A Game of Logic: The Holy Spirit and I VS ALL NoN-believers

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I'd have to say that Jesus' words speak for themselves and discern themselves, they are universally true in my opinion and resonate with me personally. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, not much is truer than that.

It speaks to how moral he was, especially for biblical Israel. Things he said gives credence to that…. but it isn't suggestive he was connected to divinity or that he was divinity itself. Bear in mind many of those things were said by sages and philosophers prior. The one you used, the Golden Rule, was espoused quite strongly in the past by the very pagans that Christianity usurped.

So I would agree many of the things Jesus taught (historical or not) in the Bible are things Christians would benefit from, but using them to substantiate the greater theological beliefs is non-sequitar.

I hope the OP comes back so I'm motivated to be on topic ^_^

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by lucid Lunacy
Yes I did say it was off topic
You could have just said you were not interested

Well, you essentially asked me six, off topic, questions, in your first reply, to my first post. I then gave you an honest answer to all of them..

But then you began to ask me more questions, revolving around the faith issue, questions which I thought were irrelevant to my first post… that’s when I began to lose interest…

And just to add, I’m interested in the OP’s topic, and every ones posts on this thread. And I’m eagerly awaiting, the OP to show up.

Originally posted by lucid Lunacy
You suggested all of us do something, so I felt compelled to investigate it. Any hoot.

In which post did I suggest “all of us do something”…???

You must have my posts, mixed up, with someone else's…

- JC

Joecroft

Well, you essentially asked me six, off topic, questions, in your first reply, to my first post. I then gave you an honest answer to all of them..

And I proceeded to give my honest thoughts in response. Look Joe no need to further this, as it's clear you don't want to discuss it. That's perfectly fine. It was off topic. Okay?

In which post did I suggest “all of us do something”…???

You must have my posts, mixed up, with someone else's…

That was the whole purpose of my post to you. And here is your quote:

I personally think we have to be very careful of believing that something is all “God inspired”…and we should be very careful of the whole “divinely inspired” phrase, in general. Discernment is really the key…

Apologies if I misconstrued your use of 'we'. I took that to mean 'us' and then asked questions concerning that as to understand the underlying nature of that discernment.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy



Here’s your second response again to me below…

Originally posted by lucid Lunacy
Yes I did say it was off topic
You could have just said you were not interested

I initially went out of my way, to answer all six, of your off topic questions, in your first reply. You then began to bring in the faith element; that’s the key reason why, I didn’t want to discuss it further. You seem to be overlooking the reason.

So to just say “I’m not interested”… isn’t really a fair reflection, of all of our interactions so far.

Originally posted by lucid Lunacy
And I proceeded to give my honest thoughts in response. Look Joe no need to further this, as it's clear you don't want to discuss it. That's perfectly fine. It was off topic. Okay?

Well, like I said in my previous post, I’m quite happy to discuss the topic of the OP, and the Logic of the Bible.

Originally posted by lucid Lunacy
You suggested all of us do something, so I felt compelled to investigate it. Any hoot.

Originally posted by Joecroft
In which post did I suggest “all of us do something”…???

You must have my posts, mixed up, with someone else's…

Originally posted by lucid Lunacy
That was the whole purpose of my post to you. And here is your quote:

Originally posted by Joecroft
I personally think we have to be very careful of believing that something is all “God inspired”…and we should be very careful of the whole “divinely inspired” phrase, in general. Discernment is really the key…

Originally posted by lucid Lunacy
Apologies if I misconstrued your use of 'we'. I took that to mean 'us' and then asked questions concerning that as to understand the underlying nature of that discernment.

But the above post, that you quoted (from my first post), i.e. my initial reply to the OP. Was aimed specifically at the OP…not everyone else on the thread.

And just too add - most people posting on this thread are atheists, (nothing wrong with that of course) which means my first post/advice, about people being careful in believing something is all “God inspired”, was generally aimed towards theists i.e. The OP…

So yes, you’ve completely misconstrued what it meant…

Apology accepted…


- JC

It's now been three weeks since proven wrong.
I challenge the OP to come back and admit that his premise was wrong.
And I'd like to know how he feels now that he knows his entire faith structure is proven false.
What does he intend to do about it?

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Therefore, the Bible we have today should be perfect. Meaning all you have to do is disprove one thing with a 100% certainty, and you have won the game.

Ok, I'll bite.

Romans 13
4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

The fact that while Romans 13 was being written the rulers were killing Christians and throwing them to the lions goes to show that this is 100% incorrect. If rulers only bear the sword against wrongdoers, what wrong were those Christians doing in order to be persecuted and killed for nearly 300 years? Is spreading the truth somehow wrong to the biblical god?

