Why do you think I'm a radical?

Posted by MonkeyPunchBaby yes

Yes what? You will or wont change your views (of which you are 100% confident in)? Possibly even drastically based on new evidence.

I want to know.

Posted by MonkeyPunchBaby ohhh you're right! i forgot about the part in the bible about JFK and dinosaurs. My bad. proven timelines? like the world ending?

No, like prophets telling of a mesaih comming, along with hints of his appearence, then the mesaih comes. Both written documents were written generations apart.

Or the one where isreal would become its own nation again. That happened in 1948

Thats just a few
[/quote]

Posted by MonkeyPunchBaby i've done far more research than you could hope to do.

Dont make this into a pissing contest. If you did the research, you wouldnt have asked about proven fulfilled bible prophecies.

Posted by MonkeyPunchBaby so you are picking and choosing which parts you want to use to make your point?

Yes, because only one applies to my initial point.

Posted by Mr_Fiend Not the story of Moses and Pharaoh, of which I was using to make my point. I really havent studied this other event, which of course has different principles.

Yes, you were using the Story of the exodus. But the bible is not as cut and dry as everyone would like to think.

If, as you say, the God of Israel is the only god and he has ALL the power; then how did this happen just a few hundred years later? Saying that this scripture is moot because it is not from the same particular story in the Bible that you referenced makes no sense to me. If the Bible is God's words, all of it... then my example holds just as much weight as yours.

I am not sure how clear I am being but I really want to understand why the Battle of the Moab is not proof, written in scripture that there are other gods out there that can and have gone toe to toe with the god who happens to be popular today.

Posted by Mr_Fiend dfghjkljhgfghjkl;lkjhghjkl

if you don't want this to be a pissing contest don't try to dismiss someone else based on research. I have taken several comparative religion classes and studied most major world religions. and i have attended services for most of them as well. the bible is not the ONLY history book. also don't think perhaps, it was written to make it happen? its like saying saying Star Wars is the ONLY history book bc the ending it what they said it would be. the bible is filled to the rafters with contradictions and out right lies. the bible was written by men as a way to convey their own feelings and points on morality.

Posted by Mr_Fiend The difference between you and me is that your beliefs can change based on evidence, and therefore would have no ultimate truth within itself because there will always be new evidence. Or am I wrong about this?

You are right that our beliefs can change, but you are wrong about what truth is. Our beliefs are based on discovering the ultimate truth as it exists, not believing something is the ultimate truth because a bunch of uneducated people wrote something down thousands of years ago.

Posted by Mr_Fiend My beliefs are not based on evidence, or rather worldly evidence, they are based on faith and what really happened (whether you want to accept the bible as a historical document or not), and therefore will NEVER changed.

Your faith is based on evidence. The difference is that you attribute the Bible as a valid source of evidence, and your reason for doing this is that people have told you that it is.

Posted by Mr_Fiend Then as I have said before, you open yourself up to being deceived, or your views easily altered or manipulated without you catching on. Going with the flow of what people say is right or wrong based on science and evidence gathered by man. Right? If you disagree with me on this, please explain to me why?

Yes, we open our selves up to being deceived, and also to the repudiation of the deceit. You. on the other hand, have purposely tied yourself into being deceived by evidence gathered by man - the Bible.

Posted by Mr_Fiend I say, if you're gonna believe in something and base you life on it, you better be damn ready to die for those beliefs and treat them as 100 percent truth, or else what was the point of living and thinking the way you did? Why live with doubt? Then risk dying with a 98% trust in your beliefs?

Right, and I do damned well base my life on it, and am willing to die for it. I do not live with doubt at all. I 100% believe that the truth is available, but not perfectly understood. you feel the same way, I would assume, or do you claim to understand every aspect of God?

Posted by Mr_Fiend So then, if evidence arises to change (perhaps signifcantly) your 100% confidence in your current beliefs, then you will or wont change them? That isnt a crazy statement, since science is always making profound discoveries.

Not a crazy statement at all. That is exactly what I assert, that I will change my beliefs if there is enough evidence which shows them to be wrong. How can that be a bad thing. If something is shown to be false, should I believe it to be true? God would not be very proud of me if I rejected the truth, would he?

Posted by Mr_Fiend And so by that logic anything and everything is fallible. Right?

No, that is not a logical conclusion of anything that you have said.

Posted by Mr_Fiend The bible isnt a science book, it was recorded history and is the ONLY historic book with proven timelines of fulfilled prophecies. Just because it was written thousands of years ago, doesnt mean it's bogus.

