It's ILLOGICAL to think God didn't Create the Universe

a reply to: Kreeate

Your response illustrates my point of being carnally minded and spiritually minded. The carnal mind is at enmity with God and in your mind these "contradictions" mean the world to you. You probabaly are delighted to think you have cut and pasted something that refutes the Bible. Again, this is the carnal mind.

Different people wrote the Gospels so they remember things differently. This isn't something new or remarkable accept for the carnal mind. Jesus said, they will hate you for my names sake.

Look how people abandon basic logic and reason to try and refute a God they say doesn't exist.

I was watching a History Channel show and Historians and Scholars had different opinions on what may have occurred based on eyewitness accounts. The point is, memory fades and recollections of things that occurred may be different. This is accepted in all circles of logic and reason but not for the carnal mind that's blinded by hatred for Christ but Christ predicted this:

Matthew10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

It's amazing that you guys don't realize that you're fulfilling a Prophecy of Jesus.

Now, let's look at what you quoted then I want you to respond. You said:

When Jesus entered Jerusalem did he cleanse the temple that same day?
(a) Yes (Matthew 21:12)
(b) No. He went into the temple and looked around, but since it was very late he did nothing. Instead, he went to Bethany to spend the night and returned the next morning to cleanse the temple (Mark I 1:1- 17).

HOW DOES THIS REFUTE THE CRUCIFIXTION OF JESUS AND THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS?

Did Judas kiss Jesus?
(a) Yes (Matthew 26:48-50)
(b) No. Judas could not get close enough to Jesus to kiss him (John 18:3-12)

HOW DOES THIS REFUTE THE CRUCIFIXTION OF JESUS AND THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS?

Did Herod want to kill John the Baptist?
(a) Yes (Matthew 14:5)
(b) No. It was Herodias, the wife of Herod who wanted to kill him. But Herod knew that he was a righteous man and kept him safe (Mark 6:20)

HOW DOES THIS REFUTE THE CRUCIFIXTION OF JESUS AND THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS?

Did Jesus bear his own cross?
(a) Yes (John 19:17)
(b) No (Matthew 27:31-32)

HOW DOES THIS REFUTE THE CRUCIFIXTION OF JESUS AND THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS?

Why is the field called “Field of Blood”?
(a) Because the priests bought it with the blood money (Matthew 27:8)
(b) Because of the bloody death of Judas therein (Acts 1:19)

HOW DOES THIS REFUTE THE CRUCIFIXTION OF JESUS AND THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS?

Did Jesus ascend to Paradise the same day of the crucifixion?
(a) Yes. He said to the thief who defended him, “Today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43)
(b) No. He said to Mary Magdelene two days later, “I have not yet ascended to the Father” (John 20:17)

This shows you how consistent the Bible is. Paradise was in Abraham's Bosom. We see this in the story of Lazarus and the rich man.

22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

How could those who died Go to be with God in Heaven when they were separated from God because of sin? How could they go to be with God before Jesus died on the cross?

Even a secular paper like the Sun Sentinal gets this:

However, there is a place within hell that is not filled with pain and punishment, and this is what the passage in Luke 16:19-31 reveals to us. Remember, there were a whole host of men and women before Christ was born, who trusted God's promise to send a Messiah, or Savior. You might say that they were "pre-Christ Christians."

These people had to go somewhere when they died, but they couldn't go to the same place of suffering as those who rejected the promised Christ. They also couldn't go to heaven because Christ had not yet died on the cross to cover their sins.

God's solution was to create "Abraham's Bosom" (Luke 16:22), a special place that was set apart from the rest of hell by a great gap or gulf.

This arrangement was temporary, because after Jesus died, he went to Abraham's Bosom and led those who were there into heaven.

Today, this special place in hell is empty, and unnecessary, because now people who trust in Jesus' covering for their sins can go directly to heaven.

www.sun-sentinel.com...

The Thief on the Cross went to Paradise(Abraham's Bosom) until Jesus ascended to the Father as he told Mary Magdeline. Where's the contradicrion? Again I ask:

HOW DOES THIS REFUTE THE CRUCIFIXTION OF JESUS AND THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS?

Most of the things you said are differences in rememberance of events which is common but none of you said refutes the Crucifixtion and Resurrection of Jesus. Also, back to the topic of the thread:

HOW CAN AWARENESS, LOGIC, AND REASON COME FROM NON AWARENESS, LOGIC AND REASON? HOW IS THIS LOGICAL?

a reply to: neoholographic

You asked what is vague and incomprehensible... I gave you a list.

In answer to all your questions... my list doesn't refute anything, it simply points out that your holy book is mostly claptrap nonsense that should be taken with a grain of salt. That is all.

a reply to: Kreeate

Nope, there was nothing vague or incomprehensible about the things you quoted. In fact, your carnal mind thought you comprehended these things so well, you had a gotcha moment.