If Paul believed that the rulers were god's servants who only brought punishment on wrongdoers, why was he eventually beheaded under the reign of Nero? What wrong was he doing by spreading Jesus' gospel? This whole passage sounds like an ad campaign for the rulers.

What do I win?

edit on 32011616CST323 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

You mix apples with oranges.

You of all people know that Roman leaders often considered themselves God and all who oppose them or their laws would be put to death. Rome was the overall power at that time on earth which spread down through Asia minor and to the twelve tribes of Israel....especially Judea. So anyone against Ceasar or the Roman government were punished. The Christians were persecuted because of the acceptance of Jesus.... their King not Ceasar. What better way to scare the general population then to have them eaten alive or burned alive on the cross?

reply to post by Jesuslives4u

So anyone against Ceasar or the Roman government were punished. The Christians were persecuted because of the acceptance of Jesus.... their King not Ceasar.

Ever hear of a little thing called the "First Commandment", you know the one that says "No other Gods"? All Jews were forbidden to worship Caesar, not just the "Christian" ones.

The OP came back on but failed to recognize the fact that he lost the bet. Comeon .... I absolutely proved Noahs Ark false and your challenge was to prove just one thing wrong in the bible. I did that. Acknowledge it. You lost the bet.

reply to post by FlyersFan


FF, you are just ruthlessly relentless! LOL! Have you PM'ed him a demand statement for your (our) prize?

windword
Have you PM'ed him a demand statement for your (our) prize?

No .. for a few reasons ...
1 - It was a public challenge by him so his defeat must also be public.
2 - He owes more than just myself the admittance that he was wrong.
3 - I don't want him to be able to whine that I harassed him via PM.

reply to post by Jesuslives4u


What does this have to do with my response? The passage says that rulers only bear their swords against wrongdoers, so what wrong were those Christians doing in order for the Roman rulers to persecute them?

It seems as though you totally overlooked the point I was making.

Okay ... it's been 5 weeks since this thread was started and it's been a month since the OP has been back in his original form. The information was given proving the OP wrong and he has been on ATS since it was given so we know he's seen it. He hasn't been back and he refused to acknowledge his error. I'm still keeping track of this ...

** Bumping ** The OP of this thread has come back and started a whole new thread but hasn't addressed the information given in this thread. I'm bumping the thread so he'll address the fact that his challenge was accepted ... and it has been completed.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I dont think you've disproven anything. The Great Flood happened 4,466 years ago. The fact that nearly all of the most ancient of calendars record a conversion from 360 days per year to 365.25 is a testament to the violent events that resulted in the flood. The Bible says water rose from below and fell from above. This is a combination of rain and subterrainian water of the abyss (abzu in Sumerian texts). The whole thing is indicative of a sudden axial shift. The 2nd Advent is likened to the Flood, so I would say that the Flood was just as real as the 2nd Advent of Christ will be.

Even if you dont believe in Water Canopy theory, subterrainian chambers have the capacity to hold much of the flood waters.

The OP doesnt owe you any admission or explanation.

BELIEVERpriest
I dont think you've disproven anything. The Great Flood happened 4,466 years ago.

I proved it didn't happen through scientific evidence - DNA evidence ... physical evidence (80,000 year old trees) ... uninterrupted civilizations ... mathematical evidence of numbers of species ... migration evidence. It absolutely did not happen. And I proved it beyond any doubt.

Obviously you didn't read the information provided or you wouldn't be still trying to claim that the flood happened. It's impossible. Not a chance. NONE. ZERO. Educate yourself on the information that was presented.

The OP doesnt owe you any admission or explanation.

Oh yes he does. He issued a challenge. That challenge was accepted. He lost.
The bible has been proven WRONG. It is not the infallible Word of God.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I read your points. My propblem is that our understanding of science is too fluid. What was true 100 years ago is not considered true today. Mainstream science makes too many assumptions while ignoring too many outside factors.

Just because a tree appears to be 80,000 years old does not mean that it really is. In fact, there is an on going debate on the possibility that the tree you referenced may be closer to 8 million years old. There is no consensus. We have no idea how environmental factors may have accelarated the aging process over the passed 4,000 years.

1 Corinthians 3:19

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, "He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS"

Ill take the stable Word of God over the turbulent wisdom of man any day.

You have made your opinion and lack of faith clear, but you still havnt proven anything.

BELIEVERpriest
You have made your opinion and lack of faith clear, but you still havnt proven anything.

1 - I have absolutely proven Noahs Ark did not happen.
2 - It's not my 'opinion'. It's FACT.
3 - So because I can prove that the Noahs Ark story is impossible, that means I have a 'lack of faith' in God? That's absurd.
4 - If 'faith' is determined by having to profess to literally believe in that which has been debunked .. then that just makes believers idiots.