The books of the Bible come from many different time periods and sources, and had various different intents. Some attempted to record historical events (some of which are corroborated by other sources - but doing that accepts that other sources are valid, so why do reject them so fiercely?. Other books were designed to change long standing opinions and beliefs. The vast majority of the New Testament are the opinions of one guy who never met Jesus.

Oh, and Nostradamus matches your test of historic book with proven timelines of fulfilled prophecies.

Posted by Mr_Fiend But dont take my word for it, I encourage you to do some research.

Wha? Did you finally get around to reading it yourself?

Posted by maypost I am not sure how clear I am being but I really want to understand why the Battle of the Moab is not proof, written in scripture that there are other gods out there that can and have gone toe to toe with the god who happens to be popular today.

Ok, so if you're reading the bible, you can say what other force out there is constantly going toe to toe with God and attacking His people. A force that deceives people into not worshiping God.

Posted by MonkeyPunchBaby the bible is not the ONLY history book.

So now its history? I didnt say it was the only book, I said it was the only one with fulfilled prophecies.

Posted by MonkeyPunchBaby the bible is filled to the rafters with contradictions and out right lies. the bible was written by men as a way to convey their own feelings and points on morality.

I think you may be confusing the bible with the koran, mohammed wrote it out of his hate and envy for the jews and Christians.

Posted by MutantMandias Yes, we open our selves up to being deceived, and also to the repudiation of the deceit. You. on the other hand, have purposely tied yourself into being deceived by evidence gathered by man - the Bible.

Evidence gathered by man, yes. And was truth until people started to rebel against it. It's not considered "valid evidence" because you and other people say it isnt.

Posted by MutantMandias I 100% believe that the truth is available, but not perfectly understood. you feel the same way, I would assume, or do you claim to understand every aspect of God?

It's hard to even comprehend what God is, or really how I would perceive Him if in His presence. I understand the things that matter, why He created me, why I should worship Him, why I should obey Him, and that He loves me.

Posted by MutantMandias If something is shown to be false, should I believe it to be true? God would not be very proud of me if I rejected the truth, would he?

Yeah, but no one has proved the existence of God to be false, apart from just saying "he doesnt exist".




3 on 1 here folks, I'm not a machine.

you are a troll. simple as that.

Thanks for the clarification.

Posted by Mr_Fiend Then your beliefs could therefore be changed because of new or conflicting evidence, right? So they are not set in stone. The difference between you and me is that your beliefs can change based on evidence, and therefore would have no ultimate truth within itself because there will always be new evidence. Or am I wrong about this?

MM said pretty much what I was going to say, except that yes, my beliefs change according to evidence. Example: one of the doctor-lecturers here at work, when I first saw him, looked like a dick: typical grumpy old college professor. I based my opinion of him on the evidence of his appearance and his facial expression. However, when I talked to him, he turned out to be really nice. Disarmingly so. My opinion immediately changed based on new evidence. This is, of course, minor compared to things like religious beliefs. I used to believe that there was a god-like entity that touched off the Big Bang, and let nature take its course from there. Now, based on newer evidence, I have abandoned that hypothesis in favor of there being no god involved at all.

My opinions on gun control, and specifically concealed-carry laws, have changed based on evidence, and this is one case where empirical evidence can make a big difference, but both sides are being deliberately obfuscatory. (but that's for the Politics board)

So, I think any thinking person, if they are intellectually honest, will change their beliefs when reliable contradictory evidence comes up. There is no "ultimate truth." If there is, what is it? How do we know that that is the ultimate truth and not some other?

My beliefs are not based on evidence, or rather worldly evidence, they are based on faith and what really happened (whether you want to accept the bible as a historical document or not), and therefore will NEVER changed. And the 10 commandments WERE physically put in stone. As to their actual where abouts today, well, still a mystery...

Actually there's a church in Ethiopia that claims to have the Ark of the Covenant, presumably with the tablets still inside. They don't let anyone in to see it, though, and they don't bring it out. How convenient.

But your beliefs ARE based on evidence: the evidence in the Bible. I don't see that as a reliable source, however.

Then as I have said before, you open yourself up to being deceived, or your views easily altered or manipulated without you catching on. Going with the flow of what people say is right or wrong based on science and evidence gathered by man. Right? If you disagree with me on this, please explain to me why?

I agree entirely, but can't the same be said of you?

I say, if you're gonna believe in something and base your life on it, you better be damn ready to die for those beliefs and treat them as 100 percent truth, or else what was the point of living and thinking the way you did? Why live with doubt? Then risk dying with a 98% trust in your beliefs?

