Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hi Nonsense. Yes, I do respect you for having read the entire Bible. I do think that indicates an openness and a genuine effort to evaluate. I'm currently in the process of reading the whole Bible for the first time.
I am aware of my responsibility to spread the "truth" of the Gospel, and I am happy to do that with anyone who is genuinely interested in an answer. The verse in Matthew that you quoted earlier does say what you're claiming, but it doesn't tell the whole story. There are occasions when doing that is not required of me. The verse I would quote to address your question would be construed as an insult if I quoted it, so I'll just tell you what verse it is (Matthew 7:6). This verse indicates that there's no obligation to spread the truth to those who mock or ridicule.
Even your comment was not absent unnecessarily insults, but I forgive you.
I'm not sure why you see this forum as the place to 'test out my conclusions'. I've already come to my conclusions. That was the whole point of my search for truth. Why would I need to test them out on this forum? Do you think there are arguments I haven't encountered before?
I'm not averse to answering any questions, as long as we can go about it with civility and without insults. (I'm not assuming you're incapable of that.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
I am aware of my responsibility to spread the "truth" of the Gospel, and I am happy to do that with anyone who is genuinely interested in an answer. The verse in Matthew that you quoted earlier does say what you're claiming, but it doesn't tell the whole story. There are occasions when doing that is not required of me. The verse I would quote to address your question would be construed as an insult if I quoted it, so I'll just tell you what verse it is (Matthew 7:6). This verse indicates that there's no obligation to spread the truth to those who mock or ridicule.
Not "casting your pearls before the swine" makes perfect sense I suppose... if one happens to be perfectly aware that the "swine" is very likely to destroy them utterly. As far as making an effective defence for the claim that a corpse returned to life and flew away however... I am afraid that protecting the family jewels at all costs by refusing to expose them to being tarnished is not a particularly effective way to promote their intrinsic worth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
Even your comment was not absent unnecessarily insults, but I forgive you.
Which I suppose brings us back to the subject of the corpse that returned to life and flew away. The believer approved vernacular prefers the terms "resurrected, or "raised from the dead," and "ascended to heaven," of course. Non believers studiously refuse to follow the believer approved rules of doctrinal etiquette. But then, that's why we are non believers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
I'm not sure why you see this forum as the place to 'test out my conclusions'. I've already come to my conclusions. That was the whole point of my search for truth. Why would I need to test them out on this forum? Do you think there are arguments I haven't encountered before?
In other words, "your mind is made up and no one should attempt to confuse you with the facts, reason or logic." Because you are not here to engage in a discussion of the facts, reason or logic. You are here to preach. If only those darned non believers would just remain quiet long enough. But you see, this is not Sunday service, and we have all heard the sermon many times before.
And, yes, I suspect that there ARE arguments that you haven't encountered before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
I'm not averse to answering any questions, as long as we can go about it with civility and without insults. (I'm not assuming you're incapable of that.)
I am 70 years old. I don't know your age, but there is a good chance that I was attending Sunday school classes before your parents were born. What questions do you suppose you might answer which I have not long ago considered?
You earlier indicated that you have "evidences." I asked you to provide them. A reasonable enough request based on your claim it seems to me. But I suspect that every non believer here is already perfectly well acquainted with what your "evidences," would prove to be if you had the wherewithal to share them with us. I am sure the other non believers are as breathlessly waiting to subject your "evidences" to an open examination of them by employing the insidious tactic of subjecting them to fact, reason and logic as I am. Which is your motivation for keeping them to yourself, apparently. Fact, reason and logic are not really compatible with the profound gullibility and unquestioned faith that are necessary to maintain your belief system.
And because your belief system requires you to maintain a certain level of profound gullibility and unquestioned faith you suspect that your ability to protect your "pearls" from being tarnished by the light of an open examination of them may well prove to be ineffective.
Good call. But not likely to convince anyone of anything. If you are so worried that your argument is not convincing, if your claims are so likely to be decimated by an open examination of them that you are reluctant to openly present them, it may be pertinent to ask yourself just why that is.
Was I being "unnecessarily rude" again? How do you suggest that someone should say exactly what they mean, without being allowed to say exactly what they mean? And just why do you feel that it is your right to dictate the tenor of the discussion? If you consider the act of being contradicted to be insulting and uncivil, that is your misinterpretation of the way things are supposed to be, not mine.
Is this the same god watching his employees (priest) sexing up children?
Just want to be on the same page as you Oz.
Since you call yourself The Last Amalekite. Did you know that it was the Amalekites who attacked the weakest among the Israelites on their way to the promised land, to seek to rob them of the blessing of Abraham.
