Im bored. No sports for me to bet on. How about a religion thread?

The bible clearly states to turn the other cheek and forgive them.

So, otherwise you live in a world of revenge.

Now answer this, hypothetically, if every person in the world believed and PRACTICED the 10 commandments to the letter of the law, would there be a need for police, courts, judges, prsions, military equipment?

Now, do you want to live in the world we live in now, or the hypothetical one i mentioned above?

Cause, right now, looking at what is happening in the world, no one is really following the ABSOLUTE law of God. What happens when this occurs? Look around you, clearly each person determines what is right or wrong. George Bush thought it would be ok to go into Afghan and murder innocent young children and others because a handful of people ran a plane into a building.

Furthermore, is it right that those hijackers thought it was ok to ram a few planes killing innocent people cause they wanted to make a political stament? Now, if these 2 parties FOLLOWED and obeyed the 10 commandments, would Sep 11 have occured?

No, BUT, because each man thought it was right what they were doing (your subjective morals), then it is ok for them to do it. 

Thats what happens when each person detrmines what is right ot wrong

No absolute morals?

Thats right, look what is happening around us. People complain about murders, rape , child abuse etc etc, if there are no absolute morals then you get what you are seeing. Why? cause man clearly think they determine what is right or wrong.

I cant believe you guys cant see this

I believe in the Bible, i believe that there is a reason and purpose for our existence. This world, while love your life, this life is nothing, it is simply a test as part of a bigger journey. we are merely tourists here in a journey.

The atheists is limited in thinking, there is no purpose for our existence apart from just existing. In 1000 years time, we are merely insignificant.

vanzack-vanzack-vanzack-vanzack-vanzack-vanzack-vanzack

The man of intellegence proceeds to investigate + find the truth of the matter by research, or his criticism is nothing more than an empty ejection from the poverty of his own hypocrisy.

the account + argument of jonah is the enemy to any rhetoric individual who has preordained their attitude when reading the account, with a casual built for the kill approach in the matter of what is the gospels atheist magnet, for its perceived passages of weakness.

vanzack + the christian, take supernatural intervention from the equation of "jonah" and the fact that christianity stands and falls with the gospel. only then can you face each other on an equal + level ground to reaching an educated conclusion.

...in february 1891, the whaling ship, "star of the east" was near the falkland islands, where they sighted a large sperm whale. two boats were sent out after the whale. one boat harpooned the whale, but the whale upset the other boat, drowing one man + the other sailor james bartley, disappearing without a trace.

after the whale was killed + cut open two days later, james bartley was found unconscious + doubled up inside the whale. he lost his sense though fright and not through lack of air. his skin was bleached white from stomach acid. he fully recovered. this was confirmed by two scientists, one being m deparville.

the whales stomach is complex, having from 4 to 6 chambers, any of which a small colony of men could be readily accomodated. we have record that show the whale has proved itself host to various living creatures.

the whale is an air breathing mammal that cannot live without oxygen. the whale has no gills + can only remained submerged along as its air supply will allow.

all whales have in their heads an air storage chamber. the chamber is an enlargment of the nasal sinus and in a large whale this tank could measure 14 ft long by 7 ft high and 7 ft wide.

science discovered that a species of whale when it takes into its mouth any object to big swallows, it thrusts it up into this air chamber, and when it discovers it has a large object in its head (tank), it swims to the nearest land, lies in shallow water and ejects it.

...there is record of a sulfur bottom whale of 95 ft in length having a weight of 147 ton (294,000 pounds). the specimen was captured of the wst coast of america.

one that went ashore was big enough that a 75 ton locomotive crane was unable to lift it out of the entrance to the panama canal. it was towed 12 miles out to sea and navy airplanes dropped two, 160 pound bombs and blew it to pieces.

... a dog lost overboard was found in a whales head alive no worse for its journey 6 days later.

...there are sharks in the sea that can swallow a man. upon investigating a white shark of the mediterranean on its capture, it was found to have swallowed a sea-cow which is about the size of an ox.

the whale shark gets its common name from the fact thats its oral cavity is similar to structure found in a whale. this shark having no teeth feeds like the whale, straining its food through plates in its mouth. this sea-monster is on capture record as being up to 70 ft in size.

one record of capture, when for examination its stomach was cut open, found the skeleton of a 6ft human. every bone undamaged + undisturbed, the body was identified as a missing soldier through dental work.

