krimsa Forum Posts (1,345)

RE: Prove to me....

I am simply asking that you explain the contradictions because you are making a claim that there are none and that the bible is perfect.



Alright. How about this time you pick a contradiction you think you can explain. That is what I allowed you to do the first time.



Really? Why not simply explain this contradiction then since you are so terribly superior in your biblical study. I think I have done pretty well thus far.



Okay if you truly think that is the case, then what do you want me to do? How can I post the entire bible? Does that mean you are also not allowed to post passage after passage? I don’t mind if you do that so why should you mind if I do it? Simply because you find what I am pointing out troublesome?

RE: Prove to me....

So? Were you going to explain the contradiction?

"At yet another council, the council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) the creed received some finishing touches and the Athanasian creed was declared official church teaching. Most Christians are not familiar with the detailed implications of the creed and in their own minds conceive of Jesus in the very ways the creed was formulated to deny. This tendency results from the fact that the creed’s definition of Jesus is impossible for any human mind to comprehend. One can only repeat the words, but cannot grasp the meaning of the required belief. Therefore most just repeat the creed with their lips but in their minds turn to views of Jesus that are less taxing on the intellect, even though those views were declared by the Church to be heretical."

RE: The cost of Religious abandonment...

Im with you on most of that.

RE: Prove to me....

Yes, I am asking Mike to explain the contradiction in the bible that Jesus is both a man and a god.

RE: Prove to me....

You have not offered a rebuttal yet to the man/god contradiction? Are you forfeiting?

RE: Prove to me....

Yes humans and animals can be resuscitated from a "clinically deceased state."



Based on??? The fact that medical science has the capability to bring a person back?



Not all religions do and not in the same way.



???

RE: Prove to me....

Since you simply reposted your refuted argument. I simply reposted my refutation.

In response to: I am glad you appreciated my explanation.


Yes I’m assuming it came from an apologetic website.


In response to: I understand your not wanting to except it.


It’s not a matter of "not accepting it." You didn’t explain the contradictions. Did you read my post? Modern Christian scholars reject this idea not because it is difficult to understand but because it cannot be meaningfully expressed. The doctrine cannot be stated in any way that is free from contradictions. It is impossible for Jesus to have been perfect man and perfect God at the same time, for this would mean that he was finite and infinite at the same time, that he was fallible and infallible at the same time. This cannot be.


In response to: But I have established a viable alternative to just taking these passages to be contrary with each other.


They are because the only passage that you supplied that was actually from the bible (and not simply just conjecture) on the part of the apologetics was open to interpretation as noted.


In response to: I am not sure what modern "Christian" scholars you are alluding to,


Theologians of the current day. Only evangelical Christians tend to still buy into the notion of "biblical inerrancy."


In response to: but I never said Jesus was infinite when He was in human form.


What the creed denies is also quite significant. The creed was formulated in response to the claims of various early Christian groups, and so includes clauses that deny the beliefs of those groups. In response to the Arians who believed that Jesus was not God, the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) decreed that he was fully God.


In response to: Just as the passage I provided shows, He was made low so He could experience humanity, suffer, and die.


That passage is open to interpretation. Did Jesus die by the grace of god or apart from god? “Although almost all the surviving manuscripts state that Jesus died for all people ‘by the grace of God’ (CHARITI THEOU) a couple of others state, instead, that he died ‘apart from God’ (CHORIS THEOU). Heb 2:9 appears originally to have said that Jesus died ‘apart from God’, forsaken, much as he is portrayed in the Passion narrative of Mark’s Gospel…..There is also the question of why these words came to be changed…. One explanation is that the scribes who were not altogether satisfied with what the New Testament books said modified their words to make them more clearly support orthodox Christianity and more vigorously oppose heretics, women, Jews, and pagans.”


In response to: "So Jesus said to them, 'Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.'" Matthew 19:28


19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

This is the very next passage. Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he'll give you a big reward. Hrmmm.


In response to: "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." John 1:3


But how could Jesus be with God in the beginning as this verse says, if, as the Watchtower teaches, Jesus was created by God? And how could Jesus be "a god" and yet be with God during the creation, if God was speaking truthfully?

RE: Prove to me....

"All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." John 1:3

RE: Prove to me....

Im not sure if that's ever really the point. People will remain Christian untill it no longer serves their purposes and they move onto something else or nothing at all.

RE: The cost of Religious abandonment...

RE: The cost of Religious abandonment...

Either way...it’s terribly embarrassing. The implication would be that she attacked me due to the fact that she was utterly mortified on the thread I posted a link for OR you messaged her just now to come to your aid as Rodolpho and I were merely asking you to state examples for why Atheists are more destructive then Christians. Take your pick.

RE: The cost of Religious abandonment...

Then why did you feel the need to attack me and leap to her defense? It is also against forum rules to make personal assaults on people or to call them names. I’m assuming a moderator will be reminding you of this shortly.




