be verified.
E. Without adequate evidence of god contribution, a book of scripture and the god it represents are only inventions of the human imagination. Belief that a god must exist, does not imply that any particular book of scripture has a god as its source. The scripture itself must contain clear evidence that it is the revelation of a god.
F. For a Christian or Muslim, arguments about god as the first cause, order and complexity, the source of morality, Pascals Wager, etc. are only interesting intellectual exercises, because the god these arguments propose is a generic hypothetical god that is not connected to any specific book of scripture.
Stories containing wisdom, miracles, moral lessons, even accurate history of the era is not evidence that the scripture was the revelation of a god. People could have been the source of this information. A god did not write the Quran or the Bible. People wrote them, and people are capable of ambition, grand visions, and self-delusion. These books were written hundreds of years past, and the compilation may have spanned hundreds of years. During that process, stories changed during oral recital or translation. Some characters and stories from one religion are similar to tales and myths from other religions. From a broad overview of religious history, it is not difficult to understand how these stories evolved from century to century and culture to culture. Someone came along who thought they had a better idea about what god is or should be, and composed a new or revised scripture. These scriptures are claimed to be the words of a god, but just a claim is weak evidence. As is usually the case with human creativity, these new stories were never completely original, but used appealing parts of existing religions.
There is no "pure" copy or original of these books, so it is impossible to know how far copies of copies have progressively deviated. If today someone said they were a religious prophet, and knew the word of god, everyone would have doubts. Why should we have less doubt about claims made centuries earlier?
Scriptures are hard to understand, and open to many different interpretations. This lack of clarity has created much debate and hundreds of different Christian sects. The Koran also has different sects. This from text that was allegedly the revelation of a god who is an all powerful supernatural entity.
There have been many religions, but no known instance of the same religion originating in two separate places. If a god inspired a religion, why would it restrict the initial revelation to only one place? It is interesting that the Bible and Quran have no reference to any land or people outside those known by the authors who wrote them. Why were many other places and cultures kept in ignorance and denied the opportunity to benefit from this enlightenment. A god would have knowledge of all lands, and some mention of them would have spread the religion faster. It would have also verified the gods supernatural nature. This is additional evidence that human imagination is the sole source of religious scripture.
These books are essential to the validity of each religion they support because they are the foundation for faith in the god of that religion. If the scriptures are not the revelations or the direct inspiration of a god then the credibility of the scripture, and existence of the related god has not been established.
In scripture if someone says there shall be a beast with seven horns and ten crowns that will arise out of the west and plaque mankind...it's a far too subjective as to what this means. Most biblical scholars feel this was a reference not to a doomsday in the future, but referring specifically to the Roman empire..and that 666 is not the mark of the devil persay...but was in fact of Emperor Nero.
This is why scripture is the last refuse for many who try to claim it as a factual source, when in fact it is not. Just like if I asked where exactly is this "Eden"??...no one has an exact fix...or how much further into the stratosphere until you reach "heaven"....??
Nothing conclusive or empirical can be gained from reading scripture. Period. This is why scriptural passages are NOT, and NEVER can be considered evidence. Even the Catholics who've been at the forefront of this well before other sects evolved today will as well tell you this...scripture has no value when it comes to obtaining factual information.
But let's look at this more logically....
A. If there is adequate evidence that a god is the source (the divine revelation) for a particular book of scripture, then there's no reason for someone who believes in that god to engage in any other argument about its existence. Adequate evidence that god is the source of scripture is all thats needed. Arguments about first cause, intelligent design, and fine tuning of the universe, etc. are not relevant or necessary.
B. If there is not clear evidence that a god is the source for the Koran or Bible, then even if all the other arguments for existence of a god are true, they are only arguments for a generic hypothetical god, not the Christian or Muslim god.
C. There are only two types of information in religious scripture that, if true, would indicate a creator god was the scripture source. This would be information that could not be obtained solely by humans at the time the original scriptures were written. All other accounts, facts, stories are things people are capable of creating. The two types of information that only a god could have revealed are:
1. Specific detail information about prehistoric earth and life that is now confirmed by geology and paleontology. If the original scriptures had this Information, then that would be strong evidence that it came from an all-knowing creator that knew prehistoric conditions.
2. Accurate detailed prophecies about current, or historical events that are well documented. If these predictions were in original scripture versions, they would be evidence that a god revealed them to the authors. Specific dates, places, and names are the necessary detail.
D. The claims of prophecies and scientific facts revealed in scripture do not have enough specific detail to allow verification, and creative interpretation is necessary to match them with any current event or knowledge. An account of prophecy fulfillment written after the event occurred is not a prophecy. Stories of miracles are not evidence of divine revelation because these accounts can be created by people, and cannot be verified.
