I don't think he was "wise" to narrow it down to only three choices.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Why there almost certainly is No God!!
- Thread starter Desibaba
- Start date
I don't think he was "wise" to narrow it down to only three choices.
BR1217
New Member
Clearly Harris has never read the Old Testament or New Testament for that matter. God not only allowed destruction to happen He caused destruction to come to many groups that turned away from him. To say that I understood why God allowed this to happen would be a lie. Antidiluvian people were completely destroyed by God yet through this destruction God allowed Noah and his family to live and propagate the earth. I think we put too much emphasis on our short time on this planet. We measure God by things that happen in this lifetime as if this lifetime is all we have. What if this life is just our opportunity to determine where we want to spend our time after this life is extinguished. God makes it clear that those who choose to be away from him in eternity will be granted that wish. God will destroy those who do not wish to be with him. I do not believe in an eternal punishment. I believe that God out of mercy destroys those who do not with to be with him and they will be no more, those who choose to be with him will have a different fate for eternity. So, for the Atheist there is no God and God is gracious enough to grant that wish and will destroy them at their death. So for the Atheist God will truly never exist.
I believe Harris has read the Bible, but he refuses to let it "work" within him.
I agree with your synopsis 'cept for "Eternal Punishment" Please read below.
MUST READ:
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1563-goodness-of-god-and-eternal-punishment-the
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVZnwZdh-iM[/ame]
Last edited:
BR1217
New Member
My reply will take much more time than I have right now. I will certainly address this subject this evening when I can sit down and put my thoughts in order. I was out of order when I wrote that I do not believe in eternal punishment, I do believe in eternal punishment. Being separated from God is certainly eternal punishment. The question is this, are we consciously separated from God? I believe at the judgement those people whose name is not in the lambs book of life will be cast into the lake of fire where they are consumed. God is the all consuming fire. This is where I have to stop for now. Till later.
Public Acceptance of Evolution in 34 Countries, 2005
Miller JD, Scott EC, Okamoto S. Public Acceptance of Evolution. Science 2006;313(5788):765-6. Science Magazine: Sign In
The United States is 33/34 of the countries, just above Turkey. Regardless of the form of the question, one in three American adults firmly rejects the concept of evolution, a significantly higher proportion than found in any western European country.
Miller JD, Scott EC, Okamoto S. Public Acceptance of Evolution. Science 2006;313(5788):765-6. Science Magazine: Sign In
The United States is 33/34 of the countries, just above Turkey. Regardless of the form of the question, one in three American adults firmly rejects the concept of evolution, a significantly higher proportion than found in any western European country.
Attachments
Public Acceptance of Evolution in 34 Countries, 2005
Miller JD, Scott EC, Okamoto S. Public Acceptance of Evolution. Science 2006;313(5788):765-6. Science Magazine: Sign In
The United States is 33/34 of the countries, just above Turkey. Regardless of the form of the question, one in three American adults firmly rejects the concept of evolution, a significantly higher proportion than found in any western European country.
I knew the devil lived in Iceland!
Top 10 revolutionary scientific theories
BY TOM SIEGFRIED 6:32 PM, NOVEMBER 13, 2013
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/top-10-revolutionary-scientific-theories
2. Evolution by natural selection: Charles Darwin, 1859
Darwin showed that the intricate complexity of life and the intricate relationships among life-forms could emerge and survive from natural processes, with no need for a designer or an ark. He opened the human mind to pursuing natural science unimpaired by supernatural prejudices. His theory was so revolutionary that some people still doubt it. They shouldn’t.
BY TOM SIEGFRIED 6:32 PM, NOVEMBER 13, 2013
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/top-10-revolutionary-scientific-theories
2. Evolution by natural selection: Charles Darwin, 1859
Darwin showed that the intricate complexity of life and the intricate relationships among life-forms could emerge and survive from natural processes, with no need for a designer or an ark. He opened the human mind to pursuing natural science unimpaired by supernatural prejudices. His theory was so revolutionary that some people still doubt it. They shouldn’t.