...a sailor overboard in the english channel due to an attemp to harpoon the whaleshark was engulfed by it as it was feeding.

the crew frightened the creature which disappeared into the deep. the entire trawler fleet set out to hunt the fish down and 48 hrs after the inccident the fish was cited and slain with a 1 pound deck gun.

the carcus was towed to the shore and cut open to give the body of their friend a proper burial. when the shark was open the man was found unconscious but alive. rushed to hospital were he was found to be suffering from shock alone, and a few hours later was discharged physicaly fit. media labeled him as the modern day jonah.

vanzack, your atheist position is the result of several highly questionable assumptions about how reality operates, assumptions that cannot be proved without violating your way of thinking. you are taking rhetoric extreme views at its word + reading content with a selective purpose to feed a isolated agenda.

slikstiks.......

how did i validate the bible? my conclusion was that vanzack holds the witnesses/ author of the account of jonah to hold no truth, while based on evidence, the account is still plausiable. so, the christrian can believe in faith + the atheist, vanzack in this case, can hold the witnesses to have been pursuasive in their account, + not be authentic in detail. the only element i validated was the argument of jonah in an honest environment under real life conditions, ends in a stalemate...... the matter sits on the fence, despite which side the debator themself lives on, + how they twist it or claim it.

in developing the theory of relativity, einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. he didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by god. so, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. he said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. edwin hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding + had a begining at some point in the past.

einstein viewed that humans were in the position of an infant entering a huge library filled with books in many lanuages. the child knows someone must have written those books. it does not know how. it does not understand the languages in which they are written. the child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is.

einstein recognized the remarkable design + order of the cosmos, but could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil + suffering he found in human existence, to make any known god heads of this world his deity.

bottom line... einstein believed that design of the universe demanded a creator. i commented with a single example to vanzacks approach, in that his expressions from a judgment seat are plagued with a selective purpose without even promoting a creator myself. so, did that make einstein trying to validate a fantasy.

is free will liberal thinking assessment without information filtering + blackouts the anti-christ of extreme atheist seek + destroy policy. operation denial of anything that doesnt fit the flee from the invisible man theory. or can we look at all things with this skill of reason. if there is nothing to fear of christianity itself, lets be honest with the approach to it and all other things without the he said, she said showdowns.

Thanks for the laugh.

James Bartley 1

James Bartley 2 (just read the first line)

Did you really just write a 1000 word essay based on something somebody told you without checking if it was fact or not?  Oh wait, I forgot, that is exactly what you base your life on, somebody told you something and it doesnt matter if it is fact or not.

Quote Originally Posted by Consilience:

vanzack, can you respond to my friend request? I think we can find some things to occupy your down time.

Done. 

Please give us more.  This is exactly the kind of proof I was hoping for.  You have made this thread interesting again.  How about a 1k word essay on how it is possible to fit 2 of every animal on an Ark, and then reproduce afterwards?

Did they let Gary Bussey start posting on covers again?

i think the burden of proof discussion in this context is a non sequitur.  no one can meet the burden of proof, at whatever standard, when talking about whether gods exist.  all we can do is argue facts, as we understand them, what makes sense and what is right and wrong based on the standards we create.  

as we've stated many times, there are those of us who believe that so much of what comes out of the bible and from religious people falls on the side of making little to no sense and and is destructive to society.  i think distinguishing a belief in god or gods and promoting religion is important to make our point.   

Right there, right there shows to me what ALL athests think and gives me PROOF that the atheist does not understand what they are saying.

You claim that if someone says there is a flying tea pot in space, then it is upto that person to prove it not the other way around. I agree, however,

Now, regardless of whether this tea pot exists, it doesnt matter, why? Cause one way or another, the tea pot flying around space can either be PROVEN OR DISPROVEN. This tea pot is viewable to the human eye, therefore, it can be proven or disproven, doesnt matter if it exists or not, it can either be proven or disproven.

Now lets look at God, Gods realm is in the supernatural, is the supernatural able to be PROVEN or DISPROVEN? Is it possible for the supernatural to be debunked? Did God say that he will be seen at local shopping malls, hence because he has never been there it disproves his existence?

Conclusion,

Comparing God or claim to God is the same as the Celestial tea pot is INVALID

Trying to disprove God is beyond the ability of man.

