CreateDebate


Trumpet_guy's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Trumpet_guy's arguments, looking across every debate.
trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

I agree. That was part of the whole point of the New Testament, and what the physical miracles Jesus did were symbolic of. Changing the human heart to be blameless before men in such a way that it was proof.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

I agree Christian's need to actually be "little Christ's" more and really don't apply what they preach alot. 1st Century church Apostle Paul addressed this.

1 Corinthians 15:34 KJV

Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

I'm guessing you believe in old earth creationism? Why do you believe it, and how would you prove God to an unbeliever?

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

What would you call substantial proof? What would convince you that God exists?

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

Why do you say you know Christianity is not true? Just seeing how you think.

Except it wasn't just decomposing bodies and it wasn't just "avoid them" and slight aversion. During the Middle Ages when the Black Plague happened people had NO CONCEPT of disease control and because of this people thought sickness was caused by an unbalance of "humors" or quadrants you can think of. Later a singular doctor had an idea of disease "jumping" but he still had no idea how disease worked because he started the famous Plague Doctor suit with the beak. Which he would wear EVERYWHERE and carry the disease with him, spreading it along with whatever doctors believed his theory and used his suit.

With that being said the Mosiac Law came 2000+ years before the Black Plague and is the first ever recorded use of the quarantine. Ever. And the wording used isn't "yeah you should probably do this if you want". No it was "we are all going to die if you don't do this". There's also alot more than just avoiding dead bodies and obvious disease, you should actually read it sometime.

Anyways my point is NOT that there's irrefutable evidence of God, my point is outright saying there is 0% chance of an existential power existing is just not true and intellectually dishonest and actually a logical fallacy (argument from ignorance).

You fuckwits make a conscious, subjective decision to believe in a bunch of bullshit written mostly from word-of-mouth myths concerning some other barbaric fuckwits from 4000 years ago in one of the most deprived and violent parts of the planet, on nothing more than faith, without a single shred of evidence.

For "backwards fuckwits from 4000 years ago" they seem to have some pretty comprehensive understanding of disease control, more so than any other nation at the time. Like separating people from the camp when they were sick, washing when someone touched something dead or diseased. Pretty good considering hand washing wasn't even a thing till the 1800's. Almost like a transcendent being with advanced knowledge on the subject gave it to them.

Thank you for ignoring the important paragraph:

Separate but the same person at the same time. This is confusing for many but have you ever read a book called Flatland? It presents a two-dimensional world. In this world all things that exist are two dimensional and observe it's own world in one dimension. Meaning shapes would appear as lines and you would discern distance and separation of bodies by shading. If a three-dimensional object was to go through this world, for example a hand, it could exist in multiple parts of the world, appear as separate entities, but still exist as a single object in reality. This is a good way to understand the Trinity. It's still incomplete but its much better than the egg or states of matter illustrations that are used.

The trinity is, as the religious claim, indivisible. So

You argument relies on false premise. It's forcing a view that the religious do not have, unless you are limiting your view to the Unitarian view, which is not the representative majority of Christianity. Your view of the Trinity is that they do not share separate person in anyway. Separateis the important part of the trinity that is partly but not entirely explained in the above paragraph.

Makes no sense.

Thank you for stating this again without explaining why this makes no sense.

2 points

I've read all your arguments. If someone brings up a real point your argument reduces to name-calling.

If God paid the price for our sins, then whom did he pay it to?

I guess you're operating based on the assumption the Trinity doesn't exist with this one? Meaning either God had to pay to a higher power or He is irrational? I would adknowledge your argument if the Trinity wasn't evident throughout Scripture but it is.

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all one, this is known as the trinity. The three in one. Separate but the same person at the same time. This is confusing for many but have you ever read a book called Flatland? It presents a two-dimensional world. In this world all things that exist are two dimensional and observe it's own world in one dimension. Meaning shapes would appear as lines and you would discern distance and separation of bodies by shading. If a three-dimensional object was to go through this world, for example a hand, it could exist in multiple parts of the world, appear as separate entities, but still exist as a single object in reality. This is a good way to understand the Trinity. It's still incomplete but its much better than the egg or states of matter illustrations that are used.

With the Trinity, God the Son pays the price set by God the Father and meets the requirement He Himself set.

2 points

I believe this is under the fallicy of "false premise". How was Jesus conquering death rebellion against God? Have you ever read the Bible? Like ever? Christ's death was the Father's will, that's the entire point of His prayer in the garden. Christ's "conquering death" was fullfilling the payment for sin, which is death. Since Jesus is of infinite worth because He is God, he can pay an infinite payment for an infinite amount of people. It's not going against God's will, it's actually God will.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
2 points

I've done research on it, I'm just giving a non-descript version of it. Still not really concerning to present day Christians since we'll be raptured

No, not really. The Muslim Messiah is very similar to the Christian Anti-Christ and so it doesn't really surprise me Islam is going to create a Beast to destroy Christians, similar to the Beast in the Book of Revelation. Both the antichrist and the Beast are defeated in the Book of Revelation, and Christians will be raptured before the Beast anyways.

Easter does not celebrate the death of Christ but the Resurrection which happened after the Passover. Passover starts this Monday, Jesus dies on Friday, and is then resurrected three days later on Sunday (Easter). If Jesus would have simply died then it would have meant nothing.

1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

Tis a joke, there was no real logical argument. I can't take debates like this seriously

2 points

Cats are either evil or dumb and have no purpose. That is all. No false assumptions here. Am I kidding or not? That's for you to decide. But if you decide cats aren't dumb, you're dumb. No ad hominem here.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

Most eastern religions believe sex between two people who love each other (in any way, married or non, hetero or homo, monogamous or polygamous) as moral and polygamy is supported. Eastern religions were very much like Native Americans in their sexual standards, who were very loose with their sexual standards.

https://www.fairobserver.com/region/north_america/for-native-americans-sex-didnt-come-with-guilt-21347/

Unless you're talking about the middle east and Islam...which piggy backs off the Judeo - Christian faith.

Milo wishes he wasn't gay because he believes its morally wrong and detrimental to society but doesn't think it's mental disorder, which is sorta what I believe as well. It's more nurture than nature.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

There is no correlation to religiosity and morality even according to you. That only demonstrates my point.

It's doesn't really prove anything as you said but it doesn't prove your point either. My point is that a CLAIM to religion does not mean a thing. But following the Judeo - Christian values does. For example, the most fought over Christian moral, sexual chastity, was proved by Joseph Unwin in Sex and Culture when he was able to prove sexual restraint and monogamy leads to the success of a society. This was later proved in the University of British Columbia. This is just one of many morals only the Judeo - Christian worldview really supports. You could say Islam but they really just piggy-backed off the Judeo - Christians.

Crime has gone down, less discrimination, and people are more educated. Strike 2 for religious morality.

Well this isn't really a strike for or against either religion or non-religiosity. Crime spiked between the 80's and 90's then went back to where it is now. If non-religiosity is related to less crime then why did the spike happen when religiosity has had a downward trend since the 70's?

You want religion in school and not science. Your judgement is compromised.

1) Wanting a religious view in schools doesn't mean you want science out of schools, this is a major assumption.

2) This person was addressing bathroom policy, not science, so I don't know why this came up anyways. If you wanna argue religion vs. science, that's fine. Just don't combine arguments.

This aside, morality is not dependent on religion. It's an arbitrary concept based on a person's values. But societies do tend to flourish when the society, as a whole, follows Judeo - Christian morals. Even the Bible addresses this point. The God of the Bible always tells people to follow "HIS statutes" and "HIS commandments", but you can find times when God gave up the Israelites to other standards besides His own. And the people suffered for it. The Biblical argument is not "you can only be moral if you believe in God", but God's morals cause individuals and societies to flourish.

2 points

Already argued this in another debate so if you've already seen this, oops:

The argument that God is the evil one usually still goes based on a system of right and wrong, and merely places God as the evil one instead of Satan. However the argument used (God killed millions of people) to prove this misunderstands the context of the proof texts.

