Total posts: 102
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I gave you an answer, what's the issue with it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Okay, so you think love means saying I love you. Really, your logic of love comes from cartoons.
That's not what my reply meant, his love is similar to someone that says they love you, it's the english definition of love.
Not an act of love, given that my existence is immoral. It is the opposite of love. It is something you do to someone you hate, not love. It was already explained in this topic, but you felt the need to repeat a refuted point.
I didnt see the point in the topic, but why is your existence immoral? And have you considered he meant for it to be perfect?
Not an act of love, since I wont be ruling along side him. I dont think you know what love means. I didnt think I would have to define love but it seems that you are clueless about what it is.
Do you think I meant a literal ruler, you must love someone if you created them out of a good-will like that, is that not a loving act?
So yeah, God screwed them up by giving them free will. Another act of hate, not love. A loving act would be not creating those people. There is no love in eternal torment.
I hate to get into logical arguments but ill put one below
p1: It is possible god has morally sufficient reasons to create people with the possibility to commit evil acts
c1:There is a possible world where god has morally sufficient reasons to create people with the possibility to commit evil acts
c2:The existence of free-will does not necessitate contradiction.
Also, do you think hell is literally fire?
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
This is the description of the book. If you want to read the content, buy it.
I cant read spanish sadly
By the way, this book is really interesting because it also says that Mary had a birth similar to that of Jesus. Mary's parents were wealthy but old and sterile, and "an angel" promised that they would conceive a baby. Similar to Abraham too. Why would an angel (an astruanat) do that?
Ive heard to something similar to that too, I haven't really looked into it though
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
So, what does that mean?
Well it would mean the same as if someone else said they love you.
How does God love me?
Many different ways, for example he made you for the purpose of ruling with him, now some of god's creatures went wrong in their practice of free-will, and we can't rule with him in the garden of eden anymore, but he did promise to send us a redeemer.
Can you make an example of God's love towards me?
Yes, he sent his own son so we could rule along side him again.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Are you telling me that I am wrong? Or is it that you are just another bible basher that has never read the scripture for yourself but preach it to others regardless?
I dont have a encyclopedic knowledge on the bible sadly, im not saying your wrong I just want you to show me the verse that says "the seed" (of david)
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I don't get it. I think this passage looks congruent with the official (canonical) books, there is misogyny and also the rabbi seems to say that we all are the same in spirit.
Do any gospels record Jesus saying to kill anybody? I dont think there is any.
Google translator is good if you dont speak a language.
I dont trust google translator, ive found it to be somewhat unreliable.
"In The Astronauts of Yavé, J. J. Benítez reveals to us countless details and circumstances surrounding the preparation and birth of Jesus and that the Church has not wanted or been able to make known until now... Who could suspect that Wasn't Jesus actually born in the village of Bethlehem? How many of us knew that Jesus' "grandparents" were from a wealthy family? It was never said that Joseph was a widower and had six children. And in this torrent of secret and ignored information until today, J.J. Benítez goes much further and presents a working thesis that may shake current theological approaches."
That doesn't tell me what he said about mary's & joseph's age.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
I was answering the equal Bible fool to you, n8nrgim in my post #11, in his quote of "i dont have enough faith to be an atheist," and then included you as well since YOU are the creator of this embarrassing thread of yours again, in wanting to agree or disagree with what I said, understood?
What did your post have to do with #11, and you dont need to tag me in since it had no relevance to me. Stop clogging up my thread.
Since you brought up my post #11 IN MAKING IT KNOWN, then have you ever had to do the following:
No I dont, you have no idea what the old covenant vs new covenant is, make your own thread, and if you want to debate me specifically send a debate request.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
What did you just say in your Devil Speak quote above? Where you Satanically said "the supposed resurrection?!" Who in the hell do you think you are in slapping Jesus in the face again with your Bible Stupidity which is BLASPHEME on your part regarding His resurrection!
You say "Supposed resurrection" since not everyone agrees it was a resurrection, your an idiot trying to be smart.
Created:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
I never "admitted defeat"
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I'm not sure what your goal is in opening a thread about Jesus's parents, whether to question the Christian faith or to find the truth, so it would be nice if you clear that up.
Brother D made a post saying jesus wasnt of david.
1. Apocryphe means "hidden", not false. This is from an academic point of view. If the catholic church cast the apocryphe books out it's because it's a matter of convinience and not of intelectual honesty.
That's not what the council of trent was, they removed gospels because they lacked consistency with the other gospels, for example the gospel of thomas (although not a apocryphe book) was removed at the council of trent because it appeared to have mythic developments. This is a quote from the gospel of thomas
'Simon Peter said to them: “Let Mary go forth from among us, for women are not worthy of the life.” Jesus said: “Behold, I shall lead her, that I may make her male, in order that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who makes herself male shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.”'
Doesnt exactly line up with what other gospels have.
