It is impossible to believe in one God or consider God as the only source of truth.

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 99
#61
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,764
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Shila
that is was God raised Jesus from the dead.

Who resurrected Jesus from the dead? God did, 
God, who? As Shila says, there is a Trinity., and I'll buy Shila's suggestion that all three participated in Christ's resurrection, not God, the Father, alone, as has been alleged, even by y'all, ad others, until now. 

I've read the Bible in English, French, Greek and Italian, Stephen, who still has me blocked from his own hang-up with me  from three yeas ago.  Bitter, still? Then stop posting to me.

#62
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,849
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw

fauxlaw,wrote @ Shila Demonstrate the verse[s] from the Bible that tell us God was the initiator, the maker of Christ's resurrection. 

People have this notion that nothing happens but that God made out happen. I do riot read such, and I've read the Bible cover to cover in four languages.

Did you try reading it in English? :

Romans 4:24 King James Version.  But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

1 Peter 1:21 King James Version.  Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

Acts 2:31-32 King James Version.  This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

Acts 3:15 King James Version.  And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

Ephesians 1:20  King James Version.  Which He wrought in Christ, when He  raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,

Acts 5:30 King James Version.   The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 10:40 King James Version.  Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;





fauxlaw,wrote @  Shila Words mean things, but not those that people insert or delete on their own.

Well consider that you have told us that you have read the bible "cover to cover in four different languages you appear to have deleted from your memory the parts where the BIBLE tells us that is was God raised Jesus from the dead.


#63
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,849
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
Stephen, who still has me blocked from his own hang-up with me  from three yeas ago.
I have unblocked you .

He resurrected Jesus and took him to heaven.
Show me. Demonstrate the verse[s] from the Bible that tell us God was the initiator, the maker of Christ's resurrection.[.................] I do riot read such, and I've read the Bible cover to cover in four languages. .......................I've read the Bible in English, French, Greek and Italian
See above.#62

And, if my memory serves me correctly you tell us that you are a Rabbi. strange you appear to have missed out your first language:  Hebrew.
Indeed even your selective memory is very poor.
SO,  would you like me to put up the posts where YOU blocked me first but still cowardly continued to post on, and reply to, my comments without affording me the opportunity to respond to you direct!? I called you out on your cowardly practice at the time.
#64
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,847
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@fauxlaw
that is was God who raised Jesus from the dead.
Who resurrected Jesus from the dead? God did,

God, who? As Shila says, there is a Trinity., and I'll buy Shila's suggestion that all three participated in Christ's resurrection, not God, the Father, alone, as has been alleged, even by y'all, ad others, until now.

I've read the Bible in English, French, Greek and Italian, Stephen, who still has me blocked from his own hang-up with me  from three yeas ago.  Bitter, still? Then stop posting to me.

The God of the Bible raised Jesus from the dead.

Who resurrected Jesus?

In Acts 2:24, Peter says that “God raised [Jesus] from the dead.” So that’s the basic answer. God resurrected Jesus. As we read more Scripture, that basic answer becomes more nuanced.

The Bible indicates that all three Persons of the Trinity were involved in Jesus’ resurrection. Galatians 1:1 says that the Father raised Jesus from the dead. First Peter 3:18 says that the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead (see also Romans 1:4, and note that Romans 8:11 clearly says that God will resurrect believers “through His Spirit”). And in John 2:19 Jesus predicts that He will raise Himself from the dead (see also John 10:18). So, when we answer the question of who resurrected Jesus, we can say God did. And by that we can mean it was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Who resurrected Jesus from the dead? God did, and by that we mean all three Persons of the Trinity were involved. All three Persons of the Trinity participated in creation (1 Corinthians 8:6; Genesis 1:1–2). All three are involved in salvation (John 3:6, 16). And all three are responsible for the resurrection of Christ Jesus.

#65
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,764
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Stephen
And, if my memory serves me correctly you tell us that you are a Rabbi. strange you appear to have missed out your first language:  Hebrew.
Your memory serves poorly. I am not Jewish, and not a Rabbi, and Hebrew is not my first language. Don't know where you get that, but it was not from me, boyo.
I am an American of European heritage [Scotland and France], with an American ancestry back to 1625, and English is my mother tongue. I am fluent in English, French, Italian, and  Egyptian hieroglyphs, with a  good understanding of Greek, and a fair understanding of Hebrew. but not totally  fluent in either. 
#66
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,849
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
And, if my memory serves me correctly you tell us that you are a Rabbi. strange you appear to have missed out your first language:  Hebrew.
Your memory serves poorly. I am not Jewish, and not a Rabbi, and Hebrew is not my first language.

Give me a break.  I was trying to remember from some time ago,  nearly 4 years!. I apologise. I remember now, your not a Rabbi you  are in fact a " Ordained High Priest"  aren't you?  Latter Day Saints?  And an author of sorts. 
Yes, here we are:
fauxlaw wrote: Relative to the Priesthood I hold, it is not a matter of what I consider. I am an ordained High Priest.