E. Without adequate evidence of god contribution, a book of scripture and the god it represents are only inventions of the human imagination. Belief that a god must exist, does not imply that any particular book of scripture has a god as its source. The scripture itself must contain clear evidence that it is the revelation of a god.
F. For a Christian or Muslim, arguments about god as the first cause, order and complexity, the source of morality, Pascals Wager, etc. are only interesting intellectual exercises, because the god these arguments propose is a generic hypothetical god that is not connected to any specific book of scripture.
Stories containing wisdom, miracles, moral lessons, even accurate history of the era is not evidence that the scripture was the revelation of a god. People could have been the source of this information. A god did not write the Quran or the Bible. People wrote them, and people are capable of ambition, grand visions, and self-delusion. These books were written hundreds of years past, and the compilation may have spanned hundreds of years. During that process, stories changed during oral recital or translation. Some characters and stories from one religion are similar to tales and myths from other religions. From a broad overview of religious history, it is not difficult to understand how these stories evolved from century to century and culture to culture. Someone came along who thought they had a better idea about what god is or should be, and composed a new or revised scripture. These scriptures are claimed to be the words of a god, but just a claim is weak evidence. As is usually the case with human creativity, these new stories were never completely original, but used appealing parts of existing religions.
There is no "pure" copy or original of these books, so it is impossible to know how far copies of copies have progressively deviated. If today someone said they were a religious prophet, and knew the word of god, everyone would have doubts. Why should we have less doubt about claims made centuries earlier?
Scriptures are hard to understand, and open to many different interpretations. This lack of clarity has created much debate and hundreds of different Christian sects. The Koran also has different sects. This from text that was allegedly the revelation of a god who is an all powerful supernatural entity.
There have been many religions, but no known instance of the same religion originating in two separate places. If a god inspired a religion, why would it restrict the initial revelation to only one place? It is interesting that the Bible and Quran have no reference to any land or people outside those known by the authors who wrote them. Why were many other places and cultures kept in ignorance and denied the opportunity to benefit from this enlightenment. A god would have knowledge of all lands, and some mention of them would have spread the religion faster. It would have also verified the gods supernatural nature. This is additional evidence that human imagination is the sole source of religious scripture.
These books are essential to the validity of each religion they support because they are the foundation for faith in the god of that religion. If the scriptures are not the revelations or the direct inspiration of a god then the credibility of the scripture, and existence of the related god has not been established.
KnicksFan4Realz
Benchwarmer
The word THEORY
When scientists use the word theory people often do think of it scientifically, but rather in the standard vernacular english terminology. In science a theory is as follows;
A testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation.
In the standard english it means...a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.
The word FACT
Once again in science it's a bit different from the standard interpretation out of a dictionary. Scientific facts are generally, to be independent from the observer in that no matter which scientist observes a phenomenon, all will reach the same necessary conclusion. In addition to these considerations, there are the social and institutional measures, such as peer review and accreditation, that are intended to promote factual accuracy. To put it blankly, there are no "grey areas" in something being factual, it either is or is not.
But it is important to note there is a difference between fact and truth as well. Facts are not always the truth, and the truth is not always factual.
Example;
It was once a fact that the planets changed direction from time to time, and that the sun, planets and stars circled the earth once daily. This seemed obvious, and was generally agreed to be the case.
In time, the fact was changed, and it was then said that the earth circles the sun, and the planets only appear to change direction as they are passed by the earth in their orbits, or vice versa.
Misunderstanding of this difference sometimes leads to fallacy in rhetoric, in which persons will say that they have fact, while others have only theory. Such statements indicate confusion as to the meanings of both words, suggesting they believe that fact means "truth," and theory means "speculation."
The word TRUTH
I'll leave this alone for now. Because the issue of "TRUTH" in of itself is much longer, even more philosophical topic than what I'm talking about right now specifically. I felt it was important to clearly define what I am saying with the definition of the other two words as to leave as little confusion as possible. Because we can get into Socratic truth, Platonic truth, truth in logic, pragmatic theory on truth. Like I said, it's just an even more longer conversation...LOL. So when and if you got time..we can talk about "TRUTH" separately, as it deserves it's own special attention.
The word LOGIC as well falls into this category, and will be skipping that for the moment as well.
Case for WHY GOD IS IMPROBABLE
Well being logical about this in my view. GOD has very high rate of improbablity. The reason being because to claim that GOD is the first cause of all creation in the both known and obviously unknown universe...actually makes things far more complicated.