I will leave you with this my friend,

John 20 - 25-29, "Blessed are those that havent seen, but believe".

vanzack

first, lets get the critera inline with the program. i am not standing infront of christianity asking you to respect it, its servants, or its message. and certainly never did i administer the gospel to the board. so what exactly do you assume i base my life on? christianity? to who do you assume i surrender + become a robot in thinking too? pseudoscience dogma?

now i will address our guest star to the conversation, mr james bartley (applause). like you made an assumption, as did i with the fact that you would be familar with his name, and in the case you were not, it was made the only passage that gave reference to names in the post, naming the apprentice seaman, + scientist, so you would emphasize it. though, was seeking something deeper than wikipedia.

the james bartley story is a common tale with a variety of versions, but the message almost always reamains the same. wikipedia gives a overview with a direct verdict that its a urban tale. wiki doesnt measure up to a standard of reliable evidence with it errors, but you can certainly expect its core to be truth + take it on face value, that the whale of tale is a "fable". now, at the same time the records of the british admiralty tesify to james bartley being swallowed. which has more merit. or should we just make it the best of three and see what snopes suggests.

without a doubt a sector of christianity was going use this case as a defence for reliability of scripture against biblical critics. but, if we confine the account to its literal meaning, logic tells myself i would be have to be gulliable to be guided to holding its hand in truth. but on the basis of science it is plausiable with a window possibility for the event. though, suspicious of motive for some of the creationist who echoed and promoted the story at the time.

what i was trying to say vanzack, i sampled your jonah example which seems to be one of the most exagerated accounts within the bible, and matched it with what seems to be the most exagerated story outside the gospel with an identical theme.

bartley, was his account a reality? jesus walked the earth, but did he spend three days in the grave like jonah in the belly of the whale? or was he from heaven? can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for the christian or the athsiest, no. but if man can make a submarine that can submerge for three days, and then rise to the surface hosting a safe journey for its crew, i cant tell a christian that his god cant do the same when they labeled their god head omnipotent, and i dont have a single fact to prove him not to be. but you cant see him right, so i should buy into that. but a christian will tell me i see his work. either way, one has a mind, but i cant see it and for the christians they dont need to see it to use it.

as for the flood, that is a good question. i've heard arguments from christians who suggest it was a global event, while for other christians, the deluge was a local occurance. i would ask the father how art thee do thy flood, though, i dont have the ark of covenant as part of my art deco. but will be sure to purchase the original if it ever hits the black-market.

dont have the answer, but why is it necessary, because you can prove it beyond doubt it is impossible. you should ask a christian this, if they cant respond, educate them exactly why it is impossible and set them free.

a previous post form someone, cited that basically life as we know it is nothing more than a blip on the earth or universe time line. well, if thats the case, the forces of nature went to enormous detail for the privilege of life as we know it. artists sign paintings and it seem the only thing missing from this solar system is a signature. where do you live in atheism vanzack?

i am of the highest delight i could breath new life into your thread and thankyou for the encore request. though, it is now that i must leave you, and will do so with a message to you my socialst colleague, that has cast myself in the role as defence secretary for the bible. 

the forum would be a ghetto of degenerate gamblers right? basically arent religious folks in your state of mind gambling with their life on heaven @ infinite odds for a return of eternal life. where else would they be. man created god right? well man created science books too. the army is called the defence force., not attack corps. so if your going to go to war starting it, my suggestion, approach it with an informed attitude. otherwise your just another athiest terrorist that gives the rest of the group of non-believers a dirty name.

though the bat and ball season has returned, that should kill your bordom you glorifed rhetorical read enough to talk about it hell bound self worshipping god spinner.

vanzack

first, lets get the critera inline with the program. i am not standing infront of christianity asking you to respect it, its servants, or its message. and certainly never did i administer the gospel to the board. so what exactly do you assume i base my life on? christianity? to who do you assume i surrender + become a robot in thinking too? pseudoscience dogma?

now i will address our guest star to the conversation, mr james bartley (applause). like you made an assumption, as did i with the fact that you would be familar with his name, and in the case you were not, it was made the only passage that gave reference to names in the post, naming the apprentice seaman, + scientist, so you would emphasize it. though, was seeking something deeper than wikipedia.

the james bartley story is a common tale with a variety of versions, but the message almost always reamains the same. wikipedia gives a overview with a direct verdict that its a urban tale. wiki doesnt measure up to a standard of reliable evidence with it errors, but you can certainly expect its core to be truth + take it on face value, that the whale of tale is a "fable". now, at the same time the records of the british admiralty tesify to james bartley being swallowed. which has more merit. or should we just make it the best of three and see what snopes suggests.

without a doubt a sector of christianity was going use this case as a defence for reliability of scripture against biblical critics. but, if we confine the account to its literal meaning, logic tells myself i would be have to be gulliable to be guided to holding its hand in truth. but on the basis of science it is plausiable with a window possibility for the event. though, suspicious of motive for some of the creationist who echoed and promoted the story at the time.

what i was trying to say vanzack, i sampled your jonah example which seems to be one of the most exagerated accounts within the bible, and matched it with what seems to be the most exagerated story outside the gospel with an identical theme.