I am an American of European heritage [Scotland and France]. Don't know where you get that, but it was not from me, boyo.

"Boyo"?  That's a Welsh term.  Scottish equivalent being - Laddie. 



#67
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,764
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Stephen
auxlaw wrote: Relative to the Priesthood I hold, it is not a matter of what I consider. I am an ordained High Priest.
And? Your point?

"Boyo"?  That's a Welsh term.  Scottish equivalent being - Laddie. 
And? Your point? My ancestry left France in the 11th century, settling in Scotland, but then spent the next 500 years in Britain. Just in my generation, I've lived across a greater expanse of the U.S., and in 30 separate countries on four continents than the distance between Scotland and Wales.
#68
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,849
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw

And, if my memory serves me correctly you tell us that you are a Rabbi. strange you appear to have missed out your first language:  Hebrew.
Your memory serves poorly. I am not Jewish, and not a Rabbi, and Hebrew is not my first language.

Give me a break.  I was trying to remember from some time ago,  nearly 4 years!. I apologise. I remember now, your not a Rabbi you  are in fact a " Ordained High Priest"  aren't you?  Latter Day Saints?  And an author of sorts. 


Yes, here we are:
auxlaw wrote: Relative to the Priesthood I hold, it is not a matter of what I consider. I am an ordained High Priest.
And? Your point?
 The point was to correct my initial comment as I had misremembered your actual calling.   


"Boyo"?  That's a Welsh term.  Scottish equivalent being - Laddie. 
And? Your point? 

Just a factual observation being myself an Englishman.

So, back to what I was saying. 

You have claimed to have read the bible "cover to cover in four languages." but for some reason hadn't  ever read "anywhere that god raised Jesus after three days". Extremely odd thing to say considering that you are an "Ordained High priest". Here>> https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6136-alcohol?page=2&post_number=36

So I have shown you just a few references that you must have missed after  having  "read the bible cover to cover in four different languages". 

Romans 4:24 King James Version.  But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

1 Peter 1:21 King James Version.  Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

Acts 2:31-32 King James Version.  This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

Acts 3:15 King James Version.  And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

Ephesians 1:20  King James Version.  Which He wrought in Christ, when He  raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,

Acts 5:30 King James Version.   The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 10:40 King James Version.  Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;



fauxlaw,wrote @  Shila Words mean things, but not those that people insert or delete on their own.
Indeed, you appear to have deleted a few (from your memory) yourself.




#69
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,306
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
The best case for polytheism-satanism and God soldiers of God Satan is here.

You cannot believe in God if you yourself arent a God.

This is because the only way to determine something as God is to be greater than or equal to it. For example, system for determining truth must always be greater than or equal to the truth it determines. Likewise, the system for determining God must always be equal to or greater than God.

For example, the only way to observe a whole object is for observation to be greater than or equal to object.

Likewise, it is logically impossible to consider God as the only source of truth. For you to determine that God is the source of truth already by tautology requires you to be able to determine truth, thus negating God as the only source of truth.

People can either determine what is true or they cant determine what is true.

If they can determine what is true, then God isnt the only one who determines truth.

But if they cant determine truth, then they cannot determine God as truth.

This applies to morality as well. Humans can either determine what is morally right or they cant. If they can determine what is morally right, then God isnt the only one who can determine what is morally right. But if humans cant determine what is morally right, then they cannot determine that God is morally right.
Am I going crazy or are you actually starting to make sense.
#70
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,847
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Castin
This applies to morality as well. Humans can either determine what is morally right or they cant. If they can determine what is morally right, then God isnt the only one who can determine what is morally right. But if humans cant determine what is morally right, then they cannot determine that God is morally right.
Am I going crazy or are you actually starting to make sense.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
#71
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,877
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
Where will one find the definitive book of moral righteousness?

And for sure BK makes sense...But not always sensibly.

But actually, where is the definitive book of all that is sensible?


#72
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,847
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Where will one find the definitive book of moral righteousness?

And for sure BK makes sense...But not always sensibly.

But actually, where is the definitive book of all that is sensible?
The Bible is the only reliable book of moral righteousness.
#73
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,462
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Megachurch Founder Indicted on Child Sex Crimes Charges
Ex-Gateway pastor Robert Morris could see up to 20 years in prison on each of 5 counts

Actually there is no God.

#74
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,462
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Did you know that J. Robert Oppenheimer was not a conventionally religious person and did not believe in God, though he was interested in Eastern philosophy and mysticism, particularly the Bhagavad Gita.
#75
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,847
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW
Did you know that J. Robert Oppenheimer was not a conventionally religious person and did not believe in God, though he was interested in Eastern philosophy and mysticism, particularly the Bhagavad Gita.
The Bhagavad Gita inspired India to become a nuclear power too.

#76
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,877
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
The Bible is the only reliable book of moral righteousness.

Trouble is, with no way of verifying content, the very nature of it's development and construction, makes the Bible an unreliable source of information.

 Making your statement somewhat contradictory.