For example, criticts point out that God commanded the genocide of millions "just because they were in the promised land". However, if you start to look at the context of the events, it starts to make a little bit more sense. In Genesis when God was talking with Abraham, God promised the land to Abraham (Genesis 15:18) but couldn’t give it to him yet because the iniquity of the current occupants “wasn’t full” (Genesis 15:16). God wasn’t just going to kick out a nation because his people were special. In fact, God specifically said the Hebrews weren’t special (Deuteronomy 7:7). At all. God was using the Hebrews as a form of judgement, just as God would use other nations to judge Israel later.

But just how bad were these people, really? Well in the book of Judges it shows us a glimpse of what these people were like. In Judges chapter 19, it tells the story of a man that walked into a town of Benjamites. An old man sees the stranger and quickly tells him to get out of the street. Some time later, the men of the street surround the house and demand that the old man release the stranger. Fearing for his life, the old man shoves his concubine out the door instead. The men rape her continously until she collapses and dies in the morning.

This is the kind of behavior that was taking place in the Promised Land before the Hebrews claimed the land. The Benjamites did what they did because they were influenced by the previous inhabitants, who were the group of people that God told the Hebrews to wipe out. This rape wasn’t an isolated incident in the surrounding area, this was a regular occurrence that was a cultural norm that took place before the Israelites conquered the land, and the Benjamites were judged just as the previous inhabitants were.

This incident also gives us some incite into how people were when God decided to flood the whole Earth. People weren’t just a little mean or a little selfish, the entire world was filled with murder, rape, and absolute selfishness and hate. Or as the Bible puts it “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” God wasn’t being unjust, bloodthirsty, or homicidal. God let mankind continue until God had no choice but to judge the people except for a select few who wanted to follow Him. Even God’s commandments of violence were out of justice and love.

It depends on which line of argument you're using. If you're using the Bible as an authority then no.

You can view Satan as underdog that lost and is not truly evil, sorta like how those who won wrote the history books, but even this logic really doesn't follow.

The argument that God is the evil one usually still goes based on a system of right and wrong, and merely places God as the evil one instead of Satan. However the argument used (God killed millions of people) to prove this misunderstands the context of the proof texts.

If you start to look at the context of the events, it starts to make a little bit more sense. In Genesis when God was talking with Abraham, God promised the land to Abraham (Genesis 15:18) but couldn’t give it to him yet because the iniquity of the current occupants “wasn’t full” (Genesis 15:16). God wasn’t just going to kick out a nation because his people were special. In fact, God specifically said the Hebrews weren’t special (Deuteronomy 7:7). At all. God was using the Hebrews as a form of judgement, just as God would use other nations to judge Israel.

But just how bad were these people, really? Well in the book of Judges it shows us a glimpse of what these people were like. In Judges chapter 19, it tells the story of a man that walked into a town of Benjamites. An old man sees the stranger and quickly tells him to get out of the street. Some time later, the men of the street surround the house and demand that the old man release the stranger. Fearing for his life, the old man shoves his concubine out the door instead. The men rape her continously until she collapses and dies in the morning.

This is the kind of behavior that was taking place in the Promised Land before the Hebrews claimed the land. The Benjamites did what they did because they were influenced by the previous inhabitants, who were the group of people that God told the Hebrews to wipe out. This rape wasn’t an isolated incident in the surrounding area, this was a regular occurrence that was a cultural norm that took place before the Israelites conquered the land, and the Benjamites were judged just as the previous inhabitants were.

This incident also gives us some incite into how people were when God decided to flood the whole Earth. People weren’t just a little mean or a little selfish, the entire world was filled with murder, rape, and absolute selfishness and hate. Or as the Bible puts it “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” God wasn’t being unjust, bloodthirsty, or homicidal. God let mankind continue until God had no choice but to judge the people except for a select few who wanted to follow Him. Even God’s commandments of violence were out of justice and love.

First, .9 repeating isn't "essentially" 1 - it IS 1 - thus, there aren't two answers at all - only 1.

So there is only one answer. Thus was my point.

If one person says gay marriage should be illegal and another person says it should be legal - clearly those are not different expressions of "one answer".

Just because opinions differ does not mean the answer has multiple possible answers. For example, if homosexuality itself creates dysfunctional and in itself wrong, the question doesn't even arise. Should we kill a murderer or not and allow a possible escape? (alluding to the Joker) The answer is control yourself and don't commit murder in the first place ( the answer to the "One Bad Day" concept).

So, you think randomized, controlled, peer-reviewed studies of large cohorts are less reliable than talking to a couple of friends? Have you read through the studies? The definitions of "bad behavior" is purposely ambiguous to allow researchers to confirm their own bias. The peer-reviewed studies are usually condemned both on the religious and non religious side. People you know and can communicate with are much more reliable because you KNOW them.

Maybe you don't have too many friends - because I know a lot of people (including myself) that are products of very dysfunctional heterosexual marriages... Congrads you're alive and can hold a job. But the point I care about goes past what researchers can see. Are you selfless to the point of fault in relationships? Can you handle and control your emotions in extremely stressful relationship situations (no way to present those in an controlled experiment) and seek out to be sacrificial for the other person? This is very personal and I'm not faulting you or assuming anything but I do have alot of friend that have come from dysfunctional homes and most have tendencies that cause harm to relationships. The relationships they hold may be able to survive, but I wouldn't say they'd be better off coming from the home they did. The "sins of the father" is a very real concept.

I am actually having a problem finding any that don't fit that description. How about killing people. Let's start with that.

There is a difference between senseless killing and justice. People cherry pick circumstances and verses to prove this argument. What they fail to remember is that God did not give the Israelite's their promised land till the sin of the current inhabitants of the land was past a certain point. The previous inhabitants of the land worshiped Moleck (spelling maybe wrong) and would ritually sacrifice children through burning and had sexual orgies with all genders that included animals which would lead to widespread STDs, not even mentioning the relationships problems. The Israelite's being used by God as judgment was not senseless as you portray it. Next example?

your argument that one answer is possible proves nothing if one answer is not only possible but how God decided morality then all other actions besides the one answer would be wrong and in turn morality would be objective

The Bible describes very well exactly what a subjective morality would look like. "Here are some rules to live by. Break those rules when I say to".

Which ones?

It isn't a strawman, it is called reading comprehension.

See above

You are begging the question. You are presupposing a single answer so that you can presuppose what that answer is so that you can presuppose the answer leads to God. You don't need to bother with the part where you tell us that there can be one answer. No one said there can't be one answer. The guy said that you have to prove objective morality exists before you can claim it is responsible for something. If there is only one answer then morality is objective.

Actually it does matter. From the biblical standpoint morality has never ever presented morality as some magical law or contract that the deity abstractly made that man had to follow. It has always been presented as God's instruction manual to his creation from the deity that created their body. It was actually atheists and agnostics that straw-manned arguments to put morality as some abstract law, that many Christians stupidly use. Morality has always been the balance between the good of society and the individual, and is why the founding fathers of American wrote the form of government that they did. It very much DOES matter that there is a single answer because that means a form of good can exists besides what God describes as how our body and psychology works.

Ah - brings me back to my very first post

My point still holds, you're purposefully not acknowledging concepts. Yes 1/9 is equal to 0.111 repeating it is repeating implying infinity. If you remember from your high school Calculus course, as the number approaches infinity the difference 0.9 and 1 increasingly gets smaller until it reaches infinity and is essentially nothing, and in turn 0.9 repeating is essentially 1. Seems like there is two answers, but if you lay everything out and define terms, there is only one answer. The same principle applies with morality. Use solid logic, define terms, you get one answer.

Baloney

Social studies are almost always biased, both religious and those trying to oppose the religious view. However, pay attention to your friends. I guarantee anyone that has lived in an unstable home has emotional baggage that influences their decisions with relationships. Sexual standards try to minimize the possibility of marital instability that comes from sexual jealousy, and ensuing lack of interest in the spouse that comes from extra-marital affairs.