It should be recognized, when all these theories are set in cement...the concrete breaks down over time!!!
.......... Darwin's Theory Of Evolution - A Theory in Crisis
Darwin's Theory Of Evolution
.
.
.
.......... Darwin's Theory Of Evolution - A Theory in Crisis
Darwin's Theory Of Evolution
.
.
.
radcon
New Member
This is predicated on death being a terrible thing. From a human perspective, it's hard to see it as not a terrible thing in most instances.
There are however other possible views on what death means.
Given the Christian (and many other religions) view that death as a Christian knows it is really the beginning of a "better life", one which will make this one seem extremely short - It makes for more options than merely the 3 listed.
BR1217
New Member
Academia has proven time and time again that any theory that involves a creator or intelligent design will be universally squashed. Ben Stein has a great documentary, Expelled, exposing the politics at play in regards to evolution. Evolution is nothing short of Government funded religion. How can our nations enlightened ones blindly back this theory that has been debunked several time over? Darwin himself would concur that evolution is not possible.
YOU MISS, the Genius of the CONTEXT. The "three choices" covered Every single base imaginable...
IMPOTENT - Pertaining to POWER/EFFECTIVENESS - OR NOT, and ALL BETWEEN
EVIL - Pertaining to "good or bad"/ Right or wrong/ RELATIVE Contextually at a minimum.
IMAGINARY - Does he exist? OR - I interpret as perhaps HE would have an imagination. Thus is limitless. Thus is YOU in his created design. The possibilities are INFINITE.
I UNDERSTAND that this individual MOST LIKELY SPOKE THE WORDS in negative context, and in dismay of the horrors occurring with the tragedy. But what was he really saying. Does HE even know.
Emotion is the Enemy of Precision and Clarity. Per the holy scriptures - GOD GAVE us EMOTION. Precision and Clarity are functions of life and CHOICE, which is up to US. This is what DEFINES US. The Ultimate Animal with the Ultimate Conundrum..
According to the Old Testament - We have it coming...
According to the New Testament - We are forgiven...
Does anyone even see this epitome of unclarity in the Gray existence which WE ALL MAKE OUR OWN CHOICES.?
OR... Perhaps we are all just some alien kid's ANT FARM and this particular location in his CAGE happens to have an affinity for IONIZING RADIOACTIVE PARTICLES. You can also consider that MANY Earth Born Super humanized Heros are usually born to some kind of odd radiation. We ALL experience some degree of radioactivity on a daily basis. Just what kind of FUEL could this be in the PATH of GENETIC PROGRESS - in the right dose... Further consider, without ANY - We would not be ALIVE....
:drooling:
IMPOTENT - Pertaining to POWER/EFFECTIVENESS - OR NOT, and ALL BETWEEN
EVIL - Pertaining to "good or bad"/ Right or wrong/ RELATIVE Contextually at a minimum.
IMAGINARY - Does he exist? OR - I interpret as perhaps HE would have an imagination. Thus is limitless. Thus is YOU in his created design. The possibilities are INFINITE.
I UNDERSTAND that this individual MOST LIKELY SPOKE THE WORDS in negative context, and in dismay of the horrors occurring with the tragedy. But what was he really saying. Does HE even know.
Emotion is the Enemy of Precision and Clarity. Per the holy scriptures - GOD GAVE us EMOTION. Precision and Clarity are functions of life and CHOICE, which is up to US. This is what DEFINES US. The Ultimate Animal with the Ultimate Conundrum..
According to the Old Testament - We have it coming...
According to the New Testament - We are forgiven...
Does anyone even see this epitome of unclarity in the Gray existence which WE ALL MAKE OUR OWN CHOICES.?