Sadly for you, nothing you posted refute the central claim of the Gospels, which is the crucifixtion of Jesus and His Resurrection.

I'm getting past my mid 50's now and always have believed that Jesus was a real man (back in the day ).

I kind of doubt even that these days... Please try and remember the bible or any other religious text was writer for and by men.

A kind of guide to everything that was/isnt understood and a set of controls for the masses...

a reply to: neoholographic

Let me ask you this:

Do you think god would blame a human for not believing he created the universe?

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Kreeate

Nope, there was nothing vague or incomprehensible about the things you quoted. In fact, your carnal mind thought you comprehended these things so well, you had a gotcha moment.

Sadly for you, nothing you posted refute the central claim of the Gospels, which is the crucifixtion of Jesus and His Resurrection.

What a judgmental and holier than though attitude. How Christian of you.

Again, I never claimed to refute anything. The fact that you see the list as a potential "gotcha" moment says more about your faith and religion than it does the lack of mine.

I believe in a supreme being, but I don't pretend to be so enlightened that I could analyze and explain it. Especially not "preach" it to the world.

In no way, shape or form will I ever accept the barbaric practices and ideologies of any religion. No matter how hard you try to shove it down my throat.

God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses (Joshua 6). In Judges 21 He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife!

Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody! In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.

The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 & Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). This type of criminal behavior should shock any moral person.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: TzarChasm

They sure can. The question is if a little penis is the absolute best form a tampon could have?
And Big Bang Theory... I mean if you have to adjust lambda over and over to make it work for each new discovery made and it still doesn't make sense, there should be a point where you think: maybe it doesn't work.

That's called impatience and it is the natural enemy of the scientific method. Impatience feeds ignorance like a fat kid eating Twinkies because the salad is taking too long to grow in the garden.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Kreeate

Nope, there was nothing vague or incomprehensible about the things you quoted. In fact, your carnal mind thought you comprehended these things so well, you had a gotcha moment.

Sadly for you, nothing you posted refute the central claim of the Gospels, which is the crucifixtion of Jesus and His Resurrection.

No body, no medical miracle. Pure hypothesis and speculation. Historians can't even show us for a fact where the tomb was.

a reply to: QFlux

You do realize that is referring to people not to the literal universe and physical earth? The terms "new heaven" and "new earth" appear several times in the Bible and in each instance it refers to people. The "heavens" being the ruling body, and the "earth" the subjects of the government ruling.

Let me give you an example. 2 Peter chapter 3, the very chapter you quoted, look a little before verse 10 that you quoted and we see a heavens and earth before the world was destroyed in Noah's day:

"For they deliberately ignore this fact, that long ago there were heavens and an earth standing firmly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; and that by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was flooded with water."-2 Peter 3:5, 6.

All those verses are trying to do is remind people that God had the power to cause destruction upon the earth once, and that he's going to do it again.

What do you think when Peter said that the world of Noah's day suffered destruction? Does the heaven and earth still exist? Isn't it obvious he is referring to the world of wicked people at that time? Now notice the next verse:

"But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist are reserved for fire and are being kept until the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly people". verse 7.

The verse above, once again, makes clear that the earth has been reserved for judgement by fire when the day of judgement comes again. Not sure how when you read the whole chapter that you aren't able to make the distinction between discussing the second coming of Jesus and the judgement that comes afterwards with the previous destruction.

a reply to: QFlux

Prophecy tells us that there will be a great crowd that survives the great tribulation on earth into the "new world" at Revelation 7:9, 10. And that righteous humans will live forever on earth, and that the meek will inherit the earth:

The righteous will continue to live on earth during the 1,000 year millennium, but after that, everyone is judged and the earth is destroyed by fire and replaced with a new heaven/earth.

Once again, there's a distinction made between Noah's flood and the second coming and what happens...

Matthew 24:35-39

35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Also, Revelation 21:1-2

21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Now go read up on the "New Jerusalem" for a description that is unlike earth. There will be no more sun, moon, or sea.

a reply to: Deetermined

21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Now go read up on the "New Jerusalem" for a description that is unlike earth. There will be no more sun, moon, or sea.

John was describing his experiece in entering the temple of the Holy Spirit which is within each person [Corinthians 6:19-20]. When we percieve earth with our mind we distinguish between good and evil but those that enter the temple of the Holy Spirit experience earth through the eye of the Father (aka seeing a new earth).

Revelation is not prophency but revelation for those that surrender their being to God.

a reply to: glend

The Holy Spirit only resides inside of us until the return of Jesus.

John 14:2-3

2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17

15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

a reply to: Deetermined

God created man in his image so we could witness creation. The holy spirit within us is that witness. It was never born, nor can it experience death of it self, nor will it ever leave us. This is why jesus said before abraham was, i am. The image of God, the "I am that i am", is at the very core of our being.

