Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/1/07 03:30 PM, Ryuunosuke wrote: Don't think i am singling you out, i don't care for anyone makes a joke such as the person you responded to, or any one who makes a snide remark back because it is a sign of imaturity.

and what exactly are you achieving by pointing out people's imaturity? having fun attempting to assert your intellectual superiority?

Guys come on. Let's stop. I'm sorry I made that joke, can we just stop, please?

At 7/1/07 03:32 PM, Drakim wrote:

Sause

Wow, I never thought you would become this stupid.

Almost any one of those is easily refutable if you just... wait for it... read it in context of the verse or chapter.

That's like me splicing out words in a sentence and saying that this is a contradiction: "...sunrise..." "...sunset..."

Haha, then again, you've proven your stupidity long before now.

At 7/1/07 03:43 PM, Everlasting-Elements wrote: Guys come on. Let's stop. I'm sorry I made that joke, can we just stop, please?

to be fair, it wasn't the joke, more what was said before but that could be resolved with a little studying. after all science doesn't contradict religion but ignorance about science and blind faith lead to things such as creationism in which religion pretends to be science, that is where there is conflict.

At 7/1/07 02:31 PM, Everlasting-Elements wrote: Well the thing I don't like about science is all the time in my science class, my teacher would sit there and that creation is NOT the way, and things like this. He said you have no proof of it being true. So then I asked him about the Evolution Theory and he said that it's a theory because it's passed test to make it a theory, but we are NOT sure if that is the definate way we were made, or something like that.

I doubt your teacher actually said that, or at lest the way your making it sound. A teacher can't attack or even question a students religion, by law they can't even bring it up; However if he said creationism isn't science then he's correct. Creationism doesn't pass the test for being science, it has no evidence, nor any usable model or correct model. Any attempts to understand geology through the bible have failed, quite miserably. A big portion of it comes down to Noah's flood; everything we see in geology points away from a massive global flood. Of course you also have the fact that every law in physics would be violated, but that's another argument, I suppose.

See, I don't like science, because they claim things, that ARE possible, but half the time, they don't have enough proof to say YES.

Proof is a mathematical and philosophical term, it doesn't exist in science. What we have is evidence, and theory. Our theories grow and change to incorporate new evidence and information, and sometimes they are completely rewritten. We change our theories because nothing is ever known completely, there's always something new lurking beyond the horizon. Nothing, and I do quite literally mean nothing is ever known to 100% certainty; even our own existence.

I just hate that they sit and say GOD is a NO, because of Adam and Eve making us, when they did not, so I think maybe I'm not educated enough on Science, and some of you are not educated enough on religion.

Personally I know a great deal about your religion, and many others as well. That's one of the reason I don't believe in it. I also know that science doesn't say there is no god, a scientist may, personally say such things, but science it self is agnostic.

He always said that there would be too much imbreeding, but if you read the bible, like I've said, they only had two kids. Maybe 3, I can't exactly remember.... But one of them was killed, Canaan maybe? And the killing brother was banished, and he was telling God how the others would kill him without the protection from the garden. His parent couldn't kill him if he was in the garden, so...yeah. Obvious that Adam and Eve did NOT create us.

First off if that's true, then when did god create the others? There is no mention of when or where in Genesis. Second off Adam and eve had more then two kids, they also had twin girls before Cain killed Able, who where to be their brides.

Even if Adam and Eve are not our ancestors, which brings forth it's own questions, like why are we suffering for there sin then? But I digress, how do you explain what happened post Noah's ark? There where only four families on the ark, Noah and his three sons.

I have trouble believing scientist because they don't fully know GOD, but maybe you guys have trouble believing me, because I don't science.

Knowing God has nothing to do with science. Whether god exist or not, truly is irrelevant for the sake of discovery. Unless god choses other wise it can't be observed or interacted with. Evidence of it's existence dose not it self exist. Therefor from the stand point of science it must not exist with in the confines of what is being observed, namely the universe.

The reason I and other have trouble believing you is because many, if not all of us have heard these arguments before. We've seen said argument refuted countless times, and yet people still bring them to the argument. Many are obviously wrong to any one who has even cursory information about sciences and logic. We have trouble believing you because everything we've seen in the world suggest that your wrong. Remember science is not about belief.

