Author Topic: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?  (Read 19104 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline voodoo child

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1823
  • Darwins +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #435 on: February 24, 2014, 12:49:31 AM »
I would like some honest thoughts on this article SOG. Since my wife and son are part of the SDA. 
Their pastor has wanted to meet me, that invitation is now a year old, and still open.  I am thinking that it would be a goofy conversation .
I have read plenty about your particular religion, is there any truth here?   


http://atheistoasis.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/seventh-day-adventist-lies-coming-soon-to-a-mailbox-near-you/


Quote
The Great Controversy was written by Ellen G. White  the founder and so-called “prophet” of the Seventh-day Adventist cult.  (The cult likes to call her the “co-founder,” giving some of the blame to her enabler husband, but it doesn’t fly — it’s Ellen’s baby.)  The current edition was originally published in 1911, but it’s been around in one form or another since 1888.  There are volumes of her writings, much of which are taken up by her descriptions of the “visions” she claimed god showed her.  That’s what Adventists believe, anyway.  It is widely known — and has been for 30 years — that White was an accomplished plagiarist who shamelessly lifted at least 80% of her writings from the work of others, and not only did she fail to give them credit, she claimed that god “showed” her all of these things.

She was a stern, power-hungry woman who admitted in a 1911 letter (which was reprinted in her book Counsels on Diet and Food) that she was an alcoholic.  It’s also believed by many that, after being hit in the head with a rock when she was a child and being in what sounds an awful lot like a coma for weeks, untreated, she suffered from temporal lobe epilepsy, which frequently results in religious fanaticism.  Her combined writings are a toxic blend of stolen work, emotional terrorism, ignorance, lies, and just plain lunacy.

She wrote, among other things, that god showed her that “other races” were the result of humans having sex with animals; that reading fiction can cause physical paralysis and insanity, and that masturbation — one of her favorite topics — would cause a long list of ailments including diabetes, bleeding of the lungs, insanity, cancer and death; that god took her to Jupiter, which she claimed was inhabited by “a tall, majestic people, so unlike the inhabitants of earth”; that England would attack and defeat the U.S. during the Civil War and that slavery would exist in the U.S. until the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Adventists are very proud of the “health message” that god showed Ellen and that she passed on to them.  This “health message” has at its center a vegetarian diet, which Adventists today will tell you is strictly for health reasons.  The sad fact is that even they don’t know the truth behind it because the cult has done a crafty job of covering up some of the more embarrassing claims made by their infallible prophet of god, especially to the faithful, who continue to be deliberately lied to about everything.  One of those embarrassing claims — the one that started the whole Adventist vegetarian thing — was that eating meat (and spicy foods) would inflame the “animal passions” in a human being and make him or her want to masturbate, and at the very foundation of Ellen’s “health message” was the claim that virtually all of the ailments that plague humankind come from masturbation.

Those are only a few examples of what the Seventh-day Adventist cult really is.  It’s all insanity.  But the cult places Ellen on the same level of significance as biblical prophets, which means all that insanity is the infallible word of god.

The fact that at least 80% of her work was stolen has been known for some time, but it wasn’t until the arrival of the internet that the information became available to anyone who was interested in finding it.  That has had an enormous impact on the Seventh-day Adventist cult, as it has on all religion.
The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow, you are not understanding yourself. Truth has no path. Truth is living and therefore changing. Bruce lee

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12675
  • Darwins +333/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #436 on: February 24, 2014, 05:08:48 AM »
Why would anyone want to plagiarize nonsense, Andy?

;)

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #437 on: February 24, 2014, 09:40:16 AM »
For the record, Gods people are in all the religions, including Atheism.. they just might not know it yet.

Atheism is a religion like not participating in a pork filled hotdog eating competition is a sport.  Atheism is not a religion!


What we can say is, those who reject the truth after hearing it, and still continue in their ways unrepentant after the time of grace ends, they will not enter the Kingodom of God, but will be lost forever. God does not want that, but its mans free choice to chose as he pleases.  That free choice is given to us by God.. and it is given to you too, as we are all equal in Gods sight, no matter what we believe.


What is this.  Some Christian who thinks he knows the exact requirements needed for salvation.  Sooooo.......if I don't repent of my sins before "the time of grace ends", I am going to hell.  What sins exactly?  Is the bible clear on all the sins?  If I have a potty mouth do I have to totally repent and never say another bad word in my life in order to get to heaven.  What degree of repentance do I need to have for all my sins.  Even though it was Nam's word, you echoed it by calling Nam an "asshole".  That was not nice and it was a dirty word.  If you had a heart attack right after you typed this would you be entering into god's kingdom?

Oh man, why did I ask you all these questions about the ambiguity of repentance as if you know something about salvation in the bible.  I just read your last sentence here and it is clear you don't know much about the doctrine of salvation.  Although it is unclear what requirements a person needs for salvation, one thing is clear in the bible -- IT MATTERS WHAT YOU BELIEVE! 

Theologically speaking, is anything too difficult for God?

Yes, theologically speaking, some things are too difficult for your god.  It seems to have been too difficult to CLEARLY lay out all the requirements needed for salvation in his holy book. 

In addition, driving out inhabitants with "iron chariots" is too difficult for god.  Judges 1:19 states, "Now the LORD was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country; but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots". 

Since I couldn't figure out who's view on salvation is correct within Christianity, I have built myself an iron chariot.  It won't matter if I reject the contradictory "truth" of the bible and don't repent from all my sins.  If judgement day happens in my lifetime your god will not be able to "drive me out" of his kingdom.  I will be cruising around in my iron chariot.  The iron in my chariot is like kryptonite to your god according to the "truth" of his holy book. 


... and forgiving the sins of mankind demonstrated His divinity since only God can forgive sins (Luke 5:17-26) hence the doctrine of the unity of God. It seems you choose to ignore the verses that show the divinity of Jesus.

God could have GIVEN Jesus authority to forgive sins.  You know, like god GAVE Jesus authority in Matt. 28:18.  Or, you know, like god made Jesus Lord (Acts 2:36).  If Jesus is the all-powerful god, there shouldn't be anything in the bible to show this god is given or made anything. 


If you want a reply from me, please rethink about how you refer to God.  When you refer to God the Father, please do so out of courtesy / goodwill, otherwise I will not be able to reply to your posts again. I don't mean to be difficult. Thanks.

Okay, here are my two questions from my last post posed in a more respectful manner.  Like I said, I thought "daddy" and "Father" were synonymous.

1.) You do realize that the doctrine of the Trinity states that Jesus and his Father are "one being" (con-substantial) don't you?  If Jesus and his Father are "one being" then Jesus would have to know the timing of his second coming if his Father knows.  Sharing the same nature with god (Con-substantial) implies that Jesus would have to know the timing of his second coming if his Father knows of this timing.  Can you logically say I'm wrong?  Focus on the word Con-substantial (one being).  If Jesus is not omniscient in his humanity then he can't be "one being" with the Father like the doctrine of the Trinity states!   


