Dan56

Yes, I know, I was semi-joking about being a moderator being that I'm often considered a source of contention.. But believe it or not, I've seen no topics that I'd lock down due to disagreement.. However, I do think when a thread gets reduced to name calling or personal attacks, the offending party should get a warning to be civil.. But hey, it would be a boring place without debate, the whole concept of ULC is a collection of diversified beliefs where no one thinks alike or can agree on much.. I've participated on Christian forums where they have spirited disagreements that get pretty brutal, and the board moderators generally let it ride unless it gets verbally abusive, hacks chime-in to mock the faith, or someone is being belittled for their unpopular opinion/belief. Thank goodness that never happens here

I'd be happy to volunteer to serve as a moderator.... I'm pretty sure I could have this place shipshape in no time.

Still straining at gnats.... "there is no evidence, so we don't believe" verses "the absence of evidence causes them to reject"... No evidence is the same as absence of evidence, and not believing something is the same as rejecting it. E.g; If I believe something I accept it as being true, and if I don't believe something I reject it as being false... That's point blank, no straw man about it. That's your best intellectual response? As always, its what you resort to when losing an argument, and it says more about you than it does me. Do either of you even hear what your challenging? Your claiming that not believing something is completely different than rejecting it? If that's the case, I guess I can presume that your non-belief in God actually means that you accept God.... Doesn't get anymore illogical than that

Pretty much the same thing in my book... No evidence = absence of evidence... Your straining at gnats. Seems all you do is hurl accusations lately... I've tried to answer every question without diverting subjects... It may not be to your satisfaction, but subjects relating to faith don't have definitive answers, belief in God is not a concept you can reduce to a monkey-see monkey-do mentality. I've never solicited anyone to accept my God, I've only stated reasons why I accept it by faith... Trust me, I'm keenly aware that your incapable of accepting anything by faith, you require indisputable proof, if you can't see or hear it, you can't begin to fathom how it could possibly be true.. jmo

So Christian fundamentalist have brain damage, but Christian Orthodox are fine? That's convenient, we all believe in the same God, but only some are labeled as brain damaged. I prefer to think fundamentalist are normal and the rest of you are screwed-up Yes, Atheist and Christians have no tangible evidence to support their conclusions, but Christians do have a collection of books that make sense to us. Sometimes something just rings true and not everyone needs it to be proven. And Jesus was flesh & blood, a real person with a divine message who promised eternal life, and then he proved it was real by raising from the dead.. That's something people can wrap their heads around. But a statue of a lion headed goddess? Not so much.

I was paraphrasing the verse; "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15). To me, "rightly dividing the word' just means to understand scripture in context and in association with other portions of scripture (Isaiah 28:10). For example, reading the OT prophets can be confusing unless its understood that they are prophecies relating to Christ in the NT. Or even wrongly dividing a single verse can present a deceptive idea, for example; “There is no God". An atheist might quote a partial verse like this, but the whole verse says; "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 14:1). "Rightly dividing" means to apply one portion of scripture as it properly relates to another. There's no contradictions when we properly divide each section of scripture as it relates to others.

Absolutely, no one understands every verse, which is why we are encouraged to study and rightly divide the word of God. (2 Timothy 2:15). People develop different understandings and interpretations because they don't search the scriptures (John 5:39). Jesus said "Learn from me" (Matthew 11:39), "Learn a parable" (Matthew 24:32), and warned of the traditions of men creeping into religion (Mark 7:3-9). It also warns us not to change, add or subtract from the bible (Revelation 22:18-19), which is what many denominations do (LDS, SDA, RCC, JW, etc).

I understand that atheism is not about believe, and I understand that its the absence of evidence that causes them to reject the existence of God/gods. That was my basic point, that atheistic conclusions are not determinations grounded in evidence, which is no different than Christian conclusions not being grounded in tangible evidence.

Show me a messed-up prophecy, or a contradiction? That was my only point... But of course there are divisions in the faith, the shear number of different denominations is evidence of that, but this is due to interpretation, and not the fault of a defective bible. Consider that even the Pharisees interpreted scripture differently than Christ. And remember the 7 churches of Revelation, Christ was only satisfied with 2 of them. These were 2 different subjects.. The first being the accuracy of copies, which I trust 100% because of comparative volume.. The second was in response to your demand for the original manuscripts for comparison, which is why I wrote; "You can't prove a copy matches an original when no original exist." You just conflated the 2 in order to create a contradiction, but there was nothing deceptive about either post when taken in the context of what I was explaining.