Thessalonians was not written by Paul. It is nonsense.

I will not argue the point. You see your self as your physical body. You will know I am right when you witness your physical self returning to the dust from which it was made.

a reply to: neoholographic

Apparently, I'm not the only one who finds aspects of the Bible vague or incomprehensible.
I read these pages often and I find that there are many cases of people who not only read the Bible, but base their lives around it and they often contradict each other over it's meanings, I'm not going to make any lists for you.

On the larger scale, beyond ATS how may denominations are there that also offer conflicting interpretations, enough so that they have their own sects that decry the beliefs of other sects. Do I need to expound on the Protestant sect and their derision of the Catholic sect for you as a great example? If you want to seriously discuss these matters, don't bother me with such obvious obfuscations.

It's also clear that you believe you understand it just fine. If believing what you believe is easier for you to believe than believing in a multiverse with universes forming so you can watch Sponge Bob every morning or not then go ahead and believe what you believe. I find that multi-verse hard to believe as well and mentioned that somewhere up thread already, so why to you hold that up as an argument in this discussion.

Now you begin to get interesting. You suggest that I look at this from a carnal mind, that I cannot comprehend that which is spiritual. Wow, what a claim. That I should question a religion, your religion means I have little comprehension of that which is spiritual cuts straight to the heart of some of my earlier posting on this thread. Your religion tells you that his must be so, because I do not believe what you believe, therefore I must have no comprehension of spiritual things.

Finally, you ask me why is it comprehensible to say logic, reason and awareness came from non reason, logic and awareness. Why are you asking me? Why are you asking me to answer for a point of view that I do not hold with. However, I will try.

I have read the thoughts from some who do believe that. I have tried to comprehend their belief. And I have failed to comprehend from their teachings just how that could be so, that logic and reason can come from non-logic and non-reason. But once again, why do you believe that I could possibly explain that to you when I cannot even explain that to myself. I never suggested that I could, but for some reason you believe that I did.

Yeah there is no such thing as an atheist biologist. They're atheist bio-illogists. Atheist cosmologist? Nope, they're atheist cosmo-illogists. Their study of bio-illogical organisms and cosmo-illogical phenomenon is totally fruitless, because they will soon find that all of these natural organisms and planetary motions all act according to logical perpetuation.

Any speculation that considers an illogical source of creation, is extremely illogical.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: TzarChasm

They sure can. The question is if a little penis is the absolute best form a tampon could have?
And Big Bang Theory... I mean if you have to adjust lambda over and over to make it work for each new discovery made and it still doesn't make sense, there should be a point where you think: maybe it doesn't work.

That's called impatience and it is the natural enemy of the scientific method. Impatience feeds ignorance like a fat kid eating Twinkies because the salad is taking too long to grow in the garden.

Eh? What?
BBT can't explain what that mysterious 'singularity' before the Bang was, how and why the Bang happened, it therefore is just as valid/not as Creationism, because those are very fundamental aspects of the theory.
Lambda is the expansion rate of the universe btw another very important aspect of the theory. Another wild goose chase that doesn't happen in reality.

So again what impatience? Is it impatience that I want my theories to describe my observations?

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Deetermined

God created man in his image so we could witness creation. The holy spirit within us is that witness. It was never born, nor can it experience death of it self, nor will it ever leave us. This is why jesus said before abraham was, i am. The image of God, the "I am that i am", is at the very core of our being.

Thessalonians was not written by Paul. It is nonsense.

I will not argue the point. You see your self as your physical body. You will know I am right when you witness your physical self returning to the dust from which it was made.

You didn't think that through very well. The Holy Spirit can not inhabit a body that is dead, but you were right about the fact that it can not experience death itself, but the body does die. We each have our own spirits and we each have our own free will. The Holy Spirit does not and can not sin. Our spirits do. Our spirits are judged by God, he doesn't judge himself. Only God is the great "I AM".

While we are created in the IMAGE of God, we are not God. We have both physical and spiritual attributes like he does, along with the ability to think and reason, as well as a free will, but that doesn't make us God. We have our own free will to accept or reject God's will. His will is not inherently a part of us. We have to choose to follow his will and align it with our own.

a reply to: neoholographic

What a load of woo woo and misunderstanding of science.

originally posted by: ziplock9000
a reply to: neoholographic

What a load of woo woo and misunderstanding of science.

Which part? Do you care to be specific or do you just not know and don't have a better answer.

originally posted by: ziplock9000
a reply to: neoholographic

What a load of woo woo and misunderstanding of science.

I remember when I first joined ATS, there were some great debates. Too many people say stuff like this without any context. They mention "woo" and say you don't understand science in a vacuum without any context.

Quote my misunderstanding of science in the OP.