Nighthawk

I'm with you.

Because spontaneous generation was disproved long ago. Matter just can't do that. What can? God. Major duh.

You read that in a comic book.

Lil Jon made it ok to like Usher.

That's it, now I'm gonna buy it.

Not anymore. I'm hoping to fucking god you're not serious. Do you even know who I am?

Ya'll are missing the point. Do you worship Zues? Then who gives a shit. I'm not saying I want to sit here and play darts with a panteon of gods. I've chosen the Christian God, and several of you have attempted to discredit this viewpoint, and I have countered. If you follow some other god, I don't mind picking it apart as you have tried to do, and I'm confident you wouldn't be able to defend it as well as I have. Yeah, it's kind of hard to prove a negative, which is why people don't believe in gods who have no testable essence to them, such as the invincible goat. The Christian God does, however. Allah I could see. I don't feel like delving into Allah when I don't think there's any Muslims here, but I could. The same goes for Visnu.

Has anyone here not heard this before? No? Let's move on. If you've ever used the word sunrise, you've violated your own logic. Not anymore. There are two answers to this. One, the sunrise thing again. Two, study some Hebrew. Both will work. We talked about that already. I never said it was 6000 years old, and the Bible doesn't either. Everything that you been saying is all bad. The Bible's not allowed to use poetic language? It assumes you're smart enough to tell the difference. The Bible doesn't say the sun travels around the earth, it says the sun makes a circuit across the sky, which it does, from the perspective of the earth. The demons thing, you'd have to be more specific. Start naming them. But please check to see if someone has already tried. I read that already. I'll note that I never denied evolution as a concept, I deny it as a theory of the origin of life and species. The theory is just that obviously wrong. Anyone who espouses it is ignorant (most people fall here, so that's not so bad), deluded or stupid. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-miscon...ons.html#chance What did I just say? I should also mention that the linked text excludes itself from relevance to my statement, by the last sentence. Yeah, that is possible. Easy. Those are proved false by Genesis. You've forgotten that I'm smarter than you. I addressed this in my response to Jingus. Or he could torture everyone for fun. Yeah, what I said to Jingus again. I'm a sick bastard, that's for sure. This is what I meant by both sides of the argument being circular. You can't understand it, and since your understanding is the ultimate authority, it didn't happen. If God is the ultimate authority, you don't have to understand it, but that doesn't mean you can't. Again, God is omnipotent only to the point he isn't bound by his nature. Why do you think God gave us free will? He didn't have to, he was certaintly in no position to be swayed by our preference. You're right, God didn't have to sacrifice himself, so why did he? What would God gain by creating man in the first place? The answer's there, find it. Untrue. The standard of salvation is proportionate to your capability. This is also what applies to the people who have never heard of Christ. God doesn't demand more than someone can give. If you've never heard of Christ, believe in God in some loose, hippy way. Jesus said of children "such is the kingdom of heaven". David had a baby die (God killed it to punish him, so sit on that). He knew the baby went to heaven and said as much. Despite the popular image, God is not some oagrish taskmaster meting out judgement and holding man up to some impossible standard. It's easy to be saved. It's just that some people look it in the eye and say no. But all retards go to heaven too, so you'll be safe. Nah, I'm just playing.

I learned how to drive and was licensed on the same day.

I've started doing masonry restoration which is good because I like working outdoors. I also have a retail job at a sporting goods store I can step in and out of when business gets slow.

Nope, sure doesn't.

