Logic dictates that there is a God!

[jay_a2j]

B) If God is God (and I believe he is) Don't you think that He would make sure man doesn't mess up His word... wether it be editing it OR writting it down?

Don't you think he would prevent his followers from all the foolish things they've done (continue to do?)?

lololo

No...he gave us "free will" so we can continue to do foolish things if we choose. lol

[reverend_kyle]

B) If God is God (and I believe he is) Don't you think that He would make sure man doesn't mess up His word... wether it be editing it OR writting it down?

Don't you think he would prevent his followers from all the foolish things they've done (continue to do?)?

lololo

No...he gave us "free will" so we can continue to do foolish things if we choose. lol

Why make laws to hurt peoples free will and defend it by saying it is god's will then?

[jay_a2j]

What are you talking about?

[reverend_kyle]

What are you talking about?

Gay marriage for it or against it?

[jay_a2j]

What are you talking about?

Gay marriage for it or against it?

God is against it so I am. Yet people have free will. People murder, steal, rape.....we have free will and can sin but God does not want us to sin.

[reverend_kyle]

What are you talking about?

Gay marriage for it or against it?

God is against it so I am. Yet people have free will. People murder, steal, rape.....we have free will and can sin but God does not want us to sin.

But we shouldnt make laws banning it because god wants people to be people right?

[Pilate]

What are you talking about?

Gay marriage for it or against it?

God is against it so I am. Yet people have free will. People murder, steal, rape.....we have free will and can sin but God does not want us to sin.

But we shouldnt make laws banning it because god wants people to be people right?

Jesus never said anything about gay marriage though. Shouldn't "Christ"ians focus on what Christ actually teaches? Or should they be called "Paul"ians instead

[reverend_kyle]

What are you talking about?

Gay marriage for it or against it?

God is against it so I am. Yet people have free will. People murder, steal, rape.....we have free will and can sin but God does not want us to sin.

But we shouldnt make laws banning it because god wants people to be people right?

Jesus never said anything about gay marriage though. Shouldn't "Christ"ians focus on what Christ actually teaches? Or should they be called "Paul"ians instead

What do you mean?

[Pilate]

All the stuff in the bible against gay marriage is in the old testament or in paul's letters. Not from jesus.

But whatever. It's easy to pick on the gays. Just like it was easy to pick on the jews, muslims, scientists et al.

[reverend_kyle]

All the stuff in the bible against gay marriage is in the old testament or in paul's letters. Not from jesus

I didn't know that, and I'm for gay marriage.. I just see it as if I know I'm being righteous according to my religion then who cares if everyone else is...


as long as they arent hurting anyone else in the process...

[jay_a2j]

What are you talking about?

Gay marriage for it or against it?

God is against it so I am. Yet people have free will. People murder, steal, rape.....we have free will and can sin but God does not want us to sin.

But we shouldnt make laws banning it because god wants people to be people right?

No. God wants people to serve Him and love Him. But He will not FORCE us to. Gods law prohibits a man to sleep with a man. So should we make a law contadicting Gods law? No. But we have in the past (Rowe vs. Wade).

[qeee1]

Reverand Kyle argues in a sensationalist manner I'm not particularly fond of, although his last point was pretty cutting.

His point was, to make laws, is to infringe upon mans free will, which is against God's law, which makes it immoral to make a law against gay marriage.


I have to go away for over a week, but I'll come back to this, and see where we are then.

My first point "A)" was poorly stated, as Droz has pointed out. I was not trying to imply that because it was written by man it is automatically wrong, what I was trying to show is that there have been a lot of books written by man, each claiming to have all the answers, and that there is nothing to seperate one from another.

Jay tried to address this by saying it was inspired by God, but well most of those books say that, and none of them have any decent evidence to show the truth of this statement.


B) My knowledge of the Bible goes something like this:

The Torah, or early part of the old testament, has been regarded as sacred, and an essential religious text from very early times 1000BC-ish?
i)The Hebrew Bible (Bible excluding the New testament, to Jews just the Bible) was cannonised/finalised around 100 AD
ii)The New testament was canonised/finalised around 300 AD

In both discussions, i and ii, a lot of emphasis was placed on what was in line with previous teaching in terms of allowing books to be part of the "definitive bible"... (mmm sounds like a best of gospel music collection) hence the Bible is consistant with itself.

Jay again states that those doing the editing were inspired, or guided by God. Again I ask says who? There was a lot of argument, particularly over part ii.

