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.
I will repeat this as many times as it is necessary for it to sink in Mike, it does answer your qoustion fully if you would take the time to think on it.
Your changing gears here mike, first it is just what one believe and now you want to add the Holy Spirit to the equation.
But again what one believes is totally different then one encounter with God.
As Paul said some children are still in need of milk and others can eat the meat.
Now does one who can only drink milk have the same understanding of God as the one who can eat the meat? Think about it.
And does that mean then those who can only drink the milk never experienced God? again think about it.
there I highlighted it for you
I'm not going to get a straight answer out of you. You evade with the best of them. But you've wasted enough of my time with your dishonesty. And I've spent enough time on this thread.
Huh! tis all in the eye of the beholder trans. Most atheist I have talked to think the sciences has all the answers or will have.
Which brings up another bone of contention I have seen in this thread. You guys lambaste Mystic because he sees the bible as a progression of mans search for God and that search finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ.
You do this being fully aware that the bible ( OT) was written by many people over many generation and then was all put together by Ezra. The NT has the same history as the OT in that it is written by many people and put together by the RCC.
Yet if we were to take all the peoples beliefs in science, from the time man started a study on them to today, and put them in a book we would see all kinds ideas.
Those who study the sciences would tell us that those early scientist where simply ignorant of this or that and today we have a fuller understanding of the sciences.
Is it really so hard for you to see that is exactly what Mystic is saying to you?
Those who wrote the OT were simply ignorant of who God is, they like the early scientist wrote what they believed with the info they had, that as science has shown time and time again, those early scientist did not have all the data they needed to make full answer to all their inquires.
think about it trans, mankind has grown in all areas from their earlier times, yet when it comes to God you guys have a hard time understanding that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
You are making one pivotal error Pneuma my old sparring partner - humans are human and not divinely inspired (and neither is that Bible they wrote) and yet, even that is in a meaningful order. We don't get Kings, Tao Te Ching, Paul, Daniel, Bhagavad Gita Exodus, John, Revelation, tripitaka, Genesis and the other three gospels with Numbers to finish up with.
But that is apparently the best this teaching god can do. Doesn't it make more sense to you that this is stuff that humans, trying to make of a world they don't understand come up with and none of it really hangs together, let alone form any divine curriculum?
And all the atheists I have ever encountered seem to to see science as I do. It doesn't know everything, and we have to accept that it probably never will or even could know everything. But by random factors, it has found out more than anyone could ever have believed possible and PROVED a lot of it, too. It is pretty reliable, in fact and is, after all the only method that has shown itself to be so.
Divine revelation has rather shown itself (as we have seen here ) rather not able to agree on what kind of car it is or what colour it is.
If you didn't Get that reference...it's worth yet another re -post.
You wouldn't care to point to that particular claim so I could check just what I said? However, to avoid it looking like evasion, a lot of reading of Christian and Bible apologetics shows that Faith is behind their conviction, not just that their argument is the better, but they are right because they 'know' it (1). This could only mean that they believe that God is inspiring them with true knowledge. Now I can't prove that they are al or mostly doing this, but those who are, we see here in disagreement about who is right.
It's like the God -claim. When you can agree which God, get back to us. When you can agree which of you is being inspired with the true knowledge get back to me. Until then, my contention stands.
(1) That's quite aside from those who pretty much claim inspired knowledge from the outset.
I'm not going to get a straight answer out of you. You evade with the best of them. But you've wasted enough of my time with your dishonesty. And I've spent enough time on this thread.
I have given you a straight answer Mike for some reason you cannot see it.
This conversation is frustrating, yet mildly fascinating - like a movie so bad that I can't even walk out of the theater because I have this morbid fascination for seeing if it could possibly get any worse. I have this on-going "tip of the tongue" feeling - like I know the perfect words to clear this up, but for some reason those words keep hovering just out of my minds reach. ..(pardon the cut but this is the bit I want toi comment on.
Thus stocking up with crisps and beer to watch the fun while they trash each other's faith -based opinions about "God".
It is not only entertaining but does my work and the work of atheism for us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
and do you not think the scientific fields have arguments of whose hypothesis is correct or not. Why should those who have a concept of God be any different?
Because science goes on what it can validate with tests that others can check and confirm or show incorrect, and thus a solid factual basis of science is established.
Theistic disputation without anything but sulky "Well I still believe I'm right' coming out of it effectively debunks any claim to 'Know' so whatever method basis they claim to be using as evidence (and in the end it is Faith in their beliefs being correct - and that old mate means "Inspired with the truth by God") their argument validate nothing.
Now you may say that they agree on one thing - there is a god. And I have an argument about that, but it is a different claim and a different argument.
Now, you highlighted my claim that humans are niot divinely inspired.
I give the whole quote in context.
"You are making one pivotal error Pneuma my old sparring partner - humans are human and not divinely inspired (and neither is that Bible they wrote) and yet, even that is in a meaningful order. We don't get Kings, Tao Te Ching, Paul, Daniel, Bhagavad Gita Exodus, John, Revelation, tripitaka, Genesis and the other three gospels with Numbers to finish up with."