Christianity can exist outside an organized church. It's also worth noting that the Catholic church of today is far different from the way it used to be, and I was speaking of the church of today. It was actually far worse in Luther's day, but you can't generally say "Catholicism" and have it mean the same thing throughout it's history. One man has the right to tell another that based on Biblical authority. The other man is free to retort from the Bible. I'm speaking of Christianity, because it is defined by the Bible. You can make exclusitory statements based on the defining structure of a religion (or anything else for that matter), in this case, the Bible. No, I'm presuming that you don't know that carbon 14 has no relation to prehistory. A presumption which I was correct in, based on your response. It's all layed out a couple pages back if you want to see what I mean. But you forgot Chaos Theory, d00d. The issue is that rationality presupposes that something cannot exist outside reasoning and logical proof, therefore, reason is the ultimate authority. Christianity presupposes that God is the ultimate authority, and can transcend reason and logical proof. Since one counters the other, you reach an impass as far as who speaks with greater authority. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but if you say there's no God and never was, you're saying that everything that exists came into being out of nothing, motivated by nobody, and that is utterly ridiculous. Step outside what you've been told all your life and you'll see that it is. This is the Big Lie all over again. I didn't say science proves the Christian God, just that a God is the logical conclusion. God wants you to love him for who he is. Well, if God said it, it's not really arbitrary. I could speak more on the subject of sin, but it's a less pressing issue at the moment. Sometime you might want to read 1 Corinthians 6, it presents a perspective on sin that I think most Christians don't grasp as well as they ought. It is, but free will is true at the same time, which is the part you don't understand. God gave us free will, but because he is God, he is somewhat outside the concept of it. It's not the easiest thing to understand. I think you've read Watchmen, the chapter with Laurie and Jon on Mars helps some people to understand a truer concept of predestination. Yes. This reminds me of a Jim Carrey movie... what was it? Oh yeah, Dumb and Dumber. But no, I think most people would have their own ideas. Even me. But then, we're not God, so we don't really know. It depends on what you wanted to accomplish. I'll refer to that later. He's God, not Santa Claus. Actually, God can't do anything, now that you mention it. He's bound by his own nature. He can't sin, for example. There's also stupid Zen riddles like creating a rock so big he can't lift it, but that's sunday school nonsense. But I digress... in a long handed way, I think you've asked God to make 2 plus 2 5, another thing he can't do. Ok, yeah. I'm presupposing the existance of Hell as we know it to say that by God's nature he must send someone there. But then again, I could say some things about the Bible's teachings on Hell. I wouldn't defend the lake of fire version with as much vigor, because I think there's some unexplored territory with Hell, and Satan also. SP and I might discuss it sometime, because I don't think you guys would debate me. Maybe once I have some time, weekendor so, I'll talk a little about that. But even without that, God doesn't send someone to Hell if they don't deserve it, and it's his place alone to decide who does. They're true at the same time as I alluded to earlier, a concept contradictory on the surface. I used the preacher words because I thought it was funny, and I'm glad you picked up on it. No, there was a different system of salvation before Jesus. They were still saved by him, but by looking forward to it, as opposed to us looking back on it. That's why there are old and new testaments. Testaments refers to the covenant of salvation. I mean that there is a difference between God knowing and having control over something simply by his nature as God, and God making something happen. It's a common error, which I didn't explicity see you bring up, though you were in the neighborhood. Ok, avoiding the Hell issue again, God wants something else. He wants you to love him, but not just cause he's God. There was spiritual suffering here as well. He was enduring the punishment for all the sins ever. It was the worst part, and that's why it was worse than the movie. Oh, I can counter it just as well, which I will, when I work through Aleister LaVey's post down there.

I'm interested to see how you would prove that there isn't a different God. Give me a god and I will. I can't do them all at once.

Ok, maybe I made fun of you a little bit in that answer. Sorry.