That's evidence? Sounds like psycho-babble to me.. Claiming religious people have brain damage is preposterous. Then where's the evidence that allows atheist to conclude no God can possibly exist? Its no more of a factual determination than believing there is a God.. My point being, whether there is or isn't a God is more founded in personal belief or opinion, rather than a conclusion based on tangible evidence. That's my opinion of course.

Content is why I believe, if scribes changed everything, it wouldn't make sense..The bible was written by over 40 different authors from 3 different continents over a 1,500 year period, with no contradictions and no messed-up prophesies. This in itself is a miracle and evidence God had a hand in it. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16). God doesn't need human scribes or authors, but He chose them to spread His word.. We believe that Jesus is the living Word; "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:1&14). God steps in to do the things we can't do, not the things we won't do. And your right, building the Temple required faith, Noah built the ark by faith, etc... If God did everything, we'd have no earthly purpose..And the only trickster is the adversary, who was a liar from the beginning (John 8:44). Perhaps trusting our own evidence or reason is what makes us gullible. Sticking with His Word is our most treasured feature."God is not the author of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33)

Sorry, but your comment "I'd really like to buy a Brit" seemed like sarcasm to me, but perhaps I misinterpreted your brand of humor? Plus, the questions you submitted were very consistent with those that Atheist ask.. I guess fundamentalism and orthodoxy don't mesh. When an Atheist says; "There is no God", isn't that making a statement of fact? And what evidence is given to them to confirm there is no God? How does an Atheist know that no God exist in the absence of evidence to support that conclusion?... Despite popular opinion, I'm not being obstinate, and I do understand that atheist believe in nothing divine because they require evidence to confirm truth.. But I think in a way, that deciding something is false without the evidence to confirm its false could also be construed as a belief... Believing that God exist without the evidence to prove He exist requires faith, and believing that no God exist without the evidence to prove He doesn't exist requires? I obviously don't think like the majority here, but it seems that in regards to God, whatever we decide to believe is based on our own perception of what's true or false...evidence be damned

I never set-out to prove that, I've only submitted reasons why I think its very probable... Obviously, you can't prove a copy matches an original when no original exist.

Translation; You have no answer... I've repeatedly defined Atheist as having no belief in any gods, and you wrote; "Atheists don't conform to your beliefs about Atheism".... So no provocation was intended, I just was pointing out that you contradicted yourself (again).

Yes, I've stated repeatedly that Atheist don't believe in anything, I've even posted the definition of Atheism, so I'm aware that there is no belief of an atheist. And I agree that 'thinking' requires no faith.. But every time I submit that, Jonathan explodes saying that I have no idea what Atheist believe, so he obviously disagrees with the dictionaries definition of atheism. In regards to faith, if there is not indisputable evidence to prove God exist, and this lack of proof renders an Atheist mind to be right, then imo they have faith that they have deduced the correct answer towards something where no definitive answer can possibly exist. So the way I look at it is that an Atheist trust that their own cognitive reasoning is correct, meaning that they have faith in their conclusion, and by extension, have faith in themselves, but not anything divine. If I believe God exist, but can't substantiate it, I have faith that I'm right... If I believe God doesn't exist, but cant' substantiate it, I have faith that I'm right.. Everyone believes they are right, and faith is just an extension of belief. That was all I was trying to say.

I was making a point, not an attack... To illustrate my point, would you be a Christian if we had all the original letters and gospels that comprise the new testament? My point was that you would not likely accept the message regardless.

I don't expect Atheist to conform to anything divine, because I'm fully aware that they don't believe in any of that... And since you don't think Atheist conform to my belief about Atheism, which is that they don't believe in God/gods, then your suggesting that they do believe in God... Your a walking contradiction

Bottom line is that the original letters of the NT no longer exist, but were preserved by scribes.. A person either believes that they were capable of accurately copying those letters, or that all of the thousands of copies were all screwed-up.. You look for reasons not to believe, so I have a hunch that if just one of the thousands of copies had a period where a coma should be, you'd dismiss them all as untrustworthy. The level of proof you demand is unattainable.. I suspect your real objection isn't with the accuracy or authenticity of scripture, but rather lies in your direct opposition to what's written.. In other words, you'd reject it even if you had the originals.

