Dan56

Taking a quote from a book as a personal insult is paranoia on overload.. The verse simply addresses the ongoing demand for physical evidence to prove the existence of God as being folly. God is spirit and is therefore spiritually discerned. I'd argue that the Agnostic mind is finite, because its limited to accepting only what it can physically sense, therefore anything existing in the spiritual realm is beyond comprehension.

Sounds like your defining a simple opinion as an attack again? But someone not agreeing with what you think doesn't constitute an attack. However, a comment like 'crap for brains' probably would.. The greater part of the first post in this thread was simply discussing how someone would need to be omniscient in order to conclude that the existence of God is not knowable (agnosticism). Right or wrong, its just an opinion and not an attack. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Hitler trying to eradicate the Jews was an evil attempt at genocide, the rest of the world trying to eliminate the Nazi's was a good attempt at genocide. To me, a person who believes in God would have their moral standards subjected to what their God teaches them is right and wrong, while an non-believer would be more objective because their morals aren't attached to any particular system of belief. If you believe in nothing, your morals are derived from your own logic and standards, they are formulated in one's own conscience and not subject to outside influences.

I think objective moral standards are generally based on societal norms of common decency. Whereas people who believe in a higher power tend to have subjective moral standards, which are influenced by a deity. The difference may only be determined by what's culturally acceptable verses what's divinely inspired. Subjective morality is dependent on what a group thinks or believes, and those who do not hold to those standards are wrong. Objective morals are more independently arrived at, and are subject to change depending on time, culture, situations, environment, or conditions. Perhaps the rest is semantics, there is a cross-over where objective and subjective morality meet, ie; we all agree that murder is evil and the golden rule is good... The two can be united by instituting some common sense. "Genocide is not good" is really dependent on why and what group of people are being wiped-out. If their only intent is harm, evil, and destruction, then genocide could be interpreted as a positive moral standard, or at least a necessary one.. jmo

That's a good point.... If God were a tyrant, He wouldn't give us a choice.

Think about it.... If you don't believe in God, there's nothing to fear.... And if you do believe in God, there's nothing to fear.

Its not a metaphor per se, but a means of how the body, soul, and spirit are destroyed.. Anything cast into the Lake of Fire is utterly destroyed. The 2nd death is permanent, nothing is left of you, one entrance & no exit. So its not metaphoric, but literally a place of complete annihilation into non-existence, not even a memory of you survives. No, I was referring to the idea that Constantine formulated, rewrote, or chose the books which make up the new testament canon. All of the books put into the canon existed long before Constantine was born, or the time the Council of Nicea convened in 325 AD.

Its inaccurate historical propaganda.. No, Constantine, a fourth century emperor, wasn't born soon enough to have any impact on the writing of the New Testament. The New Testament was written during the first century. The Council of Nicea didn't create or construct a New Testament, but reaffirmed the books that for centuries had already been acknowledged as authoritative by Christians.

To the contrary, the verses you cited solidify my position; being thrown into the Lake of Fire is being permanently assigned to the 'realm of the dead' and is , 'the second death'.

Again, the accusation that; "Atheist don't believe in any gods and Agnostics don't believe the existence of God can be known" misrepresents the truth is utter nonsense. If you have a more accurate definition, I'd like to hear it?

As I previously mentioned, I don't believe the Lake of Fire (hell) is eternal torment, but rather a permanent end of life. The bad rap of hell being some kind of eternal torture chamber comes from radical/wrong biblical interpretations and from literature like Dante's Inferno. And since Atheist don't believe in an afterlife anyway, the belief that life ends when you die shouldn't seem like terrorism? Your now describing the experience, not the complication of being Agnostic or an Atheist. I agree that historically speaking, it could be a complicated position to profess a minority belief that goes against the mainstream consensus. But my previous point was that the definition of an Agnostic or Atheist isn't complicated, not that the repercussions of being one or the other has never been difficult. Point of fact, what Christians believed in the beginning made life very complicated and difficult for them too.

Its fine with me if you think piercing a mans hands and feet have nothing to do with crucifixion. If you honestly think it was referring to some other recreational activity, I can't argue with that. And my point wasn't that gambling was thousands of years old, but that a prophecy predicted a specific act where the tormentors of Christ gambled for his cloak.. But I understand that non-believers chalk it off as just one heck of a coincidence, and then continue to ask for evidence? Atheist don't believe in any gods and Agnostics don't believe the existence of God can be known.. There's nothing belittling or complicated about it.. If you think I'm wrong, correct me by stating what you think each of those groups actually believe in regards to God/gods. You guys act insulted, but have no rebuttal, and that silence is confirmation that my definition is correct. Christianity promotes the belief and promise of everlasting life, where no pain or sorrow exist. How you misconstrue that faith into terrorist propaganda is beyond me? And Constantine was a Roman Emperor who wasn't mentioned in the bible. Christians believe in the teachings and life of Christ, not religious leaders or dictators who only seek to empower themselves.

