Nighthawk

They're only half serious. Was originally a gimmick band, sort of evolved into a somewhat serious one, which isn't good, but I wouldn't go out of my way not to see them.

Let's put The Czech Republic in the TSM Hall of Lame.

Seriously, you guys just don't get Nelly. He's like CB4 meets Pink Floyd.

Let's put Nice Guy Adam in the TSM Hall of Gheyme.

Now that's how you listen to ass rock. Posers.

Terrible.

Fuck you guys. Nelly is god. He's so awesomesly, outrageously, unbelievably bad that he goes all the way back around and becomes great. "You ain't from Russia, so bitch why you rushin?"... who else would even try that line?

Sure. I'd regret half the stuff I've done anyway, regardless of the Bible. That's another reason God makes sense. He tells you stuff you don't understand, but through your own experience you come to understand why he said it. It's true you don't have to be ashamed if you are a Christian, but there is a shame associated with sin. As a Christian, you are joined with Christ, and if you sin, you are dragging Christ into your sin. For example, in 1 Corinthians it says that if you as a Christian have sex with a prostitute, you have joined Christ with a prostitute. If he was standing there with you, or course you'd be ashamed, and that's what's happening. But sin is not your nature anymore, really. It's the nature of your flesh, but no longer of your spirit. Paul talks about being at war with the flesh, to keep from sin. When you fail, there's naturally a disgust with the sin, but there's a joy as well in being forgiven. It says God separates your sin from you as far as the east is from the west and remembers them no more, so even as you hate the sin, you know that God is not angry with you, he's forgiving you. I don't know if you've had this experience, but it's like a relationship with a woman (one you love, anyway). You may fight and say horrible things to each other, but you know, even while it's happening, that your relationship is greater than that. I agree with what SP was saying, mostly, I just think it can be the seed of an unfortunate mindset, that is, being forgiven, we should no longer pay attention to sin at all. Sin is meaningless and to ask God for forgiveness is to doubt him. This is a great mindset to have if you want to sin, but it's pretty far from the truth.

Let's put chave! in the TSM Hall of Shame.

Well, you shouldn't be admitting that certain temptations are too hard to avoid, you should be purposing to never sin. You will, because this is the nature of the flesh, but you should not be ok with it, it should bother you and you should confess it. Confess does not mean admit (although hiding sin doesn't help either), by the way, the Greek is a combination of two words and it means to agree with God about the sin. We know how God feels about sin, so you should feel the same way. I'm sorry, can you clarify this for me? I don't quite understand what you're getting at. What I just said should be your natural state because upon salvation, the Spirit of God comes and dwells within you. Because of this, you start to feel about sin the same way God does. If you continue to sin, as a general characteristic, in other words, if your behavior is characterized by sin, and you feel no conviction for it, this is evidence that God is not in you, and you have therefore not been saved.

This is why this stuff never makes any headway. UYI, who is still my pal, has reported this because he read it somewhere, and apparently hasn't studied it himself at all. I mean... Abraham? The idea that the gospel of Mark is the form by which all gospels are measured is without merit. For one, if we are to assume that Mark is an accurate biographical account, and if you think we shouldn't, state why, then there's nothing at all wrong with the other two gospels being influenced by it, especially if you accept the view that it was based on the recollections of Peter, a member of Jesus' inner circle, and privy to information the other disciples and Luke weren't. John was also one of Jesus' inner three, and as you can see, his gospel is clearly not based on Mark. The gospel of John is the other reason UYI doesn't seem to know quite as much as he should before he starts throwing accusations.

W.A.S.P.

My insult has gone over your head. Nimrod was a mighty hunter.

Look at what these people are doing. Then do the opposite of that.

Ha ha. Keep reaching for the stars, guys.

But everyone has sinned after coming to believe in Christ... I know I won't be sorry every time if my girlfriend gives me a bj, and I know I haven't been sorry every time I've said the Lord's name in vain. Am I going to burn or what? The phrase is "go on sinning willfully" which is not the same as stumbling into sin occasionally. If you intentionally sin and are not sorry for it, yeah, you'll most likely burn. Not because of the sin, but because the fact that you do do it shows that you never received any salvation. This is, again, what 1 John says. "The man who says 'I know him' but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him." On the other hand, if someone has been saved, all their sins are forgiven forever, no matter what. A characterization of sin is just evidence that this hasn't happened.

I would most likely consider that statement to be a Christian addition, or perhaps modification, but it doesn't negate the passage. That statement is out of charcter for Josephus, but there's nothing extraoridnary about the rest of the passage. It's not the only time he mentioned Jesus either.

