Part 32 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Why not get all sorts of people to see if it is authentic? does it matter? if the bible was written yesterday it could still be the word of god. god spoke to people through telepathy - just praying to a planet for an hour will give you said telepathy - the aliens showed the people of long ago how to communicate with planet gods and showed them how to make rope and other things in the same period. hell, they united us with language as well - we would still be trying to communicate without their help, because, wars are fought and languages changed all the time. look how mingled europe is, and tell me that they understand each other based on one common language? there are cities with dozens of languages! how long does it take a baby to speak one language? it would take them much longer deciding on the right word to use, and, the right of the boss of the house as to which language or word is correct, then relating that to a neighbor, and seeing them learn the word, and so forth.

That is the word of god, as good as they could tell it through the ages.

 

I did not ignore you question. I answered the question using the word theology and went into a semantic rant over my use of what you considered the wrong word.

I told to you substitute the word to theologic as I will not change my answer to your question. I even offered to substitute the word for you and repost?

Clearly you have no interest in having a discussion about ideas and want to focus on idiocy.

 

Over the course of time this poster has made ridiculous after ridiculous claim. The only support provided is repetition of claim.

Engaging in higher level thought such as you are doing is way beyond the capacity of some.

 

Now you resort to false statements. You said "Substitute the word "theocratic" for the word "theology" in my original post." Nowhere have you offered to use the word 'theologic'. Honesty is always the best policy.

 

Whatever. Substitute the word theologic. It matters not to the point of my post as my comments are equally valid regardless of which word is used.

All you want to do is play the semantics game rather than have a conversation so what does it matter ?

 

And you didn't find it necessary to study Love as if it were an academic topic, correct?

Of course they're human! We are humans, after all.

I agree that all scriptures, save for the Qur'an, was written by man.

Surely one doesn't need religion to believe in one God, yes?

Again, I'm not a Christian/Jew.

Because God is all-good and all-wise. He knows what is good and what is wrong, along with the reason for why it is so. As for "eternal suffering," this is a perfect example of the narrow-mindedness of atheists. What you may think the after life consists of for those who disbelieve and/or do wrong is inconsequential. Again, God is all-just, and will treat everyone accordingly. It's perfect justice, and no one will be wronged.

I don't know where you heard that from.

Yeah, a simple and illiterate man raised in a pagan city, who is neither a poet or one who knows nothing about the stories of the Christians and Jews, suddenly begins to recite the greatest and influential work of Arabic poetry. It turns the warring and pagan (who became Muslim after just hearing this divine text) Arabs into the rulers of the world in just centuries.

Unlike the bible, the Qur'an is pure, unadulterated and with no corruption in it. It includes the same exact words that God revealed to the Prophet. It has not been translated, and there is no mistake or contradictions in it whatsoever. It is memorized by millions, and is the perfect encapsulation of God.

1. Of course the tone and tenor changed. The Prophet went from purely spiritual role to a political/religious one.

2. The pagans didn't defeat Islam. The Muslims, after 13 years of oppression and persecution, finally migrated from Mecca after certain political incidents necessitated it.

Since the god of atheists is science, it isn't surprising that you look at everything from a purely, materialistic perspective. The interesting thing is that they only seem to look at life in this fashion when God is concerned. This leads us to the conclusion that they have different... reasons for not believing in God.

Yours is ultimately meaningless and ignores the evidence.

 

It matters because in this so called real world and within the secular society that we reside in, words have specific meanings and some words are not directly interchangeable in spite of your desire to imply that they do when you attempt to give each of those words the same and equal interpretation.

Seemingly (IMHO) this so called semantics game as you call it, has intimidated you to such a degree that you still refuse to give answer to my questions in an intelligent manner. I was hoping that you could come to grips with the FACT that the terms we have been discussing do have different meanings and are not equal one to the other.

 

So far you have not provided any proof that those gospels are to be authentic except your claim that they are.

That is very good to know that you are on God's side! So we are clear on that this mean just like us Christians you believe that God is against evil and in Genesis 6:5 God acted to punished them.

I justify nothing only what God commanded and that is the destruction of the Amalekite. You are so quick to change your mind first you said you don't condemn God and now you use babies as an excuse to condemn God.