2.) If John 21:17 says that Jesus knows all things then why does Revelation 1:1 say that Jesus had to be GIVEN "the Revelation" by his Father?  Just like I didn't have to ponder over your grasshopper youtube video because I KNOW grasshoppers use six feet to walk, Jesus wouldn't have to be GIVEN the Revelation if he already "KNOWS all things".  This implies Jesus does NOT "know all things" after his resurrection and glorification.  I see this as a contradiction.  Is it? 

"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12554
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #438 on: February 24, 2014, 11:05:26 AM »
I would argue for example, that Adventist theology and by extension, the testing of a prophet, is rationalist, rather than empiricist.

You misunderstand.  I'm asking whether you should use methods of rationality to determine whether prophesy is accurate or bunk.  Not whether you should rationalize.  They are two completely different things.  Methods of rationality require evidence.  Thus it is at least partially empiricist.  Otherwise you can sit around like old greek philosophers and argue which idea is best until all grow beards.  But unless you go and check to see which one matches reality best, you won't really know.

For example, the Mormon Church teaches...

Yeah, I don't disagree that the mormons are full of beans.  But my point is they are not really any different than the rest of you.   They found some dumb verse in the bible (like you), interpreted it in a particular way (like you) and said "well, this here method is what the bible instructs us to do.  So how can we go wrong?" (also like you).

And this underscores my prior point, which is the wide range of interpretation as to what the process should even be among xians.  As an outsider, you all look equally silly. 


Adventists on the other hand, would say, we focus on all the tests of a prophet in the bible, which is therefore objective because we are not basing our decision on feeling something is true, but weighing up the facts, text with text, including non-Biblical texts and sources to verify everything is meeting the criteria.

You may not know it, but so do "they".   "They" all think they are doing it right too.  They all think they have very rational, analytical and factual methods.  You have so far not shown how your methods are any more right or accurate than theirs.

See our timeline as an example, attached.

yeah, I've seen it.  To put it nicely, I do not find it at all compelling or worth a second thought.


The foundations are the tests of a prophet looked at objectively.

How is that accomplished?  Do you do a double blind test?  Do you have multiple people independently analyze the results and then compare?  Do you take archaeological evidence into consideration?  For example, it is known that more than one "prophesy" was made after the "foretold" events took place.  Or do you take the bible as literally true and infallible?



OK... Just for you screwtape... Im prepared to accept it.. lol BUT Im sure I could find some scientific equivalents for you.

more on this alleged quote from Dr Ron West.

 For starters, this was quoted from 1968, as I have already pointed out.  A lot of science has been done since then. 

Secondly, The Compass is not a science journal.  The full name was the Compass of Sigma Gamma Epsilon.  It is an earth science fraternity newsletter.  So, what he may have to say there is kind of irrelevant and definitely not peer reviewed.  http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2009-11/msg09652.html
The link is old-ish so some of the links from it may be dead.

Third, there is something called “quote mining” that creationists use.  They find quotes by scientists and take them out of context so that they seem to mean things that the creationists want them mean, which is usually the opposite of what the scientist intended.  It is essentially lying.  This is just one such case.  I am sure any other "scientific equivalents" you will provide will be at least as dishonest as this one.  I do not attribute the dishonesty to you, but rather to the evil cabal of creationists like the Discovery Institute and others.  But now you have been made aware, so you are responsible for any dishonest quotes you post.

Here: http://www.christianforums.com/t3091280/ West responds to an email asking for clarification. 

It appears that creationists either do not understand what he was saying or they are blatantly lying.  Most likely the latter.
 
If I were you, I would be concerned that creationist arguments must rely on such lies and deceptions.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3948
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #439 on: February 24, 2014, 11:51:13 AM »
Maybe the Bible confuses grasshoppers with crickets or locusts since they look similar to each other?

-Nam

With it being an update of a translation of a translation of a translation of transcript of a verbal tradition...sounds likely.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6869
  • Darwins +925/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #440 on: February 24, 2014, 01:42:19 PM »
I almost gave SwordOfGod my very first negative darwin ever.

For the unforgiveable sin of taking the sacred words of the great Columbo, our most holy lord of rational thought, in vain. Then I remembered that Columbo, no matter how much I revere and worship him, is just a fictional character. Like all gods.

So instead, I gave Andy S. a positive darwin. I did the atheist thing and turned the other cheek. SwordOfGod may kiss it if he likes. :-*
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12675
  • Darwins +333/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #441 on: February 24, 2014, 05:47:02 PM »
I almost gave SwordOfGod my very first negative darwin ever.

For the unforgiveable sin of taking the sacred words of the great Columbo, our most holy lord of rational thought, in vain. Then I remembered that Columbo, no matter how much I revere and worship him, is just a fictional character. Like all gods.

So instead, I gave Andy S. a positive darwin. I did the atheist thing and turned the other cheek. SwordOfGod may kiss it if he likes. :-*

You can give me a negative any time you want


;)

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline SwordOfGod

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
  • Darwins +4/-35
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm having a good laugh here ha ha ha ha!
    • Seventh-day Adventist Church
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #442 on: February 24, 2014, 10:08:21 PM »
Quote
Hey Sword, I will repeat what Sketchiii said: "why are we arguing about how grasshoppers walk when Lev 11:23 clearly says they have four feet regardless"? 

We are still talking about this because unfortunately some people cant accept the textual facts from science and the Bible together as evidence. The Bible verse does not say they have four feet.  It makes the scientific distinction and describes how they walk on all fours, with the additional criteria of legs used for jumping. This clearly indicates 6 feet.  2 pair of walking legs, thus 4 feet, + legs used for jumping equals 6 feet in total.  The Anatomy of the Grasshopper in Biology teaches the same distinction. This is an example of Truth being absolute, much to the dislike of the unbelievers, of which you are one.

Here is the links again from my previous post proving my point. See post 433 for details

Quote
Grasshoppers have 2 pair of walking legs (Leviticus 11:20)  http://www.biologyjunction.com/grasshopper_dissection.htm
Grasshoppers have 1 pair of jumping legs (Leviticus 11:21) http://www.biologyjunction.com/grasshopper_dissection.htm

Grasshoppers have 2 pair of walking legs (Leviticus 11:20) See Part 5 at http://hluke.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/2/8/13288821/5-10_grasshopper_dissection.pdf
Grasshoppers have 1 pair of jumping legs (Leviticus 11:21) See Part 5 at  http://hluke.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/2/8/13288821/5-10_grasshopper_dissection.pdf

Its very clear to the honest enquirer what is the truth here.  The Bible makes the distinction, whereas you do not.  Biological science also makes the distinction.


ParkingPlaces has a go at seeing objective sense, even with the Atheist handicap, when he admits I have pointed out the facts correctly from the Bible and proclaims that the Bible is right "that one time" (see his post 403).  What a victory for common sense! I would add to that and say, that even if one person has the sense to admit the facts, this debate is over.. its getting boring pointing out the same facts to those who do not seek answers, but obstacles. When one obstacle is removed, they put the same recently removed obstacle back in its place.  Why? Because the real objection is not the verse, but the Voice of God and His Eternal and Blessed Living Reality.. EVEN when science backs it up.