There is nothing 'fluid' about the science that disproves Noahs Ark. It's rock solid. The DNA evidence proves it is impossible. The genetics proves it's impossible. The fact is 13 million critters couldn't have fit on the ark. Animal distribution and bio diversity around the planet proves that it didn't happen. The flood would have killed the oceans and everything in them ... and yet the oceans live. Ancient coral reefs are untouched and they should have died. Algae deposits in fossil layers proves the flood didn't happen, because the flood would have killed all the algae. That much water would have destroyed the earths crust ... but it didn't. Ice layers date back 40,000 years, but should have been destroyed by a flood .. yet they are in tact.

PANDO Tree Colony

Pando (Latin for "I spread"), also known as The Trembling Giant,[1][2] is a clonal colony of a single male quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) determined to be a single living organism by identical genetic markers[3] and one massive underground root system. The plant is estimated to weigh collectively 6,000,000 kg (6,600 short tons),[4] making it the heaviest known organism.[5] The root system of Pando, at an estimated 80,000 years old, is among the oldest known living organisms.[6][7]
Pando is located 1 mile southwest of Fish Lake on Utah route 25.[8] in the Fremont River Ranger District of the Fishlake National Forest, at the western edge of the Colorado Plateau in South-central Utah, at N 38.525 W 111.75.

Science Daily
At this time there are 6.5 million land animal species on the planet. There were even more back in what was supposedly Noahs time. Two of each animal would mean at least 13 million animals on that boat. NOT A CHANCE!! Couldn't happen.

Light doesnt penetrate the ocean more than about 500 ft. if the earth were submerged under 29,000 ft. in order to cover mt. everest, no marine plant life would have survived and the oceans would be dead. Obviously that didn't happen.

Could Noahs' Ark Have Actually Happened?

If the 2350 date were correct, then human civilization would’ve had to undergo an extreme population explosion in the millenium following the flood. According to Biblical sources, there would have been millions of Jews leaving Egypt, so assuming a global population of 40 million around that time (~1350 BC), and comparing that to global population estimates later in history (an estimated 200+ million by 0 AD), would require an incredibly high population growth between 2350 BC and 1350 BC (5,000,000 fold increase in 1,000 years), and a much lower population growth after 1350 BC – usually less than 5 fold population growth within any 1,000 year period between 1350 BC and 1800 AD.

(3) The distribution of animals is not what we would expect if there were a global flood killing all life. If all life was limited to the top of a mountain in the Middle East in 2350 B.C., then how to explain the distribution of animals across the world? All the kangaroos on the Ark went to Australia? How did the animals get to the Americas? If they crossed via an ice-bridge in the Bering Strait, then the Americas should be limited to animals that are warm blooded and capable of traveling hundreds of miles across snow. This means no reptiles, no spiders, etc. Yet, the Amazon contains a wide variety of animal biodiversity. And why didn’t American desert animals stay behind in the deserts of the Old World? (See related post: “Creationism versus Animal Biodiversity”)

(4) Genetic evidence shows that human beings are far to genetically diverse to be descended from a single family in 2350 B.C. If Noah’s Ark were true, then all men alive today would’ve gotten their Y-chromosomes from Noah, and all human mitochondrial DNA would come from Noah’s wife and the three daughter-in-laws. Studies of the human Y-Chromosome show that you’d need far more than 4,300 years to accumulate that many mutations. Human beings could not be descended from a single male in 2350 B.C. What the studies show, instead, is that, in order to explain the number of mutations in the human Y-Chromosome, you have to allow for roughly 60,000-90,000 years. Similarly, human mitochondrial DNA requires roughly 160,000 years to accumulate that many mutations — showing that Eve could not have lived 6,000 years ago as the Bible says.

AND MORE INFORMATION AT THAT SITE.

Adam and his Eves - A lesson on DNA and population distribution for you

Creationism vs Biodiversity

Additionally, once the animals left the Ark, there are a lot of nearby regions they could inhabit, but didn’t. For example, all varieties of rattlesnakes are found in the Americas (33 species, and numerous subspecies). There are none in the Old World – despite the fact that there are regions similar to the American deserts – the Sahara, the Middle East, the Gobi Desert, etc. Llamas fit this same pattern – found in the New World, but not in the Old World. The Caucus (where the Ark supposedly landed) and Himalaya mountains have different species than the Rocky Mountains and Andes. Why didn’t some of the Rocky Mountain species stick around in the Caucus Mountains – they were already there the minute they stepped off the Ark. Similarly, the species in the South American tropics aren’t found in Old World tropics (Southeast Asia and Africa), and vice-versa. For example, New World cats and monkeys are different species than Old World cats and monkeys. Theoretically, with the movement of creatures caused by the global flood, one could find the same species living in distant places. Somehow, we don’t.

