Psac, what creates hate and violence most of the time?
TheUbermensch
JoinedPosts by TheUbermensch
-
56
Effects of the Evolution Theory
by mankkeli ineffects of the evolution theory.
in the early 19th century, religion and science enjoyed a fairly amicable relationship.
just two years before the origin of species was published, biologist and harvard professor louis agassiz wrote that the living world shows premeditation, wisdom, greatness and that a major purpose of natural history was to analyze the thoughts of the creator of the universe.. agassiz viewpoint was not uncommon.
-
-
-
81
How did plants survive the Flood?
by dgp innoah is not said to have carried plants in his ark.
supposedly the flood was severe enough to cover "even the tallest mountains", which would mean that mount everest was covered.
and this for forty days.
-
-
TheUbermensch
I don't know. I guess you can ask Noah in the New System at the convention.
What an excellent escape route for someone who has been confronted by an excellent opposing argument, a witty condescending remark. Of course he/she can't actually own up to the fact that what they once thought was right has been proven wrong. How depressing. Ha.
-
1495
An Old Argument.... does it hold water?
by AK - Jeff inestimates range from 4 million to 15 million children die from starvation each year on this planet.
that's between 500 and 1700 children a day, depending on what numbers you accept.
still, no matter which numbers you use, doesn't this make you arrive at one of the following conclusions?.
-
-
TheUbermensch
1. Joshua is an ENGLISH name --> from the GREEK... "Joshua" --> from the HEBREW "Jah eShua" (rendered, in English letters as "Jehoshua"; however, the first two vowels are incorrect) --> from the root words "JHVH" (JaHVeH) and "yasha" (saves/salvation). The names means... even as to "Joshua": "JAH(VeH) Saves/Salvation of JAH(VeH)." 2. Jesus is an ENGLISH name --> from the LATIN (Roman) "Iesus" (pronounced "He sus") --> from the GREEK, "Iesous" (Ιησο?ς) --> from the Hebrew...??? There was NO name "Jesus", dear one... prior to the NT... even in the Greek Septuagint! Why IS that? Why aren't the "Joshua's" written there written as "Jesus"? Because... that name "Jesus" did not come about until... well, some would say the writings of the gospels. Excluding Paul/Luke, however, the PRIMARY language of the writers... and what they wrote... was Aramaic (Hebrew/Chaldean), not Greek. Much was later TRANSLATED to Greek... including this name. Which name... "Jesus"... while declaring JAH to BE the highest God, glorifies the highest [false] god of the Greeks, "Zeus": Je is zeus.This was not the first... or last... time God's name was either associated with... or combined with... the worship... or IDENTITY... of a false god. Starting with the golden calf in the wilderness... on into combining the birth of Christ with the winter solstice and worship of Saturnus ("Christ-mass")... his resurrection with the spring rebirth and worship of fertility gods ("Estere/Easter")... the indefinitely lasting covenant with Noah with glorifying the saints (which was not to be done!) and the harvest (All Hallowed Eve/Hallowe'en)... and more.But, as with the name of the Father, our Lord's name, which GLORIFIES the name of the Father... is a PURE name: it MEANS something, something critical, something PURE: that JAH is the One who saves, by MEANS of This One! Thus, it is hallowed and to BE sanctified... not abused, misused, reproached, and causing reproach. As has occurred with the name "Jesus."There is a reason, dear one... why the name "Jesus" is the name the WORLD knows... and uses. WE, however... are [supposed to be] "no part of the world." John 15:19 Indeed, the world does NOT know him... does it?I do not take [negative] issue with... or judge those who use the name "Jesus." And I know you know this. To the contrary, I understand that all progress in Christ at different speeds, etc. I just hope that others can understand that, too... and not ask or try to restrict me from where he has placed ME... or using the name he has given ME... or sharing it with others. I have NO doubt that ALL who WANT to know it... WILL know it... "at the proper time" for THEM. Indeed, at some point all will know it... even those who DON'T want to.But, as "Paul" quoted from the scriptures (Romans 10:13-17; Joel 2:32; Isaiah 52:7; 53:1):“'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.' How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone openly proclaiming to them? And how can anyone openly proclaim unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”"But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed our message?' Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ."My "proper time" arrived, dear one... and I received a message about our Lord... which included his NAME... the NAME "everyone" is to call on. I cannot... will not... reject the "food" given ME... or the PRIVILEGE of proclaiming it... to Israel.I know you understand this; I am just hoping that a few others can/will, as well.
What an absolute pile of garbage. As if calling on the name of God just means finding the right name to call on. As if belief is simply a language game that God set up for everyone. If God exists, why would he, the most supreme being to ever exist, would care what you call him. Again, theists argue semantics, as if some trivial little thing as a name (something ascribed by humans to be of importance) actually would mean something to the most ultimate, most powerful being of ETERNITY. Give me a break AGuest.
-
1495
An Old Argument.... does it hold water?
by AK - Jeff inestimates range from 4 million to 15 million children die from starvation each year on this planet.
that's between 500 and 1700 children a day, depending on what numbers you accept.
still, no matter which numbers you use, doesn't this make you arrive at one of the following conclusions?.
-
-
TheUbermensch
Who lets the children suffer?