Quote
I am glad I apologized before anyone caught me red-handed "stealing" material from another author.  In my case, I was "stealing" from the god of gods according to Christians.  I don't want to look like a "thief" like Sword and the "founder" of his denomination, Ellen White.

No, it may be true that you may not want to look like a thief by "not stealing" material from another author, but stealing the good reputation of other human beings to make yourself look innocent, and to self exalt your own name above other names, is rather like the character of Satan, the master of deception and the self exalted. This is not the character of God, but of fallen man and the Devil, the real thief and Father of Lies. (John 8:44).

Quote
I did not expect Sword to call me out on this because most Christians don't even know verses like this exist in the bible.  I should have wrote, "It almost makes just as much sense as god creating people with defects and then god telling these people with defects that they will 'profane' his 'sanctuary' if they approach the 'veil' or 'altar' with the 'defect' that god created these people with" (Lev. 21:23).  I don't know if this is considered plagiarism according to human standards but it is the god of god's standard I am worried about.

The defects highlighted the perfection of Jesus, the perfect High Priest without defect. These physical examples of disabilities are pictures of the spiritual. We must learn to read the Bible with the spiritual in mind, as well as for the obvious physical teachings.  Therefore we pray "Help us grow up ever more to be in your image, to look and be like you (spiritually).” without fault. Thats why Jesus died on the cross, so that all with default, may approach a Holy and loving God who Himself is without default.  In this sense, default means sin, and that's how the Jewish disciples understood it. See verse below for proof.
Source: http://www.lightontherock.org/index.php/blog/2013/05/05/72-lev-2117-priests-with-disabilities-and-deformities-.html

As He passed along, He noticed a man blind from his birth.
2 His disciples asked Him, Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?
3 Jesus answered, It was not that this man or his parents sinned, but he was born blind in order that the workings of God should be manifested (displayed and illustrated) in him
. (John 9:1-3)

The workings of God are manifest in His Son, Jesus Christ.


Quote
Sword, I pointed out to you that your god, Jesus, does NOT "know all things" so I'm sure he is unaware of what I even wrote.  Will you please tell him that I am sorry for possibly plagiarizing his holy book.  I hope this doesn't constitute a copyright infringement.  While you are talking with your god can you also please ask him why he would create people with defects only to degrade them by saying they are not allowed to approach the "veil" or "altar" because of the "defect" that he created these people with?


First of all, Jesus is the All-Knowing, Eternal Son of God.  Glory be to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit Who are One without End. Amen.

Because of sin, man is permitted to be born with defects. This was mans choice, not Gods. In Gods mercy, He has given us the ability to be restored, with all our defects.  Defects are not merely physical.  The Bible mentions many defects of character, such as pride and perversion. Pride and perversion, are certainly not a strength or a an improvement in ones character are they?  Would you let a pervert into your house? No.  But God has paved the way for even the pervert to enter into his most holy place, through Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son of God.

If you will blame God for creating defects, then you must logically credit Him for creating the earth and every other living thing in it that displays beauty and greatness.  Until you accept that, you cannot truly logically and fairly blame God for all the wrong things in the world, but not credit Him for all the good in it.  However, I know that that's the measuring stick in 'Atheism' the most biased, subjective reasoning to ever touch this earth. Atheism cannot be consistent. It is evil, hatred of the truth, without logic, inspired by the devil. Atheism is not on the side of science, Atheism is the cheap specs used to look at science and the Bible with. Until you remove it, you cannot see. That is the defect of Atheism. Cheap lies.

I invite true seekers of the truth to study and see for themselves if what I say is true. I respect the views of those who disagree, I do not come here to lie, but to tell the truth.  Truth is not relative.  Truth is absolute. 1+1=2  and it always will. It is not 4 to one person, and 2 to another. One may say its 4, but they'd be wrong. Atheism says "nobody plus nothing = everything" when in actual fact, its someone, plus something, = everything.  "The cause cannot be greater than the effect." (Source: Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: The Science of Logic p.496 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hvFzyR3mNpQC&pg=PA496&lpg=PA496&dq=%22the+effect+cannot+be+greater+than+the+cause%22&source=bl&ots=_hHqObDdDc&sig=bCooxdXAfJQ2wWT28-IbTPgJZTo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IggMU5nID4ea1AWt7YDgAg&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20effect%20cannot%20be%20greater%20than%20the%20cause%22&f=false)


Quote
Thanks Sword.  I am sorry for disrespecting your god in my previous post.  I thought "daddy" was synonymous with "Father".  At least my four year old son thinks so.  Speaking of which, he wore me out today and I'm going to bed.  I will ask my same questions to you tomorrow but in a more respectful tone since I did not know your standard of disrespect for your god was to use the word "daddy".  Sorry Sword.   
 

Thats OK Andy, I understand... I accept the apology. Im not going to chop your hand off or shout "God Wills it!" dressed in a Crusaders costume lol. 


 
« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 10:29:42 PM by SwordOfGod »
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible"

- Stuart Chase (R.I.P 1985)

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #443 on: February 25, 2014, 03:24:59 AM »


The Bible verse does not say they have four feet.


False!  Did you even open up your bible and take a look at Lev. 11:23?

Lev. 11:23 states: "'But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you."

You want me to give you the actual Hebrew?  Okay.

"FOUR":

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/arba_702.htm

"FOOTED":

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/raglayim_7272.htm

I'm sure this is not good enough for you.  To play off of your signature a bit,  For those who don't believe that Lev. 11:23 says "FOUR-FOOTED", "no proof is possible".


It makes the scientific distinction and describes how they walk on all fours, with the additional criteria of legs used for jumping. This clearly indicates 6 feet.  2 pair of walking legs, thus 4 feet, + legs used for jumping equals 6 feet in total.

Soooo......Lev. 11:23 does not say grasshoppers have four feet and now you say, "this clearly indicates 6 feet".  Do you see the contradiction here???  You would make a great New Testament author. 

I feel like Nam's avatar right now.  So the bible says "four-footed" and you say "six-footed".  In this case, you are right and your god is wrong.     



ParkingPlaces has a go at seeing objective sense, even with the Atheist handicap, when he admits I have pointed out the facts correctly from the Bible and proclaims that the Bible is right "that one time" (see his post 403).  What a victory for common sense! I would add to that and say, that even if one person has the sense to admit the facts, this debate is over.. its getting boring pointing out the same facts to those who do not seek answers, but obstacles.

I could be immature and invite ParkingPlaces into this conversation but I won't.  If YOU want to - fine.  However, if I did, this would be my question to him:

ParkingPlaces, SwordofGod made the claim, "A grasshopper walks on its front four legs and the back legs are specialized for leaping -- they aren't generally used for walking" (post 376).  Do you agree or disagree with this claim?  I'm sure he would disagree since he posted a youtube video of a grasshopper running.  If he would agree with this ridiculous claim of yours then I would be ridiculing him just as much as I'm ridiculing you.  Actually, I would ridicule him a bit more because he posted a video that goes directly against this ridiculous claim of yours.