C) As regards undeniable proof, there is no such thing. All proofs rely on a certain amount of acceptance. For years the church (well lets say the Church, it gives them more of a big bad guy feel) denied that the earth revolved around the sun, even though the evidence was plain to see. People will deny anything.

As regards the thousand proofs, I saw the website you pointed to before, most (if not all?) of them were the Bible vertifying itself. As regards the Isreal thingy, yeah that's one prediction that was right, (I'm assuming, I haven't actually bothered to vertify what you said is true) hardly something to base your beliefs on. And who's to say that the Bible and Bible supporters weren't influential in fulfilling that prophecy anyway.


Ok, one question:
What reason is there to believe the bible over any other religious book?

[reverend_kyle]

Reverand Kyle argues in a sensationalist manner I'm not particularly fond of,

I'm not quite sure how I argue in a sensationalist manner would you like to shed some light on that?

Its not that I find it a bad thing lots of interesting philosophers are sensationalists..

i just dont feel that is my method...

[jay_a2j]

Reverand Kyle argues in a sensationalist manner I'm not particularly fond of, although his last point was pretty cutting.

His point was, to make laws, is to infringe upon mans free will, which is against God's law, which makes it immoral to make a law against gay marriage.


I have to go away for over a week, but I'll come back to this, and see where we are then.

My first point "A)" was poorly stated, as Droz has pointed out. I was not trying to imply that because it was written by man it is automatically wrong, what I was trying to show is that there have been a lot of books written by man, each claiming to have all the answers, and that there is nothing to seperate one from another.

Jay tried to address this by saying it was inspired by God, but well most of those books say that, and none of them have any decent evidence to show the truth of this statement.


B) My knowledge of the Bible goes something like this:

The Torah, or early part of the old testament, has been regarded as sacred, and an essential religious text from very early times 1000BC-ish?
i)The Hebrew Bible (Bible excluding the New testament, to Jews just the Bible) was cannonised/finalised around 100 AD
ii)The New testament was canonised/finalised around 300 AD

In both discussions, i and ii, a lot of emphasis was placed on what was in line with previous teaching in terms of allowing books to be part of the "definitive bible"... (mmm sounds like a best of gospel music collection) hence the Bible is consistant with itself.

Jay again states that those doing the editing were inspired, or guided by God. Again I ask says who? There was a lot of argument, particularly over part ii.

C) As regards undeniable proof, there is no such thing. All proofs rely on a certain amount of acceptance. For years the church (well lets say the Church, it gives them more of a big bad guy feel) denied that the earth revolved around the sun, even though the evidence was plain to see. People will deny anything.

As regards the thousand proofs, I saw the website you pointed to before, most (if not all?) of them were the Bible vertifying itself. As regards the Isreal thingy, yeah that's one prediction that was right, (I'm assuming, I haven't actually bothered to vertify what you said is true) hardly something to base your beliefs on. And who's to say that the Bible and Bible supporters weren't influential in fulfilling that prophecy anyway.


Ok, one question:
What reason is there to believe the bible over any other religious book?

First of all by that thinking there should be NO laws. People should be free to kill, rape and steal. The free will is that WE CAN "do it", it does not mean we should do it. If there was no free will EVERYONE would serve God (because they have no other choice). God wants his creation to serve Him willingly.... so he leaves it up to us via free will.



AS for the former site I posted, give me 1 that was scripture verifing itself. (A few post back I listed some of those... ie. Ireal becoming a nation.) It was written....and later it happened. How you take that as it verifying itself I have no clue.

[reverend_kyle]

Reverand Kyle argues in a sensationalist manner I'm not particularly fond of, although his last point was pretty cutting.

His point was, to make laws, is to infringe upon mans free will, which is against God's law, which makes it immoral to make a law against gay marriage.


I have to go away for over a week, but I'll come back to this, and see where we are then.

My first point "A)" was poorly stated, as Droz has pointed out. I was not trying to imply that because it was written by man it is automatically wrong, what I was trying to show is that there have been a lot of books written by man, each claiming to have all the answers, and that there is nothing to seperate one from another.

Jay tried to address this by saying it was inspired by God, but well most of those books say that, and none of them have any decent evidence to show the truth of this statement.


B) My knowledge of the Bible goes something like this:

The Torah, or early part of the old testament, has been regarded as sacred, and an essential religious text from very early times 1000BC-ish?
i)The Hebrew Bible (Bible excluding the New testament, to Jews just the Bible) was cannonised/finalised around 100 AD
ii)The New testament was canonised/finalised around 300 AD

In both discussions, i and ii, a lot of emphasis was placed on what was in line with previous teaching in terms of allowing books to be part of the "definitive bible"... (mmm sounds like a best of gospel music collection) hence the Bible is consistant with itself.