In the same way multiple answers doesn't assume a single answer, multiple answers doesn't exclude the possibility of a single answer. I wasn't avoiding the argument I just through that was common sense

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

If 1/3 = 0.333 repeating, does 3/3 really equal 1 or does it equal 0.999 repeating? There is a singular answer to this question which is 1. But if you do not know geometric series, advanced uses of pre-calculus, or calculus, the answer SEEMS to be both, but this is from a lack of knowledge. The same principle can be applied to morality. There is a singular answer to questions, it just requires an understanding of psychological, biology, and general sciences. For example adultery and/or fornication. The modern idea of morality is nihilistic when it comes to sex. But sex before marriage increases chances of divorce dramatically unless the person you have sex with ends up being your spouse, which is unlikely if the standard doesn't exist. Why get married, why not just have sex with whoever you want whenever you want? The only time children do not have development problems or harmful emotional dispositions is when a man and woman are married and marital problems are relatively low. People can argue morals from a nihilistic view but that doesn't excuse or make the the psychological ramifications of their actions disappear.

Knowledge about all of the psychological and biological principles in the Hebrew Law is a very convincing argument for God. Cultures had bits and pieces of morals that make sense biologically and psychologically but no culture has the wealth that the Hebrew Law has.

2 points

Just because opinions are different does not mean there is not a definite answer. Just because a question is question is complicated and people disagree does not mean there is not one single answer

Any system has its own assumptions that it makes. Both science and religion have their own assumptions, and this is nothing new. Heck, even the math physics is based on has its own assumptions. It took 400+ pages in Mathamtica Principia to prove 1+1=2. It's simply up to the observer to decide which assumptions he or she is OK with having, and which parts of the system they'll believe since science and religion are contradictory in the way they function but not necessarily contradictory in content.

First of all, many claims of contradictions spawn from a lack of thought. For example, do people really think the author of Genesis would have two conflicting creation accounts in the same work? Especially because Genesis 1 and 2 are not divided into chapters in the Hebrew text, but is one lone string.

Moving on, most other contradictions are either perspective (Gospel account contradictions, etc.) or numerical (troop numbers). A majority of these contradictions are numerical, and result from the sometimes cryptic nature of Hebrew numerical system as it deals with higher numbers in the hundreds and thousands.

With this being said, are troop numbers really a cause for concern? Do I even need to mention the dead sea scrolls?

Wouldn't people blame a divine appearance on hallucinates or illusion?

Dude, "divine appearances" are hallucinations or illusions.

If your god really wanted to make us believe, like really really wanted us to believe, why not do something that will convince everybody?

I'm done.

Who says He hasn't?

Romans 8:20&21;20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Even if He did, wouldn't people just make up some excuse like they do with Christ's crucifixion and resurrection? Wouldn't people blame a divine appearance on hallucinates or illusion?

The denials of Christ today are no different than those of when Jesus was alive.

Christians have a duty to spread the message itself and represent or be a "witness" through their life. The actual "conversion" is left to God and in fact, it is all through Christ "lest anyone should boast".

This stems from the beginning. The choice between The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and The Tree of Life was both literal and symbolic. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil represents relying on our own mind, thoughts, and feelings while the Tree of Life represents relying on God's mind, thoughts, and feelings. When Eve partook of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil she was relying on her own thoughts and mind and is why she was so easily tricked. This is also Adam's fault because he also failed in his role to protect Eve from any and all danger. Eve then failed in her role as a "lifesaver" (more accurate translation than "help-meet") and in fact help give Adam death by handing it to Adam to eat.

From then on we have had to use our own knowledge rather than God's with only his creation and a few divinely inspired books to guide our knowledge. The question "how can God allow evil" is seperate from the "punish[ing] [of] humans and angels".

Evil is is in two separate categories: natural and moral. God is the direct cause of natural evil. God is not the direct cause of moral evil (Galatians 2:17) but is indirectly responsible (Isaiah 45:7). God uses both kinds of evil for our benefit although may times we don't see it as such (Isaiah 45:32-3).

God does not punish us for natural evil because we are not the cause of it . Does, however, judge our reaction to natural evil and moral evil as well because we are the cause of moral evil. Because God is not the cause of moral evil, he can rightly judge us as such.

This is a few excerpts from Joseph Story's commentary on the 1st Amendment in regards to religion. For those who don't know who he is, he was appointed Supreme Court Judge by James Madison (author of both the Constitution and Bill of Rights). If anyone knows what original intent was, Joseph Story did.

"How far any government has a right to interfere in matters touching religion, has been a subject much discussed by writers upon public and political law. The right and the duty of the interference of government, in matters of religion, have been maintained by many distinguished authors, as well those, who were the warmest advocates of free government, as those, who were attached to governments of a more arbitrary character. Indeed, the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues;--these never can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive, how any civilized society can well exist without them. And at all events, it is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one's conscience."

"Now, there will probably be found few persons in this, or any other Christian country, who would deliberately contend, that it was unreasonable, or unjust to foster and encourage the Christian religion generally, as a matter of sound policy, as well as of revealed truth. In fact, every American colony, from its foundation down to the revolution, with the exception of Rhode Island, (if, indeed, that state be an exception,) did openly, by the whole course of its laws and institutions, support and sustain, in some form, the Christian religion; and almost invariably gave a peculiar sanction to some of its fundamental doctrines. And this has continued to be the case in some of the states down to the present period, without the slightest suspicion, that it was against the principles of public law, or republican liberty. Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty. Montesquieu has remarked, that the Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the gospel is incompatible with the despotic rage, with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty. He has gone even further, and affirmed, that the Protestant religion is far more congenial with the spirit of political freedom, than the Catholic."

"Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation."

This is a few excerpts from Joseph Story's commentary on the 1st Amendment in regards to religion. For those who don't know who he is, he was appointed Supreme Court Judge by James Madison (author of both the Constitution and Bill of Rights). If anyone knows what original intent was, Joseph Story did.

"How far any government has a right to interfere in matters touching religion, has been a subject much discussed by writers upon public and political law. The right and the duty of the interference of government, in matters of religion, have been maintained by many distinguished authors, as well those, who were the warmest advocates of free government, as those, who were attached to governments of a more arbitrary character. Indeed, the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues;--these never can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive, how any civilized society can well exist without them. And at all events, it is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one's conscience."

"Now, there will probably be found few persons in this, or any other Christian country, who would deliberately contend, that it was unreasonable, or unjust to foster and encourage the Christian religion generally, as a matter of sound policy, as well as of revealed truth. In fact, every American colony, from its foundation down to the revolution, with the exception of Rhode Island, (if, indeed, that state be an exception,) did openly, by the whole course of its laws and institutions, support and sustain, in some form, the Christian religion; and almost invariably gave a peculiar sanction to some of its fundamental doctrines. And this has continued to be the case in some of the states down to the present period, without the slightest suspicion, that it was against the principles of public law, or republican liberty. Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty. Montesquieu has remarked, that the Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the gospel is incompatible with the despotic rage, with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty. He has gone even further, and affirmed, that the Protestant religion is far more congenial with the spirit of political freedom, than the Catholic."

"Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation."

Sigh......"let the earth bring forth", "let the waters bring forth". Sound familiar? God caused other things to make other things. It how the world works today BTW. The Big Bang Theory is not "mindless" creation, it is in fact very organized and patterns have been examined in the universe to suggest this. The theory of evolution is also not mindless, and the "after their kind" was not a creative restriction, but was a way for us to identify the different kinds. As new kinds evolved they were given categories and different kinds came about "after their kind".

Sigh...you do realize that the Bible was first written in Hebrew, not English right? The word day in Hebrew, yom, has several definitions. Among these is an unspecified amount of time.

It supposes to be the "Word of god" where I assume that the expectation that it is a literal truth comes with it.