Most people believing in GOD comes from the the "watchmaker's analogy"....which basically goes something like...you take apart a watch see all of the intricately designed peices fitting together perfectly, working in perfect harmony..so ergo there must have been a watchmaker. This comes from an 18th century priest named William Paley..also called Paley's argument.
To quote him directly;
"Even if you didn't know what a watch was, the obviously designed character of its cogs and springs and of how they mesh together for a purpose would force you to conclude "that the watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use." If this is true of a comparatively simple watch, how much the more so is it true of the eye, ear, kidney, elbow joint, brain? These beautiful, complex, intricate, and obviously purpose-built structures must have had their own designer, their own watchmaker -- God".
Example; Ask yourself this?
What do all objects that look as if they must have had a designer have in common?
The answer is statistical improbability.
If we find a transparent pebble washed into the shape of a lens by the sea, we do not conclude that it must have been designed by an optician: the unaided laws of physics are capable of achieving this result; it is not too improbable to have just "happened." But if we find an elaborate compound lens, carefully corrected against spherical and chromatic aberration, coated against glare, and with "Carl Zeiss" engraved on the rim, we know that it could not have just happened by chance.
If you take all the atoms of such a compound lens and throw them together at random under the jostling influence of the ordinary laws of physics in nature, it is theoretically possible that, by sheer luck, the atoms would just happen to fall into the pattern of a Zeiss compound lens, and even that the atoms round the rim should happen to fall in such a way that the name Carl Zeiss is etched out. But the number of other ways in which the atoms could, with equal likelihood, have fallen, is so hugely, vastly, immeasurably greater that we can completely discount the chance hypothesis. Chance is out of the question as an explanation.
This is not a circular argument, by the way. It might seem to be circular because, it could be said, any particular arrangement of atoms is, with hindsight, very improbable. As has been said before, when a ball lands on a particular blade of grass on the golf course, it would be foolish to exclaim: "Out of all the billions of blades of grass that it could have fallen on, the ball actually fell on this one. How amazingly, miraculously improbable!" The fallacy here, of course, is that the ball had to land somewhere.
The same goes for the parts of a watch: of all the billions of possible ways of putting them together, only a tiny minority will tell the time or do anything useful. And of course the same goes, a fortiori, for the parts of a living body. Of all the trillions of trillions of ways of putting together the parts of a body, only an infinitesimal minority would live, seek food, eat, and reproduce. True, there are many different ways of being alive -- at least ten million different ways if we count the number of distinct species alive today -- but, however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead!
Bit of Evolution
We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated -- too statistically improbable -- to have come into being by sheer chance. How, then, did they come into being? The answer is that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence. These small steps of chance are caused by genetic mutations, random changes -- mistakes really -- in the genetic material. They give rise to changes in the existing bodily structure.
Most of these changes are deleterious and lead to death. A minority of them turn out to be slight improvements, leading to increased survival and reproduction. By this process of natural selection, those random changes that turn out to be beneficial eventually spread through the species and become the norm. The stage is now set for the next small change in the evolutionary process. After, say, a thousand of these small changes in series, each change providing the basis for the next, the end result has become, by a process of accumulation, far too complex to have come about in a single act of chance.
Many species if you believed they were designed are NOW EXTINCT. Some we humans killed off. But most of them could not adapt to the changing environment. Now why would a designer such as GOD...design a species of animals, plants, fish, birds etc...and place them in evironments where they could not live and produce more?? Makes no sense to build something that you know is going to fail does it?
So if you take all the dinosaurs, all the plants, and other remains...that died out not by human hands...and claimed GOD designed them...then why did he design them to die? Why not have just made the one's he already knew were going to survive till now..and call it the day?
It is sometimes argued that the parts of an eye have to be all there together or the eye won't work at all. Half an eye, the argument runs, is no better than no eye at all. You can't fly with half a wing; you can't hear with half an ear. Therefore there can't have been a series of step-by-step intermediates leading up to a modern eye, wing, or ear.
It is obviously not true that half an eye is useless. Cataract sufferers who have had their lenses surgically removed cannot see very well without glasses, but they are still much better off than people with no eyes at all. Without a lens you can't focus a detailed image, but you can avoid bumping into obstacles and you could detect the looming shadow of a predator.