God. By stating that God lets the children suffer I am not stating my BELIEF that God allows children to suffer. I am assuming a belief in God to propose an argumentative opposition to the original premise of the popular contemporary theistic approach to the evidential problem of evil. How else can one argue against theism? If person C believes xy, and when opposed states only x, person A must assume belief in xy to point out the flaw of belief y. Comprende? I can not point out any flaws in belief, or propose any contradictory ideas if I do not assume the belief.
1.Do I believe there is a God? No.
2.Do you? Yes.
3.Do children suffer throughout the world? Yes.
4.Is God all knowing, all powerful and perfectly good in modern Judeo-Christian beliefs, and as stated in the Bible? Yes.
5.Do children suffer? Yes.
6. Assuming your beliefs, if God exists is he doing anything to put an immediate end to the pain and suffering of said children? (without using human beings' generosity, which, obviously, doesn't help everything because children still suffer) No.
7.Assuming position 6, is God perfectly good, all powerful and all knowing? No, that is a logical contradiction.
8. Assuming position 7, does the modern Judeo-Christian God, and the God of the Holy Bible exist? No, or at least not in the way that he is described, for instance, he could be morally imperfect.
9. Are millions of people believing blindly in a God that is highly impossible? Yes.
10. Again, am I one of those who believe in God? No, because I just utilized your belief to show you logical fallacy does not mean I believe it.
If I am arguing against abortion, what would I utilize to argue? Maybe a couple of facts, but mostly I would use something along the lines of, "but if abortion was x then that means that abortion is y." or something along those lines. By using instances and occasions that could happen in the action of abortion, does that mean I believe that abortion is morally sound, or ethically unchallenged? Of course not.
Now you see why the non believers continually say, on this thread, that you haven't given us an answer? Because you're busy arguing about something as pointless as how I'm arguing against the belief in God. How many people, when arguing against evolution, utilize the view of something like evolutionary morality to argue AGAINST it? MANY PEOPLE. It's how you ARGUE. Can you even give me another way to disprove something without assuming it's true originally? It's not that hard to understand N.drew.
What does the way I argue a point have anything to do with anything? NOTHING. AT ALL. It's another way you subconsciously sidetrack the entire conversation by use of convenient semantics which you find some argumentative importance or value in something that is completely pointless. What do you gain by asking such a question? Hmmm? What do you know, now that I've answered your question? NOTHING. Just a bunch of wasted time for something that you ALREADY knew.
-
1495
An Old Argument.... does it hold water?
by AK - Jeff inestimates range from 4 million to 15 million children die from starvation each year on this planet.
that's between 500 and 1700 children a day, depending on what numbers you accept.
still, no matter which numbers you use, doesn't this make you arrive at one of the following conclusions?.
-
-
TheUbermensch
I think it's been pretty obvious that I don't believe in God N.drew.
-
1495
An Old Argument.... does it hold water?
by AK - Jeff inestimates range from 4 million to 15 million children die from starvation each year on this planet.
that's between 500 and 1700 children a day, depending on what numbers you accept.
still, no matter which numbers you use, doesn't this make you arrive at one of the following conclusions?.
-
-
TheUbermensch
So the fact that people are helping makes the point that those people that they ARE helping are suffering completely moot? I think that since human beings have to help each other (impossible to help everyone) that is yet another reason to see why God isn't there. He lets measly little humans quibble and suffer and try to support each other while he watches on.
-
56
Effects of the Evolution Theory
by mankkeli ineffects of the evolution theory.
in the early 19th century, religion and science enjoyed a fairly amicable relationship.
just two years before the origin of species was published, biologist and harvard professor louis agassiz wrote that the living world shows premeditation, wisdom, greatness and that a major purpose of natural history was to analyze the thoughts of the creator of the universe.. agassiz viewpoint was not uncommon.
-
-
TheUbermensch
Psac, you're statement is quite confusing. Are you saying that since evolution can not give us an answer to the beginning of existence that God is the only other option? Or are you saying that comparing evolution to Creationism is pointless BECAUSE evolution doesn't concern the beginning? (which is a false statement by the way)... Or something else?
-
81
How did plants survive the Flood?
by dgp innoah is not said to have carried plants in his ark.
supposedly the flood was severe enough to cover "even the tallest mountains", which would mean that mount everest was covered.
and this for forty days.
-
-
TheUbermensch
Ahahaha. Yes, I also enjoy slaying rebellious children, and stoning every homosexual I meet.
-
1495
An Old Argument.... does it hold water?
by AK - Jeff inestimates range from 4 million to 15 million children die from starvation each year on this planet.
that's between 500 and 1700 children a day, depending on what numbers you accept.
still, no matter which numbers you use, doesn't this make you arrive at one of the following conclusions?.
-
-
TheUbermensch
How is the OP limited? There is no plausible evidence for the statement that YOU posted, whereas the OP has factual evidence to support it's premise.... how is that limited? .... O_o
And did you just create an argument against yourself? That statement goes your direction as well. If you believe that God IS good/love based on the good/love in the world that HE supposedly created, then wouldn't the image of evil ALSO come from God?
-
81
How did plants survive the Flood?
by dgp innoah is not said to have carried plants in his ark.
supposedly the flood was severe enough to cover "even the tallest mountains", which would mean that mount everest was covered.
and this for forty days.
-
-
TheUbermensch
So, sabastious, do you believe that the fact that Noah's global flood is probably just a minor incident that happened in a primitive tribe's area is proof that the Bible is true... or something else? Because I do believe you started a thread concerning the Bible's beauty and it's truth...