Jay again states that those doing the editing were inspired, or guided by God. Again I ask says who? There was a lot of argument, particularly over part ii.

C) As regards undeniable proof, there is no such thing. All proofs rely on a certain amount of acceptance. For years the church (well lets say the Church, it gives them more of a big bad guy feel) denied that the earth revolved around the sun, even though the evidence was plain to see. People will deny anything.

As regards the thousand proofs, I saw the website you pointed to before, most (if not all?) of them were the Bible vertifying itself. As regards the Isreal thingy, yeah that's one prediction that was right, (I'm assuming, I haven't actually bothered to vertify what you said is true) hardly something to base your beliefs on. And who's to say that the Bible and Bible supporters weren't influential in fulfilling that prophecy anyway.


Ok, one question:
What reason is there to believe the bible over any other religious book?

First of all by that thinking there should be NO laws. People should be free to kill, rape and steal. The free will is that WE CAN "do it", it does not mean we should do it. If there was no free will EVERYONE would serve God (because they have no other choice). God wants his creation to serve Him willingly.... so he leaves it up to us via free will.



AS for the former site I posted, give me 1 that was scripture verifing itself. (A few post back I listed some of those... ie. Ireal becoming a nation.) It was written....and later it happened. How you take that as it verifying itself I have no clue.

No, there should be laws... to protect the people that is what the government is for... With laws forcing people to do what "god says" they are forcing them to do god's will thus counteracting free willl...

is israel your only example, because If i can find one example from the torrah that happened that would mean islam is true wouldnt it...

[jay_a2j]

Umm Judism uses the torrah which happens to be the Old Testement of the Christian Bible. And no...there are 1000+ predictions in the Bible.


Here is a link: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... hecy.shtml



(excerpt)


Unique among all books ever written, the Bible accurately foretells specific events-in detail-many years, sometimes centuries, before they occur. Approximately 2500 prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible, about 2000 of which already have been fulfilled to the letter—no errors. (The remaining 500 or so reach into the future and may be seen unfolding as days go by.) Since the probability for any one of these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance averages less than one in ten (figured very conservatively) and since the prophecies are for the most part independent of one another, the odds for all these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance without error is less than one in 102000 (that is 1 with 2000 zeros written after it)!

[reverend_kyle]

Umm Judism uses the torrah which happens to be the Old Testement of the Christian Bible. And no...there are 1000+ predictions in the Bible.


Here is a link: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... hecy.shtml

I meant Koran....

Why do you only use the Israel example then...

[jay_a2j]

ok.... Prediction: Jesus would die on a cross. This prediction was made some 400 years BEFORE crucifixion was invented!

[reverend_kyle]

ok.... Prediction: Jesus would die on a cross. This prediction was made some 400 years BEFORE crucifixion was invented!

Where in the bible was this predicted?

[jay_a2j]

Some 400 years before crucifixion was invented, both Israel's King David and the prophet Zechariah described the Messiah's death in words that perfectly depict that mode of execution. Further, they said that the body would be pierced and that none of the bones would be broken, contrary to customary procedure in cases of crucifixion (Psalm 22 and 34:20; Zechariah 12:10). Again, historians and New Testament writers confirm the fulfillment: Jesus of Nazareth died on a Roman cross, and his extraordinarily quick death eliminated the need for the usual breaking of bones. A spear was thrust into his side to verify that he was, indeed, dead.

(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 1013.

[Pilate]

Actually, they only noticed the "prediction" AFTER Jesus died. They went back and re-interpreted the scriptures. Can it be a true prediction if they only noticed it after the event occured?

[reverend_kyle]

Actually, they only noticed the "prediction" AFTER Jesus died. They went back and re-interpreted the scriptures. Can it be a true prediction if they only noticed it after the event occured?

no.

[jay_a2j]

Actually, they only noticed the "prediction" AFTER Jesus died. They went back and re-interpreted the scriptures. Can it be a true prediction if they only noticed it after the event occured?

???? How can they "note" a fulfillment of a prediction BEFORE it happens?

[Pilate]

Actually, they only noticed the "prediction" AFTER Jesus died. They went back and re-interpreted the scriptures. Can it be a true prediction if they only noticed it after the event occured?

???? How can they "note" a fulfillment of a prediction BEFORE it happens?

They didn't even know what the prediction was, or even if there was a prediction before it happened.

[jay_a2j]

yeah I guess Isreal became a nation just to fulfill scripture.