Sure. For one, it doesn't really say that. It says he was struck ill and died seven days later. There's nothing about the nature of the illness, or suffering. It could have been a coma for all we know. And if you've watched enough movies, you know that a coma could well be the funnest thing to ever happen to you.

Wow, within a generation. Lots of historical records nobody has any trouble accepting weren't written until hundreds of years after the fact. If we limit ancient historical records to eyewitnesses, we cut out... damn, pretty much everything. Except the gospels.

The thing is, Hogan Made Wrestling, that you don't understand quantum mechanics either. I don't understand why you have brought up twice now that creationists understand nothing beyond Darwin, because A) It has no relevance to this discussion, as nobody here has purported such a stance B) It isn't true. Christian scientists are much further ahead of the game than Penn and Teller would have you believe. C) A and B show that you have no knowlege of the current state of science. I respect atheists, but you disgust me because you are willfully ignorant. I learned that from Anton LaVey.

I don't think you did, I think that's just something you theoretically could have seen. Besides, that's not evolution, that's evidence for the flood. Seriously, read that no excuse passage again, you've abused that more than a blind foster child. This is a ridiculous argument you're using, by the way. God cant exist because he can't be evil, but you're the one who gets to decide what evil is? So you decide whether God exists purely on your own whim? Evil is what God is not, by definition. If God tortures babies (he doesn't) then it's not evil to torture babies because God is the only standard for what's evil. Also, I've been arguing against your perception of cruel because it bucks against God's justice, but it's true, God's wrath is something you don't even want to see. It's not "evil", but God annihilating someone and tormenting them for eternity doesn't prove he doesn't exist. If you don't like that and think it means he doesn't exist, that's ok. That's why he gave you free will. If you think that's evil however, you're wrong. Think of how stupid saying that is. He's GOD. He created everything and has power over eveything and everyone. But you think he's mean, so of course you've learned better in your 20 or whatever years. Nobody deserves eternal torment? Why the hell not? Why stop there? How about you deliver your kids to that child killing molester. Wouldn't that be even nicer? I don't know where you got this sappy idea of God, but he will fuck somebody up if he wants to. God's wrath is a terrible, cruel and fightening thing. Anything besides that wrath is infinitely more forgiving than you could dream of being. Not believing is the same as rejecting. I debate atheists for fun all the time, and not once has anyone presented a sillier argument. Honestly. So it's not a TRUE gift then. It's only a gift to people who know what words mean. I told you a bunch of times he doesn't torture infants. You can't just pretend he does because it helps your argument. This is how you continually violate your own admonitions. Some people are revolted and scared that we would eat an animal. That doesn't make it so. Unless they deserve it. No you don't. Say that fellow being tortured so we can save 1000s of lives says "This is wrong, you CAN'T torture me because I have the authority to decide whether I deserve it or not. You are cruel, therefore you don't exist. I'll be going now." That's like saying you can't say that a murder is wrong because you're not the murderer. I don't follow. It sounds like you think I said the opposite of what I said. Let's point out first there's not even hardline reasons to believe this is the case. Now, let me scale my analogy down a bit. If you shoplift and they give you community service, is that cruel? No. Your disagreement with God's standard of punishment is irrelevant. Your point really isn't, because it's only authority is your own opinion. You're basically a 13 year old slitting your wrists because your boyfriend broke up with you. Sure, you believe your life is over, you know with conviction that it's not worth living anymore. What affect does that have on reality? Absolutely none. Let me say also, Jesus died and paid the penalty for all sins ever, in the most torturous experience imaginable, and nobody deserved it less. Now, it doesn't matter if you think that's true or understand it, because one doctrine is predicated on another, and you if one is true, they both are. Assume it's true. So Christ, who had done nothing wrong, was tormented and killed for you, who are deserve nothing. You take this and essetially spit in his face and say you're too good for him, even refuse to acknowledge that he did it. This isn't your slugging your dad cause he took your car keys, this is the God of the universe. You don't even understand the implications of this. I'll quote a verse:"For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said "Vengeance is mine, I will repay" And again, "The Lord will judge his people" It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God." "I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;" - Proverbs 1:26