Just an idea guys? Maybe this was stupid to post, I just wanted to get a voice out about something I was thinking about last night.

No post is stupid if your willing to listen to the other's response.

At 7/1/07 03:10 PM, Ryuunosuke wrote:

At 7/1/07 02:11 PM, Drakim wrote:

Can you prove that God is beyond us anymore than birds or politics are? Can you prove that we don't just lack knowledge today about the subject, just like going into outer space was beyond us some thousand years ago?

I am not the right person to ask this question becuase i do not know how to prove it becuase i am not a religious expert.

Then why are you in this argument? If your unable or unwilling to do the research to find answers, why bother responding at all?

Ask a pastor or a minister or someone like that for proof.

I'm sure darkim has, as have I, on many occasions. The best answer I've ever heard was, “there is no proof, just faith”. Unfortunately faith isn't good enough for me, or many others.

I do know that you can not begin to understand god if you dont believe in him and trust in your own understanding.

That doesn't make sense. If I need to believe in god to understand god, then it stands to reason that god doesn't exist. If I have to believe in something to see it, then it seems far more likely that the event is caused by activity in the temporal lobe regions of the brain. In effect a believer whats to believe so badly they, force their minds to see, and feel something that isn't there. It's a very well documented physiological form of trauma.

Can you understand a scientific theory if you dont believe in it? You cant. It is like that with God and religion.

Yes, you can actually. Understanding a scientific theory amounts to being able to understand the math and logic behind it. This can easily be done with out believing in the theory. In fact to believe in the theory before you understand it is detrimental to understanding, as it can cause positive bias towards the theory before it's merits are considered. I would also argue that one dose not believe in a scientific theory but merely accept the postponement of evidence for it.

At 7/1/07 03:45 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/1/07 03:32 PM, Drakim wrote:

Sause

Wow, I never thought you would become this stupid.

Almost any one of those is easily refutable if you just... wait for it... read it in context of the verse or chapter.

That's like me splicing out words in a sentence and saying that this is a contradiction: "...sunrise..." "...sunset..."

Haha, then again, you've proven your stupidity long before now.

Not at all. More like "God has no anger" and "God's anger burned them away". In which it goes directly against it self. Not just contradicting words.

I'm not trying to say that the Bible is teh evil and wrong no matter what. This guy claimed it was freaking PERFECT and contained NO CONTRACTIONS.

At 7/1/07 03:32 PM, Drakim wrote: "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Do you really think that this is moraly? To force the raped victim to marry the rapist? And her dad gets money for it?

One, that is old testament. You can not compare todays morals with the morals of people in the past. And two, it was way back.... they had different views for punishment back then. Three, as for the money, its a punishment for the raper.

The bible does not speak against slavery. It does not speak for equal rights among men and women. It tells you to kill people who work on sundays and other simple stuff.

Your right, it does not directly speak against slavery or any of that. But, look at one the bible passages "Love your neighbor as yourself" Matthew 22: 29. Is enslaving someone loving your neighbor? Is discriminating based off of gender, or anything for that matter, loving your neighbor?

I don't need to. The Bible is a book. Anybody can write books. I could write a book right now that you wouldn't be able to disprove. That does not prove my book true though.

But it doesn't prove it false either. According to what you said, any book, including the bible, can't be proven true, but according to what you said, it can't be disproven either.

It is so full of contractions that only somebody who does not want to see them can avoid seeing them.

:: 1. God is satisfied with his works

Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6

If you wrote a book lets say, about a guy named Bob. Lets say Bob is an artist. It it possible for him to like some of his works and dislike others? Or lets say you had a dog. Lets say it was real friendly and you loved it. If it attacked you, would you still like it?

2. God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48

Old and new testament. He used to dwell in temples, but now he doesn't. Its part of the story. It it not possible to chose to dwell elsewhere?

3. God dwells in light
Tim 6:16
God dwells in darkness
1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2

God dwells everywhere.

4. God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16

Let me tell you something (because im reaching my word limmit so i cant respond to all of these) Passages such as these are open for interpretation and that is where these so called contradictions come, from literal interpretaions and single-mindedness. God created everything EVERYTHING. Assuming humanity has determined this to be a 100% truth, is it not possible for us to see or hear him through his creations ( becuase everything is in the image of God if he created it), but not to be able to see or hear him HIMSELF physically?