When one obstacle is removed, they put the same recently removed obstacle back in its place.  Why? Because the real objection is not the verse, but the Voice of God and His Eternal and Blessed Living Reality.. EVEN when science backs it up.

Okay okay, maybe I'm looking at this all wrong.  I am going to open my bible up and meditate on this entire chapter in Leviticus.  Context is everything right?  I want to see if I am really objecting to "the Voice of God and His Eternal and Blessed Living Reality".  I mean, the bible doesn't seem scientific to me but that could be just a presupposition I have.

I'm going to turn off my R rated movie from Satan and put down my pork chops.  I have that nutty Seventh-Day Adventist pastor Doug Batchelor blasting on my radio and I am going to get rid of that distraction as well.  I'm listening to him because I am amazed to find other people just as passionate as yourself who believe the same crazy teachings of the bible to be true.

Anyway, let's see if science can really back up some of the things said in this chapter of Leviticus which was written by this alleged omniscient and omnipotent creator of all living things.  I have asked Satan to take my pork chops and leave the room.  Now it's quite and I'm starting with verse 1 in Lev. 11 and.......................

Well Sword, I only made it to verse 5 of this chapter and the spirit of truth (a.k.a science) showed me that I should test what I am reading to the reality of the world that I live in.  Why does the bible say that rock badgers (v.5) and rabbits (v.6) "chew cud"???

Well, I'll be fair and I will seek a response from a Christian source.  Maybe I'm understanding this all wrong.  I'll play fair with you and I will look up what "CARM" says about this since I know you must like this source since you have used their material on this thread.

"CARM" states, "The solution is that these animals were categorized with other animals who appeared to chew cud because they move their jaws in the same manner as the other animals listed."

Link:  http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/do-badger-and-rabbit-chew-cud

NOW THAT'S FUNNY!!!   Here were my facial expressions while reading this:   8)    :o    ;D

I never thought Christian apologetics could be so entertaining.       


No, it may be true that you may not want to look like a thief by "not stealing" material from another author, but stealing the good reputation of other human beings to make yourself look innocent, and to self exalt your own name above other names, is rather like the character of Satan, the master of deception and the self exalted. This is not the character of God, but of fallen man and the Devil, the real thief and Father of Lies. (John 8:44).

Are you implying that you have a good reputation here.  I don't think so.  You were caught plagiarizing and you gave me a negative darwin for no good reason.  Your reason: "Ha ha ha ha... I just had to do it because you had 0 there". 

I would have to say that the evidence I see in the bible points to YOUR GOD being the "master of deception".  I mean, he gives his chosen people "statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live" (Ezekiel 20:25).  What a deceptive deity!


The defects highlighted the perfection of Jesus, the perfect High Priest without defect. These physical examples of disabilities are pictures of the spiritual. We must learn to read the Bible with the spiritual in mind, as well as for the obvious physical teachings.  Therefore we pray "Help us grow up ever more to be in your image, to look and be like you (spiritually).” without fault. Thats why Jesus died on the cross, so that all with default, may approach a Holy and loving God who Himself is without default.  In this sense, default means sin, and that's how the Jewish disciples understood it. See verse below for proof.
Source: http://www.lightontherock.org/index.php/blog/2013/05/05/72-lev-2117-priests-with-disabilities-and-deformities-.html

This is classic Sword!  Thanks for the link.  Christian apologetics is comical entertainment.  I love how you say, "We must learn to read the Bible with the spiritual in mind" and then you give me a source that says, "None of these (defected people) could serve in the tabernacle or temple. Let’s examine some POSSIBLE (spiritual) reasons why".  Parenthesis mine for clarification.

Did you catch the speculative key word?  When you start spiritualizing the bible then interpretations become subjective.  Any interpretation is POSSIBLE when you spiritualize scripture.  And shouldn't we take an objective approach to the bible Sword???

When Christians start spiritualizing the bible, who's interpretation is right?  Which parts of the bible are to be interpreted literally and which parts are supposed to be interpreted spiritually?  Why would god include in his holy book verses that make him look intolerant towards people with defects and expect fallible humans to interpret this part spiritually?

What you are doing here Sword is creating god in your own image.  You are spiritualizing this passage because you can't think of your god to be intolerant of people with defects.  I can understand. 

All men and women are not created equal according to the god of your bible.  He is intolerant of people with defects.  Your god is "THE MASTER OF DECEPTION" if he says he is loving and at the same time he creates individuals with defects and then makes a provision that degrades these individuals with defects.   


First of all, Jesus is the All-Knowing, Eternal Son of God. 

Why start with "First of all"?  If you want to pose like you know anything about the scientific method you should never start with a conclusion first.  You should look at the evidence first before you make a false conclusion like, "Jesus is the All-Knowing, Eternal Son of God". 

First you want to look at all the evidence in the bible that points to Jesus not being "All-Knowing" (Mark 5:30, 13:32, Rev. 1:1, Acts 1:7 just to name a few). 

Then you want to look at all the evidence in the bible that points to Jesus not being "Eternal" (John 3:16, 16:24, Col. 1:15 just to name a few).  In addition the term Son implies that Jesus was a descendant which contradicts the claim of him being eternal.

Then you have to ask yourself, "is this conclusion of mine correct based on ALL the evidence in the bible?..........Could I have been brainwashed"?   

Because of sin, man is permitted to be born with defects. This was mans choice, not Gods.

Facial expressions once again:   8)      :o      ;D

You do know this is not biblical don't you?  This is false because I was born with a physical defect and I had no choice in the matter. 

Wait a second, are you saying I might have had a choice in utero and I chose to have this physical defect that I bear?

And "because of sin, man is permitted to be born with defects"???  I don't think so my friend.  Your god is responsible for creating people with defects because you know, "for by Him all things were created" (1 Col. 1:16).

If you will blame God for creating defects, then you must logically credit Him for creating the earth and every other living thing in it that displays beauty and greatness.

Hey Sword, do you think your god is responsible for natural disasters or is it because of sin, that natural disasters are permitted to disturb this "beautiful" earth.  Are you going to say the same thing as with the defects:  "This was mans choice, not Gods."

I don't think too many people would choose the option of having the earth hammered with natural disasters if they were given the CHOICE.     



I invite true seekers of the truth to study and see for themselves if what I say is true. I respect the views of those who disagree, I do not come here to lie, but to tell the truth.  Truth is not relative.  Truth is absolute. 1+1=2  and it always will.

If you believe in the Trinity then you must think that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 is absolute truth.   :)   



« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 03:30:26 AM by Andy S. »
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1781
  • Darwins +88/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #444 on: February 25, 2014, 07:50:55 AM »
If physical defects and such are a result of sin, it might have been nice of god to explain things a little bit more fully to Adam and Eve. All they got as a warning was, basically, "do not eat of the fruit or you will die". First of all, they had no concept of good and evil to begin with, so even just expecting them to know that disobedience was wrong could be seen as pushing it, but let's leave that.

