ForumGarden

Fuzzy;1496030 wrote: Apparently he made us in his image. Doesn't that indicate form?


Good question.

FourPart;1495734 wrote: Why ask one non-entity if another non-entity exists?

Have you ever taken the time to ask Goldilocks to show you if the Three Bears are real?


Because if you were truly sincere in this question, I believe that God would reveal Himself to you. If He is not real, then you have nothing to lose right? If He IS real than you have everything to gain right?

xfrodobagginsx;1496032 wrote: If He is not real, then you have nothing to lose right? If He IS real than you have everything to gain right?
That's hardly a good reason to believe in something which doesn't make any sense. It's your choice if you want to be a hypocrite.

Fuzzy;1496030 wrote: Apparently he made us in his image. Doesn't that indicate form?


It also indicates Gender. What would God need of a Gender if there were only 1 God & no Goddess?

FourPart;1496058 wrote: It also indicates Gender. What would God need of a Gender if there were only 1 God & no Goddess?


1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

And what the hell has that got to do with it?

FourPart;1496113 wrote: And what the hell has that got to do with it?


Nothing really. It's just the usual bible goobledigook.:-5

FourPart;1496113 wrote: And what the hell has that got to do with it?


Easy, it says that man WAS made in the image of God, I believe it would also include gender.

Fuzzy;1496128 wrote: Nothing really. It's just the usual bible goobledigook.:-5


Wrong. See my response in the above post.

xfrodobagginsx;1496269 wrote: Wrong. See my response in the above post.


For crying out loud, your response quoting the bible is meaningless. Wake up man, you need to see the light.

Sorry, I shouldn't have said that. I know it must be too hard for you.

Carry oooooooon.

xfrodobagginsx;1496176 wrote: Easy, it says that man WAS made in the image of God, I believe it would also include gender.
That is the whole point. Gender has only one purpose. That of procreation. Male & Female. If God was a male then there had to have been a Goddess, otherwise there would have been no reason for God to be male.

I know that it says that MAN was made in God's image, which has nothing to do with what I said, though. I asked what GOD would need of a gender, not what MAN would need of a gender. You have totally avoided the question.

FourPart;1496275 wrote: That is the whole point. Gender has only one purpose. That of procreation. Male & Female. If God was a male then there had to have been a Goddess, otherwise there would have been no reason for God to be male.

I know that it says that MAN was made in God's image, which has nothing to do with what I said, though. I asked what GOD would need of a gender, not what MAN would need of a gender. You have totally avoided the question.


That's not necessarily true. But even if it is, God Created man in His own image. He also reproduces in a Spiritual way via the Holy Spirit when a person becomes a Christian.

The gender denoted masculinity. I'm not avoiding I'm answering from what limited knowledge I have. I am not God. All I can say is that God does not lie.

xfrodobagginsx;1496300 wrote: That's not necessarily true. But even if it is, God Created man in His own image. He also reproduces in a Spiritual way via the Holy Spirit when a person becomes a Christian.

The gender denoted masculinity. I'm not avoiding I'm answering from what limited knowledge I have. I am not God. All I can say is that God does not lie.


I would say that God doesn't lie, because there is no God. However, those who continue to write the stories about his imaginary existence do.

FourPart;1496327 wrote: I would say that God doesn't lie, because there is no God. However, those who continue to write the stories about his imaginary existence do.


Science proves there MUST be a God.

xfrodobagginsx;1496648 wrote: Science proves there MUST be a God.


Anyone who thinks that, must be delusional. Science is able to prove who is delusional, but you dont need to be a scientist to know that believers in god are delusional.

xfrodobagginsx;1496648 wrote: Science proves there MUST be a God.
1. In order for Science to prove anything, there must first be the evidence

Lacking

2. If there were any evidence (which there isn't) then a theory to explain that evidence would have to be formulated.

No such Evidence, ergo no such theory.

3. Experiments should be made to test the theory by making predictions & repeating the results.

You have any reference to all this having been repeated under controlled conditions?

4. Science continues to search for new evidence & to amend its initial theories, where applicable.

No evidence exists with which to form a theory. Therefore no theory exists to amend. Therefore there is still no evidence.

Science CANNOT prove the existence of a God when nothing exists to prove.

(N.B. The only thing that the existence of story book compiled of hearsay folklore counts as evidence for is that people have always told stories of fantasy & heroes. Stories which get repeated, modified & exaggerated in each telling).