2. You won't see any historian casting out historical material like the apocryphe books because that would be biased and not correct for the sake of an investigation. I already said that if the apocryphe books are considered apocryphe by the catholic church is because they want to square the biblical content with their faith. Example, the book of Enoc says more about UFO contact than faith, so it's cast out.
An historian would cast out a books if;
- Doesnt have an author on the title or internally
- Seems to have interpolation (like many of the apocrypha books seem to have)
- Makes clear contradictions to another more reliable source
A historian if he is worth his salt would throw away the apocryphe books
3. The issue of Jesus's parents' age is controversial, but many historians agree with what I've pointed out, that Mary was like 13 and Joseph was more than 80. It's not only because of the apocryphe books but also because in the "oficial" books Joseph is absent in great part of the rabbi's life.
Why should I believe the historians? Did they have a source saying her age? Were they back then when the betrothal happened? And what do you mean by the official books of joseph? I cant find that book. And he's not a rabbi, he was a saint.
4. My source is the book "los astronautas de Yavé" by JJ Benitez, writer and journalist who mention other historial investigations in his book. There are many papers about it out there if you want to go deeper in this subject.
Yahweh's Astronauts is an interesting title, I sadly cant speak spanish would you take an excerpt from the book for me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
Brother d has no understanding of the old covenant, if you want I can tell you the rebuttal to his comment (through messages since this is off topic of the thread)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
This has absolutely nothing to do with the thread
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Forgetting that of the BIBLE states that the MESSIAH would be of "THE SEED" and bloodline of David. When these BIBLICAL facts were pointed out to you, you then switched your focus to Mary's bloodline. saying:
I may be mistaken, I haven't seen a verse that says "The seed" specifically.
But that was bullshit too and can't help you either because it has been shown to you over and over again that she was a Levite and not of Judah.
You keep on saying this but it hasnt, your pulling shit out of your ass, it has not been shown.
Created:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
It is not joseph's genealogy, Joseph's biological father is jacob in matthew 1, this traces it through heli. You dont understand the verse.
Created:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
You never addressed what I pointed out biblically, you may begin addressing it now, how doesn't luke put marry as from david?
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
History books. Also in the apocryphe gospels.
Why should I believe the apocryphe gospels, and which history books? Would you cite a source.
Cause I can, the catholic encyclopedia:
From the age at which Hebrew maidens became marriageable, it is possible that Mary gave birth to her Son when she was about thirteen or fourteen years of age. No historical document tells us how old she actually was at the time of the Nativity.
Created:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Im just going to put it bluntly since im tired of responding to your text walls
you must address how the genealogy in luke does not link marry to david.
While you try to do that, ill point out why it does.
Luke 3:23-38:
23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,[a] the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Let's address the elephant in the room 1st, the genealogy doesn't say marry's name explicitly, this is because it was not common to put female's names into genealogies. Now let's look at the point of interest, it links "heli" to david. Heli is not joseph's biological farther it seems, since in matthew 1:1-2 says it was jacob. Heli is short for Heli-achim, a Hebrew alternate form for the Hebrew . Joachim seems to be a variant form of Eliacim, which is abbreviated as Eli, a variant of Heli therefore making marry of david.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
It is said that Joseph was more than 80yo when he accepted Mary as his wife, so I think the story as story makes sense because at this age and at this time was quite difficult that Joseph got bricked up and as a consequence impossible to have conceived a child, contrary to Mary who was 13yo and very fertile.
Hmm, you kinda caught my eye here, "It is said that joseph was more than 80 yo" by who/where/what?
You also said mary was 13 yo, where did you get this?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
And a "brick wall" of your own making. NONE of your claims will in any way make Jesus nor his mother of the line David. You can deny these BIBLICAL facts all day long but it won't change anything.
Yes they both could, since you dont like the marriage option we'll look at the other, if marry is descendent of david through blood (not marriage) therefore jesus, descendent of the virgin marry, is of david.
oseph had absolutely nothing to do with the conception of Jesus No seed and no bloodline.. THE BIBLE CLEARLY STATES this.Answer me this, Yes or No? Is the bible telling the truth when it tells us this:"Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit".
That's the strawest straw-man to have ever been created. I never claimed david was involved, I argued marry would be descendent of david through marriage
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
No, I dont see any reason to believe vahalah exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
No, I dont see any reason to believe vahalah exists.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Oh please stop with your convoluted bullshit!You are simply making things up on the hoof. My wife doesn't become of my bloodline or of my seed simply because I married her. UNLESS she is my sister by the same father or that she was my own daughter! to begin with, you absolute clown.
Again, I don’t know how many times I must say this. You are doing an internal critique, your wife is not an internal critique. Since your doing and internal critique you follow the rules of the critique, since the thing your critiquing is referring to that. In this case it’s 2 flesh become one.
Another important point you seem to have ignored is the BIBLICAL fact that Joseph and Mary were NOT married when Mary had conceived Jesus "immaculately".Further the BIBLE clearly states that Mary was baffled and "troubled" by the whole processes because she says that she hadn't had sex with any man.
Your right they weren’t married when she conceived, but they were when she gave birth which would be sufficient to make Jesus under David.