Nonetheless,, if one does not need to provide definitive verification, then based upon your conclusion, one could place ones faith in any historical myth and consider it to be reliable.


I would therefore suggest that moral righteousness , is a variable human concept, but with a shared commonality, relative to an evolving intellectual species.


In the absence of knowledge, the need for a transcendental solution was clearly a necessity.
#77
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,847
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Trouble is, with no way of verifying content, the very nature of it's development and construction, makes the Bible an unreliable source of information.

 Making your statement somewhat contradictory.
The Bible has stood the test of time. It has the largest of Christian believers over 2 billion.
#78
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,462
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Shila
‘The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses,’ Einstein wrote to Gutkind, ‘the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this.’
#79
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,462
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Everyone: Do you think more like Albert Einstein or Pastor Robert Morris?
#80
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,877
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
Nope, the generational  transfer of Christian data has stood the test of a few thousand years.

Prior to the book, there were millions of years of other versions of stood time testing.

Being stupidly clever is a prime example.

And we didn't stop being cleverly stupid once the book had been compiled...Far from it.
#81
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,847
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Nope, the generational  transfer of Christian data has stood the test of a few thousand years.

Prior to the book, there were millions of years of other versions of stood time testing.

Being stupidly clever is a prime example.

And we didn't stop being cleverly stupid once the book had been compiled...Far from it.
The religions that were sparked by the Bible still exists. Judaism and Christianity. The Bible has stood the test of time.
#82
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,462
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Hinduism is often considered the oldest existing religion still practiced today. While this may be true, it’s important to note that Hinduism does not have any particular founder or a single text, but instead combines several ancient traditions and beliefs.
The oldest scripture of Hinduism is the Rig Veda, which is believed to be about 3,500 years old. However, archaeologists have found bull and cow motifs, which are sacred animals in Hinduism, dating back to around 7,000 BCE during a time when an ancient civilization inhabited the area near the Indus River.
Today, Hinduism is practiced by millions of people around the world, but primarily in India and the surrounding countries.
#83
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,847
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW
Hinduism is often considered the oldest existing religion still practiced today. While this may be true, it’s important to note that Hinduism does not have any particular founder or a single text, but instead combines several ancient traditions and beliefs.
The oldest scripture of Hinduism is the Rig Veda, which is believed to be about 3,500 years old. However, archaeologists have found bull and cow motifs, which are sacred animals in Hinduism, dating back to around 7,000 BCE during a time when an ancient civilization inhabited the area near the Indus River.
Today, Hinduism is practiced by millions of people around the world, but primarily in India and the surrounding countries.
The most important teaching I. Hinduism is the concept of Karma or self accountability. There is no one to forgive you for your sins but yourself and Karma rewards or punishes you for your actions.
Topic's author
#84
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 403
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@FLRW
Hinduism is smart enough to know that there is a universal law for behavior in the same way there is for laws of universe. It says that you can choose your behavior, but each behavior has consequences which cannot be separated from it. This is Sanatana Dharma(Law of behavior) and Karma(consequence of behavior).
#85
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,877
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
@Best.Korea
@Shila
Hinduism.

Same old shit really.

Just splashing about in the Ganges amidst the flotsam and jetsam of the funeral pyres.
#86
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,847
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Hinduism.

Same old shit really.

Just splashing about in the Ganges amidst the flotsam and jetsam of the funeral pyres.
No one had to die to validate Hinduism. Hinduism is a true religion.
#87
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,877
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
It's a collective adherence to a more or less bizarre deity based creation and existence hypothesis.

Which for sure, is what we refer to as religion.

Inserting the word "true" doesn't make it any more so.
#88
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,847
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
It's a collective adherence to a more or less bizarre deity based creation and existence hypothesis.

Which for sure, is what we refer to as religion.

Inserting the word "true" doesn't make it any more so.


Which religion is most scientifically proven?
Buddhism. Buddhism and science have been regarded as compatible by numerous authors. Some philosophic and psychological teachings found in Buddhism share points in common with modern Western scientific and philosophic thought.

#89
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,877
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
Which religion is most scientifically proven?


Well, all religions are, so require no scientific approval.

And science has never proven the existence of a specific deity or specific deities.

Though old style theocracies (and modern ones I suppose), were/are the chief sponsors of scientific research.

That aside, I would suggest that Buddhism is not a deistic religion, but promotes a ritual adherence to a sort of naive sociological fantasy philosophy, based upon the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, a sort of South Asian Jesus type mystic.

So, I'm not sure that such lifestyle choices require scientific approval, or that the Buddha sought to scientifically prove their basis.

Though material and astrological sciences seem to be a human evolutionary requisite, irrespective of non-scientific theological or philosophical ideology.

#90
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,847
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
And science has never proven the existence of a specific deity or specific deities.
Which religion is most scientifically proven?
Buddhism. Buddhism and science have been regarded as compatible by numerous authors. Some philosophic and psychological teachings found in Buddhism share points in common with modern Western scientific and philosophic thought.