6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things
Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21
God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all
things
Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8

I looked these up and in those verses you named and in not a single one of them did it say "God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all things" So, either you are implying this or stringing it together from those three verses. If it is the later case, then you are misquoting the bible and that is not a valid contradiction. If you are merely implying this, it goes back to the fact that the bible, and all books for that matter, are open to interpretation. This also goes for your "contradictions" 7-20 and 22-23

21. Because of man's wickedness God destroys him
Gen 6:5,7
Because of man's wickedness God will not destroy him
Gen 8:21

Yes, God did destroy man becuase of their wickedness, but then decided not to ever again after he did it the first time.

Another point, the bible isn't wrong, but human translations are. There are many different versions of the bible with many different wordings. It is possible some of the passages you believe to show contradiction are not worded as they should be because of the translation process.

At 7/1/07 04:11 PM, Ryuunosuke wrote: One, that is old testament. You can not compare todays morals with the morals of people in the past. And two, it was way back.... they had different views for punishment back then. Three, as for the money, its a punishment for the raper.

so morals change? but i thought morality was supposed to be definite and unchangeable and religion is what brought us and upholds these morals.

At 7/1/07 04:06 PM, Drakim wrote:

I'm not trying to say that the Bible is teh evil and wrong no matter what. This guy claimed it was freaking PERFECT and contained NO CONTRACTIONS.

You are right about that guy. And you are right about the bible not being perfect, but that stems from the translation process as it was translated from whatever language it was origionally written in in to English. There is lots of room for mistranslations that would change the meaning of certain passages.

At 7/1/07 04:19 PM, SolInvictus wrote: so morals change? but i thought morality was supposed to be definite and unchangeable and religion is what brought us and upholds these morals.

Morals change over time and with experiences and places. Here is a single example. Would a canable have the same morals as someone who is not a canable? Also, religion gives us a guildeline for out morals. Each and every person will have different morals.

At 7/1/07 04:11 PM, Ryuunosuke wrote: One, that is old testament. You can not compare todays morals with the morals of people in the past. And two, it was way back.... they had different views for punishment back then. Three, as for the money, its a punishment for the raper.

Ryuunosuke, answer me this. Since the dawn of mankind, in any cultures or societies, has forcing the raped to marry the rapist ever been moral?. If so, I never want anything to do with this God of yours. He sounds like the nasty.

Another point, the bible isn't wrong, but human translations are.

You said the Bible was perfect. You said is contained no contradictions. You did NEVER say that it was perfect "when it was first written, but today it is highly flawed because of human translations."

And you know what? So what if it was perfect before. People are using TODAYS Bible for moral guidelines.

At 7/1/07 04:06 PM, Drakim wrote:

I'm not trying to say that the Bible is teh evil and wrong no matter what. This guy claimed it was freaking PERFECT and contained NO CONTRACTIONS.

Because it doesn't. The problem is that there are idiots like you out there who believe there are by taking small parts of verses out of the book and putting them next to each other without taking the words in context of the chapter or book.

Way to go, smart one.

At 7/1/07 03:43 PM, Everlasting-Elements wrote: Guys come on. Let's stop. I'm sorry I made that joke, can we just stop, please?

It's a religious debate; continuing it isn't harassing you- it's just part of the debating process. :D

At 7/1/07 04:37 PM, Memorize wrote: Because it doesn't. The problem is that there are idiots like you out there who believe there are by taking small parts of verses out of the book and putting them next to each other without taking the words in context of the chapter or book.

Way to go, smart one.

And yet religious conservatives take passages in the bible out of context to justify their irrational predjudices against gays, etc.

At 7/1/07 04:37 PM, Memorize wrote: Because it doesn't. The problem is that there are idiots like you out there who believe there are by taking small parts of verses out of the book and putting them next to each other without taking the words in context of the chapter or book.

Way to go, smart one.

This is so typical of you Mez. I don't see why you need to be here, we could just replace you with a bot.

1. UserA makes a claim.
2. Mez says the claim is wrong and throws in an insult.
3. UserA shows that Mez isn't correct.
4. Mez attacks UserA and disregards that he was proven wrong.

The Bible does infact contain contradictions. Face it. All holy books does. The Quran is full of contradictions too. Anybody can read and see this.