While I do believe Genesis is literal if the correct vocab is used, are you really going to lump Psalms and Proverbs into the literal category as well?

2 points

Thanks :)

I will admit that the best evidence for Satan being a literal being is the Book of Job... That being said, the Book of Job is a poem, and the only book in Old Testament that has been considered to be entirely allegorical, that I know of. Like I said, satan is Hebrew for "adversary." For example: Numbers 22:22 "And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him." In Hebrew, it says satan instead of adversary

Haha I haven't even gotten to my best piece of evidence yet. Anyways, something I noticed that hasn't been addressed. When "adversary" is used there is this small word called "an" in front of it. When "Satan" is used, obviously there is no "an" in front of it. I thought this was another "for the sake of translation" thing, but "an" is actually apart of the Hebrew as well. So when "adversary" is used, it is just than, an adversary. However, when Satan is used it can be translated as an the Christian concept of Satan or more descriptively "THE adversary".

Human qualities were given genders throughout the Bible...

However it is obvious that the author is personifying the trait. In the terms of Satan, this is no where clear at all.

The Book of Job is a definite characterization of Satan and it is here Satan is definitely used as a being rather than a consciousness. Many Jews who write on the topic Satan, acknowledge Satan as a being in Job, but never address this! Why? Because it would destroy their interpretation.

The reason the mention of Satan in Job is important is because:

1) Satan is an actual being in the book

2) it is the first book written in the Hebrew bible, and pre-dates Genesis

Genesis 1:7-12

7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

8 And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

9 Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?

10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.

11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.

12 And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord.

Here, Satan is directly speaking to God himself. He is not referred to as the downfalls or obstacles of person, but a being speaking directly to God. No where does the "consciousness" interpretation work with this passage. Reason being, the Hebrew translation or definition of Satan is adversary or obstacle. How could God serve as an obstacle or adversary to Himself? He can't, and God is addressing an actual being, and this was also the first writing of the Hebrew bible. This is never addressed by modern Hebrew scholars.

Down-votes without arguments are disgusting

I think this is a more problem of the 5th amendment rather than the 1st amendment, here's why.

This is a few excerpts from Joseph Story's commentary on the 1st Amendment in regards to religion. For those who don't know who he is, he was appointed Supreme Court Judge by James Madison (author of both the Constitution and Bill of Rights). If anyone knows what original intent was, Joseph Story did.

"How far any government has a right to interfere in matters touching religion, has been a subject much discussed by writers upon public and political law. The right and the duty of the interference of government, in matters of religion, have been maintained by many distinguished authors, as well those, who were the warmest advocates of free government, as those, who were attached to governments of a more arbitrary character. Indeed, the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues;--these never can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive, how any civilized society can well exist without them. And at all events, it is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one's conscience."

"Now, there will probably be found few persons in this, or any other Christian country, who would deliberately contend, that it was unreasonable, or unjust to foster and encourage the Christian religion generally, as a matter of sound policy, as well as of revealed truth. In fact, every American colony, from its foundation down to the revolution, with the exception of Rhode Island, (if, indeed, that state be an exception,) did openly, by the whole course of its laws and institutions, support and sustain, in some form, the Christian religion; and almost invariably gave a peculiar sanction to some of its fundamental doctrines. And this has continued to be the case in some of the states down to the present period, without the slightest suspicion, that it was against the principles of public law, or republican liberty. Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty. Montesquieu has remarked, that the Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the gospel is incompatible with the despotic rage, with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty. He has gone even further, and affirmed, that the Protestant religion is far more congenial with the spirit of political freedom, than the Catholic."

"Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation."

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

And as for the third point, it deserveth to be a little stood upon, and not to be lightly passed over; for if any man shall think by view and inquiry into these sensible and material things to attain that light, whereby he may reveal unto himself the nature or will of God, then, indeed, is he spoiled by vain philosophy; for the contemplation of God’s creatures and works produceth (having regard to the works and creatures themselves) knowledge, but having regard to God no perfect knowledge, but wonder, which is broken knowledge. And, therefore, it was most aptly said by one of Plato’s school, “That the sense of man carrieth a resemblance with the sun, which (as we see) openeth and revealeth all the terrestrial globe; but then, again, it obscureth and concealeth the stars and celestial globe: so doth the sense discover natural things, but it darkeneth and shutteth up divine.” And hence it is true that it hath proceeded, that divers great learned men have been heretical, whilst they have sought to fly up to the secrets of the Deity by this waxen wings of the senses. And as for the conceit that too much knowledge should incline a man to atheism, and that the ignorance of second causes should make a more devout dependence upon God, which is the first cause; first, it is good to ask the question which Job asked of his friends: “Will you lie for God, as one man will lie for another, to gratify him?"

Bacon, Francis. The Advancement of Learning [Book I]. 1605.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

I should have clarified what I meant. I don't mean homosexuality in general, I mean the Christian response in a republican society.

2 points

Personally I believe it depends on when and what Christians are thinking for themselves. It depends on what subject matter they are thinking for themselves. Some topics yes they can, some topics are up to interpretation (gay marriage, creation, worship ideas) while others are not (salvation, baptism, morality).

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

LOL not really. They weren't fanatical at all.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

I will address the issue of location when I get around to downloading Google Earth.

If that's the case, why wouldn't the current translation of the verse be plausible? Since the famine was caused by god and not natural weather patterns, as indicated by verse 25, why couldn't he make it across the whole Earth?

Ummm I think it would a stretch for the Far East nations to go to Egypt and nations that were more northern and are we even going to discuss the impossibly of the Americas traveling to Egypt?

"I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood,"

There have always been at least a few survivors of a flood. Dramatic stories of survival are constantly being heard about it.

"neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth."

Actually, this time it can be translated figuratively because it's in the same form, judgement or promise against it, as other verses in Genesis.

Gen 6:11 Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence.

Gen 6:12 And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.

So rather, we can more say God said he would never destroy all the people of the earth again, rather than the land itself, in judgement.

Remember, it's magic wind ;)

Ok you literally have no rebuttal now for this point haha ;)

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

down-vote for lack of argument, almost an anti-argument

2 points

Ironically LittleMisfit and I are debating this now. It is impossible for the global flood to occur, but the local flood could have happened.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
2 points

While I object to most of the things in the image (except the comment about the atheists, many atheists are more "moral" than alot of Christians), she is merely expressing the need to be aware we are in a republic/ democratic society and should treat it as such.

BTW to get past the 50 char. limit, use lots of spaces

No, but convincing people of this who have believed the 24 hour day thing is very hard to do. I tried to convince my youth pastor once and he thinks I've gone off the deep end now...now each time he teaches on creation, I silently in my head dispute every single point he makes.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

I do keep this in mind. However one main difference though from other religions. Most religions teach the wisdom is already there, ready to be "enlightened" in some way using your own wisdom from within yourself. For Christianity, wisdom is within, but only after salvation, and the knowledge does not come from within yourself, but from the Holy Spirit, who enters you upon salvation. While it comes from "within" technically, at the same time it actually comes from an external source.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

To all verses cited in Proverbs-

Proverbs 2:6-8

6 For the Lord gives wisdom;[the literal translation s wisdom comes from God]

from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.

7He holds success in store for the upright,

he is a shield to those whose walk is blameless,

8for he guards the course of the just

and protects the way of his faithful ones.

9Then you will understand what is right and just

and fair—every good path.

10For wisdom will enter your heart,

and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul.

11Discretion will protect you,

and understanding will guard you.

The theme is wisdom comes from God, not man, and all the verses you listed base off this theme.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

Ummm didn't the Dead Sea Scrolls disprove that?

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

Not really. You cherry picked a few verses and then didn't use other verses to back up your philosophy behind using these verse. You just cited numerous examples of the same basic thing. Your argument makes sense in itself, but not in relation to the rest of the Bible as a whole :/

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

Can you give me a verse written by Moses where erets is interpeted as "land" where it's not obvious from the context that he is referring to the a local area. I looked through all 149 verses in Genesis where the word erets is translated as land and didn't find a single verse where it wasn't obvious from the context that he was referring to a local area.

