Spademan 94 Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share Posted July 1, 2009 That's why we should investigate their claims.Well, we both do I should think.I just happen to investigate them all with the same amount of skepticism and critical thought and come to the only reasonable conclusion.You do this for all but one. Heh. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 You do this for all but one.You're starting point is that "all are completely untrue unless God himself comes into my living room and explains to me what is true... and even then I might not believe His bullshit!"I don't believe that that a valid starting point. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Einstein was almost certainly a theist, and disagreed with your hypothesis.He almost certainly was not a theist, although it really doesn't matter. Several biographers have dealt with the issue and it seems pretty clear that he was annoyed by this misconception (and by the public's obsession with it). Link to post Share on other sites
rjkdb8 1 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 You're starting point is that "all are completely untrue unless God himself comes into my living room and explains to me what is true... and even then I might not believe His bullshit!"I don't believe that that a valid starting point.You don't? Your tongue in cheek commentary about what evidence would be sufficient to justify belief in existence notwithstanding, don't you think it is best to refrain from assuming the existence of invisible beings as a default position? Don't you think it makes more sense to assume nothing and to require evidence of existence to believe otherwise?What is your starting point with regard to Xenu? Maybe that Xenu and his teachings "all are completely untrue unless [He] himself comes into my living room and explains to me what is true... and even then I might not believe His bullshit!"? Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Brvheart - I have always been confused by Jesus is the son of God and Jesus is God. Can you please explain the logic or reasoning here.Spademan - are you enlisted or an officer? I am very curious. Link to post Share on other sites
rjkdb8 1 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 That's why we should investigate their claims.I know! Get this, the scholars of Mithras believe that he was the result to a virgin birth. And ancient greek and egyptian religion believed in resurrection. And most of those that believed this crazy shit did so only because they read about it somewhere or because someone told them about it! Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 You don't? Your tongue in cheek commentary about what evidence would be sufficient to justify belief in existence notwithstanding, don't you think it is best to refrain from assuming the existence of invisible beings as a default position? Don't you think it makes more sense to assume nothing and to require evidence of existence to believe otherwise?What is your starting point with regard to Xenu? Maybe that Xenu and his teachings "all are completely untrue unless [He] himself comes into my living room and explains to me what is true... and even then I might not believe His bullshit!"?I'm totally fine with a starting point in regard to Xenu being that their claims are real. How do they back them up? Did the guy that told everyone about them say 10 years earlier that the best way to make money is start a religion? Was that religion supposed to make him immortal? Did he die? There are many questions that must be answered... but I'm ok with the starting point of... 'It's possible'. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Brvheart - I have always been confused by Jesus is the son of God and Jesus is God. Can you please explain the logic or reasoning here.Sure.According to the Bible, God is one entity with three unique personalities, made up of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. God is described like a tree with three branches. The branches are unique, but are still just one tree. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Sure.According to the Bible, God is one entity with three unique personalities, made up of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. God is described like a tree with three branches. The branches are unique, but are still just one tree.lolomon @ you saying that expecting it to make sense to El G. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 lolomon @ you saying that expecting it to make sense to El G.Yea, the Trinity is probably not the easist place to start.But brvhrt answered it well Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Yea, the Trinity is probably not the easist place to start.But brvhrt answered it well Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Allright then maybe we will have to see the process at work in order to reveal what is going on here. I will start with a couple of contradictions, since those are hard to wriggle out of if they both can't be true. I just picked these out quickly at random; I don't put these forth as particularly good or damning examples, but let's see what you do with them. For a change of pace I will throw in an historical inaccuracy. Daniel 5:1 Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.Daniel 5:2 Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein. Belshazzar was never a king of Babylon, whose history is well known. It should have been Nabonidus who was king at this time, Belshazzar was his son and viceroy, but never became king. Also Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar.Never heard this one. Here's the google answerHowever, two inscriptions, now in the British Museum in London, set the record straight. One records that Nabonidus spent the later years of his reign at Tema, an Arabian oasis. The second relates a prayer of Nabonidus for his son Belshazzar. So Belshazzar was in fact the acting monarch, reigning in place of his absent father. It also explains why Daniel was offered the third highest place in the kingdom (Daniel 5:7,29) - Belshazzar himself was only the secondFairly common also to list lineage in the OT with sons and fathers when there are generational differences, ie father Abraham to a 5th generation grandson etc. