So angels have free will, yet still some of them chose to go against god even though they know for sure that god exists. They get cast out of heaven for this. Where as humans who can only speculate of the existence of god, get a life time of torment in hell if they don't believe. And this is gods justice ?
Many angels were immediately put into the Abyss to await Judgement Day. I do not know why Satan and some of his followers were allowed free reign on earth (other than a form of test that Adam and Eve had), but judgement awaits ALL fallen angels. They will be cast into the lake of fire. And unlike humans, they cannot repent. That is where God's justice is. By the way, I don't speculate. I present evidence to you everyday of God's existence. You're the one who continually overlooks it or comes up with ridiculous conspiracy theories.
I do believe that a man called Jesus once lived, but I don't believe the accounts in the NT are completely accurate. Most sources seem to agree that they were writen some 60-150 years after the events. I think there is a certain amount of fabrication, exaggeration and miss-translation in the NT. Humans haven't really changed that much in the last 2000 years. Ok we are better educated and have modern day items that our ancestors could only dream about, but the basic human nature is still the same. I've said this before, there is a holy man in india alive today call Sai Babi, if you look on the net you'll find lots of stuff about him. To some he is akin to a modern day Jesus to others he is a con man with designs on young men. Whether he is real or not doesn't matter, This guy has 100,000's of followers. If we with our modern day communication methods and education can't find out the truth on something happening today. How can we expect our ancesters to have got it 100% accurate when they were written 100 years after the event ?
Why exactly do you think the information in the NT is somewhat fabricated? What is your basis? Have you exhaustively studied it (both secular and Christian scholars)? Do you reject it because it contains somewhat spectacular claims? What claims SHOULD a God make? "I can jump higher than you?"
*sigh* The last book to be written in the New Testament is the book of Revelations. The testimony of the entire early Church (they were a bunch of liars right? I mean, even though lying got them in hell??) was that John the Apostle wrote it. John the Apostle was in his late teens/early 20's when Jesus died. Jesus died in 33 AD. Is it impossible for John to have lived into his 80's or 90's? Especially when blessed by the God he claimed to have walked with? There are also theories that John is still alive today (see end of the book of John about 'tarrying'😉. Anyway, Revelations was written no later than 96 AD. Mark was written probably as early as the mid 50's. Anyway, the Apostles didn't twiddle their thumbs during this time. They were out there PREACHING what they later wrote when they realized Jesus wasn't coming back during their lifetime. Could no one have checked what they were boldly preaching and dying for? I find THAT to be an abadonment of reason.
Originally posted by DarfiusIt is a question of faith right. You can't say for certain that god exists. Nobody can say for certain that god exists. You can only say that you believe that his existance to be true.
[b]
By the way, I don't speculate. I present evidence to you everyday of God's existence. You're the one who continually overlooks it or comes up with ridiculous conspiracy theories.
Why exactly don't you think the information in the NT is somewhat fabricated? What is your basis? Could no one have checked what they were boldly preaching and dying for? I find THAT to be an abadonment of reason.
[/b]
Re fabrication in the NT etc...I'll answer tomorrow yawn🙂
Originally posted by Jay PeateaI can say for certain God exists. If you are openminded, I can prove it to you without a shadow of a doubt. If you are not, I cannot.
It is a question of faith right. You can't say for certain that god exists. Nobody can say for certain that god exists. You can only say that you believe that his existance to be true.
Re fabrication in the NT etc...I'll answer tomorrow yawn🙂
Originally posted by DarfiusOk. I will be opened-minded if you will be. That means, everything you
I can say for certain God exists. If you are openminded, I can prove it to you without a shadow of a doubt. If you are not, I cannot.
ask me to do, I will ask you to do analogously.
Does this sound fair?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThat is a loaded question. It depends on what you mean by analogously. Do you mean asking my questions back at me or asking a question for each of my questions?
Ok. I will be opened-minded if you will be. That means, everything you
ask me to do, I will ask you to do analogously.
Does this sound fair?
Nemesio
Originally posted by DarfiusThat means if you say something like:
That is a loaded question. It depends on what you mean by analogously. Do you mean asking my questions back at me or asking a question for each of my questions?
First, consider the Bible that says 'Yak, yak, yak.'
I can respond:
But the Koran says, 'Blah, blah, blah' which disagrees with 'Yak, yak, yak.'
Then when you respond, but the Koran is not the Word of God because
of 'Yada, yada, yada.'
I can respond:
But the Bible isn't the Word of God because it says, 'Gooble, gooble, gooble.'
Then you will say, 'No no, "gooble, gooble, gooble" really means "gobble,
gobble, gobble."'
I can respond:
Well, then 'Yada, yada, yada' really means 'Ook, ook, ook.'
And so forth. For every assertion that requires my acceptance by faith,
I can make a counter-assertion that you have to accept by faith.
If you can prove that God exist by without assertions that require faith,
you will be the first.