I hesitate to say this, but the idea that your beliefs are 100 percent true and worth dying (or killing) over is what Islamic terrorists say, too.

I don't claim to have all the answers, or know about any ultimate truth. Plenty of my expectations turned out be wrong (Hell, I voted for Obama!). I'm not willing to die for my beliefs (maybe get roughed up a bit) because I know my beliefs may be wrong, and your beliefs, if they are sincerely held, are valid too.

Fiend, I supplied you with scripture that goes against what you say. But you are too hard headed to give an answer to support your point of view. That, good sir, is why I think you are a troll. It's not about debate or discourse for you; it's all about bickering and fighting. This is what I am forced to conclude because of how you are communicating.

Also, until you give explanation your credibility is shot.

God created man in his image, keeping that in mind, God sits back, watches the game, and has a beer every now and again. No one can speak for God. God speaks for Himself when there is something worth saying. God has not asked us to kill anyone. God can do that himself. The Bible was written by man, with his fear and bigotry. There are some good ideas in the Bible, but its not a hard and fast rule. When God has had enough of our shit, He will let us know. I'm not sure how much longer we have. We have been dicks, to each other, and to Him. Even Christians have been dicks to God. Total fucking dicks. We do stupid shit and say its for Him. We justify being an asshole to everyone else in His name. I'm guilty of it too. We all are. I don't know what else to say, we are fucking around with someone who has nothing but patience, but we all knew the quiet kid in school, the one everyone fucked with who never said anything, then one day, someone fucked with him and he released all fucking hell of a beating upon them. We were created in His image. He is only gonna put up with so much shit, then its time to start over, and see how the next batch do.

Posted by MonkeyPunchBaby you are a troll. simple as that.

Then you'd be a fool to argue with me if thats the case.

Posted by splumer So, I think any thinking person, if they are intellectually honest, will change their beliefs when reliable contradictory evidence comes up. There is no "ultimate truth." If there is, what is it? How do we know that that is the ultimate truth and not some other?

That's a very good point. And of course I change my beliefs on a whole array of things, thats how our mind learns. Yes, evolution, the big bang, and similar such theories are quite extensive, and do have a large amount of facts in them based on evidence from science, (I'm a huge fan of watching NOVA, even though the constantly talk about the big bang). All of that "evidence" has not said the almighty God does not exist, would you agree? So why should I stop believing in something that cant be disproven. Yes, it cant be proven (satisfactory) with worldy evidence, but some things cant be. Though that remains apparently an opinion among some people.

Posted by splumer Actually there's a church in Ethiopia that claims to have the Ark of the Covenant, presumably with the tablets still inside. They don't let anyone in to see it, though, and they don't bring it out. How convenient.

My thought's exactly. But still a point that things described in the bible have tried to surface... Makes you wonder why such things havent been made public.

Posted by splumer But your beliefs ARE based on evidence: the evidence in the Bible. I don't see that as a reliable source, however.

My ultimate belief in God is based on faith. You know that. The evidence written down in the bible is faith builder, something to stand on. Thats why Christians say to "stand on the Word of God".

Posted by splumer I agree entirely, but can't the same be said of you?

Of course! I'm human, I have the same faults as everyone else. But thats what faith is, why I was taught not to lose it. At the end of the day, my faith in God is all I have, its the thing that will stick with me for eternity. Thats why the bible says to avoid temptation. The catholic church and other christian based "religions" took that as meaning they should avoid science since its a "temptation". Embrace science. But its my belief that eventually, science will advance to a point where it must acknowledge its limits and know something intelligent place things in motion.

Posted by splumer I hesitate to say this, but the idea that your beliefs are 100 percent true and worth dying (or killing) over is what Islamic terrorists say, too.

Do you honestly think I would kill people to gain access to heaven, or kill myself while killing others to please God? Really? Come on

Posted by jeepdave we are fucking around with someone who has nothing but patience, but we all knew the quiet kid in school, the one everyone fucked with who never said anything, then one day, someone fucked with him and he released all fucking hell of a beating upon them.

Thats God!

Posted by maypost Fiend, I supplied you with scripture that goes against what you say. But you are too hard headed to give an answer to support your point of view.

I said I was not familiar with those scriptures, I'm in no position to debate them. There's a difference between being hard headed and being prudent.

Fair enough.

But The main question I am asking is more why this scripture is dismissed? I pointed out this biblical story and your response was that it did not apply to teh example you gave so it was in effect, moot.