At 7/1/07 04:01 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

I doubt your teacher actually said that, or at lest the way your making it sound. A teacher can't attack or even question a students religion, by law they can't even bring it up; However if he said creationism isn't science then he's correct. Creationism doesn't pass the test for being science, it has no evidence, nor any usable model or correct model. Any attempts to understand geology through the bible have failed, quite miserably. A big portion of it comes down to Noah's flood; everything we see in geology points away from a massive global flood. Of course you also have the fact that every law in physics would be violated, but that's another argument, I suppose.

My teacher DID say this! In America, law ain't shit. I know creation doesn't pass the test that
science has. That's why many scientist, DON'T believe it. I don't see why science messes with religion, they should just let it go. Noah's ark could have been from the ice age thing! I'm just trying to format them together now. The ice melted, and the water overflowed! I want to post this story I read. It's not true, but it has a good point ^^

Proof is a mathematical and philosophical term, it doesn't exist in science. What we have is evidence, and theory. Our theories grow and change to incorporate new evidence and information, and sometimes they are completely rewritten. We change our theories because nothing is ever known completely, there's always something new lurking beyond the horizon. Nothing, and I do quite literally mean nothing is ever known to 100% certainty; even our own existence.

Then maybe science doesn't exist? Just kidding ^^. We have evidence in a bible. The bible is a theory to some. To some it's a fact, and others it's a false fact. Can you tell me how we may not exist though?

Personally I know a great deal about your religion, and many others as well. That's one of the reason I don't believe in it. I also know that science doesn't say there is no god, a scientist may, personally say such things, but science it self is agnostic.

I don't have a relgion, sorry. I read, and go my days by how they develop. I believe in God, and Jesus, but I'm still a non denominational person ^^. Okay, I see your point.

First off if that's true, then when did god create the others? There is no mention of when or where in Genesis. Second off Adam and eve had more then two kids, they also had twin girls before Cain killed Able, who where to be their brides.

Read the bible man. It says that there are other people! Adam and Eve can't fuck that much XD. I did not see the part of the twins, so maybe it's a different version of the bible? Honestly, I don't remember the twins..

Even if Adam and Eve are not our ancestors, which brings forth it's own questions, like why are we suffering for there sin then? But I digress, how do you explain what happened post Noah's ark? There where only four families on the ark, Noah and his three sons.

We are not suffering for our sins. Jesus saved us from our sins. I've been meaning to post that for some time now, I just kept forgetting. If you know religion, you should know that Jesus saved us from our sins. I'll read some more in the bible, and get back to you on the ark, okay!?

Knowing God has nothing to do with science. Whether god exist or not, truly is irrelevant for the sake of discovery. Unless god choses other wise it can't be observed or interacted with. Evidence of it's existence dose not it self exist. Therefor from the stand point of science it must not exist with in the confines of what is being observed, namely the universe.

I'm not saying it does. I'm just saying, that's why I don't believe science, because many scientist don't know jack about relgion, and yet they dis it.

The reason I and other have trouble believing you is because many, if not all of us have heard these arguments before. We've seen said argument refuted countless times, and yet people still bring them to the argument. Many are obviously wrong to any one who has even cursory information about sciences and logic. We have trouble believing you because everything we've seen in the world suggest that your wrong. Remember science is not about belief.

I see...

No post is stupid if your willing to listen to the other's response.

I dunno man....

At 7/1/07 04:34 PM, Drakim wrote:

Ryuunosuke, answer me this. Since the dawn of mankind, in any cultures or societies, has forcing the raped to marry the rapist ever been moral?. If so, I never want anything to do with this God of yours. He sounds like the nasty.

That's like me saying that all people back then are evil because they owned slaves since we view it as evil because of the harsh treatment of the slaves in the 1800's in the US.

At 7/1/07 04:42 PM, Drakim wrote:

This is so typical of you Mez. I don't see why you need to be here, we could just replace you with a bot.

k

The Bible does infact contain contradictions. Face it. All holy books does. The Quran is full of contradictions too. Anybody can read and see this.

Really, then why is it that in all of those lists, they just splice out 3 or 4 words and never include the chapter or book?

Ok then, let's see.

God is satisfied. God is dissatisfied
What? Are you saying that you have not ever been both? He creates the world, creates the animals and he is satisfied. Then eventually the humans stop believing in him or doing what he says and then he is dissatisfied.