And ANOTHER BIBLICAL point that you have let slip that dense skullbone of yours is the BIBLICAL fact that Joseph was about to call off the betrothal(engagement) and dump Mary when the news was broke to him that she was all ready with child.
Why is this relevant? They were married when she gave birth, doesn’t matter how their relationship was
The only way that you could be anywhere near correct is for you to say the whole bible story of the conception and birth of Jesus is all made up mythology. And that the whole biblical story is simply about a man (king or not) that Christians has wrapped in a mythological cloak.
Uh no, there is multiple ways I can prove Jesus to be of david
1) marriage to joseph
2) genealogy in luke
I feel as if I’m talking to a brick wall here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
By Christian belief, I mean what Christianity is stemmed from, the supposed resurrection. Since there is no naturalistic explanation for why the original Christians claimed the resurrection (atleast none I’ve seen) how is it not faith to accept a naturalistic explanation?
Created:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
God, your an idiot. Let's show exactly how philosophically wrong you are.
Brother D, define omnipotence, does it ahear to logic (As in god cant do something illogical, my personal definition) or can it defy logic. (As in god can do something illogical.)
Created:
Posted in:
So I made a post a few weeks (?) back about me doubting naturalistic theories for why christians claimed the resurrection happened. The answers I received for naturalistic theories were rather disappointing. I have seen no naturalistic theories that can explain the 8 criteria I have that a theory would have to meet.
Given this, how can you believe in a naturalistic theory without using faith, since they are obviously contrary to what happened & without evidence.
Created:
Show the membership in Luke 3:28-38 that Mary is mentioned in that it is her specific genealogy, because at the onset in Luke 3:28 it specifically says that it is Jesus and Joseph's genealogy and NOT MARYS! “Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, …….”(Luke 3:28)
Mary isnt explicitly mentioned in the genealogy, simply because in culture back then you wouldnt put women in genealogies. Joseph's father is Jacob, the reason it says joseph, son of heli is because joseph was heli's son by law. "Joachim" (What you most likely know mary's father as), a variant form of Eliacim or its abbreviation Eli, a variant of Heli, which latter is the form found in the Third Evangelist's genealogy.
How can Mary be the DAUGHTER of Heli, when Joseph was Heli's son in Luke 3:28???!!! If your Bible ignorance wants to believe that Heli is the father of Mary like you proposed in your quoted statement above, THEN JOSEPH MARRIED HIS OWN SISTER!!! LOL! Do you see why you are a great comedian in making us laugh relative to your Bible STUPIDITY? Only one more reason for YOU of many that Luke 3:28-38 is not Mary's genealogy!
Simple, Joseph was Heli's son in law, hence it calls him his son. Even if you think they were biologically sister & brother, what follows? Joseph noir Mary is a standard of goodness, no matter how munch the catholics try to convince you the blessed virgin is.
When you comically state that Mary became the "flesh" of Joseph through marriage including his Davidic blood line, Joseph's DNA and BLOOD LINE OF DAVID could not be transferred to Mary BIOLOGICALLY like it needed to be "through the loins" in relation to Jesus being the Messiah (Acts 2"30)! Do the simple math to prevent you from being so God Damned Bible Stupid like Miss Tradesecret is all the time! ENOUGH!
exact quote; "that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh" nice when you take it out of context. According to the flesh, and mary is "Of the loins" since she was married through joseph who was "Of the loins" your argument falls soo short that you can merely chalk it up to them saying jesus was of david, confirming my argument.
Again, if you want to be biologically inept, then you state your through marriage alone ruse shows Josephs David Blood line passed into Mary, and in turn, then Mary's blood line of her being a LEVITE is passed onto Joseph in marriage as well, GET IT BIBLE FOOL? Using your inept reasoning, then Jesus now had a LEVITE blood line of 50 percent, and IS NOT BIBLICAL because Jesus needed 100 percent of Davids Blood line "through the fruit of the loins" from Joseph, which DID NOT HAPPEN because Joseph was NOT THE PATERNAL FATHER OF JESUS, period! (Acts 2:30). Wipe the egg from your face once again!
You've yet to show marry is a levite, She is a davidain judahite, not aronic Levite.
Your kinda embarrassing yourself here, it's fine to misunderstand the bible at times (of course try not to) but you consistently do it almost purposefully, and yet act soo confident. You should research The Dunning-Kruger Effect
WRONG AGAIN! LOL! In my post #6 I have already shown you in how Bible STUPID you are in front of the membership relative to your Satanic quote above, but let me add more proverbial egg upon your face with the following inspired by Jesus passages, are you ready? Good!
You didnt really show anything except for demonstrating the dunning-kruger effect.
Jesus as God had promised David that his descendant would inherit his throne and establish his kingdom forever (2 Sam 7:12-16) Barring the FACT that Jesus NEVER accomplished this act, pay close attention, the ONLY WAY, I repeat, the ONLY WAY that Jesus can be considered from the lineage of David, is through the following biblical axioms:
And Jesus is from blood & marriage, since mary married joseph, and is daughter of heli, who is son of david.