bartley, was his account a reality? jesus walked the earth, but did he spend three days in the grave like jonah in the belly of the whale? or was he from heaven? can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for the christian or the athsiest, no. but if man can make a submarine that can submerge for three days, and then rise to the surface hosting a safe journey for its crew, i cant tell a christian that his god cant do the same when they labeled their god head omnipotent, and i dont have a single fact to prove him not to be. but you cant see him right, so i should buy into that. but a christian will tell me i see his work. either way, one has a mind, but i cant see it and for the christians they dont need to see it to use it.

as for the flood, that is a good question. i've heard arguments from christians who suggest it was a global event, while for other christians, the deluge was a local occurance. i would ask the father how art thee do thy flood, though, i dont have the ark of covenant as part of my art deco. but will be sure to purchase the original if it ever hits the black-market.

dont have the answer, but why is it necessary, because you can prove it beyond doubt it is impossible. you should ask a christian this, if they cant respond, educate them exactly why it is impossible and set them free.

a previous post form someone, cited that basically life as we know it is nothing more than a blip on the earth or universe time line. well, if thats the case, the forces of nature went to enormous detail for the privilege of life as we know it. artists sign paintings and it seem the only thing missing from this solar system is a signature. where do you live in atheism vanzack?

i am of the highest delight i could breath new life into your thread and thankyou for the encore request. though, it is now that i must leave you, and will do so with a message to you my socialst colleague, that has cast myself in the role as defence secretary for the bible. 

the forum would be a ghetto of degenerate gamblers right? basically arent religious folks in your state of mind gambling with their life on heaven @ infinite odds for a return of eternal life. where else would they be. man created god right? well man created science books too. the army is called the defence force., not attack corps. so if your going to go to war starting it, my suggestion, approach it with an informed attitude. otherwise your just another athiest terrorist that gives the rest of the group of non-believers a dirty name.

though the bat and ball season has returned, that should kill your bordom you glorifed rhetorical read enough to talk about it hell bound self worshipping god spinner.

The issue is and the conflicts are that, atheists are attempting to apply the rules of this natural earth / universe to the supernatural. If i say there is a kangaroo walking on the planet mars, while i agree with you that the burden of proof for this claim is on me, furthermore, this EXTRODINARY claim requires extrodinary evidence, this concept of proof CANNOT be applied to God.

If in the holy bible it stated that God will on every 3rd day will align the stars to show a cross or once every 50 years will part the oceans for half a day or will stop wars, hunger etc etc and WE dont see this, then yes, his existence maybe could be deemed doubtful, BUT no where is this written.

At the end of the day, trying to disprove Gods existence is like driving up a hill in reverse in the mud, not really productive cause due to the very nature is not possible.

I beleive there are sign posts pointing to God, while these are open to interpretation, it becomes subjective.

At the end of the day, the non believer is taking one big risk, while i am not saying the NON believer is always going to be a worse person than the believer, not at all, what i am saying is that while the non believer doesnt believe , he or she doesnt have the ability to repent and hence scripture tells us the consequences of such a thing.

If the atheist is wrong, then the consequences are very very very brutal. If the atheist is right, then Mother Theresa, Stalin, the sep 11 Hijackers, the man who rapes little boys then cuts off his genitals, you and i are all equal before death.

You are missing the point, u as a non believer, are limited in believing that morals are subjective. There is NO objective morals, there is no absolute reference point for morals.

Therefore, if you see tribes killing and eating each other, you CANNOT say what they are doing is ABSOLUTELY wrong....You can say it is wrong when you compare it to your own morals or to your societies morals, but you cannot say it is ABSOLUTELY wrong. If you approach this tribe and say what you are doing is wrong, they will probably laugh at you, remember, you believe that morals are subjective, EACH PERSON / SOCIETIES determine what is right or wrong, so it is 1 opinion against the other.

HOWEVER, if YOU BELIEVE that there is an ABSOLUTE MORAL LAW giver, then you can say what the tribes are doing is ABSOLUTELY wrong, cause you have applied your view and referenced it to AN ABSOLUTE REFERNCE point.

Let me deomonstrate mathematically. There are some absolute mathematical truths, ie, 2 + 2 = 4. Do you agree with this statement?

If i said, i believe 2 + 2 =5, Then based on the absolute truth that you know, which is 2 + 2 = 4, you are in a POSITION to say that i am absolutely WRONG.

If these mathematical truths were NOT absolutely true, then if i said, 2 + 2 = 5, then you might think it is wrong, but YOU are NOT in a position to say that i am absolutely wrong, cause you have no absolute truth to reference it to.

I read this three times.

It is proof that the line between genius and insanity is very thin.

All I can do is encourage you to post more.  Only good can come from that.