That is ok I can accept your condemnation at the same time you contradict yourself because you said that you do not condemn God and yet you condemn me for being on God's side because I refused to accept your argument that God killed innocent babies? Are you using me to condemn God?

- - - Updated - - -

The Bible is the strongest proof the Words of God, biblical records and church records are the proof.
Those gospels were widely used by heretics they make all kinds of wild claims such as Mary Magdalene was Jesus wife including Jesus was not crucified or Jesus is not God.
Where is your proof?

 

I did not say they were authentic. You are the one claiming that they have been proven unauthentic.

You have tried to justify killing of babies be it Amalakite or the other peoples on which God is said to have commanded Genocide.

My mind has not changed at all. I do not believe that God actually gave such a command. The Bible is a collection of stories made up by man.

 

Goomba quote

I hardly think a man who married an elder rich woman remained ignorant, particularly as he became a Merchant. He also wandered in his 'trade' so he certainly would have picked up stories from various religions.

Not only that there was considerable Jewish presence in Medina and Mecca into the 7th Century CE according to history. Of course Mohammed knew about Judaism. That's why he twisted the Torah for his own purposes.

As for turning the warring and pagan Arab leaders into rulers of the world - that was by the use of force.

The 'religion of peace' used force to accomplish its means, and is still doing so today.

 

You are hilarious. You haven't read what Giftdone has said, consequently got things wrong again. Give up. You worse than useless.

 

That settles that then if you are now admitting they are not authentic then we have no problem.

I don't need to justify killing of babies because God commanded the Amalakite to be destroyed while you contradict yourself by using Amakalite babies to condemn God contradicting your claim that you don't condemn God.

The Bible is the Words of God. If God did not gave such command then maybe you can provide some thing to back up your claim instead of condemning God through us.

[video=youtube;AiFwvmybr5o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiFwvmybr5o[/video]
[video=youtube;0TurtBj24DA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TurtBj24DA[/video]

"You gave him what he ask for, I gave him what he needed"

 

There is a complete lack of substance in your posts. What can I say ? I posted a fairly detailed response to your question. You picked out one word (Theology) that you had a problem with and said you wanted (Theologic) . I told you to just substitute the word I had used for the one you wanted as my comments applied equally to both.

You ignored my suggestion and did nothing but continue to rant about the difference between Theology and Theologic which contributes nothing to the discussion as I had already addressed that difference in relation to my post.

You do not seem to be an unintelligent person. That you demand the obvious be spelled out to you over and over again is nothing but another one of your techniques to derail the topic which seems to be our primary modus operandi.

 

I made no such admission. Why must you continually make false claims about other posters ? Is the only way you can defend your beliefs is through lies ?

Countless times you have tried to justify God's killing of babies in Bible stories. One time you claimed that the killing was justified because their parents were cannibals. Another time you claimed the killing of babies was justified because their parents were evil.

 

For sure you and Giftdone has different view points one similarity is that both of you seems confused?

 

You have to make up your mind, are those gospel been authenticated to be accurate or not? I don't have to make false claims about you or any posters theirs and your own post are your own making full of falsehood and contradiction. My truth is your lies.

1. So now you believe that cannibalism is not wicked and evil.
2. So now you revert back to using babies to condemn God.

Cannibalism is part of the over all evil that plague the world Genesis 6:5
I don't use babies as an excuse to protect and support evil.
Just like what trevorw said cannibalism was not evil thousands of years ago. Base on that logic even does this mean killing babies was not consider evil thousands of years ago?

I said it and I say again I make no excuse for the destruction of the Amalekite or the great flood that destroyed the wicked and evil.
Why must you keep defending evil and wickedness?

 

What is true is that what you consider truth is based on a pack of lies and made up nonsense.

The Gospel of Mary is thought to be Authentic by a number of scholars. Testing is currently underway to further authenticate.

What is an abject falsehood is your claim that the Gospel of Mary has been proven to be a fraud.

More made up falsehood on your part. I never stated or inferred any such thing.
Why do you have to rely on lies and misdirection to maintain your belief?

More falsehood and in this case that falsehood has already been pointed out you.