As for the argument that you can't fly with only half a wing, it is disproved by large numbers of very successful gliding animals, including mammals of many different kinds, lizards, frogs, snakes, and squids. Many different kinds of tree-dwelling animals have flaps of skin between their joints that really are fractional wings. If you fall out of a tree, any skin flap or flattening of the body that increases your surface area can save your life. And, however small or large your flaps may be, there must always be a critical height such that, if you fall from a tree of that height, your life would have been saved by just a little bit more surface area. Then, when your descendants have evolved that extra surface area, their lives would be saved by just a bit more still if they fell from trees of a slightly greater height. And so on by insensibly graded steps until, hundreds of generations later, we arrive at full wings.
The patterns of distribution of living animals and plants on the continents and islands of the world is exactly what would be expected if they had evolved from common ancestors by slow, gradual degrees. The patterns of resemblance among animals and plants is exactly what we should expect if some were close cousins, and others more distant cousins to each other. The fact that the genetic code is the same in all living creatures overwhelmingly suggests that all are descended from one single ancestor...but this suggests a microscopic bacterial ancestor organism..not a fully fledged human one as creationism suggests.
The evidence for evolution is so compelling that the only way to save the creation theory is to assume that God deliberately planted enormous quantities of evidence to make it look as if evolution had happened. In other words, the fossils, the geographical distribution of animals, and so on, are all one gigantic confidence trick. Does anybody want to worship a God capable of such trickery? It is surely far more reverent, as well as more scientifically sensible, to take the evidence at face value. All living creatures are cousins of one another, descended from one remote ancestor that lived more than 3,000 million years ago.
When scientists use the word theory people often do think of it scientifically, but rather in the standard vernacular english terminology. In science a theory is as follows;
A testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation.
In the standard english it means...a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.
The word FACT
Once again in science it's a bit different from the standard interpretation out of a dictionary. Scientific facts are generally, to be independent from the observer in that no matter which scientist observes a phenomenon, all will reach the same necessary conclusion. In addition to these considerations, there are the social and institutional measures, such as peer review and accreditation, that are intended to promote factual accuracy. To put it blankly, there are no "grey areas" in something being factual, it either is or is not.
But it is important to note there is a difference between fact and truth as well. Facts are not always the truth, and the truth is not always factual.
Example;
It was once a fact that the planets changed direction from time to time, and that the sun, planets and stars circled the earth once daily. This seemed obvious, and was generally agreed to be the case.
In time, the fact was changed, and it was then said that the earth circles the sun, and the planets only appear to change direction as they are passed by the earth in their orbits, or vice versa.
Misunderstanding of this difference sometimes leads to fallacy in rhetoric, in which persons will say that they have fact, while others have only theory. Such statements indicate confusion as to the meanings of both words, suggesting they believe that fact means "truth," and theory means "speculation."
The word TRUTH
I'll leave this alone for now. Because the issue of "TRUTH" in of itself is much longer, even more philosophical topic than what I'm talking about right now specifically. I felt it was important to clearly define what I am saying with the definition of the other two words as to leave as little confusion as possible. Because we can get into Socratic truth, Platonic truth, truth in logic, pragmatic theory on truth. Like I said, it's just an even more longer conversation...LOL. So when and if you got time..we can talk about "TRUTH" separately, as it deserves it's own special attention.
The word LOGIC as well falls into this category, and will be skipping that for the moment as well.
Case for WHY GOD IS IMPROBABLE
Well being logical about this in my view. GOD has very high rate of improbablity. The reason being because to claim that GOD is the first cause of all creation in the both known and obviously unknown universe...actually makes things far more complicated.
Most people believing in GOD comes from the the "watchmaker's analogy"....which basically goes something like...you take apart a watch see all of the intricately designed peices fitting together perfectly, working in perfect harmony..so ergo there must have been a watchmaker. This comes from an 18th century priest named William Paley..also called Paley's argument.
To quote him directly;
"Even if you didn't know what a watch was, the obviously designed character of its cogs and springs and of how they mesh together for a purpose would force you to conclude "that the watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use." If this is true of a comparatively simple watch, how much the more so is it true of the eye, ear, kidney, elbow joint, brain? These beautiful, complex, intricate, and obviously purpose-built structures must have had their own designer, their own watchmaker -- God".
Example; Ask yourself this?
What do all objects that look as if they must have had a designer have in common?
The answer is statistical improbability.
If we find a transparent pebble washed into the shape of a lens by the sea, we do not conclude that it must have been designed by an optician: the unaided laws of physics are capable of achieving this result; it is not too improbable to have just "happened." But if we find an elaborate compound lens, carefully corrected against spherical and chromatic aberration, coated against glare, and with "Carl Zeiss" engraved on the rim, we know that it could not have just happened by chance.