It has been my only assertion that atheist believe in nothing divine (God/diety). I understand that they believe in a lot of other stuff, mostly crap imo... In regards to faith, atheist believe they are right, so they have faith in what they think.. Its not a moronic observation because they can't explain or prove anything. They accept no intelligent design or created force, and yet have no viable explanation of how anything came into existence. You believe what you can see, that things exist, but have convinced yourselves that nothing was created.. This to me is contradictory because it dismisses the obvious.

Obvious sarcasm since your no Christian and have absolutely no desire to follow any rules.. But as I wrote, all the OT ordinances and statutes you quoted (mainly from Leviticus) were given to Moses as instructions in governing the Hebrew nation, but it all ended with Christ and the New Covenant.. Nonetheless, here are a few answers to the questions you downloaded from a typical skeptics website. 1&2.... "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities" (Romans 13:1) Slavery is illegal everywhere. 3..... Blood is a clear sign a woman is in her period 5.... Christ became our Sabbath rest, so no need to kill yourself for working on Saturday. 4,7,8... As previously mentioned, Christ became our High Priest and sacrifice, so no need for you to consider these rules 9... This statue was to not have a tuft of hair like the Canaanite priests, but replicating what no longer exist makes the rule void. All your quotes were from the OT, your confusion stems from deliberately conflating the 2 testaments.

I believe the laws Christ fulfilled are no longer in effect.. All the ceremonial, sacrificial, holy days, priesthood, and temple duties, were all statutes and ordinances put in place to govern the people. But when Christ became our chief priest, daily sacrifice, etc, all those rules were no longer applicable because they were satisfied in Christ. But the basic moral laws covered in the 10 commandments remain valid under the new covenant. Jesus summed-up the first 5 under the greatest commandment, and the other 5 in the second greatest commandment (Matthew 22: 37-39). Then he said; "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. "

You obviously need an original manuscript to accept that something could be accurate, but for reasons previously stated, I don't need to see an original to accept that accurate copies were made. Accuracy can be proven by volume, because defects in any single copy would stand out by not complying with what's written in the majority of texts.. Its a process of elimination that puts a spot light on every word, whereby errors on any single copy are easily detected. Say you have 5000 copies of Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, if 16 of those 5000 copies have sentences that don't match the other 4984 copies, logic would dictate that 16 books had copyist errors, and not that all of the books were inaccurate.

Put a date on the origin of what you have faith in, and that is the age of your faith.. My faith is in Christ, who proceeded every Christian denomination.. As previously stated, I don't consider witnesses who nearly all died for their testimony, to be spotty witnesses.. As I also stated, I don't believe scribal errors are a factor since we have thousands of copies and mistakes are easily rectified when comparing each copied verse by many scribes (i.e; If 5833 copies of a verse all say the same thing and 3 copies of that same verse are different, the error is easily spotted).. And any language to language translation questions can easily be answered by using a concordance to define the Hebrew or Greek word being translated to other languages. The date a bible was published isn't relevant, I follow the message preserved in the KJV.. If I lived during an era predating the printing press, I would have likely followed the manuscripts & parchments containing the gospels & apostle letters, all of which were preserved and later published comprising the new testament. And 'no', I don't believe Catholicism predates the letters of Paul, Peter, Luke, John, etc... I'm at a loss to understand your determination to make Catholicism predate what I believe, but if your simply trying to say that they may have older books, I'll concede that they probably do have an older complete codex of the NT?

Firmamentfrom the Vulgate firmamentum, which is used as the translation of the Hebrew raki'a . This word means simply "expansion." It denotes the space or expanse like an arch appearing immediately above us. They who rendered raki'a by firmamentum regarded it as a solid body. The language of Scripture is not scientific but popular, and hence we read of the sun rising and setting, and also here the use of this particular word. It is plain that it was used to denote solidity as well as expansion. It formed a division between the waters above and the waters below ( Genesis 1:7 ). The raki'a supported the upper reservoir (Psalm 148:4). It was the support also of the heavenly bodies ( Genesis 1:14 ), and is spoken of as having "windows" and "doors" ( Genesis 7:11 ; Isaiah 24:18 ; Malachi 3:10 ) through which the rain and snow might descend. As a wise man recently wrote; "Sometimes context can alter meaning, sometimes the age the word was used in must be considered... "

My only claim is based on biblical evidence.. If Catholicism was started at Pentecost, show me in Acts where this is confirmed? I can prove my claim by the bible, the Catholics can't, and that was my only point. Remember that you wrote that the RCC was older than anything I believe, but since my faith is in the words and life of Christ, the RCC could not have proceeded him.