OR... Perhaps we are all just some alien kid's ANT FARM and this particular location in his CAGE happens to have an affinity for IONIZING RADIOACTIVE PARTICLES. You can also consider that MANY Earth Born Super humanized Heros are usually born to some kind of odd radiation. We ALL experience some degree of radioactivity on a daily basis. Just what kind of FUEL could this be in the PATH of GENETIC PROGRESS - in the right dose... Further consider, without ANY - We would not be ALIVE....
:drooling:
Darwin's my BITCH who services me through a WORMHOLE... LOL
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L33OWl2eUQ]Johnny Cash - The Man Comes Around (Lyric Video) - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L33OWl2eUQ]Johnny Cash - The Man Comes Around (Lyric Video) - YouTube[/ame]
Last edited:
Ya got me BB. What does that me exactly?Darwin's my BITCH who services me through a WORMHOLE... LOL
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKhxDHtRBY]Ray Comfort Explains God To Total Idiots - YouTube[/ame]
It means EXACTLY THIS......:drooling:
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sco_eBvXGTQ[/ame]
:drooling:[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sco_eBvXGTQ[/ame]
nuncaquite
New Member
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=105&article=1173
One of the skeptic’s favorite tactics in an attempt to discredit the God of the Bible is to insist that God is a cruel, heartless, vengeful God Who capriciously sends floods or armies through the land destroying innocent men, women, and children. Skeptics especially like to focus on the children. How could a loving God send Saul and his army to destroy all the Amalekites, including the “infant and nursing child?” Steve Wells claims that “God just wanted to see some more innocent people killed” (2001). Or, how could a loving God send a flood to destroy all the people of the Earth, including the innocent babies? The argument goes something like this: (1) the God of the Bible is supposed to be good and loving; (2) the God of the Bible kills innocent children; (3) therefore the God of the Bible cannot be good and loving.
At first glance, this logic seems to make sense. When examined more closely, however, there lies within this syllogism a faulty assumption. The faulty assumption built into this line of reasoning is that death is always, in every circumstance, an evil thing. With the assumption built in, the second premise should read like this: The God of the Bible kills innocent children, and death of anyone innocent is always a bad thing. The assumption that death, especially the death of innocent children, is always bad, stems from the skeptic’s adherence to pure naturalism. If this physical life and material world are all that exist, then to take an innocent person out of this physical world is inherently evil, according to the skeptic.
Yet, the same Bible that tells about a God Who takes the physical lives of innocent children also informs the reader that this physical world is not all there is to existence. In fact, the Bible explains that every person has a soul that will live forever, long after physical life on this Earth is over (Matthew 25:46; see also Thompson, 2001). The Bible consistently stresses the fact that the immortal soul of each individual is of much more value than that individual’s physical life on this Earth. Jesus Christ said: “For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matthew 16:26).
Although the skeptic might object, and claim that an answer from the Bible is not acceptable, such an objection falls flat for one primary reason—the skeptic used the Bible to formulate his argument. Where is it written that God is love? The answer: in the Bible in such passages as 1 John 4:8. Where do we learn that the Lord did, indeed, kill or order the deaths of babies? Once again, that information comes directly from the Bible. Where, then, should we look for an answer to this alleged discrepancy? The answer should be the Bible. If the alleged problem is formulated from biblical testimony, then the Bible should be given the opportunity to explain itself. As long as the skeptic uses the Bible to formulate the problem, we certainly can use the Bible to solve the problem. The biblical solution to the alleged problem in this instance is that every person has an immortal soul that is of inestimable value.
With the value of the soul in mind, let us examine several verses that prove that physical death is not necessarily evil. In a letter to the Philippians, the apostle Paul was writing from prison to encourage the Christians. His letter was filled with hope and encouragement, but it also was tinted with some very pertinent comments about the way that Paul (and God) view death. In Philippians 1:21-23, Paul wrote:
For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell. For I am hard pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better (emp. added).