Again, I didn't state that Rabbis can't explain Psalm 22, I said they can't interpret it like Christians without recognizing Christ.. Nothing wrong with me, it just requires more than one dimensional thinking to understand what I've been writing about. For a believer, a risen Christ is objective proof, and a non-existent Christ does explain his divinity, it was his greatest miracle.. And yes, I've gotten it right, Atheist don't believe God exist and Agnostics don't know if God exist.. Absolutely nothing complicated about that at all.

And you must be blind to what's written? "They pierced my hands and my feet" is very specific, its what's done to a person being crucified.. Your attempting to explain away the obvious.. And "casting lots" is gambling, similar to throwing dice for his cloths.. Read Isaiah 53 and tell me who that chapter is describing? Don't know what that means, but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to know Atheist believe in no gods and Agnostics think nothing is known or can be known about the existence of God.. Why do you think that's so hard to comprehend? Your comment doesn't argue the fact, but if you think I'm wrong, please explain what divine Beings Atheist and Agnostics accept as gods.

I didn't say that at all.... My point was that they can't interpret Psalm 22 as a prophecy of Christ without nullifying their own belief. Without a birth certificate, there would be no proof that you ever existed a couple thousand years from now. Many people acknowledged Christ existed, but there are no government records from that era listing every citizen. What's to understand about Atheism? They don't believe in anything (no gods).. And Agnostics are just clueless, they don't know and don't care. Nothing difficult to understand about people who believe in nothing divine.

I'm aware of the Jewish rendition of the Psalm, it doesn't disappoint me because they obviously need to interpret it differently, otherwise it legitimizes a Messiah that they reject. The Roman's didn't bribe Judas, "Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders" (Matthew 27:3). Thousands came to hear Christ, "And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand" (John 6:10).. Crowds came to hear him nearly everywhere he went, so its your assertion that's wrong. And there's no proof that any peasant from Nazareth existed a couple thousand years ago, they didn't keep or preserve records like that. However, the historian Flavius Josephus in his work 'Antiquities of the Jews' mentioned Christ, along with several others. http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Divin/D-0201.htm So again, its your assertion that's wrong.. Many Atheist and Agnostics believe Jesus existed, so I suspect your in the minority even among them?

There's plenty of evidence, you just prefer to discount it as fallacious. Numerous eyewitness accounts of those who knew and witnessed Christ. If you were a juror and heard 4 witnesses who all testified the same thing, you'd likely believe them. You can't "get" someone to believe, its a personal choice. But if the apostle accounts in the new testament were all lies, what possibly could have been their motivation, since nearly all of them were executed for their testimony. People who make up stories would quickly recant when faced with the alternative of a horrible death. Christ was a man witnessed by many, the Greek gods weren't.. Keep in mind that the Pharisee's were aware of Jesus prophecy that he'd rise from the grave after 3 days, and they went through great pains to make sure that didn't happen by insisting Pilate guard his tomb. As I've said before; the graves of Buddhist, Confucius, and Muhammad are occupied, while the tomb of Jesus is empty.. That's no freak coincidence? The Pharisee's could have explained it away by presenting a body, so why didn't they?

Psalm 22 is very specific in describing a crucifixion, which didn't even exist 1000 years prior when David wrote it; "they pierced my hands and my feet" (verse 16). Also consider Psalm 22:18; "They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture" compared to Mark 15:24; "And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take." The Psalm not only describes a form of execution that didn't exist at the time it was written, but also accurately articulates the action of the Roman soldiers who gambled for his cloths... How specific is that?

No ones provoking you, so don't be paranoid.. And I'm fully aware that you don't care what I believe.. I don't see your point of view because you have none, you believe in nothing, nor do you care.. I don't say that to antagonize anyone, its just sad to me to see others going through life with no hope This is generally how a debate ends with Atheist... They can't argue the bible, so they claim none of it happened. You really can't prove anything that happened thousands of years ago, that's why I've always said its a matter of choice, on whether a person believes it or not. I believe it and you guys don't, that's all there is to it.