Why, because it uses the word water? Baptism isn't mentioned. But no, that is the context. The Greek 'and' here (kai) is used in an exegetic sense, thus making it "Born of water, even the Spirit". Water, or Living Water is used metaphorically to speak of the Spirit several times, lending the symbolic baptism it's symbolism. A confusing translation in this instance perhaps, but we can discern this because salvation without baptism is seen in Acts 10:46. Peter says "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." He was speaking of Gentiles, by the way, and he subsequently allowed them to be baptized. But you can see that they have already received the Holy Spirit, and are therefore already saved. In fact, this is Peter's criterion for baptizing them. You keep saying that, it's not getting any truer. How do you maintain this with David's reaction to his son Absalom's death? With the baby, he stops grieving when he dies, with Absalom, he starts grieving when he dies. What's the difference? Except the other biblical indications that babies go to heaven. Now, in Revelation it says that books are opened and the damned are judged according to their deeds. Now if we look at Jeremiah 19:4, it says "Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents". God is speaking of infant sacrifice here. He has proclaimed the sacrificed infants innocent, and condemned the spilling of their blood. Since God has proclaimed them innocent, they will be judged as innocent. In Job 3, Job says "Why did I not die at birth, Come forth from the womb and expire? Why did the knees receive me, And why the breasts, that I should suck? For now I would have lain down and been quiet; I would have slept then, I would have been at rest," Job here wishes to have been stillborn, because he would have been at rest. What is he refering to? Hell? If there's one thing hell doesn't have, it's rest. In the book of Jonah, God commands Jonah to preach to the Assyrian city of Nineveh. Jonah is unwilling because he despises Gentiles in general and Ninevites specifically. Anyway, after the fish part, God and Jonah are arguing, and God says in 4:11 ""Should I not have compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their right and left hand, as well as many animals?" Who is God refering to here? Nineveh's population was significantly larger than 120,000. He's talking about the children, who aren't accountable for his judgement because they don't even know right and left, and the animals as well confirms this, as animals are under no burden of judgement. God refuses to obliterate them even though that's what Jonah wanted. There's more. But take these things alone, the Bible does seem to indicate infant salvation. I talked about the historical veracity of the Bible, and that's his book. There you go.

Well, it's rather obvious. She doesn't have a wooden eye and a peg leg, thus placing her out of the league of nearly everyone here.