They had no experience with pain of any kind, to say nothing of death, and yet they were told this would be the punishment. What would they have thought that meant? That they would no longer exist? Nothing was said about suffering, which they had had no experience with yet either.

Did god sit them down and explain what pain and suffering was, and maybe give them a taste of it so that they could know what they might face? Did he explain to them that all their descendants would be subject to physical defects because of their action; that humans like them throughout the rest of history would be born subject to defects, disease, and sometimes life-long suffering? Did he explain that after all these people died, many would end up going to a place of eternal torment on top of that?

Might Adam and Eve have put a little bit more thought into their actions if they'd had a little bit more information?

Online jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2255
  • Darwins +406/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #445 on: February 25, 2014, 11:27:50 AM »
Let the games begin!

So I disappear for a few days and this thread balloons to include discussions on grasshoppers and enough image macros to make this thread look very Fark-esque.

But it looks like the conversation got to where I wanted to see it go - questions on the validity of identifying what is or is not a prophesy.

SwordOfGod, I'm happy to simply concede defeat for this particular round of the game and will not wrap a narrative around the prophesy you had laid out.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline SwordOfGod

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
  • Darwins +4/-35
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm having a good laugh here ha ha ha ha!
    • Seventh-day Adventist Church
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #446 on: February 25, 2014, 01:54:57 PM »
Quote


The Bible verse does not say they have four feet.


False!  Did you even open up your bible and take a look at Lev. 11:23?

Lev. 11:23 states: "'But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you."

You want me to give you the actual Hebrew?  Okay.

"FOUR":

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/arba_702.htm

"FOOTED":

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/raglayim_7272.htm

I'm sure this is not good enough for you.  To play off of your signature a bit,  For those who don't believe that Lev. 11:23 says "FOUR-FOOTED", "no proof is possible".

Thats exactly what Im talking about.  There is no logic is Atheism, only "straw man arguments" which are burned by the Fire of God and His Truth.  The Bible indicates that there are indeed 6 legs.

You only quote one verse, thus taking the whole verse out of context. The context includes the jumping legs verse (Lev 11:20,21 and 22) in addition to the verse you quoted, which of COURSE, you keep willfully, ignoring.

"The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning". Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context).

Well done Andy, you just made yourself look even more subjective. You lack evidence, as does Atheism which has scarred your reasoning ability.  Your very reasoning is based on a logical fallacy.

Here is the anatomy of a Honey Bee, explained for dummies.

Legs: The bee’s three pairs of legs are all different. Each leg has six segments that make them quite flexible. The bees also have taste receptors on the tips of their legs. The bee uses its forward-most legs to clean its antennae.

The middle legs help with walking and are used to pack loads of pollen (and sometimes propolis) onto the pollen baskets that are part of the hind legs. (Propolis is the sticky resinous substance that the bees collect from the buds of trees and use to seal up cracks in the hive.)

The hind legs are specialized (note, not like the first 4) on the worker bee. They contain special combs and a pollen press, which are used by the worker bee to brush, collect, pack, and carry pollen and propolis back to the hive.


Source: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-identify-the-basic-body-parts-of-honey-bees.html

The Bible makes the Scientific distinction. You don't.

Quote
Quote
It makes the scientific distinction and describes how they walk on all fours, with the additional criteria of legs used for jumping. This clearly indicates 6 feet.  2 pair of walking legs, thus 4 feet, + legs used for jumping equals 6 feet in total.

Soooo......Lev. 11:23 does not say grasshoppers have four feet and now you say, "this clearly indicates 6 feet".  Do you see the contradiction here???  You would make a great New Testament author. 

Verse 20 indicates the feet used for walking are 4 in number, and the additional jumping legs in verse 21 indicate a further 2.  Keeping in context with all the verses, verse 23, means those insects which which walk on all fours, but dont have specialized legs for hopping, such as the honey bee, which has specialized legs for carrying since the whole context gives such an understanding i.e "but all other winged insects..." such as honey bees and "legs with which to jump" such as grasshoppers. Its very clear to the objective student.   


Quote
I feel like Nam's avatar right now.  So the bible says "four-footed" and you say "six-footed".  In this case, you are right and your god is wrong.     

Well, most Atheists would feel like that... since most of their answers are based on feelings, rather than fact. The Bible verses in context, refer to insects with 6 feet, including 4 legs used for walking, and 2 legs used for jumping. Since these are the insects we can eat, they were the ones given the distinction. The other insects, such as the honey bees, have hind legs for another primary purpose other than walking and they do not hop as do grasshoppers.  If you would focus on the actual scientific facts the Bible actually mentions here, you'd appear a little more sincere. So, in this case,  the truth is, God is right.  If I am right, it is to Gods glory. You should praise Him not me.




Quote
ParkingPlaces has a go at seeing objective sense, even with the Atheist handicap, when he admits I have pointed out the facts correctly from the Bible and proclaims that the Bible is right "that one time" (see his post 403).  What a victory for common sense! I would add to that and say, that even if one person has the sense to admit the facts, this debate is over.. its getting boring pointing out the same facts to those who do not seek answers, but obstacles.

Quote
I could be immature and invite ParkingPlaces into this conversation but I won't.  If YOU want to - fine.  However, if I did, this would be my question to him:

ParkingPlaces, SwordofGod made the claim, "A grasshopper walks on its front four legs and the back legs are specialized for leaping -- they aren't generally used for walking" (post 376).  Do you agree or disagree with this claim?  I'm sure he would disagree since he posted a youtube video of a grasshopper running.  If he would agree with this ridiculous claim of yours then I would be ridiculing him just as much as I'm ridiculing you.  Actually, I would ridicule him a bit more because he posted a video that goes directly against this ridiculous claim of yours.

Post 376?  You need to read on a bit more and catch up... infact 27 posts more to be precise. Try reading all the other posts up to 403.  Thats where ParkingPlaces accepted the facts, after I presented the Objective Biology textual evidence in line with the Biblical texts to support my video and he admitted the Bible was right "that one time". His video is meaningless without scientific interpretation of the facts, backed up by proof, which you fail to provide regarding the grasshopper.


Quote
When one obstacle is removed, they put the same recently removed obstacle back in its place.  Why? Because the real objection is not the verse, but the Voice of God and His Eternal and Blessed Living Reality.. EVEN when science backs it up.

Okay okay, maybe I'm looking at this all wrong.  I am going to open my bible up and meditate on this entire chapter in Leviticus.  Context is everything right?  I want to see if I am really objecting to "the Voice of God and His Eternal and Blessed Living Reality".  I mean, the bible doesn't seem scientific to me but that could be just a presupposition I have.

I'm going to turn off my R rated movie from Satan and put down my pork chops.  I have that nutty Seventh-Day Adventist pastor Doug Batchelor blasting on my radio and I am going to get rid of that distraction as well.  I'm listening to him because I am amazed to find other people just as passionate as yourself who believe the same crazy teachings of the bible to be true.