Exodus 10:15 For they covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; and they did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left: and there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the field, through all the land of Egypt.

Genesis 13:9 Is not the whole land before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.

Genesis 41:56-57 And the famine was over all the face of the earth: and Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt. And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands.

I realize the first two verses are almost obvious hyperbole and are obvious to referring to the region, but this is because of long-assumed context. The third passage isn't as obvious and where I hope to make my point. The only reason the Genesis flood is read as global is because fundamentalist Christian tradition. If you pay attention to the wordage used in the chapter, you can see it was a large local flood.

It didn't say the water filled all the way up to the heavens, it said it covered all the mountains under the heavens. There's a big difference. The water would only need to be as tall as the highest mountain.

True, good point, I read the verse wrong.

You're going to have to show me where you're getting multiple translations from because I checked at least a dozen different translations and they all say the same things. Strong's Concordance doesn't show multiple usages of those words. Fifteen Cubits is chamesh `asar 'ammah. None of those words together are translated as anything but fifteen cubits.

I was going to make another point, but after much research I refuted my point. However through basic math, we see exactly how high the water level during the flood was.

Genesis 8:4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

Genesis 8:5 The water decreased steadily until the 10th month; on the 10th month, on the 1st day of the month, the tops of the mountains [hills] became visible.

When reading these verses you notice the time between verse 4 and 5 is about 73 days. Verse 4 and 5 give an estimate the speed at which the water was draining from the area. The point from which the bottom of the keel (how the ark would rest on a given spot) to the point from which land would be seen has been estimated by people who reconstruct the Ark to be about 25 to 30 feet. 25 to 30 feet is about 300 to 360 inches. An image is here to illustrate this point. The time span between the water level hitting these two points is 73 days, putting the water level receding at around 4.1 to 4.9 inches per day. The rain stopped on the 28th day of the 3rd month, and the land was dry the 27th day of the 2nd month of the following year, putting the time of draining at 324 days. If we assume the water drained at a rate of 4.1 to 4.9 inches per day, that puts you at about 110 feet to 132 feet. But the water probably drained faster so lets assume the water drained at 12 inches a day for 251 days (324-73) and just add the 25 to 30 feet we know about. That puts the floodwater from 276 to 281 feet at its peak.

God's promise in Genesis: 9:11 would have been a lie.

From the current debate, the answer is no it wouldn't. From a biblical standpoint, all the worlds people were in one place until the tower of Babel. All the world's "flesh" would be judged and were, and he would never destroy all "flesh" again. While the flood was local in geography, it was global in judgement against humans cause all humans were in one place.

No and I doubt it would have much of an impact on a local flood either. It says god "sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded." Maybe it was figurative or magic wind ;)

While the wind would not make a difference on a global scale, it would on a local scale. If the waters were receding by flowing out from the area and past mountain ranges, the wind would create waves, helping the water flow out and recede.

The flood waters would have to be contained in a force field, otherwise they would flow into the ocean.

This has been proven to not be needed by the above work on the flood level, but also from the site below. The work done on this article needs to be shown so here's the link:

http://ncse.com/rncse/29/5/yes-noahs-flood-may-have-happened-not-over-whole-earth

Quote: During the flood, upstream where water first accumulates, the depth of water on the flood plains may be barely over the tops of the natural levees, but downstream the water "piles up" because it does not flow very fast downhill on a nearly flat surface. Therefore, downstream water depths could reach 32 m or more above the tops of the levees.

All plant life in the area would have died leaving Noah with no food.

They were given the animals to eat.

God's promise in Genesis: 9:11 would have been a lie.

From a biblical standpoint, all the world's people were in one place to be judged, which is what God promised not to do. Since the flood, the entire population of humans has not been judged at once.

linguistic argument for tower of babel

another argument for tower of babel

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

LOL, why is this under dispute again?

Time is not metaphorical. This is correct. However a literal definition of the Hebrew word for day (yom) is an unspecified amount of time.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
0 points

Well one of the requirements for evolution is death. Many fundamentalists hold the interpretation that death didn't happen till after the fall of man.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

That's an opinion based statement, not a fact based statement. But we could debate that for a llllooonnnggg time, and have before.

That's not true, because most religions, including Christianity, already view everyone as divine. People just have to find that wisdom within themselves.

Ummmm no. In fact in the Christian Bible, what you just said is one of the original lies of Satan.

Genesis 3:4-5

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Basically, Satan was trying to convince them that they could be like God and be divine and was what God was afraid of them becoming. Satan was trying to get Adam and Eve to repeat his sin. You could argue that Satan was trying to get them to "realize there true from and they were divine". However this is DIRECTLY AGAINST Judeo(spelling?)-Christian doctrine. God cast Satan out of Heaven because God is divine, Satan is not. God cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden because they were not divine and couldn't handle the knowledge of evil.

People just have to find that wisdom within themselves.

Actually this is once again, directly against Christian doctrine. In the Garden of Eden, there were two special trees.

1) the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

2) the tree of life

The two trees are meant to be taken both literally as the history of the fall of man, but also symbolically. The tree of knowledge of good and evil as the Hebrew of implied meaning of "through experience". The tree of knowledge of god and evil represented those that tried to seek their own path, do it their own way, and as you said "find wisdom within themselves". However the entire Bible is against this and is contrasted by the tree of life. The entire Bible is about trusting God's wisdom not our own. The tree of life is a representation of us trusting God. The metaphor of the tree of life is strewn throughout proverbs, all describing "the tree of life" as trusting God's wisdom, not our own.

So no, thank you for helping me clarify how Christianity is NOT like other religions.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

I apologize for not addressing your points and will do so now in an attempt to gain respect from you again.

Obviously the word Earth isn't always meant to be taken literally, but it is frequently used to refer to things on a global scale, which is what I'm arguing. For example, you quoted 1 Chronicles 16:14 "He is the LORD our God; His judgments are in all the earth." So are his judgements on everyone on earth or just the people in the local land? I'm pretty sure you would agree it's referring to everyone on earth.

That verse is yes, obviously talking about all the people on the Earth. But I can just as easily give you verses that use "the whole earth" and without using clarifying words or phrases that are not meant to be meant as the whole literal or populated Earth. For example 2 Chronicles 36:23-"This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: "'The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Any of his people among you may go up, and may the LORD their God be with them.'" Obviously God didn't literally give him all the kingdoms of the earth because we'll just start with the kingdoms of the Far East he didn't control. So once again I say, it is solely based on context.

It only fits if you completely disregard portions of the story and ignore the authors word usage. Try to read these verses without the preconceived idea that it was a local or global flood. Read what it actually says, not what you want it to say.

See your argument centers on the use of the words "all" and "everything". However does "all" really mean "all"? God says in verse 17, "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish." But does ALL life perish? No! Fish wouldn't die in a flood, neither would some amphibians and other creatures and insects of the water. And if they did, it was be because the global flood would mix fresh and salt water, killing all fish, with Noah not having fish on his ark to reproduce them! All life DID NOT perish. What we have here is a hyperbole. God was merely emphasizing the amount of damage that would be done to the region through hyperbole. Has God used hyperbole else where? Yes, just as an example in Genesis 13:16 God tells Abraham his descendants will be "as numerous as the dust of the earth".

Genesis 7:19-23 "They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."

all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered

Here we have another hyperbole. How do we know this? In Hebrew there are three "levels" of heaven. The first two a natural and physical, and the third is spiritual. The first is where the birds can fly and is basically anything above ground level. Next is the atmosphere of the earth above where the birds can fly. And next is the spiritual heaven. The wold "whole" is used (Hebrew is kol again). Really? The waters went above where the birds can fly AND even went into the spiritual heaven? No, rather the author was just try to emphasize the sheer amount it rained. What also supports this? Glad you asked.