This was to validate my contention that humans even if not inspired would write a coherent time line as a teaching -basis and thus Mystic's learinng (or teaching) curve is so incoherent when compared even to the Bible, that it NOI being any teaching -curve but just what humans get up to is the far better explanation.
Now, rather than address that point (or maybe you concede it) you nit -pick about whether my claim that humans are not divinely inspired is true.
Now, I gave my reasons above and we see out posting pals roundly destroying each others' claims to "Know" as effectively as one could wish.
But in fact I rather expected not to have to argue the point with you as I though that you'd conceded that point to start off with.. Look at what you posted: Whole context
"You guys lambaste Mystic because he sees the bible as a progression of mans search for God and that search finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ.
You do this being fully aware that the bible ( OT) was written by many people over many generation and then was all put together by Ezra. The NT has the same history as the OT in that it is written by many people and put together by the RCC.
Yet if we were to take all the peoples beliefs in science, from the time man started a study on them to today, and put them in a book we would see all kinds ideas."
Now, if that didn't imply that it was all people putting their developing ideas down and gradually arguing their way to a conclusion rather than all being divinely inspired with the truth, I don't know what it does imply.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-02-2017 at 11:13 AM..
Because science goes on what it can validate with tests that others can check and confirm or show incorrect, and thus a solid factual basis i
of science is established.
Theistic disputation without anything but sulky "Well I still believe I'm right' coming out of it effectively debunks any claim to 'Know' so whatever method basis they claim to be using as evidence (and in the end it is Faith in their beliefs being correct - and that old mate means "Inspired with the truth by God") their argument validate nothing.
Now you may say that they agree on one thing - there is a god. And I have an argument about that, but it is a different claim and a different argument.
Yes but until each hypothesis is checked out fully they argue about which one is correct. What I find funny is that athiest allow for science to expand, argue over whose expansion is correct etc. but simply don't allow those who believe in God to do the same.
Was he referring to what was written in the OT? Can he help it that the Jews wrote about killing babies, raping women etc. It is not anti-semitic to point out the barbarity that is portrayed in their own writings.
....eek gad lighten up people.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 07-02-2017 at 11:09 AM..
Yes but until each hypothesis is checked out fully they argue about which one is correct. What I find funny is that athiest allow for science to expand, argue over whose expansion is correct etc. but simply don't allow those who believe in God to do the same.
double standard my friend.
Of course it isn't. It is two different systems -one valid (testing and confirmation) and the other not (claiming to be right on Faith).
Thus stocking up with crisps and beer to watch the fun while they trash each other's faith -based opinions about "God".
It is not only entertaining but does my work and the work of atheism for us.
Because science goes on what it can validate with tests that others can check and confirm or show incorrect, and thus a solid factual basis i
of science is established.
Theistic disputation without anything but sulky "Well I still believe I'm right' coming out of it effectively debunks any claim to 'Know' so whatever method basis they claim to be using as evidence (and in the end it is Faith in their beliefs being correct - and that old mate means "Inspired with the truth by God") their argument validate nothing.
Now you may say that they agree on one thing - there is a god. And I have an argument about that, but it is a different claim and a different argument.
Now, you highlighted my claim that humans are niot divinely inspired.
I give the whole quote in context.
"You are making one pivotal error Pneuma my old sparring partner - humans are human and not divinely inspired (and neither is that Bible they wrote) and yet, even that is in a meaningful order. We don't get Kings, Tao Te Ching, Paul, Daniel, Bhagavad Gita Exodus, John, Revelation, tripitaka, Genesis and the other three gospels with Numbers to finish up with."
This was to validate my contention that humans even if not inspired would write a coherent time line as a teaching -basis and thius Mystic's learing (or teaching) curve is so incoherent when compared even to the Bible, that it NOIT being a teaching -curve but just what humans get up to is the far better explanation.
Now, rather than address that point (or maybe you concede it) you nit -pick about whether my claim that humans are noit divinely inspired is true.
Now, I gave me reasoins above and we see out posting pals roundly destroying each others' claims to "Know" as effectively as one could wish.
But in fact I rather expected not to have to argue the point with you as I though that you'd conceded that point to start off with.
Look at what you posted: Whole context
"You guys lambaste Mystic because he sees the bible as a progression of mans search for God and that search finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ.
You do this being fully aware that the bible ( OT) was written by many people over many generation and then was all put together by Ezra. The NT has the same history as the OT in that it is written by many people and put together by the RCC.
Yet if we were to take all the peoples beliefs in science, from the time man started a study on them to today, and put them in a book we would see all kinds ideas."
Now, if that didn't imply that it was all people putting their developing ideas down and gradually arguing their way to a conclusion rather than all being divinely inspired with the truth, I don't know what it does imply.
It simply was to show peoples concepts of God has changed over time. but I take your point, being a christian you see everything one writes about God as being divinely inspired. Not everything is as it seems though my friend.
Of course it isn't. It is two different systems -one valid (testing and confirmation) and the other not (claiming to be right on Faith).
You have the wrong Idea of faith trans, faith is an action word that tells us to but into action what we believe. in other words prove what you believe by your actions. Love others as yourself would be a good example of faith in action. easy to say, hard to do, but humankind would be a lot better off if we that which we believe into action.
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.
) rather not able to agree on what kind of car it is or what colour it is.