National Geographic - Human DNA Journey
For Noahs Ark to have happened exactly as the bible claims, we'd expect the highest levels of genetic diversity to be in the Middle East. But the fact is that the highest levels of human genetic diversity occur in Africa where humanity evolved.

Noahs Ark Doesn't Float

Miles of coral reef, hundreds of feet thick, still survive intact at the Eniwetok atoll in the Pacific Ocean. The violent flood would have certainly destroyed these formations, yet the rate of deposit tells us that the reefs have survived for over 100,000 undisturbed years. Similarly, the floodwaters, not to mention the other factors leading to a boiling sea, would have obviously melted the polar ice caps. However, ice layers in Greenland and Antarctica date back at least 40,000 years.

Impact craters from pre-historical asteroid strikes still exist even though the tumultuous floodwaters would have completely eroded them. If these craters were formed concurrently with the flood, as it has been irresponsibly suggested, the magnificent heat from the massive impacts would have immediately boiled large quantities of the ocean, as if it wasn’t hot enough already. Like the asteroid craters, global mountain ranges would exhibit uniform erosion as a result of a global flood. Unsurprisingly, we witness just the opposite in neighboring pairs of greatly contrasting examples, such as the Rockies and Appalachians.

Even if we erroneously assume there to be enough water under the earth’s surface in order to satisfy the required flood levels, the size of the openings necessary to permit passage for a sufficient amount of water would be large enough to destroy the cohesive properties of the earth’s crust. However, the outer layer is firmly intact, and there’s no evidence indicating that it ever collapsed. All this hypothetical escaping water would have greatly eroded the sides of the deep ocean fissures as well, but no such observable evidence exists for this phenomenon either.

We can also observe algae deposits within the fossil layers, a phenomenon that could not have formed during the flood because they require sunlight to thrive. It’s quite reasonable to assume that the clouds would have thoroughly obstructed the sunlight during such a tremendous rain indicative of the flood. Setting aside this and all other known fossil inconsistencies with the Bible, archaeologists have found human footprints within the upper layers. Moving water simply could not have deposited these markings. As I alluded to earlier, this seemingly endless list of geological problems was completely unforeseeable to the primitive authors, thus the Bible offers no justifications or explanations for our discoveries.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Look at how many breeds of canines exist. They all came from the same canine representatives. What do you thing all that "junk dna" is? Its potential bio-diversity. The ark didnt have to hold 13 million creatures. It only had to carry enough genetic representatives to repopulate the planet with the biodiversity that exists today.

The lack of genetic diversity in the middle east can be attributed to the genetic homogenization that occured during the Mesapotamian empires. Sumeria, Babel, Caldea, Babylon, Assyria...all of these empires recycled the same gene pools for thousands of years. Similar to the melting pot effect of America. Hundreds of years from now, parts of America will eventually show the same genetic homogenization, if the same groups of people continue to intermingle.

Science will never be able to consolidate all of the unknown factors, therefore science will never be able to provide a definate unified answer. In less than a decade, many of the scientific facts that you use as a crutch will be rewritten. What will your answer be then?

Its hypocritical to place your faith in Christ and say that His Word is unfounded. The OT reveals Christ. If the OT is false, then Jesus is a common con-artist.

reply to post by BELIEVERpriest


Christs word stands on its own, with out the OT...

And the OT is NOT his word anyways... Perhaps you might want to look into why the jews don't accept him as messiah?

IF the OT is all true as many Christians claim, then you are without a saviour, because he did not fulfill all of the prophecies required to be the jewish messiah...

ServantOfTheLamb
Brothers and Sisters,


I will start out with I believe the Bible to be divinely inspired, but lets go a little more in depth with that.I believe Spirit-moved men wrote down God-breathed words, and that the original autographs of the Bible are completely perfect. The modern English translations of the Bible are 100% copies of its originals.(If this statement seems like BS, I suggest How We Got Our Bible by Norman Geisler.)Therefore, the Bible we have today should be perfect. Meaning all you have to do is disprove one thing with a 100% certainty, and you have won the game.

Even if the Bible was devinely inspired, it remains as was written/enterpreted by man an imperfect (by design) creature. In regards to its origins, God original or the Demi-Gods faking Godshipdom. Which bible, new/old or both? The New was written by men that did not live within the time frame of Jesus--maybe one; John only and if you read his missives he is very much of a different gnostic/mystic school (egyptian) in nature much at odds from the identical three rote platitudes given in Mathew, Mark and Luke. John was written either 40 years after the crucificion or at the time of, and no one knows for a certainty except John has more information regarding certainties; for instance, it was the Romans that were the primary generators of the murder, not the Jews (seen as an instigator charged with rebellion against the realm is just one).