The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits

The words "to a depth of more than fifteen cubits" has many translations. I should mention the word "mountians" is actually the Hebrew word har, and the word for the entire pharse "of more than" is the Hebrew word ma'al. Now you can either translate these two together and mean "mountains" and "higher than" or "hills" and "upward". Why should we go with the second option rather than the first? There would be two big problems if this were the case.

1)Freezing temperatures (we're covering Mt. Everest right?)

2)Killing all fish because we're mixing fresh and salt water.

And also the rest of the chapters(s) suggest the local flood as well. For example there another mention of kol erets I have to point out again. In Genesis 8:5 we are told some of the tops of the "mountains"(most likely hills) were visible. Then in Genesis 8:9 we're told the dove couldn't land because of the amount of water, apparently the tops of the hills we visible but not reachable by the dove. However notice the what the text says " because there was water over all the surface of the earth". Either this is a bad translation or another hyperbole because were just told the tops of the hills or mountains were visible!

Yes the God and Science site brought this point to my mind but it still stands. Genesis tells us the earth was dried with a wind. Would wind significantly dry up a global flood? This leads me to my next and final point. I mentioned the word ma'al means upward, with the implication the flood only rose to 15 cubits (about 20 feet). Would a flood this size take a year to recede? I don't know the exact timeline, but the drainage of New Orleans took a little over six months to PUMP the water out of New Orleans and that was only around 12 feet of water, much less a little over twenty feet.

And with that, I hope that answers your questions/ objections.

Actually many religions teach similar messages, few teach identical messages, but none teach like Christianities message. Christianity is the only religion where a form of salvation does not come from actions done by the individual, but by the divine themselves.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

The Flood account be read from either the local or global viewpoint due to the definitions being ambiguous. BTW you linked Greek words in Revelation??? However most Jewish scholars believe the flood was local.

2 points

Hmm why is it the more research you do, the more Christianity makes sense...hmmm

I did not say everything needs a cause. I said material things need a cause which God is not.

Energy while it is "timeless" in a sense, it is still subject to time. I mean think about it. You have potential energy, which is bound by time because it is the energy stored in a system at a precise moment in time. Kinetic energy is the amount of energy being used by a system at a specific moment in time. Other concepts that are related to energy are also related to time. For example power is work divided by time, or in simple terms, how much work can be done in a specific amount of TIME. Momentum is mass multiplied by velocity. What is velocity? The length a particle or object travels in relation to TIME. See all energy is, is an ability to do something, and in that action, time is needed no matter how small amount of time it is, it is still time.

Everything in our universe is material and bound by time and space. Our universe since the beginning has been these as well. Asking for a cause "before" a given timeline is tricky because there is no "before" without time. Even if you have another physical cause, you are simply adding another event to the timeline. So the cause must be outside time. The reason this cause must be outside time IS SO IT DOESN'T"T NEED A CAUSE. Our observation of "cause and effect" has only been observed with material things and not immaterial things. Even immaterial things like emotions are caused by materiel chemicals. However we have never observed a purely immaterial substance because we our material beings. So we have no reason to conclude a immaterial being needs a cause or not. So the claim "God needs no cause because he is eternal and immaterial" IS substantiated.

I would prefer to see a debate involving an old-age creationists viewpoint so currently it has no effect on my views although I felt points of both sides were missed by the opposing side.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

Actually you didn't really dispute anything that I said in that debate. You claimed the debater for the local flood was skewing context and the words of the Bible. You underlined the words "the whole earth" "the whole earth was covered" "the mountains were covered" and "all people". However every one of these phrases can be explained to be local as well as the context.

"The whole earth" usually regards to people not geography.

-Shall not the Judge of all [kol] the earth [erets] deal justly?" (Genesis 18:25) (God judges the people of the earth, not the earth itself)

-Now behold, today I am going the way of all [kol] the earth [erets], and you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one word of all the good words which the LORD your God spoke concerning you has failed; all have been fulfilled for you, not one of them has failed. (Joshua 23:14) (Joshua was going the way of all people in the earth, whose ultimate destiny is death.)

-And all [kol] the people of the land [erets] entered the forest, and there was honey on the ground. (1 Samuel 14:25) (The words "the people of" are added to the English, since they are not found in the Hebrew. The actual translation would be "all the land entered the forest," obviously referring to the people and not to the land itself moving into the forest.)

-While all [kol] the country [erets] was weeping with a loud voice, all the people passed over. (2 Samuel 15:23) (Obviously, the earth cannot weep with a loud voice.)

-"I am going the way of all [kol] the earth [erets]. Be strong, therefore, and show yourself a man. (1 Kings 2:2) (David was going the way of all people in the earth, whose ultimate destiny is death.)

-He is the LORD our God; His judgments are in all [kol] the earth [erets]. (1 Chronicles 16:14) (Judgments are done against people, not the planet)

Sing to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]; Proclaim good tidings of His salvation from day to day. (1 Chronicles 16:23) (The people sing, not the planet)

-Tremble before Him, all [kol] the earth [erets]; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved. (1 Chronicles 16:30) (This does not refer to earthquakes!)

-Let all [kol] the earth [erets] fear the LORD; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. (Psalm 33:8) (People, not planets, fear the Lord)

-For the choir director. A Song. A Psalm.) Shout joyfully to God, all the earth; (Psalm 66:1) (People shout, not the earth)

-"All the earth will worship Thee, And will sing praises to Thee; They will sing praises to Thy name." Selah. (Psalm 66:4) (People worship, not the earth)

-Sing to the LORD a new song; Sing to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]. (Psalm 96:1) (People sing, not the earth)

-Worship the LORD in holy attire; Tremble before Him, all [kol] the earth [erets]. (Psalm 96:9) (People worship, not the earth)

-Shout joyfully to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]; Break forth and sing for joy and sing praises. (Psalm 98:4) (People shout, not the earth)

-(A Psalm for Thanksgiving.) Shout joyfully to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]. (Psalm 100:1) (People shout, not the earth)

-He is the LORD our God; His judgments are in all [kol] the earth [erets]. (Psalm 105:7) (Judgments are done against people, not the planet)

-"The whole [kol] earth [erets] is at rest and is quiet; They break forth into shouts of joy. (Isaiah 14:7) (People shout, not the earth)

"The whole earth" is usually local when referring to geography.

-'You shall then sound a ram's horn abroad on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the day of atonement you shall sound a horn all [kol] through your land [erets]. (Leviticus 25:9) (The Hebrews were not required to sound a horn throughout the entire earth)

-'Thus for every [kol] piece [erets] of your property, you are to provide for the redemption of the land. (Leviticus 25:24) (The law does not apply only to those who own the entire earth)

behold, I will put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece only, and it is dry on all [kol] the ground [erets], then I will know that Thou wilt deliver Israel through me, as Thou hast spoken." (Judges 6:37, see also 6:39-40) (kol erets could not refer to the entire earth, since it would not be possible for Gideon to check the entire earth)

-And Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that was in Geba, and the Philistines heard of it. Then Saul blew the trumpet throughout [kol] the land [erets], saying, "Let the Hebrews hear." (1 Samuel 13:3) (Obviously, Saul could not have blown a trumpet loud enough to be heard throughout the entire earth)

-For the battle there was spread over the whole [kol] countryside [erets], and the forest devoured more people that day than the sword devoured. (2 Samuel 18:8) (No, the battle did not take place over the entire earth.)

-So when they had gone about through the whole [kol] land [erets], they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days. (2 Samuel 24:8) (No they didn't go through the entire earth, just the lands of Palestine.)

-And all [kol] the earth [erets] was seeking the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom which God had put in his heart. (1 Kings 10:24) (It is unlikely that the Native Americans went to see Solomon.)

-Then the fame of David went out into all [kol] the lands [erets]; and the LORD brought the fear of him on all the nations. (1 Chronicles 14:17) (It is unlikely that the Native Americans knew about David.)