Barring the FACT that Paul and Luke were blatantly WRONG when they said that Jesus was born through the loins of David, where YOU ADMIT that Jesus was not from the sperm of Joseph in your post #1, and in Luke 3:28-38 IS NOT MARY'S GENEAOLGY as explicitly shown in my post #18, therefore, Jesus was NEVER, I repeat, NEVER a descendant from David “through the fruit of the loins” as the impetus of being from the blood line of David had to be through Joseph and NOT Mary because she was a LEVITE as biblically shown!
Show me in the bible where mary is levite, you cant. And luke 3:28-38 is mary's genealogy, you've shown nothing.
Public Choice is as Bible dumbfounded as you are in his Bible Ignorant post #4 in thinking that Luke 3:28-38 is Mary’s genealogy, where I addressed it and where you are too SCARED and have RAN AWAY FROM IT AND WENT INTO HIDING relating to this post link:
You ran away from my debate request, you cant really be talking.
I will continue with Section 3 in totally removing Mary from any Davidic line, at your embarrassing expense once again in front of the membership, sorry!
ill be waiting for the pathetic attempt.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Scraping the barrel and trying to crowbar in absolute convoluted bullshit won't get you away from the fact that Jesus was immaculately conceived so simply couldn't have been of the bloodline or of the seed of David.
Yes it can, since his mother was still apart of David’s line through both blood and marriage.
Also in luke he (luke) provides a genealogy that links marry to David through heli (her father)
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Your meat riding an idiot.
He won't be able to do that Brother D. In relation to either the immaculate conception and how it in anyway relates to Genesis 2:24.
The post this was in response to was brother d saying the Old Testament said the messiah must be of the line of David. Brother d is correct on that to his credit, what he is wrong on, is that it must be by blood (although there is still a blood connection without marriage) the verse in question doesn’t say that.
He hung himself the second he attempted to impress upon the members here how the bible shows that Jesus was of the bloodline and the seed of David, which is all contradictory to the Bible version. And even if his convoluted gobbledegook reasoning had the slightest scintilla of truth about it, he would still be wrong concerning Jesus' messiahship, simply because Jesus failed in all the requirements of the expected Messiah.
I don’t think he did, the genealogy in luke says heli is son of David, now since Mary is daughter of heli, I may be mistaken but that’d make her daughter of david, therefore Jesus son of david.
So I will sit back and watch "SethBrown" attempt to dig himself out of the crater he has dug for himself by showing us all "how internal critiques work" relative to the immaculate conception and how it in anyway relates to Genesis 2:24.
Simple, you need to follow the context of the text your critiquing, me and you both agree on that I think. Given that, the context says 2 flesh become 1 with marriage, making Mary‘s flesh & Joseph’s flesh the same, meaning she would be of David even if she wasn’t son of heli.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Tell the membership in how your perceived knowledge of "how internal critiques work" relative to Genesis 2:24 and Mary and Joseph becoming one flesh where Joseph can only pass his "seed of David" unto Mary through sexual intercourse (Acts 2:30), and where Joseph was NOT the paternal father of Jesus, but Jesus was through His Holy Spirit!
If you haven’t noticed your doing an internal critique, so you must follow the ‘rules’ per say of the text
Uh, now you are really being biological and Bible STUPID! Explain biblically how the blood line of Joseph who is from the seed of David can literally transfer BIOLOGICALLY his David blood line to Mary, without Joseph having sexual relations with her to make the baby Jesus to begin with?
The Bible verse that says the messiah will be of the blood of David, doesn’t say it must be biological, just that he must be of David’s line. Shifting goal posts.
YOUR QUOTE ABOVE WENT DIRECTLY AGAINST YOUR FIRST QUOTE TO THE EQUALY BIBLE STUPID PUBLIC-CHOICE HEREWITH: "I may be missing something, but I dont see how this would allude to mary's genealogy, it seems as if it's Joseph."H-E-L-L-O, ANYBODY HOME TODAY? OBVIOUSLY NOT! LOL!!! When you say in your post #5 that you don't see what Public-Choice has said in being a part of Mary's genealogy, and then YOU state that now that it does, you are making yourself the greater Bible fool in front of the membership by your Satanic DOUBLE SPEAK! LOL! Seriously, are you trying out your comedy acts in this thread, to take on the road in making Jesus' HEBREW creation laugh?!
I was missing something, I was ignorant and didn’t analyze the verse enough, read my 21st century view into the text. I re read it and realized marry is of David. I apologize to public-choice (that’s why I’m tagging you in on this)
AGAIN, you said in your post #5 that you didn't think Luke 3 was the genealogy of Mary, therefore can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E? LOL! Therefore, YOU should educate yourself so as not to be so GOD DAMNED Bible STUPID in front of the membership all the time! Why do you do this to yourself, do you gain some kind of pleasure when you blatantly contradict yourself, and being so Bible inept?