Anyway, let's see if science can really back up some of the things said in this chapter of Leviticus which was written by this alleged omniscient and omnipotent creator of all living things.  I have asked Satan to take my pork chops and leave the room.  Now it's quite and I'm starting with verse 1 in Lev. 11 and.......................

The Bible is primarily a religious text. It does not proclaim to be a science textbook, it is a book about mans reationship to God. However, the Bible can verify scientific facts, just as science can verify Biblical facts. There are some things in the Bible, theories of science do not answer, such as creation, for science has no conclusive factual evidence for evolution.  Do you ignore it? No.  You carry on believing it.... and reading it. You're just not applying the same rules to me as you do to yourself.

Many a true word said in jest Andy. 

Quote
Well Sword, I only made it to verse 5 of this chapter and the spirit of truth (a.k.a science) showed me that I should test what I am reading to the reality of the world that I live in.  Why does the bible say that rock badgers (v.5) and rabbits (v.6) "chew cud"???

Well, I'll be fair and I will seek a response from a Christian source.  Maybe I'm understanding this all wrong.  I'll play fair with you and I will look up what "CARM" says about this since I know you must like this source since you have used their material on this thread.

"CARM" states, "The solution is that these animals were categorized with other animals who appeared to chew cud because they move their jaws in the same manner as the other animals listed."

Link:  http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/do-badger-and-rabbit-chew-cud

NOW THAT'S FUNNY!!!   Here were my facial expressions while reading this:   8)    :o    ;D

I never thought Christian apologetics could be so entertaining. 
     

Its great your using you're initiative for once.  However, you may need some further guidance on that to represent other views correctly as you have a habit of missing out whole paragraphs of supporting text.  Thats what I call dishonest.


Quote
Quote
No, it may be true that you may not want to look like a thief by "not stealing" material from another author, but stealing the good reputation of other human beings to make yourself look innocent, and to self exalt your own name above other names, is rather like the character of Satan, the master of deception and the self exalted. This is not the character of God, but of fallen man and the Devil, the real thief and Father of Lies. (John 8:44).

Are you implying that you have a good reputation here.  I don't think so.  You were caught plagiarizing and you gave me a negative darwin for no good reason.  Your reason: "Ha ha ha ha... I just had to do it because you had 0 there". 

Oh, you dont think so Andy?  I do.

The moderator said to me when I reported Nam to be lying about the alleged plagiarizm: 

SOG,
It is forbidden to post content of private messages without the consent of everyone involved.  Please do not do that. 
~Screwtape


So,again, get your facts right Andy please.  Those who begin character asasinations are often those who feel their own arguemts are weak, so I can understand why you might try to focus on those, but lets be clear.  I am not guilty of any plagiarism, and if you continue to insinuate such, then it only highlights your real motive... to disregard the God who created everything and to exalt self in His place.


Quote
I would have to say that the evidence I see in the bible points to YOUR GOD being the "master of deception".  I mean, he gives his chosen people "statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live" (Ezekiel 20:25).  What a deceptive deity!

Taking the side of Satan, clearly indicates your position against the dominion and rule of God. Good luck with that... (Rev 19:20)

Quote
The defects highlighted the perfection of Jesus, the perfect High Priest without defect. These physical examples of disabilities are pictures of the spiritual. We must learn to read the Bible with the spiritual in mind, as well as for the obvious physical teachings.  Therefore we pray "Help us grow up ever more to be in your image, to look and be like you (spiritually).” without fault. Thats why Jesus died on the cross, so that all with default, may approach a Holy and loving God who Himself is without default.  In this sense, default means sin, and that's how the Jewish disciples understood it. See verse below for proof.
Source: http://www.lightontherock.org/index.php/blog/2013/05/05/72-lev-2117-priests-with-disabilities-and-deformities-.html

This is classic Sword!  Thanks for the link.  Christian apologetics is comical entertainment.  I love how you say, "We must learn to read the Bible with the spiritual in mind" and then you give me a source that says, "None of these (defected people) could serve in the tabernacle or temple. Let’s examine some POSSIBLE (spiritual) reasons why".  Parenthesis mine for clarification.

The Bible is a book about religion is it not?  Then it stands to reason it must be viewed with spiritual insight. 

Quote
Did you catch the speculative key word?  When you start spiritualizing the bible then interpretations become subjective.  Any interpretation is POSSIBLE when you spiritualize scripture.  And shouldn't we take an objective approach to the bible Sword???

If I was being subjective, id be stating feelings and opinion rather than facts.  The fact is, the disciples recognize the defects referred to sin, hence why I quoted the source.  It is not my view or opinion.  I relay only what the text says, in context of the whole Bible. Something which you do not, based on your subjective viewpoints.

Quote
When Christians start spiritualizing the bible, who's interpretation is right?  Which parts of the bible are to be interpreted literally and which parts are supposed to be interpreted spiritually?  Why would god include in his holy book verses that make him look intolerant towards people with defects and expect fallible humans to interpret this part spiritually?

You sound like the Mormon false prophet Joseph Smith... "who's interpretation is right" when you should be asking, what does the Bible actually say in the context of the whole book and timeline as revealed through ALL the prophets. If you take joseph smiths approach, you'll come up with your own book full of your own views, when only the Bible is our source.  Jesus is the one who gives us understanding through His words in the Gospel for example.

Quote
What you are doing here Sword is creating god in your own image.  You are spiritualizing this passage because you can't think of your god to be intolerant of people with defects.  I can understand.


You wont take the answer because you don't like it. That's not my problem my answers wont fit through your Atheist specs by which you "see" everything.


Quote
All men and women are not created equal according to the god of your bible.  He is intolerant of people with defects.  Your god is "THE MASTER OF DECEPTION" if he says he is loving and at the same time he creates individuals with defects and then makes a provision that degrades these individuals with defects. 


Sorry Andy, but thats not true.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him." (John 3:16)

Therefore God is not partial.  Sin is the destructive force in this life, take it or leave it. Truth is not relative, but absolute. That my friend, is true.

Quote
First of all, Jesus is the All-Knowing, Eternal Son of God. 

Why start with "First of all"?  If you want to pose like you know anything about the scientific method you should never start with a conclusion first.  You should look at the evidence first before you make a false conclusion like, "Jesus is the All-Knowing, Eternal Son of God". 

Isn't that what evolution starts incorrectly starts with? "there is no god"??  So, Andy, first of all, stop using inconsistent proverbial measuring sticks, when you have no idea how to apply them to yourself.

Quote
First you want to look at all the evidence in the bible that points to Jesus not being "All-Knowing" (Mark 5:30, 13:32, Rev. 1:1, Acts 1:7 just to name a few). 

Then you want to look at all the evidence in the bible that points to Jesus not being "Eternal" (John 3:16, 16:24, Col. 1:15 just to name a few).  In addition the term Son implies that Jesus was a descendant which contradicts the claim of him being eternal.

Then you have to ask yourself, "is this conclusion of mine correct based on ALL the evidence in the bible?..........Could I have been brainwashed"?   