If you take all the atoms of such a compound lens and throw them together at random under the jostling influence of the ordinary laws of physics in nature, it is theoretically possible that, by sheer luck, the atoms would just happen to fall into the pattern of a Zeiss compound lens, and even that the atoms round the rim should happen to fall in such a way that the name Carl Zeiss is etched out. But the number of other ways in which the atoms could, with equal likelihood, have fallen, is so hugely, vastly, immeasurably greater that we can completely discount the chance hypothesis. Chance is out of the question as an explanation.
This is not a circular argument, by the way. It might seem to be circular because, it could be said, any particular arrangement of atoms is, with hindsight, very improbable. As has been said before, when a ball lands on a particular blade of grass on the golf course, it would be foolish to exclaim: "Out of all the billions of blades of grass that it could have fallen on, the ball actually fell on this one. How amazingly, miraculously improbable!" The fallacy here, of course, is that the ball had to land somewhere.
The same goes for the parts of a watch: of all the billions of possible ways of putting them together, only a tiny minority will tell the time or do anything useful. And of course the same goes, a fortiori, for the parts of a living body. Of all the trillions of trillions of ways of putting together the parts of a body, only an infinitesimal minority would live, seek food, eat, and reproduce. True, there are many different ways of being alive -- at least ten million different ways if we count the number of distinct species alive today -- but, however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead!
Bit of Evolution
We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated -- too statistically improbable -- to have come into being by sheer chance. How, then, did they come into being? The answer is that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence. These small steps of chance are caused by genetic mutations, random changes -- mistakes really -- in the genetic material. They give rise to changes in the existing bodily structure.
Most of these changes are deleterious and lead to death. A minority of them turn out to be slight improvements, leading to increased survival and reproduction. By this process of natural selection, those random changes that turn out to be beneficial eventually spread through the species and become the norm. The stage is now set for the next small change in the evolutionary process. After, say, a thousand of these small changes in series, each change providing the basis for the next, the end result has become, by a process of accumulation, far too complex to have come about in a single act of chance.
Many species if you believed they were designed are NOW EXTINCT. Some we humans killed off. But most of them could not adapt to the changing environment. Now why would a designer such as GOD...design a species of animals, plants, fish, birds etc...and place them in evironments where they could not live and produce more?? Makes no sense to build something that you know is going to fail does it?
So if you take all the dinosaurs, all the plants, and other remains...that died out not by human hands...and claimed GOD designed them...then why did he design them to die? Why not have just made the one's he already knew were going to survive till now..and call it the day?
It is sometimes argued that the parts of an eye have to be all there together or the eye won't work at all. Half an eye, the argument runs, is no better than no eye at all. You can't fly with half a wing; you can't hear with half an ear. Therefore there can't have been a series of step-by-step intermediates leading up to a modern eye, wing, or ear.
It is obviously not true that half an eye is useless. Cataract sufferers who have had their lenses surgically removed cannot see very well without glasses, but they are still much better off than people with no eyes at all. Without a lens you can't focus a detailed image, but you can avoid bumping into obstacles and you could detect the looming shadow of a predator.
As for the argument that you can't fly with only half a wing, it is disproved by large numbers of very successful gliding animals, including mammals of many different kinds, lizards, frogs, snakes, and squids. Many different kinds of tree-dwelling animals have flaps of skin between their joints that really are fractional wings. If you fall out of a tree, any skin flap or flattening of the body that increases your surface area can save your life. And, however small or large your flaps may be, there must always be a critical height such that, if you fall from a tree of that height, your life would have been saved by just a little bit more surface area. Then, when your descendants have evolved that extra surface area, their lives would be saved by just a bit more still if they fell from trees of a slightly greater height. And so on by insensibly graded steps until, hundreds of generations later, we arrive at full wings.
The patterns of distribution of living animals and plants on the continents and islands of the world is exactly what would be expected if they had evolved from common ancestors by slow, gradual degrees. The patterns of resemblance among animals and plants is exactly what we should expect if some were close cousins, and others more distant cousins to each other. The fact that the genetic code is the same in all living creatures overwhelmingly suggests that all are descended from one single ancestor...but this suggests a microscopic bacterial ancestor organism..not a fully fledged human one as creationism suggests.
The evidence for evolution is so compelling that the only way to save the creation theory is to assume that God deliberately planted enormous quantities of evidence to make it look as if evolution had happened. In other words, the fossils, the geographical distribution of animals, and so on, are all one gigantic confidence trick. Does anybody want to worship a God capable of such trickery? It is surely far more reverent, as well as more scientifically sensible, to take the evidence at face value. All living creatures are cousins of one another, descended from one remote ancestor that lived more than 3,000 million years ago.