It is. Your argument is a much easier one to make because we're culturally biased. Now you're starting to get more into the philosophy, which is good. Well, can you argue this: I make a choice to eat frosted flakes, so God knows before that I will. I had free will to choose something else, and if I had, God would have known that instead. Your concept of free will and foreknowledge is working backwards. If I had *chosen* to eat something else, God would have known that instead. I still made the choice. In fact, you could say that because I have the ability to make a choice, God does not ultimately have free will. He can only foreknow what choice I will make. Now, on the other hand, this is a very loose argument to begin with. The idea that nothing exists besides what is tangible is materialism, and that's a debate in itself, with or without God. Ah ha, so you are emotionally incapable, yet you are physically capable. So it is possible for something to be both within and without the realm of capability for you. Yes, one supercedes the other, so we can say with certainty "He will not murder his grandmother." even though in another sense it would be possible. Now project this onto God. When I say God can't do something, I'm not talking about a limit of his power, I'm talking about a limit of his nature. So he would still, technically, be omnipotent. I'll say some more when I get to the 2 + 2 issue. I can understand it. It's an interesting notion. I was reading some Calvin the other day and considering the very thing. I have more thought left to do. Unless he changes your mind about that. Or every time two twos are added, he creates another among them. It's just an example to say that God can't make what is not, so. God can't make himself not God, as another example. Math is a concept, saying he can't change it is like saying he can't make good into evil. That's not really a limit on power, because these concepts are part of what defines power, and God himself for that matter. Well, is a concept really a thing? A squared circle is an idea, but it doesn't exist. It can't. We can contemplate things which are not, self contradictory ideas, which by definition cannot exist. These do not fall under God's power because if they did exist, everything we know would fall apart, theoretically, as they define what we know. You would be a robot if he induced acceptance. I think that in this day and age, since we have become so despiritualized, incontrovertable evidence of God's existance would probably induce belief, because we no longer have any options. They didn't have atheism in the Bible. The issue was which god somebody followed. As time went on, we finally developed a way to explain the nonexistance of God (evolution). Now that that has become our natural belief system, God's appearance would in itself overthrow our natural line of thought. It wouldn't be an equal playing field. I think I just did. Well, not that they were robots, but why it's not the same thing. Also, Jesus said (speaking to Thomas) "Because you have seen me, you have believed, blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." I think that applies here. Well, it is true that if God created everything, he does have authority to do whatever he wants with it, including people. If God is infinitely holy, and infinitely worthy of devotion, then rejection is worthy of being punished infinitely. It is challenging to think of how you'll react in heaven if you have children in hell, and there are several people in the Bible in that situation. I would think that when we are in Heaven, we, fully realizing the nature of God, will see things as he sees them, and understand what we can't now. True. This discussion has actually clarified my ideas on the issue. Well, I can think of a reason he would create the universe in maturity. If he didn't, it would have to to be here for billions of years. If his objective with creation was man, why waste billions of years waiting around for him to evolve? Or maybe God also made aliens. Maybe there are other populated planets in the universe with their own plans of salvation, alien races which we will meet in heaven. Yes, making shit up is fun. Or, suppose you're God. You're lonely because you just exist alone with no equal. You make some angels, but they know you made them and are infinitely powerful, so they're no help, some of them even try to overthrow you. So you make man. But they won't be like the angels, they can choose to love you, you can have real fellowship with them. But if you just shove your Godliness in their face, that's hardly any better. So you make it to where it's not so easy to come to you. You make it a challenge. Then you know the ones who end up with you really want to be with you. That's a pretty good idea. I think you do like Depeche Mode. The song Buffalo Gal proves you wrong. If we have the light of the moon, which we do, the moon becomes a de facto source of light. This is like saying a lightbulb isn't a source of light, the fillament is. But wait, the fillament isn't either, it's the heat running through it. But no, all that is is atoms moving at a high rate of speed. If you go outside and night and can see you hand in front of your face, look around and see no light save the moon, the moon is a light. The end. I agree. You were the one who brought up your pals Jingus Brian and Rudo. Nah. A lot of people think they can prove the Bible wrong. Philosophically, at least. In your example the kid would then have to produce the correct answers. The Bible is not fantasy (not entirely, regardless of your perspective), much in it is verified. I suppose this will come up later. It does mean expanse. Or heaven. I have to come out strong. There's more evidence for the Bible than for those other things, pretending there isn't doesn't help your argument. I do appreciate your last sentence, then. That's actually a good point (part of it, anyway... look again at what people were murdered and plauged for in the Old Testament). The fact that it doesn't say outright that the sky is solid or the sun revolved around the Earth either says that it wasn't important either way. What is it with you and little mud people? There's more to the Bible than inability to be proven wrong. See below. Ok, this is where you hurt your credibility. Nobody informed would ever say there's absolutely no evidence in support of the Bible. It's absurd. We have much more evidence more the Bible than for a lot of other ancient writings scholars have no trouble accepting. There's not a lot of reason to doubt the general slant of the gospels anyway, but Jesus is confirmed by Jospehus and Tacitus. Jewish writings called him a sorcerer who led Israel astray, confirming that he had powers, although denying their source. We can date Christian writings to within a generation of Jesus' death, something nearly unheard of in ancient biography. And what about the times when the Bible has been in disagreement with generally held opinion only to be proven right, such as with Belshazzar, the last king of Babylon. Speaking of which, Nebuchadnezzar was a main character in the Bible, is there no evidence of him either? The Babylonian captivity, the Medo-Persian takeover and eventual return to Israel was the most important thing happening in half of the old testament. This is history, not fantasy. Many things in the book of Acts are paralleled in secular records of the period. Josephus talks about John the Baptist... the list goes on and on. I mean, damn, man. In the King James it says that. The correct vision of the text is as I described. The age would be X's age when their first child (or actually, first son) was born, thus the birth of the family line which resulted in Z. So, that age would be their age when they spawned that line. We're arguing because you said we have records that go back further than 6000 years. I don't know offhand what they would be, but assuming that's the case, this explains it. Go talk to John Milton. In Joshua, are you refering to the sun standing still? Because that's clearly accurate from Earth's perspective. That falls under my initial sunrise rebuttal. Yes, they believe that Christ is the son of God and died for their sins. The same Christ that appears to them in cookie form, and whose mother is a co-redemptress (look it up in the catechism if you don't believe me), and requires them to do a bunch of crap he didn't bother to write down when he was inspiring the Bible. That's not the Jesus of the Bible. That's a Jesus they made up. It is rather long, I've noticed. He wants them to kill in certain situations. He said "I want this person to be killed, kill them." It's no different (morally or theologically) than an executioner, or a soldier, which was actually what was happening a lot of the time. Joshue was fighting a conquest of the land of Canaan, which God had commanded the Israelites to conquer and take for their own. There are instances in the Old Testament, by the way, of God allowing his people to sin to a point without overtly punishing them. It's the same as parent child relationships. If you tell a kid not to play in the rain because he'll catch a cold, and he does it anyway, sometimes you just let him catch the cold. If he's running into the street, however, you stop him. I know. But I was like 15 by then, and by that time I was studying all religions. You said again that I grew up with it, but if anything, I grew up hating it, and again, I was 15. I have studied all the major religions by the way. For a religion to be true, it should be known. If God created man, he created him for a reason, a reason not accomplished by hiding from him. The fact that Christianity is so pervasive shows that there's something to it. There's something to Islam and Hinduism and the rest too. Christianity makes more sense than those, however.

Remember the thread where I rated posters? I fucked him up in that one. He did ask for it... but I know I went too far.