According to the skeptic, the death of an innocent person is always, in every case, an evil thing. In these verses, however, Paul lays that faulty assumption to rest. Paul, a faithful Christian, said that death was a welcome visitor. In fact, Paul said that the end of his physical life on this Earth would be “far better” than its continuation. For Paul, as well as for any faithful Christian, the cessation of physical life is not loss, but gain. Such would apply to innocent children as well, since they are in a safe condition and go to paradise when they die (see Butt, 2003).
Other verses in the Bible show that the loss of physical life is not inherently evil. The prophet Isaiah concisely summarized the situation when he was inspired to write:
The righteous perishes, and no man takes it to heart; merciful men are taken away, while no one considers that the righteous is taken away from evil. He shall enter into peace; they shall rest in their beds, each one walking in his uprightness (57:1-2, emp. added).
Isaiah recognized that people would view the death of the righteous incorrectly. He plainly stated that this incorrect view of death was due to the fact that most people do not think about the fact that when a righteous or innocent person dies, that person is “taken away from evil,” and enters “into peace.”
The psalmist wrote: “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints” (Psalm 116:15). Death is not inherently evil. In fact, the Bible indicates that death can be great gain in which a righteous person is taken away from evil and allowed to enter peace and rest. God looks upon the death of His faithful followers as something precious. Skeptics who charge God with wickedness because He has ended the physical lives of innocent babies are in error. They refuse to recognize the reality of the immortal soul. Instead of the death of innocent children being an evil thing, it is often a blessing for that child to be taken away from a life of hardship at the hands of a sinful society, and ushered into a paradise of peace and rest. In order for a skeptic to legitimately charge God with cruelty, the skeptic must prove that there is no immortal soul, and that physical life is the only reality—neither of which the skeptic can do. Failure to acknowledge the reality of the soul and the spiritual realm always will result in a distorted view of the nature of God. “The righteous perishes…while no one considers that the righteous is taken away from evil.”
REFERENCES
Butt, Kyle (2003), “Do Babies Go to Hell When They Die?,” [On-line], URL: Apologetics Press - Do Babies Go to Hell When They Die?.
Thompson, Bert
One of the skeptic’s favorite tactics in an attempt to discredit the God of the Bible is to insist that God is a cruel, heartless, vengeful God Who capriciously sends floods or armies through the land destroying innocent men, women, and children. Skeptics especially like to focus on the children. How could a loving God send Saul and his army to destroy all the Amalekites, including the “infant and nursing child?” Steve Wells claims that “God just wanted to see some more innocent people killed” (2001). Or, how could a loving God send a flood to destroy all the people of the Earth, including the innocent babies? The argument goes something like this: (1) the God of the Bible is supposed to be good and loving; (2) the God of the Bible kills innocent children; (3) therefore the God of the Bible cannot be good and loving.
At first glance, this logic seems to make sense. When examined more closely, however, there lies within this syllogism a faulty assumption. The faulty assumption built into this line of reasoning is that death is always, in every circumstance, an evil thing. With the assumption built in, the second premise should read like this: The God of the Bible kills innocent children, and death of anyone innocent is always a bad thing. The assumption that death, especially the death of innocent children, is always bad, stems from the skeptic’s adherence to pure naturalism. If this physical life and material world are all that exist, then to take an innocent person out of this physical world is inherently evil, according to the skeptic.
Yet, the same Bible that tells about a God Who takes the physical lives of innocent children also informs the reader that this physical world is not all there is to existence. In fact, the Bible explains that every person has a soul that will live forever, long after physical life on this Earth is over (Matthew 25:46; see also Thompson, 2001). The Bible consistently stresses the fact that the immortal soul of each individual is of much more value than that individual’s physical life on this Earth. Jesus Christ said: “For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matthew 16:26).