I do not condemn God because I do not believe that the real God had anything to do with the Israelites slaughter of babies.

It is you that I condemn for trying to justify the killing of babies.

 

I also didn't find it necessary to study digestive tract evacuation as an academic topic in order to have a successful bowel movement.

But you do raise an interesting point. Strong religious belief is not a PRODUCT of intellectual processes, its only real requirement being emotion.

.

But the Quran is also written by man. Dictation is essentially writing. funny how each religion believes THEIR stuff is on the only true stuff.

Belief in one god requires a definition of what that god is.

Irrelevant. The god in the Quran is the same god in the bible and the torah.

Wow. that's a lot of supposition on your part, supposition that comes from dogmatic belief.

And that dogmatic belief is exacerbated by man made descriptions of Jahannam and it's 7 levels.

Stealing is a sin, is it not?

I don't believe I intimated that Mohammed was stupid, merely illiterate. And he didn't just do a "data dump" of the Quran, it was dictated over a period of 23 years.

While I agree that some people heard the teachings of mohammed and became followers, many were conquered militarily and given a choice of conversion or dhimmitude or death or expulsion. Islamic history exists outside the hadiths.

1. So god gets involved in politics? I notice that the "rules to live by" part of the quran seem to derive from that period.
2. the pagans turfed Mohammed and his followers out of Mecca.

Mohammed was angling for control of one of the lucrative "Haj" businesses - predicated on polytheism at the time.
He was prostelyizing monotheism to pagans. Pagans in control of the cash flow.
Of course they didn't want him around and he subsequently had to flee.

In was while in Ythrib that the Quran dictation took a turn from the poetic to the prosaic, while the frequency of the more "aggressive/punishment" hadiths increased substantially.

The fact that Mohammed the man was thwarted in his plans and had to flee for his life had NOTHING to do with this rather substantive change in tone and tenor.

I find it absolutely fascinating that deists can't grasp a simple notion that atheists have no gods. Science is about Knowledge and Facts, not about gods and demons.

Ahhhhhhh.
The crux of the issue.

I wonder why irony is completely lost on those of faith.

 

Ah so NOW the number 1 enemy is Christianity?

Steeeeeerike Two.

 

The nonsense that you perceived are actual facts and truth that is why you are having a hard time proving your position.

"thought" to be authentic by whom? In other words your sources have not yet proven that is not not a fraud. The church has already established and authenticated the gospel of Mary as fraud. Why must you assume it is not fraud when you just said it is still being studied?

Gospel of Mary and many the likes have already been proven to be fraud. You just can't accept that fact even though you yourself just said that other scholars (outside of the church) are still studying it.

Your inferred statement are clear you are just confused unless you want to clarify do you accept cannibalism existed during Noah's time or not? Do you accept that cannibalism is wicked and evil and that include consuming babies?

I only redirect your own confusion I won't call your claim as lies just confused and I direct it to its proper truth.

You are confused you insist you are not against God and yet keep using babies as an excuse to defend the wicked and evil people that God punished.

It would be nice if you can provide some proof that it wasn't God who ordered the Israelite to destroy the Amalakite.

Wrong you are using me as an excuse as a conduit to condemn God and you are using babies as an excuse.

 

Atheist and socialism number enemy is Christianity

 

Is your God so weak that he is unable to kill only the cannibals and leave the babies unharmed?

 

I do not assume the Gospel of Mary is a fraud because no such thing has been proven.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelmary.html


Karen L. King a Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Harvard University in the Divinity School and a scholar of women and heresy in early Christianity, including Gnosticism, does not think the Gospel of Mary is a fraud.

What is fraud is your unsubstantiated claim that the Gospel of Mary has been proven a fraud.

Why do make these false statements ? Is this what your belief requires ?

 

This is not about different points of view. This is about you making false claims and not being able to back up those claims.

This is about you making false claims about what the person you are debating and claiming they said things that they did not.

 

I defend babies because they are innocent and not "wicked and evil" as you claim.

What is this belief that requires you to have such sick and twisted thoughts ? Why do you claim that babies are evil such that killing them is justified.

How am I confused for suggesting that babies are not evil such that they should be killed?

Please explain.