I believe in the experiential reality of God. No proof needed. I know what I have experienced and resent so called scientists telling me what I experienced. They simply have no idea what I experienced. Many folks are asking what they think are more important questions; altruism, love, hate, anger, etc and these are questions science is not equipped to handle.

Would anyone who is hallucinating or is delusional be aware of it or perceive it as reality?

FourPart;1496683 wrote: 1. In order for Science to prove anything, there must first be the evidence

Lacking

2. If there were any evidence (which there isn't) then a theory to explain that evidence would have to be formulated.

No such Evidence, ergo no such theory.

3. Experiments should be made to test the theory by making predictions & repeating the results.

You have any reference to all this having been repeated under controlled conditions?

4. Science continues to search for new evidence & to amend its initial theories, where applicable.

No evidence exists with which to form a theory. Therefore no theory exists to amend. Therefore there is still no evidence.

Science CANNOT prove the existence of a God when nothing exists to prove.

(N.B. The only thing that the existence of story book compiled of hearsay folklore counts as evidence for is that people have always told stories of fantasy & heroes. Stories which get repeated, modified & exaggerated in each telling).


Which is why evolutionary theory is not science.

People experience the reality of God. I cannot speak for those who have mental issues.

[QUOTE=xfrodobagginsx;1496831]Which is why evolutionary theory is not science.[/QUOTE

1. In order for Science to prove anything, there must first be the evidence.


Darwin first saw the evidence.



2. If there were any evidence then a theory to explain that

evidence would have to be formulated.


See Origin of Species

3. Experiments should be made to test the theory by making predictions

& repeating the results.


As Natural Selection happens over millions of years it is not exactly easy to repeat the long term evolution, however, there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate the past patterns. Furthermore predictions have been made about the sort of things that would be expected to be discovered, and where, and sure enough these predictions have been proven accurate.

4. Science continues to search for new evidence & to amend its

initial theories, where applicable.


If it didn't we wouldn't be continuing to learn. We would still be stuck in Biblical times, as even then they believed everything there was to learn was already known & recorded in the Holy Story Book, and you seem happy to reap the benefits of such learning, but continue to deny its existence.

Far too many Christians continue to live in ancient times even in the 21st cent.

If Christianity were followed as the philosophy I believe it were originally intended, I would have no problem with that. The morals are fine. The lessons of humanity are fine. However, once it starts to introduce imaginary Deities things break down. History has shown that different interpretations of the Biblical teachings have led to the most obscene acts of barbarity all in the name of this loving God in the name of Peace. No matter what name you give this God, be it Jehovah, Allah, Yahweh, Hashem, Elohim - or even Fred, for that matter. It makes no difference what the name, all the different scriptures make claim to that God - the same God, regardless of name - to be the one true God, and that their path to be the one true one, and that all others are sinners & evil & to be slain.

Religion is the singlemost atrocity in history.

floppy your thoughts are just like mine. Christianity as an offshoot of Judaism was meant to be a way of life and not about right belief. There are some 22000 branches of Christianity around the world and man of them believve that they and they alone have a handle on the truth. Nonsense. I class myself as a Christian as I try to follow in the footsteps of Jesus in living my faith. I make every effort to live as I believe and do not proselytize in any way. It is a personal thing and each must take his or her own path. .

It seems to me that one branch of Christianity are operating out of fear. Thus the need security so the Bible has to be a contract signed sealed and delivered. They need this certainty because they are uncomfortable without some guarantees. The Bible has to be the actual "word of God" One wonders if they will hold God accountable if anything goes wrong. Some are so heavenly bound that they are of no earthly good.

Ted;1497168 wrote: It seems to me that one branch of Christianity are operating out of fear. Thus the need security so the Bible has to be a contract signed sealed and delivered. They need this certainty because they are uncomfortable without some guarantees. The Bible has to be the actual "word of God" One wonders if they will hold God accountable if anything goes wrong. Some are so heavenly bound that they are of no earthly good.


All of the evidence points to the Bible being God's word and that Jesus Christ really rose from the dead as according to the eyewitness accounts from the Bible, the Historians of Christ's Day, the Church writings and the other writings of Jesus's day.

Ted;1496966 wrote: Far too many Christians continue to live in ancient times even in the 21st cent.


Truth is truth no matter how old it is. God's truth stands true through out the ages.

A literal ready of the Bible presents all kinds of absurdities. The Bible must be interpreted in light of our increasing knowledge and understanding. That the sun stood still for a day while David finished his murderous rampage is ridiculous. A literal reading of the Bible is nonsense.