-And David said, "My son Solomon is young and inexperienced, and the house that is to be built for the LORD shall be exceedingly magnificent, famous and glorious throughout all [kol] lands [erets]. (1 Chronicles 22:5) (The temple was famous to all the lands in the Middle East, but was destroyed before the advent of globalism.)

-And they were bringing horses for Solomon from Egypt and from all [kol] countries [erets]. (2 Chronicles 9:28) (It is unlikely that the Chinese brought horses to Solomon)

The local flood fits in context as well. The purpose of the flood was to judge all of mankind. Mankind was not spread all over the earth until Genesis 11. The local flood would judge all of mankind that was set in a local area. Also there is a word to describe something global which is the Hebrew word "tebel" used 37 times in the Bible.

And finally in Genesis 8:14, we are told "the whole earth" is completely dry. So Christians are supposed to believe the Earth became a huge desert after the flood?

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

Also, even from a Biblical standpoint the worldwide flood seems unlikely. Many religions having the flood as a story in there religion doesn't mean a worldwide flood because it wasn't until after the flood till the people were spread throughout the earth. Also, the Bible said God dried up "the whole Earth" .I don't see the Earth being a desert soooo looks like a local flood to me. Throughout the Bible "the whole earth" refers to a specific region where a group of people resided. All the people resided in one place so "the whole earth" was judged by the flood but because of them being centralized, the flood was local.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
3 points

This is not a new subject and has been disputed before:

"Perhaps the most convincing find in support of the early domestication of camels in Egypt is a rope made of camel’s hair found in the Fayum (an oasis area southwest of modern-day Cairo). The two-strand twist of hair, measuring a little over three feet long, was found in the late 1920s, and was sent to the Natural History Museum where it was analyzed and compared to the hair of several different animals. After considerable testing, it was determined to be camel hair, dated (by analyzing the layer in which it was found) to the Third or Fourth Egyptian Dynasty (2686-2498 B.C.). In his article, Free also listed several other discoveries from around 2,000 B.C. and later, which showed camels as domestic animals (pp. 189-190)."

-from https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article;=858

Their source:Free, Joseph P. (1944), “Abraham’s Camels,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 3:187-193, July.

And this is only one of any observations THAT HAVE BEEN DOCUMENTED, unlike the opposing side.

I researched to find this scientific report, reported by CNN and others, but could not find the actual report itself. I couldn't even find an abstract! My question is I have searched and searched to see what they did to get this data but find nothing, all I see is hype. I'm seeing two sides. On one side: THE BIBLES WRONG!!! On the other side: No the Bible is still affirmed to be true, and here's the evidence for it.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

Once of the biggest problems people have with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that it is, as you said, not thought out very well. However, many who make this claim do not study the Bible as a whole seeking to understand it. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was purposefully placed in the Garden to harbor a situation that favored free will. God did this with the angels as well and sadly 1/3 of the angels followed rebellious Satan. Now with this purposeful creation God being omniscient God, knew what was going to happen. He knew Satan would tempt Eve (God kicked Satan out even knowing that this would happen), He knew Eve would disobey and Adam would sin as well. God knew all of this, why would he do that?

Romans 8:20-21

20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

God knew Adam and Eve would sin but He made His plan in place because why should all-powerful God conform to man? God wanted free will for His creation, but he knew what would come with this free will so he set up a plan to redeem and save his creation.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

I personally don't care if it's removed or not, even though I'm a Christian and many of my friends are confused why I don't care. However, this wasn't point on coin money until the late 1800's and paper bills until the 1950's. The main reason it was put each time was to distinguish themselves above another nation, like Russia during the cold war. The main reason it's not taken off now would be because the cost it would be to replace the currency. Also, the saying "in god we trust" has been repeated so many times it has pretty much lost its money when used in a patriotic context. The only reason it is brought up by certain atheist groups who only seek to rid government of all religion.

However, as far Constitutionality goes, this should be noted. One of the first books endorsed by Congress was the Bible as well as there was a long tradition of payed Chaplains in congress.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

Anitmatter exists the same way matter does, but the elements of it are reversed. Instead of a proton have a positive charge, it has a negative charge, instead of an electron having a negative charge it has a positive charge. When the two meet they do in fact "annihilate" each other, but it is more than that. When they come into contact with each other, they release pure energy as, for a lack of a better word right now, they die. At the start of the universe, or the singularity, it is theorized there was an equal amount of matter and antimatter that caused the release of pure energy. Antimatter no longer exists in large clumps but it has been detected in the reaches of space in small amounts and has been created in labs.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

I believe God created the universe. I believe God was the timeless and immaterial cause of the universe and his work is recorded in Genesis. I believe God used the Big Bang and evolution to create the universe and life on this earth.

7 points

1. The singularity was not nothing.

2. The singularity was all of the universe, there was no vacumm because there was no space for matter to be absence in.

3. The big bang is not an explosion, so no "ignition" needed

4. It wasn't nothing...really research the singularitty

5. Nothingness did not produce heat. The universe expanded in an initial release of pure energy and was light.

6. I'm not even addressing this point due to this topic going over your head.

The rest are ignorant ramblings with an elementary understanding of physics (Newtonian or otherwise) and so is Vance's book.

I'm guessing you're a Christian? Guess what, so am I but you should look up some old-creationism articles.

God without a doubt has killed more people since it is He that keeps us living and thus causes our death as well. What's your point?

Yes I have but it requires something to already be there since its forces between plates in nanotechnology...relevance?

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

Do you know that bible is a poetry book not an encyclopaedia, right ?

Parts are, parts aren't. Many parts of the Bible are like an encyclopedia such as the books of history and books of the law. Many of books are also, as you said, poetry. However like ALL serious poetry, it has a purpose and meaning behind it. Many parts are poetry, but they describe very real things like God, or for your sake, it assumes that God is a very real being and describes Him poetically. However just because it is poetry does not mean it's written off as not worthy to be mentioned in a matter dealing in theology, like this one.

4 points

That is determined by the attributes of God. We as humans exist within time and are subject to view it as a linear progression. However, God is a spiritual being and is not subject to time. Several verses suggest this. Isaiah 57:15 suggests he is not limited to our physical world. Psalm 90:4 suggests that God is not bound by time.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

your rough paraphrase seems to be observing that our actions are the product of brain chemistry shifts conditioned by prior influences... which would implicate free will as being false.

Not really and I will explain. The brain from your perspective is seen as basically a computer with a set input that produces an output. Now there's alot more inputs to make one particular output, but that summarizes determinism views on free will. And research can show that in various studies that you have shown. However, this is merely a trend. Research by Jeffery Schwartz has shown other results. In his recent papers like this one , this one , and this one, has shown that brain chemistry can be re-aligned through conscious thought. He sought to take patients who are affected most by influences (OCD patients) and help them re-align brain chemistry. His studies showed that OCD patients were able to better organize and evaluate their thoughts through conscious thought.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

I'll give you an analogy as best as I can.

Why does a painter paint rather than taking a photograph? While the second is faster, the first takes alot more skill and skill to accomplish (I apologize to any photographers out there). Painting a picture also causes a passerby to stare in wonder at the skill of an artist, the quality of the brushstrokes. The same is true for a ARTISTICALLY taken photograph. The photography has to get the lighting and shadow correct, wait for the right position or arrange it, etc. Both take time and effort, but make the final product all more worthwhile and has a greater impact on the observer.

0 points

Actually not really.

Genesis 1:1-all of universe is created

BBT- all of the universe is in the singularity

Genesis 1:2-the universe has all been created (1:1) but is formless, fully describing the singularity

BBT- the singularity again

Genesis 1:3- God said let there be light

BBT- the initial expansion of the singularity was a release of energy and was pure light

Genesis 1:4- separation of light and dark

BBT- the universe expands and cools to the point where there can be an absence of light aka darkness and thus darkness and light are separated.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

If I were to be able to find an analogue for God in all of this it would be that the singularity was God, the universe is its corpse. Of course I have reasons to separate the singularity from God, so this is metaphorical, but how is God immune to this proposition?