Superman = Metropolis, Batman = Gotham, the characters were as fake as the non-existing cities.. My point was that the stone found in Caesarea that bore the name of Pontius Pilate is evidence that Pilate was not some imaginary character created for a story. He was a real government official that presided over the province during the time of Christ. Archaeological evidence is just a small portion of what makes me a believer. Fulfilled prophecy is something no non-believer can sufficiently argue against. As I've often quoted Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, where the crucifixion was foretold in detail a thousand years before it happened. There's no explaining that away as coincidence. Quagmire may have been the wrong term, because you need to care about something in order to be in a quagmire. My only point was that I've accepted answers that I find sufficient, and this gives me hope and comfort about the future, while you remain content knowing nothing. I can't fathom how that could possibly provide a person with any comfort, let alone hope? Speaking for myself, I could never be happy living in ignorance, and I've always suspected that everyone has a natural curiosity to explore the unknown in search of answers, but perhaps I'm wrong about that, its obvious that not everyone cares.

I reckon it leaves you in a quagmire, while leaving me comforted by something that gives me hope.. While we can't possibly comprehend the depths of God, we can certainly understand what He's chosen to reveal to us.. If God's existence doesn't matter, neither does ours.. That's how I look at it, God created us for His pleasure (Revelation 4:11). You wrote; "Since you can't prove Pilate said or did that I call it mythology". Pilate like Lincoln, worked for government, neither did anything divine or magical, yet you believe one and not the other.. I guess we each believe what rings true to us, we form opinions, reach different conclusions, and discern what's true or false from the information available to us. As I've stated before, all the archaeological evidence substantiates bible stories, all the cities and places were not fabricated lies.. In 1961 archaeologists even found a stone in Caesarea that bore the name of Pontius Pilate, the fifth governor of Judaea.. So this lends credibility that the gospel writers were not creating mythical characters or places.

God isn't a definition... Nonetheless, I don't need to define God, Christ was the living manifestation of God, and that's my only truth. I can't prove Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address either, but I'm guessing you believe he said it.. One man's truth is another man's mythology.

There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. We have so many copies of the New Testament that there is no doubt about what they say on any Christian doctrine. While many copies have textual copyist errors, all of the manuscripts have basically the same words, with a difference of only 2.6%, most of which don't alter the context of what's being said. Many text variations are due to Alexandrian vs.Byzantine issues. Copies of the Bible dating to the 14th century A.D. are nearly identical in content to copies from the 3rd century A.D.. The sheer volume of biblical manuscripts makes it simple to recognize any attempts to distort God’s Word. There is no major doctrine of the bible that is put in doubt as a result of the minor differences that exist between manuscripts. I favor the KJV because its easily checked with a good Greek to English and Hebrew to English concordance. And "Yes", I really believe the stories make sense when they're studied and understood. My point was that Atheist believe no God exist, but they have no evidence to prove it. That doesn't misrepresent anything, it just puts you in the same boat as Christian apologetics. You have nothing more than a theory you can't prove or substantiate. Not recognizing something that I see as truthful is not a matter of assigning blame towards those who see it differently.. I reject the Koran because I don't believe it, not because I don't grasp its message. Its not a matter of intellect, its about accepting something we find believable or rejecting it because we find it unbelievable. Jesus said, "I am the Truth" (John 14:6), Pilate (an intelligent educated man) asked Jesus, "What is truth" (John 18:38). The Truth was standing right in front of him and he didn't recognize it. This wasn't a failure of Christ (God) to communicate, but a reluctance of Pilate to consider it. Billions of people have understood the simple words of Christ because his message isn't complicated, so I don't see the logic in blaming God for a failure to communicate.

I never said I saw it, my point was simply that the story was preserved and relayed to us. Some accept and believe it, while other ignore and reject it.. As I mentioned, for me the Truth is in the message. One thing that also establishes a truth is the testimony of those who witnessed it, but of course, if you choose to disregard all of that, it would be meaningless. As Jonathan stated; Its not about arguing over evidence, but rather recognizing a truth and accepting it by faith.. If something makes sense and answers my questions satisfactorily, I have no trouble accepting it as factual. Imo, "Apologetics" would be a more applicable term for those trying to disprove God, because they have no evidence, just theory.

God could convince us? You mean like if He actually appeared here as a man, performed miracles and rose from the dead.. If that didn't persuade people, what would? God doesn't care? Consider that He was beaten and hung on a cross for our sake's (remission of our sins). What more could demonstrate that God cares? Perhaps its not so much about convincing, as it is about recognizing the truth... The truth is in the message.