Ted;1497413 wrote: A literal ready of the Bible presents all kinds of absurdities. The Bible must be interpreted in light of our increasing knowledge and understanding. That the sun stood still for a day while David finished his murderous rampage is ridiculous. A literal reading of the Bible is nonsense.


Just for the sake of pedantry, that was Joshua.

Ted;1497413 wrote: A literal ready of the Bible presents all kinds of absurdities. The Bible must be interpreted in light of our increasing knowledge and understanding. That the sun stood still for a day while David finished his murderous rampage is ridiculous. A literal reading of the Bible is nonsense.


So, the sun standing still for a day is hard for you to believe, but it's not hard for you to believe that matter and energy created it's self?



The Bible is the key to knowledge and understanding. A literal reading of the Bible is Wisdom. If you really knew the Bible, you would be amazed at how it was put together by the Creator God.

For some 50+ years I have studied the Bible. Learned how to translate Hebrew and New Testament Greek. Have taken many courses at the Vancouver school of Theology and read the works of scholars so I do know the Bible and I know how it came to be. It is not the "Word of God" that rightly belongs to one the risen one. The Bible is not a history book though it contains some history. A literal reading is not supported by archaeology. It is an ancient book containing much wisdom. Read Numbers 31 and you see a god that seems to ok war crimes. Or read how Judas is supposed to die. He died two different ways. Amazing. As for your comment re energy and matter read about quantum physics. I should add here that God does speak to us through the Bible for Christians and that is why some Christians see it as such in parts.

The literal reading is about 200 years old. That is when it began in a big way. It was not thought of as that in the earliest part of Christian history. A literal reading leads into all kinds of absurdities like talking snakes and the sun standing still which in fact is rather ridiculous since the earth travels around the sun not the other way. At the crucifixion the graves of the saints were supposed to have opened and they walked about. Now that is a non starter.

Ted;1497717 wrote: For some 50+ years I have studied the Bible. Learned how to translate Hebrew and New Testament Greek. Have taken many courses at the Vancouver school of Theology and read the works of scholars so I do know the Bible and I know how it came to be. It is not the "Word of God" that rightly belongs to one the risen one. The Bible is not a history book though it contains some history. A literal reading is not supported by archaeology. It is an ancient book containing much wisdom. Read Numbers 31 and you see a god that seems to ok war crimes. Or read how Judas is supposed to die. He died two different ways. Amazing. As for your comment re energy and matter read about quantum physics. I should add here that God does speak to us through the Bible for Christians and that is why some Christians see it as such in parts.


The hundreds of fulfilled prophecies in the Bible prove it's God's word. They aren't war crimes if God commands it. It commanded it for a specific purpose to make sure that His people didn't fall into idolatry and suffer the fate of hell as those who were there at the time. They aren't two different ways of dying for Judas, they are discribing different aspects of the same event. So, what you are saying is that you have studied it all of these years and yet don't know a thing about it. I don't believe you know anything about it. The Bible is God's word and does not contradict it's self. Has there been a time in your life when you placed your faith in Jesus Christ believing in your heart that He died on the cross and rose from the dead for your sins?

xfrodobagginsx;1497691 wrote: So, the sun standing still for a day is hard for you to believe, but it's not hard for you to believe that matter and energy created it's self?



The Bible is the key to knowledge and understanding. A literal reading of the Bible is Wisdom. If you really knew the Bible, you would be amazed at how it was put together by the Creator God.


To be pedantic, the Sun DID stand still. It still does (relatively speaking). It make be news to you, but the Sun doesn't go around the Earth. It stays where it is.

FourPart;1497755 wrote: To be pedantic, the Sun DID stand still. It still does (relatively speaking). It make be news to you, but the Sun doesn't go around the Earth. It stays where it is.


Well, not really. The Sun is moving through the galaxy, but you're right. If anything "Stood Still" it was the Earth's spin on its axis. Somehow, I would have expected some serious earthquakes and such when that happened.

LarsMac;1497781 wrote: Well, not really. The Sun is moving through the galaxy, but you're right. If anything "Stood Still" it was the Earth's spin on its axis. Somehow, I would have expected some serious earthquakes and such when that happened.


That's why I said 'Relatively Speaking'. Of course, if the Earth had stood still, chances are that everything on the surface would have flown off from the inertial force by going from 200kms to full stop. That's one hell of a Brake Horse Power.