See above statment.



And when I have EVER declared this? Please quote that. It sounds to me as if you are embarrassed over being made a fool of on the thread I posted a link for. Either that or Dusty private messaged you to come to her aid just now. Thus the "random” attack in quotations remark.



You did. Name calling and personal insults are not permissible on these forums.




Are you implying Dusty is a fool now? You are going to get banned if you can not control yourself and insist on making such childish remarks. I wish you would be "through with me". You have said this at least a dozen times and always feel the need to go back on your word.

RE: The cost of Religious abandonment...

I never had a problem, I asked for your examples as you had directed Rodolpho and I to look at your post when you could not produce them. Then I was attacked at "random" by your friend. Thanks anyway...maybe you can come up with some later after you think about it.

RE: The cost of Religious abandonment...

I just wanted to mention that I know that the three Mediterranean based "super religions" are on the decline. No, I dont think in your life time you will see the fundamental end to these religions but you will see their numbers and influence decrease dramatically. You can actually witness this occurring now.

However, statistically, Wicca is rapidly approaching the 5th most practiced religion in the US today. That places it just behind Hinduism. So I dont think its a matter of ALL religion dissolving in an arbitrarily designated span of time. Certain faiths may increase while other decrease. The reason (there are several attributed ) for this is that earth based spirituality is becoming much more popular in light of the current day ecological crisis.

RE: The cost of Religious abandonment...

So what about those examples Dusty that Rodolpho asked for?

RE: The cost of Religious abandonment...

Just pointing out the obvious. I think its funny. Anyone can also look at the at thread.

RE: The cost of Religious abandonment...

Also, on top of the actual evidence that you made a complete fool of yourself on that thread, shouldn't Dusty be capable of standing on her own two feet in light of the questions posed to her? Or does she require you like some kind of attack, slobbering bull dog?

RE: The cost of Religious abandonment...

RE: The cost of Religious abandonment...

And looks whos talking....not a little bit resentful over being made a fool of?

RE: The cost of Religious abandonment...

Last I looked it was the Christians who believe that god gave them "dominion" over the world and therefore permission to be as destructive as possible because it doesn't matter as they are promised eternal life and they are bound for someplace better once they die. Feel free to list those examples...

RE: The cost of Religious abandonment...

You didnt list any examples...

RE: The cost of Religious abandonment...

Those terrible atheists! They are obsessed with nothing! They are always trying to shove nothing down someone's throat!

RE: The cost of Religious abandonment...

Which god and who is he laughing at? Surely not those that quote themselves?

RE: The cost of Religious abandonment...

No problem Miss Ego.

RE: The cost of Religious abandonment...

Yep I even used that exact example for the Treaty with Tripoli. Its a bit of a smoking gun there. He claimed that the Founding Fathers had simply made that statement in article 11 as a lie in order to appease the Muslims. That is the ONLY possible explanation the Christian right can offer.

RE: The cost of Religious abandonment...

Humble or not humble does not even enter the equation. Its simply an observable forum etiquette.

RE: The cost of Religious abandonment...

I think its better to allow someone else to quote you, otherwise it appears that you are so enamored with your own words you must repeat them.

RE: A sincere question to those who don't believe the Bible is God's Word

Your last sentence. You stated that people should not be harassed. The implication was that I had harassed you in some respect.



Yes you should have because you quoted me and then made that remark. What am I supposed to think? I have attempted to be respectful in every thread I have ever posted on in fact.



I think that was only a joke because I was dressed like a cat in that photo and it was in reference to lions eating Christians alive. Dont take any of that seriously.




Well so far the only one that has been dismissed is Sarah and Abraham with good reason. You are welcome to list another if you like.



I listed one that has not been. You never addressed it.



Im sure many other Christians will agree with you that prophecies from the bible have been fulfilled but they are basing that acceptance on faith.



Well simply listing something from the bible that was fulfilled and we can agree on the legitimacy of the claim i.e. it occurred or actually took place in a historical context. Is that out of line? Otherwise I could tell you that my parakeet is god and you just dont have enough faith to believe it.

RE: The cost of Religious abandonment...

Are you quoting yourself?

RE: A sincere question to those who don't believe the Bible is God's Word

I never harassed you. I asked you to list a prophecy that had actually been fulfilled. I think about 4 people also asked? Why are you so angry and resentful of this request? Didnt you begin this thread on that very premise? I dont understand. I explained why I did not consider Abraham and Sarah to be any sort of "fulfilled prophecy." I gave supportive evidence for my reasoning.

If you wish to counter those you may. Or you can move onto another which you feel is a fulfilled prophecy. For one thing, there is no reason to believe that Abraham and Sarah was anything more than a story in the bible and not based on actual humans that lived. I also asked why at age 100 did Abraham have no more need of "god's intervention" in order to have children and he went on to produce 6 more. Obviously he had no physical issues that would limit his reproductive capacity.