In my #5 post I said “I may be missing something” and I was. It’s not hypocritical to admit your wrong.
NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN BIBLE FOOL LIKE "SETH BROWN" THAT BLATANTLY CONTRADICTS HIMSELF, AND DOES NOT KNOW IN HOW BIBLE DUMB HE TRULY IS RELATIVE TO JESUS CANNOT BE FROM THE BLOOD LINE OF DAVID, WILL BE ...?
You think admitting Wrong is contradicting yourself? That explains a lot.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Of course he can bring good out of bad, he could have also brought that good without the bad but he chose not to. He chose the bad. Choosing bad is not good. This is really simple stuff.
Okay and given there is free-will in the universe, would he be evil if he made good from bad? You have a situation that happened without you & yet you try to make it better.
He's not a substitute teacher, he's the all powerful creator of the universe. When you are all powerful you don't just tell people not to do things and shrug your shoulders when they do. If God wanted different he would have it. Instead he chooses this. He chooses a world where tragedy occurs every single day. That's not an all loving being.
He also created a world where many great things happen a day, he created us with free-will under the intent for us to do good
Again, if your toddler is roaming free throughout the living room and you see a knife on the table do you take it or leave it there in the name of free will?
Did you give your toddler free-will? Can you make good from your toddler doing something bad? It’s a dis analogy
You continue to pretend that the ability to choose one's own actions and the capability to carry out a tragedy are tied together, they're not. Taking away the kife doesn't stop the toddler from making their own choices, it just removes a threat to their safety. God could have easily created a world with that idea in mind where one person's free will wasn't a literal threat to the life and safety of everyone around them. He chose not to create that world.
I don’t think they are tied together (free-will to potency distinction) but if you create people that can only do good then you still have zombies since they can’t even think of a bad thing, thinking of doing a bad thing is bad as well.
I'm curious, do you believe in heaven, and if so, do you believe we get to have free will there?
I don’t think you will, the main difference is all the bad thoughts are removed, god won’t do that in this world since he wants us to have the choice to be separated from him
Actually, this is sightly off the topic but if you believe God is omnipotent and omnicient, it is not logically possible for us to have free will.
I don’t see a good reason to believe this is true, he just knows the decisions we are going to freely choose, there isn’t a contradiction there.
If he is omnipotent then there is no outcome that would have been beyond his control. If he is omnicient then there is no outcome in which he wasn't fully aware would be the case as he made his decision. So when he created this universe he had plenty of other options, he could have chosen a universe where I would end up a theist and you the atheist or even a universe in which we would never have been born. But instead this is the universe he created and he did so knowing full well how it would turn out. He made this choice, that's not free will.
Just because your omnipotent doesn’t mean you must control everything, it’d be contradictory to say a omnipotent being can’t not control everything, since that’s limiting his ability. And where do you get the notion he chooses the universe? He created people & let the system run, he didn’t choose it, they did since there is free-will.
Exactly, which directly contradicts that he's all good.
It’d be cruel to not give them the option to choose bad, if you do so then there is a ton of things that can’t happen, there can’t be love without free-will.
Created:
ROFLOL!!! Oh my, you actually think that Genesis 2:24 makes Mary in the line of David because of the term “they became one flesh?” LOL!!!!! Let me compose myself after laughing intensely at your Bible Stupid unbiblical notion you stated above!!! OMG, LOL
Somebody doesn’t understand how internal critiques work.
Heads up, Genesis 2:24 sets forth the biblical pattern for marriage as instituted by Jesus as God in the beginning as shown herewith: one man is united to one woman in matrimony, and the two form one new family! This language of “one flesh” points to a unity of two persons, and NOT simply to a conjunction of bodies in genetically passing the blood line of Joseph to Mary from the “seed of David!”
it doesn’t say 2 persons become one, it says 2 flesh become one signifying bloodlines connecting, even ignoring that it appears as if Mary is from David’s bloodline even without the marriage to Joseph, Luke 3:23-28 says that heli (another name for Mary’s father) is descendent of David.
Besides, remember this simple Biblical axiom that you keep forgetting about, and hiding from, as shown herewith: ”Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;" (Acts 2:30). Therefore, Joseph had to have sexual relations with Mary to pass his “David blood line seed” into the baby Jesus, but since that was not the case in the celestial impregnation of Mary by Jesus Himself, in being part of the Triune Doctrine as the Holy Spirit, then Jesus DID NOT BECOME THE MESSIAH BECAUSE HE WAS NOT FROM THE “SEED” OF DAVID! 2+2=4!
That verse isn’t about what the messiah will be like, it’s in acts.
NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN BIBLE FOOL LIKE “SETH BROWN” THAT THINKS MARY IS FROM THE LINEAGE OF DAVID JUST BECAUSE OF BEING MARRIED TO JOSEPH, WILL BE …? I KNOW, STOP LAUGHING! LOL!
She would be of David even without Joseph from the genealogy in luke, read the Bible & educate yourself
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Allow everyone to die of old age.
Do you think he cant bring good from someone dying from non-natural causes?