Many of the so called prophesies are written up in hindsight long after the event. Jesus is said to have been born in Bethlehem so that is how the story had top be written even though he was born in Nazareth. The war crimes issue is what it is. So God can do what he wants even to the point of murder. Numbers 31 the soldiers were told to kill everyone and the animals but the soldiers could keep the virgins for themselves That is evil and is a war crime. I do not believe in the God of love acting in this way. That is very demeaning of God. If God were like that he is simply evil. Sorry but they are contradictory concerning the death of Judas One says he hung himself and the other says he fell down and split his guts open. To make those reconcile requires a lot of creative dancing. The Bible is not God's word as such. It becomes for Christians becomes God's word because God speaks to them through the very human words in the Bible. As for Jesus crucifixion he was killed because he was in competition with Caesar> DWords applied to Caesar were God, Son of God, savior of the world, peace maker, and so on. To attribute those to Jesus put him in direct opposition to the Emperor. If Jesus is God then Caesar can't be. Sedition.

Ted;1497812 wrote: Many of the so called prophesies are written up in hindsight long after the event. Jesus is said to have been born in Bethlehem so that is how the story had top be written even though he was born in Nazareth. The war crimes issue is what it is. So God can do what he wants even to the point of murder. Numbers 31 the soldiers were told to kill everyone and the animals but the soldiers could keep the virgins for themselves That is evil and is a war crime. I do not believe in the God of love acting in this way. That is very demeaning of God. If God were like that he is simply evil. Sorry but they are contradictory concerning the death of Judas One says he hung himself and the other says he fell down and split his guts open. To make those reconcile requires a lot of creative dancing. The Bible is not God's word as such. It becomes for Christians becomes God's word because God speaks to them through the very human words in the Bible. As for Jesus crucifixion he was killed because he was in competition with Caesar> DWords applied to Caesar were God, Son of God, savior of the world, peace maker, and so on. To attribute those to Jesus put him in direct opposition to the Emperor. If Jesus is God then Caesar can't be. Sedition.


That's an interesting trick given the fact that the Old Testament Prophecies were written hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. Even Herod used the Scriptures to find Jesus and was trying to murder Him due to the fact that the prophecies predicted His birth. There isn't a shred of evidence to support your false claim, but the evidence does support the prophecies being true. Even Secular Historians of Jesus Day support the Biblical accounts of Jesus. You are going to have to tell that to God when you are judged by Him. Jesus was killed because the Jews hated Him. They didn't know the scriptures, like you and didn't believe He was who He said He was, in spite of all of the miracles that He performed in front of their disbelieving faces.

xfrodobagginsx;1497822 wrote: That's an interesting trick given the fact that the Old Testament Prophecies were written hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. Even Herod used the Scriptures to find Jesus and was trying to murder Him due to the fact that the prophecies predicted His birth. There isn't a shred of evidence to support your false claim, but the evidence does support the prophecies being true. Even Secular Historians of Jesus Day support the Biblical accounts of Jesus. You are going to have to tell that to God when you are judged by Him. Jesus was killed because the Jews hated Him. They didn't know the scriptures, like you and didn't believe He was who He said He was, in spite of all of the miracles that He performed in front of their disbelieving faces.


Does anyone really have the facts? Don't you ever listen? Believing in something written in the book of lies doesn't magically turn into fact. How delusional can a person get?

Xfrod That is simply not true. The Bible is not an accurate history book it is a religious book. Archaeology does not support the literal reading of the Bible and neither do historians.. Reading it literal leads to all kinds of absurdities. Try reading some scholarly books and articles as well as the scholarly authors: D Crossan, M. Borg, B Ehrman, J, Spong, J. Hall, and a host of others. As far as judgement goes I',, take my chances with God as I rely on Her/Him/It daily. The fundamentalist approach is both wrong and a curse. No star, no wisemen, no trip to Egypt etc. Jericho was destroyed long before Joshua was even born. No talking snake, no original sin as that concept was a curse from Augustine. Translation is still a problem. There are some 25 000 translation errors in the King James Version, Some words in the Greek New Testament have not yet been defined and we are not sure what some of them even mean. Isaiah writing about the virgin birth is in error. "A virgin shall . . ." has nothing to do with virginity it is mistranslated and should have read a young maiden. Has absolutely nothing do do with sexuality. It means a young girl. In Romans Paul was angry about pederasty and not homosexuality as we know it.

I just don't think xfrodobaggetcetc will take your word for it, Ted.

His/her mind was made up a long time ago and will stay that way until s/he finally goes to heaven.