Although the skeptic might object, and claim that an answer from the Bible is not acceptable, such an objection falls flat for one primary reason—the skeptic used the Bible to formulate his argument. Where is it written that God is love? The answer: in the Bible in such passages as 1 John 4:8. Where do we learn that the Lord did, indeed, kill or order the deaths of babies? Once again, that information comes directly from the Bible. Where, then, should we look for an answer to this alleged discrepancy? The answer should be the Bible. If the alleged problem is formulated from biblical testimony, then the Bible should be given the opportunity to explain itself. As long as the skeptic uses the Bible to formulate the problem, we certainly can use the Bible to solve the problem. The biblical solution to the alleged problem in this instance is that every person has an immortal soul that is of inestimable value.
With the value of the soul in mind, let us examine several verses that prove that physical death is not necessarily evil. In a letter to the Philippians, the apostle Paul was writing from prison to encourage the Christians. His letter was filled with hope and encouragement, but it also was tinted with some very pertinent comments about the way that Paul (and God) view death. In Philippians 1:21-23, Paul wrote:
For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell. For I am hard pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better (emp. added).
According to the skeptic, the death of an innocent person is always, in every case, an evil thing. In these verses, however, Paul lays that faulty assumption to rest. Paul, a faithful Christian, said that death was a welcome visitor. In fact, Paul said that the end of his physical life on this Earth would be “far better” than its continuation. For Paul, as well as for any faithful Christian, the cessation of physical life is not loss, but gain. Such would apply to innocent children as well, since they are in a safe condition and go to paradise when they die (see Butt, 2003).
Other verses in the Bible show that the loss of physical life is not inherently evil. The prophet Isaiah concisely summarized the situation when he was inspired to write:
The righteous perishes, and no man takes it to heart; merciful men are taken away, while no one considers that the righteous is taken away from evil. He shall enter into peace; they shall rest in their beds, each one walking in his uprightness (57:1-2, emp. added).
Isaiah recognized that people would view the death of the righteous incorrectly. He plainly stated that this incorrect view of death was due to the fact that most people do not think about the fact that when a righteous or innocent person dies, that person is “taken away from evil,” and enters “into peace.”
The psalmist wrote: “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints” (Psalm 116:15). Death is not inherently evil. In fact, the Bible indicates that death can be great gain in which a righteous person is taken away from evil and allowed to enter peace and rest. God looks upon the death of His faithful followers as something precious. Skeptics who charge God with wickedness because He has ended the physical lives of innocent babies are in error. They refuse to recognize the reality of the immortal soul. Instead of the death of innocent children being an evil thing, it is often a blessing for that child to be taken away from a life of hardship at the hands of a sinful society, and ushered into a paradise of peace and rest. In order for a skeptic to legitimately charge God with cruelty, the skeptic must prove that there is no immortal soul, and that physical life is the only reality—neither of which the skeptic can do. Failure to acknowledge the reality of the soul and the spiritual realm always will result in a distorted view of the nature of God. “The righteous perishes…while no one considers that the righteous is taken away from evil.”
REFERENCES
Butt, Kyle (2003), “Do Babies Go to Hell When They Die?,” [On-line], URL: Apologetics Press - Do Babies Go to Hell When They Die?.
Thompson, Bert
Stretch
Subscriber
The real reason why a theory with as many logical flaws as evolution has been so widely accepted.
Last edited:
"Life could emerge from natural processes"?
Like a rolling stone morphing into an oyster?
I got it now lol, horse shit!!
That's one reason Darwin's theory remains UNPROVEN TO THIS DAY (kinda like that ark) LMAO!
Like a rolling stone morphing into an oyster?
I got it now lol, horse shit!!
That's one reason Darwin's theory remains UNPROVEN TO THIS DAY (kinda like that ark) LMAO!
nuncaquite
New Member
So you are telling me that if I drive a box of rocks to the top of a hill, I can leave the horse radish sauce, crackers and lemon at the bottom?
Sorry smiles. When I said "crackers" I meant the unleavened bread kind. Im not sharing my rocksters with anyone.