As you said the singularity is subject to time, that makes it the beginning. That would be the first event in the universe, its existence. The cause of universe must immaterial, timeless, and spaceless as we have already stated. As you have said, it cannot be the singularity because it is subject to time and thus the first event. So once again, we are back to square one. What is this timeless, massless, spaceless cause? God is all of these, while the singularity is subject to time, meaning God and the singularity are separate from each other. How is God immune to this proposition? Because he is timeless, immaterial, and spaceless. God is also said to be all-powerful. Us being human and God being well...God, I don't pretend to know how this works.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

No, those two statements are completely different in nature. One is trying to be used as proof while the other is an explanation with an assumption already in place.

If you say the bible is true because you say it is true, you are using circular reasoning to support the bible.

The statement that god is good because all he does is good is an explanation. If we are talking about God's attributes we have to temporarily assume He exists. The statement God is good because he is good does require proof because we are told several times throughout the Bible that God's thoughts are not our own. This is frustrating for a non-believer and is seen as moronic but is part of being a Christian, full reliance on God.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

Ooh, this is where the argument breaks down. The creation of the universe is the beginning. There is no "one step before the creation" because there is nothing before the very beginning.

Ehhh sorta not really, I was simply explaining in a wordier format that adding an event before the beginning then defeats the purpose of a "beginning".

Ok, but you still haven't eliminated a physical cause.

Ummm I don't know where you're going with this. If something is physical it has either time , space, or matter or some mix of those and probably all of them. That being said, since ALL of those cannot be in the cause of the beginning, the cause cannot be physical.

Your idea is based on the idea that something has to exist before anything exists. It's a contradiction that you haven't demonstrated is needed.

I am merely asking for the cause of an effect. The effect being the beginning. Things do not spontaneously appear.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

referring to idiotic tales just makes you look retarded

Not really. Although they disagree with me strongly, it doesn't make me look retarded. Although he disagrees with me and thus debates me, Cartman sees me as SEMI-reasonable, and others feel the same way. Having a belief system does not make you retarded. I can support my belief logically, just because you fail to see major points I make due to your prejudice, does not make me retarded. In fact the language you use and sudden loss of debate skills at this time makes you lose credibility in your arguments. People who see this may agree, but should also se you have no real argument and are simply going off without any argument behind it.

I DON'T KNOW HOW AND IF UNIVERSE BEGUN NEITHER DO YOU!

I may not but at least answer one of these questions since I apparently know nothing

1)How does the universe not have a beginning?

or back to my original question

2) How does the universe begin of not be a supernatural cause?

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

Our beginning is still not proven, by Christianity or by atheists and by way of science, so to say that either side is more logical about or beginning would have to assume that one side knows. The only side that claims to know doesn't actually know, therefore it is not logical to say they know when they don't.

You are missing the point. Both sides acknowledge there WAS a beginning. The only times that is not claimed is when this exact point comes up. Then all of a sudden nobody knows anything and we go into "no absolute truths" land. But that's not the point. The point is what caused the beginning? We KNOW there is a beginning. It is touched on by science, but mainly proved by logic which is what atheists claim to have a monopoly over. So can you answer either one of these questions?

1) What caused the beginning?

or

2) How and/or why is there not a beginning?

3 points

Actually no. I believe God used the Big Bang to create the universe. If you are going to call me a delusion moron, at least read what I have repeated several times. I support the expanding universe theory commonly referred as the big bang theory. Just a tip before you call those that believe in the "wizard" morons, one of the idealist behind the expanding universe theory was a Belgian priest.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

The cause also had to bring the universe into existence without changing to do so.

If it had to change before bringing the universe into existence, then that change would be an event begging the need for time and thus would ruin the cause in being timeless.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

You should have categorized your argument as clarified, not disputing, since you didn't dispute anything. This is not a proof, but THE proof. You acknowledged Christianity is more logical than atheism with this point, but this is about the creation of the universe! If you do not deal with this point, why do you bother with the rest? If the creation of the universe, our very beginning, suggests very strongly if not indefinitely, that the universe is caused by a supernatural power, how can you deny it?

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

...argument for magic ? By making impossible claim, interesting :D

Ummm no, not magic. Explain to me a cause for the universe before it even existed if you have one please. The word "before" denotes time so that muddies the water of what I mean. If I say "before" the Big Bang Theory, this is using a description of time and asking for a timed event before time even existed. Rather time did not exist, so we must conclude the cause must not have time. Since space and matter are tied to time, they did not exist either. Please, cite me a cause for the universe outside of a Creator that is not tied to time, space, or matter.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

Circular reasoning would be useful in man's quest for God, too. So, those passages would be there either way.

I was merely trying to show the need for the circular claims of the Bible from a Christian perspective. Most actual apologetic, don't use this as an argument to convince believers, but instead use other arguments.

You have demonstrated that the natural world was somewhat portrayed in the Bible. You still need to provide evidence of the supernatural claim.

I shouldv'e explained what I was doing. My first argument was to prove, as you said, the Bible had some sort of grasp of history and the natural world. I wasn't proving supernatural, but dispelling arguments that the Bible can't even get natural arguments right.

You have not demonstrated that the cause of the universe has to be non physical. You are talking about a time period that doesn't exist (before the universe starts) and trying to extrapolate to the time period that does exist. You have not given any demonstration as to why that makes any sense. We know that things that are physical and subject to scientific law exist when the universe exists. At the beginning of the universe there is no reason why the physical and scientific laws don't exist to start the universe.

I was explaining the time that universe has existed is not infinite. That was point A. If there is a beginning to the universe, what caused its beginning? If you delve into the multiverse theory, the counter-argument is exactly the same. The number of events must be finite, so there must be a beginning. The universe is finite. It has mass, time, and space. If you go back step before the creation of the universe with an event that involves time, you are merely adding another event to the universe. Space and time are the same thing - they are mixed together in a four dimensional entity called the "space - time continuum", which can be altered by matter. Time is not merely the change in matter over a period of time, but is as physical as space. You can even measure distance in it (Although it's a bit different than cm and km, in special relativity you have a "space - time interval", which is measured by s�=c� Δt� - Δr� ) However, as it is 4 - dimensional, we cannot visualize it. So as far as I know, it can exist without matter. That being said, nothing dealing with time, mass, or space can exist before the beginning of the universe. Any mention of a physical cause, presupposes the need for space, matter and time.

Historically "accurate" because it was verified against another source.. so it is not unique carrier of information, just another one... meaning less. I can say that Narnia exists because in the book is a description of WW1 London...

Really? 90% of the events in the Narnia series takes place in Narnia and cannot be verified (and its also a work of fiction as claimed by the author but pshhh why pay attention to that?). The Bible is claimed as non-fiction, while the Narnia series is claimed to be fiction. 100% of events take place on Earth and have been verified to have taken place through archaeological discoveries, many times dismissing agnostic scholars skepticism. Narnia written to be fiction, the Bible is not. WW1 was also never believed to never have occurred.

BTW, C. S. Lewis was originally a strict agnostic upon entering Oxford, and was seeking to debunk Christianity anyway he could. Upon further study and making friends with J.R.R. Tolkien and Owen Barfield, he abandoned his non-theistic views and took up Christianity.

Physics is not mythology, you can't simply cut out stuff you do not understand.

How was what I said incorrect? Correct, physics is not mythology. However, Genesis lines up with modern cosmology models (expanding universe theory, evolution, etc.) if you read the Hebrew. Why use the Hebrew? That's what it was written in! And you haven't actually disputed anything I've said, you simply claim I understand nothing about physics, yet never explaining exactly what I don't understand. You claim error without showing the error, rendering your argument useless, and once again prove the circular reasoning of most nonbelievers. The Bible is mythology cause, well, it is!

And no, I'm 18, and in an engineering program in high school.


1 of 11 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]