I take the word Virgin to mean Innocent of Mind, but not necessarily of Body. If applied sexually it could even be taken to mean Faithful to a single partner, be they married or not. It certainly doesn't have to mean celibate.

Fuzzy. Right on. People look for certainty in life and so the Bible has to be a contract signed sealed and delivered. One wonders if they are going to hold God accountable. People will believe anything for security and certainty. Yet in this world there is no such thing as certainty. It is just wishful thinking. Folks should get on with life and if a believer in God then trust Her/Him/It. They don't trust and so they need that contract to make them feel better and secure.

Fuzzy;1498098 wrote: I just don't think xfrodobaggetcetc will take your word for it, Ted.

His/her mind was made up a long time ago and will stay that way until s/he finally goes to heaven.


Yeah, especially since all of the evidence supports Christianity.

Ted;1498084 wrote: Xfrod That is simply not true. The Bible is not an accurate history book it is a religious book. Archaeology does not support the literal reading of the Bible and neither do historians.. Reading it literal leads to all kinds of absurdities. Try reading some scholarly books and articles as well as the scholarly authors: D Crossan, M. Borg, B Ehrman, J, Spong, J. Hall, and a host of others. As far as judgement goes I',, take my chances with God as I rely on Her/Him/It daily. The fundamentalist approach is both wrong and a curse. No star, no wisemen, no trip to Egypt etc. Jericho was destroyed long before Joshua was even born. No talking snake, no original sin as that concept was a curse from Augustine. Translation is still a problem. There are some 25 000 translation errors in the King James Version, Some words in the Greek New Testament have not yet been defined and we are not sure what some of them even mean. Isaiah writing about the virgin birth is in error. "A virgin shall . . ." has nothing to do with virginity it is mistranslated and should have read a young maiden. Has absolutely nothing do do with sexuality. It means a young girl. In Romans Paul was angry about pederasty and not homosexuality as we know it.


Yes the Bible Is accurate and Yes Archeology supports the Bible and yes so does history. You pull these lies out and expect people to believe them. Yes there was a talking snake, were you there? God was and He knows what happened. Yes there was a star, yes there were wisemen, Jericho was destroyed by Joshua, virgin was mistranslated by the wescott and hort to be young maiden, Paul WAS clearly talking about homosexuality and there were other places that condemned it in the Bible, not just that one. You are using all liberal, unbelieving talking points which are easily debunked.

And yet evolutionists believe that nothing turned into something with no cause and rocks turned into life turned into complex living creatures by evolving even though there isn't a shred of proof.

xfrodobagginsx;1498117 wrote: And yet evolutionists believe that nothing turned into something with no cause and rocks turned into life turned into complex living creatures by evolving even though there isn't a shred of proof.
You really should look up the definition of Evolution. Evolution refers to the changing of something that already exists. As for life coming from rocks - you are getting confused with the Bible, when God supposedly made Man out of the dust of the ground. I.e turning rocks into complex living creatures.

Xfrod. You are entitled to believe as you do. But I do not accept you point of view. Read about quantum physics if you want to know about something come out of nothing. Archaeology and history do not support the historicity of the Bible. Read about Midrash. If you want some authors I can give you a list. Fundamentalism is a curse foisted on us by ignorant folks.

xfrodobagginsx;1498116 wrote: Yeah, especially since all of the evidence supports Christianity.


You keep saying that, but that doesn't make it fact. If christianity and your god were the way to go, then hundreds of other religions must be wrong. Where did your god go wrong? Why can't s/he/it convince the rest of earth's population? What will you say if it turns out that a god from a different religion condemns you for not believing in him/her?

Would you say that there wasn't enough evidence?

I don't see any of that evidence anywhere. If one thinks the Bible does it, wrong again.

FourPart;1498127 wrote: You really should look up the definition of Evolution. Evolution refers to the changing of something that already exists. As for life coming from rocks - you are getting confused with the Bible, when God supposedly made Man out of the dust of the ground. I.e turning rocks into complex living creatures.


I was referring to Darwinian evolution, which has never been proven to actually happen ever. There are different types of evolution, micro (Within the species) which creationists believe and understand is actually true, and Macro or Darwinian (One species evolving into another), which has never been proven to happen even one time, yet is taught as fact. Evolution teaches that it rained on the rocks and they formed a primordial goo which produced nucleotide s, which became living creatures, contrary to possibility and evolved into man and some how two creatures happened to have male and female sex organs, live in close proximity to each other and have a desire to mate and then were able to mate and produce off spring...on and on and on the absurdness goes...