We're talking about two seperate points in time where the world is in different situations. Hence: Not a contradiction.

That's why I love it when people post these things. Just as in my example, you take 4 words from competely different chapter or books, NEVER take the time to know what they're talking about or put them into context, then call it a contradiction. I just love it.

God dwells in Temples. God does not dwell in temples
Your first mistake is taking 2 verses from 2 laws. The Old Testament had different laws than the New. Jesus said he came to abolish the old Law. In the old law, people were commanded to sacrifice and praise God in Temples. In the New Testament, Christ creates his Church (which means a Community of People, not a building). Therefore, Old Testament = Temple. New Testament =/= temple.

God Dwells in Light. God dwells in Darkness
...I honestly fail to see the contradiction here as God is supposabley omnipotent... Moving on.

God is seen and heard. God is invisible and cannot be heard
Once again, you took 2 different sets of laws. You took from the old and compared it to the New. In the Old Testament, God showed his power to people and they heard him speak. In the New Testament, God came down to earth (Jesus, the Son). God does not speak as God speaks through the Word (Jesus) and many people refer to the bible as "the word of God".

God is tired and rests. God is never tired
First off, one is talking about the creation and the other is not. When it says on the "7th day he rested", rest does not mean "tired", it means "ended". Also, the other talks about God working through people and events, and in talking about that says he does not rest.

Once again, 2 seperate incidents and the misconception about the word "rest".

God is everywhere. God is not everwhere

Allow me to give you the verse 11: 5-And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the children of men builded. Interesting...

Basically the word you're looking for is "go down". It says absolutely nothing about him not knowing. If he did not know about the tower they were building, he would not have them mixed their languages so they couldn't speak to each other. Which means that he did know and that he did see it.

Tada.

I think i've made my point now.

what do all you religious people think about the FACT that almost all the stories in the bible (1st and 2nd testament) are copied from older texts? its pure plagiarism.

At 7/1/07 05:05 PM, Memorize wrote: That's like me saying that all people back then are evil because they owned slaves since we view it as evil because of the harsh treatment of the slaves in the 1800's in the US.

Not it is not. The Bible is supposed to be the will of an omnipotent all-knowing being of endless power. He shouldn't have problems with being ignorant in the 1800.

Your first mistake is taking 2 verses from 2 laws. The Old Testament had different laws than the New. Jesus said he came to abolish the old Law.

LOL
Seriously, that made me laugh hard. Do you really read the Bible at all?

Matthew 5:17-19:
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

At 7/1/07 05:16 PM, Drakim wrote:

Seriously, that made me laugh hard. Do you really read the Bible at all?

I did, and now instead of defending those "contradictions", you're picking at my words.

Matthew 5:17-19:
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Key Word: Fulfill meaning to fullfill the prophecies in the Old Testament with his coming.

The New Testament did not begin until his death on the cross, meaning we are not subject to the old law such as sacrificing goats ect, since he said that he is sick of the blood of animals.

In short: We are not under the old law since the old law ended. Basically "abolished".

There you go. Now, at least try to defend your contradictions. Haha, if you can anyway.

At 7/1/07 05:09 PM, Tomsan wrote: what do all you religious people think about the FACT that almost all the stories in the bible (1st and 2nd testament) are copied from older texts? its pure plagiarism.

Read the copyright law in the bibles!

Read this guys:

Does evil exist?

The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists? A student bravely replied, "Yes, he did!"

"God created everything? The professor asked.

"Yes sir", the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil". The student became quiet before such an answer. The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?"

"Of course", replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question.

The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does."

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

The young man's name — Albert Einstein.

www.snopes.com

At 7/1/07 05:20 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/1/07 05:16 PM, Drakim wrote:

Seriously, that made me laugh hard. Do you really read the Bible at all?

I did, and now instead of defending those "contradictions", you're picking at my words.

At your words? XD
Mez, it was more than you just words. What you said was 180 degrees the other way. It was basicly red vs blue, high vs low.

Matthew 5:17-19:
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Key Word: Fulfill meaning to fullfill the prophecies in the Old Testament with his coming.

And he goes on saying that it doesn't mean you can stop following them or teach otherwise.

In short: We are not under the old law since the old law ended. Basically "abolished".