No, they've got reasons, and trust me, they're insane. SP got this one, but since I've been quoting from the King James, I'll mention that I like it because I appreciate the poetic language, but it's not as good for study. Study is best done with a combination of translations with an eye on the original language, or entirely in the original language if you're able (which I'm not, by the way). New American Standard is pretty good, and so is the New King James. Hey, when I went to Burger King today, the guy who took my order was named Jesus. If I believe he died for my sins, will I go to heaven? You can see the principle here. By the way, I wouldn't call Catholics Christians either, in general. NASV puts that in the past tense, and a check of the Hebrew shows that it does so accurately. As for carbon 14, yes it has been discussed, and it's not particularly interesting. Say nothing more if you do not wish to look uninformed. First off, it is important that the Bible claims to be infallible. If God is God, and he inspired the Bible, does he not have the right to make such a claim? Like when God made a covenant with Abraham, there was nothing higher for him to swear by, so he swore by himself. This stuff is more important if you come from the perspective of belief, but I figured I'd throw it out there. A rationalist uses just as circular reasoning, only without acknowledging it. Evidentialism is circular because it starts with rationality without bothering to prove it, it's a presupposition. So by arguing rationality against the Bible, you demonstrate the bias that rationality is the ultimate criterion for truth. If I argue against you using the Bible as the ultimate criterion for truth, we're essentially at a stalemate for authority, as there is no ultimate truth to measure by (except the Bible... but you see the flaw in that). The point is, the discussion will occur without a measuring standard as any you use will be biased and circular. That's inescapable. Being the logical and mathematical person you are, you should be able to follow that. Nothing in the Christian faith is unbelievable. The alternative is no God, which in an unbiased world would be scientifically laughable, or a different God, which can be proven false. I know you think you can prove this God false,but I've been down that road and I don't think you can. Nobody said God's ultimate goal was to provide the easiest possible means of getting his message across. That's good, because that is Christianity. If you're going to have a problem, strike at the root. So... are you saying that you are clean and pure? If you would like to be made well with God by being good enough, that's fine, God says you can. That's what the law of Moses was, God's standard of what's good enough. You do fall short, however, as everyone does. Hey, I think I'll espouse predestination. It's not so much a concept as it is a requirement. I know what you don't like about predestination, and it comes from not understanding it. For one thing, you speak as if what you believe has any affect on truth. Either God is real, or he isn't, and what you believe doesn't change anything. So, if he's not, you're an idiot for getting worked up over nothing, and if he is, you're going to Hell whether you think it's fair or not. You probably don't like that, but you can't intelligently argue that it's not true. So we see that truth is not always what you want to hear. You've also dismissed God on the basis of understanding him. You're not a stupid man, I'm sure, but compared to God your intellect is miniscule to the point of insignificance. For all intents and purposes, you're a five year old saying "The concept of naughty angers me. The concept of no no disagrees with me. The concept of vegetables sounds fishy at best to me. And the concept of timeout enrages me so greatly that I literally have to make myself stop and think of something else or else I'll throw a tantrum." So if you were God you'd do it differently, eh? Well, God could have made us robots. The only other option is yes, sending some people to Hell. Because of the nature of God, there's no other way. If you don't like it, you are absolutely free to reject God and get sent there, as you were predestined from before the beginning of time. Yet at the same time, you could accept him and it wouldn't happen. If you don't, nobody says you have to. You can't understand God's sovereignty any more than you can his trinity. Also, if I may wax evangelical for a moment. God was sending everybody to Hell, because they sinned. If you can't differentiate between sovereignty and cause, you'll understand when you're older. Now God didn't want them to go to Hell, so Jesus died for you. I know you've heard it before, but God died to keep you out of Hell. I'm sure you know how that was. You saw the movie. It was even worse than that. Isn't it obvious that rejection of that is worthy of Hell? Because that's the only thing that can send you there, eight grade concepts of omnipotence or no. If any of this has made you feel angry, wait until I tell you about how babies go to Hell when they die. I don't believe that... but I could argue it convincingly enough.

I really don't have time now, but I'll try to give you a response over the weekend.