The claim is that he's all loving. If he's choosing to allow bad then that definitionally refutes that claim.
How is he bad if he allows someone to do bad, yet tells them not to? Same as our law does, doesn't just lock everyone up so it's impossible for bad, but still tells people not to do bad.
Free will and allowing evil are not tied together. That was the point of my toddler analogy. We can be evil all we want, being able to actualize tragedy is a power chose to give to us, which directly contradicts the idea that he's all good.
What's the point of allowing free-will then not allowing someone to do even a smidge of something bad? If god stopped us from doing all bad things, then we would all just be robots following him pretty munch, since we wouldnt truly have the choice to do something we may actually want.
For something to go wrong is a direct contradiction to the claim that he is all powerful and omnicient.
Do you think god determined where people would end up? No, he created them & they end up where they end up, he didnt choose the outcome, they did.
He can also just make good things, but he chooses to use the bad things to do it.
If he created good things then there may only be 3 or so people on the face of the planet, and does he create good things or does he create the possibility for bad & good? Similar to the doctor analogy, by giving a child a shot he risks giving the child an allergic reaction, that could be deadly. He created the possibility for good & the possibility for bad.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Imagine how much evil the world would be rid of with this one simple tweak, yet God chose not to create this world. I would ask why, but the answer is irrelevant because God is all powerful so there is nothing that could have forced his hand. This was a willing choice. That alone refutes that God is all loving.
What simple tweak could he do?
He doesn't have to remove our free will to ensure we are protected from tragedy. If my toddler is running around the living room and I see a knife on the table, I'm not going to pretend I'm somehow interfering with their free will by removing it.
Well you completely ignored my response, he could allow it to happen & make good out of it in his omnipotence. That may be better than interfering
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I think that should be acknowledged, that's more playing into the freewill defense which I sorta combine with this, an atheist would have to prove free-will doesnt exist, and it's impossible for god to have morally sufficient reasons to allow evil. That's a heavy burden of proof.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
There is no example of bad being necessary or even beneficial that an all powerful god could not get around. Bad leads to good because that's how we are designed to react to it, if we along with the universe were designed differently that wouldn't be the case.
#1 God could allow evil and just created good from it (what I think he does, and is most reasonable in doing)
#2 God could give us that good without needing evil to exist.
Now #2 isnt impossible to do, but there are some "bad" things god must allow to happen to be good, for example he must permit people to die of old age eventually. Now similarly, I think god must allow people to make their own choices to be good, he must allow them free-will. Are you really good if your forced to do good by some man in a sky? I wouldnt say so, since your intention isnt there. Now some of god's creatures went wrong in this exercise of freedom, and that caused evil. But God can still make great things from bad things, I think alot of people have became theists from seeing bad things.
Created:
-->
@hey-yo
There is another argument that includes free will.
Free will isn’t required in this argument, you could incorporate it though.
I like the free-will defense sorta combined with this, an atheist would have to prove free-will is impossible, and that god having morally sufficient reasons to allow evil is impossible.
The burden of proof is simply too heavy to meet
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Let’s specify, by doctor we are meaning a doctor of medicine correct? Not a doctor of theology or philosophy. If it’s the doctor of medicine then why would we expect a doctor of medicine to answer a philosophical question, we wouldn’t reasonably expect a philosopher to answer a complex medical question, even though the philosopher is likely an intelligent person
I agree, it’s very likely a afterlife would follow a soul
We know your more likely to hallucinate when there is emotions involved, given that we would expect more hallucinations of dead family members than alive since you would feel emotional if that died, seems as if that could answer it, if the evidence can work for both theories then it can simply be dismissed.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
dr. jeffrey long wrong a book, 'evidence of of the afterlife'. a smart and capable doctor writing a book like that should be sufficient to establish evidence, but i know some peeps are too stubborn to leave it at that.
I disagree with this, I’m going to assume dr. Jeffrey is a doctor of medicine. Imagine we put a philosopher and a medical doctor in a room, then I asked the philosopher “how many gallons of blood does a human body mean?” Then asked the doctor “is a god real?”
It’d be quite odd since how munch blood someone needs is a question for a doctor, yet we asked the philosopher that, and if god exists is a philosophical question, yet we asked the doctor. Why would we expect the doctor to know this for certain? Surely we can critique the doctor’s work and see if he has valuable sources and reasoning. The question of if there is a afterlife isn’t a question a doctor would know, that’s more of a philosophical question
philosophically, it's just plain stupid to argue that it's common for people to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die. why would this even happen? drugs, dreams, and other hallucations dont cause people to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories in any other aspect of life... why should we assume there's something special about dying that causes this?