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 I suspect Indiana Jones could answer this next one. The Ark of the Covenant contained Moses's stone tablets, and nothing else. The bible says this twice: 1 Kings 8:9 There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt.2 Chronicles 5:10 There was nothing in the ark save the two tables which Moses put therein at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of Egypt.OK we get it, nothing in there except the tablets. But I guess sometimes "nothing" means "and a golden pot and Aaron's rod":Hebrews 9:4 The ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant. First two are what was in the ark of the covenant after it was built.Third one was what was in the ark when it was lost. Hebrews is NT, so it would have had a multi centuries later view on the contents, whereas Kings and Chronicles were written during the building of the ark, so they could both be correct without it being a big deal, hardly enough to want to make a stand on it. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Sure.According to the Bible, God is one entity with three unique personalities, made up of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. God is described like a tree with three branches. The branches are unique, but are still just one tree.I have heard the Holy Trinity thing before, but I guess I don't really understand how he can be himself and his son. If I really start to think about this, it is probably going to give me a headache. So I will refrain until I get more detailed explanation from you or Rob. If Lois respond, I won't read it, because that will for sure give me a migrane. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 I have heard the Holy Trinity thing before, but I guess I don't really understand how he can be himself and his son. If I really start to think about this, it is probably going to give me a headache. So I will refrain until I get more detailed explanation from you or Rob. If Lois respond, I won't read it, because that will for sure give me a migrane.It's better to just see the Trinity in the verses that elude to the Trinity.Like John 1:1-14...the Word was with God...the Word was God...the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.When Jesus said "I and the Father are one."Also when Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I AM" I AM was the name God gave Himself in the OT when Moses asked God who should he say sent him. The Jews understood that that was what he was saying, which is why they tried to stone Him. So three disticnt indivduals; God the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, but only One God.Not really a true comparison you can make because it is unique in the Universe...kind of like God..the Only One Link to post Share on other sites
Plus one 0 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Personally, I find it more difficult to understand how an entity could have no beginning, than to be 3 in 1. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Personally, I find it more difficult to understand how an entity could have no beginning, than to be 3 in 1.Indeed, whether it's Godor the universe, the idea of infinity is mind bottling Link to post Share on other sites
Plus one 0 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Indeed, whether it's Godor the universe, the idea of infinity is mind bottling If the universe is finite, and God is infinite, then what the heck was he doing all that time before the universe existed. For that matter where was he all that time? And what took him so long to come up with the idea of creation? Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 If the universe is finite, and God is infinite, then what the heck was he doing all that time before the universe existed. For that matter where was he all that time? And what took him so long to come up with the idea of creation?God doesn't live in the universe, so it was irrelevant. Also, the universe has been around a long long time, so maybe it didn't take him that long, especially since he lives outside of time. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 If the universe is finite, and God is infinite, then what the heck was he doing all that time before the universe existed. For that matter where was he all that time? And what took him so long to come up with the idea of creation?If the universe is infinite, and evolution is the answer, where did all the matter come from?How did the Big Bang start?What was here before the Big Bang?Before that?Who pays the electricty bills? Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 If the universe is infinite, and evolution is the answer, where did all the matter come from?evolution is only the answer to how speciation occurs on earth. it has little or nothing to do with thesize or origin of the universe (for the 40 bazillionth time ).How did the Big Bang start?What was here before the Big Bang?Before that?the answer is nobody knows, and the only ones who claim to know are pretentious theists. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 the answer is nobody knowsIt was Jesus... for the bazillionth time. Link to post Share on other sites
Spademan 94 Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share Posted July 1, 2009 Spademan - are you enlisted or an officer? I am very curious.Yes, I am.Why do you ask? Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Yes, I am.Why do you ask?You didn't answer the question, probably on purpose.Let's just say I have not met very many enlisted men that can articulate point in the fashion you are able. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 evolution is only the answer to how speciation occurs on earth. it has little or nothing to do with thesize or origin of the universe (for the 40 bazillionth time ).the answer is nobody knows, and the only ones who claim to know are pretentious theists.Just exploring the ideas of infinity, not making a treatise on evolution.Especially since it leaves you guys in the faith side of things and we know how you hate to be in that camp.... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now