When you stop taking verses out of context and put them together as a whole, then it makes sence; i.e, the Hypostatic Union.

Quote
Quote
Because of sin, man is permitted to be born with defects. This was mans choice, not Gods.

Facial expressions once again:   8)      :o      ;D

You do know this is not biblical don't you?  This is false because I was born with a physical defect and I had no choice in the matter. 

Wait a second, are you saying I might have had a choice in utero and I chose to have this physical defect that I bear?

And "because of sin, man is permitted to be born with defects"???  I don't think so my friend.  Your god is responsible for creating people with defects because you know, "for by Him all things were created" (1 Col. 1:16).

If you will blame God for creating defects, then you must logically credit Him for creating the earth and every other living thing in it that displays beauty and greatness.

Hey Sword, do you think your god is responsible for natural disasters or is it because of sin, that natural disasters are permitted to disturb this "beautiful" earth.  Are you going to say the same thing as with the defects:  "This was mans choice, not Gods."

Defects are permitted because of sin entering into the world by mans free will, not by God's choice. Therefore the Glory of God is shown in a persons weakness or defect, since God is perfect. If it is a hard teaching for you, I make no apologies for its truth.

Quote
I don't think too many people would choose the option of having the earth hammered with natural disasters if they were given the CHOICE.   
 

"Natural disasters" are a result of sin, since "in the beginning" everything that God had made was good (Genesis 1) and man failed in his rule over earth (Genesis 3) which then became cursed with brokenness and disintegration (Romans 8:20-22). There's no good blaming God, you should take responsibility for your own actions and the domino effect it has on others... i.e Global Warming.

Quote
I invite true seekers of the truth to study and see for themselves if what I say is true. I respect the views of those who disagree, I do not come here to lie, but to tell the truth.  Truth is not relative.  Truth is absolute. 1+1=2  and it always will.

If you believe in the Trinity then you must think that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 is absolute truth.   :)

1+1+1 = 3
we do not believe in 3 gods.  Thats called a TRIAD

1x1x1 =1
We believe in the unity of God. Thats called the TRINITY i.e Tri-unity. for each of the Persons is fully God in the absolute sense, and the three together are the one self-same God. (http://www.montney.com/inspire/trinity.htm)

You'd better apply the correct premise next time... just like you would in science.



« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 04:54:04 PM by screwtape »
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible"

- Stuart Chase (R.I.P 1985)

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12675
  • Darwins +333/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #447 on: February 25, 2014, 02:16:23 PM »
Definition of triad[1]: a group or set of three connected people or things.

Definition of Trinity[2]: the Christian Godhead as one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Sounds basically the same to me. I mean one is universal, and the other is based on Christianity. Other than that: three persons/people -- what's the difference?

-Nam
 1. Google
 2. Google
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline SwordOfGod

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
  • Darwins +4/-35
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm having a good laugh here ha ha ha ha!
    • Seventh-day Adventist Church
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #448 on: February 25, 2014, 03:01:44 PM »
Definition of triad[1]: a group or set of three connected people or things.

Definition of Trinity[2]: the Christian Godhead as one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Sounds basically the same to me. I mean one is universal, and the other is based on Christianity. Other than that: three persons/people -- what's the difference?

-Nam



 1. Google
 2. Google

Please see explanation from Matt Slick at CARM.org for questions like yours below;

"Basically, the universe consists of three elements: Time, Space, and Matter.  Each of these is comprised of three 'components.'

Time           Past               Present   Future
Space     Height       Width           Depth
Matter   Solid               Liquid           Gas

As the Trinity doctrine maintains, each of the persons of the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is distinct, yet they are all each, by nature, God.

With time, for example, the past is distinct from the present, which is distinct from the future. Each is simultaneous.  Yet, they are not three 'times,' but one.  That is, they all share the same nature: time.

With space, height is distinct from width, which is distinct from depth, which is distinct from height. Yet, they are not three 'spaces,' but one.  That is, they all share the same nature: space.

With matter, solid is not the same as liquid, which is not the same as gas, which is not the same as solid.  Yet, they are not three 'matters,' but one.  That is, they all share the same nature: matter.

Note that there are three sets of threes.  In other words, there is a trinity of trinities.  If we were to look at the universe and notice these qualities within it, is it fair to say that these are the fingerprints of God upon His creation?  I think so.  Not only is this simply an observation, but it is also a good source for an analogy of the Trinity."[/i]

Source: http://carm.org/questions/about-doctrine/god-trinity-or-triad
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 03:06:57 PM by SwordOfGod »
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible"

- Stuart Chase (R.I.P 1985)

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12675
  • Darwins +333/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #449 on: February 25, 2014, 03:16:01 PM »
carm.org is an ultra biased organization. Anyone who takes anything they say serious is a douchebag just like them.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline SwordOfGod

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
  • Darwins +4/-35
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm having a good laugh here ha ha ha ha!
    • Seventh-day Adventist Church
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #450 on: February 25, 2014, 03:38:57 PM »
carm.org is an ultra biased organization. Anyone who takes anything they say serious is a douchebag just like them.

-Nam



Who is the real douchebag? (That's a rhetorical question.)


Source: http://www.thisisyourconscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/atheism.jpg
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 03:46:28 PM by SwordOfGod »
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible"

- Stuart Chase (R.I.P 1985)

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11130
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #451 on: February 25, 2014, 03:46:37 PM »
Quote from: BS image
Atheism: The belief(...)
Who is the real douchebag? (That's a rhetorical question.)

I'm guessing the real douche bag is the one who doesn't know what atheism is, but decides to talk about it as if he did anyway.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12675
  • Darwins +333/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #452 on: February 25, 2014, 03:52:15 PM »
I find it funny that churches and organizations like carm denounce Roman Catholicism as actually being a part of Christianity EXCEPT when it comes to statistics.

Prorestant Christian: "Roman Catholics are not real Christians."

Atheist: "Christians do not make up the vast majority of the world population."

Protestant Christian: "Christians make up over 2 billion of the population."

Atheist: "Roman Catholics make up 1.2 billion of the just over 2 billion, and you just said Roman Catholics aren't real Christians, therefore by your logic: Christians do not make up the vast majority of the population."

carm.org has articles dedicated to how Roman Catholics aren't Christian but when it comes to statistics places like carm.org counts them as Christians.

-Nam
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 04:06:59 PM by Nam »
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline SwordOfGod

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
  • Darwins +4/-35
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm having a good laugh here ha ha ha ha!
    • Seventh-day Adventist Church
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #453 on: February 25, 2014, 03:53:46 PM »
Quote from: BS image
Atheism: The belief(...)
Who is the real douchebag? (That's a rhetorical question.)

I'm guessing the real douche bag is the one who doesn't know what atheism is, but decides to talk about it as if he did anyway.

No, you'd be guessing wrong.  The real douche bag is the one who claims to be of the sons of monkey's, like Nam with his "no god" rubbish.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 04:01:15 PM by SwordOfGod »
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible"

- Stuart Chase (R.I.P 1985)

Offline SwordOfGod

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
  • Darwins +4/-35
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm having a good laugh here ha ha ha ha!
    • Seventh-day Adventist Church
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #454 on: February 25, 2014, 04:06:40 PM »
You.