I use literal because it quickly familiarizes people with the predominant slant of the viewpoint, but I'm not so much arguing for a literal interpretation as a correct one. I didn't say you couldn't interpret it that way, many respectable people do, I just don't feel it warrants such a concrete stance in this particular instance. The question is largely moral. Man is capable of redemption while angels are not. What is God's view of the halfbreed offspring of the two? The situation is so grotesque that you could very well say it defies God's naturalistic laws. Or... you could interpret it the way you proposed. Well, I'm not going to list them all. I'm really rather tired. Besides, this is the internet, I could just look them up if I hadn't known. Would it help if I mention that the book of Zechariah is full of them? Actually I've more commonly heard the assertion that there are two authors, but the idea of three has made the rounds as well. The different themes isn't really of much consequence, as I don't think anyone will seriously argue that one man can't write in different themes. It's also worth noting that the individual sections don't stand alone well, each expands from and plays off of the previous, creating a unity which is really quite beautiful. Variance of language is hardly damning evidence, and it in fact contains indentifying linguistic similarities, such as the phrase "the Holy One of Israel". But probably the most important is that the events stretch beyond the lifetime of one man. They should, because it contains prophecy. This is one of the more common mistakes I see apologists make, along with trying to rationally explain miracles, trying to take prophecy out of the realm of the supernatural. Again though, authorship is tradition and not a hill to die on. I wouldn't be dogmatic except that each time the book of Isaiah is quoted in the New Testament, from each of the sections of supposed differing authorship, Isaiah is named as author. That's fine then. When and where? Most times I remember they worshipped the golden calf INSTEAD of YHWH. Exodus 32, Mount Sinai. Most people interpret it as instead, and it may appear that way at first reading, but a careful study using the original language shows that the golden calf was meant as an image of YHWH. Aaron's assertion of the calf having brought them up out of Egypt is one factor, because the Israelites knew very well and didn't question who had brought them from Egypt. YHWH is used in reference to the calf in verse 5. What was happening here was not so much a rejection of God as a rejection of his means of worship (represented by Moses) which was indeed quite different from nearly all of their contemporaries, most significantly the Egyptians. Or a rabbi who was called a carpenter. Regardless of the implication, you must use this argument, because if you don't, Jesus was wrong. If he was, you've undermined everything. Like the flood, you can't compromise when it's easy or you'll do more harm than good. Consider this; many people don't fully understand how the Bible as we know it today came to be. Yes, there was a vote, but it didn't occur in a vacuum, it was largely confirming what the church had accepted as Scripture since it was written. I use church with a little c to refer to the followers of Christ. You could conclude that the book of Enoch was rejected for canonization because the church rejected it because Christ rejected it. That particular chain is not as important as the principal it represents. Yes, there were some books that made it into the Bible by a narrow margin, and some that missed by a narrow margin, but the sovereignty of God dictates that the Bible we know is the Bible as intended, otherwise we are largely guideless.

Wouldn't you like to know? Even though I don't feel like going back and quoting it, this will respond to UYI post about using the Bible as my only form of evidence: No. It was the last post of the night after a lot of posting, hence the brevity. However, Christianty is not something achieved through the course of academic study. It's not weighed and balanced. Those things are important, but they come later. If I study whether or not Jesus existed, I'm not thinking "Oh no,what if I find out he didn't? It will all be in vain!"

Ok, I'll respond to some of what's been said now.

No, but his delivery of "ungrateful peanut-head niggers" is enough to put it over the top. Come to think of it, Ordell should have been on my list of favorite movie characters when there was a thread about it a while back. Jackie Brown is tight, even though she was white in the book. Sick soundtrack too, bandying back and forth with Batman as my favorite ever.

This is basically my feeling as well. Kids (by which I mean people under 20) for one, don't listen to anything that's old. Many of them don't know who, say, 311 is, which is actually worse than not knowing Clash or Zep because they were in the public eye in this person's lifetime. If they don't care about a particular style of music, or music in general besides what's popular, why should I expect them to know who bands from 30 years ago are or fault them for not? Acting like you know when you don't is much worse.

(outside of the Bible) being the key part of this statement. There, I think I'm caught up for now.

Hm... perhaps because the existance of a perfect omnipotent being is not based on your need for one? The Bible doesn't promote slavery and denigration of women, by the way. Show me where you think it does and I'll show you otherwise.

Again, Cain married his sister.

I won't go into too much detail on some of this, to allow SP some room, since he did say he would get to it, but just for kicks: The issue of Abraham's sons is so obvious I'm almost ashamed for you. Where you get 'only' in Galatians is a mystery, but the two sons mentioned are the two relevant to the issue... what a concept. You may be interested to know that the word son is not in the original language in either Genesis 22:2 or Hebrews 11:17, and in any case, Isaac is his only promised son, fullfillment of God's covenant and object of Abraham's love. You clearly have no understanding of Judeism, either, if you think they were uninformed about this. All of your Gospel discrepancies are again the very reason we have four Gospels. Cain's wife was his sister. That's day one stuff right there. Skipping a few... Jesus was of the line of David through Joseph because Joseph was legally his father. Being of the line of David shows that Jesus has legal right to the kingship of Israel, which is passed through legal descendancy. I don't feel like looking stuff up this late, so give some verses. Or SP can answer you. But yeah... this is fifth grade stuff, man.