That is what I would like to understand. I thought that if it's in teh bible, its 100% proof, fact, whatever word one attributes to truth. However, I am finding out that parts of the bible(written by god, apparently) are more true than others. Seems like selective and flawed logic to me.

Posted by Mr_Fiend Ok, so if you're reading the bible, you can say what other force out there is constantly going toe to toe with God and attacking His people. A force that deceives people into not worshiping God.

If you were reading the original versions of the original books that were eventually translated and mutated and edited and ultimately, thousands of years later, put into a collection called the Bible, by people who were primarily trying to unite hundreds of thousands of people with vastly different beliefs and interpretations, you would not have an answer to this question.

Or you could read a modern English translation, and just accept the lies and manipulations that have been woven in.

Posted by Mr_Fiend So now its history? I didnt say it was the only book, I said it was the only one with fulfilled prophecies.

And that is not true. Arthur C Clarke predicted satellites. Should we worship the Star Child?

Posted by Mr_Fiend I think you may be confusing the bible with the koran, mohammed wrote it out of his hate and envy for the jews and Christians.

Lolergasm.

Posted by Mr_Fiend Evidence gathered by man, yes. And was truth until people started to rebel against it. It's not considered "valid evidence" because you and other people say it isnt.

Wut?
So, if people believe a thing, it is true? Again, I think we established earlier that you were good with the Earth being flat. Did that become not true when people didn't believe it anymore? Was that how that happened?

Posted by Mr_Fiend Posted by Mr_Fiend I think you may be confusing the bible with the koran, mohammed wrote it out of his hate and envy for the jews and Christians.

WOW, how did I miss this??

Dude, prejudice much? Your level of ignorance amazes me. I am going to go out on a limb and say you know nothing about Islam and have never even picked up a copy of the Koran.

I'm fairly sure Jesus would NEVER has made a bold statement like that.

Posted by maypost Fair enough. But The main question I am asking is more why this scripture is dismissed? I pointed out this biblical story and your response was that it did not apply to teh example you gave so it was in effect, moot. That is what I would like to understand. I thought that if it's in teh bible, its 100% proof, fact, whatever word one attributes to truth. However, I am finding out that parts of the bible(written by god, apparently) are more true than others. Seems like selective and flawed logic to me.

Well I hope you know that there is a difference between The Old Testamant and The New Testament, if thats part of what you are getting at.

I was talking about idol worship and how the isrealites disobeyed God, even after it was written in stone. The other scripter you provided did not have that same principle in it. If you really want to talk about 2 kings and the war with Moab, and how that ONE story disproves Gods power, give me time to look it over and we can talk about it one on one.

Posted by MutantMandias So, if people believe a thing, it is true? Again, I think we established earlier that you were good with the Earth being flat. Did that become not true when people didn't believe it anymore? Was that how that happened?

You know what I'm getting at. The events in the bible were written down as history. Some written down when they happened, some later on. But I dont have any reason to not believe the bible. Saying that the bible was manipulated and twisted over time is an over exaggerated opinion meant to discredit it. And there is no proof to support that anyways. The Word of God is a self proclaimed established truth, and has been since it was compiled. And the story of the belief in God is written down in the bible.

Posted by maypost I'm fairly sure Jesus would NEVER has made a bold statement like that.

Wouldnt matter what Jesus said about Islam, Islam does not acknowledge him as the mesiah.

Islam came from the fight between Ishmael and Isaac, Ishmael being the envious brother without the blessing, and Islam is the ultimate decendent of Ishmaels hate for Isaac. Look it up.

Also reference previous threads in this board to better explain the koran vs the bible.

Posted by Mr_Fiend Wouldnt matter what Jesus said about Islam, Islam does not acknowledge him as the mesiah. Islam came from the fight between Ishmael and Isaac, Ishmael being the envious brother without the blessing, and Islam is the ultimate decendent of Ishmaels hate for Isaac. Look it up. Also reference previous threads in this board to better explain the koran vs the bible.

this is the last time i talk to you.

Jesus is highly respected prophet in the Koran. In fact he is the most quoted prophet in the Koran.

Wouldnt matter what Jesus said about Islam, Islam does not acknowledge him as the mesiah.

I thought Jesus would have wanted you to love all men, regardless if they accepted him. Can some other Christians verify that for me?

Islam came from the fight between Ishmael and Isaac, Ishmael being the envious brother without the blessing, and Islam is the ultimate decendent of Ishmaels hate for Isaac. Look it up. Also reference previous threads in this board to better explain the koran vs the bible.

So that means Mohammed hates the Jews and the Christians because why?

Think what you want, but you are WAY off on this one.