I don’t necessarily disagree with this, someone is legally dead when they’re brain has no more function (amongst other things like no heart beat but that’s one of the criteria) so medically I believe we could eliminate hallucinations.
out of body experiences are commonly verified as accurate, to the point of almost always being accurate. doctors and professionals are often some people verifying things that occurred when someone was dead, when what the dead person knew was impossible to know. if ya'll want a start in researching out of body experiences, 'evidence for the afterlife' by doctor jeffrey long does a short literature review of some highlights. there's lots of studies that look at the accuracy of those experiences and they're always shown to be accurate. there's whole scientific journals out there dedicated to this stuff, the evidence is basically too overwhelming to just ignore. even the AWARE study where they tried to measure out of body phenomenon, had two examples where someone who was dead knew what happened out of their body. and there was some measurement of auditory ability when they were dead. now, yes this isn't the level of evidence that leaves no room for doubt, and this isn't exactly being able to be measured in a lab on demand.... but this is all evidence that is being measured and can be repeated. it's basic science.
I haven’t read the book you cited, so for sake of argument we’ll assume what you said about it is true (so this only stands if what you said was true ofc) I don’t think this necessarily proves an afterlife, I more interpret it as proof of a soul, now a soul could lead to a afterlife but it doesn’t follow by necessity.
dead family members. when people experience beings on the other side, the beings met are almost always dead and almost always family members. if this was just a random hallucination, there should be many more examples of living people and people other than family members. this consistency is a strong point.
I don’t think we would expect less family members if it was hallucination, we would actually most likely expect family members if it was hallucination since there is a sense of emotional appeal there.
I mostly agree with the rest of what you said.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I’d be a big fat liar if I told you I came to the Christian belief on reason alone, but now that I’m more mature I do try to Peruse truth, as a general rule of thumb I am unconvinced until convinced, it’s allowed me to avoid a lot of false things. I’ll take a look at the thread though.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I find it rather interesting, how could a god turn all things good, I feel as if I’m lost on this subject but maybe that’s just because of the nature of it, there’s sort of a paradox in understanding it, if god is infinitely beyond us, how could we possibly expect to have a complete understanding of it, analogously we can’t even get close to understanding a 4d cube, but we can get a idea through a tesseract, which is just the shadow of a 4d cube. We can’t understand god’s actions fully but we can get a understanding through his word, and his son.
Suffering will not end, it will not end until the day we all get our garden back, god taking away our garden is one of the most merciful acts possible, at the end of genesis 2, it says god drove adam & eve out of the garden then says “for if they ate of the tree of life, they would live forever” wouldn’t be horrible if man had to live in their sins forever?
You can not naturally have darkness without light, a crooked without a straight line, coldness without warmth, bad without good or vice versa. God consequently created the standard for bad by creating the standard for good.
I think it’s impossible to show bad leading to good is impossible, as I pointed out a doctor may harm a child by giving him a shot, that is a bad thing yet it can be the means to a good
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
It’s certainly a possibility, I’m not 100% certain, just think it’s possible
Created:
The problem of evil is well known so I don’t feel the need to explain it in depth but I’ll summarize
Either god is not willing to stop evil, then god is not all good
Or god is not able, in which case he is not omnipotent
Or god does not even know evil exists, in which case he is not omniscient
It’s a curious question as to why a all-loving god would allow evil, maybe I can’t tell you why exactly, but perhaps I can show it doesn’t necessitate a contradiction.
Premise 1: it’s not logically contradictory for bad to be a means to a good.
It doesn’t appear as if bad things causing good things is contradictory, for example when someone gets a shot, that shot causes pain, which is bad to cause, but it’s the means to a good, the good being the medicine that is delivered.
Conclusion 1: there is a possible world where evil can lead to good
Follows logically from premise 1, if it’s possible then there is a possible world where it is that case
Conclusion 2: A all-loving god could have morally sufficient reasons to allow suffering
Follows logically from conclusion 1, same way the doctor would be justified for causing pain if it lead to a good.
So to conclude I don’t think it necessitates contradiction, of course I could be wrong and I hope someone corrects me if I am, although I don’t think I am.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
It was already explained.
You didnt explain it to my knowledge
You just dont accept any explanation other than the magical sky daddy.
I dont accept any others, because they cant account for the origin of christian belief, that simple.
I gave you an explanation. It is up to you from now on to either use brain either keep defending magical sky daddy. I dont even need to say that Christians would sooner stop believing in proof than in their magical sky daddy. Its a sad culture of inherited delusions.
Your explanation fails on soo many levels that no academically honest person could accept it.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
They have been here all the time, otherwise the humanity would have fucked itself up long time ago. I guess they will show up sooner or later, but the clues come from the similar testimonies of the many contactees that exist out there. There are several books on that matter.
Would you lay out some of the testimonies?
I said the aliens were deemed as angels and gods because the people at that time were not conscious enough about how vast the universe is and they didn't have the technology we have now. UFO investigators presume this because the stories in the bible are quite similar to the testimonies of contactees in our times. I'm not going into the details of it because there is plenty of information on the Internet.
Just because they dont comprehend the vastness of the universe, doesnt instantly conclude god, and the angels were aliens, I am unconvinced they are, convince me.
The communication of any message is always liable to "noise" or defects of the people that are in charge of passing along the message. You should check out the broken telephone game to know what I'm talking about.