I consider those so called priest's that you mention to walk in the same spirit as an Amalekite, because they do the same thing as the Amalekite, going after the weak and seeking to destroy and rob the soul of a child.
So, tell me, do you think God's judgement on the Amalekites was good and righteous or evil.
....
In other words, "your mind is made up and no one should attempt to confuse you with the facts, reason or logic." Because you are not here to engage in a discussion of the facts, reason or logic. You are here to preach. ..)
You put you finger on it. This is what is becoming increasingly clear. Discussion is not wanted - just preaching without being called on it. It's quite an old ploy which we call the "Not arguing-just telling" gambit. It didn't work here on the forum 10 years ago and it won't wash now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chief scum
Since you call yourself The Last Amalekite. Did you know that it was the Amalekites who attacked the weakest among the Israelites on their way to the promised land, to seek to rob them of the blessing of Abraham.
I consider those so called priest's that you mention to walk in the same spirit as an Amalekite, because they do the same thing as the Amalekite, going after the weak and seeking to destroy and rob the soul of a child.
So, tell me, do you think God's judgement on the Amalekites was good and righteous or evil.
Since you call yourself The Last Amalekite. Did you know that it was the Amalekites who attacked the weakest among the Israelites on their way to the promised land, to seek to rob them of the blessing of Abraham.
I consider those so called priest's that you mention to walk in the same spirit as an Amalekite, because they do the same thing as the Amalekite, going after the weak and seeking to destroy and rob the soul of a child.
So, tell me, do you think God's judgement on the Amalekites was good and righteous or evil.
It’s a made up story Scum to show the baby killing monster you worship
it was a mob hit for what the Amalekite ancestors did in the past. Not what they were doing at that time of the kill order form god (aka jesus).
The Lord Rejects Saul as King
15 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: â€I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
Why did jesus (aka god) kill them off when they actually were doing bad stuff?
Those are your people. Even though you label them Christian.
Many organized religions have been corrupted by atheism and agnosticism, and many priests are atheist or agnostic (in case you didn't know). So the atheists and agnostics would need to explain what was happening, since that is what has infected the church.
Yet the word of God endures and condemns them. WAKE UP
Oh...there he goes again...Ozzy deciding who the real christians are. Who gave you that authority Ozzy?
This is the only reason that the Bible has endured for so long. It contains truth that anyone can understand at any age. A person doesn't have to be an intellectual to understand it. In fact, it is a stumbling block to the proud and to intellectuals.
What do you think? If this reason is wrong and it does not contain the truth, then why has it endured for so long? Why is it the greatest selling book of all time?
(The responses will be revealing.)
One book has to be the greatest selling book of all time.
Hi Ozzy. When I first began researching the claims of Christianity I was quite surprised by how much supporting evidence actually exists! Much more than I'd assumed there would be. I've heard Christianity being called an 'evidentiary faith' and I'm glad that's the case because I don't think I would have been able to have faith without any evidence.
As an agnostic, seeking answers, I was really aiming for the clearest view of reality. Whatever worldview I ended up with, I wanted to have inner confidence because I know what I believe and the reasons why. That meant I had to be as objective as possible and not rule anything out until I determined there was sufficient reason.
It would be an interesting experiment to do a deep-dive investigation of Christianity from the perspective of someone with no prior knowledge of it. Warner Wallace (former cold-case detective) has some great content that deals with evidence-based reasons to belief Christianity. He's a former atheist who used a methodical approach when he 'investigated' the claims of Christianity.
Here's a 2 min. video of Wallace giving a brief explanation of his approach [01:51]:
"Why A Proper Understanding of Objective Truth Is Important To Christian Belief"
Have you made your own concerted effort to find truth?
I have. From writing my own plagiarism detection software that refutes the 'eyewitness' argument, to reading the NT in it's original Greek (it is for you not good), to reading what the early Christians themselves had to say (also for you not good).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
If your request is sincere, here's a video that might be a good next step...
A Wallet, A Dollar, the Existence of God - Pt.1 [06:30 min.]
Do YOU have any arguments? Not some cherry picked Youtube video, actual rational arguments based on what none Christian historians have written. After all, we saw our your protein video failed on five or six accounts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Was I being "unnecessarily rude" again? How do you suggest that someone should say exactly what they mean, without being allowed to say exactly what they mean? And just why do you feel that it is your right to dictate the tenor of the discussion? If you consider the act of being contradicted to be insulting and uncivil, that is your misinterpretation of the way things are supposed to be, not mine. 
I may be wrong but I got the impression that the two of you are on the same Bible-doubting page.