Is it a deal?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI'd like you to prove that you exist. Right now I'm taking a leap of faith that you do. You could be a computer automotan.
That means if you say something like:
First, consider the Bible that says 'Yak, yak, yak.'
I can respond:
But the Koran says, 'Blah, blah, blah' which disagrees with 'Yak, yak, yak.'
Then when you respond, but the Koran is not the Word of God because
of 'Yada, yada, yada.'
I can respond:
But the Bible isn't the Word of God becaus ...[text shortened]... st by without assertions that require faith,
you will be the first.
Is it a deal?
Nemesio
Originally posted by DarfiusAbsolutely priceless!
I can say for certain God exists. If you are openminded, I can prove it to you without a shadow of a doubt. If you are not, I cannot.
If you're open-minded, I can prove my imaginary friend exists.
If you don't accept my 'proof', its because you're not open-minded.
Originally posted by DarfiusThere's that super ball again. He was on proving that God exists, but he hit a wall so he bounced to not being able to prove that we ourselves exist, a completely different subject and a completely different stance. Well, I can answer the latter question quite easily: I do not exist. I am a figment of your imagination put here by God to teach you a lesson.
I'd like you to prove that you exist. Right now I'm taking a leap of faith that you do. You could be a computer automotan.
... --- ...
Originally posted by thesonofsaulI'm on the same subject making a point...
There's that super ball again. He was on proving that God exists, but he hit a wall so he bounced to not being able to prove that we ourselves exist, a completely different subject and a completely different stance. Well, I can answer the latter question quite easily: I do not exist. I am a figment of your imagination put here by God to teach you a lesson.
... --- ...
I notice someone rec'd your post. Even though it was clearly false. Someone get Tel in here to cry foul.
Originally posted by DarfiusThe same subject? How can convincing someone that they can't even prove thet they themselves exist benifit an argument set to prove the existence of God? If anything it could only aid the side of doubt, thereby destroying your original assertion that you can prove beyond doubt that God exists. All you're trying to do is gain a foothold somewhere to pump up your fragile ego.
I'm on the same subject making a point...
I notice someone rec'd your post. Even though it was clearly false. Someone get Tel in here to cry foul.
... --- ...
Originally posted by thesonofsaulNo idea what you just said. My ego? Oh yeah, saying I bow on my face to God makes me REAL arrogant. Whilst you say you bow to no one.
The same subject? How can convincing someone that they can't even prove thet they themselves exist benifit an argument set to prove the existence of God? If anything it could only aid the side of doubt, thereby destroying your original assertion that you can prove beyond doubt that God exists. All you're trying to do is gain a foothold somewhere to pump up your fragile ego.
... --- ...
Originally posted by DarfiusYou can't figure out a straightforward comment that clearly outlines your contradictory and flighty nature yet you claim to be able to traverse the complications of the Bible? Perhaps it is because you do not understand language that you insist that the so-called proofs against the contradictions in the Bible make even a lick of sense.
No idea what you just said. My ego? Oh yeah, saying I bow on my face to God makes me REAL arrogant. Whilst you say you bow to no one.
Oh, by the way. Your arrogance don't come from your religion nor does it have anything to do with who you bow to. It comes from your personality, pure and simple. My handy dictionary tells mem that arrogance is "exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner." That's one's own worth, not the worth of one's religion. And I never said that I bow to no one. I don't know why I even bother discussing anything with a man who somehow infers that skewed idea from my anti-Bible stance. Sheesh. The man never listens, only talks.
... --- ...
Originally posted by thesonofsaulWhen have I exaggerated my own importance rather than God's?
You can't figure out a straightforward comment that clearly outlines your contradictory and flighty nature yet you claim to be able to traverse the complications of the Bible? Perhaps it is because you do not understand language that you insist that the so-called proofs against the contradictions in the Bible make even a lick of sense.
Oh, by the w ...[text shortened]... ewed idea from my anti-Bible stance. Sheesh. The man never listens, only talks.
... --- ...
I can't figure out your "straightforward comment" because I see no evidence of your claims. I need more evidence than your opinion.
And anti-Bible is anti-God. Unless of course your god is somehow different than the Christian God?
Originally posted by DarfiusThere is no Christian God. There is only God. Or are you saying that a mere human or group of humans can claim God as property?
When have I exaggerated my own importance rather than God's?
I can't figure out your "straightforward comment" because I see no evidence of your claims. I need more evidence than your opinion.
And anti-Bible is anti-God. Unless of course your god is somehow different than the Christian God?
And as for my previous comment, there was no claim involved, only the common sense argument that inability to prove one thing cannot assist the proof of another. In other words, if we cannot even prove our own existence, how can you possibly prove God's? I think therefore I am. This bit from Descartes is as close to a proof of personal existence that I know. Is there a similar proof for God? How about, "I think about God, therefore he exists"? Doesn't really flow, does it. I believe in God because I need Him in my life. There is no proof, nor should there be.
... --- ...