The fact that he specifically says NO to the word "abolished" doesn't bother you?

There you go. Now, at least try to defend your contradictions. Haha, if you can anyway.

Mez, read past the first line.

" tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

until the heavens and earth disappear? Until everything is accomplished? Doesn't the Bible have some prophecies for the end times that hasn't come true yet? Heck, doesn't the end times need to come first?

At 7/1/07 05:20 PM, Everlasting-Elements wrote:

The young man's name — Albert Einstein.

Status: False.

Though there was a family member of mine who would constantly argue with his atheist biology professor.

When it came to the final exam. My relative took it, got it back and had an F. Fortunately, there was the "smart kid" in class so he walked over and compared tests with him. Turned out they both had the same answers, straight down the page, only the "smart kid" had an A.

The teacher told him to sit, he ran out the door and into the principles office. That teacher was later fired.

At 7/1/07 04:06 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

Then why are you in this argument? If your unable or unwilling to do the research to find answers, why bother responding at all?

Unlike some people in this topic who have to find a counterpoint for everything or say anything againt them is wrong(just go through them, im sure you'll find some) , i dont. I am willing to admit that i am wrong about something or that i don't know about something.

I'm sure darkim has, as have I, on many occasions. The best answer I've ever heard was, “there is no proof, just faith”. Unfortunately faith isn't good enough for me, or many others.

Understandable. If you don't want to believe, i know no one in this forum or anyone is going to be able to convince you.

That doesn't make sense. If I need to believe in god to understand god, then it stands to reason that god doesn't exist. If I have to believe in something to see it, then it seems far more likely that the event is caused by activity in the temporal lobe regions of the brain. In effect a believer whats to believe so badly they, force their minds to see, and feel something that isn't there. It's a very well documented physiological form of trauma.

Let me ask you something. Do you believe in god? If your answer is no, then you wouldn't understand and that fact that you said, "That doesn't make sense" proves my point that you have to believe to understand. If you do believe in god, then i don't know what to say to that comment.

Yes, you can actually. Understanding a scientific theory amounts to being able to understand the math and logic behind it. This can easily be done with out believing in the theory. In fact to believe in the theory before you understand it is detrimental to understanding, as it can cause positive bias towards the theory before it's merits are considered. I would also argue that one dose not believe in a scientific theory but merely accept the postponement of evidence for it.

You know what, you are absolutely right about the science thing. Let me just point something out though, you agree that science and religion are pretty much opposites right? Then it stands to reason that for science, while you must understand something to believe it, then for religion, you must believe something to understand it. Opposites

At 7/1/07 05:20 PM, Everlasting-Elements wrote: The young man's name — Albert Einstein.

Come on, don't toss around lies. Einstein never said that. That is an old story that we have all heard a lot of times before, and it changes based on the situation that the Christian needs to fit it into.

At 7/1/07 05:29 PM, Drakim wrote:

Mez, it was more than you just words. What you said was 180 degrees the other way. It was basicly red vs blue, high vs low.

I see you're still not going to do it.

Mez, read past the first line.

I did.

until the heavens and earth disappear? Until everything is accomplished? Doesn't the Bible have some prophecies for the end times that hasn't come true yet? Heck, doesn't the end times need to come first?

I was talking about what set the New law in place.

In the new law, you do not worship in temples and do not have to worship in buildings. As one of your "contradictions" clearly stated.

In the Old Law, they worshipped on the Sabbath which was a Saturday. Today we are not told to do that.

The Old Law didn't "disappear", we just don't have to follow it anyway.

Oh well, i'm still waiting for you to defend your "contradictions". If not, then i'll just take my place in the winner's circle.

At 7/1/07 05:30 PM, Ryuunosuke wrote:

I'm sure darkim has, as have I, on many occasions. The best answer I've ever heard was, “there is no proof, just faith”. Unfortunately faith isn't good enough for me, or many others.

Understandable. If you don't want to believe, i know no one in this forum or anyone is going to be able to convince you.

Do you wish to belive in Allah? NOT? OMG YOU MUST BE CLOSE-MINDED.

That doesn't make sense. If I need to believe in god to understand god, then it stands to reason that god doesn't exist. If I have to believe in something to see it, then it seems far more likely that the event is caused by activity in the temporal lobe regions of the brain. In effect a believer whats to believe so badly they, force their minds to see, and feel something that isn't there. It's a very well documented physiological form of trauma.

Let me ask you something. Do you believe in god? If your answer is no, then you wouldn't understand and that fact that you said, "That doesn't make sense" proves my point that you have to believe to understand. If you do believe in god, then i don't know what to say to that comment.

What? Not beliving in God automaticaly makes you ignorant to how it all works?

You know what? I'd say it goes the other way around. A lot, if not most atheist have belived in God in some point of their life. But, the theist equalment is much smaller. A large part is raised in one religion, and stick with that religion without ever thinking about anything else as a possiblity. That would imply that atheist generaly know more about the "other side".

Heck, there are communities where Christians NEVER meet anything but other Christians, apart of the occational Jew. I find it hard to belive that many atheist communities like that.

You know what, you are absolutely right about the science thing. Let me just point something out though, you agree that science and religion are pretty much opposites right? Then it stands to reason that for science, while you must understand something to believe it, then for religion, you must believe something to understand it. Opposites

By that logic, EVERYTHING in Religion and Science needs to be opposites. It isn't named "Religion", it is named "Ecneics". Oh, and Ecneics bases itself on the lack of evidence and unlogic.

At 7/1/07 05:05 PM, Memorize wrote:

God is satisfied. God is dissatisfied

We're talking about two seperate points in time where the world is in different situations. Hence: Not a contradiction.

That's why I love it when people post these things. Just as in my example, you take 4 words from competely different chapter or books, NEVER take the time to know what they're talking about or put them into context, then call it a contradiction. I just love it.

God Dwells in Light. God dwells in Darkness
...I honestly fail to see the contradiction here as God is supposabley omnipotent... Moving on.

God is seen and heard. God is invisible and cannot be heard
Once again, you took 2 different sets of laws. You took from the old and compared it to the New. In the Old Testament, God showed his power to people and they heard him speak. In the New Testament, God came down to earth (Jesus, the Son). God does not speak as God speaks through the Word (Jesus) and many people refer to the bible as "the word of God".

God is tired and rests. God is never tired
First off, one is talking about the creation and the other is not. When it says on the "7th day he rested", rest does not mean "tired", it means "ended". Also, the other talks about God working through people and events, and in talking about that says he does not rest.

God is everywhere. God is not everwhere

Allow me to give you the verse 11: 5-And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the children of men builded. Interesting...

I couldn't agree with you more... i made some of the same exact points in one of my earlier posts(i wish i could hace explained all 23 of them but i reached my word limit) The problem isn't just misquoting and that kind of thing, some of it is the way people interpret it and as i said earlier, all books are open to interpretation, but that doesn't justify misquoting. I would have included your other points in the quotes, but the system wouldn't let me(said i quoted too much)

At 7/1/07 05:34 PM, Memorize wrote:

until the heavens and earth disappear? Until everything is accomplished? Doesn't the Bible have some prophecies for the end times that hasn't come true yet? Heck, doesn't the end times need to come first?

I was talking about what set the New law in place.

and I was talking about "Until everything is accomplished", because that is when Jesus says the old laws will stop being valid. Not when a new set of laws was added to the Bible. Not when he died on the cross (and arose right after anyway). We are talking about when the heavens and earth gets undone here.

Or, are you truly saying that, Jesus used the words "heaven and the earth is undone", just to say that the old laws would apply for the next 2-3 years or so until he got killed, and thenthe old laws stopped being important?

In the new law, you do not worship in temples and do not have to worship in buildings. As one of your "contradictions" clearly stated.

In the Old Law, they worshipped on the Sabbath which was a Saturday. Today we are not told to do that.

The Old Law didn't "disappear", we just don't have to follow it anyway.

Then how come so may Christians like to point to the old law when they need moral justifications? Like, against homosexuality and divorce? Or does the old laws only apply when it fits you?

Oh well, i'm still waiting for you to defend your "contradictions". If not, then i'll just take my place in the winner's circle.

Seriously Mez, werever the Bible is perfect or not is such a silly question that I won't bother arguing with you anymore. No matter what I point out, verses can be bent and shaped to avoid the contradiction because everything in the Bible is so vauge. It is like arguing with a child that says nothing but "BECAUSE".