I find it funny that churches and organizations like carm denounce Roman Catholicism as actually being a part of Christianity EXCEPT when it comes to statistics.

Prorestant Christian: "Roman Catholics are not real Christians."

Atheist: "Christians do not make up the vast majority of the world population."

Protestant Christian: "Christians make up over 2 billion of the population."

Atheist: "Roman Catholics make up 1.2 billion of the just over 2 billion, and you just said Roman Catholics aren't real Christians, therefore by your logic: Christians do not make up the vast majority of the population."

carm.org has articles dedicated to how Roman Catholics aren't Christian but when it comes to statistics places like carm.org counts them as Christians.

-Nam


Well, my views are Seventh-day Adventist and are not considered mainstream by most, including CARM which calls SDAs a cult. If there is something which we (CARM and I) agree upon, I would use it as I do not let my subjective views about his hatred for SDA's get the better of me. Infact, I use objectivity by quoting those who hate  and misrepresent our movement.

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible"

- Stuart Chase (R.I.P 1985)

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12675
  • Darwins +333/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #455 on: February 25, 2014, 04:10:25 PM »
Then why are you referencing an organization that feels your religion is a joke?

You don't represent your religion too well when you do.

And, I didn't come from a monkey. If you knew anything about the Evolution process you wouldn't say such douchey things.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline SwordOfGod

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
  • Darwins +4/-35
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm having a good laugh here ha ha ha ha!
    • Seventh-day Adventist Church
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #456 on: February 25, 2014, 04:23:14 PM »
Then why are you referencing an organization that feels your religion is a joke?

You don't represent your religion too well when you do.

And, I didn't come from a monkey. If you knew anything about the Evolution process you wouldn't say such douchey things.

-Nam

I represent it objectively using an array of evidence.

Hmm because ultimately, you believe in God don't you.



Oh look, you might be in there somewhere...

Source:http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/10/06/article-0-02EC002200000578-483_468x326.jpg
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 04:28:07 PM by SwordOfGod »
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible"

- Stuart Chase (R.I.P 1985)

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12675
  • Darwins +333/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #457 on: February 25, 2014, 04:28:21 PM »
Then why are you referencing an organization that feels your religion is a joke?

You don't represent your religion too well when you do.

And, I didn't come from a monkey. If you knew anything about the Evolution process you wouldn't say such douchey things.

-Nam

I represent it objectively using an array of evidence.

Hmm because ultimately, you believe in God don't you.

carm isn't evidence, it's mainly just one guy making excuses, and making things up to excuse his religion. That's it.

Biased evidence at the end of the day is just fiction.

Go here: http://stormfront.org -- they're Christians, too.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline SwordOfGod

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
  • Darwins +4/-35
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm having a good laugh here ha ha ha ha!
    • Seventh-day Adventist Church
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #458 on: February 25, 2014, 04:37:20 PM »
Then why are you referencing an organization that feels your religion is a joke?

You don't represent your religion too well when you do.

And, I didn't come from a monkey. If you knew anything about the Evolution process you wouldn't say such douchey things.

-Nam

I represent it objectively using an array of evidence.

Hmm because ultimately, you believe in God don't you.

carm isn't evidence, it's mainly just one guy making excuses, and making things up to excuse his religion. That's it.

Biased evidence at the end of the day is just fiction.

Go here: http://stormfront.org -- they're Christians, too.

-Nam

Thanks Nam for such a wonderful objectively provided link.  I'll return the favour. Go here  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism

There has been 100 million people killed in the name of Soviet based Atheistic commuism which declared that religion was the opium of the masses. Stormfront has nothing to do with the Adventist Church.
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible"

- Stuart Chase (R.I.P 1985)

Offline Sketchiii

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #459 on: February 25, 2014, 04:40:03 PM »
Verse 20 indicates the feet used for walking are 4 in number, and the additional jumping legs in verse 21 indicate a further 2.  Keeping in context with all the verses, verse 23, means those insects which which walk on all fours, but dont have specialized legs for hopping, such as the honey bee, which has specialized legs for carrying since the whole context gives such an understanding i.e "but all other winged insects..." such as honey bees and "legs with which to jump" such as grasshoppers. Its very clear to the objective student. 

You can't argue about context when you are purposefully bending the passages.
While it may be said that that the passage states that grasshoppers walk of four feet.
It also clearly states that there are other winged insets that have four feet.
It doesn't matter if they're specialized for tap-dancing or walking, they have four feet. Yet here you are talking about honey bees.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5059
  • Darwins +578/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #460 on: February 25, 2014, 04:42:05 PM »
Who is the real douchebag? (That's a rhetorical question.)
Do you really think you're being a good representative of Christianity by retorting like this?

Condemning what you don't agree with, insisting that you must be right, and cherry-picking whatever you can to 'justify' it.  You remind me of someone who periodically writes letters to the editor in a local newspaper, and not in a good way.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12554
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #461 on: February 25, 2014, 04:48:00 PM »
SOG,

please quote better.  There is a link to a tutorial in my sig.  please use it.  It will help us understand you better.  Thanks.

edit: Also, it is forbidden to post content of private messages without the consent of everyone involved in the PM.  Please do not do that. 
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 04:54:48 PM by screwtape »
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2255
  • Darwins +406/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #462 on: February 25, 2014, 04:49:33 PM »
<image clipped for space-saving purposes>
Who is the real douchebag? (That's a rhetorical question.)


Source: http://www.thisisyourconscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/atheism.jpg

SwordOfGod, does the text in that image reflect what you think the atheist position entails?

Because if you take a theist and an atheist, then one of those individuals is going to espouse an explanation of some phenomenon that involves magic.

And it probably isn't the atheist[1].

--------------------------------------------------------------

Theism

The belief that there was a magical man that magically made a universe, magically making everything from dinosaurs to Ebola to cancer to puppies, and loves each and every one of the human beings that exist on a tiny little planet that he magically made in the vast, vast, VAST expanse of the totally of the universe that he magically made, because the magical man was lonely.

Then the magical man inspired some of these humans, through divine magic, to write a book to explain all of this magic to other humans.  At some point, magical man noticed that the creatures he magically created were behaving in ways that he didn't like, so he magically sent his son (via the magic of a virgin birth), who, magically, is also himself, but not himself, down to Earth to die and magically be resurrected so that the humans he loves so much are saved from...something.

Makes perfect sense.[2]
 1. I can't say that for certain, as there are definitely atheists out there that believe in some bulls**t.
 2. Because a .jpg or .png of text is wasteful
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12675
  • Darwins +333/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #463 on: February 25, 2014, 04:51:23 PM »
SOGGY,

If you think stormfront is "objective" you're smoking crack. And, while I do not deny that atheists have done horrible things you do deny that Christians do not, or have not. That's the difference between us. You make excuses, we do not.

-Nam

This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.