There is soo many manuscripts, that are soo accurate, that you cant wave a magical "noise" wand at it, and expect it to go away. I will admit, some additions were added to the new testaments, but it was not to fit a political narrative, for example look at the ending of mark, it was added. But the idea of the text hasn't been manipulated to share a different political ideology or anything along those lines.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
As I said, there is explanation, but you reject every explanation making it pointless to talk about any explanations.
The explanation doesnt explain the origin of the christian belief, there is no naturalistic explanation that can meet 8 criteria ive found
The claims that were made
The skeptics that converted
How other people would react to the gospel (Why would you pick the story of your messiah being executed.
Why you would pick women to be the 1st witnesses
The immediate proclamation in Jerusalem
The voluntary suffering of the disciples
The empty tomb
No naturalistic theories can explain the 8 criteria I just layed out.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Few issues with this.
1 could it account for enemies of christ converting, like jame's & paul
2 could it account for why they choose women to be the 1st witnesses to the resurrection (women testimony held less value)
3 The near immediate proclamation of the resurrection in Jerusalem (why would they spread it in Jerusalem of all places)
4 The voluntary suffering of the witnesses
5 The empty tomb (This is historical since it appears as if early non-christians claimed the tomb was empty)
I think you'd need to adress all of these points and why them lying could account for that
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I think alliens have been guiding the human beings to their evolution in different cultures and civilizations (they still do it according to many testimonies) which means all the darwinian theory is bullshit. I don’t know if the scriptures say the truth, but if it does the only explanation for that is the allien participation in the jewish fate.
Okay I dont really see any evidence elsewhere that aliens helped humans except for a few testimonies that have naturalistic explanations.
No evidence but lot of clues. I've always deemed the documentaries of History Channel about it as bullshit but they make sense today. There are many authors that have been investigating the phenomena and it all makes sense.
feel free to tell me the biggest clues, I believe there are aliens somewhere (there just must be) im unsure if they visited earth.
The bible has plenty of stories of encounters with "angels" and "God". According to several investigations, these ancient encounters resemble the today's encounters with alliens. So, it's quite logic to think that if the gospels say the truth the most likely explanation for that is the participation of these alliens who are the only ones that had the technology and capacity to make all the magical stuff of the bible, like the resurrection.
Well how do we know these angels & god are aliens? I see no reason in the bible to really believe they are. And again I dont think this theory is compatible with skeptics converting & the empty tomb, you'd have to also make a case it's more probable than the resurrection which I have no clue how we would do that.
Needless to say, I still think the gospels have been manipulated for political and religious purposes, and they are still manipulated by stupid interpretations. So, maybe the Jesus' message was part of the allien project, but there is also in the biblical content a lot of prejudices and beliefs from people of that time. We've got to be careful with it.
I doubt they were manipulated, they could've been, I could be wrong, but I highly doubt it. We have over 3000 manuscripts of the bible, and pretty munch every bible verse has been quoted by a early church father before
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
I may be missing something, but I dont see how this would allude to mary's genealogy, it seems as if it's joseph.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
There is also the theory that all these fancy stories are based on real facts, but related to an advanced extraterrestrial technology and the UFO phenomena.
You think aliens resurrected jesus?
According to it, the ancient cultures had contact and help from these beings in the following order: Babylonia, Egypt and Israel (see History channel documentaries for more reference).
Havent seen any evidence of that
These alliens have been doing genetical improvements in the human being by means of virgin conception of aristocrat women (artificial insemination) and also giving the right to resurrect those new specimens that worked well, like Jesus. So, Jesus was probably a new human being with extraterrestrial genes that was resurrected to be taken to "heaven" like Elijah was taken by "a chariots of fire".
Ummm, interesting view. Let's discuss why it doesnt explain the origin of christian belief.
I have two issues with it, 1 even if it could explain all the factors (which it cant) why would it be more probabilistic than the resurrection
2, it cant account for the enemies of christ converting (james & paul), It would not account for the empty tomb (which in my view is historical), this theory perpetuates the gospels are true, which would mean you'd have to accept the explanation they gave of saying the disciples stole the body, how could you say the disciples stole the body, yet have aliens resurrect jesus.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
How does it being written in greek follow it was made up years later?
Well looking at the evidence most scholars date claims of the resurrection back to the mid 45's, around 15 years after the death of Jesus, the reasons for this are overwhelming and based around 1 Corinthians 15:3-7.
-Mnemonic structure with parallelism
-Less than 50 words
These 2 reasons point towards it being an early creed for catechizing new Christians (easy to learn and memorize)
-Paul also says at the start that he delivered to you (the Corinthians) what he received, meaning it likely came from the disciples themselves.
-The creed also uses the name Cephas, for peter which was an early name for peter, only later on was he called peter
-It also has an independent tradition that is not from the gospels, which is appearing to peter & James (peter likely added his name after learning it)
There is not a single scholar to my knowledge that dates this after the mid 40's, so we can reasonably rule out the mythic theory
Created: